England's XI - best available?

[Owzat]

England beat New Zealand thanks to Panesar's 6/37 and Strauss' 60 and 106. But is this papering over the cracks? Plenty didn't have a great Test, haven't done a lot in the series and don't have a great Test record.

England XI - Test averages

Strauss - 48 Tests, 3726 runs @ 42.34

Cook - 29 Tests, 2238 runs @ 43.04

Vaughan - 78 Tests, 5663 runs @ 42.90

Pietersen - 38 Tests, 3354 runs @ 48.61

Bell - 38 Tests, 2591 runs @ 42.48

Collingwood - 35 Tests, 2457 runs @ 41.64

Ambrose - 5 Tests, 207 runs @ 25.88
Ct/St : 15/0

Broad - 5 Tests, 147 runs @ 24.50
12 wkts @ 46.92 (SR 92.50, ER 3.04)

Sidebottom - 15 Tests, 234 runs @ 15.60
63 wkts @ 26.06 (SR 55.90, ER 2.80)

Panesar - 28 Tests, 154 runs @ 6.16
101 wkts @ 31.65 (SR 64.99, ER 2.92)

Anderson - 24 Tests, 158 runs @ 12.15
80 wkts @ 37.29 (SR 58.13, ER 3.85)

You can see why the selectors would not want to drop the top six, they all average over 40 but they still need to produce and the series averages are worrying. Some reckon Broad should be converted to an all-rounder, he needs to prove he's up to the task of bowling first. Anderson is wayward at times and his future may never be fully secure. Only Sidebottom looks entirely safe of the bottom five in the order, Panesar does enough and is England's best spinner at the moment.

NZ 2008 series - batting averages

76.33 Strauss - 229 runs, HS 106
61.33 Vaughan - 184 runs, HS 120
36.00 Cook - 108 runs, HS 61
27.50 Broad - 55 runs, HS 30
23.67 Pietersen - 71 runs, HS 42
22.50 Bell - 45 runs, HS 21no
16.00 Collingwood - 32 runs, HS 24no
10.00 Sidebottom - 20 runs, HS 16
1.50 Ambrose - 3 runs, HS 3
0.50 Panesar - 1 run, HS 1
n/a Anderson - 3 runs, HS 3no

NZ 2008 series - bowling averages

23.20 Sidebottom - 10 wkts, BB 4/55 (SR 53.40, ER 2.61)
24.89 Panesar - 9 wkts, BB 6/37 (SR 49.33, ER 3.03)
26.90 Anderson - 10 wkts, BB 4/118 (SR 40.50, ER 4.00)
72.67 Broad - 3 wkts, BB 2/85 (SR 130.00, ER 3.35)

While Anderson has been expensive, he has been one of the three bowlers in the four man attack to pick up wickets. Cook has had an ordinary series with the bat, getting starts but not converting. Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood and Ambrose need to find runs or be dropped. You could even make a case for one, some or all of them to be left out for the final Test which England won't want to lose. 151 runs between them for nine times out at an average of 16.78 does not bode well for the middle order 4-7. England can't afford to produce those kind of returns when building a total, a meagre 14 runs per knock if you ignore the not outs Bell and Collingwood got yesterday.

I suspect England will retain the same XI if possible, some subscribe to the theory you should stick with a winning side, but does that mean you should only change as a reaction to defeat or a draw? I believe in making changes when changes are needed, if that means on the back of a victory then so be it. If Strauss, Vaughan, Panesar and Sidebottom have a bad Test will the others be in any kind of form to take over? The lack of runs from the middle order cost England a 179 run deficit, the warning signs are there and alarm bells should be ringing inside the selector's heads. We got away with a poor performance thanks to great efforts from Panesar and Strauss, that should not (be used to) hide the fact that we could easily have lost.

