Flintoff returns for Lanashire against Surrey:16-19 April.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Hoggard and Sidebottom would be good for at least 50 overs a day between them (3-4 spells each, starting with 8-9 overs with the new ball), Flintoff would add 20+ (a 7 over spell per session) and Panesar would be given anywhere between 20 (day one) and 40 (day 5).

On typical form (when fit), no sane captain would bother with any major contribution from Anderson / Mahmood: the other bowlers would all offer more with the ball, and none would be overly concerned with the workload.

That's true. Hoggard and Sidebottom, and Flintoff and Panesar are all perfectly capable of handling the workload, but where a fifth bowler comes in useful is when one of the other bowlers isn't on top form. In New Zealand, bowlers at various times- Broad and Anderson, Panesar and Harmison, even Hoggard- delivered bad spells. Having someone like Collingwood or Broad (both of whom I think are more useful than Anderson or Mahmood) provides a safety net for when one of the other bowlers puts in a bad spell- plus it gives the bowlers a better chance of taking 20 wickets.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

England need a fifth bowler.

I fully agree! To win England need to take 20 wickets and a 5 man attack gives you the best chance at variation. Englands batting has never been great but the ability to bowl sides out relatively cheaply more than compensates for this.

We were successful in 2003-2005 because of our ability to bowl all sides out regularly. Since Moores took charge we have only beaten 2 sides both of them at the bottom end of the test ladder. The big test will comes in the summer against SA. If we play 4 bowlers we will struggle!

Originally Posted by Rachael

You want your best bowlers in the attack as much as possible. Look back the 2005 Ashes, when England DID have a 5 man attack.... and look at the overs bowled by Simon Jones and Andrew Flintoff: no one was in a hurry to take the ball off them to share it around.

I'm not sure what you mean there in 2005 these were the overs bowled:

Jones               4  102    
Flintoff            5  194     
Hoggard             5  122.1   
Harmison            5  161.1   
Giles               5  160     

If Jones had played the 5th match the overs would have been fairly well shared out apart form Hoggards contribution.

Originally Posted by Rachael

... I'm all in favour of getting Rashid involved in some way, shape or form, ...

Why the clamour for Rashid, his bowling is no where near to being test standard, if he was picked he simply wouldnt be bowled

[Rachael]

Courtney Walsh bowled more than 30 1st innings overs on more than 30 occasions... and averaged 20.7 overs an innings over his career. Ambrose bowled 30 1st innings overs on almost 30 occasions... and averaged 20.6 overs an innings over his career. McGrath averaged 20+ overs per innings over his career. Gus Fraser averaged nearer 23 overs per innings over his career, including 52.3 overs in a single innings on one occasion!

That's proper Test bowling, not a micky-mouse, hide-behind your team-mates workload of 120 overs at 12 per innings over a full 5 Test series.

In the first Aussie innings at Adelaide in 2006/07, Hoggard bowled 42 overs. He's bowled 60 overs in a single match before now, and has quite commonly bowled 40 in a match. Since the 2005 Ashes he's typically bowled 22 overs in the 1st innings alone (and 37 in the match)... and in a quarter of the matches he's bowled more than 30 overs in the 1st innings alone (and over 40in the match).

Flintoff bowled nearly 200 overs in that series. Properly utilised, Hoggard and Sidebottom should now EACH be expected to bowl in the region of 200 overs in a 5 Test series. Panesar should be bowling closer to 250 overs: still nothing compared with the 440 that Warne bowled in a 6 match Ashes series in 1993/4, but comparable to Warne's workload in 2005 and 2006/7.

A side should be more than capable of managing with two seamers and a spinner (as Australia was with McGrath, Gillespie and Warne). The "wildcard" should be the FOURTH bowler (as Lee was when bowling with the abovementioned trio), not the FIFTH bowler (where he's got to deprive better bowlers of overs in order to contribute).

The only exception I'd make is for a second spinner: slow bowlers in tandem is the pinnacle of the game.... and for THAT I'd occasionally stretch to a 5 man attack - though I'd expect 1 of the 5 to be a batsman who bowls (like Hooper or Collingwood).

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The only exception I'd make is for a second spinner: slow bowlers in tandem is the pinnacle of the game.... and for THAT I'd occasionally stretch to a 5 man attack - though I'd expect 1 of the 5 to be a batsman who bowls (like Hooper or Collingwood).

