***Official*** England in India

[LongHopCassidy]

It's not as simple as that, is it? If five leaves you with six-down all-down, then perhaps three is a better bet

England weren't six-down all-down in the Ashes, against a far better attack, and there's only one less batsman there.

Two extra options for Vaughan could cost India 150 runs in every innings.

 

[Neil Pickup]

England weren't six-down all-down in the Ashes, against a far better attack, and there's only one less batsman there.

Two extra options for Vaughan could cost India 150 runs in every innings.

We were seven-down all-down on a number of occasions though.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

If you haven't noticed, they had 400-plus on the board by then.

As quality as Anil Kumble is, he's no Warnie.

 

[Arjun]

Here's a little diversion.

And an Indian team:

1. Gambhir
2. Sehwag
3. Dravid
4. Tendulkar
5. Yuvraj
6. Laxman
7. Dhoni
8. Pathan
9. Kumble
10. Harbhajan
11. Zaheer Khan

That's a typical Indian selection, but they would struggle to get 20 wickets, even at home. The Indians can't rely on Kumble and Harbhajan all the time to take the bulk of the wickets, even if they're playing against England, given their problems on the run-up to the tour. They have to have a third seamer, even if it's only for the purpose of value addition. They don't need Yuvraj, whom you don't expect to score a double century. Instead, they can pick one Munaf Patel or Joginder Sharma, who, in combination with Irfan, can score more runs than Yuvraj, and also get extra wickets. In reserve, they can have Jaffer, Yuvraj, Ramesh Powar and VR Singh. They can try something different here.

 

[wpdavid]

It's not as simple as that, is it? If five leaves you with six-down all-down, then perhaps three is a better bet

(and yes, Blackwell at six probably should have read Blackwell at eight, unless he shows something stunning in the near future. I think I'm looking at it rose-tintedly in the hope that the Indian seam attack will compare favourably with the county trundlers he's so fond of biffing).

Trouble is, of course, he's more likely to be facing Kumble & Harby. I know what you mean - I keep hoping that Blackwell will be able to translate his county form into the international arena - but we've seen precious little of it to date. I was really disappointed with his batting in Pakistan. I thought he had a real opportunity to establish himself, but he just looked out of his depth, with the bat, anyway.

 

[honestbharani]

Surely you're contradicting yourself - if the Indian batsmen aren't worried by pace and England aren't going to threaten their batsmen as it stands, then surely the series comes down to how England bowl? If they bowl badly and bat well, then they'll probably draw the series, as India's batting is stronger than their bowling too. If they bowl well and bat badly, they have a much greater chance of forcing the victories they need to win the series. To suggest the series depends on their batting seems like you're suggesting the best they can ever hope for is to draw the series, which is unfair.

not really... Even if England bowl really well, I can't see the Indians scoring less than 300. Let us assume they score around 350 in the first dig and 250 in the second. England HAVE to score 601 to win the match.... But there is a very real chance that India could bowl them out for lesser than that. It means that they would have lost the match even though their bowlers did well. That is the sort of scenario I am talking about. Given India bat to their ability and England bowl to theirs, it is going to come down to whether England can deliver with the bat.

 

[honestbharani]

If you haven't noticed, they had 400-plus on the board by then.

As quality as Anil Kumble is, he's no Warnie.

at home, he kinda is like Warnie.

 

[Jamee999]

that long eh, your pretty old

Not really, sounds to me like he did it at GCSE and not at A Level.

 

[wpdavid]

Would you rather have 5 wicket-taking options or 3, considering subcontinental conditions?

What happened to 4? I like 4. It allows me to play Fred, Jones, Harmy & Panesar plus an extra batsman in the top 6. If that's "negative", then so be it, but I doubt whether Hoggard's much of a wicket taking option in India anyway. Jones swings the new ball just as much, so Hoggie wouldn't really be missed. In reality, a bunch of overs from Bell & Collingwood isn't significantly less wicket-taking then Blackwell & Udal.

 

[honestbharani]

What happened to 4? I like 4. It allows me to play Fred, Jones, Harmy & Panesar plus an extra batsman in the top 6. If that's "negative", then so be it, but I doubt whether Hoggard's much of a wicket taking option in India anyway. Jones swings the new ball just as much, so Hoggie wouldn't really be missed. In reality, a bunch of overs from Bell & Collingwood isn't significantly less wicket-taking then Blackwell & Udal.

I think that attack sounds the best option amongst all the rest mentioned here so far. U are simply playing ur best seamers and ur best spinner (from what I have read). That is the most logical thing to do, IMHO.

