Should Nixon get the WK place in England's test side?

[Pup Clarke]

What's so special about Afzaal?.You seem to mention him in most posts you talk about England's ODI side.

 

[dcnstntn]

I will be massively disappointed if Nixon doesn't get a go.

 

[Richard]

What's so special about Afzaal?.You seem to mention him in most posts you talk about England's ODI side.

His List-A-OD average is better than those of most people of his time's averages have ever been.

 

[open365]

It's all very true - but is it really likely that if X has outperformed Y at the domestic level, Y will then outperform X at the international?

No.

You can only go with those who have done best at the best level you have available. It's wholly unjust to go for someone above an inferior qualified candidate just because "he looks better". And we've seen soooooo many examples of doing that being a terrible idea (Solanki being picked ahead of Afzaal for ODIs, to name one totally random example) anyway.

Matt Prior has a higher list average than Foster and Nixon, but you're totaly against him being in the side, which goes against what you just said there.

It's not about asthetics, it's about their likely hood to acheive at the highest level and statistics alone are not the sole judge on that.

 

[Richard]

Prior has a better List-A-OD record than Read my arse.

I've never advocated Foster's selection in ODIs - never.

 

[open365]

This is a test match debate though, and Prior has a lower list A average than Read yet averages higher at ODI level.

Stats aren't the be all and end all, i'm sorry your love child Afzaal is never going to play but there's more you have to judge a player on than pure figures.

 

[Richard]

Read's ODI career is more impressive than Prior's.

I don't care which average is higher.

Stats are indeed not the be-all-and-end-all, but if used carefully they are an analysis of performance, and performance is what matters, at both domestic and international level.

 

[open365]

Read's ODI career is more impressive than Prior's.

I don't care which average is higher.

Stats are indeed not the be-all-and-end-all, but if used carefully they are an analysis of performance, and performance is what matters, at both domestic and international level.

But you can't analyse a players performance at international level when he hasn't played/played for 5 years.

And that's true, but how the hell are you going to get a detailed performance analysis of our wicket keepers in county championship matches? You don't watch them enough and it's incredibly difficult to go deeper than just pure averages at county level without observing their technique and make a judgement as to whether they'll perform at international level.

Hence why Mal Loye isn't in the england team, he has better stats than Vaughan all round (yes, in List A and FC) yet he doesn't have an England career because his technique isn't good enough for international cricket.

 

[marc71178]

His List-A-OD average is better than those of most people of his time's averages have ever been.

Yet it's still mediocre.

 

[Richard]

Not really - it's not outstanding, but it's better than mediocre.

And it's a damn sight better than many "batsmen" who have somehow got picked (Bopara, Yardy, Cook, Loudon, Dalrymple, Prior, Strauss, Key, Troughton, Clarke, Blackwell - who WAS picked for his batting - Shah, Collingwood, Vaughan, Grayson and Solanki all averaged under 30 at the time of their selection).

 

[Richard]

But you can't analyse a players performance at international level when he hasn't played/played for 5 years.

Huh? That's referring to Read and Prior, yes?

And that's true, but how the hell are you going to get a detailed performance analysis of our wicket keepers in county championship matches? You don't watch them enough and it's incredibly difficult to go deeper than just pure averages at county level without observing their technique and make a judgement as to whether they'll perform at international level.

Hence why Mal Loye isn't in the england team, he has better stats than Vaughan all round (yes, in List A and FC) yet he doesn't have an England career because his technique isn't good enough for international cricket.

Loye was a better bet than Vaughan any day.

And Vaughan's First-Class average since he started playing Tests has been waaaay better than Loye's. Hence he's been a better Test performer. Not, of course, that we'd know for certain how Loye would go without him playing, which he hasn't. And he's been one of the more unfortunate never to have had a go.

In all these fascinating observations about technique, it's still impossibly essential not to overlook the most important thing about batting - the scoring of runs. Having a good technique is not an automatic proviso to scoring runs, and equally having a poor one doesn't stop you being a hell of a good player - look at Gary Kirsten, for instance.

People can get too fussy over technique IMO. It's not the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[Hoppy1987]

whatever happened to nicky peng??

