Agreed greg, Anderson has shown once again he is not a Test fast bowler.

__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"

Andersons far too inconsistant at the moment to be considered.

Englands only hope of salvaging anything from this series is to pick a bowling attack to take 20 wickets. Broad lack pace and expirience so either Harmison or Swann (or both!) need to play in the next match.

__________________
Mark.

We are up a creek though if Hoggard is unfit for the next game as he is easily our best bowler these days.

I would be tempted to throw in Broad as at least he is unknown potential where as we know that Anderson and Harmison aren't to be trusted.

I disagree with this opinion FF - I remember Flintoff declaring with more runs on the board than Sri Lanka have, and England got beat.

Rule#1 in a first test IMO - is to ensure you don't get beat, sporting declarations are a thing of the past.

This is from memory - I am 99% I have the right series.

__________________
Ern

To right - there are no England reserves to replace Hoggard.

Broad is no better than Anderson or Harmison, the fact is tat none of this trio are that good.

And to make matters worse - Sidebottom has no penetration, I think England have to go.

Anderson
Sidebottom
Panesar
Swann

{Pietersen-Vaughan}
{Collingwood-Bell} as occasional bowlers.
Anderson only becuause even though he goes for runs, Hoggard apart - he is the only other seam bowler likely to take a wicket.

Fact is with Flintoff and Simon Jones injured, and serious doubts about Harmison, James Kirtley and Glenn Chapple should have been in the England squad.

The alternatives would have been Mahmood and Plunkett, and the press would have had a field day.

Why is Tremlett not in the squad - is he injured?.

__________________
Ern

??? Ern I do believe you have gone nuts!! Both those players should be resigned to the past. On a serious note we have 16 players in the squad... you cannot cover in a squad of 16 every single base... You have to accept that it would be great to have a squad of 20, and include players like Kirtley and Ramprakash... but you can't have everyone you can think of touring each winter.

Tremlett is not injured, but with the Academy and on stand-by

Flintoff and Gough could not be relied on?, well everyone to his own opinion.

Caddick was probably a better seamer than any on show in this match, and that includes Malinga and Vaas.

Harmison and Anderson need coaching to learn the basics, or they will never keep a place.

__________________
Ern

Normally I would agree FF, but surely you must see the dire strates the English bowlers are in, this squad selection is as pathetic as the England side selected to tour Australia in 2006 - clutching at straws I might be FF, but wrong I don't this I am in this circumstance.

Thank's - I would hope he has allready boarded a plane Sri Lanks bound.

__________________
Ern

Harmison is motivated to play for England and he will be a better pick over the next three years than the likes of Broad, Tremlett, Anderson............ Baring in mind Harmison has a test record similar to Brett Lee and he's indispensible to them

The problem with Harmison is that since the 2005 ashes series he's never been fully fit.

To me Anderson has shown he shouldnt be considered for any more tests unless we are playing a 5 man attack he's just too unreliable and always liable to go at 4-6 an over.

I'm not sure about Tremlett and Broad lacks pace and experience. If Broad is to play then Sidebottom must go and a genuine paceman must play.

Funnily enough, England played India without anyone genuinely quick and lost (fair enough they had no choice in that series) but the selectors have tried 3 medium pacers against SL and they will lose again, dont they learn. Especially as Englands only bowler of pace, Flintoff caused India problems in the ODI's and Lee caused Sri Lanka problems whereas the likes of Clark posed no threat.

__________________
Mark.

Gough was England's Gillespie: perhaps not quite as good... but there was nothing much to choose between them. He tried hard... and would try anything... but for all the bravado and repertoire of party tricks... his best was good rather than special - so he could be depended upon to try... but ultimately his desperate efforts to get the batsman to err through bouncers, cutters, yorkers and slower balls were no real substitute for the greater threat that was posed (in the same era) by more dependable bowlers like Ambrose and Donald.

Flintoff shouldn't really be mentioned in the same breath as he's no where near the same callibre of bowler... but I'd agree that he was in one sense "dependable": giving the same level of performance no matter what's happening has always been his great asset. Most county bowlers could do better in helpful conditions... but few have ever been as willing to bend their back in hopeless conditions: he's good at being average where more skilled bowlers tend to have peaks and troughs.

Dependability has to be about more than just character: Gough and Flintoff had the fighting spirit... but neither had the basic potential of Caddick or Harmison let alone of the callibre of player I think Nostromo is talking about.

ps. I've no problem with the standard of any of the above... and don't think there's a problem playing Test cricket with no-one better than Gough, Caddick, Flintoff and Harmison... but you do have to accept that none could be relied upon to find a way to win in almost any conditions in the way the greats could be relied upon.