Rachael - if you are going to count Collingwood as a bowler, then England have a 5 bowler attack at the moment.

But we all know Collingwood is NOT a bowler, he is a batsman who can bowl little better than Bell, Trescothick, Pietersen, Boycott, Gooch and other part timers.

Also pie_chucker is on the money!

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Why the clamour for Rashid, his bowling is no where near to being test standard, if he was picked he simply wouldnt be bowled

I would like than answer also, what do any of us know about Rashid?, why would England need him when they have Panesar?.
Also just because there is a clamour for a player means nothing at all - remember the clamour for years for one G Hick?, why will Rashid be any different?.

Also Rachael pie_chucker is right on his other point, England need a five man bowling attack if they are going to win anything, scratching about with Sidebottom and Hoggard + Broad/Anderson and Panesar will just make the England attack ordinary at best.

Originally Posted by Rachael

A side should be more than capable of managing with two seamers and a spinner (as Australia was with McGrath, Gillespie and Warne).

LOL I can see your trio.

Hoggard.
Sidebottom.
Rashid.

Well we can all draw our own conclusions as to how England would fair with that attack (or any other trio only) for that matter.

[Ernest]

On the topic of the thread this match with Surrey on a good batting trck told us very little, except that Flintoff did manage to come through his overs uninjured and with just respectable stats.

Originally Posted by Cricinfo

Andrew Flintoff was content with his return to first-class cricket but insisted that his fragile left ankle will require constant supervision for the rest of his career.
Flintoff's ankle was operated on over the winter and he made his comeback for Lancashire in their drawn match against Surrey at The Oval over the past four days. He only made 23 with the bat but returned the encouraging figures of 1 for 72 from 28 steady overs in Surrey's mammoth 537 for 5 declared.
"From a fitness point of view I thought I kept my pace up all the way through my spells, maybe there is a little bit more in there but not a great deal," Flintoff said at The Oval, when the fourth and final day was washed out. "It was quite a placid pitch and it was about focusing on getting it in the right areas given the players they've got in their team.

LINK: Cricinfo - Flintoff content with comeback

[darksideofthemoon]

Fletcher's view in The Sunday Telegraph today

At least Fletcher believes Flintoff, 30, could again be a force for England, but his assessment of Harmison and Hoggard indicates he believes their international careers may be over. Harmison, 29, took 185 wickets during Fletcher's tenure but when asked about his recent tour of New Zealand, Fletcher said: "It's typical Harmy, I'm afraid. We've seen it over and over again. He could and should be the No 1 bowler in the world but he can't seem to be able to put it all together."

Of Hoggard, 31, Fletcher said he was not surprised when he was dropped after the first Test in Hamilton. "He always struggled when he was the main strike bowler. His speed has been dropping for a while. I heard someone say he'd lost his nip but I thought it had gone a while ago."

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Rachael - if you are going to count Collingwood as a bowler, then England have a 5 bowler attack at the moment.

But we all know Collingwood is NOT a bowler, he is a batsman who can bowl little better than Bell, Trescothick, Pietersen, Boycott, Gooch and other part timers.

Collingwood is not a bowler- but he is underbowled. In the recent series against New Zealand, he took 5 wickets at 25 from 3 matches- basically the sort of job he should have been doing ever since his Test debut. I don't know how good Bell, Trescothic, Gooch et al were as medium-pacers, but Collingwood IMO is certainly better than part-time material.

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

Fletcher's view in The Sunday Telegraph today

Of Hoggard, 31, Fletcher said he was not surprised when he was dropped after the first Test in Hamilton. "He always struggled when he was the main strike bowler. His speed has been dropping for a while. I heard someone say he'd lost his nip but I thought it had gone a while ago."

I don't think Hoggard's finished. 31 is still young for a bowler, and he can still do the same sort of job that Vaas does now for Sri Lanka. If he has enough overs under his belt then I'm sure he can still be very effective.

Basically I think there are two combinations England can field-

1. Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Strauss (A.N. Other), Pietersen, Collingwood, Ambrose, Broad (A.N. Other), Sidebottom, Hoggard, Panesar,

or

2. Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff/Ambrose, Ambrose/Flintoff, Broad (A.N. Other), Sidebottom, Hogggard, Panesar.

