All Out Cricket's Discussion of the Week - Who would you pick for tomorrow's first Test?

FoF Edit (apologies, I messed the merge up): Today on www.alloutcricket.com Philip Morris analyses the selection dilemmas facing England ahead of the first Test against Pakistan:

http://www.alloutcricket.com/blogs/comment/pakistan-v-england-test-cricket-preview-dubai

Who would be in your starting XI?

Here's mine:

1) Strauss
2) Cook
3) Trott
4) Pietersen
5) Bell
6) Morgan
7) Prior
8) Broad
9) Swann
10) Tremlett
11) Anderson

Looks about right now Bresnan is missing.

Could we see five bowlers (Monty) in a a later match if we fall behind and Morgan is struggling?

Very much the same as you, duty, but I am still torn over Finn or Tremlett.

Finn provides a little bit of additional pace these days, I'd say, whereas Tremlett bowls the heavier ball, so to speak. Keeping things tight will be important in these Tests, so a lot will come down to whether the selectors believe Finn to have obtained the necessary control, and can continue with the sort of control he has shown in recent ODI series. In the past he has taken wickets but been expensive, and economy is going to be key on pitches where it may well be a war of attrition.

Leaning toward Finn, as I feel he has made great strides, but Tremlett is the man in possession as they say, so it wouldn't surprise me if they went with him.

I WOULD PICK:

1.Strauss
2.Cook
3.Trott
4.KP
5.Bell
6.Bopara
7.Prior
8.Swann
9.Broad
10.Anderson
11.Monty

HOWEVER I THINK THEY WILL GO WITH:

1.Strauss
2.Cook
3.Trott
4.KP
5.Bell
6.Morgan
7.Prior
8.Swann
9.Broad
10.Anderson
11.Finn

The selection really comes down to whether or not to find a way to get Panessar in the team.
From what I have read they arent expecting the pitch to be a real turner, which should answer the two spinner question. Going into a test with two frontline seamers and only Trott as support would be a monsterous gamble and play in Pakistans hands. Boparas not even been used in the warmups so theres little to suggest hes a contender to offer slightly better support seam and replace Morgan.
If they had Bresnan fit the 5 bowlers stratergy would be a serious option, but surely dropping Morgan for Panessar would leave a very long tail.
Dropping Swan for Monty is probably out of the question at this point too.
The only choice then is between Tremlett and Finn, Id assume Tremlett gets in.

Strauss, Cook, Trott, KP, Bell (or flopara if hes injured), Morgan, Prior, Broad, Swann, Tremlett, Anderson

IMO Monty is in such good form, it would be extremely hard to leave him out..hence why i put bopara in my side.

Two spinners would be unwise unless it was an obvious turner from the start, cf. As pSW says, the risk is just too much - what if one of our quicks pulled up with an injury? We would be in dire straits.

Monty had one good game, yes, which is great to see, but it doesn't mean he has forced the selectors in to picking him.

agree with fists. Monty and swann maybe later on in the series on an absolute turner. But for now the question is Finn or Tremlett, assuming of course that Broad is passed fit to play. For me I would prefer tremlett as i am not so sure about the reliability of broad, and tremlett offers more control than finn

I had a read of Jonathan Agnew's column earlier today over at the BBC website, and he is strongly for playing 5 bowlers, with two spinners and Prior batting at 6.

His reasoning is that these benign pitches should make it easy enough to still get a competitive total, but I'm not so sure I agree. In the warmups (though I don't put too much stock in them) we didn't exactly look wholly at ease whilst out in the middle, so extending the tail would be a pretty big risk prior to the first Test, I'd say.

Surely the more sensible option would be to stick with what has worked so well for us to get to this point (and the method that saw us take 20 wickets in both of the warmup matches) for the first Test, and consider any significant changes after seeing how we go.

Its this kind of situation that makes you wish you had Kallis of 5 years ago in the squad instead of Bopara enabling the two spinners and s reasoanble seam attack without comprimising the batting too much.

