91Èȱ¬

Jimmy has put england back in the driving seat just like monty did at old trafford this is what happens when you give people a run sure hes incosistent but harmison was wayward for years before the selectors dropped him.

also like to give stuart broad some credit for the way he batted and along with anderson gave england a very useful total bell and collingwood should be asking him for tips on batting

Good blog aggers.

Jimmy Anderson bowled beautifully today, late swing with pace. I have been critical of him in the past and I do still worry about how Smith, Kallis and Gibbs will treat him in non swing friendly conditions.

But today belongs to him well done sir.


Regarding the bowling slots it all looks good some good competition for places. Out of the 5 names you mentioned that are not playing in this match, I only think Hoggard, Flintoff and Simon Jones will figure for England again if fit or selected.

I feel Harmison has had his last chance and Tremlett is just unlucky I guess.

Hmm - not sure Anderson continues to bowl full lengths when the ball isn't swinging. He usually bowls too short. Perhaps he lacks the patience just to put it in the right place, over after over, when conditions aren't so favourable. That's what you've got to do (Hoggard style), right?

I'll hold my hands up and say I was all for dropping Anderson after his recent expensive performances, but today he has proved that he can be lethal when conditions are in his favour.
Though the big question the selectors have to ask themselves is, how many days like today will he have? I'm not trying to rain on his parade, as he deserves alot of credit for todays performance.

But I personally feel a more consistent bowler will be a far better option in the long term.

Out of the bowlers available when fully fit I would go with;
Flintoff
Broad
Jones
Sidebottom
I feel that would be the best bowling attack currently available not just in England, but for any nation.

Well done Jimmy, I just hope it continues!

On good batting decks against high quality batsmen anderson is pure dross.

Please keep him in the side for the next ashes, the only concern for our bats will be seeing through the tears of laughter as he sends down his pies.

I still don't see Jimmy Anderson running through South Africa (he didn't in 2003, nor in 2004/05), but things are definitely looking up. Harmison and Jones are taking wickets by the bucketload. Andrew Flintoff is champing at the bit so much that he injured himself trying to get at the batsmen. Hoiggard is fit again and looked useful again in his first run-out. Tremlett wants another chance. And we now don't even mention Mahmood and Plunkett who were first-choices 18 months ago. Some really healthy competition is building up for places in the bowling attack at least and Shah and Bopara are hammering at the door to get a chance with the bat.

Certainly, watching the Australian struggles to subdue a spirited, but limited West Indian side that a year ago would not have been allowed to take any game into the fourth day, the prospects for next year's Ashes are looking up. What would be interesting would be to see New Zealand, reinforced by Shane Bond, taking on Australia at home: it might well not be as one-sided as most Australians would like. Certainly, don't write off New Zealand in this Test - they are doughty fighters - but, when they let England reach 364 they must have feared that it might be enough to win by an innings unless they played out of their skins again.

NZ ARE RUBBISH. YOU COULD GET A COUNTY SELECT 11 TO MAKE A BETTER GAME OF IT FROM DIVISION 2'S BOTTOM 3.

If everyone is FIT and in FORM, which at the moment is a very big 'IF' England's best bowling '4' would be:

Flintoff
Jones
Anderson
Panesar

But to beat Australia, ideally we would want one more pace bowler. I would go for Broad, just, because of his batting and I think his bowling will improve.

I still have reservation about Anderson, but in English conditions, on a day when it is going to swing, he has to be in the team.

I agree that Andersons main problem when it doesnt swing is that he isnt content with bowling consistantly. He bowls too short, too full etc and gets spanked. He needs to learn to bowl intelligently al la Hoggard when up against it. He is young and can do it.

As for the question it partly revolves around the 4 or 5 bowler question. Fred is obviously part of either attack when fit.

FOUR:

Fred
SiJo
Broad
Panesar

FIVE:

Fred
SiBo
Broad
SiJo
Panesar

Will they all be fit and firing at the top of their game again? Who knows. We should be glad we have such choice. Hoggard is very unlucky. He was harshly dropped and if he hadnt been he would be taking bucketfuls now. I used to think he would take 400 test wickets, now I think he may never play again for us.

