England have a dilemma or two, or even three.

[Scott-Wozniak]

In reply to Greg post #26

Stats show what they show, unless you're particularly skilled at manipulating them. The stats for Mahmood and Anderson simply show that their performances for England so far are virtually identical, which strongly suggests that one is no better than the other based on those stats alone. I did mention in my original post that the sample size is simply too small to be able to ascertain any more from those statistics and even then, they may not necessairly be a particularly good guide to any likely future performance from either of them.

How often have we seen Mahmood bowl rubbish outside off stump? How often have we seen Anderson do the same thing or fire it down legside? In terms of consistency, they're both as bad as each other and in terms of a value judgement I don't think deciding which of them is the least consistent is a particularly good measurement of which of them should be selected.

Cricket players get selected on what they can potentially do well, not what they do badly. You don't select a batsman on how likely it is he'll get out for duck, you select him on how many runs he's likely to contribute to the team in an optimal performance. The same applies to bowlers, you don't select a bowler on how many times he'll bowl down legside, but how many wickets he's likely to take and how well his bowling will fit in with the other bowlers around him and how that variety of attack suits the prevailing conditions of the pitch.

Anderson is too similar to Hoggard in my opinion to add any variety to an attack where England need variety with the loss of Simon Jones, and that means Mahmood who in my opinion if he bowls well, will be more effective than Anderson.

[flanflinger]

Except at Sydney...

We have to play two spinners there, in 1998 we took just one spinner, http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1...06JAN1999.html

in the 1st Innings Ramps ended up bowling 15 overs due to the inbalance!!

Such destroyed them in the second innings and MacGill tore us apart in ours.. I agree that 4 pacmen is generally our strength, but you have to consider them conditions as well, and place like Sydney you need a minimum of two spinners in a five man attack!!

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I really do take your point FF - but Panesar has played hardly any matches, and Giles form is really a big gamble, I think England should stick with their strengths - which is pace, i don't think playing 2 spinners has come of for England sinse Embury and Edmunds.

You mean apart form the one important game they won in India where Udal and Panesar bowled in tandem? And interestingly enough, it wasn't Panesar who took all the wickers in that game.

Not only do I disagree that Englands current bowling strength is in pace, it was, but perhaps not now, but I also disagree that England will not play 2 spinners. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that playing 2 spinners may well be their best chance of getting something out of a series where if things don't go according to plan, they could end up getting the biggest beating they've taken in a Test series in the last 10 years.

Englands bowling attack is not as strong now as it was in last years Ashes, regardless of whether Panesar plays or not. Harmison? Flip a coin as to which Harmison shows up, Flintoff? Hasn't bowled in 6 months and could easily break down if he bowls himself too much, Hoggard? Probably the most consistent of Englands current bowlers and even he hasn't been bowling that well recently and Mahmood, well we've talked about him already. Panesar? Probably the only strengthening of our bowling resources from last time and even then, it comes at an expense of weakening the batting and is under threat of Giles taking his place.

The biggest problem England have at the moment is balancing out their side in terms of bowling strength and batting strength to combat the formidable batting lineup Australia possess. The problem is an obvious one and revolves around Panesar and Read. If they strengthen their bowling by playing 5 bowlers, it weakens the batting, if the strengthen their batting by either only playing 4 bowlers or Giles, it weakens the bowling.

It's for this reason that playing the two spinners in tandem - Panesar and Giles, provides whats probably the best balance of all the options, you strengthen the bowling with Panesar and strengthen the batting with Giles, but that still leaves a batting weakness in Read, which they may choose to get around by falling back to Jones.

I strongly suspect that Giles and Mahmood will interchange that No8 batting position, Giles will play in the games alongside Panesar where the pitch favours spin, and Mahmood will play in games alongside Panesar where the pitch favours pace.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

You mean apart form the one important game they won in India where Udal and Panesar bowled in tandem?

Yes well India produce better tracks for spinners than Australia do, there is less pace in the pitch than the spinning tracks in Australia, so they IMO got away with that combination.

Originally Posted by Scott-Woxniak

ck is not as strong now as it was in last years Ashes, regardless of whether Panesar plays or not. Harmison? Flip a coin as to which Harmison shows up, Flintoff? Hasn't bowled in 6 months and could easily .

I agree Englands attack is not as goos as in 2005, but then again Australia have not got that great an attack - bar Warne and Lee, and Giles is as rusty as Flintoff, so no difference there, also I think England may have overstated Flintoff's injury, in effect giving him a rest.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

at Giles and Mahmood will interchange that No8 batting position, Giles will play in the games alongside Panesar where the pitch favours spin, and Mahmood will play in games alongside Panesar where the pitch favours pace.

