Pick any five from seven!!!

[Rachael]

Medium term (assuming Pietersen comes good) I think you could be looking at Tresco and Collingwood being our leading ODI specialists cum general Test arena injury replacements: not bad substitutes to have sitting on the bench.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Medium term (assuming Pietersen comes good) I think you could be looking at Tresco and Collingwood being our leading ODI specialists cum general Test arena injury replacements: not bad substitutes to have sitting on the bench.

That's fair enough Rachael...so your batting order for the third Test is..?

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Oliver

It does look a bit like that doesn't it?

Oliver

Well how else can you justify that sequence? It's totally illogical to me. Not only are you changing the batting position of every single batsman in the side (bad, need to keep some consistency) I don't see the reasoning behind putting Tresco at the back end of the middle order (he's always played as an opener, moving him is saying he's struggling as an opener, in my mind he's struggling with his form, in which case he will do wherever he plays) continuing with Vaughan as an opener when clearly he's been struggling to make runs in that position whilst he's been skipper (he bats best at No.3 or 4 in my mind, where its less pressurised and can play his sublime strokes off a worn ball) need I go on!

I accept Tom's entitled to his opinion, but I fail to see any logic in it.

Scott

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Well how else can you justify that sequence? need I go on!

I accept Tom's entitled to his opinion, but I fail to see any logic in it.

I'm looking forward to everyone's opinions.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Medium term (assuming Pietersen comes good) I think you could be looking at Tresco and Collingwood being our leading ODI specialists cum general Test arena injury replacements: not bad substitutes to have sitting on the bench.

Rachael

My god, are you actually advocating dropping Trescothick as Test Opening batsman after all you said to me about my arguments for dropping him being very weak?

Scott

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

Trescothick, Vaughan, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe

Would the consideration be very different if Vaughan wasn't the skipper (that is to say, would he walk back into the side in those circumstances)?

Strauss was selected as a replacement opener for Vaughan and has been very successful as an opener. I therefore see no reason to move him to 3 just to accomodate him in the team. If Vaughan must return to the side if fit then the decision must rest between dropping Trescothick and Strauss. In the interests of not having to open with someone playing his 2nd match and someone returning from injury Strauss has been the one to miss out.

Strauss is extremely unfortunate to be replaced given his performance at Lords but I don't think moving him around the order to accomodate him is the answer (moving Vaughan down the order being a better solution IMO). They tried that with McGrath after he came into the team with some decent (I know not earth shattering, against Zim etc etc) performances and it didn't work.

Finally, the 'drop Butcher' reaction following Lords (on the basis that he is the one player who didn't make runs in either innings) reeks to high heaven of utter 'knee jerk' if you ask me. If a player's performance in one match (his last) is the criteria for selection will the next batsman (whoever he may be) be dropped if he fails in a single match? If Harmison has a poor game at Headingley will he be dropped for Trent Bridge?

Team selections made on this basis were responsible to an extent for the poor performance of the team (other than in isolated patches) throughout the late 80s and the 90s. Hick knew that he would be dropped if he didn't score big runs each time he came to the crease.

As a further complication, could (in this instance Butcher) expect to walk back into the team when Nasser decides to call it a day? Or will the selection be made on who has made the most runs in the last county match prior to the selection of the test/touring party?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Originally Posted by Oliver

That's awfully callous RBLC.

How many would Strauss have had to have scored to get your vote for the next match?

It is ever so slightly. Its a really really really tough call. Up till sunday, everyone was calling for Nas to be dropped. One good innings and he's (rightly) back in the frame. I cant remember when thorpe did well in both innings of a match, he's 35 and his place is also (righly) assured. That leaves vaughan. As captain, he's safe, not on form, becasue he's captain. Tresco, also had a bad trott, 2 good innings (does the 4th againt WI count ?) he's safe, but only just. And he's also just captained a side to a test victory. Butcher ? One bad match on the back of being our most consistant performer. He slip catching has been crap, but with strauss arriving he may feel more able to turn his arm over.

So that leaves strauss who made his debut on his home ground against a side without there quickest bowler, and he's played one test. That he'll play for england regularly I have no doubt. I expect him to be the next england captain. Is he deicated to be drinks waiter. ? Of course ask his middlesex colleagues about his dedication. First thing he's does after a long flight back in Wi is to don his whited and score 90 odd. Not many would do that.

Will he play at headingly ? only if Nas retires. Is life fair ? No !!!!!

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Glamorgan Wanderer

Trescothick, Vaughan, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe

Would the consideration be very different if Vaughan wasn't the skipper (that is to say, would he walk back into the side in those circumstances)?

As a further complication, could (in this instance Butcher) expect to walk back into the team when Nasser decides to call it a day? Or will the selection be made on who has made the most runs in the last county match prior to the selection of the test/touring party?

I'll only answer the last question as I've got to go...

...but no...most of them won't play in the "next" county match, because they'll be told not to. So yes, Butcher would walk straight back into the team...because the current next "best" is Collingwood...apparently.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

It is ever so slightly. Its a really really really tough call.

Will he play at headingly ? only if Nas retires. Is life fair ? No !!!!!

ANSWER THE QUESTION...how many should he have scored (in your mind) to retain his place?

Two centuries do it? In which case he should play, anyway.
A double century and 83?
A triple century and 83?

Come on? I'm interested.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Oliver

Well how else can you justify that sequence? It's totally illogical to me. Not only are you changing the batting position of every single batsman in the side (bad, need to keep some consistency) I don't see the reasoning behind putting Tresco at the back end of the middle order (he's always played as an opener, moving him is saying he's struggling as an opener, in my mind he's struggling with his form, in which case he will do wherever he plays) continuing with Vaughan as an opener when clearly he's been struggling to make runs in that position whilst he's been skipper (he bats best at No.3 or 4 in my mind, where its less pressurised and can play his sublime strokes off a worn ball) need I go on!

I accept Tom's entitled to his opinion, but I fail to see any logic in it.

Scott

Hmmm. See what you're saying Scott, but bear in mind that Vaughan's greatest ever Test year (2002) came when he was opening. Someone who's carted the best attack in the world for 600plus runs as an opener can't be that bad at opening! I see what you're saying about the pressures of captaincy, but if he's struggling with being captain and batting, moving him down the order won't help too much. On the other hand, I think Trescothick would be helped by being moved down the order, because his style is perhaps more suited to that - he is weak against express pace, which you are more likely to face when opening, plus his kind of aggressive batting is more suited to facing a worn ball than a new one. He is also pretty good against spin.
However, against this, Vaughan has at least batted elsewhere in the order for England and Yorkshire, whereas Tres has only ever opened, for England and Somerset (i think).

What I will say is that I don't think Tres and Vaughan should open together now if we play Strauss, because Tres and Vaughan both look to dominate the attack, whereas Strauss provides a nice contrast - he'll push the singles and accumulate the runs in a Thorpe like manner.
Also, whichever two of the three openers you pick, you get a good balance - if Tres and Strauss play, you get two lefties playing, which Australia have shown can be profitable, and upsets opening bowlers. If Vaughan plays with one of the others, you get the right-hand/left-hand mix.


PS - Butcher's got to be pretty gutted now that his place is being called into question - I've just remembered that before the match, Fletcher asked him if he'd like to open, and he replied with something precious about how he'd rather stay at three cos he's doing ever so well there! If he'd agreed to open, Collingwood would've come in instead of Strauss and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion!