Eng Squad for NZ

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Of course... that all goes out of the window when you move from bowlers like Hoggard and Sidebottom to bowlers like Anderson and Mahmood:[...] suddenly, profligacy means opponents can bat you out of the game in no time flat... and instead of the likely options being win or draw..

I am not for a minute saying that England should choose only players like Mahmood or Anderson, that would be suicide.

I think their is a place for one if not both in the England side in the near future, then players like Sidebottom comeinto their own as a foil to the pacemen.

Harmison
Hoggard
Mahmood
Flintoff.
What's wrong with that attack?, if Mahmood get it right - then wickets will tumble, if not the others are reliable.

I am advocating useing a player like Mahmood, like Australia use Lee or Tait.

Originally Posted by Rachael

keeping the bowling side in the game and doing everything possible to ensure the side can come back in another Test.[...]Wins are nice, but not always achievable: you win series by making sure of a decent result when the win doesn't happen.

Thirty years ago I might have agreed 100% with this, but then England had batsmen who could bat out for a draw if need be - as things stand if Englands bowlers can't take wickets, then they are likely to lose IMO.
For England to play the way you suggest, England need a couple of batsmen like Bob Woolmer and Thorpe who could hold an innings together.

Sidebottom - Hoggard - Broad and Harmison with the batting England have, are just not potent enough to put pressure on decent batting sides - all the pressure is then on Harmison, because he dose not have an opening partner of equal pace and wicket taking abilities.

[Rachael]

I'm in complete agreement that when you've other bowlers to shoulder the workload.... you can go for a wild-card bowler: when MacGrath, Gillespie and Warne were at their best they really didn't need Lee... and his inclusion was far more intelligible than it would have been if the other trio had been Kasprowicz, Bracken and MacGill!

With that said... in the dream world where everyone were fit you would find the following side as tough to defeat as any:

Vaughan
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Flintoff
Foster
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

Substitute Strauss in for Shah (or one of the other top order bats if you prefer): I wouldn't as I'm now inclined to trust Shah's newfound discipline.

Defensively speaking... that side might one of the strongest in the history of cricket... partly because the batsmen are all technically accomplished, with a good temperament... but not least because no side on earth would last long trying to score off them at more than 3 an over!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

ISubstitute Strauss in for Shah (or one of the other top order bats if you prefer):[...] I wouldn't as I'm now inclined to trust Shah's newfound discipline.

I would go for Strauss, I never wanted him as captain, but when in form Strauss is a world class opener.

My other problem with your batting is Bell, OK against any other team bar Australia I think his inclusion is fine, but against Australia I would be inclined to play Shah in place of Bell, but if Bell was picked against Australia and did well - that would be a bonus.
The batting with Strauss and with a proper keeper looks better, but then we have the same problem with the bowling - instead of Harmison carrying the bowling as a spearhead, that job would be pushed on Flintoff - simply because he is the fastest of the trio.

I think that the main problem with your team is that you don't competely trust the batting, and that's why you can't find a place for Harmison as you are only going to play four bowlers.
Flintoff really should be extra to four bowlers being that he is an all rounder, with him on form England could afford to play the fourth bowler (five counting Flintoff).

Another worry with only Hoggard - Sidebottom and Flintoff is that the temptation will be to overbowl Flintoff more than he should be, and with his ankle - just 2 pace partners just don't seem enough.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Defensively speaking... that side might one of the strongest in the history of cricket... partly because the batsmen are all technically accomplished, with a good temperament.

With the return of Strauss and a return to form of Flintoff you could have a point, but England will have to bat with more patience and score at only 2-3 runs an over if the situation calls for that, not trying to cart every ball for 6, and that has often been Englands downfall.

[darksideofthemoon]

A good example of not taking wickets and letting the opposition accumulate the runs slowly was in the last Test where England were in the field for two and a half days. When the batsmen came to bat they were tired and were bowled out for 81. If it wasn't for Cook in the follow at the crease for nearly six and a half hours there would have been another batting collapse. Then imagine a back to back Test after that one and losing the toss and being in the field again with tired bowlers. Those bowlers would have been half dead in that weather. England need to have wicket takers on in all conditions and that means good fast bowlers who bowl 90+ plus Hoggard.

Compare Lee and Harmison in 2007
Lee 4 matches 28 wickets at 17.28
Harmison 7 matches 24 wickets at 35.66

and also
Sidebottom 9 matches 29 wickets at 32.27
Steyn 7 matches 44 wickets at 17.47

[acker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm in complete agreement that when you've other bowlers to shoulder the workload.... you can go for a wild-card bowler: when MacGrath, Gillespie and Warne were at their best they really didn't need Lee... and his inclusion was far more intelligible than it would have been if the other trio had been Kasprowicz, Bracken and MacGill!

I still think you need the "wildcard/quick" bowler Rachael.

Even an attack like McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz/Bichel/Clark and of course Warne. Just lacks variation being top heavy with military medium 130 kph type bowlers.

2 are fine but thats about the limit. New Zealand have been bogged down with this problem for years with exception to Bond (who has trouble staying fit) due to just not having enough fast bowlers coming through, because thier cricketers come from a small population base.

[darksideofthemoon]

BBC SPORT | Cricket | England | England selector drops Read hint

At least they are still talking about him.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

At least they are still talking about him.

Absolutely amazing. A couple of good knocks and they're talking about him positively again.

[Moss]

Stop talking and get him in! It's about time the best wicket-keeper in the country played for the England side again.

Why do I have this feeling of deja-vu?! Again?!

[Rachael]

I'd love to see Read involved... but Simon Guy (and quite possibly others of comparable batting ability) could dispute the title of "best wicket-keeper"

What I'd love to hear is an informed comparison of the glovework of Read, Mustard and Foster... as they all get spoken of very highly from time to time. What's bemusing is that NONE of them are involved!

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

What I'd love to hear is an informed comparison of the glovework of Read, Mustard and Foster...

I agree. We keep saying that Read is the best gloveman but is he??

What does worry me is that I feel we are well on the way to heading back to the "Illy" years where a couple of good performances in the CC and you'll get an England call up .