Team for the 1st Test

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ern and Ern alone would do this: the fact that the Gabba is the one ground where swing can be EXPECTED escapes Ern

Mahmood can also swing the ball - and at pace.

I was scoffed at when I advocated Anderson playing instead of being the perpetual tea boy for over a year, now he's a key figure.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Harmison strikes me as in danger of having a one-Test series:

Interesting one this - Harmison has played himself back into a bit of form in this NSW warm up, he outperformed Lee, so their should be some needle there, he has to start.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Tresco is the other player who might test Fletcher's loyalty: Cook looks a better bet at the top of the order.

You could be right - but if trescothick DOEs get his form - he will be far more dangerous than cook IMO - he has experienced ans Ashes series.

[greg]

Anderson still has a lot to prove.He is not an important member of the team yet,Hoggard certainly is.

I will accept though that Anderson is a better bowler than Mahmood and deserves his place in the 1st test.

[flanflinger]

Ern

No Bell, No Panesar and No Hoggard = Loss of Ashes...

Ern, you have said you would like to see Bell prove you wrong, but he can't do that if he is not in the team!! Would you really want to see Collinwood over Bell, are you really that blinkered??

[darksideofthemoon]

I think the team for the first Test will be -

1 Trescothick
2 Strauss
3 Cook
4 Pietersen
5 Collingwood
6 Flintoff
7 Jones
8 Giles
9 Hoggard
10 Harmison
11 Anderson

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Ern

No Bell, No Panesar and No Hoggard = Loss of Ashes

No I did not rule out Hoggard - I put Hoggard/Mahmood - Bell or Collingwood, I think Collinwood gets it because of his sticking power, if Bell gets the nod and does well - I will think differnt next time.

Panesar and Giles - this is harder, giles is proven as to what he is, Panesar shows potential, I don't really care which but Giles batting will cover up any failures by Jones.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Ern, you have said you would like to see Bell prove you wrong, but he can't do that if he is not in the team!! Would you really want to see Collinwood over Bell, are you really that blinkered??

The side has been so poor in the one dayers - with Bell being the pick, but that does not mean he will carry that form into the Ashes.
If Bell is picked I will support him the same as the other 10.

[cantplaycantalk]

Why is Trescothic still a certain pick? He has shown no form yet, he has a weakness for not moving his feet and the guys in posession have done nothing to be dropped.

Same reason I cannot fathom why Jones over Read.

[Moss]

Trescothick has been in poor form for a while now, but Fletcher will still go for him over Cook because Tresco is the only batsman who's toured to Aus before.
That's not a good enough reason!

Chris Read's test average for his comeback was over 40, and still he was dropped. He also made NO foul ups with the gloves in Tests.

Absolutely unbelievable.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by cantplaycantalk

Why is Trescothic still a certain pick?

If England had a proper fixture list of 3-4 1st class matches before the 1st Test this could be looked at... but England are unlikely to bat again in this match... and Tresco may only get one more chance to prove his form. The problem for Fletcher is that he wants to play the next match with the same XI players he's planning to take into the 1st Test.... so if he plays Tresco then he can't take a look at whoever would come in to replace Tresco!

Originally Posted by cantplaycantalk

Same reason I cannot fathom why Jones over Read.

The logic here is the same as when the issue was Russell vs. Stewart: it's not that Russell contributed any less with the bat... it's just that he contributed in very different fashion. Stewart as 'keeper averaged just little more than Russell (and against lesser bowling).. and was NOT the man to work with the tail in a desperate rearguard action (or to quietly support a senior top order partner as Russell did in SA with Atherton)... but was backed because the management wanted to increase the odds on a match-winning knock (they wanted quickfire 50s and 100s).

Of course.. neither 'keeper should be worrying about being Gilchrist-like: England have their "Gilchrist" in Flintoff... so the 'keeper need only be a no 8 bat.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

? Pakistan not renowned for their quicks... have you seen Akhtar bowl.. or Asif.. or historically Younis, Khan and Akram!!!

Think you may have to re-think that comment...

You are of course quite correct in what you say regarding Pakistans pace bowlers, they have indeed produced some outstanding fast bowlers now and in the past, and it was a somewhat lazy way of putting across what I intended.

What I meant to say was Pakistan (this year, with Shoaib and Asifs absence) and Sri Lanka (this year, Vaas possibly excepted - but have you seen his average in England?) and India last year in India do not really have any truly world class threatening pace bowlers. As such, Cook has not yet had to deal with either high quality pace bowling ala McGrath or real express pace bowling ala Lee, Tait. So in my mind Cook is still untested against high quality, International pace bowling.

Thats really what I meant to say.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The logic here is the same as when the issue was Russell vs. Stewart: it's not that Russell contributed any less with the bat... it's just that he contributed in very different fashion. Stewart as 'keeper averaged just little more than Russell (and against lesser bowling)..

That's not quite true I'm afraid.

Russell averaged 28, Stewart as keeper 35, I don't see that as 'just a little more'. Also how do you justify your comment that Stewart faced 'lesser bowling' than Russell did when they both pretty much played in the same era, and Stewarts career spans a lot longer than Russells?