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

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

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.

Notts

I'm certainly not advocating that at all and never have done. I don't beleive in packing out the side with batsman to make up for failures elsewhere, that's just's applying bandaids over problems that need to be fixed. In fact I suggested, that if Giles were to be dropped, his slot should be taken by a 4th specialist seamer (I say 4th and not 5th, because Flintoff is an allrounder and not a specialist seam bowler).

The reason you're getting people suggesting playing an extra batsman is because whilst they appreciate there's a problem with the batting they can't/don't want to do anything about the Vaughan/Trescothick situation, and prefer to just sit here quoting statistics that prove what an excellent batsman Trescothick is and how he shouldn't be dropped which just smacks of ostrich's and sand to me.

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Then why drop Read?

Because he wasnt contributing the necessary runs expected of a No. 7 batsmen, and never looked likely to. The dropping of Read and the failures of Trescothick and Vaughan are not related, however much you think they are - they're separate issues.

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

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!!

No thats not whats being said, what's being said is, we want a world class Wicket Keeper, who can produce the kind of runs an allrounder WK is supposed to be producing. Fletcher has gone on record of saying he want's batting in depth, and that means everyone down to No.7 is expected to contribute. That doesn't mean playing a WK that can get away with scraping together 20 odd runs now and again.

One of the other advantages of having a WK who can score useful runs is that it free's up Giles's slot for perhaps another seamer, as Giles is almost being played as a second allrounder. England have got used to Giles scoring useful runs coming in at No. 8, but if he gets dropped, which is becoming ever more likely, they'll lost that advantage, hence the need to bring in a WK that can contribute.

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

I believe that if we play six batsmen then we can play our best keeper and let him average 15 - 20.

There are two problems with that 1/ It weakens the bowling attack 2/ it unbalances the side.

There's no need to play six batsman if the two openers and 3 middle order do their job, the problem is - the two openers aren't, but most of the posters on here don't seem to see that as the problem, so want to play that extra batsman to make up for it - its all about plastering over the cracks and not sorting out where the real problems are.

Scott

[Notts Exile]

I don't see any problems with playing six batsmen as long as (a) one or two of them are capable of sending down a few overs, (b) Freddie is counted as a fourth bowler and bowls sufficient overs.

We have a situation where were Vaughan able to bowl his off-spin more we could play a keeper at eight and have Freddie at seven. Some posters don't like these all-rounders, to me they're invaluable. For years the aussies have had the likes if Doug Walters, Ricky Ponting, Damien Martyn and the Waugh twins all capable of bowling a few overs in order to break a partnership or give the other four a break. If Freddie can bowl twenty overs a day (and I don't see anyb reason why he can't) then I would pick him at seven.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Its seems ages since i waxed lyrical on this subject, but here goes.

Q : Do we need 6 bats ?
A : Do we really need 5 seamers in early summer ?

A : (Subsection 1) The additional bat could be collingwood who can bowl some gentle swing which may get some return on early season english wickets. If struass comes in Tresco can offer some of the same. I'm not going into if/where tresco should play its been done to death.

Q : Is freddie a compentant number 6 bat ?
A : No idea. Not totally consistant, not bad enough to be dropped. Excellent no.7, no. 6 I'm not sure.

Q : Do we really need 5 seamers ?
A : Lets face, we're going to bring in an extra seamer against NZ, not giles if the selectors have got half a brain. Against WI, 3+freddie did the job so they should do it again, backed up by more stregth in batting. Our best bat was thorpe but he didnt always hit double figures let alone 30 odd in some innings.

So do we really need jones the bat/gloves ? If he ends up at 8 possibly not. A case for blackwell for the spin option ? He'll not get a better chance, or for that matter be better suited.

We're not papering the cracks. They are big holes in the wall and cannot be covered without a major change in personnel and captaincy which we dont really need at this stage.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

I don't see any problems with playing six batsmen as long as (a) one or two of them are capable of sending down a few overs, (b) Freddie is counted as a fourth bowler and bowls sufficient overs.

Notts


The problem is, as I've said - it weakens the bowling attack.

It would be useful if Vaughan could take on at least some of the spin bowling mantle, as and when its needed as he really isn't bad, but the problem is, he suffers from back problems and bowling just aggravates it. He's quite concerned about damaging his back, which would stop him from playing his more important role - batting. That's the reason he bowls so few overs and cannot really be considered a part time spinner.

I would prefer to see Freddy bowled a lot less that he has been, he's not a specialist seamer and shouldn't be used as one, he should be used sparingly as and when some variety is needed, or used in short bursts of 5 overs at a time that allow him be fresh for his secondary task of batting. I think it's the heavy bowling work rate he's being subjected to that's making his batting suffer, but that's just my personal opinion.

Scott

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Interesting views scott. If you dont want to bowl freddie much, drop him for a better bat. Then there will be room for a specialist seamer like caddick anderson or who ever.

Do we want to though ?

[Scott-Wozniak]

RBLC

Well that's pretty much behind my thinking on playing the extra seamer in place of Giles. I subscribe to the Botham philosophy on this one - play the best bowling attack you've got, if that doesn't include a spinner, its because we don't have a world class one. If we had a spinner as capable as Warne, Murali, or even Kumble, he'd be an automatic choice, but we don't, so we need to play our best bowling attack, if that doesn't include a spinner - then it doesn't.

I've got a lot of time for Giles, unlike many other people! He's the best option we've got in the spin department and can contribute useful runs at No. 8, but on wickets that don't look like benefiting from spin, I can't see the point in playing one. Without being unkind to Giles, recently he picked up wickets in the WI, based on unenforced batsman's errors, whereas our seamers took wickets due to the excellence of their bowling.

Replacing Giles with a batsman simply isn't an option as far as I'm concerned, we should be building on our strengths - and that's in the bowling deparment right now.

Scott

[Notts Exile]

This is what makes sport in general so great. There are numerous different options, none of which are necessarily right or wrong. It's all down to opinions. Scott believes that six batsmen would be wrong, I believe that five seamers would be overkill.

The one thing we all seem to agree on is that change is required. Well, bravo for that!

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Interesting views scott. If you dont want to bowl freddie much, drop him for a better bat. Then there will be room for a specialist seamer like caddick anderson or who ever.

Do we want to though ?

RBLC

I'm certainly not advocating dropping Freddy, I just feel he should be used for what he is - an allrounder. ie someone who bowls and bats. I just think Freddy gets over-bowled, he's made to bowl too many overs, and this is partly because Jones is not fully fit and is being protected to a certain extent from injury, but does need match practice to get fully fit, so its a double edged sword. But all this does is convince me we need to play that extra seamer - Caddick or Anderson, Caddick would be my pick over Anderson - he's more of a Harmison type bowler, whereas Anderson is more of a swing bowler, with good pace but lacks consistency.

The selectors should really pick the 4 most suitable out of Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Caddick and Anderson depending on the pitch conditions.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

The one thing we all seem to agree on is that change is required. Well, bravo for that!

Notts

Indeed!

But let me ask you a hypothetical question. If our current side were regularly posting 400+ scores, and so were the opposition, would you still feel there was need for an extra batsman? or an extra seamer?

Scott

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

But let me ask you a hypothetical question. If our current side were regularly posting 400+ scores, and so were the opposition, would you still feel there was need for an extra batsman? or an extra seamer?

A wonderful scenario that would be! I would want the extra bowler, be that a spinner (maybe a shrewd selection of the next top England spinner?) or another seamer. Unfortunately I don't see us posting those scores regularly against a half decent bowling attack with a line up of Vaughan, Tresco, Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe.