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

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

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."

Fletcher famously wanted Hoggard dropped (forever) after the Sri Lanka series of 2003/04. He's always been obsessed with the speed gun and wanted to start the subsequent WI series with Harmison, Jones, Anderson and Flintoff. The guy was wrong (and stuck in a rut) then, and remains so.

To his credit, Vaughan demanded Hoggard back then, and I don't think it's a co-incidence that Sidebottom becoming England's premier bowler has co-incided with Vaughan's return and Fletcher's departure (following the less than encouraging season or two of obsession with Harmy (even when off form), with Flintoff (even when not fit/in form), with Mahmood (who was useless even when in form) and the rest.

Had a less narrow minded coach been in charge in the Fletcher years, Sidebottom might well have accumulated more caps than Hoggard by now (and Anderson might well have got his act together with season after season for Lancashire).

My line up of choice remains Sidebottom, Hoggard, Flintoff and Panesar, with Broad being encouraged as first choice replacement for any of the trio of seamers and perhaps Swann as the replacement frontline spinner.

Re: Rashid - he's far, FAR more accomplished with the bat than Flintoff was at the same age (and just averaged 55.33 on the Lions tour: more than any of the specialists, including Carberry and Joyce)... and he offers the perfect "something different" to be a 5th bowler / 2nd (contrasting) spinner (having just taken 7 wickets at 24.57 in the Lions tour compared with Panesar's 10 at 23.20). Rashid has also demonstrated great character and temperament to date.... and he should already be penned in (albeit provisionally) as the second spinner for next winter (India: 3 Tests; WI: 4 Tests).

ps. If he is having a good summer I'd not rule out Rashid for a debut in the 4th Test of the England v South Africa series (at the Kennington Oval, Thu 7 - Mon 11 Aug: a track where, in August, seamer's almost invariably struggle and the option of wrist spin never hurts).

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

The England batting line up is not World class anymore,

Exactly, although they may all average over 40 that doesn't mean much as nowadays with the standard of pitches, opposition etc. an average of at least 45 has become the "new 40".

Originally Posted by Rachael

Had a less narrow minded coach been in charge in the Fletcher years, Sidebottom might well have accumulated more caps than Hoggard by now (and Anderson might well have got his act together with season after season for Lancashire).

Why the constant digs at Fletcher? His record was second to none and we had our most successful spell with him in charge. Had we had a different coach and played the typical English attack full of trundlers we would have achieved exactly what we did in the late 80's and early 90's - **** all!

All we have done under Moores is struggle to beat 2 third rate teams, not much of an achievement.

As for Rashid, leg spin is a difficult art to master and he needs to learn his craft. At the moment his bowling isn't simply good enough. If he is to play as part of a 4 man attack his bowling has to be better the Panesars and it isnt. If he is to play as part of a 5 man attack them Monty has to go (that wont happen if he's bowling well) and Rashids bowling has to be at least as good as Giles' was and I'm still not sure it is yet. We have to remember that of last season Rashid wasnt even the best leggie at his county .

I'm not sure i would want to play Rashid and Monty together. Although they are different types of spinners they both spin the ball the same way...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Exactly, although they may all average over 40 that doesn't mean much as nowadays with the standard of pitches, opposition etc. an average of at least 45 has become the "new 40"

The problem with Rachael's argument p_c, is that she assumes England have a top class batting side, and that Hoggard - Sidebottom with Rashid/Panesar and Flintoff are capable of bowling top sides out. With respect to Rachael medium pacers don't win matches - and with Flintoff the olny fast bowler the attack is tame.
So we end up with the worst of both Worlds, an ordinary bating attack - and a bowler short.

The top order do average over 40, but have achieved very little since winning the Ashes in 2005.

To play 4 bowlers and indeed 3 as Rachael has hinted at, then you need World Class opener and a solid number 3 - a position England have found hard to fill for decades.

So with a ordinary batting attack at best, it makes sence to play the extra bowler to try and win games.

