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

[Goatman]

Hussain is a bit of a problem at the mo' - the middle order is too good to deserve rearrangement, but to old to give us the comfort of coninuity for the forseeable future. Possibly, with the pitches in May being sporty and a spinner unlikely to be of vital importance, Hussains understudy could nudge poor old Giles out of the team? Maybe Strauss would enjoy such an opportunity more than he would enjoy debuting as opener in such conditions.....

I think that G. Jones might be capable of doing the Hussain job, and that would certainly give more freedom in selection. One for Fletcher and co to consider at least.

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Goatman

Hussain is a bit of a problem at the mo' - the middle order is too good to deserve rearrangement, but to old to give us the comfort of coninuity for the forseeable future. Possibly, with the pitches in May being sporty and a spinner unlikely to be of vital importance, Hussains understudy could nudge poor old Giles out of the team? Maybe Strauss would enjoy such an opportunity more than he would enjoy debuting as opener in such conditions......

I agree totally with that idea. Use Giles's absence against New Zealand to try out his possible replacement. I can't imagine that we are really going to need a slow bowler in the NZ series, but an extra batsman may turn out to be vital.

Originally Posted by Goatman

I think that G. Jones might be capable of doing the Hussain job, and that would certainly give more freedom in selection. One for Fletcher and co to consider at least.

He certainly increases the options and looks capable of batting at 5 in the order. Perhaps we should not consider putting him any higher and increasing what is already a pretty heavy burden on him. With Jones at 5 and maybe Strauss at 6 initially, Freddy can bat at 7 with a license to play his shots save in a crisis.

[honestbharani]

Scott, I have followed the English team for a while. In fact, I follow most teams in the world and from what I have seen, I think Trescothick is a bit of a hands player. His feet are not his best allies while batting. He goes by hand-eye co-ordination and with players who do that, I have seen that at times, probably with age, it just goes away. Jayasuriya, Srikkanth are players who come to mind. But the thing is, he is not as old as they are/were when they started to fail big time. That is why I feel he can still do it, but like I said, if they are others breathing down his neck, and I know Pieterson will be in by this June/July (I saw him during the England A tour of India), if he fails against NZ and the WI at home, I think he might find himself dropped. But I hope he stays around, I like his attacking style.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Like I said: the case is thin (and got thinner when we ditched Read for Jones.. and will get weaker still if we end up, long term, playing 6 front-line batsmen with a tail that reads 7. Jones, 8. Flintoff, 9. Hoggard, 10. Jones, 11. Harmison (as that will mean we've the depth of batting to be able to cope without "bed and breakfast" openers.

Like I said: the case is thin... and right now, even as a proponent I'm not sure it stacks up. Until I can make it more convincingly I'm doing what I think you should do: giving doe credit to Mark's case!

Rachael

Thanks for your input into this interesting discussion.

I'm pleased you brought up the Read/Jones situation, as I feel the situation with Trescothick is quite similar. I was one of the biggest advocates for replacing Read for Jones in that discussion on the basis of runs alone, and if I recall correctly, you were one of the most vocal along with a great majority of others (that just shows that the majority opinion isn't always the right one) on the need to retain the 'best gloveman' at any cost. We all now know what happened in that situation, although in your opinion at that time, as you've said here 'the case is thin' for Read to be replaced by Jones. Mark also I think took a similar stance on the Read/Jones debate as he is doing here on the Trescothick situation - wanted to give him more time and reserved judgement till he'd played a few more Test Matches, as he's doing here with Trescothick - let's see until the end of the summer...

It just goes to show how, on (in your opinion) 'thin cases' - changes do in fact get made, even though you were quite vociferous in your argument that Read, as the best gloveman should be retained.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Goatman

Interesting post, but can you please explain to me, if as you're saying Trescothick is in fact a consistent run maker how/why in the last two Test Series Trescothicks played in - his average for both those Test Series are almost exactly half his historic Test average?

Scott

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Tresco has proved himself in the past at international level, read, with the bat, hasnt. You could also argue in the case for runs that freddie isnt worth his place at 6, and he should bat at 7. Giving giles the boot for the NZ series should help clear the waters depending on who gets picked and where they bat.

If tresco opens and succeeds against decnt bowling on seaming wickets, is he reprieved ? If he moves down the order to say 6, will he also work on his bowling to become a useful bits and pieces player perhaps in the lehman role ? if that was the case what happens to the (centrally contracted and hither to unused) Collingwood ? If Strauss opens, what happens if he scores about 30 runs all series then has one decent knock and scores a ton ? What if he looks a btter bet than tresco, does leave tresco as the one day man ?

i always swore I'd never be a what if man, but as you can see I've broken that rule big time. But to honest, all the above is conceivable, and it truley is a case of "wiat and see"

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Goatman

One other thought on the "England changes" theme.

