Changes in the England team? (Tom Partis branch)

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Tom Partis

i wonder whether strauss could come in at first for giles and bat at 6, with flintoff going to 7 and jones to 8, or even with jones at 7 and flintoff at 8 (i believe i'm right in saying that pollock bats at 8 for SA, so could flintoff for england? would this be a waste of his talent?)

then we would be looking at a batting lineup of 1: Tres 2: Vaughan 3: Butch 4: Hussain 5: Thorpe 6: Strauss 7: Jones 8: Flintoff 9: Hoggard 10: Jones 11: Harmison

Tom

Sorry, don't agree with this at all, or your logic behind it.

Swopping out a bowler for a batsman is nonsensical, and Strauss shouldn't bat at No. 7 for goodness sake, he's a high middle order/opener! The idea is to get a balanced side - not start plastering over cracks to solve the problem. Batting is England's weakness and bowling their strength, you want to weaken thier bowling by strengthening their batting? Deal with the problems and solve them - don't weaken one area to strengthen another.

Whatever changes get made - they'll follow this format: 2 x Openers, 3 x Middle order 1 x Allrounder 1 x WK 4 x Bowlers. That won't change.

The questions are really - should Giles be dropped for another Seamer? Should Tresco be dropped for a better opener? Should Vaughan drop down the order to be replaced by a different opener? Should Hussain retire to bring in a new specialist batsman?

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Tom Partis

Mark - with vaughan seemingly reluctant to bowl himself and butcher being used less and less, it is a little thin, but as i said, i don't think it would produce a major issue this summer on most english wickets. if a belter was produced at lords or the oval we may want a 5th specialist option but on the likes of headingley, old trafford and trent bridge we could roll over teams with just the four frontline seamers.

Tom

It's not a question of Vaughan being 'reluctant' to bowl himself, he prefers not to if he can avoid it because he suffers from back problems and doesn't want to risk aggravating that by bowling. Great shame as his spin could be very useful if Giles gets dropped.

Similarly Butcher, who hasn't bowled in the West Indies due to the ankle injury he sustained before the series began. He hasn't been used as a bowler for fear of damaging that ankle.

Flintoff is not a frontline seamer he's a stock allrounder bowler - we have three frontline seamers - and that won't be enough to 'roll over' as you put it the likes of New Zealand. NZ is a totally different prospect to the West Indies, and given Englands relative batting weakness right now - I'd want that extra seamer in to see if we can bowl them out cheaply.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I think we're all still wondering about Collingwood.. but if the old hands are right in saying Test cricket is 90% about what goes on between the ears... and attitude, temperament and the like are what seperate the men from the boys.. then a player who looks determined to make the best of limited talent.. who keeps his head as all about his lose theirs.. and who will always contribute as an outfielder even if he doesn't do much bowling wise... looks a bit more than just a "bits-n-pieces nobody".

Not sure he'll ever cut it as a bowler.. but Troy C. has worked wonders with all the others.. so why not? I don't think the lack of pace need be an issue: he's just got to get stacks of variety into his game and make good use of the keeper.

Rachael

I tend to agree. Where Collingwood scores in my mind is in his fielding - he's just an exceptional fielder.

Scott

[Tom Partis]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Tom

Sorry, don't agree with this at all, or your logic behind it.

Swopping out a bowler for a batsman is nonsensical, and Strauss shouldn't bat at No. 7 for goodness sake, he's a high middle order/opener! The idea is to get a balanced side - not start plastering over cracks to solve the problem. Batting is England's weakness and bowling their strength, you want to weaken thier bowling by strengthening their batting? Deal with the problems and solve them - don't weaken one area to strengthen another.

Whatever changes get made - they'll follow this format: 2 x Openers, 3 x Middle order 1 x Allrounder 1 x WK 4 x Bowlers. That won't change.

The questions are really - should Giles be dropped for another Seamer? Should Tresco be dropped for a better opener? Should Vaughan drop down the order to be replaced by a different opener? Should Hussain retire to bring in a new specialist batsman?

Scott

Scott

I didn't have Strauss at 7, i had him at 6 with Jones at 7 and Flintoff at 8, but i do take your point about weakening the bowling to strengthen the batting. i do think strauss would be good for the side, and maybe he should come in for trescothick, but i can't see tres not coming back. he's too good a player to be finished off in international cricket by a poor run of form. i also want to see pieterson in the side come september, so unless you class pieterson as an allrounder with his off spin, i don't see how we're going to fit them all of these players in the side, even with the impending retirement of hussain.

would this be a more feasible lineup?

1. Strauss 2. Vaughan 3. Butch 4. Thorpe 5. Trescothick 6. Pieterson 7. Jones 8. Flintoff 9. Hoggard 10. Jones 11. Harmison

it still looks light on bowling to me. in which case, we need to find a good bowler to replace giles, and leave one of strauss and pieterson out. who would be your contenders? anderson? kirtley? mahmood? any of those and you have hoggard coming in at 8, which constitutes a very long tail.

