Strauss Dropped

[Mike]

I prefer three seamers and one specialist spinner. The tail is:
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Mike

I prefer three seamers and one specialist spinner[..] The tail is:

Yep there should alwasy be one specialist spinner.

Looking at the tail you have picked Mike, I doubt that four would strike fear into village green batsmen - it's gaot to be hoped that two of Jones/Flintoff or Harmison will be fot for 2009, or a 0-5 series scoreline would look likely.

[Milo]

I hust hope this is a warning to all the people who prophesise that a certain player is the future and should be picked with the 2009 Ashes in mind (or any other series for that matter). When Strauss came back from South Africa in 2005, everyone said that he was the future, would score x number of test runs and his name was at the top when talking about building for the future. Nobody is guaranteed a place for the future (unless they perform in the present). In fact, if Cook continues to perform (and IF Bell cements the numer 3 place (big IF), then Strauss may not play test cricket again. He might turn out to be England's Matthew Elliott.

It just shows the folly of excluding the present cases of any cricketer because we have some foolish strategy for the long term.

[Notts Exile]

Of course, Australia got it wrong when McGrath's replacement (Stuart Clark) played in the same side didn't they? No, they didn't.

If Sidebottom is likely to get wickets then play him. If Harmison bowls like he has done for the majority of the past few years Ryan will have to go along way to bowl worse and have inferior figures. As has been said, Harmison bowled at 80-85 mph when we were last over there, Sidebottom was bowling at that in some of the ODIs.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

As has been said, Harmison bowled at 80-85 mph when we were last over there, Sidebottom was bowling at that in some of the ODIs.

There are other factors to take into account though NE, Sidebottom never in a million years will never get the pace and bounce that Harmison can get, also at his best Harmison's keeps his pace over after over.

Sidebottom bowling well in ODI's is also a long way from playing test cricket at the highest level, there is a place for bowlers of his type, but not alongside Hoggard or any other medium pacers.

I have never known a successfull test side without at least two shock bowlers, so England are going to struggle if Harmison and Flintoff don't make the side by next season, unless "if" - and that's a big "if" - like for like bowlers are not found.
Well that's my opinion.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Well that's my opinion.

And I am sure you'd be the first to agree that it's pointless playing Harmison if he's going to bowl as he did in the Ashes last winter. I'd have a fit and firing on all cylinders GBH in the side every time. An unfit Harmison is of no use to the team whatsoever and history suggests that's what we're more likely to get. I do hope I'm wrong.

[Collyisamackem]

For the right variety, experience and also giving credit for superb test performances (Sidebottom):

Vaughan*
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
Prior/Mustard+
Harmison
Hoggard
Sidebottom
Panesar

Prior will get the keeping spot but Mustard is a far superior keeper - in fact he is a keeper and Prior is a batsman - and his batting really isn't that far behind Prior's although I will accept it is behind to an extent. Last time he batted against Murali Mustard fared relatively well compared to the rest of the batsmen in the game, scoring a fifty, and we all know what Prior's batting was like against India who do have some decent spinners! Is it that much of a risk playing Mustard over Prior? I hope I'm not coming across as too Durham-centric here, and Harmison does need to prove his fitness (but not his ability), but I really don't like the idea of Prior keeping wicket - especially not to Monty on a turning wicket, I saw Collingwood doing enough keeping for Prior at Old Trafford against the West Indies to see how often he lets the ball go past him!

It's also harsh on Anderson who bowled superbly in the latter part of the India series, but Hoggy is our best bowler and must play. I'd play Anderson ahead of Broad for his experience and form against India, against Broad's complete lack of text experience, if Harmison weren't selected.

[Speedboy Salesman]

I would be happy playing Mustard over Prior. So happy in fact I would shout at the top of my voice . Mustard is a decent enough batsman at 7 to hit a few runs, whereas Prior will most likely drop 6 easy catches and score about 10 runs in the tests.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Mike

I prefer three seamers and one specialist spinner.

Look at the last last time Australia toured Sri Lanka:

1st Sri Lankan innings: 136 overs.... but the seamers contribute just 51 overs and 3 wickets.

2nd Sri Lankan innings: 45 overs... but seamers contribute just 14 overs and 1 wicket.

3rd Sri Lankan innings: 63 overs... kasrowicz masterclass means seamers contribute 36 overs and 5 wickets

4th Sri Lankan innings: 73 overs... but the seamers contribute just 37 overs (though 5 wickets)

5th Sri Lankan innings: 127 overs... but the THREE seamers contribute just 64 overs and 5 wickets

6th Sri Lankan innings: 94 overs... but the THREE seamers contribute just 40 overs and 3 wickets.

Note: in the first innings of the 3rd Test, occasional spin accounted for more overs than were contributed by any frontline seamer; in the second innings of that Test... the third seamer contributed 5 overs (and produced no wickets)... whereas an occasional spinner contributed 17 overs (and 3 wickets).

Bottom line: a passable spinner is worth more than even a good seamer on most Sri Lankan wickets....and both Swann and Panesar are more than just "passable".

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

And I am sure you'd be the first to agree that it's pointless playing Harmison if he's going to bowl as he did in the Ashes last winter.

True also taking into account Harmison's dislike of touring, I am no way sure he should go to Sri Lanka.

But I am sure in my mind that to play both Sidebottom and Hoggard in the same team alongside Swann and Panesar - plus the occasional bowlers wouldalso be folly.

This should have been addressed before the tour, it's like Australia 2006 revisited when England took all their crocks and out of form players.

If England don't play a strike bowler, IMO they will lose.