Bothan says,Hussain out Colly,or Strauss in

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Essex Eagle

Surely Giles wont play (im trying to convince myself) so why not play either Colly or Strauss instead anyway??

They are both keeping Pietersens spot warm anyhow

Hi E A

I dont get your point,play Colly or Strauss,in place of giles,but if they got rid of Giles his replacement they would have to replace him with like for like(ala) keedey,or A N other.


Enest

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I disagree earnest. The fact that giles will hardly bowl this series due to the fact english early season pitches dont take spin at the best of times let alone ashlys variety. Butch tresco and collingwood (if selected) will fill in any gaps in the bowling, if indeed there are any. I dont see many high scores on the horizon.

[Mike_Hock]

I agree, why play Giles? Butcher is more likely to take wickets! I don't know why Giles played in the Caribbean. He only took two wickets.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Mike_Hock

I actually agree, but I feel that if Hussain fails in the first test he will not be required to play for England again.

Mike

Fails again? Are we going to apply the same philosophy to the other England players who have recently failed in the Test Series? Trescothick rather springs to mind.

Scott

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

The fact that giles will hardly bowl this series due to the fact english early season pitches dont take spin at the best of times let alone ashlys variety. Butch tresco and collingwood (if selected) will fill in any gaps in the bowling, if indeed there are any.

Hi R B L C

Cant compair Giles to say Keedey,Giles if you think about it has not done the same amount of bowling in early English conditions ,than as Keedey,he has been playin already ,and is a wicket taker.

Butch Tresco and Collingwood,just slower versions of the pace attack,I mean they are not spinners,are they,i think Richie,it is high risk to rely on them,and then there is the Oval,something for everyone,,,,,

[Essex Eagle]

When has Giles ever taken wickets on English pitches?

He is a complete waste of space and is only in the team because he is a 'spinner'

We wouldnt settle for having a paceman who averaged 40 per wicket over 33 tests.

We dont HAVE TO play a spinner, if you dont have 1 who is test class then dont play one at all!

Vaughan can offer variety if thats what we want.

[sostenurter]

On form alone, Hussain is easily good enough to retain his place in the side. The fact that he was 6th in the averages for the WI series does not show that his knocks in the first two Tests were crucial to us winning those matches. Given that early season pitches in England will require his type of grit, I'd certainly play him. Strauss or Collingwood should come in for Giles anyway - there's no way five bowlers will be needed on early season pitches.

[Mike_Hock]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Mike

Fails again? Are we going to apply the same philosophy to the other England players who have recently failed in the Test Series? Trescothick rather springs to mind.

Scott

The difference is Scott, Trescothick is not nearing the end of his career. Like I said, that is what I think will happen, not what I would like to see happen.

[Electric Vic]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

On another note, I find it incredible that botham of all people has the nerve to say "thanks alot nass we need to move forward" when botham was still being picked for at least two years when he was total ****e, and was being picked on his name alone.

Good point, but - and I know you're not saying this - Botham has got a perfect right to say what he thinks about England selection, regardless of his past.

A lot of people were calling for Nasser to be left out in the Caribbean series - but Nasser fully justified his selection. He shored up a batting order which looked fragile and it was largely thanks to him (and Butch) that England kept the WI at bay in the first innings of the first test. Although Harmison's second innings heroics won that match, Nasser and Butch kept us in it.

Botham is right to say the Aussies would never let an underperforming batsman linger in the team, but the fact is they have more strength in depth than England. We have tried out a whole series of players - Shah, Afzaal, Key, Smith - in the last couple of seasons and none of them has held a place down. Don't forget Bell was picked in the squad the season before last before losing his way in the county championship.

So... we've already been trying the "build for the future" idea for the last couple of years and it hasn't worked.

At least now there are some challengers - Strauss and Collingwood both had good winters, and Pieterson will be available in September - so things are looking better than they were last summer.

As for Nasser, I am quite sure he will still be in the team this summer and if anyone's going to decide when his test career is over it will be him.

[freddie flintoff 142]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

On form alone, Hussain is easily good enough to retain his place in the side. The fact that he was 6th in the averages for the WI series does not show that his knocks in the first two Tests were crucial to us winning those matches. Given that early season pitches in England will require his type of grit, I'd certainly play him. Strauss or Collingwood should come in for Giles anyway - there's no way five bowlers will be needed on early season pitches.

i couldnt agree more with the innings he played in the windes, i would also suggest colly in for giles, (iv been pushin for colly for a long time now), strauss looks good but colly will give 5-10 overs plus butch and vaughan, all who would do jus a good a job if not better than giles. harsh on giles, because he's made some what of the most of the talent he has, but aint been good enough, and will be exposed on early season wickets by mcmillan oram and astle (although during astles 222 he seemed to keep his head more than most).

i'd keep nasser in (not to get his 100 test but because we need him at the mo) and bring colly in

bring on the counter arguements