Yes, Mark Taylor played hideously in the run in to the 1997 Ashes in which the pressure on him was increased by England's victory in the first Test at Edgbaston. But he was a good batsmen and recovered. The same is true of Vaughan in my opinion, though Bell was a muddle since anyone could prove themselves as Test quality when playing Bangladesh. I agree with the general consensus that it should have been Thorpe and Pietersen, and in their absence, Collingwood. I wouldn't put it past Fletcher and Graveney to drop Bell since he dropped Read after England won the first three Tests in the Carribean, but I wouldn't say Collingwood, the obvious next in line, is a like for like replacement so they may make do and mend.
I have to disagree on Hoggard: his fourteen wickets in South Africa were immense and very, very scary for a good Test side. Harmison couldn't bowl it on the cut strip. The key to this story is that consistency of selection has won England Test Matches with their good bowlers, and as long as three of the four continue to fire the fourth can find his feet at the top level.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-08-07 08:46 pm (UTC)I have to disagree on Hoggard: his fourteen wickets in South Africa were immense and very, very scary for a good Test side. Harmison couldn't bowl it on the cut strip. The key to this story is that consistency of selection has won England Test Matches with their good bowlers, and as long as three of the four continue to fire the fourth can find his feet at the top level.
TCH