But if they're going to play combination 2, Flintoff has to be match-fit; if they play combination 1, Collingwood has to take up a bigger share of the bowling.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

At least Fletcher believes Flintoff, 30, could again be a force for England

So do I, but the point I was making to FF, was that he can't keep missing series at 30 - or time just won't be on his side.

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Collingwood is not a bowler- but he is underbowled. In the recent series against New Zealand, he took 5 wickets at 25 from 3 matches- basically the sort of job he should have been doing ever since his Test debut. I don't know how good Bell, Trescothic, Gooch et al were as medium-pacers, but Collingwood IMO is certainly better than part-time material.

True but - 5 wickets in 3 matches against a weakened New Zealand hardly makes his a bowler IMO. not that long ago he was being hyped as a bowler because he recoreded some deliveries in the mid eighties, but crucial here is that since then - he has back peddled.
All the above bowlers I mentioned never really got carted, Gooch could swing the ball - as could Barry Wood some years agao, and they were not bowlers.

Originally Posted by Aurelius

I don't think Hoggard's finished. 31 is still young for a bowler, and he can still do the same sort of job that Vaas does now for Sri Lanka. If he has enough overs under his belt then I'm sure he can still be very effective.

I am sure he will figure again for England, but true to say he has no "nip" at all these days, and he needs to bowl well all of the time on wickets that will assist him to be the force he once was.

Originally Posted by Aurelius

think if you were going to try a player like Rashid at 6 the upcoming series against New Zealand would be as good a time as any but i can't see him being chosen yet.We are far more likely to throw Flintoff back in and when he breaks down for the winter then Rashid will get picked.]But if they're going to play combination 2, Flintoff has to be match-fit; if they play combination 1, Collingwood has to take up a bigger share of the bowling.{2. Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff/Ambrose, Ambrose/Flintoff, Broad (A.N. Other), Sidebottom, Hogggard, Panesar.]

With option 2 I agree that Flintoff would have to be fit, but as with option 1 it does not mean Collingwood should IMO bowl more overs - England should stengthen the batting, by making sure the top 6 are the nest available for England.
England have players with very iffy form, and I am sure the time has come to play key (or the best from the counties) - and bolster the England batting that way - rather than rely on a long tail which IMO never works.

With Fintoff/Ambrose

Originally Posted by greg

I think if you were going to try a player like Rashid at 6 the upcoming series against New Zealand would be as good a time as any but i can't see him being chosen yet.We are far more likely to throw Flintoff back in and when he breaks down for the winter then Rashid will get picked.

I could agree with the timing of his inclusion greg, but what when England move on to better oppostition?.
And like I say greg, Rashid would never be a replacement for Flintoff, you are reading to much Rachael - they are to different bowlers - his time will come when Panesar's form dips. or special conditions allow for two spin bowlers (spinning the ball the same way).

With respect to New Zealand they are an entertaining side, but really they are a weak depleted side, who's best has yet to come at Test level.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Ernest

True but - 5 wickets in 3 matches against a weakened New Zealand hardly makes his a bowler IMO.

Maybe not, but he could become a batting all-rounder- someone in the Steve Waugh-type mould who can bowl maybe 10 or 15 overs in an innings, and make the breakthrough.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Maybe not, but he could become a batting all-rounder- someone in the Steve Waugh-type mould who can bowl maybe 10 or 15 overs in an innings, and make the breakthrough.

That's what players like Barry Wood did in the old days - they really were all bowled as partnersip breakers.

A batting all rounder I am not sure?, he does not repeat his New Zealand form all the time.

My opinion of Collingwood is - he is a reliable and gritty top England batsman at the moment, and I prefare he goes down that road without the pressure of to much bowling.

Radio and TV commentators clamoured for Vaughan to bowl himself. but than really never worked out like Atherton (leggie) before him.
I agree there will be time when Collinwood could well be needed, but Englands main problem before 2009 is getting reliable front line batters againt the best opposition, plus making decission on Hoggard and Flintoff.
The England batting line up is not World class anymore, if they can repair that then the bowlers have more options, and it makes it easier to choose the number six spot - and also the bowling.