I believe this may happen - but I hope not, appart from the odd exceptions, England have not had two players good enough to bowl in tandem for years.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

but that still leaves a batting weakness in Read, which they may choose to get around by falling back to Jones.

Who was dropped for not scoring any runs and hasn't done anything since to prove that he's likely to score any in Oz either. (Even you, Scott, I'm sure would agree that were Read to be dropped it would be extremely harsh.)

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

It's for this reason that playing the two spinners in tandem - Panesar and Giles, provides whats probably the best balance of all the options, you strengthen the bowling with Panesar and strengthen the batting with Giles, but that still leaves a batting weakness in Read, which they may choose to get around by falling back to Jones.

Giles batting isn't too crash hot against Australia though. Played well at the oval for 32 and 59, but in 12 innings before that he averaged just 8.80.

If England go down the route of trying to strengthen the batting then they might as well just play a proper batsman who can bowl abit, rather than take a massive risk on Giles doing something of note.

[greg]

Originally Posted by Pete

If England go down the route of trying to strengthen the batting then they might as well just play a proper batsman who can bowl abit, rather than take a massive risk on Giles doing something of note.

That would mean Flintoff batting at 7 and Collingwood keeping his place then which is something i have said is a possibility before.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by greg

That would mean Flintoff batting at 7 and Collingwood keeping his place then which is something i have said is a possibility before.

Flintoff was a distaster bating at 7 greg, his batting only inproved after being promoted to 6, at 7 all he could do was slog with the tail.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Who was dropped for not scoring any runs and hasn't done anything since to prove that he's likely to score any in Oz either. (Even you, Scott, I'm sure would agree that were Read to be dropped it would be extremely harsh.)

Which rather suggests that you'd like to hear my views on the Read v Jones debate as it stands at the moment. Peoples views on this are wholly dependant on what your perception of the situation is and on what you choose to beleive.

Do I think it would be harsh to drop Read before the first Test in the Ashes? Yes I do, but perhaps not for the reasons you do. It would be unfair because Read will not have been given a long enough timeframe to show what he can do with the bat in International Test Cricket - but that's the only reason, and it's an important reason because I beleive quite strongly, that this will be Reads last and final chance to show what he can do, and if he fails, that's the last we'll ever see of him. You have to draw the line somewhere and we need closure on this fiasco without the phantom ghost of Read forever hovering in the shadows threatening to be given yet another opportunity to show what he can do - three is enough, very few players ever get that many chances in Test Cricket.

Do I think Read should be given the gloves for the first Ashes test match? No I don't, for the simple reason that I think Australia's bowlers will eat him for breakfast - and he'll add very little value over and above the generally high quality of his glovework, but that's not enough in itself - England will need all the runs they can possibly get from all their batsmen, and I beleive Jones will score more than Read will. This is why I beleive Read unbalances the side and makes for a very long and weak tail with Panesar at 11.

Unfortunately, I put very little value on the runs Read scored against Pakistan. Many people are quite happy to ignore the manner in which they were scored and the quality of bowling opposition they were scored against and like ostriches, put their heads in the sand and completely ignore all the warning signs that were there and simply point to the runs on the board as being proof positive that Read can score runs in Test Cricket. The fact that he could quite easily have been out for two ducks in his first two innings with inside edges missing the stumps and then caught off a no ball simply reconfirmed in my mind that Read simply does not have the batting technique or temperament to score the weight of runs batting at No7 that England want from that position.

Many people who were somewhat concerned at the scratchy and luck ridden way Read put runs on the board in those Tests against Pakistan simply wanted more evidence of his ability and looked to the ODI's to provide it. His woeful run of form in the subsequent ODI's it seems still isn't enough for many people to realise and understand that Read has a massive problem with scoring runs at the higher level of the game. It wasn't just his lack of runs, but the ways in which he got out which were the most alarming.

I don't think it's a question of 'if' it's a question of when Jones gets his place back. Do I think that would be harsh? Not at all - Read isn't good enough.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by greg

That would mean Flintoff batting at 7 and Collingwood keeping his place then which is something i have said is a possibility before.

I don't think playing an extra batsman for a bowler because Reads batting is weak is a particularly effective solution, particularly when you consider how much it weakens the bowling attack.

However, I have an open mind, convince me. Could you please point out to me when England have consciously employed the strategy of playing the extra batsman over the bowler successfully within say the last 5 years worth of Matches, except the recent Pakistan series, where that strategy was enforced by Flintoff's absence. Also excepting the last match of last years Ashes because that was also enforced by Jones' absence and was a defensive strategy designed purely and simply to ensure they didn't lose, and as it happens Collingwoods contribution was fairly minimal.

Because if you can't, what makes you think that strategy would be particularly effective against not only the best side in the world, but probably the strongest batting lineups in the world on thier own relatively flat pitches in fairly hot weather?