Aggers I think one name escaped you ; Panesar!!!

so only 3 seamers from that list would be able to figure in a four man attack!!

My team for englands summer assuming all are fit would be ;

1 Strauss
2 Cook
3 Vaughan
4 KP
5 Bell - or bopara
6 Colly
7 Ambrose/Flintoff
8 Flintoff/Ambrose
9 Broad
10 Sidebottom
11 Panesar

Flintoff wouldnt want to bat 8 but if hes not batting well enough I would stick him there, but if hes bowling at his best then thats what is important. Sidebottom will be the most consistent and regular pick id say, although as we have seen, international cricket is seeing more and more "squad" based selections with rotation policies to avoid injuries. Hoggard is too slow, sidebottom has hoggards accuracy at a few miles an hour quicker whereas anderson may not have the control but is much quicker and swings it as much if not more. i cant see hoggard playing for engand again.

Ideally, the 4 I'd pick would be:

Sidebottom
Hoggard
Anderson
Flintoff

If Flintoff's fitness is an issue then have Stuart Broad instead.

I can see England winning this tomorrow if NZ follow on.

Good call Aggers;

Quite bizarre to think that Anderson has a reputation for being wayward and expensive given that he burst on the international scene back in 2003 with 1 for 12 of 10 in a ODI against the Oz in Adelaide.

Credit to him for bowling well today, but he'll never be in the great bowler he could be until he develops his stock, "put it on a hankerchief" length bowl - and maybe a bit of Irish reverse as well.

However, the player whom I'm most concerned about going in the Saffers series is Broad not Anderson. Obviously Broad's hitting some useful runs but is there really any evidence to suggest that he's a test match standard bowler yet, aside from some wishful thinking? A series against a hugely experienced SA is no place for a promising youngster in my view. He'll be found out. For starters, he's got an awkward front-on action which means he'll never generate much pace and movement without significant re-modelling of his action.

Looking back at the Ashes DVD can't help but long for a Jones/Flintoff reverse swing combo to be operating once more. I'd say that without the two of them we don't have a hope against SA or Aus.

Harmison should never play for England again, his play the last couple of years was of someone who wasn't bothered.

4 should be Sidebottom, Broad, Hoggard and either Flintoff (only if fully fit) or Anderson.

Tenipurist

How can you drop Bell and keep Colly in the side?

mrrobanger

Broads issue isnt pace and movement (he was up at 86 mph and seaming it today), but line and making the batsmen play. He can learn these things and he will. Remember SiJo and GBH when they started. Broad is still contributing and is letting no one down so not to stick with him would be madness.

Bowlers are rarely the finished article overnight. Imran Khan took around 30 matches to average under 30, Hadlee over 20 matches. Even McGrath took around 10.

Broad has played 5 completed tests. Give the lad time.

colly is in awful form. shah has been disgustingly treated, imagine getting overlooked in SL for a 20 yr old rookie (bopara) who got picked just because he got 10 runs more than shah in the warm up. shah MMUST come in for colly. remember the 83 on debut in the toughest place to make a debut, in india

The last two tests are a lovely illustration of the issue with Anderson.

On a good day, he's a match-winner, absolutely no doubt. On a bad day, he's expensive and about as threatening as my granny.

Today, with some nice conditions and some really good bowling from him, he looked like he could run through the whole order on his own (never mind if NZ aren't the best batting line-up we'll ever see, it's still impressive to take 6-for). Last week, when things weren't quite right, he just leaked runs.

Surely the question is, where's the balance point? Panesar will rarely be devastating in the first innings (but when he is, he will normally be good in both), but will nearly always look good in the second innings. Firing 50% of the time seems reasonable then, because we're not going to drop Monty for a while. Anderson's fired, sort of, twice in 5 innings... if that becomes 3 in 6, then he's worth keeping probably, if it becomes 2 in 6 does he keep his place ahead of a fit Flintoff, Simon Jones, Hoggard? Sometimes I'm glad I'm not a selector!

Of course there is a difference between not firing (ie not getting wickets) but keeping it tight (like Hoggard would) and not firing and leaking runs everywhere. He must tighten up!

