Changes in the England team? (Tom Partis branch)

[Mark Kidger]

The difference, Rachael, old chap, is that Caddick is now approaching 36 and Jones is just 25. There are more than 10 years difference in age. By any reckoning Caddick must be close to the end of his career as a new ball bowler. Jones will improve and with an attack of two steady bowlers and two attacking bowlers he has his niche. With Harmison developing great control we can afford one bowler who blows hot and cold because, like Devon Malcolm, Jones can win a Test in a session.

[Rachael]

I guess the key question, Mark, is whether there have, as yet, been signs of decline in Caddick's bowling: I'm not sure there were prior to injury... and see no inherent reason why his action shouldn't see him through a little while longer yet.

I've thought long and hard since you and Goatman started arguing for a Devon Malcolm / Brett Lee type bowler alongside others who offer more control.... and am with you in this: given the choice between a thrid bowler who is erratic and not fast, and a third bowler who is erratic and very fast, you go for the very fast option.

Peter Foy brought me back to my senses though: you don't actually WANT ordinary bowlers... and whilst we have the option of someone as good as Caddick then (assuming he can still deliver: that has to be a proviso) he still strikes me as the better option.

The argument for out and out pace seems to centre on the possibility of taking wickets on flat wickets... which makes sense... except that Sami and Akhtar were less effective than their more controlled Indian counterparts in the recent Test series... and Jones was awful in the final Test match against the WI.

Bottom line: for English conditions in May... I think Anderson, Kirtley, Caddick, Johnson, Bicknell, Saggers and any of half a dozen other seasoned county bowlers could do a very good job for England... and on the wickets we'll be getting... I'm not sure I'd trade their guile and dependability for Jones' pace.

[Mark Kidger]

Were there any signs of a decline in Gough's bowling before he got injured and was out of the game for so long? Goughie was also younger than Caddick. Caddick has always blown hot and cold and has often been criticised for not firing in the first innings. He is a class act when managed correctly and Nasser Hussain did seem to get the best out of him. But a guy who is nearly 36 and has been out of action for a year with a serious injury sounds like a big risk to me unless his county form is exceptional.

England will, of course pick the final XI based on the pitch and the weather. Saying that Jones will always start is like saying that Trescothick will get a ton in each Test this summer - possible, but not entirely logical or sensible. According to the conditions any one of Jones/Anderson/Johnson/Saggers/Bicknell/Giles/Batty could get the nod. Expect Jones to be a fixture in the XIII and "fringe" players to be added to cover special circumstances and injuries.

And please, do not propose Kirtley for selection in Tests unless you are confident that he has got his action sorted out. Do you really want to wreck his career by seeing him reported again? He must have been awfully close to being reported in Sri Lanka. He has never failed England, but picking him for Tests is taking an almighty risk.

[Essex Eagle]

Kirtley isnt really test standard anyway.

Unless we are going to play on substandard pitches like the one at TB last year.

I reckon i could keep him out on a flat deck.

[Malcolm W]

Well I think that you are all underestimating the importance of the county championship in deciding who will be picked.

It is very often the case that a few good innings - or even just the one if it is high profile enough - forces the selectors into a rethink. If Ed Smith starts the season well he might be in with a serious shout, but as the season progresses those already marked out as potential england players (such as Troughton, Bell, Mahmood, etc) will have their performances closely watched by the selectors. I think that though they have already made a number of decisions, namely who they will NEVER pick, there is actually a suprising scope for change. If someone has a dreadful run (Tresothick or Hussain getting 5 or 6 single figure scores, Hoggard hit out of the attack in four or five innings) then we might see a very different team. To say nothing about injury.

Strauss, Vaughan, Butcher, E. Smith, Thorpe, Jones, Collingwood, Mahmood, S.Jones, Harmison, Saggers

With Flintoff injured, that could be a plausible line up for the last test... Stranger things have happenned during an Englsih summer (think of A McGrath).

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Peter Foy brought me back to my senses though: you don't actually WANT ordinary bowlers... and whilst we have the option of someone as good as Caddick then (assuming he can still deliver: that has to be a proviso) he still strikes me as the better option.

Seeing as you are letting Peter make you backslide, consider a practical case which suggests that his logic is faulty.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I wouldnt change much from wi except the awful giles for another bat. The bowlers have proved a bit already, lets see what else they can do. If we're awful in the first, we're not on tour we can change it around if needed.

[Trescothick's Footwork]

Excellent post, Mark.

I think the only change England may make is Strauss/Collingwood for Hussain/Giles. I'd personally bring in Strauss for Giles. Hussain would stay in if he was prepared to carry on until the Ashes next summer, if he's not prepared to commit, in comes Colly. But I would have Colly coming in after Freddie.

[freddie flintoff 142]

i think colly 6 and fred 7, jus because colly has the tallent to be a top order batter and fred although looks good at 6 and he me hero and all that stuff still think he's better at 7.

[Rachael]

Mark: you say "A quick bowler will be unplayable if he is accurate because the ball will bounce more and jag around faster and the batsman doesn't have an earthly" - I couldn't agree more.. but the "if" of that "if he is accurate" kinda says it all really.

Two scenarios: someone quick-ish who gets pretty well EVERY ball in the right area (say Pollock) and someone seriously quick who just gets the odd delivery right but can be unplayable when it's right (say Simon Jones).... who do you favour?

I think this is far from a straightforward question... and not just because the balance of the attack is important and because the pitches vary: I think it depends a lot on the tactical approach of the whole team.

The Aussie ideal might be to basically bat the opposition out of the game: exagerating a tendency it could be summarised as "pile on so many runs so quickly that the fielders can all be in catching positions, every delivery can be an all-out attempt to take a wicket and runs conceded just don't come into the equasion".

My own preference, given English strengths, would be more Hussain-ish: dig in for a total that keeps you in the game (no matter how long it takes to get there) and then make it damnably difficult for the opposition to compete with plans tailored to ensure each player is forced to change their game to keep the scorecard moving.

If you're basically going for plan {a} then the Simon Jones character has a lot of appeal.. but if you prefer plan {b} (which I always have) then it's Pollock every time.

I appreciate that in practice a great team will have the adaptability to mix and match to take best advantage of conditions and match / series situations... and for that reason I'd like to see someone like Simon Jones either in / on the fringes of the team pretty well come what may... but my fundamental objection is not so much to Simon Jones.. or to Trescothick.. or to Flintoff... or to Clarke... but to the way that committing ourselves to more and more of these players increasingly seems to me to commit us to plan {a}... with all that implies about ever truer and more batsman friendly pitches... sporting declarations... artificial run chases.. and the general transmogrification of Test cricket into a 5 day version of a ODI.

It's nice to have plan {a} as an option.... and with players of the callibre of Vaughan and Thorpe (and I'm increasingly inclined to say Butcher) you seem to keep that option open: they can adjust their game to the demands of the team. For all his dour reputation as the man of grit... it's also basically true (if to a lesser extent) of Hussain... and may well be true of Collingwood (showed the grit in Sri Lanka... but has shown the more aggressive side in the ODI arena).

Likewise with the bowling: Harmison's steep bounce looks like giving the captain the best of both worlds - a strike bowler who is incredibly tight; Hoggard is working on Fraserish accuracy for those times when hat-tricks don't seem on; and Flintoff is adding a bit of fire to his armoury to complement that heavy ball that ties batsmen up.

My worry remains that in Tresco, Flintoff (batting), G Jones and S Jones... and in due course, possibly, in Pietersen and Clarke... we are assembling such an array of aggressive players that the versatility I've been talking about will just be something to be recalled nostagically or admired in other teams!