Ashes: What do you think of my idea for England?

Question

If England are paranoid enough about their batting to play Giles ahead of Panesar (which is looking like a pretty stupid idea after the first day's play), shouldn't they have picked the following team instead:

Strauss, Cook, Joyce, Collingwood, Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff, Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar?

That way, we'd have 7 batsmen, the best keeper, the most dangerous bowler, 3 proper seamers and 3 regular part-time bowlers who can take on a few overs per innings.

Instead, we've got 6.5 batsmen, a poor keeper, an innocuous "spinner" and 3 number 11 batsmen - one of whom has hardly bowled so far...if Jones and Giles don't make 50s at least in both innings, then it probably wasn't worth playing them in front of Read and Panesar.

Answer 1

It's a defensive approach by England. Not entirely surprising. The Gabba test first-up is always the most difficult one. It does make sense trying to save this test, instead of having an unrealistic attempt at winning it. Australians traditionally have been weak at Adelaide and Sydney - easier batting conditions and a little more of spin. England could go with the combination you suggested then.

Answer 2

u are right , england choose their team to the australians strength and not to their strength but i think the australians are on fire and i think by the looks of the first day england might get bitten by a dog even if they sit on a camel

but u cant predict unless the englands start batting and unless the last ball of the match and the series is balled

ENJOY the ASHES!!!!!!!

Answer 3

the question is would that have helped them at all? the aussies are looking good

Answer 4

whatever england do they r going to lose

Answer 5

They could do that and still lose