Jones reinstated behind stumps

[tooextracool]

And they'd seen him take 65 wickets in 10 games in the best FC comp. in the world and therefore picked him because of it.

Because wickets had to fall and no one else was taking them. If you actually watched the cricket instead of watching the stats, you'd understand what I mean.

Wow have you ever seen 2 contradictory statements in the same post? Even while Tait was taking 65 wickets in 10 games he was doing so by getting hammered all over the park in the process. It was pretty obvious in anyones book that Macgill deserved to play ahead of him for every possible reason. The only reason anyone would pick Tait was because of his 65 wickets in one season. Macgill on the other hand offered some 10 reasons for selection- most important of which was his international experience and his success against England in the past as well as the fact that England were batting like nincompoops against leg spin for most of the series.
And im sorry you accuse me of not watching? So clearly you didnt see Strauss look like an absolute tool on several occasions against Warne(his dismissal at Edgbaston was every bit as poor as any of the players who couldnt play leg spin in the 90s)? Perhaps you missed Kevin Pietersen getting bowled by a ball that turned a centimeter at the oval? Or perhaps you missed the fact that almost every England player couldnt pick the slider for the first half of the series? Even the likes of Trescothick didnt ever look comfortable against Warne. The only times England even looked somewhat competent against Warne was in the first innings, when surprise surprise the ball was barely ever turning. Every single time Warne got the ball in the 2nd innings when the pitch had deteriorated, he had the top order wrapped around his finger(except for OT).

 

[tooextracool]

Regarding the Pietersen v Bell (or anyone else) issue, I've gone over that so many times with you, it's gotten very tiring. I refuse to go it again.

i think its quite clear that you havent come up with a logical argument whatsoever here. You continue to use the benefit of hindsight to suggest that Pietersen should have played ahead of Bell without coming up with any convincing reasons. Yet almost everyone at the time(and even before the current Ashes series) felt that he was going to be one of the most impressive players of the series. Of course i can guarantee you that if Bell fails this time, there will be plenty of clowns who at the end of the series will suggest that England should have selected Joyce or Collingwood over him.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Didn't Pietersen smash something like 3 hundreds in his first 5 ODI's just a few months prior to the Ashes? Bell belted Bangladesh around on a road.

And no, don't bring up domestic form because you seem to dismiss Shaun Tait's amazing domestic form without a second thought (his form the season prior to the Ashes was much, much better than MacGill's).

I don't see a point in debating what happened 18 months ago and what could've been, but you're making a ****ing joke out of yourself.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Some people have been saying that Fletcher is a favourite of Jones, so now that he's in charge of the selection process in Australia he drops Read.

So what you're saying is that Jones dropped Read? Well, he drops everything else. *baddabing*

Oh, I'm sooo clever.

 

[tooextracool]

Didn't Pietersen smash something like 3 hundreds in his first 5 ODI's just a few months prior to the Ashes? Bell belted Bangladesh around on a road.

And no, don't bring up domestic form because you seem to dismiss Shaun Tait's amazing domestic form without a second thought (his form the season prior to the Ashes was much, much better than MacGill's).

Do you pay attention at all? There is no similarity here between Tait/Macgill v Bell/Pietersen.
Tait had played one game outside of Australia before the Ashes, which was in England and he went wicketless at some 10 runs an over. Macgill had tonnes of international experience, hed played against England, and hed also played plenty of FC cricket in England.
Thus the comparison was between a complete unknown v a proven international performer in the biggest series of their lives. It would take only an Australian selector to go for the unknown.
Bell v Pietersen is a completely different story. They were both completely new. However Bell hadnt put a foot wrong, he had scored runs on debut against the WI, he scored prolifically in domestic cricket, scored runs for England A in SL, and scored runs against Bangladesh. Pietersen had scored in ODIs, but he scored 2 50s and did precious little else, while his performances in FC cricket suggested that he was completely out of form. This along with the question marks about his technique should certainly have meant that Bell who had done everything asked of him deserved to play ahead of Pietersen.

I don't see a point in debating what happened 18 months ago and what could've been, but you're making a ****ing joke out of yourself.

Have you heard about the past helps determine the future? if you seriously think that cricket is all just about the present then you clearly shouldnt be watching.

 

[aussie]

So what you're saying is that Jones dropped Read? Well, he drops everything else. *baddabing*

Oh, I'm sooo clever.

you've lost me here trini boy..

 

[aussie]

Bell v Pietersen is a completely different story. They were both completely new. However Bell hadnt put a foot wrong, he had scored runs on debut against the WI, he scored prolifically in domestic cricket, scored runs for England A in SL, and scored runs against Bangladesh. Pietersen had scored in ODIs, but he scored 2 50s and did precious little else, while his performances in FC cricket suggested that he was completely out of form. This along with the question marks about his technique should certainly have meant that Bell who had done everything asked of him deserved to play ahead of Pietersen.

On the money here, Bell at the time was definately the right choice to go between him & KP. KP was fighting for a place with Thorpe who many people thought should not have been dropped, but KP has proven a lot of people wrong since then.

