Vaughan resigns as England captain... so does Collingwood

[Burgey]

TBF, we've been doing that pretty consistently before what will doubtlessly be called "Pattinson's Test" in a few years. I'm sure I remember reading that our six tests with the same XI was an all-time record. Can't honestly say it was a total success; we struggled past as ordinary an NZ team as I can recall more by happenstance than any sense of a team improving or growing towards something.

I'm all for consistency, but equally a test spot shouldn't become a sinecure either. There has to be some balance. For instance Ambrose has now had (or will have had) 10 tests, which I think is enough to form a fair opinion over. He's a steady keeper, but not amazing enough to mitigate his batting, which looks short of the highest quality. If he performs heroics at The Oval he'll probably be retained (as were Strauss, Bell & Collingwood when they produced great innings when their place was questioned), but if he fails we should look elsewhere (and hopefully not towards any bollock-handed, slap-headed Sussex keepers). If Tiny Tim can't handle the pressure that the knowledge his next test might be his last brings he's possibly not cut out for test cricket.

Good points mate. I was concerned in my post with what appeared to be some panic about the state of the English game, as well as its test team. I just think the last thing they need is to start chopping and changing.
Your points re. Ambrose are good ones, and really giving someone 10 straight tests as a keeper probably is an example of picking and sticking, rather than giving them 1 or 2 tests then dumping them.
Without wanting to sound boorish, we've been lucky here, because when there have been times a player has been performing poorly, we've been able to pick up the slack through the excellence of other players. I suspect that time is coming to an end for us, and it will be interesting to see how the selectors here deal with it.

 

[tooextracool]

TBF, we've been doing that pretty consistently before what will doubtlessly be called "Pattinson's Test" in a few years. I'm sure I remember reading that our six tests with the same XI was an all-time record. Can't honestly say it was a total success; we struggled past as ordinary an NZ team as I can recall more by happenstance than any sense of a team improving or growing towards something.

I'm all for consistency, but equally a test spot shouldn't become a sinecure either. There has to be some balance. For instance Ambrose has now had (or will have had) 10 tests, which I think is enough to form a fair opinion over. He's a steady keeper, but not amazing enough to mitigate his batting, which looks short of the highest quality. If he performs heroics at The Oval he'll probably be retained (as were Strauss, Bell & Collingwood when they produced great innings when their place was questioned), but if he fails we should look elsewhere (and hopefully not towards any bollock-handed, slap-headed Sussex keepers). If Tiny Tim can't handle the pressure that the knowledge his next test might be his last brings he's possibly not cut out for test cricket.

AWTA with this post actually. I think most of the fans, especially those who are still voting for consistency in the England side seem to be confusing it with our ODI side. Other than dropping keepers like ninepins, the batting especially has stayed constant since the last Ashes. I dont think Collingwood should have dropped when he was, but its ridiculously obvious that Strauss should have been dropped when he was. The England batting simply hasnt been delivering for quite a while and I highly doubt that Vaughan is amongst the top 6 batsmen in the country.

 

[tooextracool]

There were a hell of a lot of drops, from Prior who had severe trouble keeping to the left hander, and from Bell who was shoehorned into a first slip in the absence of Strauss. As a result of the dropped catches, he had to carry on breaking his back on a flat, slow deck against a well-set Jayawardene and Sangakarra. I barely missed a minute of that series as i was bed-ridden with illness for almost the entire duration, and i have never seen a bowler's figures a more unfair reflection of his performances than those of Sidebottom's in Sri Lanka.

Prior shelled a few of Jayawardhene in the 3rd test but Sidebottom also had a fair share of luck in that very game when he had Vandort lbw to a ball that was clearly going over. As i said earlier, the conditions were tailormade for fast bowling and conceding as many runs as England did in that innings was distinctly poor with or without the dropped catches.

 

[NZTailender]

True, but during that 6-match run, what would you have changed? Broad actually bowled okay in NZ from memory so deserved a chance again over here.

Bell & Colly, maybe?

?

I may be reading this wrong, but Collingwood was Englands most consistent and IMO best batsmen in the tests in NZ.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, sorry, I meant in the home series where he and Bell were both poor tstl

 

[Goughy]

TBF, we've been doing that pretty consistently before what will doubtlessly be called "Pattinson's Test" in a few years. I'm sure I remember reading that our six tests with the same XI was an all-time record.

Its so strange that the consistency in selection was there and suddenly it all blew up.

England competed very well with SA in the 1st Test, and maybe a tweak or 2 here or there was needed to bring a player like Flintoff back.

What happened was the equivelant of driving a bus off a cliff. The had the Pattinson debacle, both captains have been sacked/resigned, Vaughan is gone etc.

From serene waters, and holding our own against the 2nd best team in the World, we have now hit stormy waters through noone elses fault apart from our own navigation.

I didnt always agree with the selections during the 6 match unchanged run, but at least it looked like they had a plan.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Its so strange that the consistency in selection was there and suddenly it all blew up.

England competed very well with SA in the 1st Test, and maybe a tweak or 2 here or there was needed to bring a player like Flintoff back.

What happened was the equivelant of driving a bus off a cliff. The had the Pattinson debacle, both captains have been sacked/resigned, Vaughan is gone etc.

From serene waters, and holding our own against the 2nd best team in the World, we have now hit stormy waters through noone elses fault apart from our own navigation.

I didnt always agree with the selections during the 6 match unchanged run, but at least it looked like they had a plan.

I think it rather dignifies it calling it a plan. They lost the First Test in New Zealand and then based on nothing other than a "gut feeling" discarded Hoggard (and Harmison). They got out of jail thank's to a fairly unlikely century from Ambrose and they never really dominated against what is generally regarded as a fairly weak New Zealand team. The failure against stronger opposition was completely predictable.

 

[Uppercut]

I think it rather dignifies it calling it a plan. They lost the First Test in New Zealand and then based on nothing other than a "gut feeling" discarded Hoggard (and Harmison). They got out of jail thank's to a fairly unlikely century from Ambrose and they never really dominated against what is generally regarded as a fairly weak New Zealand team. The failure against stronger opposition was completely predictable.

Maybe it was a plan. Just a very very bad one. They should have been using the tests to have a look at players, try new ones out, see what their best side is and have a look at fringe players so they could get their best side together in time for the real challenge. Instead they stuck with several mediocre players despite their obvious failings just because NZ's team was even more mediocre (and even then not by much). After the second test in England, where Monty bailed them out, the rest of the side should have been given a makeover as if they'd lost the game.