Changes in the England team? (Rachael branch- Goatman sub-branch)

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Irish Left Armer

I can't see Trescothick ever scoring consistently against a good bowling attack. The Aussies found him out big time. However, when he is in form he will plunder runs against lesser attacks. I just don't think he's a really top class test batsman. Whether or not England have anyone better to open the batting with is debatable though.

Come now. I think that AUS "find out" most players. this is why they are considered to be the best in the world. What you say of Tres will probably prove to be found to be true of Sehwag, GC Smith, Gayle and plenty of others. Most teams play an opener who looks to dominate and who is capable of punishing poor bowling. If you get off to a flier on the first day, that sets the tone for the whole test/series. Surely we need a mixture:- one or two bullies in an attack filled with "real" world class performers (who are few and far between. If we only selected "world class players", ENG would never be able to field 11 players!) , and a couple of trusty "safety-nets" in the middle order.

Trescothick/Vaughan has been as successful an opening partnership in the past as we can realistically hope for. We should have a look at players like Strauss at test level before we start assuming that they are better!

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Essex Eagle

Do people really see Collingwood as a viable test player?

Good improviser yes but i have my doubts about his technique in tests.

I'm quite sure that Collingwood is seen as the all-purpose mobile reserve, able to step in at any position from 3-7, but that he is unlikely to get a run in the side precisely because he is valuable as all-purpose cover. If you want to give somebody a run in the side you'll do it to the long-term replacement and that is probably not going to be Collingwood.

[Goatman]

Well, I think ENG might lose more than it will gain if they drop Hussain for Strauss or Pieterson. If Collingwood is not up to standard (and I think his mind is more important in this instance than his technique), then we need to find yet another potential. With Hussain out, we need the openers to perform consistently as we have lost a genuine "safety-net" player. And surely this debate was partially begun because of the fact that our openers are NOT all that consistent.

[Mark Kidger]

That is a very good point Goatman. One needs a balance of attack and grit in the side. Hussain has supplied a lot of grit and often his centuries have come when he had least right to make them. He also has a happy knack of making them when most needed - witness his performances in Bangladesh when England were in real danger of making a mess of the game.

Trescothick is naturally inconsistent and that will probably never change. Vaughan seems to have become highly consistent since getting the captaincy - in the wrong way because he is almost always out in double figures without reaching 30 -, but maybe has lost a little the "sod the other ten, I'm getting my head down" attitude and as captain thinks that he should set a good example and get things moving, rather than going what he is good at and accumulating huge scores.

Looking at Trescothick, a 50+ score better than every 4 innings is not so bad.

Last summer we taked about Graeme Smith who scored two big double centuries at the start of the series and hardly scored a run either in the ODIs that preceeded it, or in the 3rd-5th Tests when South Africa were no longer on top. People seemed to think that the occasional big, match-winning innings was more important than consistency. That's what you get with Trescothick - it's MISS! MISS! CENTURY!! MISS! MISS! FIFTY! You can cope with that if the middle order is consistent because you know that the big scores will come and will win matches (like it did in the 5th Test when South Africa thought that they had sealed the series with their huge first innings score).

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I thought collingwood could bowl a bit but if tresco can do a bit of part time medium pace, and hopefully butch too, pehaps strauss could open with vaughan and have tresco in at 6, freddie 7 jones 8. No tail there and a bit of useful part time swing. Our bowlers are fine, they've done one job very well, lets not undermine them by bringing in another. its our batting which isnt hot enough.

[Goatman]

Mark, its very tempting to pack the team with thunderbats. Flintoff, Blackwell, Pieterson etc. certainly have the ability to change a match, but to pretend that they are going to succeed every time is plain daft. They are roll-of-the-dice players, and are a vital ingredient to any team, but we still need a "plan B". The great WI side is remembered for thunderbats. How many recall little Larry Gomes? But who is it you find scoring when things did not go to plan for his big and hairy colleagues? Gomes is described on cricinfo as being limited, slow scoring, unexciting and patient. Even the best teams can't rely on unremmitting attack. And ENG are far from the best team in world cricket.

[Notts Exile]

Goatman, I can't agree with you that Pietersen is a "roll-of-the-dice player". If he is then the dice is very nicely loaded in his favour! He is a quality batsman, very different in that sense to Flintoff and Blackwell who are biffers. Obviously he has to prove himself at the top level but his consistency stands im apart from those mentioned.

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Goatman

How many recall little Larry Gomes? But who is it you find scoring when things did not go to plan for his big and hairy colleagues? Gomes is described on cricinfo as being limited, slow scoring, unexciting and patient. Even the best teams can't rely on unremmitting attack. And ENG are far from the best team in world cricket.

It's amazing how often England got rid of Lloyd, Richards, and Haynes quickly and thought that they were through and in came Larry Gomes and scored a vital 50+ (and also some really agravating centuries), and suddenly the match was back under control by the Windies again.

[Goatman]

Notts Exile, he certainly looks to dominate. Any batsman who does so is in essense rolling dice. It is the mark of quality that the dice are loaded, as you say, but it doesn't fundamentally change the fact that he is naturally attacking, and so is a risk taker and doesn't mean that he is either a poor player or that he is not on course for a fully justified selection when he becomes eligable. Viv Richards is a case in point:- he always looked to dominate, and usually came off best. But sometimes he was too ambicious. At the height of his powers, the most successful tactic against him was to set a defensive field right from the start. Occasionally, he would get himself out trying to hit out over the top before he got his eye in. Basically, what separates class players like Richards, Lloyd, Hayden etc. from lesser players like Jayasuriya, Trescothick, Gayle, etc. and sloggers like Flintoff and Blackwell is how loaded those dice are.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Out of the new players coming in areANY defensivly minded ? Strauss seem the most sensible IMHO.