Prior enjoys memorable debut
England by reaching 553-5 by the close of the second day's play.
New head coach Peter Moores had particular reason for satisfaction as new cap Matt Prior, who formerly played under him at Sussex, announced his arrival as a Test player with an unbeaten 126.
Player of the day
On a day in which three batsmen reached centuries, you would think it might be difficult to choose between them, but Prior’s hundred stood out by a country mile.
This was his first Test innings, and he played with authority and confidence to the extent that his century came from only 105 deliveries, and he added perfectly paced impetus to the innings.
It could be argued that he picked off a tired, underprepared and dispirited attack but, by comparison, Ian Bell required 180 balls for his hard-fought century.
We will see how Prior gets on behind the stumps, but this is the most encouraging of starts.
Key moment
The West Indies only have themselves to blame for this mess. Paul Collingwood was dropped twice, both straightforward chances on 31 and 36, as early as the fourth over of the day.
It is inexcusable to be so lax in the field, especially when the bowlers are struggling. What was not the fault of the tourists was umpire Asad Rauf’s decision to turn down an lbw appeal against Collingwood when he was on 32.
We have not seen much of , but we can only hope that this was merely a brainstorm rather than him being a committed ‘not-outer’.
Talking point
What will happen when Michael Vaughan and Andrew Flintoff return to full fitness – possibly next week at Headingley? Who will England drop to make way for them?
Owais Shah was brought in to replace Flintoff, and he will obviously have to step down – but one more batsman will have to go. (Remember that the medics have said England can’t play Flintoff as one of only four bowlers because of his ankle)
Alastair Cook (105), Paul Collingwood (111) or Ian Bell (109*) - which one would you drop? Answers on a postcard, please, to David Graveney, ECB, London.
Day three prospects
England will declare – possibly first thing – and then I expect us to see some seriously more dangerous seam and swing bowling from Steve Harmison, Matthew Hoggard and Liam Plunkett.
There will still be moisture in the pitch, and the technique of the traditionally loose West Indian batsmen will be sorely tested. As they set out, even avoiding the follow on will be an uphill battle.
Good points Aggers.
It would be nice to think that a 'winning team' would be kept intact. (Presuming that England can win this test from here)
However, they will both play regardless of form. I think it is a difficult decision but would personally go with Flintoff for Shah and keep the rest of the team as it is. Why should Vaughan automatically come in? Nothing against him but what form does he have to warrant a comeback considering that there have been four centurions in this first innings?
For me, it is a no brainer. Ok, it is against a poor WI but you can only play against what is put in front of you (as Australia did in the Ashes!) and the players have performed. End of!
Complain about this postStrauss.
Complain about this postPrior batted well, but I expect the wicket keeper debate to be well and truly back in the news by the end of the summer ... I doubt he'll keep it up!
Complain about this postWhisper it quietly: will Strauss be the man to make way for Vaughan? He's certainly the most out-of-form batsman, and I'm glad I'm not one of the selectors.
Complain about this postStrauss should be dropped.
Complain about this postPrior had a seriously good debut with the bat. Okay, he was facing a West Indies bowling attack at a good time, but the way he took them on, and scored at such a good rate was great to see. If he can keep this going through the summer, and keep well behind the stumps, he will be a fine addition to the team. I will be particularly interested to see (well on the highlights anyway!) how he keeps to Panesar. However, bearing in mind he has kept to Muralitharan for a long time with Sussex, I feel few concerns. Jones used to miss a few stumping opportunities and I'm looking forward to seeing Prior pull those opportunities off.
This has been a strong start by England, and a good antidote to the depressing winter that was Australia and World Cup.
The bowling will hopefully continue where the batting has left off and do some serious damage.
Complain about this postThe old adage "if i ain't broke, don't fix it" holds true here. Leave Flintoff out for the second test; incorporating him in the side, especially if he doesn't flourish with the bat, will only lead to resentment and a further decline in his confidence.
Complain about this postThe answer, clearly, is to not play Vaughan. He is a great captain but he's not getting runs. Cook is one of the finest young English players this country has seen for years, Bell is a reliable run-getter as is Collingwood (who is worth his place in the team for his fielding alone).
Complain about this postsend vaughn and flintoff back too there counties neither have been in any sort of form to play test match cricket
Complain about this postInteresting idea that Flintoff should be picked again for the next test as a batsman only - judging by his absolutely dreadful form with the bat this would be a gross miscarraige of justice for one of the centurians in possesion.
It makes me chuckle that everyone calls for Collingwood to be dropped when someone else is available - he is fast becoming the England cricket team's Owen Hargreaves.
Back to Flintoff, anyway - I think that he shouldn't be rushed back in, half-done...that's the classic England way and always leads to mischief. Look how badly our under-cooked side got bashed about in the first Ashes test...instead, let Flintoff get some runs as a batsman at county level, and when he is fit enough to bowl again, pick him!
As for Vaughan, well, he is class, and is a terrific captain, but the continuous injury list makes him a liability. Sooner or later, England will have to do without him, and start making plans for a more dependable captain.
Complain about this postI think the question should not be who is dropped to accomodate Flintoff but whether anyone should be. He is injured, presumably cannot bowl to any great extent - and on the evidence of recent performances cannot bat.!!the batting worked in this game, leave it be!!
Complain about this postWhy is Flintoff being considered if he isn't fit to bowl? He is not a frontline batsman at the moment. All rounders must be good enough to be selected on one of their attributes alone. The other being what sets them apart. Flintoff is one of the best four bowlers in the country but he isn't even close to being in the top six batsmen.
Complain about this postThe answer, clearly, is to not play Vaughan. He is a great captain but he's not getting runs. Cook is one of the finest young English players this country has seen for years, Bell is a reliable run-getter as is Collingwood (who is worth his place in the team for his fielding alone).
Complain about this postwith such a mediocre bowling attack of the west indies operating here at Lords. It is so difficult to give value to the four centurions innings. if given a chance panesar can score a century against them even on a seamer friendly wicket.
Complain about this postOut of the three centurions, Cook might have to go so as Vaughan can go back to opening - a position he's blossomed in in the past.
Complain about this postMy money's on Collingwood to go, but it all depends on who's in faour with the new man in charge.
The next question is who leaves when Trescothick comes back?!
If Flintoff can't be relied on as a frontline bowler, then he simply can not be selected. None of the batsmen you mention could properly be dropped to make way for him on current form. So he needs to get back to full bowling fitness before he can be considered.
Complain about this postSurely the big issue is how to build a team for the future... not whether anyone should come or go. Having the WI team is an opportunity to stabilise the erratic English side.
Complain about this postSpot on aggers with this, as reguards for second test and who will be dropped i agree that shah will miss out as i cant seeing him getting another chance with the bat in this test, also if flintoff dont play i think its quite obvious strauss will miss out aswell as once again he has failed with the bat in a favourable situation when all other seniors and of course prior did well. So i think selection and who plays and who dont if all fit will be a simple decision for next test.
Complain about this postIf Flintoff can't bowl full capacity I wouldn't play him. I'd also give Shah a proper chance and leave out Vaughan with Strauss keeping the captaincy.
See! Easy!
Complain about this postWhy is Flintoff being considered if he isn't fit to bowl? He is not a frontline batsman at the moment. All rounders must be good enough to be selected on one of their attributes alone. The other being what sets them apart. Flintoff is one of the best four bowlers in the country but he isn't even close to being in the top six batsmen.
Complain about this postSurely the big issue is how to build a team for the future... not whether anyone should come or go. Having the WI team is an opportunity to stabilise the erratic English side.
Complain about this postWhat happens when that Trescothick chap comes back?
Complain about this postI do not see why Vaughan or Flintoff should return to such a balanced team.
However I suspect Vaughan will replace Shas and Flintofff might not play anyway - his batting is not good enough.
Norman West
Complain about this postWhy even think about bringing Vaughan back? Do a Brian Ashton, select the form players.
Complain about this postCongratulations to all the England centurions. I'm sure after the winter's exploits, facing that attack today must have seemed like the proverbial picnic. Let's now go and do it with the ball.
Let's assume Vaughan comes back for Shah as I don't think Owais is going to get another chance with the willow in this match. Who would you bring Flintoff in for? If he can't be one of the four bowlers on medical grounds, that means he'd be playing as a batsman who bowls. In the batting stakes he's clearly not going to shift any of the top order batsmen. Strauss is there and solid, Cook should not be moved for anyone, not even a fully fit and firing Trescothick, Vaughan's in at 3, KP, Collie, Ian Bell, Prior... Flintooff right now gets no higher than eight in the batting line up. if he can't bowl without restriction, I don't believe he should be in the side. Perhaps a better scenario would be to rule him out of the entire test series, get his ankle in order and then bring him back for the second half of the summer.
t comes down to this: right now who's more useful to the side - someone like Ian Bell at 6 and scoring runs or Freddie half fit, not able to bowl as much as normal and in distinctly dodgy batting form? I think England would be much better served by letting Freddie work off some of the captaincy hangover from the winter by smacking some county bowlers about.
