Unchanged lineups, the stats...

[CarlosSETANTA]

Since the end of the 2007 Ashes series, the amount of occurances where test sides have fielded an unchanged lineup in consecutive tests within a series are as follows:

England 13
South Africa 11
Australia 7
India 6
West Indies 3
Sri Lanka 3
Pakistan 1
New Zealand 1
Bangladesh 0

During that period of time, England have lost series in South Africa, India, West Indies and Sri Lanka, as well as two home series to South Africa and India as well.

Yet they've persevered with some of these guys who are now reaping the rewards. Cook is an obvious one here. Swann was persevered with. Bell was given a few chances, and to less success, so has Collingwood.

If you don't believe that a settled lineup helps breed success, you don't understand team sports.

 

[CAS79]

If you don't believe that a settled lineup helps breed success, you don't understand team sports.

I believe in a settled line up approach too.

But you get a settled line up when the team is good. if the team is a non performer it wont be settled. When you find the right combination than the team will settle and be good.

 

[Selective Retention]

chicken/egg argument. Knock yourself out.

 

[CarlosSETANTA]

Not entirely convinced it is chicken/egg, as much as it can be argued as such.

Australia, in the same period BEFORE the end of the 2007 Ashes had 11 unchanged lineups.

Whilst you can argue it's a much superior XI to the current one, you can also certainly argue that there were far better players banging down the door to get in also.

You can also go back over the past 15-20 years and I'd bet that Pakistan would probably have the least unchanged lineups over that period, despite boasting a lineup to rival any side on its day.

I'd argue that England by having a conservative approach to selection, and being prepared to back their players in, has made them a better cricket team than what they really are, as a result.

 

[Bomber Bears]

England are showing the benifits of sticking with Cook, Anderson, Swann and Ian Bell at present.

As I've said elsewhere, it's all about the timing of picking younger players, when you think they are ready for International cricket. Once you pick them you have to be prepared to back the obvious talent they must've shown. Picking players then dropping them willy nilly doesnt help the team and doesnt help the players.

 

[BarneyBent]

It's a delicate balance. Sometimes teams need changes desperately, and selectors are hesitant to because of team stability. Marcus North was a huge benefactor of this, to the team's overall detriment. However, when those changes are made, like they now have for Australia, team stability becomes important, especially for the batting order. Making consecutive, rapid changes (injuries aside, obviously) can be quite destabilising. It's why I personally believe that while picking Smith at 6/7 was a mistake (and we've seen no reason to believe otherwise), dropping him for somebody else this Test would only have made things worse. Same for Hughes. We should stick with them, at least for a while. If they show steady improvement (which Hughes has clearly done, Smith perhaps), stick with them further. If they stutter and start but are clearly in need of more state cricket even after a fair few games, then send them back.