Changes in the England team? (Tom Partis branch)

[Mark Kidger]

I don't know if anyone has read the article on the BBC tonight, but it seems that changes in the England team may be in order sooner rather than later and Andrew Strauss is eyeing an opening in the middle order.

The suggestion seems to be that Trescothick is, for now, safe - as he does average over 40 still one could say that he has proved that he is a class act - but that Nasser Hussain's place is, once again, under threat.

This was a perenial topic of debate on the BBC MB. Hussain would reach his 100th cap this summer in the 2nd Test against the West Indians (assuming that he doesn't miss a game). I, for one, have assumed that his intention is to reach the 100th cap and then announce that he will be retiring from international cricket at the end of the summer, leaving it to the selectors to decide whether to let him see out the series or try his replacement.

However, seeing as last year the selectors probably erred by letting sentiment allow Alec Stewart to reach his 100th cap when his form with bat and gloves was slipping a little (not that we noticed until Read took over and we saw an artist at work with the gloves), it may be that Hussain isn't given the same leeway.

I would argue strongly that only incremental changes in the side should be carried out. We have already had one significant change with Read handing over to Jones and a second major change could just unsettle the side (particularly as Ashley Giles must, surely, find himself surplus to requirements against New Zealand and that will also imply a change in the side and its balance). Would the selectors be right to drop Hussain now? Or should they wait until after the New Zealand series to make further changes - possibly Strauss for Hussain?

If we apply the rule of thumb: "no more than 2 changes in the side from the 4th Test", what changes should they be? Assuming Giles is dropped, who should replace him in the side? One assumes that it would be an extra batsman rather than another seamer or spinner and that England will rely on 4 seamers plus Butcher/Trescothick/Vaughan, which should be enough on green, seaming May pitches.

[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

admittedly this is light on bowling, but english wickets in may are likely to produce a bowler dominated series, and if harmison et al maintain their form, this could easily be enough to knock over 20 wickets in a game. after this summer, strauss could replace hussain and we could bring back in pieterson with his "underrated off-spin" to bat at 6 and provide an extra bowling option.

personally, i wouldn't be averse to seeing hussain dropped now though. i do feel he's batting for personal milestones more than for the future of english cricket, and so strauss could bat at 4 as a straight swap. i agree that giles will be little more than a tenacious lower order bat and a stop gap bowler at one end in the impending home series, but as you said mark, dropping giles would mean 3 major changes in quick succession, which as you rightly say, could be unbalancing and eventually detrimental to the teams performance.

it's an interesting dilemma for the selectors. i'm intrigued to see what the team sheet will look like for the first test against NZ

Tom

[Rachael]

I think we might be glad of Hussain for the NZ series: the ball is likely to be swinging around like crazy.. we've no guarantees that Tresco and Vaughan will show.. and the opposition is a lot less likely to capitulate than the WI did.

I'd like to see Collingwood in for Giles... on the understanding that he has a guaranteed place for 7 Tests.

The only obvious alternative would be Strauss.. but in that case I think I'd drop Tresco to 6... principally to make it very, very clear to him that he is playing for his place in the team (bit like not giving Harmison a central contract.. or dragging Clarke around in Flintoff's footsteps all winter).. but also to see (a) if he caches in better against the older ball; and {b} how wel he can bat with the tail.

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Tom Partis

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

admittedly this is light on bowling, but english wickets in may are likely to produce a bowler dominated series, and if harmison et al maintain their form, this could easily be enough to knock over 20 wickets in a game. after this summer, strauss could replace hussain and we could bring back in pieterson with his "underrated off-spin" to bat at 6 and provide an extra bowling option.

Tom, 4 seamers plus Trescothick, Butcher and Vaughan does not sound light on bowling to me!

An alternative to Strauss might be Collingwood, who would also be a bowler far more likely to take wickets on a May greentop than on an August shirtfront. It would certainly be a chance to see what Strauss can do though and the batting would be incredibly deep - Freddy at 8 would be quite something!

In the end it comes down to grit - who will be most likely grind out a score when the situation favours the bowlers against New Zealand?

[Tom Partis]

good point - i hadn't thought about colly in for giles. i'm not a huge fan myself, but i am willing to be enlightened (i won't say proved wrong as i have nothing against him either), and obviously he will add another dimension to the bowling as well. he could be successful on a grey and overcast morning at headingley.

[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.

[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.

[Mark Kidger]

Tom...hopefully Collingwood won't be needed to bowl later in the summer, but for the Spring series, if he can keep it tight, his gentle pace could prove very useful. Do you remember the 1983 World Cup? What was India's trump card? It was to use bowlers like Armanath on very slow pitches like Headingley - the batsmen tried to go after them (and Indian played England in the semis and then West Indies in the final), but the slower they bowled, the harder it was to score runs against them and they took wickets too. If Collingwood starts bowling on a flat belter at the Oval on a hot day it means that the series is probably lost anyway. Horses for courses!

[Tom Partis]

collingwood and read could create a very good partnership in ODIs in particular, and i'm sure jones could stand up to him in tests as well. of course, when standing up you're always likely to let the odd ball through, but if he could get a wicket or two when otherwise he wouldn't have, that would be worth a substantial number of byes.

[sostenurter]

All this discussion about possible changes shows an important thing. For the first time in a very, very long time, England have some strength in depth. Obviously, we don't have the depth the Australians and Indians have, but we're not doing so badly. There are two quality competitors for the gloves. We had four seamers who did well in WI, but if they fail, they know that James Anderson, a very promising performer, is waiting in the wings. If Strauss does well in these ODIs, then Trescothick will know he can't keep failing. Collingwood could slot in anywhere in the middle order, and come September Pieterson will be available. At the moment, if any player in the current XI (except Flintoff) got injured, there is a good replacement who could step in.

Of course, some of these players may not turn out to be of Test class. And of course, the three established middle order players are coming to the end of their career and will have to be replaced by the aforementioned players. And the perennial spin bowler question shows no sign of being answered. But I still think I'm right in saying that England have the most strength in depth for about a decade (though i guess this is not saying much - the 90s were the worst decade ever for English cricket!), and also have the nucleus of a good, young side that could go on to do well.

By the way, what happened to Owais Shah? He did quite well in the ODIs a couple of years ago and I thought we'd hear more of him, but England seem to have forgotten aboiut him. Is he injured? Did he have a faulty technique/bad attitude?