Have England gone too far the opposite way from their policy of making too many changes , mostly associated with the 1990s?
I ask this because much focus has come on Cook, Pietersen, Strauss and Collingwood to different degrees for each, but noone seems likely to be axed :
2010 vs Pakistan
119 runs @ 19.83 : Collingwood - top score of 82, scored 37 runs otherwise in five innings @ 7.40
140 runs @ 23.33 : Pietersen - top score of 80 (scratchy), 60 runs otherwise in five innings @ 12.00
155 runs @ 25.83 : Strauss - top score of 53no, 102 runs otherwise in six innings @ 17.00
167 runs @ 23.86 : Cook - top score of 110, 57 runs otherwise in six innings @ 9.50
I'll throw Morgan in as well, another whose best score pretty much carries his series average
175 runs @ 29.17 : Morgan - top score of 130, 45 runs otherwise in five innings @ 9.00
While you need to be consistent in selection to some degree, do we go too far in retaining players? I think we now play many more weak sides than before and so it is all too easy for batsmen to eventually find some runs that save them from the axe. Didn't Strauss, Cook, Pietersen and Collingwood all go down under in 06/07 and were part of the side that got bowled out for less than 200 FIVE TIMES? Cook made nearly half his series runs in one innings (116 out of 276), Strauss made one fifty, Collingwood also scored near half his series runs in one innings (206 out of 433).
I'm all for a little bit of consistent selection, but the batsmen do need to face at least a prospect of being dropped.
Pietersen - 18 inns, 538 runs @ 33.63
That includes four fifties and two not outs
Collingwood - 24 inns, 770 runs @ 33.48.
Has had enough moments/scores in each series to keep the average about respectable
Strauss - 21 inns, 676 runs @ 33.80
Considering that includes six fifties it isn't that impressive
Cook - 13 inns, 395 runs @ 32.92
Cook scores hundreds just frequently enough, his form is concealed by two hundreds vs Bangladesh so it had to be somewhat fewer innings than ideal. Considering he scored 110 last Test it shows how poor his most recent form has been.
Morgan - 8 inns, 256 runs @ 32.00.
Over half his runs came in one innings of 130, the other 126 @ 18.00
These runs of form do include series vs Bangladesh. Morgan for me is an ODI player and shouldn't be near the Test side. As for Trott :
Trott
Inns 01-04 : 257 runs @ 64.25 (HS 119)
Inns 05-13 : 229 runs @ 25.44 (HS 64)
Inns 14-14 : 226 runs @ 226.00 (HS 226)
Inns 15-22 : 259 runs @ 43.17 (HS 55, includes two not outs)
Inns 23-23 : 184 runs @ 184.00 (HS 184)
A blip after a good start, he did go nine innings with a top score of 64 and another eight innings with a top score of 55, so isn't entirely without fault or relatively scratchy spells.
So where do you draw the line? How bad does form have to be before batsmen get dropped? Pietersen will be going to Australia with very little in the way of convincing Test runs under his belt. While England may have soundly beaten Pakistan, that is more down to convincing bowling and unconvincing Pakistani batting than England batsmen being in form.
I ask this because much focus has come on Cook, Pietersen, Strauss and Collingwood to different degrees for each, but noone seems likely to be axed :
2010 vs Pakistan
119 runs @ 19.83 : Collingwood - top score of 82, scored 37 runs otherwise in five innings @ 7.40
140 runs @ 23.33 : Pietersen - top score of 80 (scratchy), 60 runs otherwise in five innings @ 12.00
155 runs @ 25.83 : Strauss - top score of 53no, 102 runs otherwise in six innings @ 17.00
167 runs @ 23.86 : Cook - top score of 110, 57 runs otherwise in six innings @ 9.50
I'll throw Morgan in as well, another whose best score pretty much carries his series average
175 runs @ 29.17 : Morgan - top score of 130, 45 runs otherwise in five innings @ 9.00
While you need to be consistent in selection to some degree, do we go too far in retaining players? I think we now play many more weak sides than before and so it is all too easy for batsmen to eventually find some runs that save them from the axe. Didn't Strauss, Cook, Pietersen and Collingwood all go down under in 06/07 and were part of the side that got bowled out for less than 200 FIVE TIMES? Cook made nearly half his series runs in one innings (116 out of 276), Strauss made one fifty, Collingwood also scored near half his series runs in one innings (206 out of 433).
I'm all for a little bit of consistent selection, but the batsmen do need to face at least a prospect of being dropped.
Pietersen - 18 inns, 538 runs @ 33.63
That includes four fifties and two not outs
Collingwood - 24 inns, 770 runs @ 33.48.
Has had enough moments/scores in each series to keep the average about respectable
Strauss - 21 inns, 676 runs @ 33.80
Considering that includes six fifties it isn't that impressive
Cook - 13 inns, 395 runs @ 32.92
Cook scores hundreds just frequently enough, his form is concealed by two hundreds vs Bangladesh so it had to be somewhat fewer innings than ideal. Considering he scored 110 last Test it shows how poor his most recent form has been.
Morgan - 8 inns, 256 runs @ 32.00.
Over half his runs came in one innings of 130, the other 126 @ 18.00
These runs of form do include series vs Bangladesh. Morgan for me is an ODI player and shouldn't be near the Test side. As for Trott :
Trott
Inns 01-04 : 257 runs @ 64.25 (HS 119)
Inns 05-13 : 229 runs @ 25.44 (HS 64)
Inns 14-14 : 226 runs @ 226.00 (HS 226)
Inns 15-22 : 259 runs @ 43.17 (HS 55, includes two not outs)
Inns 23-23 : 184 runs @ 184.00 (HS 184)
A blip after a good start, he did go nine innings with a top score of 64 and another eight innings with a top score of 55, so isn't entirely without fault or relatively scratchy spells.
So where do you draw the line? How bad does form have to be before batsmen get dropped? Pietersen will be going to Australia with very little in the way of convincing Test runs under his belt. While England may have soundly beaten Pakistan, that is more down to convincing bowling and unconvincing Pakistani batting than England batsmen being in form.