Hoggard To Replace Out Of Sorts Plunkett For Fourth Test.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by adamberry

Right then Ern. If Key's so good, and close to international recall, then why is he not in the England A squad that was announced today?

Probably because that is an ODI side, and I can't see Key being called up for the ODI team... His ODI average of just 10 is pitiful, and I can't see him adding to his 5 caps.

I think Ern's point is that he is being ignored and this omission only proves how wrong the selectors are. But Ern might put it more bluntly than that.

As it is, I don't feel that he is currently close to, or deserving of a recall. I don't think there is a space for him, nor should one be created for him.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Firstly, you are factually wrong he came in to the side in place of Flintoff

It was Vaughan place that he was standing in for in India, Flintoff was the captain in India, so in effect he took Vaughan's place.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Key never really made the most of any of chances, and the result after a reasonable number of Tests

When did key get a reasonable number of chances?, he got a spell of 8 games then later 7 (roughly) - also he was on the brink of a recall - when he got injured.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

See my point, if you have a second chance you need to take it... if you don't why should you get a third, when there are so many other players out there

Well FF - by that logic Bell should be gone now, he was dropped in Pakistan because of his poor showing in the 2005 Ashes, and was just as poor in the 2006/07 Ashes in Australia, so he gets a third chance at the highest level again in 2009.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Yes and he took it, Key hasn't ever taken full advantage of the chances he has been given

FF - again, Bell got chances that key never got, and no he did not take his chances - he was poor in Australia when it mattered.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

What stiffer opposition is there? McGrath - gone, Warne - gone. There will not be another Test attack as good as, as efficient as or as motivated to win Warne, McGrath, Lee and Clarke for a long time? The fact is that two of Tait, Cullen, Johnson or MacGill combined with Clarke and Lee will not match up,

The fact is he should have been good enough to take on Mcgrath, Warne whether they have gone or not, the fact is he was not TWICE, anything other than being able to play the best - is second rate.

Even allowing for McGrath and Warne gone - I believe Tait will be to much for Bell, as will Lee.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Bell is doing what he needs to do, score runs.

                   Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St
 
unfiltered            26  1834 162*  44.73   6  12   1  1/33   76.00  0  26  0
filtered               5   331  87   33.10   0   4   0   -       -    0   5  0

Bells filtered stats for 2006/07 - not much different to keys.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

On the subject of Key, if Trescothick and Flintoff are coming back, why should he get in ahead of them?

You have missed my point here - when Flintoff and Trescothick return (nothing to do with Key, that would knock him on the head even by me) and if Vaughan stays fit - then who gives way in the present team for Flintoff and Trescothick?.

Strauss would be one - who would be the other?.

I don't understand even if Bell stays how you can think that the England batting is strong enough to compete with the best.

OK - leave key out of the argument, and keep Bell in the team - would that be enough to say England are a strong batting side I don't!

Also before I mentioned key - Ramprakash was laughed away, as was Hick, as was Butcher, as was Adams.

Originally Posted by adamberry

Right then Ern. If Key's so good, and close to international recall, then why is he not in the England A squad that was announced today?

Is he not injured at the moment adam?, in any case I can't answer your question - because I don't know the answer, looking at the list his first class stats compare.

EDIT: FF - I would not want any England player, or potential England player in a one day side is possibe, so his average of 10 which is one day rubbish means very little to me.

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Is he not injured at the moment adam?, in any case I can't answer your question - because I don't know the answer, looking at the list his first class stats compare.

No. He's as fit as he's ever been... I'll leave someone else to make the joke. There have been times where I've wished Key would drop himself a la Denness/van Troost this season, the answer is he just isn't in good enough form. Simple as that, I'm afraid.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

It was Vaughan place that he was standing in for in India, Flintoff was the captain in India, so in effect he took Vaughan's place.

Well FF - by that logic Bell should be gone now, he was dropped in Pakistan because of his poor showing in the 2005 Ashes, and was just as poor in the 2006/07 Ashes in Australia, so he gets a third chance at the highest level again in 2009.