 

[King Pietersen]

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Wright
Foster/Prior
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Panesar
Anderson

That's the team i'd pick. Flintoff offers better bowling than Broad, but can also bat. Foster is the best keeper in England, but Prior's a far better batsman, but I still feel he lacks the wicket keeping abilities, especially off Sidebottom. Wright's the most promising batsman in England, and has a hundred for the Lions this year, and has shown he can perform in international cricket, with some very mature knocks in the ODi team. They're the changes i'd make, Collingwood looks like he's forgotten how to bat, Broad's got massive potential, but needs to become a wicket taking option, and Ambrose's keeping's decent enough, but with the fragility of our batting line-up we need someone who can bat. Ambrose cannot, relies on the bowlers bowling short and wide at him, can't score any other way.

 

[lancashire666]

id go with

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Shah
Ambrose
Broad
Flintoff
Sidbottom
Panesar

the reason id drop collingwood is because he is so out of from he needs to go back to Durham and try to work his way back in, and it is a close one between Shah and Bopara to come in, Bopara is more of a similar player to Collinggwood but Shah has waited for a long time and deservs a go at this level.
also, Big fred in for Jimmy, Sidebum is first seamer in the team these days, id deffo play Flintoff so its either Jimmy or Broad for the 3rd seamer place, and i love Anderson, think hes great, but i really do think Broad is a class bowler who is only going ot get better with time, and his avg is false at the moment, he had bowled much better thatn that number has suggested and it will come don the more he playes

 

[Sureshot]

Flintoff hasn't done enough to prove he can cope as part of a 4-man attack.

 

[lancashire666]

how can he when he hasnt been playing in a 4 man attack!

 

[Ollie_H]

Owzat the part about our batsmen all averaging over 40, but they are all low 40's only one averages near 50.

If you compare this with the rest of the country's (minus WI and Bangladesh) they all average high 40's and some in the 50's

 

[Owzat]

Owzat the part about our batsmen all averaging over 40, but they are all low 40's only one averages near 50.

If you compare this with the rest of the country's (minus WI and Bangladesh) they all average high 40's and some in the 50's

40 has been viewed as the benchmark of a good Test batsmen (by England) for a long time. We're just about getting used to having a full set of six on 40 so I can't see us changing to thinking 45 is the new benchmark any time soon. And there's no guarantee any replacements will score that many on average, yes averages have gone up in the past decade or more, but 50 is still the average of a top batsman.

As for Flintoff, he isn't a Test six so has to bat seven or lower and could only do that as part of a four man attack unless we find a Kallis. One thing I wish England had is an effective part-time spinner among the batsmen. Medium pacers are all well and good, but if the pitch is doing something for the seamers then it would be unlikely you'd turn to a part-timer unless things were going badly.

Broad should go away and play for Notts for a while. Maybe England could negotiate that he be batted higher up the order and to play long innings if he can. Someone suggested Tremlett should be in ahead of Broad (somewhere) and I agree. Tremlett has 13 wickets at under 30 apiece from three Tests, Broad has just 12 wickets from five Tests at over 40 apiece. Batting may favour Broad, but this is a four man attack and you need wickets from your bowlers.

And Tremlett is no mug with the bat, he and Sidebottom could hold up one end. Anderson's case isn't helped by being a relative mug with the bat, he's not a bad fielder but you don't really want to number 11s in the side with the prospect of another (Hoggard) returning at some stage. I wouldn't include bowlers for their batting, but the tail should be able to survive long enough between them that a batsman at the other end could score 50+ runs and help add 80+ runs for the last four wickets. Even a gritty 8 runs from 40 balls by a tailender can see 30+ runs added. The ability to throw the bat and panic the fielding side is a bonus, rather than just be bowled at the ability to pose a problem yourself makes it less easy for the bowler and his captain.

 

[manee]

Flintoff hasn't done enough to prove he can cope as part of a 4-man attack.

What do you mean?

