Who will be dropped for the first test of the summer?

[Harmy's Army]

The general consensus of opinion is that England will trounce the Windies (don't go buying 4th day tickets unless the weather is adverse). What, if anything, will crushing victories over a weak side tell us about players above whom there is currently a large question mark? In the 1st instance I'm thinking Plunkett and Mahmood here. Either will more than likely take wickets if they get the 3rd seamer's position, but have they got what it takes to become world class on less obliging wickets overseas? And if not is there someone out there who does have the potential to develop into a world class bowler?

Looking ahead to the next visit of the Aussies in two years, barring injuries Harmison (now 29), Hoggard (30), Flintoff (29) and Jones (28) will stilll be the first choice pace attack. In fact, looking at their ages they should all still be in the frame 5 years from now. This leaves one primary space for an "understudy" to cover possible injuries and at the same time develop when opportunities arise.

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

If we are picking a third fast bowler I wish it would be Broad. I love watching him bowl. It would be ideal for him to have a couple of Tests until Simon Jones is ready.

Harmison and Hoggard are looking in great form and with Flintoff and Panesar should have too much firepower for the West Indies - with little pressure on him it would be the ideal oportunity to blood young Broad as an understudy to Simon Jones until the Welshman is declared fit, as opposed to playing Plunkett or Mahmood. He also has greater potential as a batsman than the other two and would strengthen the lower order.

On the batting front Strauss got a raft of bad decisions down under, Cook did nothing wrong and Bell was okish (although my own preference for Bell would be Owais Shah). I would give Paul Collingwood the ODI captaincy and make him 12th man for the test team, unless England switch to a 4 bowler attack.

Strauss
Cook
Bell (or Shah)
Pietersen
Vaughan (though his pride dictates he will bat at 3)
Flintoff
Nixon or Prior (sadly - Foster or Davies would have made sense)
Broad (until Jones is ready)
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

[cantplaycantalk]

Down under Collingwood scored one double hundred, 2 centuries and 2 fifties he came out of the tour with the second highest average of any England batsman. Go on justify a decision to drop a man who is only just turned 30 and averages 43, can also bowl at a decent pace and is the best fielder in the side.

I am sure the Aussies would love that one, hey England just dropped one of only two batsmen who looked at all comfortable with our attack and was the only one who looked like he might stop us winning anything

[Ernest]

Ed Smith
Cook
Shah
Key*
Collingwood
Flintoff
Mascarenhas
Prior+
Hoggard
Salisbury/Panesar
Harmison

Originally Posted by Harmy's Army

The general consensus of opinion is that England will trounce the Windies

The general consensus in 2004-2005 was that Australia would retain the Ashes in 2005, and was wrong - what went in 2005 is now history.
England underestimated Pakistan on their tour in 2005, and got brought down to Earth - Lara is not longer captain of the West Indies, so England will underestimate them at their peril.

Changes to the England side are needed - being Read won't be playing (my first choice), then England might as well go for a batting keeper like Stewart.

[Rachael]

I was wondering how far down the pecking order the likes of Ed Smith, Prior and Salisbury should be... but couldn't be bothered to list the dozens of players who'd get in ahead of them... so... let's assume the first choice XI is unavaiable and just consider an alternative XI (a 2nd XI rather than an 'A' team).

Unavailable: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Vaughan, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar

Second XI...

1. Tresco
2. Compton
3. Yardy
4. Joyce
5. Shah
6. Bopara
7. Foster
8. Giles (if fit) / Dalrymple
9. Plunkett
10. S. Jones
11. Anderson

I'm not suggesting I'm entirely convinced by everyone on that list... but they'd all get in ahead of Ed Smith and Salisbury and all convince me more than Rob "the leg-side blob" Key.

[Ernest]

I did not choose Simon Jones or Trescothick for my team because it's not certain they will be fit, Tresco is playing down and England return in an Audio report on the BBC.
My reason for picking Ed Smith and key was for experience, Ramp's and Crawley could also do a job.

If England are playing Cook, then if Tresco is not fit, I would rather play Ed Smith to open with him, rather than an out of form Strauss.

I am not convinced by Bell at all, that's why I would pick key/Ramp's - nothing wrong with Compton-Bopora etal. just a little to inexperienced with Trescothick missing.

I would think that 95% of England's problems in Australia 2006 was Trescothick having to return home, I also blame that for Strauss losing his form, I don't think he was comfortable being the senior partner with Cook.

Looking back on the Ashes and the World Cup - to much IMO was expected of players like Cook-Joyce-Mahmood-Plunkett-Tremlett, and Bopara.
So IMO again the selectors have to take their share of the blame for selecting Trescothick and Harmison, and putting the youngsters under so much pressure.
England need to get back into winning ways first and foremost, and that will IMO mean some changes, if Tresco and Simon Jones are fit, then no drastic changes would be needed.

[acker]

I thought Bell was the only player who fully survived Australia.

Pieterson, Collingwood, Panesar and Hoggard for the most survived it.

Strauss definitely failed it likewise Flintoff, Jones, Giles, Anderson and Harmison

Cook and Mahmood probably broke even.

Tresco turned his back and deserted the team...mmmmmmm

[Younis Khan #1]

To say he deserted the team is ignorant. Have you ever experianced a mental illness?

[acker]

Originally Posted by Younis Khan #1

To say he deserted the team is ignorant. Have you ever experianced a mental illness?

Why did'nt withdraw when he was selected ?

[darksideofthemoon]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I was wondering how far down the pecking order the likes of Ed Smith, Prior and Salisbury should be... but couldn't be bothered to list the dozens of players who'd get in ahead of them... so... let's assume the first choice XI is unavaiable and just consider an alternative XI (a 2nd XI rather than an 'A' team).

Unavailable: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Vaughan, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar

I'm not suggesting I'm entirely convinced by everyone on that list... but they'd all get in ahead of Ed Smith and Salisbury and all convince me more than Rob "the leg-side blob" Key.

Rachael - here's a different looking team. Time for Plunkett to become a Franklin type player. I think Ramps will still be playing until he is 40. Could they beat the usual suspects from the England side?

1 Trescothick
2 Butcher
3 Shah
4 Ramprakash
5 Compton
6 Plunkett
7 Foster
8 Giles
9 Broad
10 Jones
11 Anderson

[Rachael]

If you had a three way tournament of veterans, a current 1st Xi and prospects I suspect the veterans would win... and I suspect they would have done at most times in the last 20 years (and not just in cricket: English soccer's most talented player remains the retired Scholes... and for several years after retiring / being replaced, the likes of Sheringham and Shearer consistently out-performed the young pretenders).

Anyway... at the end of last season you could have picked the following Veterans XI:

Butcher - 1465 runs at 58.60
Knight - 1070 runs at 36.89 (div 1)
Hick - 1023 runs at 48.71
Ramps - 2278 runs at 103.54
Crawley - 1737 runs at 66.80 (div 1)
Nixon - 895 runs at 59.66
Chapple - 580 runs at 32.22, 41 wickets at 27.41 (div 1)
Silverwood - 63 wickets at 25.25 (div 1)
Sidebottom - 50 wickets at 26.14 (div 1)
Lewis - 60 wickets at 21.70
Keedy - 61 wickets at 27.21

That line up would have held its own in Test OR ODI cricket!