Complain about this postSurely the big issue is how to build a team for the future... not whether anyone should come or go. Having the WI team is an opportunity to stabilise the erratic English side.
Complain about this postwell said, roger. send those two guys back to their counties to learn the basics again and keep the current team intact. current england team had shown great maturity.
Complain about this postVaughan should just quietly retire. It isn't just his injury-proneness (remember how Hussain went the same way). It isn't about his leadership skills either - we were useless in the World Cup. The main reason for Vaughan to retire is that he hasn't been worth his place as a batsman for a least three years. The England side has already moved on from Vaughan. It's seems like it's only Vaughan who hasn't realised yet....
Complain about this postVaughan,if fit, to return on his home ground is no problem. Bad luck for Shah but he didn't press his case in the 1st innings so has made the choice easy. However, why does Flintoff have to return yet? He isn't a good enough batsman to warrant the No. 6 spot (all 3 mentioned are much better). Also, his Dr's say he can't bowl a full complement of overs so he doesn't merit a place on bowling either. Better he remain out of the side until his bowling is 100% (and his batting form returns). As it's Headingly it may be that England drop Monty for another seamer but why Flintoff? Blind faith shouldn't be a selection criterion.
Complain about this postOf the top 5 batsmen Strauss has been in the worst form over the past few years and should probably make way for Trescothick when he regains his mental state.
Vaughan has averaged around 35 over the past few years so it's crazy to even think of bringing him back into the side unless he starts earning it with runs for Yorkshire.
It was playing favourites that was one of Fletchers problems. Please don't say we're going to see it with Moores too.
Complain about this postThe correct solution to this problem is of course send them back to their county teams. Why rock the boat when it's doing just fine?
You cannot drop Strauss if he ends up being the winning captain, despite his performance with the bat.
Cook, Bell, Collingwood and Prior have earned the right to another test, even if they do less well in the second innings.
Send them to their county teams, it's the only fair and sensible way.
Complain about this postGOOD point aggers
i would drop Bell
Complain about this postI don't think the suggestion is that Flintoff can't bowl, but that there would be too much of a workload in a four man attack, he could play as a fifth bowler.
That said, for now, leave Flintoff out, but include Vaughan ahead of Shah for now. I think it would be crazy to say Vaughan is the captain but not play him, if he is fit. That would only lead to more confusion as to the leadership of the team.
One of the great things about Prior's innings is that it takes the pressure off his glovework a bit. Especially as Lords is not always a good keeping ground.
Complain about this postWhat a tremendous display by our batsmen today !!! Selecting Matt Prior was a good decision , his innings so far have been inspirering. (although Geraint Jones is better looking). Seriously though I am female and reasonably young so i should not sit in during the day when I could be shopping but I cant stop watching. I LOVE CRICKET!!!!!
Complain about this postI would say Vaughan should be in at the expense of the luckless Shah, and that is that.
Flintstone should put his baseball hat on the right way round and wait his turn. If he is up for selection as a batsman only then he should play for his county as batsman only and knock off a few 100s.
Moores needs to be tough, VERY tough to get some discipline back into the team. This walk-over against a poorly-led side that can't catch a bargain at a jumble sale is not good preparation for the formidable task facing us when India arrive. By that time we need to be firing on all six. Nothing to celebrate yet - lots of hard work and stiff discipline ahead before we can accept even a pat on the back.
Complain about this postDrop Vaughan.
He hasnt had any runs since the last time he ate bean bureto.
Complain about this postWhat's wrong with the mantra of not changing a winning team? We know Vaughan and Flintoff when fully fit can put in match winning performances, but why risk them? I know they will both be anxious to play, but why not use this as a chance to blood some new players against an obviously weak Windies team, and let the likes of Shah, Bell and Strauss get some runs under their belts and reinforce some form. Vaughan should be back at his county getting some practise in for when we really need him - there's no point in rushing him back just because he can stand up at the moment without his knee giving out. I'd give the guys who've got us in this position the chance to carry on (assuming they don't throw this one away!!)
Complain about this postDoes Vaughan really have to come back?
And if he doesn't and Shah is dropped who should play number 3?
I think Shah was dealt a bad hand. Coming in at number 3 [probably the most difficult position] while the bowl was swinging and seaming was a very diificult situation. If he'd have come in at number 6 would he have got a century [as Bell did]? Certainly he'd have made more than 6 runs and been able to stake a claim in the side.
Complain about this postIt's not just about doing what is just. It's about prolonging both of these tenuous careers. Both are too young to risk being invalided out of the game completely. We don't need a Flintoff who can't bowl because currently he can't bat. We don't need Vaughan to beat the WI when his body is beginning to show such serious signs of long term attrition. Get 'em fit and well and genuinely playing for their places. This business of picking a player to keep Vaughan's seat warm is disgraceful. Vaughan no longer merits a seat. He has to earn it again. 2005 is long gone and we have to look forwards not backwards. We will beat WI with what we've got, just as Bangladesh probably would right now too.
Complain about this postWho makes way? If we have to field four specialist bowlers, why does it have to be one of Cook, Bell or Collingwood? The problem England have, is their stand-in captain. Strauss, is by far the most vulnerable to being dropped - except you can't drop him when everyone's fit then reinstate him as captain when Vaughan's out again!
Andrew Strauss needs to regain his place on merit. Even in the 2005 Ashes Tres was more consistent... he hasn't shown the spark that was there in the South Africa tour a few years ago when he made his debut. Knowing he has to fight and perform for his place would be good.
Collingwood should certainly not be dropped. He is the fighter of the team - and has proved himself in almost every test series since 2005, even Down Under until he started trying to play like KP.
Cook should not be dropped; of the three, Bell looks perhaps the most vulnerable, but again he has been second only to Colly in consistency.
So who's left? Choices are to drop Strauss - and then find another deputy captain - or drop a well-performing batsman. Or perhaps after all even KP's place is not sacred?
The bottom line is this. Neither Vaughan nor Strauss are currently in the eleven on merit. To make room for Vaughan - allowing Flintoff and perhaps Collingwood to concentrate on their own game, and with all the benefits a very good captain brings to the side, makes sense. But to accommodate Strauss as well means TWO
players are in the 11 for captaincy issues!
Or to put it another way... with a fully-fit Trescothick back, there's no way Strauss would waltz into the side... he'd have to prove over some time he could be a better performer than Cook, Bell, or Collingwood. And he hasn't done that, clearly out of favour since the Ashes.
Complain about this postCriticism of Bell's scoring rate a little harsh surely : according to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ scorecard, he needed fewer deliveries than Cook or Collingwood to reach three figures - and he didn't have the benefit of early drops/beneficial umpiring decisions. Surely Bell to 5 , Colly to 6 is all that's needed. In current form is Flintoff worth a place ?
Complain about this postCertainly a great knock by Prior on debut, he did though go in a comfortable score, it's the same as going in 5 down against Australia.. Nevertheless a cracking start, but his stump work needs to be to the business too, regular missed stumping\dropped catches would soon negate the odd ton.
Regarding the talking points, neither should be guaranteed automatic recalls.
Vaughan hasn't played test cricket since Dec05, it should be recalled his average since he became captain his only 35.9 that wouldn't warrant a starting place. He needs to have some innings and decent scores before returning, it will only undermine his authority otherwise.
Likewise Flintoff's batting is not reliable enough to warrant selection as batsmen alone, unless he's fit enough to be selected as one of the bowlers, in which case he should be an automatic pick, then he also needs to miss out.
If we can force a win in this test match, it's a no-brainer the same team should be selected for Headingley.
Complain about this postClearly the selectors would have dropped Bell (on the assumption that's the reason he's down at 6) had Vaughan and Flintoff been fit for this test, which is ridiculous if you note that even in the disappointing Ashes series he was 3rd behind KP and Collingwood and was chosen as the international emerging player of the year last year.
Why the hell should Flintoff walk back into the team if he cannot be one of the spearhead bowlers:
Complain about this postI say drop shah for el capitain and leave the rest as they are!
Aggers, what do you think about Shah being asked to bat at three ? Was he set up to sink or swim, to give him a chance, or to fail ? What's the thinking behind this (if any) ?
Complain about this postIf both Flintoff and Vaughan return next week I think Vaughan will simply replace Shah and Flintoff will replace Plunkett.
Playing four bowlers I think will work against WI but I am not sure about it's credentials against stronger test sides we will face in the future such as Ind and SL.
With Vaughan's captaincy appearing to make him a certain pick Eng have the prospect of dropping a player who has made a hundred in the series for the extra space of a bowler i.e. Bell, Collingwood, Cook.
But if Eng are to drop players on form Strauss's vice-captaincy may not be enough and he may well be in the firing line. But there is still five more innings in this series and Strauss could easily regain his form.
So whilst selection problems now might be hard I forsee that there will be many difficult selection decisions if the management feel Vaughan HAS to play.
