• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official** West Indies in England***

PhoenixFire

International Coach
If Trescothick is fit, then I'd have this as the order.

1) Trescothick
2) Strauss
3) Cook
4) Pietersen
5) Collingwood
6) Bell
7) Flintoff
8) Nixon/Read
9) Hoggard
10) Harmison
11) Panesar
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
Ideally I would have this as my team.

1. Cook
2. Strauss
3. Vaughan (c)
4. Collingwood
5. Pietersen
6. Bell
7. Flintoff
8. Read (wk)
9. Panesar
10. Hoggard
11. Harmison/Anderson/Jones

Depends who is in form and bowling well out of the final three seamers I listed. Bell did a good job batting at #6 prior to the Ashes, there is no reason he can't bat there again.
Tell me your team doesn't look a bowler short - let alone a penetrating bowler like Mahmood (accept it or I'll argue it in another post).

Also, Bell did a good job at 3 in Australia, why not leave him there and let Vaughan bat at 6, we all know that he needs a new start and batting him lower down the order like he did when he started his career could be the right choice - a Hussey type role, but only in Tests.

Either way, I've posted my team, but I'm predicitng that the one the selectors pick will have Vaughan with the exclusion of Collingwood.

Also, could someone tell me the input that Moore will have in the selection? Will the same/similar squad that was picked for the Ashes be there (Fletcher's POV) or will Moore have an input into the squad? I ask this because I've noticed many users on here argue the 'Fletcher' mentality, so will Moore exclude players like Mahmood, Plunkett, Giles, Broad and co or is that up to the selectors discretion.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If Trescothick is fit, then I'd have this as the order.

1) Trescothick
2) Strauss
3) Cook
4) Pietersen
5) Collingwood
6) Bell
7) Flintoff
8) Nixon/Read
9) Hoggard
10) Harmison
11) Panesar
Can't beleive you would think of giving Paul Nixon a Test match, he doesn't have a future in Test cricket. If Trescothick was fit, I would prefer to see Vaughan in there for Strauss and have Cook opening, however I don't think they will want to push Trescothick back into the Test side straight away.
 

ramkumar_gr

U19 Vice-Captain
Can't beleive you would think of giving Paul Nixon a Test match, he doesn't have a future in Test cricket. If Trescothick was fit, I would prefer to see Vaughan in there for Strauss and have Cook opening, however I don't think they will want to push Trescothick back into the Test side straight away.
Nixon should definitely play in the tests for atleast 2 years. Performances of Read,Jones,Foster surely pale in comparison.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Tell me your team doesn't look a bowler short - let alone a penetrating bowler like Mahmood (accept it or I'll argue it in another post).
Mahmood is only likely to get batsman out with a half volley or long hop, also he'd be an ideal part of your side if you were wanting to have 3/100 off 20 overs or something similar.

Also, Bell did a good job at 3 in Australia, why not leave him there and let Vaughan bat at 6, we all know that he needs a new start and batting him lower down the order like he did when he started his career could be the right choice - a Hussey type role, but only in Tests.
Michael Vaughan has had 6 innings down the order at #6 and averages 36, Ian Bell averages 93 over 7 innings. Simple choice for me. Bell did an average job in Australia, he didn't convert his starts into a decent score and was guilty of letting his team down. I don't see the point in batting Vaughan down the order when almost all of his innings have come in the top 4, especially when Bell is more than competent down the order.

Either way, I've posted my team, but I'm predicitng that the one the selectors pick will have Vaughan with the exclusion of Collingwood.
Wouldn't surprise me, especially if they want to bring Trescothick straight back into the team. Collingwood would be the one I would drop if they wanted to play 6 batsman.

Also, could someone tell me the input that Moore will have in the selection? Will the same/similar squad that was picked for the Ashes be there (Fletcher's POV) or will Moore have an input into the squad? I ask this because I've noticed many users on here argue the 'Fletcher' mentality, so will Moore exclude players like Mahmood, Plunkett, Giles, Broad and co or is that up to the selectors discretion.
Pretty sure it would be the selectors job to pick a squad, obviously Moore will want certain players but I'm not exactly sure what will happen there.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I can see Nixon making runs, much easier than I can see Read making runs.
Maybe in the short term, but in the long term it would be a bad choice. If he isn't promised a Test spot then he may well retire in the next few weeks.
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
Mahmood is only likely to get batsman out with a half volley or long hop, also he'd be an ideal part of your side if you were wanting to have 3/100 off 20 overs or something similar.
I rahter have Mahmood in the team than Harmison, Anderson and Plunkett. And don't give me that expense talk. Just cast back your mind to the Melbourne Test, who else do you think could get a well set Hayden out with an absolute peach? Anderson and Plunkett couldn't do that and if anything Harmison is a liaibility.

