airliebird9 wrote:
Which they did. I don't expect England to tinker with a winning team at all.
Neither did I, so we were both taken by surprise.
We ought to outscore Bangladesh under any circumstances; the point I was trying to make is that a more bowler-centric selection would in theory make for a lower scoring match and reduce any danger of Bangladesh batting for long enough to escape with a draw.
airliebird9 wrote:
Why did Cook not use Collingwood at all to give his front line attack a breather?.....
It's been a weakness of England Test cricket for many years now that other countries seem to have top order batsmen who can do a servicable job as fourth seamer or second spinner, whereas the likes of Collingwood and Pietersen are given a couple of overs here and there but don't seem to be trusted to do more than just give the main bowlers a breather. Our captains just don't seem to regard them as a genuine bowling option, which Collingwood given his experience and variations of pace certainly ought to be in subcontinental conditions. (Or in English conditions for that matter.) Today Collingwood bowled one over for eight runs. I'm not sure at which juncture he bowled his over, but why wasn't he trusted to have a spell of half a dozen? It seems that our part-time bowlers are expected to have an instant impact and if they don't they're not worth perservering with.