 

[savill]

I'd go with:

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughn
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
G.Jones
S.Jones
S.Harmison
M.Panesar

Vaughn, Bell and Collingwood could make up the 5th bowler, and I think that because Monty will hopefully be able to bowl longer spells than a Udal/Blackwell it would give Freddy/Harmy/Jonah more of a rest. You need to take 20 wickets to win a test match, so we need to play our best 4 bowlers available rather than bits and pieces players like Blackwell as a front-line option.

 

[aussie]

Vaughn, Bell and Collingwood could make up the 5th bowler, and I think that because Monty will hopefully be able to bowl longer spells than a Udal/Blackwell it would give Freddy/Harmy/Jonah more of a rest. You need to take 20 wickets to win a test match, so we need to play our best 4 bowlers available rather than bits and pieces players like Blackwell as a front-line option.

why have a 5th option made up of those 3?, cant agree with that Blackwell should play he will be able to bowl long spells just as Panesar probably will, very tightly giving the as well only thing he doesn't have much variation plus he will strenghten the lower-oder very much. I do believe that the 4 quicks may be enough to take 20 wickets & who knows Blackwell could well & take in a few wickets.

 

[marc71178]

England weren't six-down all-down in the Ashes, against a far better attack, and there's only one less batsman there.

Giles at number 8 is a huge difference from any of the Hoggard/Harmison/Simon Jones at 8 scenario.

 

[marc71178]

Trouble is, of course, he's more likely to be facing Kumble & Harby. I know what you mean - I keep hoping that Blackwell will be able to translate his county form into the international arena - but we've seen precious little of it to date.

And considering we're looking for a bowler, don't we need to look at his pathetic bowling?

 

[marc71178]

why have a 5th option made up of those 3?, cant agree with that Blackwell should play he will be able to bowl long spells just as Panesar probably will, very tightly

When has Blackwell ever bowled tightly in FC cricket?

 

[BoyBrumby]

And considering we're looking for a bowler, don't we need to look at his pathetic bowling?

I don't think Blackwell has suddenly turned into a world-beater, but his bowling in the ODIs in Pakistan was actually impressive in a minor way. I think it's fair to say he'll never run thru many teams, but looked infinitely more at home on the international stage than Udal did.

Conversely his batting (and running between the wickets) looked cack.

If Gilo is fit (& I'm praying that he is, however unlikely that now seems) I'd take Panesar as the 16th player, but if Ash is ruled out I'd take Blackwell ahead of Loudon.

 

[savill]

Originally Posted by aussie
why have a 5th option made up of those 3?, cant agree with that Blackwell should play he will be able to bowl long spells just as Panesar probably will, very tightly giving the as well only thing he doesn't have much variation plus he will strenghten the lower-oder very much. I do believe that the 4 quicks may be enough to take 20 wickets & who knows Blackwell could well & take in a few wickets.

Although Blackwell and Panesar have almost like - for - like County economy rates, I would still back Panesar as the one more able to tie down an end, especially against the likes of Sehwag, Tendulkar etc. Blackwell's County strike rate is 91.44, and by playing him as a front line spinner who would bowl long spells would be very defensive IMO, especially as a spinner in conditions which should be helpful. England have been so successful recently by playing their cricket positively, and by selecting Blackwell over Panesar would give the impression that they maybe are too scared of India's batting to try the more attacking option. As for Blackwell's batting, I would take Collingwood over him any day in that area, especially if it means being able to play your better spinner.

 

[marc71178]

I don't think Blackwell has suddenly turned into a world-beater, but his bowling in the ODIs in Pakistan was actually impressive in a minor way.

He's not been as bad in List A games though.

The thing is, we're talking Tests now.

 

[aussie]

When has Blackwell ever bowled tightly in FC cricket?

well he has an economy of 2.83 & his bowling seemed to have improved a lot last season.

 

[aussie]

Although Blackwell and Panesar have almost like - for - like County economy rates, I would still back Panesar as the one more able to tie down an end, especially against the likes of Sehwag, Tendulkar etc. Blackwell's County strike rate is 91.44, and by playing him as a front line spinner who would bowl long spells would be very defensive IMO, especially as a spinner in conditions which should be helpful. England have been so successful recently by playing their cricket positively, and by selecting Blackwell over Panesar would give the impression that they maybe are too scared of India's batting to try the more attacking option. As for Blackwell's batting, I would take Collingwood over him any day in that area, especially if it means being able to play your better spinner.

why do u reckon panesar at this stage will be more able to tie down the likes of sehwag & tendy better?, he is awfully inexperienced at least blackwell in this area may have had exposure & may be able to handle being hit around better.

In a way selecting blackwell would be defensive looking at the way england have played their cricket over the past 2 years but with Gilo out i really think the idea now of of playing the 4 seamer(who would now be the main wicket taking options) & blackwell being a tie up bowler he looked decent in pakistan & turned a few. I really dont think england will suffer much by selecting him.