1st Test: England v Bangladesh: Lord's 26-30 May

[Alison]

I thought they said team, although I must admit I wasn't paying 100% attention at the time.

[Rachael]

I thought it was a pretty decent discussion, really: even Stewart was vaguely interesting.. having interesting things to say about Tresco's lack of footwork (saying balance was the more important factor), echoing what others say about Tresco's great strength (his focus on playing his "corridoor of uncertainty" shots late and under his nose) and arguing pretty forcefully that Thorpe's back injury is the only thing that either has - or will - stand between Thorpe and the position of "best batsman in the England side".

The argument about injuries and withdrawls having rendered otherwise quite competitive sides uncompetitive in past series is, of course, open to debate.. but when you look at some of those who've been either missing or carrying injuries it's not surprising the side suffered.

I guess the interesting thing this year is that at least on the batting and wicket-keeping front... the substitutes look as decent as those playing.

[Alison]

I don't really feel able to make a judgement myself about how good previous England teams were, because I've only been following cricket for 3-4 years, and so I've not seen what they were like and all I can really go on are the statistics.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Secondly.. if there was a "a paradigm shift in the england team mentality" then it was a fairly long time ago now: I accept, entirely, that Fletcher now has a team moulded in his own image (capped by the appointment, today, of maynard as assistant coach)... but for ****** sake - the revolution was completed years ago under Hussain, not last year under Vaughan.

I don't think it was completed by hussain, he started the process and did bring backbone to the team, but the figures don't lie, we'd still let teams off the hook far too often, get 5 wickets down for not much then let a side back in, we might still win but we lacked the complete killer instinct of the australians. We still don't have the same level as the aussies but vaughan and fletcher have moved it on another gear since hussain, largely because of an influx of new players and pressure on their places due to an expansion in the depth of the squad.

The one difference between 5 years ago and now strikes me as being nothing to do with the team itself... it's to do with the standard of preparation of the fringe players.. and for that we should pay tribute to 3 things: reform of the County Cricket system (2 divisions, with promotion and relegation, plus Kolpak players, etc, raising the standard of domestic cricket) and the academy (which I would hold to have been a huge success).

That's my point though, the side has gained the killer instinct because they can't afford to relax like previous england sides. Previous sides a player was simply replaced as a punishment for a couple of games and then he'd be back again for yet another wasted chance.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

(2 divisions, with promotion and relegation, plus Kolpak players, etc, raising the standard of domestic cricket) and the academy (which I would hold to have been a huge success).

Not convinced that the benefits/negatives of the Kolpak ruling can really have helped - most of the Test team have not really played county cricket for three or fours years - which means that the Kolpak ruling will not have effected them. But as you know I am not pro-Kolpaks -and never will - two oversease players is more than enough IMHO.

For me there has been several reasons why this side is better:-

1. Central Contracts and Consistency in selection - there are not likely to be any one-test wonders in this era... Get into the squad and you are likely to be given a run...(unless your name is Rob Key)
2. The Academy - most of the players have been through it now, and have taken the proffesional approach with them
3. Competion for places - there are so many good players on the fringe who could step up.
4. Knowing who the best players are - there is very little discusion on here about the make-up of the Test side as we can pritty much name it.. Something you can also do with the Australian team - but how many other side in world cricket can you do that?
5. A great coach with a good team around him - Duncan Fletcher is one of the best in world cricket and it shows; he also seems to be able to pull of Hunches - Trescothick, Strauss etc..
6. Team England - Botham said it the other day - Team England is the 19th county. These players spend more time for England than they do for their counties. So many stories I have heard of opposition teams being suprised how England players used to slope off back to their counties as soon as a Test match was over, now they do not have to do that. They play for each other and enjoy each others success, sometimes more than their own.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Duncan Fletcher [...] seems to be able to pull of Hunches - Trescothick, Strauss etc..

Not disputing your general point... but wasn't Strauss a Marsh man? I was under the impression that Collingwood was very much Fletcher's pick as the "next man in" when Strauss suddenly got his chance. In truth I suspect Anthony McGrath or GO ones would be a more representative example of a "Fletcher man" than either Strauss or Bell.