Complain about this postIt would be good to play both Vaughan and Flintoff at the earliest opportunity under the new coach - whoever that may leave out.
I think it's not so much about finding a settled team in this day and age but about finding a settled squad particularly with number of injuries England have had in the last few years.
I suppose I'd like to see 22 players all vying for final selection, 9 batsmen, 9 bowlers, 2 allrounders and 2 keepers.
The most pressing area for concern for England, at the moment, seems to be finding 9 high quality and consistent bowling options.
Complain about this posti recall Peter Moores saying that the players will be judged on their performance and not on past experiances, therefore apart from OS for MV, obvious choice as captain, but why with this clean slate should a player be dropped for AF to come in. Once in the team its yours to give away, i dont see anyone giving theirs away, send him back to Lancs and to get a)fit and b) form.
Complain about this postTrouble is, Fred is still considered an all-rounder. Really, he's a great bowler who used to bat quite well...but not very often lately.
Complain about this postgreat
Complain about this posttake out harminson and put in kabir ali
Complain about this postHas anyone noticed that in recent times, we seem to perfom better with Flintoff in the team at all?? Unthinkable i know,but i believe we have reached a point where He now SPOILS the balance of the team,whereas before, he HELPED the balance of the team. Last summer , and now again today, we perform MUCH better when we have a PROPER batsman at number 6, who can marshall the tail and garner a couple of hundred extra runs from it. We now seem to have a good number 7 as well. What we really need is a good and sharp 4 man attack, and we will not need to pick Flintoff at all. He can play himself back to form and fitness and get back in the side at number 8 in the future. On the other subject, i would expect Vaughan to just slot in at 3 in place of Shah. All the other batsman are in too good form to be dropped. They are also a good balance....Cook and Bell are grafters. Collingwood and Strauss are "nurdlers" and Pieterson and Prior and energetic. Good top 7 that
Complain about this postObviously Shah will make way for Vaughan and I think that Monty or maybe Plunkett will possibly make way for Flintoff with Vaughan and Pietersen covering the spinning department.
Complain about this postWhy should it be one of Bell, Collingwood or Cook that has to make room for Vaughan? Strauss is the man who has failed to produce and needs to go back to country cricket to rediscover his form.
Complain about this postAggers, can you shed any light on why the selectors are so desperate to get Vaughan back into the side, no questions asked? If their aim is to pick the best 11 on the day then sense would dictate that Vaughan in his current form cannot feature. There must be some other reason which is, quite frankly, beyond me. Surely not as a specialist captain? Is his captaincy really that good?
Complain about this postIf you have to drop a batsmen then I would say either Bell or Strauss. But I do not think Flintoff should be batting at 6. If he can't bowl properly then maybe he should not even be in the side?? I know he is an outstanding talent but his batting has fallen apart and his ankle is looking increasingly dodgy. I think England look a much stronger team with 6 proper batsmen.
Complain about this postJust leave out flintoff, people are saying he's back to form. How can two measley hlaf-centuries put you back in contention for the side. Leave in Owais Shah, he has been playing well and I would say drop Paul Collingwood, he clearly is not in great form with the bat, he hit a century which you have to say was rather lucky due to some poor West Indian fielding. I wouuld say drop Collingwood because he seems to have some really poor technique outside of off-stump which was expertly punished by Stuart Clark and Glenn McGrath with balls which cutted either way in the Ashes 2006/2007.
I know that Alastair Cook has hit some runs but it seems to be that he loses his hunger after making a spectacular century, I think this is down to his less fluent play than the likes of Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff. Cook seems to get tired shown in the last test of the Ashes 2006/2007 when he hit 116 and it took him 6 hours to make it. I think he should try and be more fluent he should follow the example of Marcus Trescothick, Matthew Hayden and even Andrew Strauss who all like Cook play well on the back foot and drive on the front foot well but are more fluent than Cook. This will see him improve.
We don't want another Geoffery Boycott on our hands!
Complain about this postAs a Sussex fan it's great to see Matt Prior do well, long may it continue.
As for who to drop so Michael Vaughn can get a game I refer to the adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Unless Shah gets to bat in the second innings he obviously misses out but the other centurians are there on merit so Flintoff (who can't bowl) and Vaughn (who at the moment can't seem to bat) are vying for one place.
Complain about this postThere's the old adage - pick your best eleven then the captain from it.
If England stick by it, then Cook, Pietersen, Bell and Collingwood can not be dropped on current form.
Vaughan must squeeze Strauss out or Flintoff bat at no. 7 / no. 8. The latter decision should only be made by way of team strategy not to fit in Michael Vaughan.
It would be sad to see Collingwood or Bell dropped when it is they, rather than Vaughan who have been batting well for the past year and a bit.
Complain about this postIf Flintoff is not 100% we shouldn't play him. His recent form with the bat has been very poor. If he can't bowl to his full potential then he needs to go back to Lancashire and get himself right in form before he comes back to England.
Complain about this postDropping someone who's scored a century is unfair and would be a serious career demotivation.
When on song Flintoff's a great player but he is beginning to become injury prone apart from his off-field "accidents".
Time for a dose of humility and to keep those who are currently performing in the side.
Why don't England drop Shah, bring in Vaughan and let Freddie get back to 100% match fitness before he plays for England again? If he keeps rushing back from injuries it will only make the matter worse in the long term when we really need him, surely? We must give some of the younger and newer players a chance to show what they can do. Fantastic play from Prior today it would seem crazy to drop him for an out of form, less than 100% Flintoff.
Complain about this postSod it. If Freddie can't bowl properly, don't stick him in for his batting. 30 is all very well, but keep the form guys in. Lets see some balls from the selectors.
Complain about this postI do not believe the England selectors have the intesternal fortitued to leave out , either Flintoff or Vaughen, regardless of this games outcome !
God forbid England should have to bat again and strauss and shah get runs ?
Complain about this postBear in mind that there is a chance England will have to bat again so Strauss might yet make a big score.
Perhaps Pietersen will have to make way...
...or maybe not!
Seriously now, I'd back us to bowl them out twice without needing many.
Complain about this postWe are just flat-track bullies who can only perform when the conditions are relatively seamless and the opposition rudderless. Evidence? Bell converting a 50 into a century. Where was he in Australia?
Complain about this postAs so often G. Boycott got it right. Send Vaughan and Flintoff back to their counties and when they are making runs and taking wickets, then consider them. Neither has a RIGHT to a place. Leave a performing side alone.
Complain about this postStrauss is off his game at the mo and we need players firing on all cylinders to show the rest of the world we are not a team of 'almost men'. Flintoff is not 100% and we need runs on the board in matches. Looks like we have some new blood ready to show everyone what they can do and its time to give them a chance to play in more than one match before they are sent back to county cricket!
Complain about this postI belive that for once, England can afford to ease injured players back into the team gradually, and also use it as an opportunity to rest Flintoff.
First of all Vaughn needs to get some serious practice under his belt and a spell with Yorkshire for a few weeks to find his formcan only be good for him. (How many 4/5 day matches has he completed in the last 18 months??).
As for Flintoff, he needs to get some overs under his belt and get some form with his batting as this has disappeared over the last 12 months.
All in all, a good team performance, let's hope that the bowling is as good as the batting
Complain about this postWhy should Vaughan get back in the team without proving his form?
I guess Shah will be dropped for Freddie, but even he hasn't shown great form with the bat recently.
I don't see that anyone has a divine right to a place in the team.
Complain about this postThe way i see it is this. The current team were the best eleven available, and all picked on form in county cricket, as well as reputation. it would be a travesty for Shah to be jettisoned after just one test (again), so he has to play, as do all the centurions.
Therefore, sorry Vaughan and Flintoff, but you need to go back to your counties and perform, and put serious pressure on the current team.
The aussies have been the best team in the world for a good while now, but have at times left out players with big reputations, Slater, Langer, Elliot and others. We should stick with this team, until there is a need to change, ie, someone has a couple of bad games, then we can look at who should come in to replace them.
Complain about this postShah dropped for Vaughn and leave Flintoff out untill he finds some form with bat and ball.
Simple
Complain about this postIts a nice problem to have, its just a shame that the competition for bowling places is not so hot.
You cannot leave centurions out otherwise they will wonder what else they have to do to win their place.
Strauss, Pietersen and Flintoff should not assume that they are automatic choices and the decision can always be reviewed after the next game by which time Trescothick may have forgotten his problems which will make it even more interesting.....
Complain about this postThis is the problem with all 'England' teams of every discipline. Too many people get a place on reputation.
If you are out of the team its for a reason and you should bide your time and play well till someone is out of form - whoever you are.
That rewards good play and keeps everyone on their toes.
There isn't anyone who deserves to be dropped. Strauss should be given the full test as Captain before being judged. In that case bring in Vaughn - maybe.
But there isn't an opening for you yet Frederick!
Besides get back to FULL fitness. (Another problem with 'England' teams).
