The England Thread

[Pup Clarke]

What makes you think the lower order will be stronger?.Do you really think Fletcher will get away with playing 4 bowlers including Flintoff at 7 and Read/Nixon/Jones at 8?.I'd like to see it happen but TBH I'd be surprised if it does.England usually like to play with 5 bowlers.I can't think of the last test when England played 4 bowlers including Flintoff.

 

[Richard]

Even if we do insist on going in with 5 bowlers (and I see more chance of us going with 4 than there normally is, TBH) the lower-order would still be likely to be stronger given that neither Read nor Jones look likely to play. Not to mention that Hoggard will be up against his 2 favourite opponents.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Not to mention that Hoggard will be up against his 2 favourite opponents.

 

[Richard]

Hoggard's blocking has been more effective against India and West Indies than anyone else. If Pietersen was on 30 when Hoggard came to the crease against either it'd still be perfectly conceivable for him to get 120 IMO.

 

[GIMH]

Can't call NZ crap at something they never seem to play TBF.

Fair point I guess, but it is a hypocrisy.

Get rid of Fletcher,Vaughan (As Odi Skip) and Graveney.

Mahmood, Vaughan, Nixon and Panesar Also Dalrimpyle,should have their ODI Careers ended

Questions have to be asked over players like Anderson, Flintoff, Strauss, Joyce

Bell, Broad,Bopara, Collingwood and Pietersen should have the side bulit round them

But quite simply there is not much talent in English cricket because the system is wrong, the One day comps are boring No one cares and there is only a few knockout rounds.

This has to be changed..... Starting with Appointing Tom Moddy as coach, Bell as ODI Skipper and Willis as Chairman

Come on Chris, they are our best bowlers

Richard any views on the possible test side for the 17th.I would personally go with this side if Trescothick isn't available.

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Read
Hoggard
SP Jones
Panesar

Knowing the selectors I'm pretty much 100% certain that Harmison will be in the line up if he is fit and taking wickets... even though his form in the last year has been very poor.

I'd pick that side

I'd probably have Collingwood up 2 places, given that Pietersen prefers the five to the four slot.

Otherwise the same - with the no-Trescothick presumption. If he managed to convince enough people he was in a fit state, him instead of Cook.

For me, Cook should be in the team anyway. instead of who is a tough one, but Vaughan can bat lower down for sure.

 

[Richard]

'T'would honestly have been better to make 4 separate posts.

As to who would miss-out if Trescothick, Cook and Vaughan all played - IMO Collingwood has a more compelling case than probably all 3.

 

[GIMH]

'T'would honestly have been better to make 4 separate posts.

As to who would miss-out if Trescothick, Cook and Vaughan all played - IMO Collingwood has a more compelling case than probably all 3.

I know, but it's too much effort, especially when I shouldn't really be posting because I'm working. I make exceptions on Fridays though, and CW all day long tbh!!

Anyhow....Bell maybe?

Trescothick
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff

Seems a decent line-up to me. Thoughts?

 

[Perm]

Would rather have Bell in the side than Collingwood TBH.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I think leaving out Bell would be damn harsh IMO.It would probably have to be Collingwood who missed out if they wanted to include Trescothick,Strauss,Vaughan and Cook.

 

[GIMH]

Collingwood is a better bet to score more runs IMO. Both bring a lot to the side in terms of fielding as well, but Colly is a class above in that area, and his bowling is slightly better than Bell's as well

 

[Perm]

Collingwood is a better bet to score more runs IMO. Both bring a lot to the side in terms of fielding as well, but Colly is a class above in that area, and his bowling is slightly better than Bell's as well

Both are ineffective at Test level, I can't see Collingwood being much of a partnership breaker in Test match cricket really. I suppose it comes down to opinion, because I think Bell is more likely to score runs than Collingwood.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, their bowling is nothing more than fill-in. I'd be more confident with Colly at the crease tbh.

 

[Richard]

Against the attacks we're likely to come-up against this summer, I'd back Bell to score a whole truckload of runs, he's already shown he can do a Richardson-esque job against average bowling.

(That doesn't, of course, mean I think he'll be Richardson-esque in not having the ability against better bowling)

Anyhow - IMO Bell and Collingwood both have more compelling cases than Cook. Mind, I'd not be surprised to see Cook replace either Trescothick or possibly even Strauss in the side purely on merit sometime soon.

 

[GIMH]

TBH all of them deserve to play, but in the Tests Vaughan must play.

I don't think we'll see Tresco for the first test anyway tbh

 

[Richard]

No, gotta say me neither - think Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood is overwhelmingly the likeliest. Just hope and pray they have the sense to go with 6 batsmen. And if it were down to me I'd go Collingwood four and Bell six, but I don't think anyone else would.

 

[GIMH]

Bell did well at 6 last summer, so I've no problems with him playing there.

Not sure where Bell's best position is tbh. Nor Colly for that matter

 

[Perm]

Yeah, their bowling is nothing more than fill-in. I'd be more confident with Colly at the crease tbh.

More likely to save a Test match but I'd still back Bell to score a century more times than I'd back Collingwood, not saying Collingwood is a bad player or anything.

 

[Perm]

No, gotta say me neither - think Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood is overwhelmingly the likeliest. Just hope and pray they have the sense to go with 6 batsmen. And if it were down to me I'd go Collingwood four and Bell six, but I don't think anyone else would.

That's the side I would go in with, just like you I hope the selectors see the merits in having 6 batsman and Flintoff #7. With the team having 6 specialist batsman, the urge for Pietersen to bat at #4 isn't as great IMO as he still has Bell as support down the order.

 

[Perm]

Bell did well at 6 last summer, so I've no problems with him playing there.

Not sure where Bell's best position is tbh. Nor Colly for that matter

I feel Bell's best position for the meantime is #6. He has done well their in the past, most notably against Pakistan last year and won't find the pressure as great compared to if he was coming in at 0/1 in the first over. In the future I think he'll develop into a #3 batsman, but not just at the moment. If England play 6 batsman then I would put Collingwood at #4, but if they weren't playing that many and Flintoff was at #6 then I would drop Colly down one and move Pietersen.

 

[grecian]

Fifth in the WC then.

Not to bad considering, we're not that good at ODIs.

Think it's not a bad warm-up for the real cricket. With Hoggy, GBH and Monty back, we should do okay