I've always admired Fletcher's combination of pragmatism (accepting the need for players like Caddick that didn't fit his mould) and confidence in his own vision of the sort of players he wants as the core of the side. The fact that I don't particularly SHARE Fletcher's enthusiasm for a side built around the likes of Tresco, McGrath, Collingwood and GO Jones doesn't detract from my admiration for his determination to tread that path.

I guess the flip side of my admiration remains a suspicion that there is more than one way to skin a cat: Vaughan's already stamping his mark, somewhat, with his enthusiasm (pre-dating their recent improvemnt) for Giles and Hoggard.... but I remain somewhat intrigued by the thought of, say, a team led by a Vaughan-Marsh partnership: I do feel it couold be both different in focus and yet similarly successful.

[flanflinger]

Rachael,

Not too sure what "a marsh-man" or a "fletcher-man" is... or how you know the intimate discusions of the selectors, but it was mentioned the other day by Alec Stewart that Strauss was one of Fletchers hunches..

Don't knwo why you have to invent competiton amongst the selectors though. I think the selectors seem to be working so why invent something that doesn't seem to be there...

[Kirsty Harris]

I thought it was a sad sight, to see a "test" team beaten into the ground so throughly by a team that was clearly lightyears ahead of them.

You have to admire the ruthlessness with which England strangled the life out of Bangladesh, when perhaps in the past they might have relaxed against such an inferior team and as a result lost a few more wickets/conceeded a few more runs. That is pretty much all that this game really highlighted, from an England point of view, - the attiude of the players is now highly focused, much more so than in the past.

Beyond that, Vaughan was in blinding form - Tres got more runs, but Vaughan looked the better of the two, IMO. To be fair, though, most half-decent county players could have made runs against that attack! Strauss must have been kicking himself for not making a ton!!!

As for Banladesh, they performed even more poorly than expected. I feel sorry for them really - seeing Flintoff bowling at some of their batsmen was truely a case of men against boys

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

As for Banladesh, they performed even more poorly than expected. I feel sorry for them really - seeing Flintoff bowling at some of their batsmen was truely a case of men against boys

I was incredibly disappointed by the quality of Bangladesh's batting. To watch 'test' batsmen playing straight balls from leg stump or just outside is very strange indeed. Have they never faced bowling of more than 70 mph? Have they never been taught to get in line when defending? It's the sort of thing you see from nervous club players - but in a test match? Unbelievable.

Having said that, this was Bangladesh's first match in England, at Lords too, and the movement through the air was considerable. So it was a tough introduction to English conditions.

I think the schedule for the summer could have been reversed. England could have played Australia earlier, where our swing bowlers might have caused some damage. And Bangladesh would have benefitted more from playing at the Oval in
August than Lords in May. A tricky one, and I know there are good arguments for playing Bangladesh before the Aussies. Just a thought, though.

[Trescothick]

I agree with you Kirsty it was a shame to see such a one sided competition... They do show potential IMO but there still is a lot of work. However, one comment i disagree on is:

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

Beyond that, Vaughan was in blinding form - Tres got more runs, but Vaughan looked the better of the two, IMO. To be fair, though, most half-decent county players could have made runs against that attack! Strauss must have been kicking himself for not making a ton!!!

I know im biased, but i was watching the whole test (bar some of it) but i feel Tresco looked the most impressive out of them all. Strauss was dropped once before, he was close to being run-out and he also got hit the the same lbw ball twice in a row. He played good, but didn't look the best. Vaughan as you say looked very good however against another side he would have been out early on being almost Caught and Bowled, oin top of that i saw a very good catching oppurtunity when he struck it high behind him. He rode his luck but in the end powered on. Trescothick looked in no trouble, leaving any wide balls not even looking tempted to nibble at it as he sometimes has been known to do. He hit some brilliant boundarys throughout the day and his running between the wickets was flawless. There is no doubt in my mind he deserved MOM.

As for Bangladesh, they performed even more poorly than expected. I feel sorry for them really - seeing Flintoff bowling at some of their batsmen was truely a case of men against boys

Agreed. I felt very sorry for them especially that one that ducked but still took a hit right to the head! He got a run but that would have been quite a knock.

Overall, i enjoyed watching the game, first cricket i've seen for a while, would have preferred more from Bangladesh but its still good.