Can't be bothered any more as you are clearly deluded and don't listen to logic or sense. Filtering figures is pointless. I only did it to prove what he did when he returned. We all know he did not have a great series versus Australia, but none of the batters did. But I will again repeat Key's figures versus Australia

                    Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St

unfiltered            15   775 221   31.00   1   3   -   -       -    -  11  0
filtered               4   141  52   17.62   0   1   -   -       -    -   1  0

But I do want to correct you on your errors. He was not dropped in Pakistan, because he played all three Tests (the intention was there to drop him, but it didn't happen - as he never actually missed a Test - almost dropped might be more apt):-
With an average of 52.16. He then played all the games in India, not be default, but because it followed directly after that series, he did not do so well though, but played in all three Tests. He was then dropped for the Sri Lanka series. But recalled for Pakistan after Flintoff was injured. Where he again topped the averages.


Where will Bell fit into the team, when/if Flintoff returns, simple four man attack, Bell at 6, Flintoff at 7... or drop Collingwood, or promote Vaughan to open in place of Strauss. Either way your assumption that Bell ought to give way is based on your own inability to see what everyone else sees, a very talented player with a very bright future. I, like most other seasoned observers, seem to think that Bell is more than capable of playing pace. He has scored runs against some of the quickest, Lee (6 x 50's when he has been bowling*) Edwards (2 x 50's) Akhtar (2 x 50's and 1 x 100). He will be a key man in 2009 IMO

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?s...lds=view type

*Yes he has 6 Test 50's against Australia, how many has the miracle boy Key got? In fact he got past 50 in 4 out of the 5 Tests on the last Ashes tour, which is not bad, if all the batsmen had done that the Test series result may have been very different. The only thing that Bell hasn't done is score a hundred against them, but that will come hopefully in 2009

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?s...lds=view type

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Unfortunately, if you get injured, and in a bit of a bad trot or merely performing "averagely" you have no right to walk back into side. Eg - tresco is the biggest example. He's scoring runs, seems free of his demons. Is he in the squad ? No. Butcher got injured couldnt get back in - damn that loft ladder, what exactly did nixon, or even martin bicknell (circa 2003) do wrong apart from "be old" ?? Not alot - either of them. Blackwell was in fine from prior to his injury and was replaced by dalrymple who did what exactly ? If I was him I'd feel far, far, more annoyed than rob key has any right to. The list goes on and on where players havent had the best of luck and lost out due to form or injury. Some will live long in the memory ie ramps, hick and some like rob key (apart from ern who continues to hold a candle) who wont.

The best of the lot in this whole argument is the spectre of freddie looming large. IF and lord knows its a big IF, harmo can finally do what we know he can, hoggy returns to his best, monty continues to bowl lots of overs and take wickets regardless of the pitch, and plunket undergoes some transformation (OK i know the last one is a bit of a reach ) who should be dropped to accomdate him ? Bell ? I know who'd I would rather have at 6 and it aint the big man. And it aint rob key either.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

But I do want to correct you on your errors. He was not dropped in Pakistan,

I did not say he did not play - he was dropped but played in the side due to an injury to another player, I thought it was Vaughan, but then it could have been another player.
I was not in error in the sense that he was for the chop, and an injury to a fellow player saved him.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Where will Bell fit into the team, when/if Flintoff returns, simple four man attack, Bell at 6, Flintoff at 7... or drop Collingwood, or promote Vaughan to open in place of Strauss.[...] Either way your assumption that Bell ought to give way

At last you have answered the question - you would keep Bell rather than Collingwood, and I have said England should not play both Bell and Collingwood, that is shared by some - but a majority I accept would keep Bell, I would rather keep Collingwood.

But this question will come up if Trescothick does get fit.

And also FF why did Bell drop to no 6, could it be because he was not scoring runs higher in the order?.

Also England won't play a 4 man attack IMO - they have been at their best with a 5 man attack, I can see Flintoff being wasted at 7 though, with Vaughan as captain.

It's also worth remembering (and I wrote plenty on this) - even in 2004/05 England were not a great batting unit, they got their success with the best seam attack in the worls at the time.

EDIT: FF one last point on Bell - in 2005 his average was 17.10, and he scored 171 runs. His average against Australia in 2006/07 was 33.10, he scored 331 runs - and he scored 4 50's not 6 against Lee et al.

Granted only Pietersen and Collingwood had a higher average than Bell in 2006/07, but that was because of the squad that was selected.

Forget key if you wish (he won't get selected in any case) - but after the winter I am convinced that England need to turn to an experienced player.