Goatman

I think its very dangerous to start touting Jones as another middle order batsman. I was fortunate enough to see Jones bat in that last Test Match and whilst he does looks accomplished as a batsman - it's still early days for him yet - I'd like to see him establish himself in the side first before he starts getting moved around the batting order. I've seen many people discussing the possibility of Jones batting up the order in place of Flintoff - I'm afraid I really don't see the logic in this - yet. Jones was brought in as a direct replacement for Read on the basis that he was a more accomplished batsman, thats the slot he should play in for the foreseable future.

I can't see how Hussain's retirement should have any effect on Jones's batting position, and that Hussain, when he retires should be replaced by another recognised 'middle order' batsman. Collingwood appears to be the 'heir apparent' to Hussains crown and I can't really see that changing. Likewise I view Strauss as a direct replacement for Trescothick, as and when Trescothick manages to lose his place in the side - I can see Strauss coming in.

Pieterson I don't know much about to be perfectly honest and so can't comment, but I think Giles's place at some point in the future will be under pressure from a specialist seamer on wickets that suit seam.

Scott

[Victor Frankenstein]

on the jones/read point, about half of us arguing for him to be kept on were not arguing for jones to be kept out more just the fact that read had done nothing wrong, had been exceptional with the gloves and had batted on wickets that no one else got runs on either, if he'd stayed in for the last test on the one easy batting wicket all winter and got 60 odd would you have said he was a better batsman than jones? time will tell if jones is really better with the bat (most people say he looked the part more than read, and that is sometimes all it takes to make the difference).

The problem was that read was being dropped because the other batsmen couldn't score runs, if he'd been coming in at 350-5/6 like a lot of other sides then it wouldn't have been such an issue. To then have vaughan say that he wasn't getting runs in the crucial position of number 7 when he himself wasn't getting any runs in the even more crucial position of opener was a bit rich and a bit of a "people in glass houses" moment for me. If he'd just said "we're dropping read because me and tresco keep throwing our wickets away through lack of concentration and someone has to take the blame" i'd have had a bit more respect for him.

[Notts Exile]

That point, VF, is one a few of us have been trying to make. You made it well.

I do find it interesting that some are now saying we should pick six batsmen in the summer plus Freddie leaving our keeper batting at eight. Then why drop Read? Are we saying that the batsmen we have are so poor we need someone batting at eight who has a first-class average of forty? Strangely that would give us the longest batting line-up in the Test playing world!! I believe that if we play six batsmen then we can play our best keeper and let him average 15 - 20.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

on the jones/read point, about half of us arguing for him to be kept on were not arguing for jones to be kept out more just the fact that read had done nothing wrong, had been exceptional with the gloves and had batted on wickets that no one else got runs on either, if he'd stayed in for the last test on the one easy batting wicket all winter and got 60 odd would you have said he was a better batsman than jones? time will tell if jones is really better with the bat (most people say he looked the part more than read, and that is sometimes all it takes to make the difference).

VF

The reason I raised the Read/Jones debate was more to illustrate the point that 1/ Majority opinion isn't always right, and 2/ Even where people consider 'replacement' issues to be a relatively weak argument - they still get made, despite their protestations to the contrary. Both these points I feel are equally applicable to the Trescothick situation.

I had no wish to reopen the can of worms that is the Read/Jones debate, but as you've commented on it, I'm happy to add to those comments.

I think it was generally felt that Read was indeed faultless with the gloves, but that a WK was viewed as an allrounder and should be able to contribute more with the bat than Read had done. Picking on his perfomance in the West Indies is a little blinkered, as Read has played 9 Test Matches and had only managed a top score of 38 not out. The point here is that Read wasn't judged alone on his batting performance in the WI, but his performance throughout his Test Career to date. Read's ultimate downfall was that he had someone of Jones's quality breathing down his neck for a chance to prove himself, and as Read continue to fail with the bat - that opportunity became ever more realistic. It's not as if Read didn't realise his chances were running out, that was made quite clear to him.

Regarding Jones's ability with the bat, it is too early to say to be honest, but from what I've seen of Jones - he really does look more accomplished with the bat, and looks like he can make some pretty decent scores, something Read never looked like doing - only time will tell.

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

The problem was that read was being dropped because the other batsmen couldn't score runs, if he'd been coming in at 350-5/6 like a lot of other sides then it wouldn't have been such an issue. To then have vaughan say that he wasn't getting runs in the crucial position of number 7 when he himself wasn't getting any runs in the even more crucial position of opener was a bit rich and a bit of a "people in glass houses" moment for me. If he'd just said "we're dropping read because me and tresco keep throwing our wickets away through lack of concentration and someone has to take the blame" i'd have had a bit more respect for him.

VF, your first point is simply not true. As I said above, Read has had plenty of chances to make runs with the bat and to date hasn't been able to, the failures in the WI were simply the last chances he was given. Blaming Read's replacement on Vaughan and Trescothicks failures is rediculous, everyone in the England side are expected to contribute, and sadly for Read it was considered his contributions with the bat simply wern't good enough for a batsman batting at No. 7.

I'm not even going to go near the Vaughan/Trescothick not making runs debate as my views on that have been made in other posts.

Scott