Create a squad not a team and trust those from 11 to 20.
Complain about this postat the moment do england if need to change the team? posting a total of 553/5 doesnt seem to suggest that
Complain about this postLook if Freddie is not fit to bowl as one of the four main bowlers, he should not play until his ankle is better!
England should keep in form batsmen in the side, and keep 6 batsmen infront of Freddie, Prior at 7, Fred at 8, Plunkett 12 man or Freddy sub. Freddy can't come in as half a bowler and half a batsman.
With Four main bowlers England have enough cover with Collingwood, KP and Vaughans spin. Both Vaughan and KP are good spinners and should be encouraged to the No6/7 bowling spot.
I'd play Vaughan or Shah down the order until they get their feet, and anchor the middle order, and promote Monty at 9 behind Fred. Monty is a better bat/ LH than Harmison/ Hoggard IMHO, and should be allowed to shine and play shots.
Strauss
Complain about this postCook
Bell
KP
Collingwood
Vaughan/ Shah
Prior
Flintoff/ Plunkett
Panesar
Hoggard
Harmison
If it was me, I would never call up Trescothick for England again. He's cried off too many times now (and I know what it's like to have a stress related illness, I suffer from IBS due to stress too), and would be cannon fodder for the fielding side now everytime he went to bat.
And Vaughan is dispensable too.
M.
Complain about this postI don't understand, why is it that Flintoff is immediately granted a place once he is fit? His batting is really out-of-form and he can't play as a specialist bowler because his ankle problems are expected to linger on. If you really need Vaughan's captaincy, then Shah is the one to go. Otherwise, leave everything as is.
Complain about this postFirstly, before we can speculate about the team for the next test we need to see how the bowling goes. If all is well and England win by an innings bring Vaughan in for Shah (he's never seemed like test quality to me) and depending on how Flintoff bowls for Lancashire on Sunday consider dropping the bowler who least suits the wicket for the next test. However, if the bowling is not good then bring in Kabir Ali or Graham Onions who both took 8 in an innings for their counties.
Complain about this posthow about this simple suggestion
don't play vaughan or flintoff at all
for the whole summer - let strauss prove himself
meanwhile they can then play for their respectives county sides
and actually prove they are worthy to play for england
... it's time it was made clear to all players that nothing is for granted ... with jones and trescothick also itching to come back .. i wouldn't play either
and flintoff has been part of the tail for far too long
as the great richie benaud always said - you pick your six best batsmen and your four best bowlers and let the captain emerge ... well that's rules vaughan out ... and flintoff only gets in as a bowler first change
Complain about this postI think Flintoff's batting can now be considered a luxury extra, and not something to be relied on. He however showed in the World Cup that he's still our most incisive strike bowler, and should be treated as such. Therefore treat him as our top bowler and put him at No 8 where his batting isn't an issue for now. So maybe he should come in for whichever bowler performs worst in this match. So he's likely to come in for either Plunkett or Harmison (I expect Hoggard to shine here).
I hope Flintoff's batting does come back on track. For all-rounders it's usually their bowling that deteriorates first, but is seems to be the opposite with Flintoff. Maybe he's suffering from overbowling and lack of county matches to pummel some pie-chuckers around the park to get his eye back in.
If Vaughan is totally fit, it is a straight swap for Shah. Though captaining against the Windies at the moment isn't really the most taxing of jobs. We really needed Vaughan's talents against Australia. It'll be great to see him come back to his form of a few years back when he hit No.1 in the world.
Complain about this postHi Aggers,
Why should anyone be dropped for the next test?In my humble opinion Flintoff neither has the form or the hunger for international cricket and Vaughan needs more time in the middle.
Complain about this postSend them back to their counties to regain form and fitness.
On another point Collingwood`s first life being dropped by Ganga at point , I thought the bowler cleary overstepped the crease or was I wrong,yet another umpiring howler?
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Prior
Flintoff
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar
My XI is a compromise
Vaughan comes in for Shah
Complain about this postFlintoff replaces Plunkett
The management have made it obvious Vaughan will be straight back in the team when fit- and Shah will clearly be the one to make way (it should be remembered he would not have played but for Flintoff's injury).
Flintoff can clearly only play for England if he is fit to bowl. If he is fit to bowl, the he is worth his place in the team as a bowler, in which case Plunkett will make way.
Simple!
Complain about this postFlintoff for Shah: Vaughan for Strauss. But what happens when Trescothick is fit for selection?
Complain about this postTime to be Australian for once. Michael Vaughan needs time back at Yorkshire (if he can get in the team) and Flintoff shouldn't be picked untill he can bowl 20 overs a day - and certainly not as a 6th batsman who can contribute a few good overs before the painkillers wear off.
Unless things go horribly wrong the same team should play the next test. Shah is class, it would be criminal to throw him away for one attack of nerves.
Complain about this postVaughan comes in for Shah, and back as captain. Strauss stays in as opener. Shah's position as number 3 (Vaughan / Cook position) rather than Bell means quite clearly that the selectors want to keep Bell in and so Shah is only there as a substitute (he is not quite up to Test level, no shame in that, look at Hick and Ramps, great at the next tier down).
Complain about this postSo what about Flintoff. As a batsman he has done it in the past and no doubt will do so in the future. However, current batting form means that he doesn't warrant a place. As a bowler though, when fit to bowl, he should replace Harmo after his awful time in Australia and retirement from one day cricket (retirement from one day at his age = lack of commitment).
I am a big collingwood fan. i think every team needs a gutty performer like collingwood. but hes lucky to have got a hundred. he will be dropped or shud be dropped. even last summer against pakistan his hundred was aided by the usual shoddy fielding by our team. oxymoron this statement but to be honest u english people are quite stubborn. and since vaughan became captain his batting has been poor. his odi form everyone knows abt. even the memorable 160 plus against the aussies in 05 included two clean bowleds of no balls from the pigeon. england will ride him because he was the captain who won back the ashes and his strokeplay is one that even attracts a pakistani like me.
1.ian bell has the technique of rahul dravid but he doesnt scare the opposition its weird how that works. also owais shah looked nervous but he shud play in odis. this shud not be the end of owais shah.
odis trescothick prior open.
Complain about this postshah, pietersen, collingwood, bopara, flintoff he needs to be used like razzaq as a batsman. he cant set up an innings because he has no technique. plunkett, broad, panesar, anderson.
this team wud beat a lot of teams. bell opens while tresco is recovering.
Cook
Vaughan
Kevin
Colly
Bell
Prior
Fred
Plunkett(if plays well in this test but if not anderson)
Hoggy
Harmison
Panesar
Prior played well but not as well as you make out. WI have a shoking bowling attack this series shuld provide many centuries and provide a good stppin stone for vaughan to get back to his best.
Complain about this postI think that Strauss is one to way once Vaughan returns. I'd like to see a left/right hand opening pair with Cook and Vaughan, Bell at three.
Complain about this postTeams seem to have finally worked out Strauss encouraging him to drive and giving no width. He has not scored enough runs over the past year or so.
get strauss out, whats he done in the last 12 months?or even better the england selectors stop seing vaughan as such a "god" and get rid.Then when trescothick wants to come back bring him in for strauss and give the captaincy to colly, now thats a good team!
Complain about this postThe only real answer for me is keep the team the same for the next 2/3 matches. Give this team a chance. There is no need whatsoever to change it. Flintoff has barely been an allrounder for the past 1/2years and currently deserves a place as bowler only until he can prove otherwise. Strauss is a good captain and i much prefer him to vaughan. When Tres is ready however is a much different story.......
Complain about this postCan people please shut up about Flintoff for the moment? He's not playing in the test. Let's concentrate on the people who are. Typical of the English to look for problems elsewhere.
Ian Bell looks a better 6 than 3 though there still seems to be something about his body language... can't quite put my finger on it. But you can't argue with his hundred today.
Collingwood was lucky (never mind the current umpires' sponsor, how about getting the RNIB in? Dear me!!!) but made the Windies pay for their mistakes.
Let's not rush to judgement on Matt Prior as a whole package. There aren't many Adam Gilchrists around and people will say Prior had a knackered attack to plunder. But he still plundered it. So a promising start.
Declare first up and get the Windies in straight away. Harmison has to prove he's not just living on past glories and hot air to the media. Hoggard is one of the best exponents of swing bowling around and I hope that Plunkett gets a fair run and benefits from the presence of a new coach. He's got potential. That yorker that got Gilchrist last winter was as good as you'll see. One of those to Chris Gayle will really get his confidence back up!
Then when the test is over, hopefully with an England win, we can look at whether Vaughan and Flintoff come back.
Personally I don't think Shah's as good as some believe. I also think Vaughan is getting close to his use by date. If you're not in the test squad then you shouldn't be in the dressing room. Give Strauss the captaincy, he's a far better bet (and captaincy material) than Flintoff.
