Pick a "clean slate" England team

Moore?

Jesus wept

Not Dudley. The other one.

Roger.

Couldn't think of another opener that wasn't Denly and was English. Isn't Horton not qualified yet???

Horton's plenty qualified - moved to Liverpool as a teen.

A clean slate would be sending the U19 XI out to the Windies.

And would quickly become a clean sweep.

Atleast they'll give a better go than this current XI.


WAT Beer would do wonders out there.

Dello wrote:Horton's plenty qualified - moved to Liverpool as a teen.

Oh well in that case I would look to pick him thn, heard him last season and he sounded very aussie to me.
Thought he had a year or so to qualify.

holcs wrote:

Dello wrote:Horton's plenty qualified - moved to Liverpool as a teen.

Oh well in that case I would look to pick him thn, heard him last season and he sounded very aussie to me.
Thought he had a year or so to qualify.

Yeah couldn't sound more Aussie if he'd been doing Rolf Harris impressions. Must've been as a 19 year old , rather than a 13 year old he reached the promised land.

Just an educated guess. He's 26, played for Lancs all the way through from the under 17s.

Surely he's done his time.

Not until we've battered the bogan accent off him..

Got a good FC average hasn't he?

there is always stuey law

Mal Loye!

JKLever wrote:Not until we've battered the bogan accent off him..

Got a good FC average hasn't he?

But a curiously risible List A average.

Makes you wonder if he's just a half-decent batsman who has had a couple of good years but will level out into mediocrity when he's been around a bit longer.

Either way, bar my opening spot problem, I think my side is quality, bats for fun, decent bowling attack!!!

Miller, the fudge man, and Piles can fark off....

At least Ian Bell wouldn't have 46 wasted tests to his name!!!

beamer wrote:

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:As I pointed out on another thread not too long ago, England's record during that period with Flintoff in the side is far worse to that when he is not.

Given what we know he brings to the side as a bowler who can bat and field, this does not make sense, so we need to look deeper as to why this may be.

Looking at the statistical breakdown of matches he's played in that time it's quite obvious!

6 home, 15 away

6 v Aus, 5 v Ind, 3 v Pak, SL & SA, 1 v WI

Right, I've dug the details up.

Looks shit for Freddie / the way England have been set up when he's played since the Oval 2005.

Overall - WITH Fred - W3 - D5 - L12
Overall - NO Fred - W10 - D8 - L3

Oh dear. As Beamer quite rightly points out, there's been a lot of away Tests in the games Flintoff has played in, so ok - let's break it down by home and away.

Home - WITH Fred - W2 - D1 - L3
Home - NO Fred - W8 - D6 - L1

Away - WITH Fred - W1 - D4 - L9
Away - NO Fred - W2 - D2 - L2

Damning. Utterly damning.

We're still a good side producing good to excellent results without him.
We're an utterly hopeless side producing some of the worst results in English history with him.

The conclusion comes down to a clear choice: -

Drop Flintoff, or change the balance of the side...take your pick as to which is the right thing to do.

Like to know who those 10 wins without Fred were against? Top of my head: five against NZ, three against WI, two against Pakistan.

Suspect England would've won those matches against what were (at the time) extremely weak opponents, with Flintoff in the side.

Not sure the "conclusion" is as clear-cut as "we're a worse side with Flintoff in it". More a case of "Flintoff seems to miss a lot of Tests against weak opposition".

you guys would be mad to sack fred...

JD is right...the 10 wins without Fred were hardly against great opposition..

...hell.. even we beat the snooozzzies in the recent test series

But the point is valid that England's "balance" seems to go to shit when Flintoff - the guy who supposedly balances the side - rises from his sick-bed.

I think I said this earlier, but England need to stop indulging his batting and tell him a few home truths about his delusions that he's a top-order batsman.

3 v Pak
3 v WI
4 v NZ

Accept what you're saying up to a point, but still when you dig a bit deeper.

We were the better side in the 1st Test against SA last summer, and should have won it, once Fred came back into the side we lost the next 2 Tests. We weren't great earlier in the summer, but at least hung on in games long enough for the Kiwis to implode.

Our best series since 2005 was probably the home series against Pakistan in 2006 - no Flintoff. We trounced the side we've just capitulated to without him 18 months ago.

We've struggled in series against India and Sri Lanka without him, but were more competitive than in some of the debacles in which he has featured.

Sure there are mitigating factors to these stats, and I'm not blaming Flintoff himself, just what his selection does to the balance of the side.

If we want to start competing again it's clear it's got to change.

As one or two of us have pointed out on this thread, the pressure of 400+ on the board will be far more effective in sharpening a 4 man attack than a range of 51ao to 320ao will be for 5 bowlers.

Flintoff simply has to be fit enough to be part of a 4 man attack, or he isn't fit at all. A top 6 batsman he ain't.

1 Godleman
2 Moore
3 Trott
4 Bopara
5 Morgan
6 Patel
7 Read
8 Clare
9 Rashid
10 Meaker
11 Finn

I think you need more saffies.

and a few aussies wouldn't go astray

horace wrote:and a few aussies wouldn't go astray

Is Pattinson still available?

taipan wrote:

horace wrote:and a few aussies wouldn't go astray

Is Pattinson still available?

yep....he can't get a game in the Vic side...

I keep suggesting slaw...and there is this Horton guy