Flintoff
Harmison (in England).If not Anderson.
Broad/Plunkett.
Sidebottom/Hoggard.
Panesar.
Is as good as it gets. Plunkett would make a refreshing change.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. If he is having a good summer I'd not rule out Rashid for a debut in the 4th Test of the England v South Africa series (at the Kennington Oval, Thu 7 - Mon 11 Aug: a track where, in August, seamer's almost invariably struggle and the option of wrist spin never hurts).

And what Rachael if the score was 1-1, would you still gamble on Rashid?, with bat or ball?.

And who would you leave out to accomodate him, Flintoff or Sidebottom?, surely no coach would be so foolish as to play two spinners in such a situation, with one very much unproven.

The truth is England have taken some beatings since they beat India in 2006, we don't know how good Sidebottom or Broad is until they have played a top side - with respect to New Zealand, their team was depleted for one reason or another.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

... we don't know how good Sidebottom or Broad is until they have played a top side - with respect to New Zealand, their team was depleted for one reason or another.

Thats true Ern, as i said earlier we have only just managed to beat a third rate WI and NZ team. The real test will come against the SA side touring this summer. Then we will find out how good some of our players are.

Rachael will get her wish of an attack of Sidebottom, Hoggard, Broad and Panesar this summer but I'd wager not for more than 1 match

[darksideofthemoon]

Originally Posted by Rachael

My line up of choice remains Sidebottom, Hoggard, Flintoff and Panesar, with Broad being encouraged as first choice replacement for any of the trio of seamers and perhaps Swann as the replacement frontline spinner.

Broad brings something different to the side. At 6'6 and growing the opposition find it difficult with the bounce he gets. He also can bat. If it was a choice between Broad and Hoggard it would have to be Broad. Both Sidebottom and Broad play in the ODIs and 20/20s as well.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

If it was a choice between Broad and Hoggard it would have to be Broad. Both Sidebottom and Broad play in the ODIs and 20/20s as well.

On the form of the NZ tour then yes... but Hoggard in form is now the finished article in a way that Broad is not: he's an excellent new ball bowler who can make every delivery count, his mastery of swing (at least in one direction) is now exemplary, his cutters are in a different class to most in Test cricket and he can shoulder a huge workload.

I've no problem with Broad as an alternative to Hoggard, to Sidebottom or to Flintoff, as I agree about the bounce he can get... but what I cannot see ANY case for is playing all four: none should need protecting... and Panesar's more than capable of holding his own... so why bother?

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Flintoff
Harmison (in England).If not Anderson.
Broad/Plunkett.
Sidebottom/Hoggard.
Panesar.
Is as good as it gets. Plunkett would make a refreshing change.

I can't really understand why you'd leave out one of Sidebottom or Hoggard to play Anderson. I know you've said that they're similar bowlers, but even if this is so, isn't it better to play two similar, but thus far, reliable bowlers, instead of one of them and the extremely unreliable Anderson, just because he's different?

The truth is England have taken some beatings since they beat India in 2006, we don't know how good Sidebottom or Broad is until they have played a top side - with respect to New Zealand, their team was depleted for one reason or another.

What you say is true. But you can only judge a player's form based on the matches he's played, so even though South Africa's a tougher proposition than New Zealand, you should still pick that side based upon recent form- and both Sidebottom and Broad's recent form is a lot better than Anderson's.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I've no problem with Broad as an alternative to Hoggard, to Sidebottom or to Flintoff, as I agree about the bounce he can get... but what I cannot see ANY case for is playing all four: none should need protecting... and Panesar's more than capable of holding his own... so why bother?

And why should the batsmen need protection by having a specialist at 6? England's top 5 at the moment very likely consists of the five best batsmen in the country, so really the odds of the no. 6 doing something that Vaughan, Cook, Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood can't is minimal. It looks to me very much like Ambrose is more than capable of holding down the fort in that position, and just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would select a less reliable batsman just because he's a "specialist" as New Zealand have done all these years with Sinclair.

As I said before, the only other alternative I'd entertain is to move Collingwood down to 6 and have him take up a bigger share of the bowling. All the top-order runs in the world won't make any difference if you don't have the attack to take 20 wickets, and playing 5 bowlers (4 plus an allrounder) gives you the best chance of doing that.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

And why should the batsmen need protection by having a specialist at 6? England's top 5 at the moment very likely consists of the five best batsmen in the country, so really the odds of the no. 6 doing something that Vaughan, Cook, Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood can't is minimal.