Who to drop if Flintoff comes back? For me that depends on how the bowlers perform here. And if he does come back, put Flintoff after Prior in the batting order. Prior averages 38 to Flintoff's 35 in first class cricket.
Should be an interesting day tomorrow!
Complain about this postAs Flintoff has been ruled out as a bowler on fitness grounds, how can he possibly be picked as just a batsman after his recent total lack of form with the bat?
Complain about this postI wouldn't play Flintoff at all. Let him get a couple of matches with the bat with Lancashire while his ankle heals - he's been no use with the bat for England recently and could do with finding some form before returning.
Dispose of Shah for Vaughn by all means. He's not world Class
Complain about this postThe batting performance has been very good, no doubt. But it is against West Indies and therefore does not count, in my opinion.
Complain about this postI don't understand why Flintoff should have to bowl more overs in a four man attack. Last summer Saj Mahmood was the 5th bowler and he often bowled fewer than 10 overs each innings. Surely those can be spread around to the other bowlers allowing Freddie to play and bat at 7.
Complain about this postOtherwise, I don't see how Freddie can be in the team. No other international team has a test No.6 who averages 32. The fact that our other bowlers are such poor batsmen makes this problem even worse.
Freddie isn't much better as a batsman than Shaun Pollock and he usually bats at 8 for SA.
one change: flintoff for shah.
vaughan doesn't deserve his place, particularly when strauss captains very well in his absence.
Complain about this postWhy does Flintoff have to play? He is one of our best bowlers true enough, but form with the bat is sporadic at best. If he doesn't bowl then he cannot be seen as a better batting option than Bell (who should get more credit for his form in Oz in desperate circumstances), Colly or Cook. Leave him out I say. And Vaughan is also on thin ice...
Complain about this postI think the debate about who should be dropped is a positive thing for english cricket, here we have Michael Vaughan, the englad captain, coming back and yet we're finding it hard to take a player out of the team to get him in. And its not as if its because they're playing badly, each of the three batsmen mentioned, collingwood, bell and cook, made centuries, which is fantastc. I would like to see cook stay in the team as he wasn't at the world cup and so is rested and ready, plus he's had a great start to the county season. Collingwood has cemented himself into the team with a number of good innings and I think it's great to have a real battler in the middle order, its what i think England really need sometimes, someone who will stay there and allow others to play their games around him, plus he makes a few runs as well. This only leaves Bell, but how can we drop the ICC emerging cricketer of last year. Some people may find the way he bats boring, but he's got so much talent and is a good young prospect for the future who needs the experience now so he can become a real world class batsman. So this leaves the England selectors with a real challenge, which is, like I said, a good thing in some ways.
Complain about this postAnyway its great to see Prior play so well and so positevely at that, he was my tip for the keeping role even before the world cup, so I'm pleased.
I would drop Andrew Strauss,because Collingwood and Bell have scored a lot more runs than him in recent times.
It would also be foolish to play Flintoff as just a batsmen because his batting has been really poor in recent times.
Complain about this postthe simple answer is dont bring freddy back
Complain about this postif he cant play as a full time bowler, and isnt performing with the bat then he's not going to give that mch to the team. not in english conditions, with hoggard and harmison both in fantatic form. I would drop shah for vaughan and hope that fred's ankle isnt quite fixed just to give some of the young batsmen a good chance.. Skipper to stand down within the year 'cause he's loosing his place in the team. Nasser saw when his time had come. Vaughanie needs to do the same as soon as it's clear he's not getting back in (give it 4 tests MAXIMUM)
I enjoyed watching the four centurions but I cringe when I think what McGrath would have done to England on that pitch. Still you can only play what's in front of you so well done!
Complain about this postStrauss indeed!!!
Complain about this postAfter Vaughan has played half a dozen matches for his county and averaged 45+ and has not gone off with some injury or other, consider picking him. Not before. This business about him being a great captain is rather overdone and he has not played test cricket for two years. How do we know he is still any good in the role?
Flintoff is no great shakes as a batsman. He has a dodgy ankle and can't bowl. He needs to go back to his county, get fit, prove himself and then offer himself up for selection. If his morale will be hurt by such handling, he can't be much cop, can he?
Let the selectors start picking people on current form and not on past reputation. Test cricket is a serious business and selection should not depend on not hurting chaps' feelings.
David Amies
Complain about this postSimple answer - neither of the two should play until they've proven themselves in county cricket. Vaughan especially needs to prove he merits a place in the side, which arguably he doesn't.
Complain about this postIt shocks me that people don't consider Flintoff more of a weakness, especially to the batting. His primary use is as a bowler, if he is not 100% I see no point in rushing him back as a batsman. Who says you need that 'ultimate all-rounder'. Bell makes his position look stable in the batting order. I think we have a formidable test match batting line up, and frankly Vaughan and Flintoff both weaken it.
The call for Strauss to be dropped seems mad; although out of one of 4 batsmen we are debating meaning dropped he is the most out of form, he is of more benefit than Vaughan in my opinion.
Complain about this postDrop Vaughan. Why play a man out of form when the other batsman are playing well.
Complain about this postWhy isn't Ramprakash in the team? he scored 262 the other day.
Complain about this postMark Ramprakash.
I know he's blown his chance before but....the guy keeps playing ridiculously well. He's playing like an English Ricky Ponting. We need to look again. Seriously.
He's definitely a better bet than Shah and Joyce. He should be the next cab off the rank, I would play him over Strauss at the moment. Straussy looks to have been found out or is lacking in confidence. If the former, he has no international career left (I doubt that). If the latter, he needs county runs. Let him get them.
The team needs to be meritocratic, not based on favouritism. I thought that was why Fletch copped it.
Complain about this postBased on his form over recent series, Flintoff doesn't deserve a place as a batsman. If Vaughan is fit for Headingley then he should come in in place of Shah. When Flintoff returns to full fitness then (unless Harmison or Hoggard fail to be effective) he should be competing with Plunkett as the 3rd seamer and no.8 batsman.
Complain about this postThe prospect of dropping either Cook, Bell and Collingwood is ridiculous. Cook and Bell have the potential to become two of England's finest tets batsmen of recent years - they are the future of the team and need to gain as much experience as possible so they can spearhead our batting in the next Ashes series.
As for Colly, he's been our most reliable batsman of late and offers a lot in the dressing room and on the field - surely he's a cert.
In my opinion, Strauss should go. He may be decent captaincy material but his form is not up to much and with such a strong pool of batting talent available the selectors muct be ruthless!
Complain about this postWhat have we learned?
To enable a Pietersen to flourish you need a Cook, who isn't pretty to watch, but accumulates by hook or by crook, and a Bell who sticks with the lower order. Would Prior have made runs if Bell had gone early? He'd probably have run out of partners. Far from insulting Bell by dropping him down from No.3, I think it was a masterstroke. Remember when we were all for Pietersen going up the order so he wouldn't run out of partners. Problem solved.
As for Prior, can he keep wicket to Test standard?
Geraint Jones could bat like that in his early Tests, and batting near Gilchrist's standard isn't much use unless you can keep wicket like Gilchrist.
We also know that with Strauss available the problem of offering Freddie the captaincy no longer exists.
And even at the end of day two, barring injury, we know Owais Shah and Liam Plunkett will make for Vaughan and Flintoff. Shah's innings coincided with the short period on day one when the Windies bowled well.
By the way, why is Ramps still scoring so many runs? Who is he trying to impress? He mastered the Argentine Tango in a few weeks, so why not take up wicket-keeping and replace Nixon in the one-day squad, if he can fit it in between auditioning for Grease and presenting Have I Got News For You.
Complain about this postI think Bell needs to bat at 6 because that is were he makes alot of his big scores.
I would have Vaughan at 3 and wait until freddie is fit before picking him and i would have im at 8 as part of a four man attack with Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar. Vaughan, Pietersen and Collingwood can fill up the extra overs.
Complain about this postThis is exactly the sort of attack that Flintoff needs to get back to his best with the bat. It is only when faced with a top-class spinner that the feet become rooted in the crease, and a desperate charge down the track ensues, usually resulting in a mis-hit or a stumping.
Get those feet moving and it will all come right.
Complain about this postSelection of teams in any sport causes many points of view obviously,in this case if the England team can perform as well as the first innings for the duration of the game and become eventual winners and that of course is we all believe the idea of the game,we can at least presume the players have done well,their form is good,they have done what they were selected for,so,select them again.
Complain about this postVaughan and Flintoff are excellent cricketers,but,their current situations if viewed in a common sence way should not see the them automatically returned to the side,the squad maybe but to displace players who have performed well would not place a lot of confidence in the selection process and you would have to ask the question what really are the selectors trying to acheive.
It would be crazy to drop any of the century makers to make way for either of the injury prone and out of form Vaughan or Flintoff. Owais Shah can be dropped and Andrew Struass would have to be next in line if Vaughan returns.
