Gough slams England's selection favouritism

[Precambrian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/7731961.stm

Darren Gough, the top wicket-taker for England in one-day internationals, says selection favouritism is hampering the national team in limited overs cricket.
England have suffered three heavy defeats this month and Gough told BBC Radio 5 Live's Sportsweek the wrong players were being picked.
He said: "I've seen some terrific players in county cricket.
"We won the Hong Kong Sixes with Graham Napier, Dimitri Mascarenhas and Tim Bresnan - they deserve a chance."
The former Yorkshire star, who retired at the end of last season, went on: "We kind of have favouritism in selection.
"England have got potential but we seem to ignore players who, for me, are definite starters in one-day cricket."

England went with Essex star Ravi Bopara over Luke Wright for the first match of the series, but he batted down at number eight and ran out of partners on 54 not out.

"Ravi's a quality player and should bat higher," said Gough, who took 234 wickets in his 158 one-day internationals."If it means Paul Collingwood has to drop down then so be it. Surely the batsman bats above the all-rounder. You can't have Ravi playing in a one-day international and batting at eight, it doesn't make sense.
"He's a quality player, he bats at three for Essex, he gets runs and should bat up the order. I've spoken to Ravi. He's desperate to get that England berth but batting at eight and not bowling?
"Something doesn't seem quite right in the England camp in one-day cricket."
Gough said he sensed problems when England turned up in Antigua for the Stanford Super Series.
"I got the impression from the moment I got there that England weren't going to perform. England lack something in one-day cricket I can't quite put my finger on.

"When you speak to other sports coaches and captains they say people have to know their roles. I don't think England's one-day side know their roles. Our one-day thinking for years has been behind the eight-ball.
"I played in two World Cups and we never looked like winning - we did well to win a game to be honest."
England coach Peter Moores has been criticised in some quarters for showing too much loyalty to Matt Prior and Wright, who previously played under him for Sussex.
Gough said: "We still don't know our best batting order. Matt Prior's batting at the top of the order but has had a few failures now and his confidence might start to go.
"Luke Wright is a good player for the future, but is he good enough to be in the starting XI?"

I wouldn't buy all of those. But some of them does make sense.

 

[four_or_six]

The complete disappearance of Mascarenhas from contention is, for me, pretty bizarre. I think he is >>> Luke Wright, for starters.

 

[Goughy]

I think they are all pretty fair points that he raises.

However, no matter who is selected it will be tough. I dont see England being a World OD power even with the likes of Napier, Bresnan and Bopara featuring prominently.

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah, Dimitri's absence is most notable. What has the guy done wrong to be not in the side while Luke Wright is?

 

[viktor]

Played in the IPL?

 

[Precambrian]

David Hopps of the Guardian also joins the chorus as he asks why England aren't bowling Anderson at the death

Excerpts:

Since Pietersen took over the England one-day captaincy, Anderson has not completed a bowling spell. It is a trend that now stretches back six matches. In might even be taking toll on his confidence because in that time he has taken only one wicket......

Anderson is England's most experienced one-day bowler. In Tests, he has had arguably the most productive year of his international career, taking 34 wickets in seven Tests against New Zealand and South Africa in England last summer. Yet as his Test career advances, his one-day figures have deteriorated.

t is true that Anderson's greatest asset is his ability to swing the new ball, and that this occasionally gives England an electrifying start to the game. It is also true that Anderson can be very hittable in the closing overs with his fuller length and limited variety.

But England seem to have taken a view. At the Maharani Usharage Trust Stadium in Indore, England used Samit Patel, Paul Collingwood and Kevin Pietersen to bowl 18 of their 50 overs. Patel was milked so easily that his five overs costed 37.

..........There will doubtless be talk of how a slow, low pitch justified taking the pace off the ball. And on this occasion Steve Harmison and even Andrew Flintoff did not finish their spells either. When three fast bowlers don't bowl their allocation it invites the question as to whether England fielded the right team.

