Rachael's ECB XI vs Ernest's preferred XI - Test cricket

[Rachael]

In another thread I asked Ernest what he'd be saying if England split the Test and ODI sides and ended up with the following first-choice Test XI: Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Shah, Joyce, Prior, Sidebottom, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar

Ernest responded with his preferred way of splitting the sides... which involved the following 1st choice Test XI: Cook, Vaughan(C), Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read(K), Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson, Panesar

Cook, Vaughan, Strauss, Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar are common to both sides... but where I'd anticipated the ECB adding Bell, Shah, Joyce, Prior and Sidebottom... Ernest suggested they should aim at Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read and Anderson - a tad curious as several on that list would, I suspect, be deemed more important to England's World Cup prospects.

Question is... would my Test side (which sacrifices Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff and Anderson to the ODI side) be significantly weaker than Ern's Test side (say facing Australia in the next Ashes series: 5 home Tests)?

Views on the resulting ODI sides can be aired here: Rachael's ECB XI vs Ernest's preferred XI - ODI cricket

[greg]

Ern has a stronger batting line up chosen with KP in even if Bell is unsurprisingly discarded though Rachael has picked a far stronger bowling line up as it doesn't contain Anderson.

I guess the fact that Flintoff is chosen by Ern is the key to make his side stronger as he is a class act when fit and would have walked into any side in the world in his prime.

[engssmoothcriminal]

The somewhat bizzare omissions from both XI's makes it a pretty even contest between the two sides. However if I was going to go with a starting XI for the crucial first test in NZ next year (which I currently rank as 10 times more important than the sodding 2009 Ashes ) in the assumption that everyone is miraculously healthy I'd probably go in with Ern's XI because both KP and most importantly a fully fit Flintoff in a 5 man attack are just so vital to the England test side functioning properly.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by greg

Ern has a stronger batting line up chosen with KP in even if Bell is unsurprisingly discarded[...] though Rachael has picked a far stronger bowling line up as it doesn't contain Anderson.

I think Rachael has not took into account greg, that by ommiting Flintoff - she has weakened her bowling attack beyond repair.:-

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ernest responded with his preferred way of splitting the sides... which involved the following 1st choice Test XI: Cook, Vaughan(C), Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read(K), Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson, Panesar

Rachael seems to forget that Flintoff is a key bowler in the England test side, so with respect even if Anderson is a weak link - Rachael leaving out Flintoff make her side weaker bowling than mine.

I think that by including Strauss who has had a decent rest away from test cricket - along with Vaughan - Cook - Pietersen
and Collingwood - is the stronger batting by far.

If Flintoff is fit and in form - England are lucky in having a class act with both bat and ball.

I think that engssmoothcriminal says it all:-

Originally Posted by engssmoothcriminal

both KP and most importantly a fully fit Flintoff in a 5 man attack are just so vital to the England test side functioning properly.

Flintoff has been missed - and Pietersen will be all the better for a rest, the team at the moment looks jaded.

[pie_chucker]

The only real weak link in Erns team is his selection of Anderson. Exchange him with Broad and Erns team is far stronger.

Any attack that features Hoggard and Sidebtoom is asking for serious trouble, especially against the Aussies where you will only win if you can bowl them out four under 400 consistantly.

[darksideofthemoon]

Originally Posted by Rachael

In another thread I asked Ernest what he'd be saying if England split the Test and ODI sides and ended up with the following first-choice Test XI: Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Shah, Joyce, Prior, Sidebottom, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar

Ernest responded with his preferred way of splitting the sides... which involved the following 1st choice Test XI: Cook, Vaughan(C), Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read(K), Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson, Panesar

Cook, Vaughan, Strauss, Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar are common to both sides... but where I'd anticipated the ECB adding Bell, Shah, Joyce, Prior and Sidebottom... Ernest suggested they should aim at Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read and Anderson - a tad curious as several on that list would, I suspect, be deemed more important to England's World Cup prospects.

Question is... would my Test side (which sacrifices Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff and Anderson to the ODI side) be significantly weaker than Ern's Test side (say facing Australia in the next Ashes series: 5 home Tests)?

