Now come on lads.....

[Goatman]

A few weeks ago, the consensus on this board was that Tresco was due for the chop - there were precious few of us who said he should be opening. I personally warned against knee-jerks. Consensus seemed to be that Butcher should open, but many conceeded that he was ENG's best 3 for years and this was also a valuable role. Then there was the Hussain retirement debate. Now Strauss is in the mix, and people are saying we should drop Butcher! Good God! This is ridiculous! In 3 weeks we have dropped 3 test quality batsmen, and all for the same reason! I am personally very glad that those who recommend selection on the basis of form are not in DG's job.

A few points on why you don't select on the basis of form:-

For a good player (and all those in the debate are good, but this is not always the case....) poor form is of finite and unknown length. They can play matchwinning innings in the first innings at the end of that spell, and that could happen in the next innings. YOU DO NOT DROP CLASS PLAYERS DUE TO LACK OF FORM UNLESS THE REPLACEMENT IS AN EQUALLY ABLE PLAYER!!!!!

Selecting on form is how wasters like Hick and Ramprakash kept on getting back into the ENG team - its the "weight of runs" idea which, thank God, has finally fallen out of favour with our selectors. Once again, you don't pick on form unless the players in the mix are as near to each other IN ABILITY as makes damn all difference. This ability is in the eyes of ths selectors, but never th less you must select on ability first form has to come a long way after that.

A team must be selected with many things in mind:- 1st, the match in hand. 2nd, the rest of the series. 3rd next year. 4th the year after that. Form comes 5th. Players cannot become experienced unless they play, and a tam cannot win without expereinced players. If you have two players who are of similar ability, you MUST select the player that will be available in 2-3 years time. You don't pick on form unless there is no other criteria on which to make a selection.

As shown by Strauss and Hussain yesterday, it is important for a team to know each other and to have played with each other. Consistency in slection is good for team spirit, it is good for individual confidence, it is important for smooth working and it therefore has benefit for results. If you select on form, all this suffers and all the benefit you gain from the "in-form player" can easily be lost and outweiged by the impact on the team as a whole.

It is not a simple case of picking the players witht he highest average/the highest recent average/scored the most runs in the last match. Every player in a team is doing a specialist role:- Trescothick and Vaughan look to dominate the bowling. Hussain is a sheet-anchor. Butcher can do either, to some extent (which is why he is a good 3). Thorpe and Strauss accumulate without needing to dominate. Thorpe (and therefore I'd guess Strauss) is also magnificent at batting with the tail. You can't simply switch player A for player B and expect it not to impact in other areas. Theres more to selection than averages, and theres much more to it than form! IF Strauss cannot be dropped, then the discussion of who IS dorpped certainly shouldn't be on the basis of who is in the worst form! It should be on the basis of which player will least impact the teams flexibility/toughness by not playing.

Come on lads! Lets see a bit more analysis in these debates than just whose scored the least runs in the last 2 weeks!

[Teatime FatCat]

Oooooh Goaty - that was ever so masterful!

Ok, the best six test batsmen in England at the moment are staring us in the face. Currently we have only 5 spaces if we retain the same mix of side that we have now. IF we play the wheelie Bin at Headingly and IF Nasser decides to carry on, then we must play our best XI.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a massive Stauss fan, and have been for years. These last few days have given me immense pleasure, and Straussy has done all the things that I spent years wishing Ramps would do in one match! However, for two years Lehman, Katich and Love hovered around the Australian team waiting for their opportunity whilst both the waugh brothers - seemingly on their last legs, and with the media crying out for them to be dropped - consistantly pulled amazing match winning performances out of the bag, until Mark's bad run of form was so obvious that a delighted Lehman skipped into the team and started thumping test attacks everywhere. all three of them were desperate for their chance, valued it and scored big when it came along.

I say let Nass stay on, get off Tresco's back, and don't even think about dropping Butcher. THIS IS THE MOST EXCITING ENGLAND TEAM WE'VE HAD FOR YEARS - DON'T HOUND PEOPLE OUT OF IT THROUGH KNEEJERK PUBLIC OPINION!!!

If Nass retuires, and Tresco can't get it off the square over the next few tests - then Strauss is an absolute shoe-in - and boy will he be hungry for runs!! But at this stage he is heir apparant, and knows that he is a replacement, nothing more.

[Rachael]

We're only ever going to be as good as the guys we routinely leave out: it's ther pressure from credible alternatives on the sidelines and the availability of classy injury replacements that marks out the teams with the strength in depth to set the pace.

This is the first time in years we've actually got a guy making a decent case for inclusion at the expense of a proven performer. If Hussain retires and Strauss comes in we're back to square one: worrying whether Collingwood is the genuine article or just a ODI man... speculating about Pietersen... rushing guys back from injury / playing them when they aren't match fit / fearing to rest someone even when it's in their own best interest.

Strauss knows he's now heading the queue. He knows his chance will come. Let him go away and soak up the adulation with Middlesex... and wait for his next opportunity. In the mean time... back Stewart's calls for Hussain to soldier on.

[flanflinger]

Oh to be an Australian...

They have this problem every year!!

We are so unused to have it that we don't know what to do!!

We have 5 very good pacemen and 4 places, 6 batsmen and 5 places and 2 keepers and 1 place.

Usually we get a settled team, get an injury and then panic - who is going to provide cover?

The great thing is - if a bowler breaks down - Jimmy Anderson comes in, if a batsman like Vaugh breaks down we can bring in Strauss. We just need to chose between and Batsman keeper and a genuine keeper.

Sadly we can't play 13 men. Rachel is right the best sides can bu judged by who they leave out. We may have leave out Anderson and Strauss, in normal English teams they would be a shoe-in.

Would be good if we had a spinner?

[Goatman]

It should also be bron in mind that if Husain is dropped, then he WILL retire. And bang goes our competition for places, just as Racahel says.....

[Goatman]

Another important concept is a "squad menality". The international schedule is crowded these days, and players may benefit from the occasional rest. I feel strongly that we have to move from a "best XI" idea to an "Any combination XV". For example, unless he looks like a God at Headnigley they should strongly consider giving Anderson a game in the place of Hoggard for the third test under the strict understanding that this is a reflection of the need to 1) give the bowlers a rest and 2) ensure that the injury replacements keep thier hand in.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Goatman

Another important concept is a "squad menality".

The England set-up are trying to produce an environment where all squad members are at home, a la county side, if recent interviews are to be believed (See interviews with Hoggard , Thorpe) .

Originally Posted by Goatman

A few weeks ago, the consensus on this board was that Tresco was due for the chop - there were precious few of us who said he should be opening.

Also, the consensus spoken of to drop Trecothick is dubious and/or false although some suggested demotion down the order!! There have been some vocal calls to drop Tresco (you know who you are!) but, again, check out the poll thread regarding Team for first Test vs. NZ and you'll see why I say that!

If the revolving door policy of old has now thank fully been ditched are we now talking of an moving escalator policy?

[Whips_off_the_bails]

So who is proposing that we drop a guy who scored 200 runs in the match with style and composure on his debut while opening the batting, the man of the match, a guy who is clearly in the form of his life?

I wouldn't mind Butcher being made to sweat a little. It irritates me the way he nods off in the slips and gets out to a silly shot when well-set.

[Rich Greenfield]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

We have 5 very good pacemen and 4 places, 6 batsmen and 5 places and 2 keepers and 1 place.

2 Keepers? I can think of 4 and that is not including Read who imo can not be considered a wicketkeeper batsmen.

[Teatime FatCat]

who might they be then?