Can we win with this England Squad

[DaveGillespie]

This is a very predictable squad so any chuntering about its makeup is pointless.

Flintoff (injury or no), Strauss, Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood, Cook, Read, Cook, Panesar, Mahmood, Hoggard and Jones were all virtual certainties to be included. Harmison likewise, despite his hopefully minor and all too conveniently timed injury.

Giles is a serious risk, but should we getting so wound up about a man who will now be the second spinner? Flintoff has already given his support to Panesar earlier in the summer and I can't see this changing.

Between the risk of Plunkett and Anderson, I can see why they risked Anderson as his is far more of a risk/reward proposition than Plunkett who, at this stage of his career, will yield probably only a few wickets unless some dramatic improvement occurs. I'd have gone for Tremlett as the sure thing with Anderson the gamble.

One serious surprise for me is that Foster isn't even in the "Academy" squad. A slap in the face if ever there was one.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by DaveGillespie

This is a very predictable squad

Except most folk expected an extra, proven batsman and one fewer second-rate seamer: the names were predicted but that wasn't: we'd been given reason to believe that the five bowler nonsense had been dispensed with after this summer's efforts.

Originally Posted by DaveGillespie

One serious surprise for me is that Foster isn't even in the "Academy" squad. A slap in the face if ever there was one.

Foster should have been on the main tour ahead of Jones... but I'd have been astonished if he'd been put in the Academy squad: there's just about NO chance of a third choice 'keeper playing... and Foster is beyond Academy duties - it's right to look to youth for an academy squad.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Alison

I wish I could feel as confident as you do that they are nearly all fit to go,

I am working on the assumption that the ECB (selectors) have learned the lesson at long last and have made sure players have had a long rest.

In other words I am hoping that the have been economical with the truth as to just how bad these players injuries were, I am hoping they have overplayed the injuries.

I think they may well have took heed of the fact that the key England players needed rest, and noticed the amount of rest the Ausies have had.

If I am wrong - the selectors IMO are fools.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Despite having berated Fletcher continuously over the ODI selections and strategys over the past few weeks, i reverse all this and give him credit for this tour selection.

Imo, and this is only guess work, but based on logic, it would seem to me that that actual reserves for the team are the 'academy' team, they will be playing cricket for the whole tour and will be ready to come into the side with overs/innings under their belt, whereas giles, anderson, plunkett and co will only have had a couple of goes in some warm up games but are experienced enough to pass on their knowledge in the dressing room to help out the main team. In giles' case he probably would get the nod as a second spinner if he's fit rather than taking from the academy, but i do think that if tremlett and broad are taking wickets in their regular tour games for the academy fletcher would be more likely to draft them into the side if one of our main bowlers gets injured.

Let's face it, in recent times the 12th-14th man is just the drinks carrier, we rarely swap the team, so why bother having tremlett, broad and co sat in the dressing room when they could be playing in another match and be far better prepared to come into the side at short notice?

Of course I could be completely wrong and Fletcher has taken his retarded ODI decision making into the Test arena, but given that he's been a very good Test coach for the past few years i'm more inclined to believe he has a plan, or at least optimistically hope he has

I don't think this side can win the ashes, although we have a fair chance of retaining them, but i agree with rachael that considering the nature of aussie wickets the extra batsman would probably be more useful, even if it is a negative tactic. As much as i like hoggard and acknowledge his form over the past winter, i can't help feeling he will offer nothing on this tour and if we're going in with 4 bowlers then i'd rather see a someone with real pace as that's pretty much the only thing that works on aussie wickets.

[Speedboy Salesman]

I've talked this over with a few people I know and I think the agreement that, given Vaughan and Simon Jones, this is a pretty good squad. But I do agree with some people on here that there is no way Geraint Jones should be put straight back into the First XI, just because they want the squad closed to the '05 squad. Read is much better IMO. I'm also not sure Mahmood can fill the "Simon Jones role", but overall I think it's pretty good.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

Let's face it, in recent times the 12th-14th man is just the drinks carrier, we rarely swap the team, so why bother having tremlett, broad and co sat in the dressing room when they could be playing in another match and be far better prepared to come into the side at short notice?

I'd guess that the academy squad is really only cover for the cover.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Foster should have been on the main tour ahead of Jones... but I'd have been astonished if he'd been put in the Academy squad: there's just about NO chance of a third choice 'keeper playing... and Foster is beyond Academy duties - it's right to look to youth for an academy squad.

The England management talk of the 'academy' squad being the set of next best players though.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by DaveGillespie

I'd have gone for Tremlett as the sure thing with Anderson the gamble.

I know you may not be making this point, but if we're concerned about injuries then Tremlett's fitness over a long tour may be called into question. It would be harsh and I like his bowling, but it's a small niggling question in my mind at the moment.

[Victor Frankenstein]

where does all this stuff about tremlett being injury prone come from? he's played for us all season without any major incident, he was only injured at the end of last season and recovered quickly but wasn't given another chance with england. He's only 23 and still growing so he's as liable to injure as any of the other young bowlers.

My main concern with Tremlett, from a hampshire and england point of view, is that he's still quite inconsistent. He can be devastating one day, completely unplayable, then the next day he's horrendous. I guess that's not much different to harmison and mahmood, but therefore doesn't put him in line to replace what england already has i suppose.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

He's only 23 and still growing so he's as liable to injure as any of the other young bowlers.

If you re-read, I wasn't relating his susceptibility to injury to any other player, just noting that I had a small concern about his fitness. He was being presented as a solid infallibility relative to most other bowlers in contention, and I am not so sure of that.