If Bopara were demanding a place in the side as much as panessar Id see a stronger case, but as it is one has played one game and the other is confussing people as to how he got on the tour in the first place and what hes doing there now.

3 seamers and 2 spinners would be the attacking option. Agnew has always been in favour of 5 bowlers, he thought it was a msitake playing 4 uin Aus and in the summer. It didnt make him right.

Today on www.alloutcricket.com Philip Morris analyses the selection dilemmas facing England ahead of the first Test against Pakistan:

http://www.alloutcricket.com/blogs/comment/pakistan-v-england-test-cricket-preview-dubai

Who would be in your starting XI?

Strauss (c)
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Morgan
Prior (wk)
Broad
Swann
Finn/Tremlett
Anderson

Still undecided over Finn and Tremlett. Do we go for the extra bit of pace from Finn, or the extra control from Tremlett. A very tough call to make, and I cannot split them.

A few calls of going with five bowlers, but I'd be massively surprised if that was what the England management opted for.

With Bresnan available, the argument for 5 bowlers is much stronger, as a 7-8-9 of Bresnan, Broad and Swann is competent enough to compensate for one fewer specialist batsman. However, in his absence, Broad at 7, Swann at 8 and then 3 of the rabbit persuasion to follow is much weaker than we've been used to recently.

So while it is harsh on Monty, I just don't see him as a viable selection at this stage.

Oh, and I'd go with Tremlett rather than Finn. Conditions don't really suit either, but Tremers is more likely to take wickets just by maintaining pressure on the batsman.

Hopefully in a year or so, Woakes will have developed into the Test player we hope he can be - a number 6 batsman who is good enough to be considered as one of the front line seamers (3rd seamer in the sub-continent, 4th seamer in more friendly conditions).

Aggers has always been a big one for playing five bowlers though, IIRC he was advocating England switching to the five bowler strategy straight after the Ashes, and obviously this summer hasn't made him change his mind. I'm one of those who doesn't really understand this obsession with five bowlers. I think it's a remnant from the Botham days, and then Flintoff sort of filled that void for a bit, so we want to get back to that balance. No other team seems to have this obsession (they're happy when they have a genuine fifth bowling option, but you don't see Aus going out of their way to pick someone who can bowl when Watson's injured for instance).

England won't, nor should they, play five bowlers unless playing catch-up in the series, especially with Bresnan not available. Nor will they play two spinners unless it looks like being a raging turner, and the chances are it won't be (it'll probably also be a lot flatter than the pitches they played the warm-ups on). I fully expect England to stick with the balance of the side that has taken them to n°1 in the world. Why shouldn't they?

MfC
Absolutely true - 5 bowlers only really works when you've got a genuine all rounder in the side, so essentially only Kallis or Watson at the moment.

The Aussies of the 90s-00s never really worried about having a 5th bowler beyond Steve Waugh's medium pace fill-in stuff, and they were effective enough. As long as you have seamers who are effective with the old ball and a quality spinner, a four pronged attack is sufficient - England have that well enough at the moment.

I join MfC and dummy-half in perplexity about this (mainly it has to be said english) obsession with playing 5 bowlers, when practically none of the great sides in history have done so (the Australians from just after the war being the exception, and well, they had Miller - England have Bresnan, who I admire greatly, but is probably not in that class). Indeed, in recent international cricket, the sides who have picked 5 bowlers (and have through history) have in the enormous majority done so because one of them happened to be a good enough batsman to warrant a spot in the top 6.

The only exception I can remember is Australia using Bichel at 7 in the West Indies when the pitches had not only died but suffered a decent funeral and were happily being eaten by maggots. then of course Gillchrist batted 6. Gillchrist and Bichel are probably better batsmen than Prior and Broad, so the point is moot.

England struggled with this 5-bowler madness from Botham's retirement (it was a main contributing factor to Jack Russell being criminally underused), and until Flintoff emerges it didn't work.

And now people are suggesting Bopara because he can bowl a few overs. Let's not worry about the fact that he can't bat. Or that he won't bowl much more than what could feasibly be achieved with part-timers. Or that England have built their recent success on runs and pressure, with the odd devastating spell thrown in.