"We made a good start but we didn't follow it through,'' Pietersen said. "We beat South Africa but it's easier when the ball is swinging and seaming and bouncing. I'm not stupid.'' So where was the senior spinner?

If Anderson is only dangerous with the new ball then run that new-ball spell an over longer. It is often suggested that he swings the white ball more under lights, so perhaps when this tour gets around to Bangalore, Pietersen will be tempted to let him bowl out his 10 overs.

Valid points. Probably if Anderson is not effective, bring in Swann for him.

 

[wpdavid]

Unsurprisingly, Hopps makes rather more sense than Gough. If Swann wasn't deemed good enough to play on today's wicket, why on earther is he in the squad at all?

Regrettably, DG seems to be fast-tracking into the role of a rent-a-quote who occasionally gets something right only on the same basis as monkeys & typewriters. For the most part, this side has been picked because they won all 4 games against SA. To bleat about favouritism is simply a continuation of the victim mentality that has blighted most of his public pronouncements in recent years.

 

[zaremba]

Unsurprisingly, Hopps makes rather more sense than Gough. If Swann wasn't deemed good enough to play on today's wicket, why on earther is he in the squad at all?

Regrettably, DG seems to be fast-tracking into the role of a rent-a-quote who occasionally gets something right only on the same basis as monkeys & typewriters. For the most part, this side has been picked because they won all 4 games against SA. To bleat about favouritism is simply a continuation of the victim mentality that has blighted most of his public pronouncements in recent years.

Very well said. AWTA 100%.

 

[Prince EWS]

Gough's article lost all credibility when he suggest that England should select certain players because they helped them win the Hong Kong Sixes.

The point about Collingwood being an allrounder would only actually be relevant if Collingwood wouldn't make the team on batting alone, too. "You can bowl a bit so you have to bat down the order" is ridiculous. Regardless of which order you bat them in, you're still going to end up with a batsman at #8 unless you drop one of them.

 

[zaremba]

Gough's article lost all credibility when he suggest that England should select certain players because they helped them win the Hong Kong Sixes.

The point about Collingwood being an allrounder would only actually be relevant if Collingwood wouldn't make the team on batting alone, too. "You can bowl a bit so you have to bat down the order" is ridiculous. Regardless of which order you bat them in, you're still going to end up with a batsman at #8 unless you drop one of them.

It also jars a little bit to hear him complain about selectorial favouritism and with the same breath to suggest that his former team-mates Napier and Bresnan should be "definite starters".

 

[GGG]

Gough's article lost all credibility when he suggest that England should select certain players because they helped them win the Hong Kong Sixes.

The point about Collingwood being an allrounder would only actually be relevant if Collingwood wouldn't make the team on batting alone, too. "You can bowl a bit so you have to bat down the order" is ridiculous. Regardless of which order you bat them in, you're still going to end up with a batsman at #8 unless you drop one of them.

Agree about Collingwood, its a bonus that he can bowl and to drop someone a place who averages 35 in ODI's is stupid.

 

[FBU]

David Hopps of the Guardian also joins the chorus as he asks why England aren't bowling Anderson at the death

Excerpts:



Valid points. Probably if Anderson is not effective, bring in Swann for him.

Anderson doesn't get enough overs to be effective. He gets 3 or 4 overs at the most. Pietersen wants instant results. Today Harmison came on bowled 2 overs for 6 runs and then was taken off. . Bowlers need their 5 over spells to make things happen.

Take Collingwood today for example
6-0-32-0
7-0-39-1

It also helps if your captains know what they are doing.

Anderson under
Hussain - 25.18 econ 4.93
Vaughan - 27.60 econ 4.58
Collingwood - 35.22 econ 5.35
Pietersen - 118.00 econ 4.45

I can't fathom why Pietersen is picking Anderson and then showing no confidence in him. As you say rather bring Swann in.

 

[four_or_six]

I wonder if in all his Harmison-love and putting loads of confidence in Harmison that KP is doing, Anderson is losing out by default.

