Pick your ideal England team

England duly completed a series victory over New Zealand in the early hours of this morning, winning the final Test in Hamilton by 121 runs, a margin that would have been far greater but for a stunning display of clean hitting by Tim Southee, the Black Caps’ teenage debutant, who also took five wickets in the first innings. Some future he has ahead of him. Ian Terence Botham, for instance, also claimed a five-for in his first Test innings, but could only manage a score of 25 with the bat.

The triumph underlined a marked turnaround in fortunes for Michael Vaughan’s side, having lost the first Test in Hamilton. Changes were made, which for the most part, worked out. But let us not delude ourselves – yet, at least –  that this England team is the finished article and ready to give Australia a run for their money when our Antipodean enemies visit these shores in summer 2009.

New Zealand and South Africa are the touring sides this spring and summer and we thought it might be fun for you to have a go at being Geoff Miller, the national selector, for a day. Imagine you have a fully-fit squad to choose from, that Andrew Flintoff, for instance, has made a full and complete recovery from the fourth surgery on his troublesome ankle and that you have been put in sole charge of selecting the side to face New Zealand at Lord’s in the first Test starting on Thursday, May 17.

The rules are simple. You can pick one all-rounder and one wicketkeeper, five or six batsmen and three or four bowlers. If your arithmetic is impeccable your choices will add up to eleven good men and true. Unfortunately the voting system will allow you to have twelve players if you so wish, but we would ask you to stay within the spirit of the exercise.

Players available to you are all those who have been picked for an England Test squad since the Ashes tour to Australia last winter. Therefore, there is no Simon Jones, for instance, whose reverse swing and raw aggression would be a boon to any side. If you feel there are other omissions, then feel free to let us have it with both barrels at the bottom of this post.

Good hunting.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Comments

[Peter Wilkins]

I agree that its too early for James Harris (although it would not be a bad idea to get him around the squad) - as for the comments above about his performances of late dropping off especially in his own age group, he has recently returned from England Under 19's tour as leading wicket taker with 27 wckts @ 17. He was also Englands leading wicket taker in the Under 19 World Cup with 12 wckts @ 10 apiece. So if his performances are dropping off - can't wait to see him on form !!!
N.B. These performances were all on the sub-continant as well !!!

[Ann]

It's not only Collingwood who is underused as a bowler: KP is also underused.

[guy]

why no mention of nic pothas? a quality batsman and excellent keeper. think kp should be given more overs too

[Dani]

I think that Vaughan has to be dropped - Broad had a better batting average than him during the New Zealand series! He is only in the side for the fact that he is captain, which is also slipping, as novice Vettori outwitted him at times this series. If he is only averaging around 20 with what was not the strongest on NZ bowling line ups, how is he going to fair against the likes of Steyn and Morkel on what would be seaming pitching that would suit the above bowlers?!

At least England have great promise for the summer in the likes of Broad and Sidebottom, KP and others, and
Flintoff replacing Anderson should strongly be considered too, as people have already commented

[Ann]

Vaughan is not 'underperforming'. Whoever wrote that does not understand the role of captain, and certainly not Vaughan's input in becoming England's most successful Test captain - and his input in Kiwiland. He is not there to look pretty and otherwise be just another batsman (+ bowler, like Vettori in reverse). His trategic and tactical decisions (and not only the 'pretty' fielding settings, as someone has hinted - but in fact they are excellent ones, highly imaginative and effective) are hugely important, and he would have made different ones in Oz to the ones that were made (and imo, better ones). Freddie may be a better batsman, a better bowler, a better fielder (?), but neither he nor anyone else has shown Vaughan's captaincy flair. I don't think Strauss is in the running to take over. Maybe Collingwood is. But at the moment, Vaughan is better.

[James Evans]

James Harris? I think not. Yes, he's got huge potential, but his performances have fallen away recently (inc. when playing in his own age group) and the likes of Plunkett and Mahmood clearly show the dangers of trying to 'blood' young bowlers in the Test arena.

I hope that England don't rush Flintoff back into the side. Learn from past mistakes and give him time to get back to full fitness with Lancs. Hoggard for Anderson is the only change that I'd consider at this point. Stick with more or less the current XI for the NZ series, see how everyone does, see how Fred's batting is these days, and then you'll know whether he should play against SA as part of a four- or five-man attack.

In the longer term (i.e. for the Ashes), my ideal XI would be:

Cook
Vaughan
Bell
KP
Collingwood
Fred
Ambrose
Rashid
Broad
Sidebottom
Monty (or Hoggard/Harmison/Jones/Anderson, depending on form, fitness and the match conditions)

Now of course that's pretty speculative - Rashid is untested, Fred is an unknown quantity, and Vaughan needs runs - but it would give England plenty of batting as well as five bowlers (six if you include the under-used Collingwood).