Hopefully the English management will show that their recent common-sense is not just temporary.

Just read the blog: am I the only one who fins the description of Bresnan as "someone who bowls wicket to wicket" a bit strange?

I guess he is accurate, if that is what they're trying to say, but I certainly wouldn't agree that he is skiddy or similar in style to Onions. Bresnan, if anything, bowls a very 'heavy' ball.

And bowls from wide of the crease.

All the England bowlers are accurate anyway.

I think what they're saying is that with Bresnan and Onions they are essentially supporting casts to Anderson and Broad. With which I would disagree anyway.

Strange phrase in an otherwise very fine article.

Mike Selig wrote:Just read the blog: am I the only one who fins the description of Bresnan as "someone who bowls wicket to wicket" a bit strange?

|Id find it starnger if it were applied to Steve "wicket to second slip" Harmisson

The Windies bowled with five at times when they played Harper but IMO four is generally enough.

Absolutely, they are a trio of bowlers, not a pair with a supporting backup bowler.

I'm with Mike, don't think Onions and Bresnan's bowling is similar at all. As for the team, I suspect England will go with Tremlett as he's probably just about the man in possession, though it wouldn't be surprising if they went with Finn either. Anyone else would be a big surprise.

Mike Selig wrote:

I think what they're saying is that with Bresnan and Onions they are essentially supporting casts to Anderson and Broad. With which I would disagree anyway.
.

Reading the article I think the point they were trying to make is that Broad and Anderson (and Swann) are the fixed names on the teamsheet. The other guys are the ones vying for spots in the team, so far taking it in turns when someone is injured or rested. Bresnan probably had done enough to get himself on the A list for the medium term ( as they point to in the article) but now hes injured Tremlett (who everyone thought was a god till he got injured and prepalcement by Bresnan who did even better) or Finn has a real chance to make themselves undropable.
Broad in particular is poerhaps very lucky he had a long run in ti establish himslef as a permanent fixture in the side before the current stable of bowlers emerged, had Tremlett Bresnan Finn and Onions been around and producing what they have done for England at the same time he came in and averaged 60 with the ball he'd probably be a footnote in Englands history.
In the sense that Broad/Anderson arent always the star performers on the pitch or the strike bowlers yes the otehr guys arent teh supporting cast and crew, but in terms of how the team is put together they are.
Panessar of course is very much spinner number 2 (and most of us assume injury cover), but hes the one who took the wickets in the one game he got.

Personally I would love to see this team:

Strauss
Cook
Trott
KP
Bell
Prior
Broad
Swann
Tremlett
Anderson
Panesar

Lets go positive, play 2 spinners to help us take 20 wickets and trust our batsmen to get enough runs on what will surely be a flat pitch.

I can't help but think the Pakistani's would rather face Finn than Tremlett.

I am a big supporter of Finn, and think he could be something very special in the future, but I think Tremlett will cause more problems at the moment.

As long as his eye's OK, I would personally pick Tremlett ahead of Finn for the first test.

Don't see Panesar getting in there either, although in an ideal world you would like two spinners that complement each other. Samit Patel (at some point in the future) at number 6 anyone?

please not Samit Patel!!!!! Not a great batsman, won't be particularly threatening with the ball in tests, and just isn't fit enough.

Tibor wrote:Samit Patel (at some point in the future) at number 6 anyone?

Nope. I want the best number 6 in the country at no 6. Not some unfit roly-poly just because he can bowl a few darts. May as well pick Yardy (Patel is of course a better batsman than Yardy).

MfCs assessment of Samit brings us back to Mike's point - how many all rounders* did England try in the years between Botham's peak and Flintoff's emergence?

*The term all rounder being used in its more generous definition of a player who was equally inadequate at Test level as a batsman and bowler.

