7 batsmen or 5 bowlers?

[somersetargyle]

basically i think this notion has stemmed from england's loss of flintoff - it has reminded me that sides will generally prioritise playing 5 bowlers or playing 7 batsmen (including wicky)
it seems that england have for a long time preffered to have the luxury of a 5-man attack but this has been made easier due to have a great allrounder; australia however have usually prioritised having seven batsmen in their side

to be honest, when having no genuine allrounders, ive always preferred the idea of 7 batsmen in the lineup this will obviously make a side harder to bowl out and subsequently harder to beat; maybe its the equivalent of playing 4-5-1 in football - i generally see this as the priority for most international sides bar england although many have allrounders in the team

 

[Simbazz]

I do agree that the luxury of Flintoff was a 5th bowler, and a sometimes 7th batsmen, but we're not looking too bad at the moment.

1. Strauss
2. Cook (tempted to replace with Key, even Denly, but I wont)
3. Collingwood/Trott (One of these have to stand up, I'd rather it be Colly, more experienced)
4. Pietersen
5. Belowpara (on form, a very good batsmen, not sure who I'd have in place of him at the moment, maybe put Key/Denly in at 2. and Cook in at 3.?)
6. Prior
7. Broad
8. Swann
9.
10. Onions
11. Anderson

Now, number 9. could also be number 6. - if we could find an all-rounder, to something of a better degree to Broad (maybe a little more with the ball for when he isn't firing) then it'd be perfect, but no one jumps out at me at the moment.

Who do England have available who's as good, or not even as good, but who can fill the hole left from Flintoff?

 

[somersetargyle]

can we agree that the aussies' "statistical victory" was to do with them playing 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers - i think we could take note of that; you never want to stand still as a winning side and rest on your laurels

ill also add that i contraversially but typically of me insist that we stick with bell at 3 because i dont think we have another genuine number 3 on the roster who is on the up - trott and also bopara will be in the frame and maybe collingwood might be under pressure now but he often plays well with pietersen so im sure he will get a good chance

 

[Jakester1288]

As Simon said;

7. Broad
8. Swann
9. Anderson
10. Onions
11.

Would be the best way to go ATM. I just changed the order around a bit, from those players there, Anderson isn't a bad bat, you can rely on him to score runs every innings.

That number 11, could be Harmison or someone if he's on form, but otherwise, seeing as I don't know a heck of a lot about English domestic cricket, could be anyone.

 

[aussie1st]

All depends on if you have an all rounder that can contribute with both bat and ball. SA have Kallis, India stick with the 4 bowlers, we kinda of have Watson when we stop playing the 4 man pace attack. I would definitely give Broad a chance at cementing the number 7 spot but it's a huge step going from 'your batting is a bonus' to 'we expect you to score runs'.

 

[Howsie]

Six batsmen plus the wicket-keeper is usually your best bet, unless you really have a good all-rounder. Playing Broad at seven will not work at the moment.

 

[Cricketman]

India have always preferred going with the 7 batsman. I just can't see a Harbhajan Singh or Zaheer Khan do the job at number 7.

I don't think Broad is ready for the number 7 spot. Yeah, he's a good batsman, but he should have a clear notion in his head that he is in the team for his bowling. The number 7 spot might put added pressure on his batting abilities, which would then hinder his performances with the ball. I think the best bet right now would to have 7 batsman for England.

Strauss
Cook
Pietersen
Collingwood
Trott
Blowpara
Prior
Broad
Anderson
Swann
Onions

 

[drainpipe32]

My Pommie eleven for SA is as follows:

Strauss
Cook (stick with him, he's showed what he can be)
Pietersen
Collingwood
Trott
Prior
Rashid
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Onions

Rashid has shown what he can do at fc level, a healthy batting average of 26 and the best spinner in england! gives england another spin option, for when swann flops ala first innings at lords and rest of ashes barring oval.

collingwood can be fourth seamer, and onions is most consistent bowler.

haha, cook should be able to make something with swann and onions!!! :rtfl

 