Vaughanforever

Fair point that; I'm just concerned about putting a young bowler in the test side who is not yet close to mastering his craft.

You say give him time but that's precisely what England don't have with SA round the corner; let him master his skills in county cricket not for England and bring in someone who as, i.e. Fred.

Good to hear Simon Jones getting mentioned for another cap at last... could his purgatory nearly be at an end? I sincerely hope so...

Actually I think you can write NZ off -- as a team the Kiwis are now psychologically shattered, I think the Pietersen/ Ambrose partnership yesterday was the last straw. People will always talk about NZ's 'fighting qualities' as something mythical and to be feared, and I agree in the past we have shown this, but apart from Oram's century at Lord's there's been little or no fight in this NZ team. England, meanwhile, are bubbling along quite nicely for SA.

Yeah I take your point about Broad and SA and it is true that SA was the turning point for Anderson 4 years ago. Hopefully he will get some wickets in this match because I think they will go with the same bowlers against SA. If Fred is fit they will drop Colly and add him in.

On SA though I dont rate their batting as much better than NZs tbh.

Smith is quality as is Kallis. The rest is pretty poor.

i think the team should be

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Anderson
Jones
Panesar

we bat down to 8 there (and simon jones can bat a bit, as can jimmy) and have 2 genuine quickies in Flintoff and Jones, then the swing and line of Broad and Anderson, with Monty lurking.

Nice team that.

Anderson bowled beautifully, and i really think he should keep his place for SA, even though he is a bit inconsistent.
However, i cant say the same for bell and collingwood. they both need massive scores in the 2nd innings to save themselves, as they got shown up dreadfully by broad and anderson.
much as i admire collingwood, he simply cant put bat to ball at the moment, and for that reason he needs to be replaced. there is no better candidate that ravi bopara as a like for like replacement.
i dont know about bell- he is a class act, as opposed to colly who is a grinder- but i think he needs a break too. give shah a well deserved chance- god knows hes waited long enough.
alternatively, you could drop bll or colly for tremlett?

I do hope that Broady matures into England's first choice all rounder!

Bell had the highest average in NZ.

What about Cook?

In reality none of our batting line up has really performed since WIs last year (maybe KP actually to be fair).

Bringing Tremlett in for a batsmen would extend out tail too much. Broad may one day be a number 6, but not yet.

Kuronecko, I don't know. People keep pointing out that even though England have won 3 of the last 4 Tests, that they probably would have won the other but for the weather and look set to win this one, not one of the matches has been easy. Just like in 2004, when we won 3-0, we have been on the ropes in the last Test and in this one. What is a curious irony is that in 2004 it was a recently introduced wicket-keeper and a young guy trying to get taken seriously as a batsman who took game after game away from you: then it was GO Jones and Andrew Flintoff, now it's Ambrose and Broad.

Certainly, you'll find comments in this blog above that suggest that you are being written-off and not necessarily by England supporters. But the New Zealand home record over the last few years is pretty good: South Africa couldn't win in NZ.

On current form, surely Broad and Ambrose should bat higher than freddy?

Good call bringing Fred in for Colly aswell, especially if his current village form continues.

Ian Blackwell? In the top ten runs scorers this season so far?

Hi all. Interesting stuff as always. I thought the question assumed Monty would be included anyway and that the four from eight was about the quicker bowlers so he's assumed in my list anyway. I look at this from the point of view of who, in form, I'd least like to face (if I was an international batsman, which I am definitely not). Given that criterior (and assuming all fit and firing) the list would descend as follows:

matchwinner: Fred
matchwinner: Simon Jones
All-rounder and bowler to be coached for the future: Broad
Strike bowler: Harmison
Sometime Strike bowler: Anderson
Mr Reliable: Hoggard
Mr aggressive Reliable: Sidebottom
Mr needs to prove himself but might well do: Tremlett

Playing at home affords you the ability to pick on form and pitch/weather conditions but the current culture seems to preclude this. I wonder why. Surely the advantage of playing at home should outweigh the current obsession with continuity and loyalty when players (including batters) are out of form. We do need to build for the future but we also need to win the current game or series. See Richard Ellison/David Steel of former years.

