Bring in Collingwood for Giles?

[Richard]

As for Colly, sure he did okay with the bat in a few one-dayers

See, this seems to me to be the most fundamental error of the piece.
Almost everyone is agreed that Collingwood did well against Australia in the ODIs.
And in fact it was quite the opposite.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan's a handy spinner if he somehow manages to get in a few. Short spells though.

Vaughan's an overrrated bowler IMO.
Bowls well in 1 spell out of 10 or so.

 

[Richard]

Dropping Bell would set him back so far in his development it would be a dumb move. I'm backing him for two hundreds this series and I stick by that. He is a phenomenally talented batsman and will prove that. Don't forget it took Steve Waugh 26 Tests to score a hundred - Bell is in the same mould as him from what I can see. Not got the elegance or power of a Dravid or a Gilchrist, but the mental toughness is what counts, and playing against the Aussies will build him up pretty damn quick in that respect.

If there is one player you do not want to drop it's Bell.
Seriously, I'd prefer Pietersen was dropped than him.
Not that we should set any stall by Stephen Waugh taking 26 Tests to score a century - Stephen Waugh bowled rather better in his early career than Bell ever has.
Bell has a better technique than anyone bar Strauss and no obvious temperamental weaknesses.
It's only a matter of time as far as I can see.

 

[Richard]

Smacks of pressing the panic button to me. Ffs Giles has been playing the best cricket of his career over the last year, I see no reason to drop him after one match against the best side in the world.

I quite agree that dropping him after 1 Test of a series would be a bad move but he's not been playing the best cricket of his career the last year (except with the bat).
He's exactly the same bowler now as he was on debut.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

See, this seems to me to be the most fundamental error of the piece.
Almost everyone is agreed that Collingwood did well against Australia in the ODIs.
And in fact it was quite the opposite.

A couple then. Pedant.

 

[marc71178]

Also, as for "only having four bowlers", that's how many bowlers teams usually have - five is a luxury, not the norm.

Most usually have a batsman or 2 that can cover a few overs.

IMO England do not.

 

[Richard]

Well funnily enough we "packed the batting" the last time we played Oz @ Edgbaston in 2001. Playing Afzaal @ 7 & White as the all-rounder @ 8.

The result? Well see for yourselves:

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...N_ENG/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_T1_05-09JUL2001.html

Having Ward at six and Afzaal at seven basically meant the tail started at four-down. Afzaal was never a Test-standard batsman and Ward - well, an opener at six, nuffsed.
I can see Collingwood being another Afzaal, yes, but packing the batting is not in itself a bad idea.
Trescothick, Strauss, Butcher, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Jones, Flintoff might just be a thing, but obviously it's not yet an option.

 

[Richard]

A couple then. Pedant.

Pedant? Wasn't trying to be (this time...)
Point I was trying to make is that by and large Australia had the wood over Collingwood. Yes, he stood up to them... but having the right mental attitude and having the talent are a different thing and IMO Collingwood has neither the talent for ODIs or for Tests.

 

[Richard]

Ed Joyce?? Do you really think he has it to become a test player? I am not quite sure about that...

Why on Earth not?
Joyce mightn't be the next in line but I have no doubt his time will come and I feel he's as good a chance as anyone of making the most of it.

 

[marc71178]

Actually I'd say Joyce must be very close to being next in line.

 

[Richard]

Close, certainly, but I'd reckon Collingwood will indeed (especially after his most recent innings) be next cab-off-the-rank, followed by hopefully Key and Butcher the men in posession.
The last thing we need is yet more confusion with 8 or 9 batsmen in the picture.

 

[Shane Warne]

See, this seems to me to be the most fundamental error of the piece.
Almost everyone is agreed that Collingwood did well against Australia in the ODIs.
And in fact it was quite the opposite.

Thankyou.

Hopefully it'll finally lay that myth to rest.

 

[aussie]

Well I'm going to put my hand up as the only Collingwood supporter on the forum then.

nope your not the only one at all......

 

[aussie]

Collingwood isn't test standard imo. Certainly giving him a go if there were no other options would be fine, but with Joyce dominating in CC, if you want an extra batsman he's your man. Picking Collingwood as an all-rounder would be daft.

I think Giles is likely to get smashed around in this series, but if Edgbaston is a turner and England go in without a spinner it's just going to be a joke. You can't prepare turners for a visiting side with a world class spinner in their ranks and pick an all-pace attack with a military medium guy playing as an all-rounder batting at 8.

People keep saying that he isn't test class, but in all honesty he hasn't got much of a chance to prove himself at the higest level & if he plays he wont bat at #8 he would bat at 6 i would think.

 

[aussie]

But if you put him in there and it turns out to be a turner like last year, what happens with no Giles?

Anyway, I'm not suggesting Joyce is going to be a success or anything, just that he's a better pick than Collingwood if they want a batsman to replace Giles. Either way, replacing Giles with a batsman on a pitch that might turn is a bad idea. At Lords it would have been a fair call.

i dont think Gilo should be replaced, my argument is that Colly should come into the squad & should play in some test during the series. But their will be cases in the remainder of the series at probably Edgbagston or Manchester where Gilo's spinnig option will be needed.

 

[aussie]

If there is one player you do not want to drop it's Bell.
Seriously, I'd prefer Pietersen was dropped than him.

why richard???

 

[sledger]

Most usually have a batsman or 2 that can cover a few overs.

IMO England do not.

perhaps not, but they do have flintoff who would get in the side on his bowling alone, after that vaughn, bell, and even trescothick or pietersen can fill in a few overs.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Trescothick, Strauss, Butcher, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Jones, Flintoff might just be a thing, but obviously it's not yet an option.

I agree - but may I ask why you keep Jones at 7 and demote Flintoff all the way to 8? Some of Freddie's best performances with the bat for England have come at 7, and I think it's a little harsh to chuck him down in the same batting position as the likes of Shane Warne and Irfan Pathan.

 

[sledger]

i suppose that way it might allow geraint jones to bat a bit more properly as we know he can, rather than his stupid ways of getting out when he knows that the tail is coming in right behind him.

 

[Barney Rubble]

perhaps not, but they do have flintoff who would get in the side on his bowling alone, after that vaughn, bell, and even trescothick or pietersen can fill in a few overs.

Ian Bell is a more than capable medium-pacer; Vaughany's off-breaks are tidy and under-used (although not as good as some make them out to be); Tresco's good for the odd over here and there, and KP used to be a fully-fledged all-rounder - we certainly have a few capable of filling in. In fact, the only member of the team you could say will categorically never be bowling is Strauss (other than Geraint Jones of course!), and even he got an over against Zimbabwe last year!