[somersetargyle]

firstly to multiple lineups ive seen - i think pietersen is a 4 minimum, trott could be a 3 but id prefer bell there as a more traditional number 3 and trott anywhere between 4-6

another point is that playing 2 spinners in SA seems like such a waste of spaces and collingwood isnt really of the quality to be considered a frontline seamer, hes more of a spare option

 

[King Pietersen]

1. Andrew Strauss *
2. Rob Key
3. Ian Bell
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Jonathan Trott
6. Ravi Bopara
7. Matt Prior +
8. Stuart Broad
9. Graeme Swann
10. James Anderson
11. Graham Onions

Broad's not good enough to bat 7 yet. Bopara gets to bat 6 because he's a legend and needs to prove everyone wrong. Can't be anymore loose than Collingwood outside off-stump, just scored a double ton as well, even against Surrey that's not bad going, especially considering the 2nd best score was 42 iirc. Obviously I'd have KP as skipper as well if it was up to me, but Strauss has done a solid job so I don't object to him having it. KP better be next in line though.

 

[RoboRocks]

Andrew Strauss *
Alastair Cook
Kevin Pietersen
Jonathan Trott
Paul Collingwood
Matt Prior +
Stuart Broad
Graeme Broad
Tim Bresnan
Jimmy Anderson
Graham Onions

Hopefully Broad will do okay at number 7 with Swann and Bresnan below him. Bresnan played 2 tests against the West Indies and did an okay job, so he should come in.

I would stick with Collingwood because I believe he can score runs under pressure, unlike Ian Bell, who has only scored a hundred when someone else in the same innings has scored a hundred.

 

[King Pietersen]

Bresnan? :laugh It was bad enough having him come in for the 2 Tests against the Windies. He's had a disappointing season, and is incredibly one dimensional. Surely out of all the County all-rounders, Luke Wright or Adil Rashid would be better options?

Pietersen won't bat at 3 either, and Collingwood's not anywhere near good enough for number 3, so Bell's probably the best option. Made 72 and top scored for England in the last game, I think he did enough to keep his place. I'd certainly have him ahead of Collingwood, who definitely seems to have gone downhill, looked awful in the last 3 Tests.

 

[RoboRocks]

Bresnan? :laugh It was bad enough having him come in for the 2 Tests against the Windies. He's had a disappointing season, and is incredibly one dimensional. Surely out of all the County all-rounders, Luke Wright or Adil Rashid would be better options?

Maybe. But England will probably go for him since he's next in the pecking order. I would generally put Rashid in there but it's not spinners conditions.

Pietersen won't bat at 3 either, and Collingwood's not anywhere near good enough for number 3, so Bell's probably the best option. Made 72 and top scored for England in the last game, I think he did enough to keep his place. I'd certainly have him ahead of Collingwood, who definitely seems to have gone downhill, looked awful in the last 3 Tests.

I'm sick of us just putting players at three. Bell or Bopara aren't number three's so we might as well put the best player at 3. Trott could bat at three but it would be best to keep him in the middle order for now. Bell has yet to prove himself as a test player over 4-5 years, while Collingwood is capable of that one special innings.

 

[King Pietersen]

Surely it doesn't matter what England will do, this is your chance to pick your XI, and you put Bresnan in there. He certainly wouldn't be next in line for me, and shouldn't be for England. I'd rather see Luke Wright in the side, performed far better in CC than Bresnan.

At number 3 though? You say Bopara's not a number 3, but his main problem was his indecisiveness outside off-stump, same with Cook, yet Collingwood has the same problem, probably even worse than those 2. He is in terrible form and nowhere near good enough to bat 3 for England. I don't even think Collingwood's good enough to play Test cricket for England anymore. I'd replace him with Bopara, bat Rav at 6, with Prior 7 and Trott at 5.

 

[somersetargyle]

bell isnt a number 3? except for the fact he is:laugh

thats where he plays for warks - hes had bad games at 3 but hed probably have been just as bad at 4-7; he seems to play well with strauss as well as obviously trott and to my faint memories also pietersen so i think he is right for the role of accumulator as long as we have aggressor's like KP, trott and even bopara in the middle order