England 17-man squad

[zaremba]

I don't think the selection was just about KP & Thorpey; the first Ashes test was only Bell's 4th test so I would guess the selectors must've at least toyed with the idea of omitting him despite his preternaturally high average at the time.

In fact, I actually advocated picking Kevin & Graham at the expense of Bell at the time, he said in full-on self-congratulatory mode.

Don't get many right, but I think subsequent events proved my prescience there; KP was our highest run scorer in the series and Warne was all over Bell like a rash. Little doubt in my mind Thorpe would've done better.

Good work fella. I was of the view at the time that Bell shouldn't be dropped but history proved you right - I think it's fair to assume that Thorpe would have outscored him. Not sure Thorpe's fielding would have been comparable though...

 

[rivera213]

Irrelevant. All that matters is which of them will take you scalps. If one isn't fit, then obviously the other must play. But if they're both fully fit, do you think Onions is more likely to take Aussie wickets than Sidebottom?

That's the question the selectors have to answer- not "are there any grounds for replacing him?" or "did he do everything that could be reasonably expected of him?" Let's not forget that- who's going to do the job for you is all that matters.

I agree and I actually think Onions atm, but I think Sidebottom will take more scalps than Broad, yet Broad is nailed-on to be in the team.

It doesn't make sense to me picking a lesser bowler because he can hold a bat but hey that's the ECB for ya.

 

[pasag]

How to beat the Aussies - Times Online

One of the very few interesting articles I've read so far in the leadup to the series.

 

[tooextracool]

Very interesting p.o.v. and I have to admit that I was pretty upset that Thorpe (a player I rated incredibly highly, albeit that he was in decline as a player and in particular as a fielder) was dropped.

As far as picking KP is concerned, though, he was not a random pick unsupported by reason or evidence. On the contrary, he was the sort of player who the England management rightly thought was needed to counter the uber-aggressive Australians, and had shown himself to thrive on the demands of high-intensity international cricket with his extraordinary exploits in South Africa a few months before.

What puzzles me is that if they were going to pick KP for the Ashes, why didn't they let him get his eye in against the hapless Bangladeshis in the early summer series?

I think KP was picked based on his efforts in the Natwest series and Challenge before the test series, which happened after the Bangladesh series. My assumption is that they only came to this conclusion after he scored some runs against the Aussies in the ODIs (had one amazing game where he blew them apart completely) and since his technique hadnt quite been torn apart by the aussies, it was worth a shot to as part of their 'lets throw everything we got at them' aggressive policy that we saw implemented during the series.

Fair enough, KP's performances both in CC and in the ODIs before didnt so much ask for selection but grabbed the selectors arms, slapped then in the face and demanded that he play in the series. I have no problems with KP's selection, in fact I would have picked him as well (like BB, I suggested at the time that he should have played instead of Bell) but I would never have done it to replace Thorpe considering the number of games that he almost single-handedly pulled us out of holes from int he buildup to the series. It is of course easy for people to say that if the selectors didnt drop Thorpe that we would have lost the Ashes, but I dont know about that because we dont know how Thorpe would have played, KP's performance that series is exaggerated anyways, and for all we know Thorpe might have outbatted KP.

Nonetheless, the seed for this mistake had been set up well before the series. For whatever reasons, the England side decided to drop Bell after his debut test against the WI and selected Paul Collingwood to tour SA when ideally we could have had Bell tour SA, probably fail, and then have KP replace him that summer. Either way you are right though, KP should have played against Bangladesh at the start of the summer.

 

[tooextracool]

We felt Andrew Flintoff bowled too negatively against South Africa last summer. He bowled too wide of off stump, allowing our batsmen to leave too many deliveries. His five-for stats (two in 75 Tests, three in his first-class career) show he has mostly been a containing or defensive bowler. I’d like to see him used as a more attacking option because he has the ability to do that. Just as we did with Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, I would like to see Flintoff given the licence to attack alongside James Anderson, whom we rated very highly when we faced him last year, while Stuart Broad is used as more of a control bowler, who will make the batsmen play and probe away around off stump. Then you have a bit more freedom with how you want your spinner to bowl.

Yeah agree with him on that, and thats been one of my criticisms of Freddie's bowling as well is that he so very seldom bowls on the stumps.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah agree with him on that, and thats been one of my criticisms of Freddie's bowling as well is that he so very seldom bowls on the stumps.

I, for one, hope he doesn't change his method for this series.

 

[zaremba]

I, for one, hope he doesn't change his method for this series.

Flintoff's bowling record provides one of the most astonishing statistics in sport: 3 five wicket hauls in 178 first class matches.

 

[tooextracool]

Flintoff's bowling record provides one of the most astonishing statistics in sport: 3 five wicket hauls in 178 first class matches.

