Changes in the England team? (Tom Partis branch)

[Mark Kidger]

sostenurter...to deal with the first point first, as you say, the strength in depth appears impressive in all departments except the spin bowling. To the list that you've given you can probably add Ed Smith in the middle order. The A tour has also thrown up a series of names for guys who look like they could enter the team at any time, particularly Pietersen (you had him, but he did perform well), Gidman, Mahmood and Tredwell, although people keep mentioning Prior too. There is also the perpetual Ian Bell who will surely get at least a ODI squad call this summer.

As you say, it looks impressive. The all-rounder spot may not stay vacant long as one of Rikki Clarke and Alex Gidman will surely be challenging for it by next autumn's tour.

In the spin bowling Batty looks to have had his chance and really I cannot imagine Giles getting another chance, surely? However, there was some hope on the A tour and maybe someone like Dawson will have another go. That said, it looks like England will have a paced-based attack for the next year.

Shah has paid the price for failure. 15 innings, 2 fifties and 8 single-figure scores (albeit one of them a 0*). Of 6 starts, only two got converted to 40+. He has had the bad luck to play in a losing team though - England won just 3 and lost 12 of his 15 matches in the team. Of the three matches that England won, his contributions were 0, 0* and 25, so he hardly set the team alight.

[Rachael]

I wouldn't get carried away on the strength in depth... Thorpe is the only guy who has consistently convinced on all surfaces and against all attacks... and the only guy even close is Vaughan.. who some are saying has something to prove when faced with a lot of sideways movement (swing / seam)... and who seemed to get through his one and only significant innings against Murali in Sri Lanka by thrusting the pad a long way forward rather than actually playing the ball.

In Butcher we look, increasingly, to have found another player in a similar league - a guy fit to be our senior player for the next 5 years. Once vulnerable against spin, he played Murali with real authority this winter (averaged 50+ against him) and he's added some real grafting ability to his undoubtedly fine strokeplay. Something of a revelation given the doubts that surrounded him when he was younger.

Beyond that... no-one we've tried or could try right now looks ready to replace Hussain: Collingwood looks the most promising (simply on grounds of temperament and attitude)... but the jury must still be out (let's hope he gets a good run this summer to give him a chance to shine). Pietersen looks like the next real prospect... but that's all he is right now: more promising players have failed!

My own feeling is that of Trescothick, Strauss and Ed Smith... Ed Smith is the likeliest to mature into the real thing: Tresco looks likely to blow hot and cold very unpredictably as he lacks that essential Test match quality of being able to scratch around without getting out as he plays himself into form; Strauss just doesn't look ready; Smith? Who knows: he's had the most badly handled introduction to Test cricket I've seen in yers... but just seems to have that mix of temperament and technique that is called for.

I stand by a claim I made a long time ago: we'll have strength in depth when (and only when) we can tour with an in-form Trescothick not quite making the team - that's the level that is called for... and he (in form) is the sort of quality 1st reserve we ought to be able to draw upon.

Bottom line: I think we need to hope that Hussain hangs around to 2005... Thorpe stays on beyond that.. and that someone can do for the young English batsmen what Troy Cooley has done for Flintoff and Harmison!

[Mike_Hock]

Collingwood should not be considered as a bowling option in test matches in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned he should be bowling no more then 3-5 overs in ODI's.

I would like to see Hussain go after the NZ series. As Rachael already said, why introduce Strauss in difficult conditions when we have Hussain, who relishes on difficult conditions?
I agree with someones point on blooding new players against the WI. Easier conditions and weaker oposition could lead to confidence boosting scores to the new guys.

Team for NZ Series

Vaughan
Strauss
Butcher
Hussain
Thorpe
Trescothick
Flintoff
GO Jones
M Hoggard
SP Jones
S Harmison

I like the idea of Trescothick playing down the order. Perhaps it will give him the kick up the backside he needs. Plus he is going to struggle agianst the new ball on the green pitches. Strauss to open as he looks to have a solid technique.