I don't really want to argue the number 6 position point - I don't even want Vaughan in the team. Just for the sake of it though, Bell (along with Cook, Piertersen and Panesar) is the nucleus of the England team for the next 10 years or so, they should be buidling the team around him and the others instead of a struggling Vaughan.

Pretty sure it would be the selectors job to pick a squad,
So to your dismay and my delight, that means that Mahmood and many of the others - Dalrymple and co will still be around the fringes of the England team?
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I rahter have Mahmood in the team than Harmison, Anderson and Plunkett. And don't give me that expense talk. Just cast back your mind to the Melbourne Test, who else do you think could get a well set Hayden out with an absolute peach? Anderson and Plunkett couldn't do that and if anything Harmison is a liaibility.
Sajid Mahmood bowled a good delivery in Test cricket? I think some sort of knighthood is in order. Seriously how can you say that he is good when he is such a liability to England? He is a "wicket-taking" bowler, but those wickets generally come at a high expense as he gets tonked all around the park. He may have bowled a peach to get Hayden, but I've seen plenty of rubbish bowlers bowl good deliveries, it's the frequency of them that matters.

I don't really want to argue the number 6 position point - I don't even want Vaughan in the team. Just for the sake of it though, Bell (along with Cook, Piertersen and Panesar) is the nucleus of the England team for the next 10 years or so, they should be buidling the team around him and the others instead of a struggling Vaughan.
Exactly right, but for the meantime Ian Bell would be best served batting at #6. Michael Vaughan still has a few (possibly 5) years left in him to play Test cricket and to captain the English side, therefore he should be one of the first names on the team sheet if he is fit enough to handle Test cricket which I'm not sure he is at the moment.

So to your dismay and my delight, that means that Mahmood and many of the others - Dalrymple and co will still be around the fringes of the England team
?

Well, I don't know how much of the selectors ear that Moores will have. He could quite possibly start pulling the strings from behind the scenes, or he may have absolutely nothing to do with squad selection. Mahmood is dire, although I don't think Dalrymple is that bad, certainly not a Test player though.
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
it's the frequency of them that matters.
And you're going to get that from an uninterested Harmison? Mahmood can fill in the reverse swing void that is there due to Jones' ommission.

if he is fit enough to handle Test cricket which I'm not sure he is at the moment.
Interesting. You are questioning his suitability to play in the toughest form of cricket, in quite possibly the toughest position to bat, but a proven youngster like Bell should make way for someone who hasn't played Test cricket for near 2 years?

Either way, and for both oursakes, I hope Bell doesn't make way (out of the team) for Vaughan - if that is the case.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And you're going to get that from an uninterested Harmison? Mahmood can fill in the reverse swing void that is there due to Jones' ommission.
I never said Harmison was the man to do it, it's entirely possible that Simon Jones will be in the Test side if he puts in a few good performances for Glamorgan. Who said England need a specialist reverse swing bowler anyway? Someone who will bowl tripe 90% of the time and then produce a couple of decent deliveries isn't someone that should be playing Test match cricket, and that's all Sajid Mahmood does. Simon Jones is far more accurate when bowling in normal conditions, and then when the reverse swing does start to come into it then he can use it to devastating effect.

Interesting. You are questioning his suitability to play in the toughest form of cricket, in quite possibly the toughest position to bat, but a proven youngster like Bell should make way for someone who hasn't played Test cricket for near 2 years?
Vaughan has played cricket, he played in some of the CB series games and has played every game in the World Cup IIRC. He just hasn't had much chance to have a decent bat in First Class cricket, that is all he is lacking. I seen how his body was reacting during his innings against the West Indies, it showed me that the one thing Michael Vaughan needs is a decent bat just to push his body to the limit and see how fit he really is. I'm not advocating dropping Bell, just pushing him down the order to #6 where he has done well in the past and where he would be better suited for the team.