Regards to all.

GSD

It is true that SA batting is something of an unknown quantity and without Gibbs and Rudolph it looks a little thin on first viewing.

I'd add De Villiers to the list of evident quality with Smith and Kallis.

Prince, Amla and MacKensie are all relatively unknown in England - yet the latter two were mustard in India (although mostly on flat tracks).

Still fancy their lower order resistence with the likes of Boucher, Morkel as well.

The comedy value of the people naming their England sides with Broad in and Anderson out are pure gold.

Broad was picked as a bowler.

He has taken 3 wickets at 70+ in this series.

People are banging on about how the conditions favoured Anderson... Broad never looked threatening.

His batting is an irrelevant bonus.

Simon Jones will earn a recall if his fitness is proven.

Andrew Flintoff will earn a recall if his fitness is proven.

It would be damaging to drop Broad at this stage, but to keep him over Anderson... crazy talk.

Harsh to say Broad didnt look dangerous today. He looked more so than SiBo.

On the picking to win at home I think we should remember that for every Ellison there is a Smith (Mike) and for every Steel there is a Smith (Ed)

5 bowlers including fred has to be the way forward. That way you can keep Anderson in and have 4 more options. Simon Jones has to be back - he is a GOD!
Possibly Ramps back, if not then Shah to give him a proper chance. Cookie hasnt done to well either for a while... Classy tho.

Horton [Carberry]
Strauss [Cook]
Vaughan(c) [Key]
Pietersen [Sales]
Shah [Bopara]
Flintoff [Collingwood]
Ambrose(wk) [Prior]
Broad [Tremlett/Harmison]
Anderson [Hoggard]
Jones [Sidebottom]
Panesar [Swann]

The strength in depth is starting to appear.

Anderson bowled beautifully today - he deserves his moment. I remember a few years back when Hoggard first broke into the side, and he was criticised because he could not adapt to conditions that did not suit his swing bowling. Anderson needs to do something similar, and become one of England's most valuable bowlers. He is dangerous in these conditions, but looks quite tame on flat decks.

Broad gets better and better with every spell he bowls. These type of matches are perfect for him - he is not under pressure to perform so highly when Sidebottom and Anderson are bowling so well, and his contribution with the bat meant we got a decent score this time round rather than a mediocre one. It's ridiculous that people are talking about the return of Simon Jones and Flintoff at this stage - neither of them have a place in a 4 man attack while their fitness is under such scrutiny. If you can include a fifth - promote Ambrose to 6, Flintoff at 7 - that may be a more viable option. But we seem pretty settled as a bowling unit as it stands.

The way i see it if everybody is fit Andrew Flintoff is England's best bowler if not the best fast in the world.

However it is not realistic for him to be part of a 5 man attack, indeed one would probably say the same of Simon Jones who is probably second to Fred in terms of English fast bowlers.

However Fred's batting is not good enough for him to be an out and out number 6 at the moment so in which case the batting in the tail would need to be strengthened.

There are two ways to do this one is to have Prior as keeper, as he is good enough to be in the side purely as a batsman, but whose keeping is substandard. The second is to play Broad who would be somewhat equivalent to giles except probably a better batsman and certainly has the potential to be a much much better bowler.

Therefore for the good of the side and to get Jones and Flintoff in one would have to play Broad, that leaves one place open to one of the others, either Anderson if he develops control, Sidebottom if the way his form has slid away alarmingly this summer doesn't continue or Hoggard if he can rediscover the zip he has lost.

wickets come from pressure.
and today that pressure was applied by broad and anderson - with the bat.
however let's face it, the lower order has done the job that's been asked (excellently), the upper hasn't!
less than 25% of england's total was made by the first five wickets to fall.
what do we do in one months time when all weaknesses will be made to pay!

Flintoff
Jones
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

but I suppose dreams are cheap.

Right now I'd bat Andrew Flintoff at 8, but if his form starts to come back or we end up playing someone like Adil Rashid at 6 we could have a 5-man attack suitable for any conditions.