IMO England have never really replaced Butcher or Thorpe with any success, and that in part was why England got the beating they did in the winter.
The other part was selecting players like Trescothick and Harmison who were known to have problems, in fact Flintoff was made captain in part in the hope that him being mates with Harmison would help settle the big man, what a way to select a team, and a captain.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

At last you have answered the question - you would keep Bell rather than Collingwood, and I have said England should not play both Bell and Collingwood, that is shared by some - but a majority I accept would keep Bell, I would rather keep Collingwood.

I would rather have Flintoff at seven, as part of a four man attack. As you pointed out we were a stronger bowling unit in 04/05, and if we can get Flintoff and Hoggard fit, and Harmison firing, with the addition of Panesar we could be even stronger (he is a much better spinner than Giles). Batting is a weak point, so we play four bowlers and have the extra batsman, that is my preferred option.

If you gave me a choice (and I didn't realise you had asked this question??) Collingwood or Bell, for me it would be Bell. But if you asked the question Key/Ramps/Adams/Butcher or Collingwood, it would be Colly.

If Trescothick comes back, at the moment the guy he replaces is the out of form Strauss.

My first choice England XI (if they were fit and in form) would be

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan (Cpt)
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Flintoff
Prior (I would prefer Read/Davies but I am being pragmatic)
Harmison/Jones
Hoggard
Panesar

12th Anderson

Not much change from the Ashes I admit, but I think we were beaten by a better side, and I believe that there are very few teams in World Cricket that would have come close to beating them. We lost because they were a better team, I believe that we had the best team available (Trescothick would have not made that much difference) and we still lost, I do not feel we need major changes, we just have to accept they were better, and we need to find ways of getting the players better equipped to win in 2009 and that for me is about staying with Youth, not short term so called "experienced" players (who are proven failures at Test - not county - level i.e. Ramps)

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I would rather have Flintoff at seven, as part of a four man attack.

Yup... and in that position for one reason only: comparative reliability with the ball. If both Harmison and Jones were in Ashes 2005 form (which Donald may yet help them reproduce) Flintoff's bowling would be superfluous... and he'd certainly not get in ahead of Collingwood for his batting!

Originally Posted by flanflinger

If you gave me a choice (and I didn't realise you had asked this question??) Collingwood or Bell, for me it would be Bell. But if you asked the question Key/Ramps/Adams/Butcher or Collingwood, it would be Colly.

Yup. I'd go with Collingwood in support of a 4 man attack because of what he offers with the ball and in the field. My next choice would be Joyce, and after that I'd be looking to Compton.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Not much change from the Ashes I admit, but I think we were beaten by a better side, and I believe that there are very few teams in World Cricket that would have come close to beating them. We lost because they were a better team, I believe that we had the best team available (Trescothick would have not made that much difference) and we still lost, I do not feel we need major changes, we just have to accept they were better

Quite. The Aussie side that toured in 05 was not a poor side... it just underperformed massively under the pressure exerted by a well organised, well led England side that demanded more respect that the Aussies were prepared to grant. In 2007 the Aussies were better organised and more impressively led... the treated England with the necessary respect.... and showed themselves to be just too strong.

End of story: no need to fuss, no need to worry, and every reason to be glad - world cricket needed that Aussie side to show they are back to their most ruthless, and they did!

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Rachael

End of story: no need to fuss, no need to worry, and every reason to be glad - world cricket needed that Aussie side to show they are back to their most ruthless, and they did!

How do you work that one out? It's not good for world cricket to have one side dominating for so long. The best thing to happen would be for the Aussies to disappear back into the pack now that McGrath and Warne have retired. I'm not sure it will happen but it would certainly be for the good of the game if it did.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

How do you work that one out? It's not good for world cricket to have one side dominating for so long.

I agreed with Rachaels post 100% until she said that last comment. One team dominating is far from good for World Cricket, it makes for dull lifeless predictable series. Even many Australians were saying that it was good for Cricket that England won in 05. The fact was that the last Ashes the outcome was not as predictable, the result was the largest crowds for Test cricket in Australia in recent years.

I think you are right with the loss of Warne and McGrath will even it out, but I can only see four sides challenging them even then, and all of those would struggle outside home territory - they are England, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan... can't see any other side coming close in Tests. That is not good for World Cricket.