"It's pretty humbling, isn't it? For an old fisherman and surfer in Queensland, who now and then plays a bit of cricket." Matthew Hayden is overwhelmed at being Usain Bolt's favourite cricketer Aug 21, 2008
My Editor and I were chatting about Ian Bell today and the increasingly irresistible case he states for an Ashes place. Indeed not just a place for the first Test but forever more.
With my devil’s advocate hat askew, I argued (to myself, really) that Paul Collingwood is an absolute shoe-in for the Ashes. He makes hundreds. He’s impossibly gritty – an Australian Steve Waugh minus the greatness but the best fielder and catcher England have ever possessed. Were he placed in a nailbiting situation in Brisbane or Sydney, he’s your man.
Before Old Trafford, Bell would not have been your, or even anyone’s man, for such prickly tight spots which England invariably find themselves in during an Ashes series. Yet after scoring his third hundred in succession today, his fifth overall, he is producing the kind of form which warrants inclusion whatever the situation. Always a batsman of the highest class – aside from Mark Ramprakash he is the most technically correct batsman in England – he is now scoring heavy, big runs. While Kevin Pietersen rather impetuantly gave his wicket away today, Bell calmly motored onwards and brought up his hundred. It was inevitable. He is some batsman, one of a flurry of quite exceptionally talented middle-order players England have these days. Cup runneth over, etc.
Who to chose, then?
An example squad of 12
Trescothick, Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Collingwood, Bell, Flintoff, Read, Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard, Steve Harmison and Monty Panesar
Do you drop Collingwood and shift Bell to five to allow for four seamers and Monty? Do you leave out Monty for seamer-friendly pitches and bolster the lineup with Collingwood and Bell? Do you forget Bell altogether? After all, he bottled it in the last Ashes – won’t he bottle it again?
And that’s the conundrum. It’s a delicious one to ponder over and I’d be fascinated to hear everyone’s thoughts. Incidentally, do read Andrew’s piece to find out his views.
People say that Flintoff won’t bowl as much as he used to since his injuries, but think about it, When it comes to the crunch in Australia and Plunkett/Mahmood are going for runs, there’s no way Fred would keep them on if he knew he could bowl.
Plunkett/Mahmood aren’t good enough bowlers to warrant dropping a batsman, if it Was Simon Jones i’d be all for it, but with these 2 i don’t see where they fit in the side.
Australia played with 4 bowlers for years, why can’t we do the same? Especialy as we’ve got Monty Panesar
who could bowl countless tight overs in an innings.
“After all, he bottled it in the last Ashes – won’t he bottle it again?”
That’s my main problem with the guy. He’s obviously in great form at the moment, but this is against a weakened pakistani bowling line up playing away from home - to be honest i think that’s a walk in the park compared to McGrath, Lee and Warne bowling on their own pitches.
It’s nice to have people josteling for positions even with so many injury concerns! I reckon the best thing to do is to wait and see what happens regarding injuries. If Simon Jones is back surely he has to be in the squad, if Freddy isn’t bowling that’s another question! So what happens if Vaughan makes a miraculous recovery before the ashes - now that would make things difficult.
My thinking is we see how we are placed at the end of the summer, but at the moment I like your suggestions will, and for me Bell and Collingwood should both be in the side unless Plunkett or Mahmood can really show their worth before the winter arrives.
Don’t start the debate yet about whom to drop. Wait until the Ashes. By then, surely at least two or three of the top six will be injured, owing to Murphy’s Law.
I thought Andrew’s piece was excellent, which is why I put a link to it on my own blog this morning.
I’ve always rated Bell and think that he must now be regarded as the established number six. Assuming Flintoff is fit I would tend towards dropping Collingwood although the idea of leaving out either Plunkett or Mahmood and going with four main bowlers is bound to have its attractions as neither of those is a genuine Test performer at this stage.
I take the point about Bell’s failures against Australia last year but I think he’s moved on a lot since then.
But, as Salil said, Murphy’s Law of injuries is bound to come into play at some point.
On Bell; he is technically a very good player, he plays very straight he is a timer rather than a crasher and he uses his feet well, he should do a lot better this time around against australia;Warne and Mcgrath’s bunnies have seldom been such technically proficient batsmen.
On England; the last two days are worrying; no matter how good the batsmen are or how benign the pitch is…a 350 run partnership reflects very badly on a bowling side.
Granted Strauss is still learning the job, but what of the bowlers; it sounds like they (Panesar excepted) are incapable of hitting a length, is this something to do with Cooley’s abscence?
Collingwood will probably play in Australia; he is a perfect journeyman cricketer, but unless i’m a bad judge or Australia are getting really well smacked he will not score heavily nor will he take many wickets. His role has to be that of a middle order scrapper, and a change bowler capable of bowling two inexpesive spells a day. Otherwise why not play Ashley Giles?
Whichever way you look at it England will really struggle without a fully fit Flintoff. They are a very good side, but even they won’t be able to chase big totals against Warne and Australia…
Bell very susceptible to spin as any and every English batsman is by the way.It depends upon Vaughn if he is fit then Bell should be dropped.
Collingwood, if he is dropped then it is a harder prospect for ENglish to retain the Ashes.
Surely Trescothick is under some pressure, as the only English batsman not to get a hundred in this series? Agreed he’s been such a consistent and destructive performer over the years, but with Cook applying the pressure perhaps both Collingwood and Bell play, with Trescothick sitting out?
…I’m sure it’ll all be irrelevent come the Ashes, as we’re bound to have some catatrophic injury to at least one of the regular top 6 that we’re so used to seeing perform to well at the moment!
The big dangers in going with only 4 main bowlers are towfold: increased workload (especially upon Flintoff) and reduced variety.
On the workload issue, Monty is likely to bowl longer, and just as economical, spells than Giles, reducing workload on the others (especially Flintoff). Plus, he’ll get more wickets along the way. It seems to me the key here is to improve Collingwood’s bowling. If he could provide just 8-10 more useful overs a day, then the workload on the others would be roughly equivalent to it was with 5 bowlers (with Monty’s extra overs).
As for variety, if the pitch looks like it doesn’t help one of the bowlers, don’t play them. If you’re not sure, play 5 bowlers. Be flexible — no need to be stuck is a single configuration or a set XI.
Posts
Loading ...
