New England Vice-Captain?

[Rachael]

I don't have any problem with people suggesting that players like Strauss and Collingwood are players the selectors, coach, academy director ought to be looking to replace: every side should always look to improve and there's no doubt whatsoever that the side would be improved if Strauss and Collingwood were replaced by players of the callibre of, say, Dravid and Ponting.

What I don't get is the point of starting a revolving door policy with respect to players who are clearly better than those challenging for their place.... or questioning the place of promising youngsters like Cook and Bell, who could go on to be key players of the next generation with decent handling.

Maybe Bopara, Compton, Davies, Rashid and one or two from from Broad / Smith / Onions / ??? WILL come through and make a case for selection ahead of the incumbents... but the reasoning that suggests replacing incumbents even if their replacements are the likes of Key, Smith and Kirtley (or any other available player whose ability is a known quantity) strikes me as just plain unintelligible!

[pie_chucker]

I also think Bell will become a mainstay, but as long as he doesnt bat at 3.

One thing that does worry me after reading a few posts on here is that a lot of people want to return to the "Illingworth years", by this I mean championing 30+ y.o. county mainstays who have hit a bit of form but are clearly not test standard. And then chopping and changing the team every game .
i.e. Kirtley, Lewis, Adams, Sidebottom......

We have become the second best test team in the world by abandoning these ideals and selecting players on percieved quality with domestic performances having little influence over selection. Yes, they have been a few mistakes (G.O Jones) but by and large the positives vastly outweigh the one or two negatives.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

What I don't get is the point of starting a revolving door policy with respect to players who are clearly better than those challenging for their place.... or questioning the place of promising youngsters like Cook and Bell, who could go on to be key players of the next generation with decent handling.

You beat me to it Rachael.

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Rachael

What I don't get is the point of starting a revolving door policy with respect to players who are clearly better than those challenging for their place.... or questioning the place of promising youngsters like Cook and Bell, who could go on to be key players of the next generation with decent handling....[...]but the reasoning that suggests replacing incumbents even if their replacements are the likes of Key, Smith and Kirtley (or any other available player whose ability is a known quantity) strikes me as just plain unintelligible!

In fairness Rachael, it's only Ern that's trying to replace the likes of Cook and Bell. Read through my posts (and any others that are there) and you'll find that I have at no point suggested ditching the young talent in the side.

[flanflinger]

Can't believe that when we have so many young talented players (in particular bowlers) that we are talking about going back to players like Smith and Kirtley, it drives me mad!!

I wouldn't mind, but Rachael seems to be talking the most sense, and I didn't think I would typing that!!

We have trusted some young guys, they will mess up, but long term the team should be made up of players like Bell, Cook, Broad, Bopara, Davies, Plunkett, Mahmood, Smith, Compton!!

We have to go for long term picks, not short term players based on doing well in the Championship for 5 matches. So many one cap wonders based on a few good games is madness, and I thought those days were long gone.

We talked about the Australian selection policy, but to get a Test cap for them you have to prove yourself over several seasons in the Pura Cup, not a couple of good games in April!!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by adamberry

In fairness Rachael, it's only Ern that's trying to replace the likes of Cook and Bell. Read through my posts (and any others that are there) and you'll find that I have at no point suggested ditching the young talent in the side.

My views on the England players have not changed, and to be honest I don't want to get rid of Cook, but I want players like Cook to play with experienced players.
Bell is not consistent, England will be looking to the Ashes 2009 - and Bell should play no part.
Talking about revolving doors - look at the list of players Rachael has posted, some of which are the future of England cricket.

All I would do is to beef up the side with players like Cook, maybe even Stewat Law - to play alongside the younger players.
Lewis has shown he does not have what it takes IMO, his pace is to predictable - all the best side have a decent quick bowler or two, and players like Plunkett and Mahmood will learn more playing with good bowlers like Flintoff, Kirtley and Hoggard.
Rachael you go on about player like Dravid all the time, now Ponting, lets face it England will never produce those sort of players, because the conditions are so different in India and Australia.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

One thing that does worry me after reading a few posts on here is that a lot of people want to return to the "Illingworth years", by this I mean championing 30+ y.o. county mainstays who have hit a bit of form but are clearly not test standard. And then chopping and changing the team every game .
i.e. Kirtley, Lewis, Adams, Sidebottom......

Well if I am on your list of returning to he Illingworth years, nothing could be further from the truth.

England lost the Ashes in part though being forced to make changes, but being England HAD to make changes, they could have been better than putting a lot of rookies in the team at once.

flanflinger talks of the long term, but I don't think he realises that when a team of yongsters keep geting drubbed like this present England side, the players will lose all confidence.

What happened to chris Schofield is a good example of what I am saying, as for your four bowlers - no way would I have Lewis - or Sidebottom in a side I chose.

Would Kirtley have been a better bet than Plunkett - Lewis Mahmood in Australia, IMO he would, he has played for England before, and did not disgrace himself.

These changes in Australia were forced, players had problems or were injured - England just picked a team of youngsters against the best team in the world at the moment, and hoped for the best.

[EllN]

Getting back to the thread question, pieterson looks to be tactically correct has that die hard spirit that could change the game and lift the team, and can put in a match winning preformance any time , but on the case of cook in the team the guy hasnt played enough domestic one day cricket so how he can be considered for england i do not know, secondly i think they are moulding bell to be vaughan's replacement for opener, alowing for a more fluent number 3, also you need players of experiance to play with a bring through the yoyung bunch, look at sri lanka they have the balance right, experiance in vaas jayersuria, murali, the centre in there carera, sangakara, dilshan, jayawardena, then you have the young players coming through malinga, tharanga. Also they are bringing young players through at the riht times, look at them bringing P. Jayerwardena in to the keeping department, so he has experiance when sangakara regtiers

[Ernest]

Good post EllN just what I am thinking, 21 ears of age is nothing - Australia have also done well keeping their players together until they lose form, at the moment.

Youth and arrogence is fine, so long as older heads are in the side when things go pear shaped, like Thorpe for Engand.
On Pietersen, I think it will be Flintoff re-visited, there will be to many people wishing his to fail, he would face a barrage of abuse from the press, every move he made would be scrutinised..

[EllN]

but i think that is the difference between pieterson and flintoff, peieterson has that media handaling and swagger, but the most important thing is that his preformance would not drop maoinly because he already has enough self confidence to share with the england team the back room staff and the selectors so he won't belive his own hype because he already does, then he will also back vaughan, as in with preformances, also i personally belive collingwood is better at being behind the scences the unkown solider, look what happened to his preformances when he scored the 200 runs he dcouldnt buy a run, this could also be said simialry with bell but he did not have a preformance to hide behind, dont get me worng these are valubel players to the england side but, not as leaders bt as big cogs in the england cricket team machine, peitersen offers that hard attitude of nasser hussain, and with vaughan as captain that attitude would be kept undercontrol but used to his advantage