What can you say?
Well if selection issues were tricky before the 4th Test, they're even worse for the 5th Test. Australia just have to work out who to drop for Hauritz, or whether to go in without a spinner again - fairly simple.
England are in disarray. Broad, who up until this point looked the least penetrating of the bowlers has taken 6 wickets and his type of "bang it in" bowling could be important at the Oval. We can assume Flintoff will be back I hope so Harmison is presumably the man who will go, given a typically variable performance at Headingley.
But the batting is a nightmare. One wicket brings 3 because Cook, Bopara and Bell are all struggling. And Collingwood and Prior are struggling too - but compared to the rest they seem like they're being successful! It's difficult to see how Trott won't play and we need a number 3. Everyone in England will of course have an opinion....and there is no right answer. But for what it's worth I think I'd keep Cook, drop Bopara and Bell, and play Key and Trott.
What would your selection be?
18 comments:
Flintoff for Harmison would be my only change.
A deciding Oval test is no time to be bringing in new players, regardless of what happened at Headingley.
England will bat better next time, they can't do any worse.
After the series is finished will be the time to start rebuilding the batting lineup.
I tend to agree with GoodCricketWicket. It's not as if there is anyone better to come in to the side.
I see Langer is talking up Trescothick and Ramprakash. I can only assume it's all part of his masterplan to cause problems for England and help his Aussie mates to victory, as surely there is no chance of either of them playing!
I'm normally a big advocate of sticking with players and there is an argument for that - I'm not strongly arguing for change. To a certain extent it's a gut feel call and the best people to make that are those closest to the players. If England go with Bopara and Bell again, fair play.
My gut feel, for what it's worth, is to change it....but alarmingly I hear Boycott is calling for Key too and I don't like to agree with him. He may have just run into some form but rumour had it that he fell out with the England heirarchy during the Twenty20 World Cup so it will be interesting to see if he is seriously considered.
Time for a reality check - we're 1-1 going in to the final test against Australia. That's probably quite a good position for England given their relative strength compared to Australia at the moment.
I don't advocate big changes now, unless Flintoff is fit (clearly he must play if fit!) - Harmison should go once and for all.
Bopara and, to a lesser extent, Bell look to have been worn down and now don't expect to score runs. But I'd give them the chance to put that right at the Oval - if not, then we've learned something about their characters, and it will be time for a shake up before the winter.
And I'd like to see the Oval as Collingwood's last Test. Sure he's made the very best of his limited talent over the years, but I just can't see him as the future of English cricket. A good servant to the game, but ultimately a mediocre player.
I'd agree we should leave the batting line up as is. But not that the Oval being Collingwood's last test because there are so few others in English country cricket who are making a claim for a Test place.
As you'd expect Allan, I can't support your call to drop Collingwood! Not when there's only Strauss and Prior who have performed better than him....to drop Collingwood you'd have to drop Cook, Bopara and Bell first and I think 2 would be the maximum I'd be looking to change given that none are even close to retirement age (Collingwood is only just 33 this summer - he just looks old!).
I predicted a drawn series before the start so 1-1 going into the last Test is roughly what I was expecting, but the reason why the series has made difficult watching is that we're playing at home and that's a huge advantage given that the Aussies don't play the swinging ball as much as our batsmen do. So the fact that England's batting has struggled against the swinging ball is why many are alarmed.
That said, it's nice to see so many people advocating keeping the same batsmen for this final Test, if in doubt I think it's great to entrust those that are currently in place rather than swopping and changing. Funny how only last year the same people seemed to want Vaughan and Collingwood sacked/dropped mid-series against South Africa though....
Bopara out, he has had enough chances let someone else have a chance. Controversially if Flintoff is fit, I would drop Broad despite his runs and wickets in the last match. At the end of the day he only delivered when the game was up. Harmison is more likely to produce a spell which wins a test match than Broad hence he keeps his place.
What's the problem with playing Ramps? He's fitter and better in the field than Bell, Cook and Bopara, and his record over the last few years shows he's most likely to succeed of all of them.
First question should be : is Trescothick available ?
Second question should be : what does Ramps himself say (he's old and wise enough to be listened to)?
If both are available they take the places of Cook and Bopara.
If one only is available then Carberry takes the second spot.
If neither is available he (Carberry) takes Bopara'a spot and Key takes Cooks.
Clear ?
Er, no! Rumour has it that Trescothick is a definite no but Ramps would be available if selected.
So you'd drop Cook ahead of Bell - that's an unusual opinion!
Don't know what happened there. I'm the anonymous one above
No Bopara is the first one to go.
It is a one-off game and England must win so my team is:- Strauss, Cook, Trescothick, Ramprakash, Trott, Prior, Flintoff, Broad, Swann, Sidebottom, Anderson. I am sure Trescothick would play if asked - who would turn down the chance to play in an Ashes decider?
All this talk of dropping people and bringing in people for a one off game. I think that big changes is a massive psychological boost to the Aussies as we are reacting to them. What about the motivation to the current players of you got us into this situation you get us out.
If you look at football when a team does badly the manager gets sacked, and usually there is an instant response from the same players so maybe thats what we need to do.
Obviously from this I am suggesting keep the same team barring injuries, hence some hitmen may have to be sent out.
I pretty much agree with Grov, except that I don't think Trescothick will play, so I'd put Key in instead. We can't go on playing people who are drastically out of form any longer, so I'm afraid that rules out Bopara and Collingwood. I'm not sure Collingwood has ever been good enough purely as a batsman in test cricket, but when in form was ok as an allrounder batting at 6.
Oh dear, oh dear. Are we being Gingest? :-)
Clearly Collingwood can bowl if necessary, is a miles better fielder, and has performed better as a batsman than Cook. So how anyone can envisage keeping Cook and dropping Collingwood is beyond me.
So all change in the batting for P Lamb and Groves. That's even more radical than I was changing Bell and Bopara for Trott and Key. Personally I wouldn't go for Tresco or Ramps as the pressure of having to perform in a one-off game may well get to both of them - at least Key and Trott would know they may go on this winter's tour either way.
Dropping Cook or Collingwood would be extreme. They both average 43 so it's tough to think that anyone coming in would do better - they may do but the chances have to be against it.
Amazing how much speculation changes over the days....many said there should be no changes straight after the last Test - all of a sudden now my proposal of two changes to the batting seems conservative. Can't wait to see how the selectors go and how the chosen few bat.....
Is this Adil Rashid making a late push for the final ashes test?
Hmpph. What's going on here? An anti-Collingwood conspiracy?!
I know where you live.
Post a Comment