It is a little astonishing considering worse players have more 5 wicket hauls. However, if he bowled more like he did in the Ashes in 2005 and targeted the stumps hed be taking a lot more of them.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, except since the winter series, it has become obvious that Monty has regressed and Batty is hopeless. 2 things we should have known well in advance. Therefore at this point, unless you have any better ideas, there is no other spinner in England who is better than Rashid at this point other than Swann. Therefore, if England are to play 2 spinners, then Rashid is the only option. The fact that hes been around the squad is further indication of the fact that they were grooming him for this opportunity at some point.

The point is after we have really gone way OTT, is whether Rashid rise to this 17-man squad & likely Ashes selection (depending on conditions), is similar to Flintoff, Lee or Sidebottom being fast forwarded back into Ashes selection - based on T20 form?

Its clear it is.

As far as his t20 performance is concerned, he was comfortably England's worst bowler with Anderson, Broad, Sidebottom, Swann and Mascarenhas all outperforming him. His t20 performances itself were poor, but what they did show was that he has potential for the test format and that he has a few variations up his sleeve..

His T20 performances was by no means poor. He was never smashed because he showed his he is a good enough spinner in that format already. In the future he should clearly play T20 games for England.

Thats exactly the point, Anderson has proven himself in the last year and a half whilst Sidebottom has mostly been injured.

Sidebottom of course was so solid in SL he took 5 wickets at 64 a piece.

Plain & simple for me, is who is likely between Sidebottom & Onions to take Ashes wickets once fit. Clearly that is Sidebottom.

And I cannot believe anyone can possibly be suggesting that the dropping of Thorpe for KP last time around was anything other than an absolute disgrace of a move that could have been potentially Ashes costing.

No doubt it was a stupid selection ATT. But i'd say we should give the selectors some credit for seeing KPs special ability.

Plus also you can't say Bell should have been dropped either, because ATT their was ALOT of backing for Bell as a test batsman.

 

[Top_Cat]

Irrelevant. All that matters is which of them will take you scalps. If one isn't fit, then obviously the other must play. But if they're both fully fit, do you think Onions is more likely to take Aussie wickets than Sidebottom?

That's the question the selectors have to answer- not "are there any grounds for replacing him?" or "did he do everything that could be reasonably expected of him?" Let's not forget that- who's going to do the job for you is all that matters.

Dispute it's totally irrelevant, team dynamics are important and do play their part. If a bloke is taking wickets against any Test side, I think you have to back him to do the same against another. Sidebottom had incumbency and that would need to be respected initially but after a while, if the unit is bowling well, I personally would be loathe to mess with that.

It's a really, really tough balancing act though because there are many exceptions. If the bloke coming back is a gun then the rest of the team would have an understanding that if fit, he's in. And, I guess, to answer the question of who is more likely to take wickets for you, I don't think it's so clear-cut that if Sidebottom is fit, Onions is out.

 

[Uppercut]

Dispute it's totally irrelevant, team dynamics are important and do play their part. If a bloke is taking wickets against any Test side, I think you have to back him to do the same against another. Sidebottom had incumbency and that would need to be respected initially but after a while, if the unit is bowling well, I personally would be loathe to mess with that.

It's a really, really tough balancing act though because there are many exceptions. If the bloke coming back is a gun then the rest of the team would have an understanding that if fit, he's in. And, I guess, to answer the question of who is more likely to take wickets for you, I don't think it's so clear-cut that if Sidebottom is fit, Onions is out.

Oh, i totally agree, that's why I was asking. I saw Sidebottom bowl against Lancashire on the final day of a four-day game in May this year, and he didn't look like he'd ever be the same again. His pace was down, his line and his length were both defensive (unforgivable considering they were trying to force a result) and he just didn't look like taking wickets. Meanwhile, Graham Onions has been absolutely tearing the county circuit apart this season.

On the other hand, Sidebottom has an excellent test record in spite of his fitness issues and, on the whole, a much better FC record than Onions. Considering that whoever's going to be picked will be the side's fifth bowler, Sidebottom's control might be more desirable than Onions's attacking lengths that often leak runs. His left-armers give a little variation on what you already have and, if fully fit (and that's a big if), he's probably an all-round better bowler than Onions.

Who's going to take more wickets is most certainly a big call. I was disagreeing with the method of the previously quoted post, but not with the conclusion.




Regarding your point on team dynamics, I don't really agree with it. Playing an inferior bowler over a better one because he happened to be playing when the team was winning isn't a good idea, particularly when there's a big step up in quality. That's the method that saw Giles picked over Panesar last time round, and I don't think England should make a similar mistake this time. You play your best team.