Either way, and for both oursakes, I hope Bell doesn't make way (out of the team) for Vaughan - if that is the case.
If the selectors had any sense they would drop Collingwood before Bell, I really can't see Bell sitting out these Tests.
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
And the likeliness of Jones in the team? (I'm just saying this because Harmison is your next weapon of choice)

Mahmood to some extent has proven himself at international level, and his performances against Sri Lanka and Pakistan to some degree show what he can do, and he was bowling well then. Typical Englishman though, outside England, he is poor.

(This sort of goes with my point about the selectors discretion, I was just questioning the possibility of Mahmood playing with Moore in charge as opposed to Fletcher)

I'm still questioning this chopping and changing of the team. We saw the devastating effects it had during the Ashes, with Read, Mahmood and Panesar (a trio who were part of a winning XI prior to the Ashes) being sidelined for a 'safer' trio. Regardless that it was a 5-0 white-wash, I really do have doubts with Bell being relegated to no. 6.

If the selectors had any sense they would drop Collingwood before Bell, I really can't see Bell sitting out these Tests.
True, but they probably use the 206 v a few starts theory to pick their team.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And the likeliness of Jones in the team? (I'm just saying this because Harmison is your next weapon of choice)
I'm not his doctor or physio so I wouldn't know, but no doubt every Englishman will be scrambling to read the match reports whenever Glamorgan play just to see how he gets on.

Mahmood to some extent has proven himself at international level, and his performances against Sri Lanka and Pakistan to some degree show what he can do, and he was bowling well then. Typical Englishman though, outside England, he is poor.
Harmison against Pakistan at Trent Bridge and against the West Indies at Sabina Park showed that he can bowl well. Every bowler is going to have a few good performances here and there, whether they actually bowl well is a different story, they may just pick up a heap of wickets. If Jones is unfit to play then personally Anderson would be my next choice, although I think the selectors will probably go with Harmison.

(This sort of goes with my point about the selectors discretion, I was just questioning the possibility of Mahmood playing with Moore in charge as opposed to Fletcher)
Well I'm assuming that Fletcher dropped a hint that he liked the look of Mahmood and would like him in the squad, that's generally how it works if there is a good relationship between the coach and selection panel. I wouldn't have any idea how Moore feels about Mahmood though, your guess is as good as mine.

I'm still questioning this chopping and changing of the team. We saw the devastating effects it had during the Ashes, with Read, Mahmood and Panesar (a trio who were part of a winning XI prior to the Ashes) being sidelined for a 'safer' trio. Regardless that it was a 5-0 white-wash, I really do have doubts with Bell being relegated to no. 6.
I really don't see what your point about Read, Mahmood and Panesar is. If Michael Vaughan and Marcus Trescothick are both unavailable to play, then Ian Bell will play at #3. If either of these two players comes back into the side and doesn't replace Strauss or Cook, then Bell will drop down to #6, where he has had good sucess in the past. It all depends on whether or not Vaughan and Trescothick will be fit really, if we had a definate confirmation whether they would be playing or not then we could pretty much come up with the batting lineup, assuming that they are going to play 6 batsman, which they should.

True, but they probably use the 206 v a few starts theory to pick their team.
If Vaughan is playing then it will be almost inevitable that Bell will play at #6 because Collingwood isn't very flash with the tail.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
A few interesting decisions for the selectors. I'm 100% certain that Mick will be back as captain, which means one of Cook, Bell or Colly will miss out unless we opt for a four-man bowling attack. Given the paucity of viable bowling-options I don't think that would actually be such a mad move as it would strength our batting (duh), move Fred to what looks more and more like his natural position of 7 & not put so much pressure on our keeper (whoever he is) to have to contribute with the bat.

The bowlers, if we go for a 4-man attack, choose themselves IMHO: Fred, Harmy, Hoggy & Monty. If we do go for a fifth I personally think Lewis might be worth a trundle as Lords in May seems tailor-made for him. Suspect it'd probably be Saj tho.

The keeper is another knotty one. If he's qualified I wouldn't hesitate to go for Pothas, but if he isn't yet I reckon the pres must be worthy of consideration. He's no less likely to score runs than Jones or Read and is the man in possession (well, kinda).

