The reason to bring in Tremlett is to keep options open. Anderson is surely not going to play if England are going to regain the Ashes. The selectors must be that aware.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Since when does a 13 ball innings ended by possibly the best delivery of the match constitute grounds for judging someone's batting form? If the guy spends a long time scratching around and looking completely out of sorts (as some say Strauss did) then fair enough... but on the bsais of 13 balls?
So long as he's fit and bowling well (and he gets a game on Tuesday which should establish that) then Tremlett's call up makes perfect sense: he's got the height to exploit the bounce at Old Trafford, he's done more than Onions to warrant a place.... and he's not Harmison - that ticks enough boxes for me!What's the problem? I'd back the current crew to beat Australia on a sporting wicket.

Because he's played a few games for Durham prior to this match and has only got bat on ball to edge a catch. Thats good enough evidence for me to say that he's out of form.

Has he? Tremlett has taken 8 wickets @ 25 (which is much worse than Harmy) and FAR worse than Onions whose taken 13 wickets @ 14 in the CC. Most importantly Onions wont go AWOL when the going gets tough and will be fit on Friday. Even so Onions still lacks that vital yard of pace.

The point was even made on TMS "England need a fast bowler!"


Dont worry about that, Harmison will never play for England again. Even though he has been bowling at good pace (90mph+) and is getting better with every game he plays for Durham. The fact that he's bowled only half a dozen wides or so in a lot of one day games this season says something.

And why do you say that? On a sporting wicket they couldn't bundle what is to be honest a poor NZ team out for a low score. If England are to win the Ashes they will have to win at least 2 games and I cant see that attack taking 40 wickets in a series never mind in 2 tests!

__________________
Mark.

Rachael Tremlett won't be playing at Old Trafford unless there is an injury to one of the current England bowlers.

The England set up AT LAST are going for a policy of continuity - and not of change for the sake of change.

Now you mention Tremlett's height to exploit any bounce at Old Trafford as a positive - well the same could be said of Broad as he is also tall. And Anderson has the advantage of knowing the Old Trafford wicket better than the rest, so who would be left out in the very unlikely event that would happen. It would have to be Sidebottom.

__________________
Ern

Fear not pie_chucker. Despite what John says about Anderson, he should remember that another much critisised player "Devon Malcolm", slaughtered South Africa with a 9 fer - and the current England bowlers are good enough to do the same, and that includes Anderson.

Really it's how the England batting will stand up to the SA bowling that will count, I think the England bowlers will be more than a match for the South Africans in English conditions.

The return to form by Vaughan and Strauss is good news, and Collingwood will come good - and don't forget Flintoff will probably be back bowling before the SA Test series.

__________________
Ern

Thanks Rachael, I needed a good laugh tonight and you provided it!

Because he wasn't scoring any runs? That would seem a pretty good reason to me.

Vaughan is not 'untouchable'. He cannot hide behind his captaincy forever and needs to be judged on his contributions with the bat, just as much as any other batsman is.

I'm delighted Vaughan 'appears' to have regained 'some' of his form. His innings was a delight for all to behold and it really was Vaughan back to his very best - his strokeplay was sublime, playing textbook shots, that could not have been executed better.

An full flowing Vaughan is one of the rare and great delights in international Cricket.

Well I for one am pretty disappointed at this lack lustre England performance. This was a game that England were expected to win and failed to do so. The onus is on England to win these games and if they do not, they will lose ICC ranking points, a draw is as good as a victory for NZ.

No doubt most people will point to the weather at the main reason England failed to win and partially that is true, but it also highlights the stupidity of our batsman walking off for bad light when they had the chance to bat on. That light was still good enough to bat in, they do it when they want to, remember Nasser Hussains sides win in the sub-continent played in almost total darkness?

So they only have themselves to blame for failing to win this game, as they'd rather be sitting in the pavilion with their feet up than batting in poor light. That sadly, epitomises the overall ambitions of this England side.

The balance of the side is wrong, as I keep on saying, with 4 frontline bowlers, they simply did not have the bowling firepower to bowl NZ out twice. Anderson continues to be erratic and inconsistent, Broad is improving and accurate but lacks threat and intent and when Sidebottom goes AWOL nothing seems to happen. Panesar plugged away but wasn't helped by the pitch.

The batsmen (Vaughan and the openers apart) were generally the usual shambolic bunch we've come expect of them.

Moores and his side have sunk to new lows - they can't even get the better of one of the weakest sides in Test Cricket, what hope do they have against the best? At the moment, none at all.

So forget about next years Ashes, if they played them now, they'd get thrashed, as they were in the last Ashes.

Nope. After years of hiding behind a 5 man attack (rather than demanding the bowlers stand up and be counted) the balance is finally right. That's not to say the personnel are right... but we're talking minor tweaks: England's first choice XI is almost there...

Cook - arguably the best opener in world cricket
Bell - far better than Cook, and needs to be opening
Vaughan - the classiest player in the side
Pietersen - one of the most effective middle order players in the world
Shah - should be ahead of Strauss at present
Collingwood - the sort of utilitarian scrapper needed at 6
Flintoff - bowling well enough to be back
Mustard / Read / Foster - take your pick of three great glovemen
Broad - hugely promising, rapidly maturing, well worth the investment
Sidebottom - still England's no 1 bowler
Panesar - as per Broad

Batting Reserves: Shah, Carberry
Bowling Reserves: Hoggard (who should force his way back before long anyway), Tremlett

In the frame: Rashid, S. Jones, Onions, etc.

Seems to me that Moores is well on the way: just needs to find the ***** to pick an out and out gloveman, to ditch Anderson and to push Bell right up the order (all of which are far, far more likely than they would have been with Fletcher at the helm).

I agree completely. Either they were unjustifiably overconfident, or they were just being p*$$!*s generally. New Zealand don't have any express bowlers, the risk of injury you'd think was pretty minimal- so, why ever they went off, they have only themselves to blame for managing a draw.

Surely that "stand up and be counted" argument applies to the batsmen as well? Whatever you do, either the batting or the bowling is going to get some possibly unnecessary cover. And as Scott says, England's bowling isn't always reliable. Given that the best way of insuring victory is to take 20 wickets, and that England's most successful period in 20 years was built around the 5-man attack, why not err on the side of caution in favour of the bowling?

I'm open to Bell opening (although given his recent form, Strauss would be mightily unlucky to miss out in favour of Shah or anyone else- maybe that should be a long-term thing.) As for the 'keeping, I like Mustard, but Ambrose looked pretty good to me yesterday- if he had a bad first innings (I didn't see), then his second was a big improvement. Regarding Anderson, he did have a good match and it would again be unfair to drop him now. When his form goes, then yes (like anyone else) but not yet.