Thanks Nasser - Now let's move on

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Originally Posted by Goatman

It is not a simple case of picking the players with the highest/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. There's more to selection than averages, and there's much more to it than form! IF Strauss cannot be dropped, then the discussion of who IS dropped 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.

Are we really back to square one?
Who's going to play sheet anchor now?
Should Vaughan return to the style in which he played before the last Ashes tour?
Or will we be happy with Strauss fulfilling that role?

[Mike_Hock]

Well Nasser will be missed but I believe its the right decission.



Vaughan should drop down to 4 and leave Strauss and Trescothick opening as I think 4 is a good spot for Vaughan.

Collingwood has to play as he is the only other batsman with a cc. Perhaps now he will get a decent run and we can see if he is any cop. He will deffo add something in the field and he can turn his arm over for a couple of overs also.

[Rich Greenfield]

Vaughan should open, his average down the order is no where near as good opening

[R W S]

It's time to change the strategy. The sheet anchour role was needed to right a sinking ship. We're further on along now and we should retire this position along with Nasser. We must use this period of change to implent a more attacking posture.

Now that's a legacy.

http://cache.gettyimages.com/thumb/1...=editorial&t=1

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by R W S

It's time to change the stratedgy. The sheet anchour role was needed to right a sinking ship. We're further on along now and we should retire this position along with Nasser. We must use this period of change to implent a more attacking posture.

That's foolish gung-ho talk.

There is always a place for ONE sheet-anchor.

It was the West Indians lack of an effective one in the Caribbean that gave us that easy 3 - 0 victory.
Hitting our way out of trouble has never been our forte, partially because it is hard to do on seaming (and swinging) tracks.
Other Test nations have done it to us regularly in the recent past because our attack has been so ordinary.
Maybe we could do it against New Zealand, shorn of Bond...but it might not be so clever against an improved West Indian outfit...and it would certainly be fool-hardy against the South Africans.

[Rachael]

Ideally, every member of the side (at least in the top / middle order) would be capable of digging in when the going got tough.. and then capitalising somewhat when the game was there for the taking.

It goes without saying that in practive, most Test class players are far, far stronger in one than the other.. leaving one with the problem that from the top 6-7 one wants at least 4-5 guys who can dig in.. and ideally 2-3 who can open up a little and swing a game that would otherwise be in the balance.

Butcher and Thorpe strike me as the clear-cut class acts in the current top order, capable of playing each ball on its merits and just taking what comes.. or of leaving bowlers in despair as they find gaps no matter what is sent their way. Vaughan perhaps has what it takes... but needs to sort out when is, and when is not, the time to try and accelerate the run rate.

To my mind, those three give us more than enough on the aggressive front.. but we've also got Tresco.. who always looks stronger when he looks to dominate.. and Freddie.. who's yet to show he can do anything else.. and now Jones.. who looks like another from the same mould.

Thankfully, Strauss and Collingwood both look more circumspect.. but with Pietersen poised as another naturally aggressive batsman we're stuck, as we always seem to be, needing to bat down to 8 in order to compensate for lack of "grittyness" in the top order.

Strauss, <Richarson Clone>, Butcher, Vaughan, Thorpe, Pietersen strikes me as a top 6 that's strong on strokeplay and weak on grit.. but with no obvious Richardson clone in the offing.. and pressure to accomodate Freddie at 6... I think we are going to be living with a grittiness deficit for some time.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ideally, every member of the side (at least in the top / middle order) would be capable of digging in when the going got tough.. and then capitalising somewhat when the game was there for the taking.

It goes without saying that...etc.,

Strauss, <Richarson Clone>, Butcher, Vaughan, Thorpe, Pietersen strikes me as a top 6 that's strong on strokeplay and weak on grit.. but with no obvious Richardson clone in the offing.. and pressure to accomodate Freddie at 6... I think we are going to be living with a grittiness deficit for some time.

Hmmm. I offered a theory on another thread, that when the attack is strong, the pressure falls off the shoulder of the batsmen. I think our true gritless batsmen will begin to develop larger averages over the next few years...assuming our new found "strong" attack continues to do the business.

Interesting that a criticism of those that went to the Caribbean was that they'd never bowl out the West Indians twice.
Wrong...!

I do think Strauss is what we're looking for at the top of the order...I've not been convinced for a long time by Trescothick and Vaughan's bid to copy Slater and Elliott, or Hayden and Langer, or Haynes and Greenidge or Greenidge and Fredericks.

I think a return to the Gooch/Boycott type axis, or Marsh/Taylor is a much better idea.

I still think Trescothick can be that man...
I don't have your belief in Butcher's ability...he can prove me as wrong as I hope Flintoff proves you.
And I agree that Vaughan should drop to four. And stop carving the bloody ball around like a lunatic.
You got away with it in Australia, and it's not working now.

[R W S]

The bullying reputation Australia have successfully cultivated represents a significant advantage. We must show our opponents we will relentlessly bring the fight to them. An agressive style of play is the way to go if we want to be No.1 rather than accept a typically English No.2.

Similar tactics are now employed in Snooker to great effect. More Ronnie O'Sulivan and less Steve Davis.

Originally Posted by Oliver

That's foolish gung-ho talk.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

To my mind, those three give us more than enough on the aggressive front.. and Freddie.. who's yet to show he can do anything else...

After Lara's 400 did you fall asleep and miss Flintoff's hundred off 224 balls over 327 minuites at St John's. This is the second time today you have claimed this about Flintoff, and frankly it's not true!!

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by R W S

The bullying reputation Australia have successfully cultivated represents a significant advantage. We must show our opponents we will relentlessly bring the fight to them. An agressive style of play is the way to go if we want to be No.1 rather than accept a typically English No.2.

With a top class attack, it is still possible to dominate another side (even the "best") playing sensible cricket.
I don't think that the agressive style, that the tabloid (quick fix) readers (and therefore not true cricket fans) wish to see, is sensible in this country. More often than not, the ball swings outrageously in England. If a bowler knows how to use the conditions then aggressive batting won't score many runs unless the batsmen is unreasonably fortunate.

Fine in Australia, but not here.

You want to develop a side that plays a different style away from home, than it does at home...I think we tried that during the Ashes and it didn't work. Granted we were unlucky with our bowlers, but I'd much rather see our batsmen grinding down the opposition attack and drawing out the match till after tea on the fifth day.