I'd would prefer your Test side Rachael as it is just pure batsmen and bowlers and makes your ODI stronger with the all rounders.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

I'd would prefer your Test side Rachael as it is just pure batsmen and bowlers

I'd prefer to see the Test side with Pietersen in it.... but if push came to shove I'd concede that he's one of the greatest ODI players of his generation and I'd have to sacrifice him. That said... I get to play Bell, but Ern omits him: to my mind that pretty well evens things up. I'd also like to have Collingwood in my side.. but he's a definite for the ODI side (probably as captain) and Shah's a far more talented batsman: my side would miss Collingwood as a 5th bowler... but loses nothing in the no 5 batting spot.

If I could have Pietersen and Collingwood in my side then I'd not find room for Joyce at 6... but here I definitely win out: Joyce at 6 vs. Flintoff at 6 is simply no contest. Flintoff is simply not (and despite his 2004 purple patch, never has been) a top order bat. With him at 6, Ern's side is putting too much pressure on his top 4.

Now I'd personally prefer to see Read playing Tests than to see Prior... but how many others have my faith in Read's batting? Moreover, I've at least got Sidebottom at 8 ahead of Hoggard and Harmison - get Bond on a roll and in many folk's estimation, Ern's side would be in danger of going from three out to all out in no time flat.

As for the bowling... Sidebottom and a fully fit Hoggard is quite clearly the best new ball partnership England could possibly field in NZ: the left-right combination, plus the contrast between Sidebottom's bounce and Hoggard's exemplary off-cutters (which now surely surpass even Gough's best) guarantees that the batsmen will be asked a lot of awkward questions. With Harmison able to bend his back at first change and Panesar able to block and end up and get through a huge workload... the side wouldn't seriously miss Flintoff.

Of course... if Flintoff could actually perform as a frontline bowler (shoulder the sort of workload Sidebottom does)he'd be a fair substitute for Sidebottom: I could live with Ern playing Flintoff INSTEAD of Sidebottom - the stength of the attack wouldn't be massively different... but I concede completely that Flintoff at 7 and the gloveman at 8 would add greatly to the batting depth.

Thing is... Ern's not proposing that: he has so little faith in his bowlers that he's playing an extra one... and compromising the batting. To me that makes his side SERIOUSLY unappealing.

ps. I'd have no real problem with Ern's side if he were playing Swann instead of Anderson... simply because I feel two spinners (and contrasting spinners) would genuinely balance the attack - what I fail to see is how Anderson would add anything to the attack. I suspect he'd simply never get to bowl (as Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard and Panesar would be sufficient) and as I can't see him doing much with the bat or as a fielder I feel Ern is basically putting out a 10 man team.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'd prefer to see the Test side with Pietersen in it[....] but if push came to shove I'd concede that he's one of the greatest ODI players of his generation and I'd have to sacrifice him. That said... I get to play Bell, but Ern omits him: to my mind that pretty well evens things up.

First Rachael I picked my side with the Ashes 2009 in mind, I have kept faith with as many players as possible to the ashes winning side of 2005.

With this in mind looking at how Bell plays against Australia, I think omiting Bell adds strength to my side,and does not weaken it in any way.

My side has Vaughan and Strauss with Cook coming in for Trescothick.
With Pietersen and Flintoff being stroke makers, if Vaughan and Strauss do their jobs - then one of them will probably make hay in one innings of a match.

Collingwood is vital, he is gritty and sticks around - so with Collingwood coming in after Pietersen the batting looks strong.

Also these players are experienced, you compare Joyce with Flinoff saying Flintoff had a purple patch in 2004, he also did again in 2005, and again in India in 2006 averaging over 50 - Joyce can't match that IMO, and to play him at 6 is hiding him away.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Flintoff is simply not (and despite his 2004 purple patch, never has been) a top order bat. With him at 6, Ern's side is putting too much pressure on his top 4.

No, as I said above Flintoffs form has been consistent since 2004 until he was having to take time out due to injury.

He had a poor series in Pakistan and Australia, but then again 9 out of Englands 11 players did also.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Now I'd personally prefer to see Read playing Tests than to see Prior[...] Ern's side would be in danger of going from three out to all out in no time flat.