Even now, we could play something like:

6 Bopara
7 Ambrose
8 Flintoff
9 Broad
10 Sidebottom
11 Jones
12 Panesar

And select 6 of them. You have a spinner, a medium-pace partnership breaker, a genuine quick, two swing and seam merchants and a tall bowler to exploit bounce.

Incidentally, many of the comments being made about Stuart Broad are almost identical to the ones about Andrew Flintoff before he broke through: his Test average was over 50 too and he had only twice taken more than two wickets in an innings coming into the 2003/04 Carribean series.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hmmm these comments are very similar to my own after the last test. The comments about the bowling attack are similar to my own.

Anderson has shown that he is a 'horses for courses' bowler. When it swings he is unplayable but will always go for runs. You can always gague whether there is going to be much swing on the first morning of a test in the warm up so he should always be in contention for a place in England and on tour in SA and NZ (less so in Oz but perhaps there too) but never on subcontinent or WI (but lets face it I could probably do a job there).

The Broad issue is interesting. Broad's batting is a key strength. Against SA or Aus he should always play as the need to bat down to 8 (i.e. players capable of getting a 50 like Gilo) is essential and in addition he is very economical with the ball (his record in ODIs reflects this) which is essential for maintaining pressure on batsmen in tight spells on flat surfaces. For all those who are giving him a hard time for his wicket taking forget flintoff's early career where he kept it tight but took few wickets. Let him learn his trade on the big stage, he'll get there.

The key issue that really neads to be addressed is the batting. It seems clear that incredibly we have an embarrassment of riches in the bowling dept. It is the middle order of the batting line up which concerns me. Collingwood is a superb fielder and the ODI captain so should keep his place as he is a real battler and I do not believe that a spell in county cricket will do him any good.

Bell needs a spell on the sidelines - many people I know would agree that he is terribly overrated. Unlike Colly he can't offer fielding or bowling skills and never performs when the chips are down. Shah deserves a good run in the side.

Fair?

Really enjoyed today's play: good counter attacking batting this morning and great fast swing bowling this afternoon.

3 points:
Firstly, if New Zealand follow on and end up losing my an innings or 8 or 9 wickets, will Colly and Bell's faced be saved but not having another bat, again scoring low again? Wuld a heavy win mask their deficiencies over the last few months? They would look brittle against fast south african bowlers on dry pitches. Maybe they need a break and Shah and Bopara can fill in as identikit players.

Secondly, all this talk about what England's best bowling line-up is... why not pick the right attack for the right conditions? It swings at Trent Bridge, pick Jimmy Anderson. Its hard and bouncy at old Trafford, pick Chris Tremlett. It spins at the Oval late in the summer, pick Panesar AND Rashid.

Thirdly, why not include Flintoff SOLELY for his bowling? His batting record isn't wonderful anyway so why not consider him as a 4th bowler who has the potential but not the reliability to score runs.

I'm not convinced about the need for Simon Jones in place of Sidebottom. The only thing Simon Jones offers that Sidebottom doesn't is extra reverse swing and about 3 mphs more speed. SiBo is a more quicker Hoggard and offers variety too with his left arm over (Austrailia are always looking for left arm bowlers). Sidebottom averages 2 runs a wicket less than Jones and is less likely to break down too. Bot hare born in 1978 so not much difference age wise. I think nostalgia is affecting some decisions here.

Sidebottom has got his wickets against weak opposition though, where as Jones has played and got wickets against the best.

ow_is_zat, your comment reminds me of the people in 2005 who couldn't understand why Jones was preferred to Anderson at the start of the summer. He developed a phenomenal strike rate as an "old ball specialist". As far as I am aware, Sidebottom prefers a new ball. Simon Jones actively admitted that he preferred an OLD ball. And that was what he used to break through. I don't get your comment that it has to be one or the other. If Sidebottom takes wickets, he'll play. If not, there are plenty of people fighting for a chance and that is, actually, quite a good thing.

Nostalgia? Or superior knowledge? How many specialist OLD BALL bowlers do we have in the side right now?

Ian Bell has never produced a match-turning innings.

He's top-scored in only 10 of his 69 innings for England, and then only once when England won the game.

Colly is a reasonable bowler - not particularly threatening, but doesn't get smashed out of the ground either.