Complain about this postBut the selectors need to be sure both Freddie and Vaughan are completly fit and in form. With such a long period of international cricket commitments ahead, having a break wouldn't do Freddie any harm anyway. Don't rush them back. The team's doing well enough without them, and coming back too quickly only risks weakening the team, possible future injury re-occurence, and a period of chopping and changing personnel that isn't helpful.
The answer to many questions about picking players on form is that form is temporary.
Duncan Fletcher, for all his errors, identified Vaughan and Trescothick, whose numbers in county cricket were not great, as players who could hack it at Test level. Unfortunately despite all the evidence last summer that Panesar was another of these jewels, Fletcher replaced him with Giles, who, being kind, is what you would call a journeyman.
So, who are big-match players?
When fit, Vaughan, Trescothick and Flintoff.
Obviously Cook, Pietersen, Bell and Strauss, who as captain last summer made centuries in the second innings, and despite some deficiencies, Collingwood, a world-class fielder.
Of the bowlers, only Hoggard and Panesar, but Plunkett, Mahmood and Anderson don't seem quite able to make the step up, and Harmison may be a spent force.
It is just a matter of time till Adil Rashid is a regular, by which time we shall need a wicketkeeper, irrespective of whether he can bat.
Complain about this postDon't put Vaughan back in. The man is an awful batsman. The only thing he is good at is thinking. By now we know that Vaughan is injury prone, and Shah should be given a chance. What do we have to lose. Shah can't do any worse than Vaughan. Keep Vaughan as the dressing room captain.
By the way, what happened to Ravi? Good performance at WC, better prospects than Flintoff!!!!
Complain about this postIt's simple.
Complain about this postAssuming England win easily. Keep the same team. The only reason to bring Flintoff in is if he can bowl, in which case he will probably take Plunkett's place. If he can't bowl, he shouldn't be in the team at all.
As for Vaughn, let him earn his place. But I'm sure they will drop Shah to accomodate Vaughn.
Why loose one of three inform batsmen when you could play 5 seamers and drop Monty. Of course this depends partly on the pitch and partly on how well other spinners or medium pacers can be relied upon to control the run rate. Only Monty can prove this wrong, by taking wickets, but I doubt he will have much of a chance on a wicket clearly made for seamers and swing bowlers.
Complain about this postFor me, I agree with Andy Plowright. If Flintoff isn't fit to play as an outright bowler (which, I believe, his form and quality with the ball justifies), then I don't see how he should be back in the side on current form. Bell looks great at no. 6 (3 100s there last summer, plus one more yesterday). Compare that to how he played at 3 in the Ashes. The mistake we made in the Ashes was trying to play the 'ideal' set up like we did in 2005, i.e. a genuine all-rounder at no.6, with 3 other outright seamers and a spinner. The problem with that, now, is that the replacement bowlers are not of the same quality of Simon Jones, and that Freddie's batting in no way justifies him playing at 6. How come last summer we always looked capable of making big scores, but in the Ashes down under (and in the WC) we were in big trouble as soon as we went 4 down? Freddie batting at 6 is the answer!
Complain about this postCurrently he would get in the team at no.8 for me (essentially picked as a bowler)... When he can't be picked as a bowler, he shouldn't be picked at all!
Why move Bell to 3 (where he's struggled) from 6 (where he averages 100!) just to incorporate Freddie? Why is it always Collingwood who is talked of being dropped in such situations when he is pretty much our most consistent batsman?
At the end of the day, it's the same old story: why change a winning team? We did it last winter and got murdered!!!
My word! Me again. Just have to respond to 'Jake':
Complain about this postHe talks of dropping Collingwood as his century was 'lucky' (yes he did get 3 lives... but a good player is one who goes on to punish teams for giving him them a la Steve Waugh... and his lives were still on 32 and 36, 6 and 10 runs more than Pietersen scored!) and his poor technique was exposed by Australia. Well, in a very one-sided series against England, Collingwood got 90-odd, a double-century, before smashing back-to-back 100s against them in the one-dayers. Not many players can say they've done that against the all-conquering Aussies recently! I'm sick of this anti-Collingwood brigade. he concentrates brilliantly and scores runs consistently (averaging 45). Isn't that what Test cricket's all about?
Onto the chat about Cook. Drop him? Are you mad? He plays Test cricket as it should be played, and, even in the Ashes 2005, we could have done with someone who can bat slowly, deliberately and effectively. How can you say he switches off after scoring 100 and suggest he should learn from Flintoff? Flintoff, even back in the days when he could bat, got out on 70 or 80 regularly. Even when he's gone on to get a ton (Lords 2003 against SA aside) he'll always get out straight after (see his 100 at Trent Bridge against Oz 2005). No Test team should have more than a couple of Pietersens, no matter how good that man is. I have to say, I think you talk a lot of nonsense.
Sorry.
Matt Prior, in his first innings for England in a Test Match has demonstrated to the England cricket watching public, what they have been missing for the past 2 years.
Complain about this postHis batting display will have been less of a surprise to those who have followed his career with Sussex and England A.
Over the past two years, most of the cricketing media and the England selectors were engaged in a debate as to who of Read or Jones should keep for England. Jones was erronously portrayed as the batting side of this debate when his ability with the bat was far short of test class. This elevated status was mainly due to him beings Duncan Fletcher's selection.
Since 2004, Prior has been the up and coming young keeper/batsman who seemed to be the real answer to the Reid/Jones debate. Yet even though he scored a hatful of runs for Sussex and England A, Fletcher chose to ignore his claims to a Test place. Almost as puzzling was the lack of support for a Test call-up Prior received from the various cricketing journalists.
It took a new England coach, who fortunately had a good knowleadge of Prior's ability to get him into the Test side.
Fletcher's ability as a cricket coach was never under question. His ability as a selector however was questionable. After the Ashes series, England's ODI side were searching around for (a) a keeper who could score quickly and (b) an opening bat who could score quickly to replace Trescothick. The options that Fletcher chose were (a) Nixon and (b) Loye, both seasoned county players in their mid 30s. The answer to both (a) and (b) should have been Prior. How different would England's World Cup performance have been had they got this right.
So, we need not only sharper England selectors, but also sharper cricketing journalists to ensure that the likes of others like Prior do not get overlooked.
Since Prior was selected to play in the 1st Test some journalists have even been suggesting that Nixon should be retained as England's ODI keeper for this summer. With the continued absence of Trescothick, Prior should open for England in ODIs and keep wicket as well.
Why worry about bringing in Vaughn if Strauss leads the team well?
Complain about this postBell & Collingwood should both play.
I think Shah should make way for Vaughan, but otherwise leave the team as it is.
I think Vaughan is worth his place in the side for his captaincy, and that he should be reinstated as captain.
Complain about this postPrior had a great day and although Bell wasn't quite as fluent his presence made Prior's innings possible.
I don't and never have understood why people always expect Vaughan to walk straight back into the side. Flintoff should get in for his bowling (not, on current form, for his batting and should bat no higher than 6) and Vaughan shouldn't be considered until he can prove that he has regained a serious amount of form. After all, other batsmen seem to have to move mountains in order to have a shot at playing for England so I really don't see why it should be any different for Vaughan.
Complain about this postA year is a long time for anybody to be away from test cricket, and it strikes me that finding a place for Vaughan - purely on the basis of him being fit enough to hold a bat - is folly. He is a fine captain, for sure, but he should be made to earn his place like everybody else. Back to Yorkshire, Michael, to prove your fitness and score big runs. Strange to think, looking back, that the 2005 Ashes win would ultimately provide more problems than solutions - but if this almost superstitious attachment to those who played is not challenged, we will continue to suffer for it. Drop Cook, Collingwood or Bell? Unthinkable! Make Strauss captain for the whole summer, tell Trescothick and Giles its over, and leave Vaughan and Simon Jones with no doubt that the only way back into the side is to prove themselves better than current incumbents. Its what the Aussie would do, I suspect.
Complain about this postA great deal may depend on how the English bowling attack looks in this test. If they are unable to make real inroads then Moores must surely feel that he needs Flintoff to bowl some overs to help out. Unless he felt that the bowlers were simply not up to taking twenty wickets, dropping a batsman for Flintoff at the moment would be a travesty. His batting has been truly dreadful this winter, and it seems that with his poor footwork bowlers have him figured out. He'll need a lot of work on his technique to pose a threat to a top test side as a batsman again.
While he was wonderful a few years ago, Vaughn must be the batsman to drop if you do drop a batsman. He has not played the longer game for years now. I'm sure Moores must realise that picking someone on how they look in the nets is a total mistake. Vaughn should go back to his county and if he makes runs then he gets called up again.
The difference between Strauss and Cook in this game shows how much Cook benefited from having some time off over the Winter and the opportunity to play a county game or two. Having decided to play Vaughn at the World Cup, Strauss should have got time off to work on the long game. In fact, just imagine how good our whole side would be looking right now if they had had a break for the Winter instead of playing tour after tour.