 

[Great Birtannia]

Obviously MacGill should have been picked towards the end of the last Ashes series, but giving Tait a go was a reasonable decision at the time. He'd also done well in warmups and so on, and he really didn't bowl particularly badly in the Trent Bridge test. He was pretty much the pick of the seamers in the first innings. I'd have picked MacGill in the final test, and maybe got rid of Gillespie in favour of Tait or MacGill one test earlier. It's easy to criticise the selectors in hindsight given that they lost the series, but MacGill isn't the most reliable bowler in the world either, and Tait was always perfectly capable of producing a spell like he did for the PM's XI the other day and coming away with 5 for next to nothing and winning a test.

The debate ended here for mine, perfectly put. With McGrath underdone, Lee having an ordinary series with the ball and no legitimate 5th bowling option amongst the batsman, it's not hard to see why they did side for the quick in red hot form at the time.

 

[tooextracool]

The debate ended here for mine, perfectly put. With McGrath underdone, Lee having an ordinary series with the ball and no legitimate 5th bowling option amongst the batsman, it's not hard to see why they did side for the quick in red hot form at the time.

But if the pace bowlers are struggling in certain conditions, it doesnt mean you have to replace them with another pace bowler. Macgill was always going to be the safer option, because bar some miracle Tait was never going to cause too much damage on his test debut, not many people do to be honest. Given the way England were struggling against Warne in that series it was the logical option, and its not really hindsight because it was suggested by plenty of people on here at the time, including me.

 

[Great Birtannia]

There's a big difference between handing Warne the ball after 15 overs on the first day of a test match and giving the (relatively) new ball to MacGill. I'm over it and for what it is worth I would like to see MacGill played as the 4th bowler, with Watson as support, wherever possible in this series.

 

[andmark]

I know this is probably to late but heres something to help you decide.And I think jones.http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/267812.html

 

[Kweek]

maybe, but I think it is wrong to drop Read, considering how many chances Jones had.
this adds to my opinion on Fletcher, he lost it.

 

[tooextracool]

There's a big difference between handing Warne the ball after 15 overs on the first day of a test match and giving the (relatively) new ball to MacGill. I'm over it and for what it is worth I would like to see MacGill played as the 4th bowler, with Watson as support, wherever possible in this series.

yes but considering how well the pace bowlers were doing in that series it seemed like the right option. And its not like Macgill has never played with Warne and 2 other fast bowlers before.

 

[Craig]

The way I see it if Bell doesn't in the 1st Test then we have the new Hick or Ramprakash - a suberbly talented player getting the arse end of the selectors. I mean he had an amazing summer just gone in the UK and if that isn't reason to pick him then what is. IMO his spot should be set in stone. I don't know about Pietersen, seems very hit-and-miss but when on top form he can be a match winner of the highest order,

As for Brisbane it usually suits the spinners later on in the Test and it has been a wicket traditionally something in it for everybody, something for the seamers, batsmen and later the spinners. Although in the Pura Cup final Queensland racked up 900 and only declared because they wanted to win the game outright or they probably would still be batting tonight.

 

[Poker Boy]

You can't really compare Bell to Hick or Ramprakash. Bell got more centuries in one Test series than Ramprakash did in his career. With hindsight the 2005 Ashes came too soon for Bell (we should have took him to SA the previous winter) but he's improved out of sight since then and I reckon he'll score runs. About tait v Macgill - they should have picked Macgill - I reckon they were put off (wrongly) by the hammering Essex gave him prior to the Oval - but the fact that Tait bowled so few overs on the last day proves how wrong that selection was.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You can't really compare Bell to Hick or Ramprakash. Bell got more centuries in one Test series than Ramprakash did in his career. With hindsight the 2005 Ashes came too soon for Bell (we should have took him to SA the previous winter) but he's improved out of sight since then and I reckon he'll score runs. About tait v Macgill - they should have picked Macgill - I reckon they were put off (wrongly) by the hammering Essex gave him prior to the Oval - but the fact that Tait bowled so few overs on the last day proves how wrong that selection was.

Bell has mental/confidence issues in the big games against big opposition. I don't see any evidence that that has been sorted out. I think he'll be in happy nicker mode for most of the Ashes, then we'll have the Warwickshire zealot tell us how he just got good deliveries again. The only time he looked decent against Australia last time was when England were trying to score quickly to declare in the 3rd Test and so the pressure was completely changed. The other 50 he got he was missed 3 times or so and edged plenty more safe. He was fine against weaker sides before that Ashes series, scored 70odd against WI and took the cheap runs on offer against Bangladesh, so just because he's scored runs against Pakistan, India etc. doesn't mean he's turned a corner.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

This is insanity.

Meh, might aswell support you, Geraint.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, I was wondering when you'd show up in this thread.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

you've lost me here trini boy..

I quote you:

"Some people have been saying that Fletcher is a favourite of Jones, so now that he's in charge of the selection process in Australia he drops Read."

Read it. Think about it. Report as to whether that makes any sense at all.

 

[aussie]

ha, well if my knowledge of the England team is correct, when they go on tour the main selectors as it is currently Graveney etc just pick the squad and don't go, so on tour Fletcher & the captain are the one's who decides the final XI.

Sounds good yo?