 

[Goughy]

Read's ODI career is more impressive than Prior's.

I don't care which average is higher.

Stats are indeed not the be-all-and-end-all, but if used carefully they are an analysis of performance, and performance is what matters, at both domestic and international level.

How can the word impressive even be in the same sentance as ODI, career and Read? The guy has a top score of 30 in 36 ODIs. Thats pitiful.

 

[marc71178]

Not really - it's not outstanding, but it's better than mediocre.

And it's a damn sight better than many "batsmen" who have somehow got picked (Bopara, Yardy, Cook, Loudon, Dalrymple, Prior, Strauss, Key, Troughton, Clarke, Blackwell - who WAS picked for his batting - Shah, Collingwood, Vaughan, Grayson and Solanki all averaged under 30 at the time of their selection).

You've listed a heck of a lot of players who haven't been picked as batsmen there, Blackwell included (who was a replacement for Flintoff when initially selected, so was not being picked solely as a batsman)

 

[Richard]

How can the word impressive even be in the same sentance as ODI, career and Read? The guy has a top score of 30 in 36 ODIs. Thats pitiful.

You surely wouldn't deny that he's played a fair number of impressive innings?

When you've only once in 22 innings batted above seven and never above six you're none too likely to get any massive scores. But nonetheless I'd say he's played very well on 8 occasions. And perhaps had he batted higher in the order he might have done more.

 

[Richard]

You've listed a heck of a lot of players who haven't been picked as batsmen there, Blackwell included (who was a replacement for Flintoff when initially selected, so was not being picked solely as a batsman)

Afzaal is also a part-time bowler, just like Bopara, Yardy, Loudon, Dalrymple, Troughton, Clarke, Blackwell Collingwood, Vaughan and Grayson, all of whom are principally batsmen. Blackwell was picked principally for batting and you know it. I'd not be amazed if he'd been picked had he never bowled a ball for the previous 2 years.

 

[marc71178]

Afzaal is also a part-time bowler, just like Bopara, Yardy, Loudon, Dalrymple, Troughton, Clarke, Blackwell Collingwood, Vaughan and Grayson, all of whom are principally batsmen. Blackwell was picked principally for batting and you know it. I'd not be amazed if he'd been picked had he never bowled a ball for the previous 2 years.

He averages a fraction over an over per List A game - far less than any of the others who were selected because of their multi-skills.

In fact if you're going to claim that, I'll point out that Kevin Pietersen averages an over more per List A game than Afzaal does, and I wouldn't call him a part-time bowler.

 

[Richard]

So go on then - how many of said names would by your reckoning have not been picked had they bowled as little as Afzaal apparently does?

 

[Goughy]

You surely wouldn't deny that he's played a fair number of impressive innings?

When you've only once in 22 innings batted above seven and never above six you're none too likely to get any massive scores. But nonetheless I'd say he's played very well on 8 occasions. And perhaps had he batted higher in the order he might have done more.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, can play occasional cameos. Never getting past 30 in 36 games whilst being 17 times is terrible. Batting where he does certainly stops him from scoring massive socres but I would hardly say scoring over 30 is a massive score! Also I think where he bats is a fair indication of his ability. He wouldnt bat where he does if he was any good.

Im interested (if you can be inclined to research it to back up your arguement) which other international players that bat 7/8 and have played a similar number of games (ie 20-50) have a highest score lower than Read.

Id bet there is noone on the list that could be seen as even half decent with the bat, if there is anyone at all.

 

[Richard]

Maybe then the problem lies with those who have underestimated Read's batting ability rather than himself.

Eight is usually the preserve of the Rana Naved-ul-Hasans, Brett Lees and Ajit Agarkars (to pick 3 completely random names) and as far as I'm concerned he's far better than that.

I honestly think if you look down his innings there were few opportunities for him to get much more than 30 or so. You can argue that he should have got more not-outs and that's fair enough, I'm certainly not claiming his ODI career to be a picture of magnificence.

But I do think he's done a bit better than you give him credit for. I don't think his cameos have been merely occasional - 8 times out of 22 is more than that.