Get real - why pick Bell?

Good column Aggers but really you could can only pick three of those quicks. I'd go with Freddie (batting at 8), Sidebottom and Jones if everyone is fit. Along with Monty that's an excellent attack.

With that attack and the Aussies replacing Shane Warne with Beau Casson and his 40+ first class average I think England have got a decent chance at regaining the Ashes.

Still, the England batting needs some work. I say bring back Ramps!

Just to add to my last point (48)

Bopara in for Bell if you want another spinner to balance Monty, or Shah if you're happy with your attack as it is.

1 Strauss
2 Cook
3 Vaughan
4 KP
5 Shah or Bopara (if u want another spinner)
6 Colly
7 Ambrose
8 Broad
9 Jones
10 Anderson (if it's swinging conditions, Fred in at no 7 if it isn't and everyone else slides down one)
11 Monty

SeanPF sidebottom will play for england for the next year no doubt

Anderson is something of an enigma. Lethal and more so than most other bowlers when the ball swings but on a hot sunny day on a wicket where you need to put a bit more in, he doesn't run through teams, he doesn't get many (if any) wickets and furthermore, he can quite easily on said days get taken to the cleaners. A'la Napier

If it's a hot sunny day at the start at Lords and SA are batting on Day 1, things could get ugly for Anderson, he's very much dependent on vercast skies and swing right now.

Having watched the team constantly over the last few years, including the Ashes, I have to say that the team, for me, would have to be:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughen (c)
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose (WK)
Broad
Sidebottam
Simon Jones
Panesar

I can't understand why there are lots of people who would drop Ryan Sidebottom. He's England's best and most consistent bowler at the moment.

Bring back Andy Caddick, a bagful of wickets at Sydney 2003 then dopped.

Shah is a part-time spinner.
Bopara bowls seam!

What's going on with Sidebottom? He's not even half the bowler he was in NZ, and that was only a matter of weeks ago. Broad too was impressive with the ball over here, but has gone a bit flat since.

As for NZ, NZC needs to sort itself out...stop concentrating so much on the ODIs and put some more Test matches into our schedule, and for crissake stop stuffing around with the top order! One of the biggest problems, I think, is that the team just can't get into Test Match mentality, and as soon as it does, they're flung straight back into the one-dayers.

Lots of things should change at NZC, actually. :-/

As for...

"It seems clear that incredibly we have an embarrassment of riches in the bowling dept." (#43)

...I think that's overstating it a bit. England's got a number of bowlers who can have a good/great day/session, but are any of them consistently top notch?

Anyway, congrats to Broad for his batting and Anderson for his bowling(and batting too). Fine efforts, both.

Given it is unlikely South Africa's batsmen are unlikely to be troubled by anything short of ganuine pace it is imperative that Anderson finds a way to bowl in the right areas and at full tilt at the same time as he did today ona more consistent basis.
Given that the likes of Simon Jones and Mathhew Hoggard are now bowling with quite abit of success it would be nice to see an attack of
Ryan Sidebottom,
Simon Jones,
Stuart Broad
James Anderson
and possibly, Andrew Flintoff depending on his fitness, take on the South Africans.

great series for england. if it ends 2 - 0 then it would a huge boost for the SA series.

harmy, unless he takes 5 wicket hauls in every match for durham, is out. he's just way to inconsistent.
simon jones is good but i just don't see him back in the test arena. however it would brillaint if he came back for the ashes series. the aussies would be terified on him hah.
freddie will definetly be back in the team. definetly in the one dayers and 20/20 but broad might just out do him in the tests.
hoggard is good and should a huge contender for the engalnd team.
tremlett is exactly the same as hoggard and in my opinion should be in the one dayers as well.
sidebottom is brilliant and would a constant figure in tests and one dayers.
anderson is a tough one because as aggers said if the ball is swinging he is your favourite cousin. if its not he's your worst aunt.
broad is still young and while his batting has been brilliant (got it from his dad) his bowling has not been revolutionary. i say 2 years outside the test arena but still in the one day and 20/20 games.

test bowling attack for SA= siders, freddie, panesar, hoggard, anderson

odi bowling attack NZ, SA and Australia= siders, freddie, panesar, board, tremlett.

test bowling attack for Australia= siders freddie, panesar, hoggard and simon jones.

