Bothan says,Hussain out Colly,or Strauss in

[freddie flintoff 142]

welcome statto
nice piece that, agree with RBLC tho, we dont need a spinner at this of year?
another thing, you dont happen to be a stockport fan? if so ted macminn says hello!

[Statto]

good point about not needing a spinner but even now the likes of keedy and brown are taking wickets, probably wouldn't happen at test level though i agree

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Mike_Hock

So do you think Hick should be selected then?

No I do not! God no please not Hick again! He's been given plenty of chances and couldn't make the step up to International Cricket - he's had his time.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

I dont see any argument ff. You want nass in, other eople want collingwood/strauss. As giles should be dropped (dont fail me fletch) colly/strauss and nass will play so everyones happy.

RBLC

No they're not! I want Nas in and if Giles is going to be dropped he should be replaced by another seamer - not another batsman - I've always maintained this. Don't weaken the bowling by dropping a bowler and bringing in another batsman.

Scott

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Actually scott I was going to put that everybody would be happy but you but feared it might not be taken in jest (as it is intended). We arent weakening the bowling IMO, we are dropping a bowler who is picked on his batting prowess rather than his bowling, so we are strengthening the batting. If we ppick collingwood we are arguably strengthening the bowling as well, certainly if compared with giles.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Statto

1/ i cant see england dropping giles as they need him to bat. Even if they did, they would replace him with another spinner who bats (batty) who i dont think is any better so theres not much point. Fletcher seems determined to have a top 8 who can all bat and neglects their other attributes ie reads keeping etc. Personally id prefer to see our best spinner (keedy or Brown) play and teach some seamers how to hold a bat instead of letting them fill up the tail. Hoggard is a good example of this as he has improves immensely over the last couple of seasons.
2/ colly seems to be preferred by the selectors so i think hes more likely

Stratto

Welcome.

I don't think even Giles can maintain his place based on his batting alone, I think it's certainly helped him stay ahead of any rivals, but the decision is really based on whether you'll need a spinner or not - if you don't - he'll be dropped. You're right Fletcher want's a long tail, but not to the expense of unbalancing the side.

You're also right in the sense that Colly will get the nod over Strauss, he seems to have been lined up to take over from Nas when he retires, and I suspect that Strauss is around to keep the pressure on Trescothick.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't agree with replacing Giles (if he does get dropped) with another batsman, I'd prefer to see another seamer brought in.

Scott

[Statto]

Scott,
i agree that when we dont need a spinner he gets dropped but
1/ We always seem to have one no matter what
2/ when we do need a spinner we need an effective one not an effective lower order batsman this could ultimately mean a spinner who cant bat, which seems unthinkable for fletcher

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Actually scott I was going to put that everybody would be happy but you but feared it might not be taken in jest (as it is intended). We arent weakening the bowling IMO, we are dropping a bowler who is picked on his batting prowess rather than his bowling, so we are strengthening the batting. If we ppick collingwood we are arguably strengthening the bowling as well, certainly if compared with giles.

RBLC

You may well be right in the sense that, that's what might happen. It still doesn't mean I agree with it. As I've said before, bowling is currently Englands strength and batting the weakness, the obvious solution is to drop a bowler in Giles and bring in a batsman, but in my mind that weakens our strenght at the expense of strenghtening our weakness. Better in my mind to strengthen our strength and really put the pressure on the Kiwi's batting which on paper is better than ours - lets see if we can bowl them out cheaply enough that our weakness won't be too exposed.

Which would win a match - bowling NZ out cheaply or adding another 50 runs to an innings total?

I don't 'buy' the argument that bringing in Collingwood adds to the bowling, Collingwood bowls medium pacers, almost exactly the same as Trescothick and Butcher - why add another medium pacer when we already have two?

People argue against bits and pieces players and want more specialists yet you're saying here - drop a specialist spinner and bring in a batsman who bowls a bit?

In my mind bringing in another specialist seamer gives us a better chance of winning than another batsman.

Scott

[Essex Eagle]

Giles should be replaced with another batsman!!

if 4 seamers cant do it then 5 wont

Also, lets not make the mistake of the NZ series in 99' when our tail consisted of :

Mullally,Tufnell & Giddins!

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Scott, like yourself I dont totally rely on facts and figures, and I think I'm right (I'm starting to see collingwood more in the jonty rhodes mould at the moment !!) and I've neve rseen collingwood bowl so dont care whether he does or not especially (as you pointed out) tresco and butch can bowl. i think the extra 50 runs would be more helpful as we are going to be looking at totals of 300 tops IMO.

We'll agree to differ !!!