Strauss in? Whose Out?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I wont play in the NZ series if fletch has a brain, but WI he's got a chance.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

i think rachael means we're throwing a guy in with no test experience and say "right- open, and open successfully"

RBLC

I do understand that concern. But at what point do England have the luxury of being able to play 'unproven' players in competitive Test Matches where the outcome is not that important? At some point you have to bite the bullet and make changes to fix identified problems.

Rachael would like to see Strauss introduced in the series against the West Indies, in her mind that would be an 'easier' time to 'blood' in new players, but what Rachael doesn't say is what she intends to do about the failures of both England openers for the New Zealand series. Of course it would be better to bring in 'unproven' players against weaker opposition, but what do you do about the problems you have right now? People advocated changes in the last Test against the West Indies, which would have been a good time to try out a couple of new players, but people then just moan - don't change a winning side! You can't win.

The fact is, New Zealand will present a much sterner test than the West Indies and in my mind, batting problems need to be solved for that series if England hope to win it. England should play their strongest side against New Zealand, if that means bringing in 'unproven' players then thats what needs to be done.

I don't subscribe to the 'wait and see' philosophy favoured by so many people on this board, thats just fence sitting in my mind, they want to be 100% sure in their mind where the problem is before they do anything about it. There's enough evidence to point to where the problems are right now and sometimes you just have to take a gamble on 'unproven' players in the hope that it pays off and pays dividends. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't, thats the nature of the beast.

I'd much rather see Fletcher being decisive in identifying problems and doing something positive about them even if it does include an element of risk, than dithering about making changes until he's sure what needs to be done and possibly risking losses in the meantime, as many of the people on this board seem to advocate.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

If Nass doesn't retire until the end of the summer then is it likely that Pietersen may leapfrog Collingwood and into the middle-order? My belief being that he is a better player (by a fair way too), also offering plenty in the field.

Afternoon Notts.

To be perfectly honest, I know very little about Pieterson, apart from what I've read and seen on these boards. It certainly seems as though people rate him pretty highly. I'll reserve judgement until I've either seen him play or know a bit more about him.

I suspect what will happen is that when Nas retires, Collingwood will step in for him in the middle order, and Pieterson may well then become part of the squad so Fletcher can see what he can do. One thing I will say, is that if he's as good a spinner as people are saying, that could be a very useful 'second string' to his bow, specially if he's pretty useful with the bat as well. I know he's a batsman first and foremost, and should get a place based on batting alone, but what England really could do with is someone who can contribute with the bat and offer some useful part time spin as well, as Vaughan simply cannot step up to the table and offer that at the moment.

So, the future looks bright for Pieterson, it seems as though he's the kind of player that could well fit into the England setup quite nicely.

Scott

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Never been one for the wait and see myself but on the other hand you cant go and condem people for what could be a drop form and no more than that. Will Strauss be an atherton or a lathwell ? Collingwood and least has a bit of "pressure" experience for the SL tour. Strauss hasnt. I think he'll come through.

[Rachael]

Scott - Look no further than Fletcher's handling of Ed Smith for a truly dire bit man management: whatever happened to giving a guy a decent run?

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

IMHO if you are going to replace Trescothick with Strauss (which would be my preferred option if a change is to be made at the top of the order) you might as well throw him in against NZ. If he is good enough he will make a success of it and if he gets a couple of unplayable deliveries then that is just part and parcel of opening the batting (especially in this country).

There seems to me to be little point in introducing new players against the weaker sides so that they do well initially but are then found out against the better sides.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Scott - Look no further than Fletcher's handling of Ed Smith for a truly dire bit man management: whatever happened to giving a guy a decent run?

Rachael

I'd certainly agree that some players haven't been handled as well as they could have been. But who's fault is that? The England management (selectors) for selecting them or the players themselves for not performing? That sounds a little harsh, it's not easy for players to make the step up to Test Level and start delivering the goods right away, but sadly England have not been in the position to really be able to 'bed' players in and give them extended runs in the side to judge their form over a period of time to see if they're up to the task - hence the rather 'brutal' selection and drop tactics that tend to have been used in the past. I think things have moved on a little since then with both Fletcher and Vaughan publicly stating that selected players will get a reasonable run in the side.

Regarding Ed Smith, there's no doubt at all the guy has talent and will, given time and experience make the step up to the test stage, but he simply wasn't ready at the time he was selected, and that was quite obvious from his performances, and so was naturally dropped. In many ways, the fault of that must be laid at the feet of the selectors - they made the mistake of selecting someone that clearly wasn't ready - hopefully they have learnt from their past mistakes.

Am I right in thinking the England A Team are almost the England second XI? or is the A team like the Under 21 side? Surely any potential England full caps should be given long runs out in the A Team (if that is equivalent to the second XI) so their performances over a period of time can be monitored.

Scott

[Captain Applehead]

"There seems to me to be little point in introducing new players against the weaker sides so that they do well initially but are then found out against the better sides."[/quote]

I agree to some extent, although I think it comes down to good man-management. Some players don't worry if they fail early in their innings (even at the start of their careers) because they KNOW they are good enough. Others (Hick) may have benefitted from playing Bangladesh @ the Oval at the start of their test careers, as it may have given him the confidence to fulfill the obvious ability he had. Hick failed in his first few tests, and I think that affected his confidence severely.

So, I guess, the selectors need to work out what 'type' of man Strauss is, in terms of temperament/confidence etc. I don't know enough about him to comment. But if he is as talented, yet as weak minded as Hick, I'd rather wait until the WI tests. However, if he has the strength of mind to be take a few disappointments, then give him a go.

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Smith should not have been selected in the first place, and neither should Anthony McGrath. England should have picked Thorpe from the start of the summer, and then we would have won the series v SA. Instead, we carried on without decent partnerships in the middle order and haemorrhaging runs in the slips.

I think Smith was selected as a sop to those critics who say (with some justification) that Fletcher ignores county cricket, and he was dumped as soon as possible. After Thorpe made his ton, there was no room in the side for Ed Smith, although I suppose they could have taken him along for the ride in the winter. Instead they chose Collingwood to shadow Hussain and Clarke to concentrate Freddie's mind a little. It worked out pretty well.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Glamorgan Wanderer

There seems to me to be little point in introducing new players against the weaker sides so that they do well initially but are then found out against the better sides.

GW

I tend to agree with you on this one, hence the stance I've taken in my posts. The only thing is that Tresco stays for the moment, which is the least disruptive of the two options at the top of the order. Dropping Vaughan down the order is probably the more logical of the two for the moment.

However, I think its generally agreed that Tresco is on 'notice' and unless he begins contributing some decent scores, he will be next.

Scott