If accents are your real nuance, i suggest you find a therapist.

Duncan Fletcher is the same man who guided us to the 2005 ashes, so unless you have been sat in a cupboard for half a decade stroking a cat as it is your only friend, i suggest you go and find a therapist.

I am so glad you bought up the ‘proportionate benefit’ argument as it is actually an attempt at a serious point of view so well done. But sat here on the eve of the third day of the fourth test when we are struggling to bowl out S.A with three seam bowlers, and not four… I have to ask YOU sir, as an avid cricket player and watcher… what would you change? Is it by any chance a fourth seamer?

Thanks,

Deborah – Cricket player and watcher.

You can’t tell me you can believe the opinions of someone who plays in down under for 2 weeks and comes back speaking with an Australian accent + that rubbish lisp he’s always had. He was a great batsmen – doesn’t mean he knows who should play for England. Maradona was amazing but we all know Schiavi shouldn’t be near international football.

Can’t explain Duncan Fletcher – he must fancy Luke Wright or something.

Now I made my suggestions clear :

“The real argument – by people who know cricket- is whether the proportionate benefit of playing another bowler (i.e. the wickets they will take) will outweigh the runs that broad and swann will make at 7 and 8, plus the runs that bell may score at 6.”

This argument may be far too nuanced for you as an occasional cricket watcher but it’s not…(wait for it) for anyone who understands cricket.

You might be interested to know that before the second test it wasn’t just me, the man who apparently knows nothing about cricket, who suggested that perhaps Luke Wright should play. It was also Duncan Fletcher, Graham Thorpe and Nasser Hussain who all wrote articles on why they believed he should play.

You disagree, fair enough, stop being so arrogant as to write off people’s cricketing knowledge. Unless you fancy penning a reply to Fletcher, Thorpe and Hussain as well.

Henry, your response only reinforces my criticism – whether you really want 4 bowlers or not. Luke Wright is not a good enough bowler or batsmen – therefore he should do neither not both. The real argument – by people who know cricket- is whether the proportionate benefit of playing another bowler (i.e. the wickets they will take) will outweigh the runs that broad and swann will make at 7 and 8, plus the runs that bell may score at 6.

There you go Deborah I have spelt it out for you because you obviously couldn’t understand my initial point – probably because you don’t know anything about cricket

Henry Cowen is clearly a fan of four bowlers in a test team, one of them being an all-rounder. Who else apart from Luke Wright fits the criteria for an all-rounder in the test team? He clearly can’t be too far off as Luke Wright was selected to go out to S.A.

How about rather than shout out your obnoxious opinions, you offer an alternative thought provoking canditate?

P.S – Trescothick’s lowly first class average was achieved at Taunton, and for someone who claims not only to play but watch cricket, you will realise how moronic your argument about Vaughan is.

Many Thanks

Deborah

I don’t think the difference between batting and playing at 7 is anything more than pedantic, I know your number 7 has to get you runs and perhaps mid-twenties was a little on the low side but England have never had a Gilchrist figure at 7. Flintoff averaged 32 at 7, Jones averaged 26 and Prior currently averages 42. I know averages aren’t everything but, apart from Prior whose average suggests he should be at 6, this shows we don’t have that many options.

That taken into account you have to agree that IF England want to go into a side with 5 bowlers then Broad is probably not a good enough batsman to move up to 7. Thus I suggested Luke Wright as the best option we have as an all-rounder. If you look at what I said it was what I thought England might do, not what I necessarily wanted to do, because we were poor at Centurion and I thought Flower and Strauss might choose to change things. I know Wright wouldn’t get into the side on the strength of his batting or bowling alone but England are looking to replace Flintoff. Wright is not fantastic but he could do a job, and this sentence shows my feelings about him:

“I think this just exposes our lack of all-rounders because, as you say, his bowling isn’t awe inspiring but I think he’s the best of an average bunch.”

As for players’ averages when they came into the side you have conveniently left out your analysis on why Trescothick’s average wasn’t brilliant. Trescothick plies his trade at Taunton, the flattest track on the county circuit and yet his selection was a hunch from Duncan Fletcher.

I hope you’ll realise that while we disagree, to say I don’t know about cricket is a bit harsh. I’m sure I get things wrong from time to time, currently listening to Boycott who makes plenty of mistakes, but I am passionate about cricket and would like to think I know a fair bit about it.

People don’t “play” at number 7 they bat there, plus what era of cricket are you born in?> How many number 7s in the last 5 years have kept their place with an average of 25 – absolute rubbish.

Plus luke wright is a one day player he neither bowls well enough or bats well enough to get in the team – and you want him to do both!!! Vaughan’s first class average was relatively low for a test player because he batted at headingley when it was a green top most games – much harder to get runs than other surfaces.

If you were a cricketer you would know the above

Note by moderator: this probably isn’t Andrew Flintoff

If you don’t select him you either have 6 batsman and 4 bowlers, or you have Broad at 7. What would you prefer?

I think this just exposes our lack of all-rounders because, as you say, his bowling isn’t awe inspiring but I think he’s the best of an average bunch.

the likes of kallis, smith, amla etc will tear into him. his bowling stats are dire

ODI ave. 10 wickets@46 each
First class ave.78 wickets@ 42 each