 

[Ollie_H]

40 has been viewed as the benchmark of a good Test batsmen (by England) for a long time. We're just about getting used to having a full set of six on 40 so I can't see us changing to thinking 45 is the new benchmark any time soon. And there's no guarantee any replacements will score that many on average, yes averages have gone up in the past decade or more, but 50 is still the average of a top batsman.

As for Flintoff, he isn't a Test six so has to bat seven or lower and could only do that as part of a four man attack unless we find a Kallis. One thing I wish England had is an effective part-time spinner among the batsmen. Medium pacers are all well and good, but if the pitch is doing something for the seamers then it would be unlikely you'd turn to a part-timer unless things were going badly.

Broad should go away and play for Notts for a while. Maybe England could negotiate that he be batted higher up the order and to play long innings if he can. Someone suggested Tremlett should be in ahead of Broad (somewhere) and I agree. Tremlett has 13 wickets at under 30 apiece from three Tests, Broad has just 12 wickets from five Tests at over 40 apiece. Batting may favour Broad, but this is a four man attack and you need wickets from your bowlers.

And Tremlett is no mug with the bat, he and Sidebottom could hold up one end. Anderson's case isn't helped by being a relative mug with the bat, he's not a bad fielder but you don't really want to number 11s in the side with the prospect of another (Hoggard) returning at some stage. I wouldn't include bowlers for their batting, but the tail should be able to survive long enough between them that a batsman at the other end could score 50+ runs and help add 80+ runs for the last four wickets. Even a gritty 8 runs from 40 balls by a tailender can see 30+ runs added. The ability to throw the bat and panic the fielding side is a bonus, rather than just be bowled at the ability to pose a problem yourself makes it less easy for the bowler and his captain.

1)This is the English problem, we are to set on having just enough, We have to aim higher to get higher, Having 5 batsmen in the top 6 avergaing under 43 isn't good enough. There are many county batmen who haven't been tried who could do just as well if not better.

2) I am in total agreement Flintoff is no mug with the bat but certainly can't be considered as a main batsmen, Lancs have used him a few times this season as just a batsmen and he can't cut it. The other thing is we do have some part time spinning in Pietersen but Vaughan already under uses Panesar as it is so I can't see him using a part timer.

3) I don't agree with your view on Tremlett I don't think he is up to the level of International cricket Certainly not One Dayers.

 

[Sureshot]

What do you mean?

He hasn't proved his fitness. I'm not mad enough to suggest he doesn't have the ability to bowl as part of a 4-man attack. I think that's our plan for the Ashes next year.

 

[King Pietersen]

Well if he can't bowl as part of a 4 man attack, he's not in the team for me. If he's not fit enough to bat at 8 and play as a primary bowler who bats abit, then he wouldn't get in my team. When fit with overs under his belt he's the best bowler in England, but when not fit he cannot perform the role of being part of a 4 man attack. If it wasn't for the side strain though, i think he'd be fit enough, he'd have had some more time to bowl overs for Lancashire and I think have proven his fitness, possibly in place of Collingwood for this 3rd test. Hopefully he'll be fit for the South Africa series, we really need him.

 

[MUFC1987]

In the very near future, I would make one change to the side:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Collingwood
Pietersen
Bell
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Panesar
Anderson

So, sure some people have had a bad series, it happens. To me the fundamental problem is with our batting lineup. Bell scores runs at Number 6 easily, yet he's struggled in other positions, yet somehow, he's deemed a good enough batsman to bat at 5, which I don't get. Put him where he has done well, which is at Number 6. Likewise, ideally, perhaps Pietersen would bat at 4, as in theory he could bat for longer, but he's come out and said how he prefers to bat at 5. So instead of making his less comfortable, put him where he wants to be. This leaves Collingwood, for me, I'd tell him to be more natural if I was his coach, he can bat for a very long time, yet at 6, he has one batsman and then suddenly its the tail that falls away. For me at number 4, between our best two strokemakers (Vaughan & Pietersen) he would be the ideal foil for both. Sure he may not be as free flowing in Test cricket, but he can be damn effective. I just don't get why the order has been moved about so much for this summer.