Let's get real. It's great seeing aggressive England play, and producing the goods when they're up against it. But the NZ batting line-up bar How and Taylor isn't up to scratch, and to be fair all the bowlers should be skittling through them with conditons in the bowlers favour. If Broad doesn't take wickets, then he shouldn't be picked. If you are picked you must perform, unless you are a genious and are having a quiet period. Unfortunately few of England's players come into the genious category yet, so all the places should remain open to the fiercest competition possible. If they can't handle the pressure, then move on. So that means bye bye Colly and Belly and Broady, sorry guys.

When England batted in the first innings, the lower order batsmen contributed almost 160 runs that enabled them reach the total of 364 all out. This is really heartening for England. Such things normally happen with Australians which is one of the reasons why they win lots of test matches. I hope this is not one off thing with England.
Its not that Anderson bowls well only when the weather/pitch conditions help swing bowling and fails to bowl well in other conditions. If he curbs being wayward he is an excellen bowler or else the present performance of six wickets he has taken so far in the ongoing test match will not take him far. Consistency is the name of the game. Having watched him in the past my impression about him was that he bowled well occasionaly. The current performance will give him lots of confidence which will enable him to perform consistently well.

croatiatwo

I can't believe the stick Anderson has got over the last couple of years. When you think that he is only just 26, with the inuries, and the messing about with his action, he has shown real strength of character to get back to this place.

I hope he uses his form here to go from strength to strength, and with confidence and experience he will learn what to do when the ball is not swinging for him.

Anderson is bowling well. Looks capable of taking all ten. Good luck to him.

Two balls Jimmy Anderson bowled yesterday where optically "unplayable", turning the player round, swerving past the outer edge to take out the off stump!

Yep nippywinger #53 that looks about right to me, we MUST have 5 front line bowlers against better opposition and with Broad, Flintoff and Ambrose we should be able to manage this. No need for Colly however and a specialist front line batsman should be brought in in my view. I would go for the following:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan (C)
Pietersen
Ramps / Key / Shah
Broad (yes I know it's high but I really rate his batting!)
Ambrose
Flintoff
Sidebottam / Anderson
Jones
Panesar

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
S Jones
Panesar

now that side would win the ashes in my opinion.

batting looks strong down to 8 and sidebottom and jones can score a few and stick around.

the bowling would give you as good a variety as you will get with the pace and swing of fred and jones coupled with the left arm swing of sidebottom and broad can be utalised as either a containing bowler or will come in to play more on bouncy wickets especially as he gains more experience.

SiJo has to be involved in the XI...middle-order needs to be revised but other than that England XI looks strong...

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Ravi/Shah
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
SiJo
SiBo
Monty

Interesting array of comment on the blog - we are lucky to have some competition for places. I find it surprising that some people would drop Broad ...

I think Stuart Broad looks like a player with potential but he is far from the finished article as a bowler. He has to learn his trade. But - I think he is going to get better and better, and he seems to be a quick learner. I would keep picking him for some while yet.

Broad's first 5 tests, he's taken 12 wickets. There are a couple of Aussie bowlers who only took 12 wickets in their first 5 tests. Namely Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne. Pity the Australians didn't give up on them eh?

I agree with what appears to be the consensus - out of the names you mentioned and assuming full fitness, the four must be:

Sidebottom
Jones
Flintoff
Broad

With Monty, of course: we must return to 5 bowlers post haste, and I don't necessarily think we should wait for Freddie before doing so.

You can't pick Harmison, as he cannot tour and the team needs stability. That just leaves the swinger - Jones is in poll, and after him I'd pick Hoggard, leaving Jimmy as 3rd choice. He's simply too wayward.

Can somebody please explain the following to me. Om TMS this morning the question is whether or not England should enforce the follow on should they find themselves in a position to do so. Being one up with this match left in the series and the likelehood of loosing the game remote I wonder whether the implied criticism of the selectors to allow the out of form batsmen (Collingwood, Beel etc) to sit out games rather than to get practise in the middle should now be a reason for batting on. Even if England bat out the game for a draw possible much needed time in the middle would be achieved prior to the important series with SA. Am I the only one to consider this option?

