England Squad Form

[King Pietersen]

Seeing as we have a category for the Aussie players' form in the last 12 months, I thought I may as well make one for the English side. So here goes:

Leading Batsmen:

1. Kevin Pietersen- 1140 runs at an average of 57.00 with 5 hundreds
2. Andrew Strauss- 1066 runs at an average of 50.46 with 5 hundreds
3. Alastair Cook- 1049 runs at an average of 49.95 with 2 hundreds
4. Paul Collingwood- 858 runs at an average of 53.62 with 4 hundreds
5. Matt Prior- 503 runs at an average of 62.87 with 1 hundred
6. Ian Bell- 413 runs at an average of 31.76 with 1 hundred
7. Stuart Broad- 386 runs at an average of 35.09 with 0 hundreds
8. Ravi Bopara- 355 runs at an average of 118.33 with 3 hundreds
9. Andrew Flintoff- 264 runs at an average of 24.00 with 0 hundreds
10. Tim Ambrose- 240 runs at 34.28 with 0 hundreds

Leading Bowlers:

1. James Anderson- 48 wickets at an average of 28.29 with a strike rate of 59.4
2. Stuart Broad- 34 wickets at an average of 34.79 with a strike rate of 63.2
3. Graeme Swann- 34 wickets at an average of 26.23 with a strike rate of 56.4
4. MS Panesar- 24 wickets at an average of 41.91 with a strike rate of 93.7
5. Andrew Flintoff- 21 wickets at an average of 32.61 with a strike rate of 76.9
6. Ryan Sidebottom- 14 wickets at an average of 35.07 with a strike rate of 78.8
7. Graeme Onions- 10 wickets at an average of 20.00 with a strike rate of 27.3
8. Stephen Harmison- 9 wickets at an average of 41.11 with a strike rate of 79.1
9. Tim Bresnan- 3 wickets at an average of 32.33 with a strike rate of 62.0
10. Darren Pattinson- 2 wickets at an average of 48.00 with a strike rate of 90.5


The batting figures are very, very good, with 5 batsmen averaging over 50 and one averaging 49. They've scored quite a few hundreds, with Strauss, Pietersen and Collingwood being the main contributers in terms of hundreds scored. Ravi Bopara has come into the side and performed excellently, scoring 3 hundreds in 3 innings and therefore averaging well in excess of 100. The one problem could be the form of Andrew Flintoff, who has struggled with the bat in recent times. It shouldn't be too much of a problem though, with Prior, Broad and Swann all providing batting of their own down the order, with Prior especially contributing quite alot of runs in the last 12 months.

As for the bowling, the figures do not flatter the bowlers at all. James Anderson rightly stands out above the pack, taking the most wickets and at a very healthy average of 28. Stuart Broad has seen notable improvement in the last 5-6 months, but his below par performances against South Africa and India have equated to a disappointing average. Graeme Swann has been a class above his spin rival Monty Panesar, taking more wickets in 3 less Tests, picking up his 34 wickets in just 7 Tests. After the front 3 of Anderson, Broad and Swann, Flintoff will almost certainly play, and his bowling will certainly help the attack. The 4th out and out bowler position is most likely to go to Durham pacer Graeme Onions, who has contributed with 10 wickets at 20.00 in his 2 Tests in his career so far, although at Cardiff there could be a case for bringing in either MS Panesar, or young Yorkshire Leggie Adil Rashid.

The XI I'd pick for the Ashes:

Strauss *
Cook
Bopara
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior +
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Onions/Rashid

Rashid gets the nod for me for Cardiff, due to his superior FC performances when compared with Monty Panesar. Rashid has taken 10 wickets at 35, whereas Panesar has struggled for his county Northants, taking just 4 wickets at an average of over 75, and if Cardiff is set to spin as much as is rumoured, and as much as it did when Essex played Glamorgan on TV, then a 2nd spinner would be an excellent option, especially one that offers batting and handy fielding (Rashid). I can see MSP being picked ahead of Rashid though unfortunately, he still seems quite favoured in the England team, even with his very poor performances in the last year.

 

[rivera213]

While our batting isn't as good as Australia's, it's by no means poor.

Cook seems to have at least 3/4 sorted his front-foot problem out and will be full of confidence.

Pietersen saves his best for the best and averages 53.5 against the Aussies.

Strauss, will hopefully come to the fore. He has often got starts against the Aussies and then been caught.

If Collingwood repeats his form in Australia, that'll be good enough at 5.

In the bowling department, I would definitely take our bowlers over the probable Australian bowlers for the 1st test:

Anderson
Broad
Flintoff
Swann
Panesar (I'm sure he'll play)

vs

Johnson
Siddle
Hilfenhaus/Lee
Clark
Hauritz


I'm sure Panesar will play being the Cardiff wicket is slow, low and aids spinners. The "slow" part is most telling for Panesar since I think part of his problem is he bowls too fast.

Australia simply don't have a spinner, sorry but Hauritz is a hack.

 

[NUFAN]

So who have the two countries played in the last year?

I know Aus have played 3 in India, 2 vs NZ, 3 vs SA, 3 in SA.

 

[Prince EWS]

I reckon Rashid would've played against the West Indies ahead of Bresnan if he was any chance of playing in the Ashes.

 

[aussie tragic]

So who have the two countries played in the last year?

I know Aus have played 3 in India, 2 vs NZ, 3 vs SA, 3 in SA.

