Are touring squads big enough?

[Owzat]

The aussies have announced a squad for the forthcoming Ashes Test which contains 17 players. While they have pointed out that it will be reduced to 12-13 ahead of Brisbane, that is more players than are in the England touring squad.

BBC Sport - Cricket - Ashes 2010: Australia announce 17-man squad

I've often thought that a 16 man squad is too few for a touring squad, especially with a demanding series. England have in the past had to call up cover for injuries, why not take a few extra players to cover for injuries and tactics. Let's look at it as the likely starting XI plus five others, when you've taken out the XI what are you left with? A reserve keeper, one batsman, a spinner in case the other underperforms or you want to play two, and two bowlers of whom one is inexperienced and the other is a bits n pieces all-rounder.

England's reserves not only look weak, but where is the scope to cover for injury and loss of form?!? ONE batsman, two bowlers who haven't been good enough to play for England since early 2009 and in Tremlett's case hasn't bowled for England since 2007. The keeper is really emergency use only, but has never played a Test. Sure more experienced players could have been picked, but there isn't a great deal of scope for changes which may become necessary through form and injury. What happens if Cook scores say 50 runs in three Tests? Or gets injured?

England Ashes Test squad:

Andrew Strauss (captain, Middlesex)
Alastair Cook (vice-captain, Essex)
Jonathan Trott (Warwickshire)
Kevin Pietersen (Hampshire)
Paul Collingwood (Durham)
Ian Bell (Warwickshire)
Matt Prior (wk, Sussex)
Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire)
Graeme Swann (Nottinghamshire)
James Anderson (Lancashire)
Steven Finn (Middlesex)

Eoin Morgan (Middlesex)
Steven Davies (wk, Surrey)
Tim Bresnan (Yorkshire)
Chris Tremlett (Surrey)
Monty Panesar (Sussex)

BBC Sport - Cricket - Monty Panesar and Chris Tremlett in England Ashes squad

So what do you reckon is the right squad size. I can only SUGGEST you use your own (choice of) Test nation to pick a theoretical squad upon which to base the number, personally I think 17 is an absolute minimum. I'd want a couple of spare batsman, an all-rounder, a keeper, a spinner and two other bowlers so we're talking 18. Ideally I'd take 20 and have all bases covered, virtually two teams except less one batsman and one bowler.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Although players get injured a lot often these days due to heavy amount of cricket these days, I still think sixteen is still a large enough number of players.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Starting XI, reserve keeper, 2 reserve bats, 2 reserve bowlers. Hopefully one of the bowlers can bat a bit, and one of the batsmen can bowl, so you can tinker with the side balance a bit. 16 players seems enough IMO.

 

[angryangy]

But isn't that the point of the England Performance Programme sitting in Brisbane? Maybe five or six who could reasonably be called up in a pinch.

 

[aussie1st]

I would say England have the right amount. When you take too many then you end up having players being unused or being forced to play them so they are used. If it is happening during the season which for England it isn't then you also take away an opportunity for that player to push his claim in domestic cricket.

 

[sifter132]

But isn't that the point of the England Performance Programme sitting in Brisbane? Maybe five or six who could reasonably be called up in a pinch.

Yes I would think so. I think touring parties should be setup like that in the offseason. None of the players will be playing county cricket so why not send a 2nd XI/'development' squad over here? In fact, it makes me wonder why more 'A' team tours aren't organised in the offseason. England 'A' could play a nice little series against Australia 'A' while the Ashes are going on, keeping them fit and getting experience on Aussie pitches, while providing good backup for the first team squad.

 

[MUFC1987]

England's squad is definetely relatively light due to the Performance Squad.

For me, I'd go with:

First 11
Backup Opener
Backup Middle Order Batsman
Backup Keeper
Backup Spinner
2 Backup pace bowlers

So that's 17, which covers most bases for me. There's no point in having more players hanging around when they're not needed.

 

[Left_Hander]

I think for a long tournament, like a World Cup 18-20 seems like a good number. Particuarly for a country like Australia who won't play their best XI against countries like Holland.