Pick any five from seven!!!

[high_on_linseed]

Originally Posted by Glamorgan Wanderer

Trescothick, Vaughan, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe


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.

Hallelujah! Amen to that. Totally agree with what you sayabout Butcher. And it applies to Hoggard too. Lords slope is tricky to bowl on. Whereas he knows Headingley like the back of his hand. We should see a very different Matthew Hoggard in the next game. People should just stop it right NOW. The only thing I disagree with is I would have Strauss instead of Tres. Tres has only made two really convincing innings in the last year (Oval v SA, Lords 1st innings v NZ). Strauss made two in one match. Strauss would add solidity to Vaughan's attacking enterprise. Tres adds yet more risk.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

Vaughan, Strauss, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe

but it doesnt have to be like that, it can be:

Vaughan, Strauss, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Tres...and no Ahsley if it looks like its a seamers paradise.

The exact point of the question was that it was for the Third Test not Headingley.
So they would be picking only FIVE.

[Kirsty Harris]

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

Scott - don't know if you saw the Times today, but it seems Warne shares your views on Tres and advocates dropping him for the remainder of the summer...

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

Scott - don't know if you saw the Times today, but it seems Warne shares your views on Tres and advocates dropping him for the remainder of the summer...

Great that's that problem over with.
Nasser's made it easy for us...still, should be interesting to see who the next "seventh" batsman to be picked will be.

[Statto]

Rob Key looks like coming back to england contention, or wait for pieterson.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

Scott - don't know if you saw the Times today, but it seems Warne shares your views on Tres and advocates dropping him for the remainder of the summer...

Kirsty

I actually saw it on Sky News strangely enough.

It's nice to know that a Cricketer of Warne's obvious ability and experience shares my views on Trescothick, even though people on this board have told me in no uncertain manner that my argument was a 'weak' one and that I should stop expressing it for that reason.

Warne's view also tallys with mine to the extent he should go back to Somerset and 're-learn' his game as he's been 'found-out' in International Cricket - which is exactly what I've been saying.

At the end of the day though it is only Warne's view, as it is mine, there's nothing to say its the right one.

Scott

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I actually saw it on Sky News strangely enough.

There's nothing strange about seeing a report from The Times on Sky News (or vice versa). Here's a small sporting bet, on which the odds would probably be so short as to be worthless:

Times headline tomorrow:

"Nasser Hussain joins Sky TV cricket team".

They may mention his retirement from his former job, but I wouldn't rely on it, and the print certainly won't be as big.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

There's nothing strange about seeing a report from The Times on Sky News (or vice versa). Here's a small sporting bet, on which the odds would probably be so short as to be worthless:

Times headline tomorrow:

"Nasser Hussain joins Sky TV cricket team".

They may mention his retirement from his former job, but I wouldn't rely on it, and the print certainly won't be as big.

READY FOR A NEW TEST - NASSERFormer England skipper Nasser Hussain told Charles Colvile exactly why he chose to join the Sky Sports cricket team after announcing his retirement from cricket.

[Occasional Fan]

Has anyone actually heard him say all this? It reads like a pre-prepared press release.

[Tom Partis]

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

Hi Scott

my logic for having Vaughan Strauss Butcher Thorpe and Trescothick as my top 5 is as follows:

I'm a big fan of having a left hand/right hand combination at the top - when strauss and hussain batted together on day 5 they looked solid, and the Kiwis didn't look like getting them out at all. Of course, you could stick Trescothick with Vaughan as usual and have Strauss serve his apprenticeship at 5, but there are several reasons why i would not do this. 1: Strauss played well enough at Lords to deserve to play in his familiar position. 2: When England played Key, who is naturally an opener, he was at no.5, and i believe this contributed to him not fulfilling his potential and taking his chance. perhaps if he had batted alongside Vaughan or Trescothick at the beginning of the innings, he would have made a better fist of it. 3: Trescothick looks uncomfortable against fast bowling and could do with some time away from the pressure of opening in order to regain form - apart from a good innings in the final match of a dead rubber in the Windies and his 80 odd against NZ, he has not done much to suggest that his form is significantly better than it was for the majority of the Windies tour.

I would have him at 5 because i believe that Thorpe always should have batted at 4. I think that he is england's classiest batsman and playing him at 5 leaves him rather exposed to the tail.

Obviously, Hussain is out of the frame now, so at least my selection looks to be right, even if the batting order isn't what some think it should be. but anyway, those are my reasons for my picking and organising of those 5 batsmen.