Team for WI series
Vaughan
Strauss
Butcher
Thorpe
A Newbatsman
Trescothick
Flintoff
G Jones
M Hoggard
S Jones
S Harmison

Any ideas who the new batsman could be for this series? Or should Hussain play? Whoever plays will surely only be keeping the seat warm for Pietersen?

[Mark Kidger]

Rachael, you still go in for a bit of hyperbole. Nobody here is getting carried away (that happened to us yesterday on another MB and we ended up here in the "bad boys" MB). You tend to be overly critical of the side, which makes me suspect that you have some Indian blood somewhere.

The situation though is better than for some time. Previously players have been put in because there was no choice, now there are some real choices. One would like to see more, but I don't hold with making big changes to a winning side, but yes to a squad of 14-15 reliable players and we do have that. There is some realistic cover available in most positions and there are half a dozen players who look like they could get there. As we all know, of the players that I named, half will probably fail at the highest level, but in Collingwood and Smith we have two players who are to some extent known quantities and we only need a couple of others to come through over the summer. For the first time in a long time the selectors can name an unchanged squad because it's winning, or make changes through strength because players like Collingwood and Anderson demand their chance (and a lot of us would add Strauss to that list).

Trescothick will always blow hot and cold, but so does dear old Nasser and Trescothick still averages rather a lot more than Nasser. If an average of 40 is a class player, Nasser is well short of that, but Trescothick no. With Vaughan he also offers the left hand-right hand opening partnership, with Thorpe to follow, playing with the bowlers' line.

[Mark Kidger]

Mike, you say not to play Strauss in difficult conditions and have put him in to both sides! Was that a typo?

Trescothick started out batting at 6/7 for Somerset. He was only converted to being an opener later.

Nobody seeing Collingwood as a real bowling option unless, perhaps, it is on early-season greentops. Why not play him instead of Strauss against New Zealand? Or even give Ed Smith another try?

[R W S]

I know the test rankings do not tell the whole story - but our series against NZ will be as tough as last years against South Africa and we must get off to a winning start - not much chance of playing catch up in a three test series. So I say, quietly at first and then with increasing assurance, bring back Caddick. Give Jones a rest back in the West Country and bring him back to bang in some short stuff at BCL later in the summer.

I see the range of optimism here goes from 'the next Australia' to 'just better than WIndies'. I'm a believer that the 'by 2007 we are the best in the world' is achievable. And I sleep well.

[Notts Exile]

Personally I think we should disregard the Aussies for now. The first hurdle is to take on the Kiwis and beat them, then prove again that we are superior to this (emerging) Windies team that will only get better. Then a series in South Africa will tell us how far we've come. Avoid defeat to the Proteas, maybe even win and we can claim we have come along way. And I do think we've the personnel to do it, if used in the right way.

[Mark Kidger]

R W S, we aren't the next Australia, although there is a chance that if the new boys come through and the transition is managed, we'll be a strong second to whoever leads the table. Right now all the bowlers look to have at least 3-4 years in them and a lot of the batting looks set for 4-5 years. It is just a matter of fine-tuning and handling the inevitable retirements of Nasser and Thorpe correctly (and Butch, at 32, ain't going to go on to 36 like Nasser if we continue playing 14 Tests and 5 series in a calender year).

England look good enough to get to the 110-115 point level in the ICC table in the near future. Will that be enough? We'll see. 2007 is achievable, but will require good luck and very good management.

[Mark Kidger]

Notts Exile, Excellent summary of the situation!

[Mike_Hock]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

You say not to play Strauss in difficult conditions and have put him in to both sides! Was that a typo?

Trescothick started out batting at 6/7 for Somerset. He was only converted to being an opener later.

Nobody seeing Collingwood as a real bowling option unless, perhaps, it is on early-season greentops. Why not play him instead of Strauss against New Zealand? Or even give Ed Smith another try?

Bit of a condradiction there. Apologies. I think Strauss should play against NZ. I believe he will be a permanent fixture in the team for years to come. He looks to have a good technique, good cricket brain & temprament. The jury is still out on Collingwood at the moment.