Not quite right TT look here for Gilo - leaving Gilo out indeed .

__________________
Ern

It is not possible to leave Flintoff out on account of his bowling - also both Strauss and Colly have been terrible with the bat bar one great innings from Collingwood.
Also I have posted somewhere that Flintoff should not play PJ cricket after the World Cup, in fact I don't really care if he misses the World Cup, problem is England would miss him in the World Cup.

__________________
Ern

Yes Ern I saw that - but thankfully I was not eating and did not choke on anything.

I am not really sure how you can justify have Giles in your side. Your point that Monty has not proven him self yet - falls flat when you select Giles over Monty - when did Giles prove him self better than Monty?

I think Monty's figure of 2/35 off 10 when the rest of the bowlers where smashed, showed that he deserves a spot in the side. Your accusations that Monty would not stand up to the Ashes battle did not eventuate - he bowled quite well and has more respect from Australian batsman than Giles has ever had.

England need to drop the idea of bits and pieces players. The likes of Dalrymple arent good enough to be one of your 5 main bowlers and realistically he's not good enough to bat in the top 6 (or 7 for that matter).

Giles is past it to be considred, he's unfit and not good enough. Ern, why would you pick Giles instead of Monty? The 10 runs more Giles may score would be off set by the more wickets Monty would take and for fewer runs. I can understand your desire to portect Monty but already he has shown himself to be an accomplished bowler and level headed.

Someone like Loye could be useful on the smaller West Indian grounds, assuming he makes the squad. Although I think our biggest worry is keeping whatever 15 we pick fit!

__________________
Mark.

In India the 2003 or 04 not sure, but Giles was the one who put the brakes on the rampant Indian batsmen, it was Giles bowling over the wicket that stooped England from further embaressement that year, he also can bat as well as contain batters, attacking bowlers like Panesar is to risky IMO for the World Cup.
I would only play him if fit, Giles has been underestimated before, and bounced back, I think Monty will do well in a World Cup - another year.
I like your point about the problem of keeping whichever 15 are picked fit, England have this problem with players - it's about time the players got a rest from one day cricket after a Test series.
I don't care for one day cricket, but could stand it better if England picked specialist one day players like they used to do (with more success), or failing that play the one day series before the Test and warm up games.

__________________
Ern

OMG!!!

There are still people out there who want to pick Ashley Giles??

Come the WC, England are likely to need a minimum of one spinner in every game (hence the need for back-up) and quite possibly two specialist spinners. There's also got to be a plan 'B' for the possibility of Flintoff missing a game.

One of Dalrymple and Giles has to travel... and which one depends on whether you want a batsman who can bowl or a bowler who can bat.

But why? Niether of them are good enough. Dalrymple isnt a good enough bowler and he's flattered to decieve with the bat, only scoring runs in "dead" games.

I would take Giles if he was fully fit, but he's not and in all likelyhood not going to be.

__________________
Mark.

IF the pitches require that the pace be taken off the ball.. England need better support for Panesar than Pietersen and Vaughan (or some equally rank occasional bowler like Yardy): Blackwell might be first choice if fit... but he's not. Giles is both good enough AND physically (if not match) fit... and the fact that Dalrymple HAS so commonly got through 9-10 overs in an innings for his side.

Last but not least... if Flintoff misses a game or two through minor injury.... Giles and Dalrymple are stacks better than (to take the obvious example) Plunkett as no 6-7 (Dalrymple) or 8 (Giles) batsmen.

You're seeking to make examples of players who were responsible for the loss of the Ashes. Flintoff was very much one of them, especially as captain, and shouldn't be above being dropped or at least rested for a few games. He should have lost the captaincy after that debacle, but the lack of balls in the English management that saw the dropping of Panesar and Read at the start of the series was evidential of that. This is not about Collingwood or Strauss, I was using them as examples of players you blame for all of the team's mistakes, including Flintoff's, to keep him in the team as the noble warrior let down by everyone bar himself. Flintoff shouldn't be dropped for long, but dropped he should be, for a few games in order to bring him back to Earth and make him think about his game and how he needs to buck his ideas up. It would also do his long term fitness the world of good.