In the last 12-months, Aussies played 14 Tests - 4 against India (lost 2-0), 2 against WI (won 1-0), 6 against SA (3-3) and 2 against NZ (won 2-0)

In the last 12-months, England played 14 Tests - 2 against India (lost 1-0), 7 against WI (won 2-1), 4 against SA (lost 2-1) and 1 against NZ (won 1-0)

 

[GIMH]

Our batsmen's stats are skewed by the flat pitches in the Windies. But so are the bowlers'.

 

[rivera213]

The majority of wickets in the world are flat tbh, every batsman's stats are greater compared to those of the 90's and previously.

 

[Top_Cat]

I reckon Rashid would've played against the West Indies ahead of Bresnan if he was any chance of playing in the Ashes.

Yes. Definitely took that as a sign he wasn't in England's plans for the Ashes.

 

[JimmyGS]

In the bowling department, I would definitely take our bowlers over the probable Australian bowlers for the 1st test

You're high.

 

[Richard]

If Collingwood repeats his form in Australia, that'll be good enough at 5.

Collingwood in Australia in 2006/07 was a microcosm - an extended one - of his career. One superb game, pretty much nothing besides (obviously he made that forlorn 90-odd in the second-innings of a game that was lost long before he came to the crease).

Collingwood has (almost) always been the sort of batsman who can be a good player without benefiting the team that much. There's no question over his place, rightly, because he's clearly Test-class, but I don't foresee him making that much of a contribution to any good England performance, because he just doesn't tend to do such a thing.

 

[rivera213]

You're high.

Nah, this isn't McGrath, Gillespie, Warne era.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

.......Australia simply don't have a spinner, sorry but Hauritz is a hack.

There's no need at all to apologise for this!


On your summation of the rest of the Australian attack, I don't agree.
There is probably enough doubt on the bowling in both camps for me to wait for the action to start to completely pass judgement.

 

[aussie]

Collingwood in Australia in 2006/07 was a microcosm - an extended one - of his career. One superb game, pretty much nothing besides (obviously he made that forlorn 90-odd in the second-innings of a game that was lost long before he came to the crease).

Collingwood has (almost) always been the sort of batsman who can be a good player without benefiting the team that much. There's no question over his place, rightly, because he's clearly Test-class, but I don't foresee him making that much of a contribution to any good England performance, because he just doesn't tend to do such a thing.

Before i ridicule this comment. I am willing to give you a chance to explain these comments...

 

[Son Of Coco]

You're high.

On another note, I don't think Bopara's form in three tests against the Windies is an accurate predictor of anything much. He'll get a much sterner test in this series.

 

[Top_Cat]

On another note, I don't think Bopara's form in three tests against the Windies is an accurate predictor of anything much. He'll get a much sterner test in this series.

Yeah that's it. Ian Bell cashed-in against Bangladesh before the 2005 series and we all know how that went.... Obviously they're vastly different players and Bopara appears to be a bit tougher but still, I don't think there'll be much in the way of successive tons against the Aussies.

 

[GIMH]

Collingwood in Australia in 2006/07 was a microcosm - an extended one - of his career. One superb game, pretty much nothing besides (obviously he made that forlorn 90-odd in the second-innings of a game that was lost long before he came to the crease).

Collingwood has (almost) always been the sort of batsman who can be a good player without benefiting the team that much. There's no question over his place, rightly, because he's clearly Test-class, but I don't foresee him making that much of a contribution to any good England performance, because he just doesn't tend to do such a thing.

Disagree that he had little else, the 90 you alluded to was important. Obviously the game was pretty much dead by then (although I was still desperately holding out for a draw, obv), but it was important that someone got runs on the board. The benefit of getting those runs was seen in the next Test - the other person who scored in Brisbane was Pietersen, who also went on to score big next time round. Just because a game appears to be dead doesn't necessarily mean a performance should be devalued, and they'd have been panned if they'd just rolled over without a fight.

On another note, I don't think Bopara's form in three tests against the Windies is an accurate predictor of anything much. He'll get a much sterner test in this series.

Yeah that's it. Ian Bell cashed-in against Bangladesh before the 2005 series and we all know how that went.... Obviously they're vastly different players and Bopara appears to be a bit tougher but still, I don't think there'll be much in the way of successive tons against the Aussies.

Lose-lose though isn't it? If he'd failed then everyone would have said he stands no chance against the Aussies. As it is, he did what was asked of him. Three successive hundreds is not to be sniffed at, and don't forget that that's in innings, not matches.

 

[oitoitoi]

Well didn't they get panned anyway? Agreed that Collingwood isn't a form player (I don't really believe in form, it's all about conditions and the attack IMO), he's someone who scores when the conditions suit him, and struggles otherwise. Similar to Sehwag in that respect, though Sehwag has played a few top innings in conditions that haven't suited him (Sri Lanka on a turner, England on his first tour).

Well I suppose Bopara's still at the stage where he hasn't had his trial by fire, he did the job against the Windies but failures would have been very disappointing against such a weak attack. Until he proves himself against the Aussies and co he'll always get this kind of criticism. Don't think comparisons with bell are really fair, but he's not going to be the next tendulkar either.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, they got panned anyway, but you can still see my point surely? Maybe not, ah well

 

[rivera213]

Bopara deserves his shot. Bell has had his and flopped. Until Bopara fails for an extended period, he's in the team for me. Next in line would be James Hildreth for me.

 

[Richard]

Shudder at the idea of Hildreth.

Anyway, should be basic common-sense that Bopara is unlikely to get anywhere near as easy a ride with the Australian fielding and bowling as he did against West Indies - TBH I barely even see the point in mentioning it. He hasn't really played that well so far - let's wait and see whether he does when (if) he's forced to.