 

[Uppercut]

I wonder if in all his Harmison-love and putting loads of confidence in Harmison that KP is doing, Anderson is losing out by default.

Don't buy it, he just isn't bowling very well.

 

[quick4mindia]

Anderson doesn't get enough overs to be effective. He gets 3 or 4 overs at the most. Pietersen wants instant results. Today Harmison came on bowled 2 overs for 6 runs and then was taken off. . Bowlers need their 5 over spells to make things happen.

Take Collingwood today for example
6-0-32-0
7-0-39-1

It also helps if your captains know what they are doing.

Anderson under
Hussain - 25.18 econ 4.93
Vaughan - 27.60 econ 4.58
Collingwood - 35.22 econ 5.35
Pietersen - 118.00 econ 4.45

I can't fathom why Pietersen is picking Anderson and then showing no confidence in him. As you say rather bring Swann in.

Agree completely.....There are some obvious gaps in his captaincy.....he needs to show more faith on his top bowlers. I was shocked to see Flintoff bowling 9 overs and harmy bowling thelast one.
This is something he needs to learn quickly.

 

[Richard]

Anderson doesn't get enough overs to be effective. He gets 3 or 4 overs at the most. Pietersen wants instant results. Today Harmison came on bowled 2 overs for 6 runs and then was taken off. . Bowlers need their 5 over spells to make things happen.

Take Collingwood today for example
6-0-32-0
7-0-39-1

It also helps if your captains know what they are doing.

Anderson under
Hussain - 25.18 econ 4.93
Vaughan - 27.60 econ 4.58
Collingwood - 35.22 econ 5.35
Pietersen - 118.00 econ 4.45

I can't fathom why Pietersen is picking Anderson and then showing no confidence in him. As you say rather bring Swann in.

Strangest thing is that his record is best under Pietersen.

Possibly because of not bowling at the end, of course.

 

[Richard]

If Swann wasn't deemed good enough to play on today's wicket, why on earther is he in the squad at all?

The only possible reason is David Lloyd, Duncan Fletcher and every England coach's favourite of "you just performed woefully in this game, now it's up to you to put in a much better show in the following game".

Now that hasn't happened, let's hope Swann plays the next match. Provided it's a decent-size ground, of course, I never like to see good spinners playing on really small grounds. It did Swann a fair amount of harm in NZ, seems.

 

[Richard]

The complete disappearance of Mascarenhas from contention is, for me, pretty bizarre. I think he is >>> Luke Wright, for starters.

I've said it a few times, but I've absolutely no doubt Mascarenhas is an unspeakably better bowler than Wright and probably a better batsman too.

However, I'm not sorry to see Mascarenhas out of the side currently as he bowled very poorly last season and good players playing when so out-of-form they can't even perform in domestic cricket is a very bad idea. I hope Mascarenhas gets his form back next season and gets back in the team.

As for Tim Bresnan, last season was the first time in his not-inconsiderable-length career that he looked like a county-standard bowler in either form of the game. Let's leave him for now, shall we?

 

[FBU]

Strangest thing is that his record is best under Pietersen.

Possibly because of not bowling at the end, of course.

Probably because he realises that if he goes for runs he is going to get even less overs.

His economy might look the best under KP but he is not getting any wickets. I don't mind a bowler going for runs if he gets wickets. I would prefer 10-0-53-4 to 10-2-30-0.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't - at least, not normally. If all 4, or 3 of 4, of those wickets have come at the start of the innings with the bowler cleaning-out the top-order, then maybe, yes. But that's extremely unusual.

Such figures mostly result from near-meaningless and utterly-meaningless middle-over and end-of-innings wickets, which any bowler will get if they bowl at the right time and get lucky with the batsmen hitting injudiciously. If someone gets 10-53-4 by taking 1 top-order wicket then being gifted 1 in the 32nd over and a couple more in the 48th, I'll take 10-30-0 over that ANY day.

It's only if they actually knock over the top-order and reduce a side to 70-5 off 15 overs that I'll start to not mind about a bowler being expensive.