Ernest, you've been argued down, successfully, every single time you have EVER argued for out and out pace over class in bowling. We had to run this damn silly argument last year before agreeing that quality, not pace, gets wickets. Lee at Edgbaston sucked. Flintoff, in the final session at Edgbaston, couldn't even trouble Lee... and McGrath at Lords and Hoggard at Trent Bridge outbowled all of the pace men by a margin that beggars belief.

If this thread is going to become another rant and squabble about pace being the be all and end all of seam bowling we might as well just ditch it and go work on another thread!

ps. Panesar seems as good a selection as any for a spinner for this side: it seems to me that we should reject Swann on the grounds that he can't convince those who matter even when he's bowling well... and Batty on the grounds that he can't convince those same folk that he can even bowl well... and that if we're going for a specialist that Panesar is an automatic choice. The only realistic alternative, for me, would be Loudon.. who gets in as a batsman who bowls!

Hes a spinner

On merit, Collingwood deserves his place in the team ahead of the spinners. If you play him at 6 and don't bowl him much then you will need a spinner in the team to rest the seamers. I'd prefer to play Collingwood at 5 which makes the bowling issue easier to sort out because we can play a genuine all-rounder like Mascarenhas at 7 who can bowl a few overs to rest the seamers without going for a lot. How about Prior at 6 as keeper? followed by Mascarenhas, Kabir Ali/spinner, Tremlett, Davies, Sidebottom/spinner

No Rachael, would England have won the Ashes back without the out and out pace and hostility of Flintoff?, and the nippy Simon Jones?, I doubt it Rachael.
We had no Warne, and still don't-so we have to use what we have, and pace has served England well, against the likes of lara, Hayden and Ponting, no mugs.

__________________
Ern

Well I agree we need Collingwood in, and 5 would be better than 6.

So we could have Tremlett, Ali, Sidebottom and a spinner +one other as nippy as possible.

__________________
Ern

I prefer Collingwood at 6 to give the batting enough depth. Mascharenhas isnt good enough to bat at 7 so should bat no higher than 8. I also think it is a waste of Collingwoods bowling to pick someone else to bowl his overs. The 4th seamer isnt going to be significantly better than Collingwood unless he is a specialist bowler, which means Collingwood should be used. I still think the team would have better balance with either a batting spinner at 7 and the keeper at 8 with 3 strike seamers or the keeper at 7, Mascharenhas 8, 2 seamers and Panesar at 9 10 11.

SP Kirby
Tremlett
Sidebottom
LE Plunkett
Spinner.

__________________
Ern

Well said.

Davies and Sidebottom should be automatic as a bowler... as should Collingwood as a batsman. That trio are so clearly deserving, from their performances this year, that arguing against them can invites accusation of prejudice. If that trio play... you need one further seamer and one spinner. I'd recommend Panesar and Tremlett... but as I feel Foster is crucial I accept that others will be unhappy with the proposed tail.

I'm going to argue that such fears are misguided... but to my mind the decision boils down to the following:

1. Collingwood, Foster, Davies, Panesar, Sidebottom, Tremlett
2. Collingwood, Foster, Kabir Ali, Davies, Sidebottom, Tremlett
3. Loudon, Collingwood, Foster, Davies, Sidebotttom, Tremlett
4. Loudon, Collingwood, Foster, Kabir Ali, Davies, Sidebotttom

I also accept that those who think 'keeping is about as significant as balmy army contributions will argue for Prior at 6 or 7.. so I'll add further options.

5. Collingwood, Prior, Kabir Ali, Davies, Panesar, Sidebottom
6. Collingwood, Prior, Davies, Panesar, Sidebottom, Tremett.

Can we at least agree that those are the options?

Kirby????
4 years ago maybe, not now.
Id have Plunkett, davies Tremlett, Sidebottom, Mascharenhas, even Ali above him for the place.

As far as I'm concerned the players who are definitely in the team are:
Cook (4)
Shah (3)
Joyce (5)
Davies (4)

These are the most chosen key players and most selectors had them in their side as well. So can we agree to sign them off?