Patel I feel is a useful ODI cricketer (though I wish he would get in shape!), but his bowling certainly isn't good enough for Test cricket, and I'd suggest his batting is some way short, too. Plenty of promise, but never the application required.

dummy, off the top of my head:

Dermot Reeve, Derek Pringle, Dominic Cork, Chris Lewis, Adam Hollioake (he of the greatest leave of all time), Ben Hollioake (tragic that), David Capel, Phil DeFreitas (bit harsh as he was a good bowler), and I'm sure I've forgotten a fair few.

MfC
You missed out the greatest of all time - Gavin Hamilton.
Also Ronnie Irani (who to be fair was a good ODI player).

Slightly unfair to include Cork and DeFreitas in that list, as both were at least good enough bowlers at Test level, and Ben Hollioake might have been good enough but never got the chance to prove it.

But yes, it was the Pringles and Capels of this world I was thinking of.

Batting all-rounder who could bowl spin would be incredibly useful.

With Morgan yet to really prove himself with the bat, would Patel be such a burden, in light of other options?

KP's not exactly useless with the ball, but not good enough to put in a long spell.

ah yes, Gavin Hamilton and Ronnie Irani, two notable omissions from the list there. I included Cork as when he was picked (and after his early success) he was promptly dubbed the "new Botham", but it's true he was a pretty good bowler.

to Timor: quite simply, YES! terrible option. Morgan averages 36 with the bat, which while not fantastic is about ten runs more than I could see Patel averaging. He's also worth probably 15 runs per innings in the field on Patel. and Patel's bowling would be ineffective, he'd just get tapped around for 4 runs an over or so, so there seems little point.

MfC

The 'new Botham' tag was something of a millstone for several young English players wasn't it? Certainly got applied to Daffy as well as Cork, and I seem to recall Darren Gough's all rounder credentials being talked up early in his career (before it became obvious he was a natural no 9 batsman - swing the bat and hit hard when he hit at all).

Your point on Patel is well made - he'd probably have a poorer batting record than Morgan (and Prior, possibly Bresnan and even Broad), and would not be an effective attacking spin bowler. He'd end up bowling no more often than KP (who is probably a bit under-bowled when conditions suit), and in a similar 'more in hope than expectation' vein.

I think KP may bowl a fair share of overs here though, certainly he got through a few in the warm-ups. Won't bowl long spells, because he bowls too many bad balls, but he may well bowl a few overs here and there, and when he lands it he can be dangerous.

I like KP as a bowler. He does bowl some filth, as someone so little used will tend to, but he has height which gives him good bounce, and he gives the ball a good rip, turning it some distance at times. I do think we will see a bit of him with the ball in hand on this tour.

I agree that KP is not a bad attacking spin bowler - a bit like Vaughan in the first half of his career. He might bowl some dross, and so is not a good candidate to build pressure on a batsman, but does have the ability to bowl the occasional wicket-taking delivery.
On slow and low wickets, I can definitely see him being given a couple of 3 or 4 over spells a day when we're bowling. Just a pity that he turns the ball the same way as Swann.

KP says he has the hunger back in himself and is ready to get back to scoring those hundreds again..good sign for england.

dummy_half wrote:MfC
Absolutely true - 5 bowlers only really works when you've got a genuine all rounder in the side, so essentially only Kallis or Watson at the moment.

...

NZ is planning on using Vettori at 6 this season and having 5 bowlers. Admittedly against Zimbabwe. More worrying, they've picked Kruger van Wyk* and BJ Watling in the 12 for the 1st test, with one of them keep wicket (Rhys Young has paid the price for scoring less runs than Haddin or Dhoni recently). BJ Watling was an NZ U19 keeper, but aside from 3 domestic 20:20 matches this year he hasn't kept in 5 years or so


On the "Next Botham" discussion, before their respective international debuts Dominic Cork and Darren Gough spent an (NH) winter in NZ opening the bowling for my Chch club team. Just a shame that was a few seasons before Nathan Astle & Craig McMillan made it out of schoolboy ranks or we might have broken the 90-year long trophy drought a few years early.