My XI:

Cook
Strauss
Bell
Vaughan*
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Nixon+
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar
 

jammay123

State 12th Man
.

If we do go for a fifth I personally think Lewis might be worth a trundle as Lords in May seems tailor-made for him. .

[/B]
we did that with lewis against sri lanka last year. he didnt perform to well and it also had a noticable effect on hoggys bowling and he is a key player so i would not pick lewis.

and id probably go for nix if we only play 4 bowlers because he would make a few down the order.
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
Every bowler is going to have a few good performances here and there
And consdiering that Mahmood has only played 8 tests (minus the 2 he played in Australia) and his percentage of good performances is relatively high don't you agree?

I really don't see what your point about Read, Mahmood and Panesar is.
It's all about the groove my friend. Let's forget about Bell not converting - he has done well at no. 3. Why would you want to change that?

Its always good to compare issues like these to what the best team in the world does - Australia. Stuart Clark had an absolute gun of a series in South Africa, but had a shocker at the Champions Trophy, there was talk of Johnson being in the team ahead of him at the Gabba, but luckily, the Aussies stuck to their guns and the rest is history. And where's Johnson now?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I still feel even though Taylor has had a very poor WC it would be extremely harsh to drop him from the test side considering the West Indies do not have very good fast bowlers.Taylor and Collymore would be my two shoe ins as fast bowlers.
When excellence is lacking, you pick the bowlers doing it best at the present time. And Daren Powell is in better form than Jerome Taylor. Taylor has not done enough in the past to get him picked ahead of an in-form Powell or Collins, when he is out of form.
I would also pick Dave Mohammed and ask Bravo to bat at 6 as I feel he has real potential with the bat.
My problem is not Bravo at 6, but Ramdin at 7. Ramdin has to prove that he's capable of batting at 7, given that there's nothing worthwhile after him. That the West Indies bowlers generally can't bat (though Taylor has potential) is a major influence on the makeup of the team.
A test line up including Powell and Collins in a 4 man attack would be much too risky IMO.
Despite the fact that Collins, when fit, is a more reliable bowler than Taylor and Powell? Right...
I just feel a 5 man bowling attack would be much more effective plus including the spinner Mohammed.
Batting has been the bigger issue for the West Indies of late. That much is clear.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Your'e going to have big problems taking 20 wickets with that bowling lineup. If your top six with support from the keeper can't make the requisite runs, I can't really see how the seventh is going to help in a great way.
Or are the West Indies simply content in getting draws ??
If the top six includes a genuine allrounder, not a batting allrounder, batting strength is a perfectly acceptable concern. Dwayne Bravo may have great potential, but he is, and well never be, a Kallis. Given that after him is a young wicketkeeper, still adjusting to Test cricket, and then squat all, it's a bold move to go in with 5 batsmen and Bravo.

This is not Australia, where two or three of the bottom for can bat very handily. This is a West Indies team that usually contains at least three number elevens in the bottom four.

You need to take 20 wickets to win a game, yes, but you still have to score more runs than the opposition. And the West Indies batting has been the let-down in recent Tests overseas. On dead West Indian pitches I can see a greater argument for 4 specialist bowlers.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can't beleive you would think of giving Paul Nixon a Test match, he doesn't have a future in Test cricket. If Trescothick was fit, I would prefer to see Vaughan in there for Strauss and have Cook opening, however I don't think they will want to push Trescothick back into the Test side straight away.
Strauss has too good a record at home to even consider leaving him out, especially (essentially) for Trescothick. Trescothick has a lot to do to prove that he's up to Test cricket again. And yes, Strauss had a poor Ashes series, but I'd still say he's higher in the pecking order than Trescothick at this stage.

Agreed that picking Nixon is ridiculous though.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And consdiering that Mahmood has only played 8 tests (minus the 2 he played in Australia) and his percentage of good performances is relatively high don't you agree?
Have you actually watched Mahmood bowl in Test cricket?! The man is nowhere near Test calibre.
Its always good to compare issues like these to what the best team in the world does - Australia. Stuart Clark had an absolute gun of a series in South Africa, but had a shocker at the Champions Trophy, there was talk of Johnson being in the team ahead of him at the Gabba, but luckily, the Aussies stuck to their guns and the rest is history. And where's Johnson now?
* Luckily the Aussies know the difference between Tests and ODIs.
 

Top