Finally, a victory over a dispirited and underprepared WI team should not be allowed to conceal the fact that real changes are needed to how the English test side is run. It cannot be right that they fly from tour to tournament to tour again with no time to recuperate and work on improving their game. I am convinced that this, more that anything, has contributed to the sad decline of some of our star test players. In the last few years. If we must do as much touring as we seem to be committed to, then we need twice as many players and rotate them into and out of the team so they are able to be mentally and physically in top form when they do play for England.
Sean
Complain about this postI believe in the 'Fletcher-Hussain' continuity approach - the side picks itself (once Flintoff has some practise with Lancs) - take adv. of Flintoff's ability and go with 5 bowlers - the batting is still strong enough here. No disrespect to Shah - good player that he is. For Vaughan and Flintoff though before they can get back into the side they should go and get some form with their counties.
Ideal XI:
Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior +
Plunkett
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar
Replacements for a tour (at the moment)
Trescothick (able physically but not mentally)
Nixon+
Rashid (should be protected at this stage)
Anderson (Needs lots of overs)
Mahmood (needs lots of overs)
'Bench' XI:
Trescothick
Complain about this postNewman
Butcher
Vaughan
Shah
Nixon+
Mascheranas
Rashid
Mahmood
Broad
Anderson
Hi all and well done Aggers... some good points and you have sparked a good debate!
Why change a winning side and replace form players with recovering or half injured players? CRAZY!
Football teams play a squad system to allow for injuries etc! Why should English cricket not follow suit!
Why are we talking about dropping 4 centurions before the games even won?
Letting Flintoff and Vaughan to go back and get extra form in county cricket isn't such a bad thing.
It will keep the pressure on the form players to play consistently and also teach Vaughan and Flintoff that no-one's automatically going to get to drive the peddalow if the things already FULL!
I hope the selectors will stand by their hard decision making of late, which I admire, and give themselves a pat on the back for now.
Let's not go backwards, pick the team and if it wins, let it ride!! If some players start to faulter or can't take the pressure we have players like Tescothick, Vaughan and Flintoff waiting for another chance!!
Complain about this postAs Michael Vaughan barely completed 3 matches in a row for almost two years, and Freddie looks out of sorts with the bat at the moment, perhaps neither should be considered for selection for an England place.
As Geoff Boycott has suggested, England could be better served if these two world class players get some games in for their counties, and get back some of their form, before being considered for selection. Who knows, Owais might get a big ton in the second match, which will really set the cat amongst the pidgeons!
It will be interesting to see how Englands bowling attack gets on without Freddie, However. That's an area where he will be missed
Complain about this postI personally would not bring back Flintoff. If he is not fit enough to bowl as a fourth bowler (in which case I would drop Plunkett) he is not worth his place in the side. His batting in recent times has been woeful, and while if he was batting at 7 / 8 could be seen as a bonus, at 6 we need someone consistently able to hold an innings together, something Freddie has been unable to do for quite a while.
Complain about this postI agree with most other comments made already, why should both Vaughan and Flintoff be considered automatic selections within the England set-up ?
Both have been injured or unfit on numerous occassions and neither are in any sort of form at all. Any current player would feel pretty bad if dropped to make way for MV/AF and it can only harm team commitment, which has been part of Englands' policy over recent years !
I agree that MV should not be around the team at all until he has consistently proved himself at County level again, he does seem to have some hold over the selectors. However he seems to be the face of England wherever you look, press or television. I just can't understand this logic at all.
This WI team looks pretty poor, the bowling is only county standard at most, so lets not get too excited about certain peoples' batting performances, but use it to gain back confidence again. I'm sure Bangladesh would relish playing this WI squad !
I'm waiting for Harmisons' first over, could be fun !
Complain about this postI can possibly see the sense in bringing Flintoff back instead of Shah, to make use of his bowling. However, I find it hard to believe that Vaughan should be allowed to just step back in once he's fit. Whilst, he has been a successful captain for England, his position as captain should not guarantee him a place. His batting has been average at best in the few games he has played recently, and even his captaincy has been questionable at times.
Complain about this postStrauss did extremely well as captain against Pakistan last summer, winning the series 3-0. To be fair Pakistan weren't at their best then, but neither are West Indies now ! If we gone on to win this current match, (which we should), is there a case for Strauss to stay in place for this series, giving Vaughan the chance to get some games and much needed practice playing for his county ? The selectors could then make a decision prior to the next series as to whether Vaughan has merited his place and position back.
Strauss has been a good servant for England as a batsman, did well when asked to captain and did not make a fuss when dropped. I say give the guy another chance for the rest of this series at least, he deserves it.
If vaughan was to come back in, as respected as he is, I would expect the other batters (especially those in this games 100 club) to feel some resentment towards him. I know I would. He shouldn't be an automatic choice just because he was the regular test captain a year ago.
Complain about this postIts absurd that certain players are a certainty. Maybe it needs the new regime to show some guts and tell Michael Vaughan to prove he's a test class batsmen. For me, Pieterson, Bell, Collingwood and Cook are the certainties in the batting line up.
Complain about this postIt's not healthy that the reputations of Vaughan, Strauss and Flintoff are enough to get them automatic inclusion in the side. Just shows we're still looking back at the glories of the Ashes 2005 for inspiration. Time to move on.
yesterday was fantastic English cricket
Complain about this postdrop A strauss and hope Michael will be back in form batting as well as captain if both are dropped bring paul c for captain and see if he can copr with both giving his100%
Haven't we learnt the lesson from the winter?
You don't get anywhere by picking unfit players no matter how good their reputation is. Actually neither Vaughan nor Flintoff have done much since they succumbed to injury.
Pick the men in form and let the 2 'stars' get fully match fit.
That decision ought to be a no-brainer.
Complain about this postWow... four centuries in one innings of an England scorecard! That is almost unbelievable... surely I am not the only one slightly suspecting that during the flight back from the world cup the England team were in fact abducted by aliens and replaced with Invasion-style all star cricketing clones!
Seriously, though; an excellent performance, especially from Prior (why was he not selected for the Ashes or the cup, I have to ask).
Keep it up England! Don't choke again and collapse in the second innings; this is a good start but the West Indies are not out of it yet, and after all; it's not how you start but how you finish that really counts (remember Adelaide?)
It does leave a little question in my head though, and that is 'why could they not have played like this over Christmas?' Had they done so, then Punter, Gilly and co. may well have not had such an easy ride.
Complain about this postIMHO Fred should not come back until he has his ankle injury cleared, can bowl as one of 4 specialist bowlers (bowling the overs) and should go to 7 or 8 in the batting until he gets his feet moving, defence sorted and timing of shots.
At the moment batsmen are scoring and I would be loathed to move and of them for Fred. MV should replace Shah, but bat lower down after Colly at 6, Prior up at 7.
Cat amongst the pigeons? What if all 4 bowlers perform well Monty gets 5 for, Plunkett 5 for and Harmy and Hoggard 3-4 wickets over the 2 WI innings, Freddy will be really fighting for his place? Success, current form and competition is a good thing. England have suffered from same as syndrome and injuries, now there is bowling, batting, keeping and opening strength coming through.
Batting Ramps (wild card reserve), Tressy, a few more weeks/ months, Bopara
Bowling Jones coming back with Glamorgan, Anderson, Mahmood, Ali, Tremlot, Lewis can't get a game with Hogster and Harmy in. Onions impressing talent at Durham.
Keeping, Alex Stewart covered the wealth of keepers fighting for the England spot Batty, Ambrose: Prior might keep it for a while.
Its getting like the Ossies, if you are not fit or injured, in form, got the right frame of mind, don't turn up, there are many batmen and bowlers vying for England spots out of a larger squad of 22+ players.
Complain about this postPietersen needs to be considered for dropping if anyone does.
He knows his place is a certainty and I could help but wonder if he's put less effort into his batting because of it. When he first came on the scene he had something to prove and did so very well. Recently his form has dipped and he's far from vital for an England Win.
Complain about this postHow about leaving either Vaughan or Flintoff, or both, out? It surely is inconceivable to drop a century maker or the player chosen as replacement Captain so logically there is only one place up for grabs and that is the unfortunate Shah's spot. You cannot relay on Flintoff to be a front line bowler due to his fragility with fitness so you must retain a minimum four man bowling attack.
Sorry Freddie looks like you will have to wait a bit. Perhaps if you had thought a bit more during the winter about the consequences of your antics and been more consistent you would be in with a better shout. The performances haven't been there for either Vaughan or Flintoff recently so why pick either?
Complain about this postWhy drop anyone at all? neither vaughan nor Flintoff currently deserve their place on merit - make them earn their place back in county cricket
Complain about this postJonathan,
Postcard reads - very straightforward, if Vaughan comes back in drop Strauss. Or id Flintoff not fit enough to bowl, drop Flintoff, he does not mert a place on his current batting form.
Easy from this arm chair isn't it.
Richard
Complain about this postStrauss should make way as i believe Cook is a better long term prospect than Strauss for england Capt. Im a big Vaughan fan but i think he has this summer to re-establish himself and if we cant we have to move on without him.