Tom

[Mark Kidger]

Scott, I don't really agree with that. England have often gone for a 4 bowler policy in the past and the logic of it is that "if four bowlers can't do the job, 5 won't either". Often the 5th bowler only bowls 2 or 3 overs in the innings.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Tom Partis

Scott

I didn't have Strauss at 7, i had him at 6 with Jones at 7 and Flintoff at 8, but i do take your point about weakening the bowling to strengthen the batting. i do think strauss would be good for the side, and maybe he should come in for trescothick, but i can't see tres not coming back. he's too good a player to be finished off in international cricket by a poor run of form. i also want to see pieterson in the side come september, so unless you class pieterson as an allrounder with his off spin, i don't see how we're going to fit them all of these players in the side, even with the impending retirement of hussain.

would this be a more feasible lineup?

1. Strauss 2. Vaughan 3. Butch 4. Thorpe 5. Trescothick 6. Pieterson 7. Jones 8. Flintoff 9. Hoggard 10. Jones 11. Harmison

it still looks light on bowling to me. in which case, we need to find a good bowler to replace giles, and leave one of strauss and pieterson out. who would be your contenders? anderson? kirtley? mahmood? any of those and you have hoggard coming in at 8, which constitutes a very long tail.

Tom

Tom

Thanks for your reply. See some of my other posts for my feelings on some of the points you've raised here - specifically to do with Tresco and Vaughan - I don't mean to sound rude, but I can't keep repeating the same thing in different posts LOL!

MY biggest beef right now is with the openers so my two openers would probably be Strauss at 1 and Butcher at 2 (or perhaps Hussain in place of Butcher)

Middle order would be Vaughan at 3, Thorpe 4, Pieterson or Collingwood 5 (if you drop Hussain) I suspect Collingwood will get the nod over Pieterson for the near future.

Lower middle order would be Flintoff at 6, G Jones at 7 (Lets see how Jones bats first before we start moving him up the order)

Bowlers would be Hoggard 8, Jones 9, Harmison 10, Anderson or Caddick 11

I've effectively taken out Tresco for Strauss, Tresco needs to go back to County Cricket for a while.
I've dropped Vaughan down the order and replaced him with Butcher to open.
I've taken out Hussain and brought in Collingwood, and move Thorpe up one.
I've taken out Giles and replaced him with either Anderson or Caddick depending on the pitch.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Scott, I don't really agree with that. England have often gone for a 4 bowler policy in the past and the logic of it is that "if four bowlers can't do the job, 5 won't either". Often the 5th bowler only bowls 2 or 3 overs in the innings.

Of course, it all depends on the match situation. If the opposition score much more than 300 a 5th bowler is useful and if it scores more than 500, it is a must, but when the scores are generally not reaching 300 the 5th bowler is all too often unemployed. England though rarely have risked shortening the batting to put in an extra bowler.

Yoy can play 5 bowlers regularly only if you have 2 all-rounders or, at a pinch, one all-rounder and a bowler who is a competant tail-end bat. Batting Hoggard at 8 would be a disaster!!!

Mark

I don't agree for the reasons I've given in several posts.

You're not changing anything from the current set up, all you're doing is replacing Giles with another seamer - whats wrong with that? I think Giles is a bit of a luxury, and a 4th specialist seamer would be far more useful, specially in the series against NZ.

Fletcher has hinted at his future plans by bringing in Geraint Jones for Read, with Jones batting 7, thats a pretty strong batting line up, they just need to solve the opener problems and that will allow for the weaker batting tail by bringing in the extra seamer.

Scott

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Fletcher has hinted at his future plans by bringing in Geraint Jones for Read, with Jones batting 7, thats a pretty strong batting line up, they just need to solve the opener problems and that will allow for the weaker batting tail by bringing in the extra seamer.

Much to my astonishment I have just received an e-mail from Geraint Jones. The odd thing is that he claims to be an astronomer at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Another string to his bow in case the job of wicket keeper-batsman doesn't suit him? (no, I'm not joking, I genuinely have received an email a few moments ago from "Geraint Jones").

[cantplaycantalk]

Is this a "First Light" thing or are they tracking the balls Chris Read hit in the first ODI?
Alternatively they could be working out Steve Harmisons PWC ratings?

But seriously I would have been willing to bet that you would have been safe to chant "Theres only one Geriant Jones!"

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by cantplaycantalk

Is this a "First Light" thing or are they tracking the balls Chris Read hit in the first ODI?
Alternatively they could be working out Steve Harmisons PWC ratings?

But seriously I would have been willing to bet that you would have been safe to chant "Theres only one Geriant Jones!"

Nice way to bring up the 150! Actually, he's interested in comets. He hasn't said anything to me about Chris Read's balls - isn't that a job for a qualified medical specialist, not an astronomer?