Hoggard To Replace Out Of Sorts Plunkett For Fourth Test.

[greg]

Ern's team has one obvious fault in the fact that Flintoff is at 6 as he isn't a good enough bat to be in the top 6.Maybe Prior could become a top 6 player and Flintoff can bat at 7 in future,that may work but Flintoff needs to prove he can bowl again first.

[flanflinger]

I think Erns team has several faults, manly an assumption that three key players will be available..

As far as Flintoff goes I too would drop him to 7, as part of a four man attack (we needed 5 in 05, but that's because Giles was such a poor wicket taking option spin wise, but with Panesar, things will be different) include Bell at 6, and that for me would be a strong team...

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

That is fast appearing to be the consensus, but can he put the overs in ? I hope so because he can be accurate and quick. If he cant, what he might have to do is go back to lancs for a bit and learn how to bat properly (it sounds harsher than I meant) and maybe just throw in a few overs a la waugh. Having said that, if we are going to take ODIs seriously the side needs to be built round him and KP.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by greg

Ern's team has one obvious fault in the fact that Flintoff is at 6 as he isn't a good enough bat to be in the top 6.Maybe Prior could become a top 6 player and Flintoff can bat at 7 in future,that may work[...] but Flintoff needs to prove he can bowl again first.

It's may come as a surprise, but Flintoff has not been out of form with the bat that long - at least in term of playing time, unlike Vaughan and Strauss.

He batted well in 2005, Pakistan was always going to be an anti climax after what happened in the summer.

Flintoff captained England in India, and had a batting average of over 50, now after or during the Sri Lanka series he was injured and did NOT play again until the Ashes 2006/07 - after a long lay off.

So really sinse 2004 his only real bad form was against Australia in the Ashes, and in the World Cup.

There is a problem with his batting at 7, what if he comes back on form like he did after 2003?, he will be just wasted at 7 - like in 2003 stuck with the tail.

An on form Flintoff is as good a bat as most in the England side, lets see if he plays himself back into form before discarding him, as a bowler he could have played this series - but had the keyhole op so he could be 100%..

FF I went out of my way in selecting that team to say:-

Originally Posted by Ernest

Could win back the Ashes in 2009 if fit

I know some may be wishfull thinking, but if Trescothick can play for Somerset, then no reason in time he could not play for England.

[pie_chucker]

To be fair to Flintoff if he's fit to bowl he's worth his place in the team, but the question is do we need 5 bowlers??

If we play 4 bowlers (including Flintoff) who bats at 8, Prior of Flintoff??

[Ernest]

The England bowling without Simon Jones is just not strong enough to play only four bowlers, that ploy is fine if you have a Marshall and a Holding in your side, or a Lillee and a Thompson.

England beat Australia in 2005 with five bowlers, and even then it was touch and go a time or two with Lee and Warne nearly snatching victory from a beating.

As for Flintoff he is a number six - IMO he has not been out of form long enough to demote him, even if England are silly enough to play four bowlers.

Cook
Trescothick/key
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior
???
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar

Looks a bit weak on the bowling, if England play the extra batsman.

[pie_chucker]

I can see what you are saying Ern, our bowling hasnt looked stellar against a very weak Windies side. Saying that this is the first test we have played 4 bowlers, not 3.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Looks a bit weak on the bowling, if England play the extra batsman.

Ern,

How come most other Test sides play with four front line bowlers? How come Australia best side in the world play with four front line bowlers?

The fact is that we had to have five because Giles was generally not a wicket taking bowler, with Panesar we have someone who is a genuine wicket taking spinner, which means we can play four bowlers.

As you have said in so many posts our batting is weak, and so therefore you need to strengthen it. Flintoff coming in a 7 is not a demotion, just a reflection that the side needs one more specialist Batter.

For me at team that looked like this

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Flintoff
Prior
Hoggard
Harmison/Jones
Panesar

Would score runs, and have enough bowling to take wickets. So it makes sense to go for it? Against Pakistan and the West Indies we have taken wickets and won Tests with four bowlers, but during the Ashes we struggled with five, so why not play four? The Ashes 05 we played with 4 bowlers and an occasional spinner, but we had four seam bowlers that were good enough, I doubt that Jones will ever be fit again, so why take second best?

As for Trescothick, and he's playing for Somerset, so "he should be ok" comment, I think you have, again, completely underestimated the nature of Trescothick's illness, and the pressure of Test cricket. County Cricket is a different standard, in front of smaller crowds, with low key media coverage. Test cricket has big crowds, better bowlers, intense pressure and a camera everywhere (assessing every flaw and fault), the guy may not be able to cope with that level of pressure again, and you cannot plan your future team around a guy who may never be able to play at that level ever again.

If Trescothick does return, it will be a huge bonus, and I for one will be very happy, but you have to exclude him from any plans because that day may never happen.

[Rachael]

Surely the first duty of any side is to make themselves (as Hussain used to put it) tough to beat: to get out there and do the basics right. That means, above all, to go out there and at least get enough runs on the board to ensure the opposition cannot win.

Now... if you ALSO have the bowling to force wins on a regular basis that's just the icing on the cake: great if you can, but if you cannot... sobeit.

Even the great attacks don't GUARANTEE 20 wickets in a match... but the great sides don't lose Tests: they win or (at worst) draw. Playing a 5 man attack compromises that ability.. and generally to no good end: if the best four bowlers available ain't doing the job... it's clutching at straws to think that you are adding a great deal by tossing in another (by definition weaker) bowler.

Aside from anything else.... if you give the ball to a 5th bowler... you've got to underbowl your top 4: it's not as if you can suddenly start bowling 120 overs a day just because you have enough bowlers to keep going!

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Surely the first duty of any side is to make themselves (as Hussain used to put it) tough to beat.....get enough runs on the board to ensure the opposition cannot win.....

I think Hussain thought that way because at that time England werent exactly a good team and were too easy to beat.

IMO that is a very negative way of thinking, its also the way the South Africans still think which is why the are only a mediocre test team. They are afraid to lose and happy to draw which stifles any creativity and shows a lack of ambition. Compare that to the Aussie way of playing where they are prepared to lose a game if they have a chance to win. Their reasoning is that they will win more often than they will lose and this has been proved right so far....