Fred shouldnt be anywhere near the team unless he is 100% fit to bowl. as another poster put it well he is a top 4 English bowler but no where near a top 6 batsman
Complain about this postI hope Shah has a chance to make a score in the second innings to give the selectors an even bigger head ache.. I've always been a Vaugn fan but England have carried him of late, he just hasn't made enough runs. He has played no cricket for more than a year and his fitness must still be in doubt. Freddie too could do with some county cricket to sharpen him up and get his feet back on the ground. The should both be left out for a while, it WILL do them no harm.
Complain about this postI Agree with Geoff Boycott. Why pick Vaughn for the second test.
Let his finger completely heal, and get some match practice in with Yorkshire.
Strauss makes a reasonable captain, and with three front line centurions, he (Vaughn) needs to earn his place.
Complain about this postThere really cannot be any choice but to leave out Michael Vaughn until he has firstly proved he is match fit, and then that he is in form again with the bat.
Complain about this postThe team should be run on a merit basis, if the batsmen are scoring hundreds and if the bowlers bowl well nobody should be dropped, especially to be replaced by players with chronic injury problems - let's face it, bring in Vaughan and Flintoff and there is probably a 30% chance that one of them will have yet another breakdown.
Complain about this postTom, you can't be serious about Pietersen? You must be mad. He's the best batsman in the side by a country mile; you can criticise him by saying he has the ability to do better but on runs scored and possibly even more importantly the impetus he gives the middle order he is the first name on the sheet (Only him, Collingwood and to a lesser extent Bell did anything with the bat in Australia, he also carried our batting in the World Cup. Seriously, what more do you want? water into wine? parting the red seas?)
Complain about this postCook, Collingwood and Bell have been excellent for the last 2 years (just to reiterate as far as I'm aware Pietersen is yet to have a bad series). So it does seem 2 from 4 out of Strauss, Shah, Flintoff and Vaughan, not forgetting that Prior could possibly come in at number 6 to relieve pressure on Flintoff.
If you can't play Flintoff as one of four bowlers, then perhaps it is best to leave him out altogether for now.
Complain about this postIf Strauss wasn't the stand-in captain he would ahve dropped by now for his run of very poor performances, however, if he is dropped and (as is likely) Vaughn gets injured again then you cannot bring Strauss straight back into the team as Captain. What England are in need of is a player who doesn't get injured about 10 times per week, can maintain a reasonable level of performance and captain the side. What will be very interesting is when, or if, Trescothick and Simon Jones become available for selection, England are forming a good squad of players which means that any injuries should be covered more easily.
Complain about this postThe cricket was great, but who ordered the players to wear yellow ribbons? What's going on?
What has the sad fate of a girl missing in Portugal got to do with a test match? Was it a management decision?
Complain about this postI know it's a novelty for England but they must select on form alone. Ergo no Vaughan no Flintoff.
Complain about this postI think its important to for Moores to see at the earliest opportunity if / how the team dynamic and balance changes between this side at Lords, and one with Vaughan and Flintoff in it, before India roll-up later in the summer.
Complain about this postSo Vaughan for Shah at 3, Flintoff for Plunkett, at 8. Whilst Flintoff would notionally be part of a 4 man attack, against WI in early summer at least, Collingwood and Bell should be able to contribute the fourth seamers allocation of overs between them (if needed to stop Flintoff bowling more than 15 overs a day), and if they can't then Pietersen and Vaughan himself can send down a few overs of off-spin.
If the bowlers have to develop their batting, then the batters should be encouraged to develop their bowling. Worked well for the Aussies with the Waughs in the side in the 1990s.
I do not feel that either Michael Vaughan or Andrew Flintoff deserve such definate reservations in the England side, and that it is not right that people are so readily thinking about who to drop in their return to fitness. Both players recently have done not nearly enough to prove the status people grant them - Vaughan was shocking in the World Cup (a painful 30 against Bangladesh), and Flintoffs batting has regressed completely. True, Shah can go for Flintoff, whos bowling still remains a key in Engalnds attack, but as for Vaughan - why the hype? Yes, he was in 2002/3/4 a brilliant batsman, and a good captain, especially in the ashes series of 2005. However, his batting now is at a seemingly irreversable all time low, and i see no point of having him in the team. Strauss is also easily as competant as him as a captain. What people should really be thinking about who to drop for Trescothick, when he decides to play again. He is a truely integral part of the side, and seems to be back on form. With Strauss as an opening partner, the two are commonly recognised as a seriously good, almost world beating pair. Drop Vaughan, play him for Yorkshire untill he gets some runs -like Trescothick has - and keep Strauss as captain.
Complain about this postI don't understand how Flintoff can justify his place in the side as a batsman!?! He hasn't got a score for such a long time and worst of all he hasn't looked capable of getting a score for a long time. If he can't bowl then don't play him, otherwise what signal does it send out: well done lads but because your not Andrew Flintoff - no matter how well you perform and no matter how badly he performs - you're out. Everyone should have to earn their place.
If Vaughan wants to come in at three then fine but I think Strauss is proving that we aren't as desparate for his captaincy as he seems to believe we are. So he needs to justify his place with some runs.
Complain about this postVaughan for Shah may a be reasonable switch but not for any of yesterday's centurians and I am in total agreement with those who say that, if Flintoff can't take a full workload with the ball, he shouldn't be in the team.
An batting average in the low 30s is just not good enough for a test No6. It is barely any better than Pollock's batting at 8 for SA.
He should get himself match fit at Lancs and then look to be replacing one of the bowlers.
Complain about this postDear TMS
I think you ought to know that Matthew Prior was NOT the first England wicketkeeper to score a centruy on his Test debut.
This great honour fell to SC (Billy) Griffith when he opened England's innings in the second Test against the West Indies at Port of Spain Trinidad
during the 1947-48 tour.
He scored 140 and became the only player to score his maiden first-class century in his first Test innings for England.
Billy Grittith went on to keep wicket for Sussex, a county he represented in 122 matches between 1937 and 1954, a notable co-incidence with Matt Prior's splendid innings yesterday.
Complain about this postFlintoff shouldn't get back in the side if he can't bowl.
Complain about this postIan Bell must be drop
Complain about this postIf Flintoff is 100% fit to bowl and bat he should be in for plunkett, replacing like for like, if he cant bowl, leave him out. I agree with my right honourable cricket fans that Flintoffs form with the bat does not warrant his inclusion in the side. If Vaughan is 100% fit, replace him from Shah. Although his form aint great, he is an awesome captain, who can get the bowlers bowling in the right areas, even Harmison!
Complain about this postIf Flintoff is 100% fit to bowl and bat he should be in for plunkett, replacing like for like, if he cant bowl, leave him out. I agree with my right honourable cricket fans that Flintoffs form with the bat does not warrant his inclusion in the side. If Vaughan is 100% fit, replace him from Shah. Although his form aint great, he is an awesome captain, who can get the bowlers bowling in the right areas, even Harmison!
Complain about this postMatt Prior is the prayer mat upon which England's wicket-keeping problems have been redressed. What a find Prior, The First, has been! The first to English keeper to score a century on debut.
Admittedly the lean bowling was much thinner after Cook, Collingwood, and Bell gnawed away at it, yet the way he scored those runs raise hope that his character would stand up to a more exacting scrutiny.
I liked the way he played - after all, he was a debutant on the English wicket-keeping merry-go-round, expected to be yet another wooden horse, but how exhilarating his game was! Like a fast carousel, which even his batting pie-chart looked like; a clear sign of good batting fundamentals, skill, and temperament.
His glove-work has been good too...Mr. Harmison kindly checked out it's entire range for us...and he kept well to Monty too.
He should now be a Priority selection in future.
Good luck Matt Prior!
Complain about this postIf Prior continues like this we have now a good wicket keeper to get us valuble runs.
Complain about this postPaul wrote "bearing in mind he (Prior) has kept to Muralitharan for a long time with Sussex"
When was that? I must have missed it. Do you mean Mushy?
Complain about this postI understand that the Test Match is being broadcast on a whole series of stations and programmes. In view of this more than adequate coverage, would it be possible to exempt listeners on ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio 4 long wave completely from this ordeal, or to give us at most hourly updates. For some of us it is our only viable link with ´óÏó´«Ã½ radio.
Alan Pratley
Complain about this postAdam Pratley
Prat by name prat by nature. For some of us our only connection to live sport is TMS and therefore most welcome. If you don't like it retune your radio to medium wave. Please note that ball by ball coverage is not available on any other analogue service.
PS. Live by CBS across the caribean is no use to me!!
Complain about this postAdam Pratley
Pratley by name PRATley by nature. For some of us our only connection to live sport is TMS and therefore most welcome. If you don't like it retune your radio to medium wave. Please note that ball by ball coverage is not available on any other analogue service.
PS. Live by CBS across the caribean is no use to me!!
Complain about this post