 

[Top_Cat]

Regarding your point on team dynamics, I don't really agree with it. Playing an inferior bowler over a better one because he happened to be playing when the team was winning isn't a good idea, particularly when there's a big step up in quality. That's the method that saw Giles picked over Panesar last time round, and I don't think England should make a similar mistake this time. You play your best team.

I wasn't really advocating that, especially re: Giles as I remember thinking before the 2006/07 series that Panesar should have been in the side for the first Test. Was just commenting it's a tough one to get right, especially at higher levels where the differences between teams aren't great in terms of raw ability. Just picking the four bowlers with the best numbers is a Richard-esque method of selection which I don't rate.

And, in my view, there are a bunch of exceptions, usually if the player up for selection is a gun. Glenn McGrath, no matter who's in the side, comes back in no matter what. The team balance issues become more relevant for me when you're having to pick two of Kasprowicz/Gillespie/Bichel/Lee to fit behind Warne/McGrath, for example. In the current team, you'd assume Lee would be the gun to come right back in as soon as he's fit but there are plenty of questions regarding form so perhaps not. Then you have to manage the guys who played the last Test in SA but will miss out in Cardiff so that, if Lee gets a go, they don't think he's getting a free ride. Just examples which I'm sure the Aussie management are doing.

 

[Richard]

I don't think the selection was just about KP & Thorpey; the first Ashes test was only Bell's 4th test so I would guess the selectors must've at least toyed with the idea of omitting him despite his preternaturally high average at the time.

If this course of action was going to be taken, the only sensible move would've been to have not picked Bell against Bangladesh. And quite why that wasn't done, when Pietersen was (with hindsight) fairly obviously going to be brought in regardless, is beyond me.

 

[Richard]

But i'd say we should give the selectors some credit for seeing KPs special ability.

Why? Any fool could have and did do that.

 

[GIMH]

If this course of action was going to be taken, the only sensible move would've been to have not picked Bell against Bangladesh. And quite why that wasn't done, when Pietersen was (with hindsight) fairly obviously going to be brought in regardless, is beyond me.

Why? Any fool could have and did do that.

Spot on with these posts tbf

 

[aussie]

Why? Any fool could have and did do that.

ATT, it was still strongly felt that KP was a ODI player, he was called a slogger all. It wasn't by any means unanimous that, although KP had an aggressive style, that was generally felt you needed to have, as a player to beat the then dominant AUS.

Similar type questions about his technique like Gilchrist in 99 where being raised. So the safe bet generally, myself included was pick Bell (who many had high hopes as test player) & the seasoned Thorpe.

 

[GIMH]

It wasn't by any means unanimous that, although KP had aggressive style, that was generally felt you needed to have, beat the then dominant AUS.

what?

 

[aussie]

what?

haa...my bad typo. I edited

 

[Richard]

Pietersen's First-Class average has been in the mid-50s since he moved over to England. If any "good OD player but plenty of doubts about Test material" mentality existed it was very silly. Pietersen was always going to play Tests and was always going to have massive hopes pinned on him to be England's best batsman for a long time - something he's doing a decent-ish job so far of fulfilling (but that's by the by).

However, there were two sensible selectorial decisions at the start of 2005: pick Pietersen in place of Butcher\Key for the series against Bangladesh, thus having a first-choice top five for the summer of Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Pietersen, Thorpe; or decide that he had to wait until 2005/06 and pick Bell (or keep faith with Key) when they did.

Once Bell was picked against Bangladesh it was always going to be the case that he had to play against Australia. You cannot drop someone who's just made 200-odd runs without being dismissed, and Bell was always going to cash-in against Bangladesh. So once Bell played against Bangladesh that was effectively curtains for Thorpe.

 

[tooextracool]

ATT, it was still strongly felt that KP was a ODI player, he was called a slogger all. It wasn't by any means unanimous that, although KP had an aggressive style, that was generally felt you needed to have, as a player to beat the then dominant AUS.

Similar type questions about his technique like Gilchrist in 99 where being raised. So the safe bet generally, myself included was pick Bell (who many had high hopes as test player) & the seasoned Thorpe.

Few people have made as emphatic a claim for a place in the test side as KP had done by the time the Ashes rolled around in 2005. Forget about the fact that he was one of a select few who was averaging 50+ in FC cricket in England, here is a lad who went on an A tour to India and absolutely murdered everyone, finishing with 3 centuries at an average of over 100. When you factor that in with the fact that he had played some fine ODI innings under immense pressure which showed his mettle, it really was a question of when he was going to play rather than if. As has been suggested, he should have played against Bangladesh, but for whatever reason he didnt.

I have no issues with KPs selection for that series, what really bugged me was that Thorpe was England's best bat bar none in that side and got dropped. If anyone else had been dropped for KP, it wouldnt have been much of an issue.