There are so many options among the bowlers that it's a tough call. Conversely, it's hard to see many viable alternatives with the batting line-up. Carberry (younger, better fielder) should leapfrog Shah and Strauss at the top of the order.

[mitchde]

i think it is right that flintoff would step in for one of the bowlers probably james anderson. Giving england a long batting order which is an extra bonus.

i feel other bowlers that could changellenge the threesome of panesar, broad, and sidebottom are of course matthew hoggard a try and trusted bowler and england ashes hero but also if steve harmison can sort out his line and length and if young liam plunkett can find a consistent action, those two could be in with a shout.

[hilary croft]

I think Philip is spot on with the Ramprakash for Vaughan with Collingwood for captain option.

Unfortunately, the England set up is so conservative and so reluctant to remove a 'winning captain' that Vaughan will stay on and continue to underperform.

He has now become cricket's Beckham, living on past glories.

[BW]

Agree with Ramprakash sentiments. And a bit of bias from a Hampshire supporter: how about Michael Carberry as an opener who is also outstanding in the field?

[Richard BM]

Surely Ramprakesh should be tried, if he carries half the form he's shown playing for surrey recently he's the best bat in England bar none and the Ashes is only next year. I'd pick him ahead of any of the batsmen but I think it's worth giving Cook a season back at county to try and sort out that area outside off. If Cook is kept then Collingwood goes as Vaughan needs to stay as captain and can bowl. Harmison never plays for England again, please.

[Patrick Kidd]

Hi Dave
The players named were only those who have played since the last Ashes. Personally I agree with you that Rashid should be in the side. Depending on conditions, I'd replace Collingwood with Rashid and Anderson with Hoggard if it was a turner. If it wasn't I'd want Shah instead of Collingwood, I think, but maybe Rashid would replace Panesar?

[dave robinson]

How can you miss Adil Rashid out of the bowlers?

[Philip Willcox]

I believe we should blood oustanding young talent ala Sharma and Southee.
James Harris from Glamorgan is clearly a future England star and should be given an opportunity ASAP.

[Giles Watson]

I would like to have the option of picking Ramprakash at the expense of Vaughan and making Colly captain.

Flintoff to replace a bowler rather than a batsman but I would hesitate to select him for the summer before seeing him in some county warm-ups. Flintoff is not good enough to be a specialist batsman, and if he can't be part of a 4 man bowling line-up (or five if you include Colly), then he might be a luxury Engald Can't afford. If he's not up to it, make Broad no.8 and bring back Hoggy.

[Ann]

You and I will have to disagree on the declaration. With 500, say, NZ would still have batted in the same way, as they would have had nothing to lose and a lot to gain. It would have come very close.
Mind you, given how the England batting started (anyone still remember?), to win so comprehensive is brilliant (although Patrick will disagree ...).
I would tend to regard Broad as an all-rounder in the making if not in actual fact. His batting will keep improving, I am sure, and his fielding is very good indeed.

[CzechMike]

why can't we consider Prior as specialist batsman?

[Dave]

Personally, i wouldn't pick any of the three allrounder options on current form. Of course, on historic ability, Flintoff is a shoo in. I think England would be better served by going for four-man bowling attack of Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar plus one of Anderson or Hoggard. Put some faith and responsibility upon the shoulders of the top order.

Vaughan's imaginative field placings aside, he's dangerously close to not warranting inclusion in the side.

[Patrick Kidd]

Hi Duncan
See my comment on the next post about this. I just feel that sometimes an enormous target can make batsmen and bowlers behave differently. I'm not sure that if New Zealand had had 500 to chase they would have batted in such a carefree way or that England would have bowled with such lacklustre at the start of the innings (remember that 70-odd runs came in about seven overs at the end of the match).

I didn't have a problem with England batting on to let Strauss get 200 - which could have been a valuable psychological boost - but once he and Ambrose went they may as well have got cracking with the bowling.

Re: Surrey v Lancashire. Yes that wsa an anomaly and a really exciting match but there were a few important differences. They were chasing only 430-odd (from memory) not 550, albeit in far less time, and they had the small matter of a first championship for 70 years to aim at. Also, Surrey's bowlers had less at stake than England's. I agree that it shows a lesson about the danger of setting too low a target, but generally 500 is more than enough

[Duncan]

I was wondering if you have a little more sympathy with England's declaration now seeing that New Zealand scored heavily in their second innings. Had England stuck at a lead of 500 NZ would have been pretty close. Five sessions was always going to be enough so they might aswell put the game completely out of reach. See: Surrey v Lancashire last game of last season, everyone at the Oval was moaning that Surrey were batting too long and should declare. Lancashire got mighty close and Surrey would have been given a roasting in the press had they lost. Kind regards.