The 'odds' on contributions are essential in balancing a side... but in terms of 'odds', adding a batsman to a strong top 5 is HUGELY more significant that adding a bowler to a strong 4 man attack.

First take the batting:

1. Even top Test batsman can be expected to fail pretty much completely in at least 1 innings in 3, and to make only modest contributions in another 1 in 3 of their innings. If you are luck the batsman will pass 50 in 3 innings out of 10 (even Atherton, Thorpe, Tresco, Pietersen and so on have managed 50 in about 30% of their innings).

2. Statistically, with just 5 specialist bats... that means you should consider "par" to be precisely 3 significant top 5 contributions split between two innings of a match against a "typical" opponent... and bear in mind that you'd expect weaker performances against better sides because those odds are skewed by easy runs against lesser test nations.

3. The more genuine top order bats you play, the better your odds: a number 6 of Laxman's quality and a number 7 of Gilchrist's quality would increase "par" for significant contributions from 3 to 5.4... which is hugely improving a side's odds of top order 50+ scores!

Now take the bowling.

1. If you have a trio of bowlers like Sidebottom, Flintoff and Panesar, backed up by any competent 4th bowler (say Broad), then you can get through a 90 over day with ease: the workload is no big deal.

2. If you add a 5th bowler you cannot suddenly go from bowling 90 overs a day to bowling 110-120 a day: the additional bowler cannot contribute except at the expense of one of the first four.

3. Assuming your first four bowlers were selected as your best bowlers... the odds on a more major impact from the 5th would by and large be lower than with the first four, and only the flexibility offered to the captain (and any contrast in styles) will compensate for bowler what is ultimately a lesser player.

The way the odds stack up is fundamentally different: you can stack the batting right down to XI with players who can bat (as the NZ side has sometimes managed) and each can get a chance to contribute, and the odds of batting the opposition out of the game increase hugely... but if you play XI bowlers... you don't really gain a lot!

[Aurelius]

That's some pretty impressive statistical analysis- but I have some of my own. Simply taking the average wickets per match for Hoggard, Sidebottom, Flintoff and Panesar, you get 3.7, 4.1, 2.9 and 3.5 wickets per match respectively. This equals up to 14.1 wickets per match, which means that the bowling attack would absolutely have to bowl out of their skins to take the 20 wickets required to win the match! Having another bowler- say Harmison at 3.7, takes the sum WPM to 17.8, which takes an awful ot of pressure off the bowlers.

Originally Posted by Rachael

1. If you have a trio of bowlers like Sidebottom, Flintoff and Panesar, backed up by any competent 4th bowler (say Broad), then you can get through a 90 over day with ease: the workload is no big deal.

No, the workload is no big deal. And if all the bowlers were on top of their form throughout their spells, than there'd be no need for a fifth bowler. But you can't guarantee that, nor can you guarantee that there won't be any injuries- in either event, you'd go from four bowlers to three, and that isn't enough to bowl the 90 overs, let alone take 20 wickets.

2. If you add a 5th bowler you cannot suddenly go from bowling 90 overs a day to bowling 110-120 a day: the additional bowler cannot contribute except at the expense of one of the first four.

No, but this relates back to point one- one of the main bowlers might need replacing. Look at the recent Australia/India series- Hogg bowled without much success, and as a result he was replaced by Symonds in several of his spells, and Symonds was the one who tasted success.

3. Assuming your first four bowlers were selected as your best bowlers... the odds on a more major impact from the 5th would by and large be lower than with the first four, and only the flexibility offered to the captain (and any contrast in styles) will compensate for bowler what is ultimately a lesser player.

The fifth bowler needn't make a "significant" contribution in terms of sheer weight of wickets. Look at Kallis, probably the best fifth bowler in the world today- very few 4-or-5 wicket hauls, but he makes some sort of contribution every time he bowls, even if it's only one or two wickets. Even one wicket may change the course of a match.

P.S. I'm aware of the limitations of my statistical analysis- but wickets per match takes into account bad games as well as good ones, so I think it's a pretty good measure of a bowler's consistency.