I don't think a tail of Flintoff,Read and Hoggard is all thet weak, compare it to your side, and it looks stronger.

Originally Posted by Rachael

With Harmison able to bend his back at first change and Panesar able to block and end up and get through a huge workload[...] the side wouldn't seriously miss Flintoff.

I would bowl Harmison and Hoggard as the opening bowlers, Harmison is a strike bowler who really should have the hard new ball.

Flintoff would be missed, when he bowls if he is not taking wickets - he blocks the runs at one end with his fast hard back of a length deliveries - even Brian Lara could not play him.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Thing is... Ern's not proposing that: he has so little faith in his bowlers that he's playing an extra one... and compromising the batting[.... ] To me that makes his side SERIOUSLY unappealing.

As you know I have always advocated the use of five bowlers, I think playing the extra batsman never works.It's bowlers taking wickets that win matches.

Also with Flintoff we are really only playing 4 bowlers, as Flintoff is an all-rounder who is also a specialist fast bowler.

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

I'd would prefer your Test side Rachael as it is just pure batsmen and bowlers[...] and makes your ODI stronger with the all rounders.

Rachael has been bold IMO, also IMO she has been to bold.
I would argue that maybe without Flintoff Rachaels side has more pur bowlers and barsmen than mine, but the quality in numbers is not there IMO.

Shah is untested - as is Joyce, Bell fails against the Aussie's and even if Prior gets the odd 50, he will concede more than that with his keeping, he will be a net loss to Rachaels side no matter what.

This is Rachaels bowlers:-

Sidebottom, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar

If conditions are not right for swing, these bowlers are in serious trouble as would England be.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Cook, Vaughan, Strauss, Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar are common to both sides... but where I'd anticipated the ECB adding Bell, Shah, Joyce, Prior and Sidebottom[...] Ernest suggested they should aim at Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read and Anderson - a tad curious as several on that list would, I suspect, be deemed more important to England's World Cup prospects.

First I think the ashes are more important that the cricket WC, I think everyone agree that the last one in 2006 was one big bore.

So with the ashes in mind - IMO Rachaels side is to experimental, it lacks experience and does not resemble the ahes side of 2004.
Rachael also says in her postscript that she would have no problem with my side if I excluded Anderson, well I wonder what she would think if I replaced Anderson with Tremlett/Plunkett or Mahmood?.

[Trescothick's Footwork]

Ern's by a mile, though I think leaving out Bell is complete idiocy when he is IMO a stone throw from being genuine world class. A fully fit Flintoff in Ern's would make a big difference, as would a fully abysmal keeper being selected as Rachel has done in Prior. If England were to split the sides though, and therefore Flintoff was only playing test cricket, then I would be tempted to go with just the four bowlers. It would depend on Freddie's fitness though, there would have to be no doubt. I'm not a fan of Joyce's either. I'd rather see Tres back, in fact I think we need Tres back.

[Rachael]

I was trying to avoid the 'keeper question in this thread: my own thoughts on Prior are well documented elsewhere... but I thought sticking Prior in would avoid digression (and as I was trying to anticipate what the selectors might actually do rather than what I'd do... that seemed fair enough).

For what it's worth... my first choice Test Xi would read: Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Joyce / Shah (open to arguments as to which), Collingwood, Read / Foster (that order of preference), Flintoff / Sidebottom (former if he can bowl 20+ overs a day at 90+mph and get the ball in the right place... otherwise the latter), Harmison, Hoggard and Panesar.

Flintoff would obviously bat higher than 8... but as I am not confident that he'll ever again bowl enough overs at a good enough pace to be a better bowler than Sidebottom... I am inclined to ignore him as a Test player.

I don't pretend that losing Pietersen to the ODI side would be anything other than bad news for the Test side.. and agree that the same would be true to a lesser extent with Collingwood and Flintoff (not least because of their all-round capabilities, including as fielders)... but I have rather greater faith in the replacements than many othes do - that trio is indispensible in the ODI side... but the Test side would, to my mind, cope without them.