Now, Ambrose should be feeling the pressure for me. He has to do something in the third Test for me, or else he should rightfully be looking over his shoulder. There are two of three Wicketkeepers who have scored plenty so far this year in County Cricket, who are waiting.

Onto the bowling, sure there are people that can come in, but bowling is a confidence thing. Broad gets the benefit as he can bat, but I agree he should be performing better. Sidebottom and Panesar are locks as out two best bowlers which leaves Anderson. I thought he was brilliant in the second Test, sure he was expensive at times, but he was aggresive, which gets you wickets. More of the same and he could become a very good bowler for us.

 

[King Pietersen]

I'm sorry, but when has Pietersen ever said that he prefers batting at 5 ? Collingwood's on the worst form of his life, so why on earth would you move him UP to 4 ? The chances of him facing the new ball are increased, as is the chance of facing the best bowlers. Pietersen has perfomed consistently at 4, and should be there, and then move to 3 when Vaughan retires. He's our best player, and would be completely wasted at 5. Bell should be at 6 though, unless Luke Wright comes in, whereby Bell would have to take on the responsibility and bat at 5.

When Flintoff comes back, Broad should get the boot. He's not been threatening enough, and unless he really improves in the 3rd test and takes a heap of wickets I can't see him having a place come the Lord's test against South Africa. Another year in county cricket bowling with Charlie Shreck would really benefit him I think. We need 4 bowlers who are capable of taking wickets, not 3 that are wicket takers and 1 who can bat abit. The batting shouldn't be a reason to keep him in, he's a bowler, so his primary concern should be taking wickets, not scoring runs.

 

[manee]

He hasn't proved his fitness. I'm not mad enough to suggest he doesn't have the ability to bowl as part of a 4-man attack. I think that's our plan for the Ashes next year.

Ok, lol. For a moment, I thought you believed the latter.

 

[MUFC1987]

I'm sorry, but when has Pietersen ever said that he prefers batting at 5 ? Collingwood's on the worst form of his life, so why on earth would you move him UP to 4 ? The chances of him facing the new ball are increased, as is the chance of facing the best bowlers. Pietersen has perfomed consistently at 4, and should be there, and then move to 3 when Vaughan retires. He's our best player, and would be completely wasted at 5. Bell should be at 6 though, unless Luke Wright comes in, whereby Bell would have to take on the responsibility and bat at 5.

When Flintoff comes back, Broad should get the boot. He's not been threatening enough, and unless he really improves in the 3rd test and takes a heap of wickets I can't see him having a place come the Lord's test against South Africa. Another year in county cricket bowling with Charlie Shreck would really benefit him I think. We need 4 bowlers who are capable of taking wickets, not 3 that are wicket takers and 1 who can bat abit. The batting shouldn't be a reason to keep him in, he's a bowler, so his primary concern should be taking wickets, not scoring runs.

It was circa the last Ashes when he apparently wanted to bat at number 4 instead of number 5. Regarding Collingwood, my reasoning was there, at 6 he bats with one guy who normally gets out before he's with the tail. If he bats up the order he can be the less aggressive partner and can then build his innings which suits him, with the likes of Vaughan and Pietersen being there to up the tempo if needed. Something needs to change for Pietersen, he's been off the boil for ages, I don't think moving him about in the order would be the worse idea. He scores a century and then struggles to reach 50 runs in two innings in the matches in between.

Regarding Broad, sure ideally, we'd have the best 4 bowlers and not worry about scoring runs or taking catches, but International cricket just plain isn't like that. The best teams do name the 4 best bowlers and then make them into good batsmen, hence the Australian team doing so well with the likes of Lee, Gillespie and Kasprowicz being turned into useful batsmen for the lower order.