* Yes NZ is following England's example and picking a few Saffers

vettori should be at 7 and not 6

cricketfan90 wrote:vettori should be at 7 and not 6

No disagreement from me!

I owe Reece Young an apology for mis-spelling his name earlier though. Or perhaps his parents owe him an apology for mis-spelling "Rhys"

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/6264930/Van-Wyk-and-Watling-vie-for-Black-Caps-gloves

Batting ability has become more important for the test gloveman as New Zealand prepare to take five specialist bowlers into the test, with Vettori likely to bat six. Watling is highly rated by Wright and is a tidy gloveman.

Van Wyk made his first-class debut in South Africa in 2000 and emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He captained Canterbury then shifted to Central in June 2010.

I shouldn't be surprised really. It's not that long ago that NZ was picking Adam Parore and Chris Cairns (for one season when he wasn't bowling-fit) as specialist batsmen. And Vettori toured Bangladesh as a specialist batsman a while back (he was being "rested" as a bowler).

Vettori may well be good enough to bat 6 for New Zealand to be fair (which says a fair bit about NZ's batting anyway). I liked Reece Young as a keeper and he seems a decent bloke, but pretty hopeless with the bat. In today's game that's not really helpful.

I think a few on here are somewhat underrating Patel as a batsman. He would comfortably average 30odd in tests I reckon, but probably not more than 35 (so less than Morgan). His bowling though is about the same standard as Michael Clarke's: fires it in, so could get some bite off a really helpful wicket, but otherwise unlikely to get good players out. Or put another way, a good part-timer but no more. And please let's not start picking batsmen for their bowling. And it's been rightfully pointed out that Morgan has at least 10 runs on both Patel and Bopara in the field. Not to be underestimated that.

heres been alot of talk about england playing the extra spinner because of the number of wickets taken by spinners, especially ajmal, in the recent series

however that does not take account of the fact that neither of those teams has anywhere near the strength or quality of seam bowling that we do. they play to their strengths and so should we. the thought of going into this match with either just 2 frontline seamers and having bopara bat #6 or 5 specialist bowlers with a tail starting at 7 with broad is not playing to our strengths.

the risk of having a long tail from playing 5 bowlers is too much imo especially when you look at the cards from the games pakistan have played where ajmal has been very very effective at mopping up the tail, in fact that is where the majority of his wickets seem to have came from.

Although I'd agree that it would be best to have Vettiri at 7 because of his bowling workload, I can see no reason why he would not be good enough to play as a no.6 batsman for New Zealand (and some other Test sides) as he has been averaging over 40 for the last few years and that is generally the sign of a decent Test batsman.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:dummy, off the top of my head:

Dermot Reeve, Derek Pringle, Dominic Cork, Chris Lewis, Adam Hollioake (he of the greatest leave of all time), Ben Hollioake (tragic that), David Capel, Phil DeFreitas (bit harsh as he was a good bowler), and I'm sure I've forgotten a fair few.

What about Mark Ealham (The Ultimate Bits and Pieces Type All-Rounder). Also there was Craig White who was seen of as Ray Illingworth's big hope of filling in the number 6 test slot as a batsman who can bowl a bit type of all-rounder, Mike Watkinson who somehow got picked for England to face the mighty South Africa in their own backyard and going back to the 1980's there were people like Trevor Jesty, Ian Greig (brother of Tony Greig), and Phil Newport who at one time or another were given a chance to play for England.

Ealham's definitely another for the list, although he was at least an effective swing bowler if conditions suited.

Craig White is an interesting one, in that he was picked as a batsman who bowled, but at Test level proved (at least for about 18 months) to be a more effective bowler than batsman.

Watkinson I think I'd tried to block out of the memory - from memory, he was a decent County player, especially in one dayers, but to pick him as a spin bowler / batsman at Test level was a bit of a stretch. Am I right to recall that he started as a medium-fast bowler and only changed to off spin about a year before his England debut?

The best or worst (depending on your viewpoint) of England's bits 'n pieces cricketers was surely Chris Cowdrey. Captain to boot!