Team for the 1st Test

[Rachael]

I've never heard anyone qualified to judge such matters question Cook's credentials against pace... and he did score hugely against the Aussies ahead of the last Ashes tour: double century.

See http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/20...04SEP2005.html

ps. I was fully aware that the difference between Russell and Stewart (as 'keeper) was 28 vs. 35... but aside from that not really being enough to have warranted the change in 'keeper... I'm struck that Russell did a stirling job of building partnerships in support of senior batsmen where Stewart tended to come in, slog a few and hole out - so I'd contend that Russell was by far the more reassuring presence.

[greg]

As far as any Stewart/Russell debate goes it is worth remembering that Stewart was still one of the better keepers in the country.The difference with Jones/Read is that Jones isn't.

[Aussie-Yank]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I've never heard anyone qualified to judge such matters question Cook's credentials against pace... and he did score hugely against the Aussies ahead of the last Ashes tour: double century.

I would not use that as your proof that he can handle pace bowling, as there where over 1000 runs scored in the match for the loss of only 10 wickets. This does sceam of a batting paradise - and going by you that Hayden is a flat track bully (150 retired hurt) then this pitch was not suited to pace bowling.

[greg]

I agree with you A-Y,it must have been a batting paradise as Cook scored at more than 1 run an over.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by greg

As far as any Stewart/Russell debate goes it is worth remembering that Stewart was still one of the better keepers in the country.The difference with Jones/Read is that Jones isn't.

Ha Russell could bat also.
He was a better keeper that Stewart, but his batting made up for that.

If jones scores 35, misses a catch Jaques the other night, and that player makes 100, the Jones or whoever has caused a net deficit of 65.
So for me it's the better keeper every time.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I've never heard anyone qualified to judge such matters question Cook's credentials against pace... and he did score hugely against the Aussies ahead of the last Ashes tour: double century.

He did indeed do very well in that game, a game that as someone else pointed out had 1000 runs scored in it for the loss of 10 wickets, 4 players score centuries against an Australian seam attack of Gillespie (who bowled rubbish in the Ashes) Tait (ditto) Lee who wasn't at his best and had an Ashes average in the 30's, and notably - no McGrath.

So, please point out to me Rachael, exactly where Cook has faced high quality pace bowling attacks in his International Test career so far?

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. I was fully aware that the difference between Russell and Stewart (as 'keeper) was 28 vs. 35...

Then do you not perhaps feel your comment of 'a little bit more' was slightly misleading?

[flanflinger]

Scott,

He can only play the sides he is put against and as he has managed to play the 2 out of the four best sides (about to play the No 1, and England are number two) and has managed an average of 54.35 I think it is very difficult for us to judge that he will struggle more than any other batter.

For me, like Bell, he is one of the stars of the future and it is great that he is having an opportunity to test his skills against the best. If we can contiune to get young guys experined at the heighest level, it will only benefit England's long term future!!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

I would not use that as your proof that he can handle pace bowling

I think the warm up game showed that Cook has no real problem with 'pace': the pitch was extremely true... and lateral movement was NOT an issue... but in terms of ability to handle "pace" the Chelmsford game alone suggests that Cook can cope with second rate speedsters like Lee and Tait.

Now.... whether that translates into great mastery of lateral movement (in the air or off the ground) is obviously a very different matter... but entire Test careers are built without that being Tested

In terms of wicket-keepers... I distinctly recall the England management coming clean a few years back and saying the batting issue was one of style: that the desire was NOT for a guy who averaged adequately by chipping in consistently... that Gilchrist-style match-turning 50s or nothing was far, far more acceptable. Stewart fitted the bill... coming in with a good batsman the other end, slogging, hitting 50 off as many balls and then getting out to leave the senior player in the lurch - and I'm pretty sure the difference between Russell and Stewart in terms of partnerships built whilst they were at the crease would be rather less than the difference in their average!!!

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

but in terms of ability to handle "pace" the Chelmsford game alone suggests that Cook can cope with second rate speedsters like Lee and Tait.

The bowling attack Cook had to face
Lee
Gillespie
Tait
MacGill
Kasprowicz

Just the two quickets Aussies then...

And who did Hayden have to face:-
Nel
Palladino
Napier
Ahmed
Middlebrook
Phillips
Cook

Hmmm.. what more can I say....

[Harmy's Army]

Maybe Tresco should drop down the order below Pietersen ready for the Warne onslaught - if I had to choose between him and Collingwood batting for my life right now I would have the Geordie in the team. Cook is a natural opener and the way things look right now he ain't gonna be long in the pavillion before his talents are called upon.

The Read/Jones debate has obviously been settled by Fletcher for better or worse (love to be a fly on the wall in the Graveney and Miller households right now ). Jones at least used to be an accomplished cutter/puller suited to Aussie pitches so there is hope - though it would be interesting to do an analysis throughout his tenure behind the stumps this tour on runs scored versus extra runs scored by opposing batsmen due to his transgressions, just to see what the bottom line shows on the balance sheet.

My overiding concern is the Giles v Panesar issue. My fear and suspicion (and it appears that of most of the pundits) is that Giles will get the nod ahead of Monty. For the first time in a generation we have a genuine attacking wicket-taking spinner who adds a new dimension to the side, and Duncan will plump for a negative outside leg stump bowler to either bore the Aussies into rash shots or just keep them muted while the pace bowlers rotate at the other end. On bouncy aussie pitches as well. Maybe someone should inform Fletcher that what makes the Aussies (and any other team with a high class spinner) successful is that they have the ability to put batsmen under pressure at both ends for long periods of time. Giles role has always been a support role while the majority of the damage is done at the other end. A case in point was the last ashes series where the shoe was on the other foot - Warnie bowling out of his skin at one end with a lot of dross at the other (McGrath excluded when he was around).

If Fletcher wants someone who can a) bat with the tail b) field and c) hold an end up he should dispense with spin entirely and play Collingwood instead - superior batsman, superior fielder with and economy rate of 3.40 as opposed to Ashley's 2.84 (I can live with the inferior eco rate knowing he will negate that with a sack load more runs in the middle order).

It's been well documented that Ashley Giles has not bowled in 12 months. What isn't mentioned is that he also hasn't batted in 12 months. If someone like Trescothick (who is a class batsman) is struggling for runs after a relatively short absence what chance have we got if we are relying on Ashley to contribute down the order - or even stick around awhile in a supporting role?

Duncan Fletcher is dead set on 5 frontline bowlers (he is also dead set on getting as many of the 2005 ashes guys in the team as possible (for that read Jones, Giles, and to a degree Trescothick). If I were picking a team with a balance between batting and bowling strengths it would be:

Strauss
Trescothick (hoping he can find form)
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Flintoff
Collingwood
Jones
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

This is based on a workload for Hoggard, Harmison and Flintoff of 18 overs a day each - with Panesar 20 to 25 and Collingwood 10 to 15 making up the 90 in a day. We have two strike bowlers in Flintoff and Harmison (3 if you count Hoggard with the new ball) and a fantastic spinner in that line up. Does Anderson give enough variation from Hoggard to justify his place as fifth bowler, given the depth to the batting (and the overall balance) Collingwood would bring to the team?

Sadly it won't happen. Giles gets the nod ahead of Monty and Colly carries the drinks.

Actually, here's a conspiracy theory: The primary reason for Ashley making the side might be the embarrassment to Fletcher of Gerraint Jones missing numerous catches and stumpings on offer with Monty bowling...