Ziggycz, yes you are the only one with that opinion. This is test cricket, not net practice. The objective in a test match is to win. The more convincingly you do so, the better. The only consideration should be what the right decision is in the context of winning the match. Getting the other team out as quickly as possible is the only sure way of winning a match. So make them follow on.

If Bell and Colly can't handle the pace, then they should be dropped, and others who can produce the goods selected. They must be able to bat and score highly each time they are asked to, and not when they choose to do so.

The whole point of averages is that batsmen are judged on their overall ability. In the game of cricket there are always ups and downs. The conditions of the wicket, dips in form, the weather, all contribute. You do not judge a batsman by a poor run if he has a good average. Over time that evens out. Both Bell and Colly have Test averages over 40 and have consistently been in the top 20 batsmen in the world.
So why are the media leading the cry to drop them?
Both are good team players and have the top fielding skills in their side. Those who say otherwise have never seen them play.
There are probably excitable youngsters who like to exercise their disappointment but little judgment.
But the media ought to know better. They seem to have lost their powers of analysis and are falling back on a kind of lazy who's in and who's out of favour.
That's the only kind of commentary we get.
Any ideas about what is wrong with Bell or Colly? Do they keep making the same mistake, is there an error of technique? If not then form will return.
It's destabilising for the team for a player to be only as good as his last innings.
Bell and Collingwood have been the backbone of the side for a long time.
Short memories do not produce strong sides.

Listening to "View from the Boundary" yesterday(7th) and was transported back in time to the Gillette Cup Final of 1971. BUT, how could you talk about that game and not mention the (rather unathletic) Jack Bond's superb flying catch to dismiss Asif and turn the game, which all Lancastrians were convinced was heading Kent's way, back to the Red Rose.

Geoff Boycott states a better batsman playing straight, playing late might have kept Jimmy the Burnley Express's bananas out?

Well maybe, Geoff in his day might have got a faint nick on the perhaps to guide them down 1st/2nd slips throats, like he might have done against Terry Alderman.

broad won't play ahead of anderson as a bowler. and he shouldn't.
flintoff should bat at 8 when he comes back.
for sa it should be

strauss
cook
vaughn c
pieterson
bell
bopara
ambrose w
flintoff
sidebottom
anderson
panesar

harsh on broad but he can't bat 6 yet.

In 1981 Terry Alderman "did" Boycott 7 times, with near unplayable bananas, Boycotts usally been pouch by Rodney Marsh. Boycs had only one major score in the famous Botham Ashes series.

Boycs sticks his oar in against men down on there luck with form and the ball Tait and Harmison; in a very cruel, irory tower and hypocrital fashion.

Which England Test player/batsmen took his bat and ball home to Yorkshire in the 1970's when his personal form was "tripe"!

Boycott would have been a disaster as an England skipper; one of the ETB better character decisions.

BattingforBell

Bell and Collingwood have not just had a poor match but a poor series. They have a month to fight for their places with Shah and Bopara.

This is only fair. Both Shah/Bopara have been firing, why should they not be given their chance to step up a level, represent their country and succeed.

Selections should not be on a match/match basis, but on a series / series basis; especially if the competition is there and batsman knocking on the door for their chance.

Sorry Aggers but 34.61 is more mid 30's than high 30's. I personally think Anderson has all the attributes to be as good as Steyn. The one major difference between the two is that Steyn is much more consistent. If he bowls like he did in the first innings at Trent Bridge he can blow any side away.

i was away for a few days so have only just heard from a friend about the Morris Dancing comments made the other day on TMS. If noone else has already written in may I assure that they do indeed Morris Dance in the Hutt valley, and all over NZ. I am sure that any NZ cricket commentator will be delightedly welcomed at practice with Wellington's Britannic Bedlams Morris Gentlemen. Find them via the Morris Dancing website. www.morrisdancing.com A fine bunch of gentlemen, who take their fun very seriously, and there's nobody quite like them anywhere else in the world.