*Official* England in Bangladesh

[Johnners]

I don't get you aussie. Just reading this argument suggest to me that you think FC/List A performances mean little, and that selectors should pick almost exclusively on how players look, as opposed to their actual performance output? If you aren't going to reward the players who are performing will in domestic cricket, and pick random players ahead of them, what's the point in having domestic cricket at all? Might as well just pick players on nets form only and hope for the best....

 

[aussie]

Anderson's domestic record is actually really good.

And Luke Wright didn't average 50 with the blade last season.

Oh my mistake i thought i remembered reading somewhere when the test squad was announced for the SA tour that he had averaged 50 for Sussex. But 47.90, is still way above his ability ATM.

Anderson averaged 28 in FC cricket. Gough was 27, we both know who was superior.

Davies FC average if 21 is comaprable to the Great Sir Alec Bedser (an actual great medium pacer) who averaged 20 in FC cricket. Clearly as you can see why FC averages need to be taken as i said with BIG pinch of salt.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't get you aussie. Just reading this argument suggest to me that you think FC/List A performances mean little, and that selectors should pick almost exclusively on how players look, as opposed to their actual performance output? If you aren't going to reward the players who are performing will in domestic cricket, and pick random players ahead of them, what's the point in having domestic cricket at all? Might as well just pick players on nets form only and hope for the best....

What I really don't get is why he expects Morgan, who averaged 24 with the bat in Division 2 last season against a bunch of bowlers he thinks are rank bad and would be slaughtered by any Test standard batsman, is going to do better than that against Test bowlers.

It's one thing to say outrageous success in domestic cricket doesn't mean much, but ignoring someone's failures just because the standard is poor makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Even if success means little, failure has to mean something regardless of the standard. I could see the point of saying someone who averages 40 might be a better pick than someone who averages 65 as the standard is poor and the former batsman has a skillset that is more likely to transfer to Tests than the latter batsman, but expecting someone to vastly increase their output against vastly better bowlers isn't very logical.

 

[Craig]

I will admit that I had never heard of Shahzaduntil now.

 

[aussie]

I don't get you aussie. Just reading this argument suggest to me that you think FC/List A performances mean little, and that selectors should pick almost exclusively on how players look, as opposed to their actual performance output? If you aren't going to reward the players who are performing will in domestic cricket, and pick random players ahead of them, what's the point in having domestic cricket at all? Might as well just pick players on nets form only and hope for the best....

Of course the MAIN prefernece is took pick batsmen & bowlers who have solid FC runs/wickets behind them. But if your FC system is poor as England's is in many area's the selectors after all these years if fans can recognise it - can't be taking all domestic performances on its face value. England can go out their comfort zone & pick players on a raw talent like Morgan, since their is no better young/old batsman in FC cricket who is as good as him ATM. So ENG need to strike a balancing act of picking on FC form if they are really good + a bit of raw talent.

Nations like West Indies, NZ, India (up until recently), SRI, PAK who have poor FC competitons historically have been doing that for years now. You use the WI for example since Gayle/Sarwan debuted in 2000 almost the entire WI team has debuted based on the back of either either raw talent/or patchy FC records.

Australia don't have this problem, basically ALL FC performances can be taken on face value since the standard of shield cricket is still very strong.

 

[aussie]

What I really don't get is why he expects Morgan, who averaged 24 with the bat in Division 2 last season against a bunch of bowlers he thinks are rank bad and would be slaughtered by any Test standard batsman, is going to do better than that against Test bowlers.

It's one thing to say outrageous success in domestic cricket doesn't mean much, but ignoring someone's failures just because the standard is poor makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Even if success means little, failure has to mean something regardless of the standard. I could see the point of saying someone who averages 40 might be a better pick than someone who averages 65 as the standard is poor and the former batsman has a skillset that is more likely to transfer to Tests than the latter batsman, but expecting someone to vastly increase their output against vastly better bowlers isn't very logical.

Ravi Bopara slaughterd Divison 2 bowling for Essex before test selection vs WI 2008. Smoked a WI attack who was probably dvision 2 standard & failed miserably in the Ashes againts proper bowling - plus looking distinctly average in ODI cricket (although he has had his moments). Generally he has not looked international standard.

Morgan may not have had poor FC season in DIV 2 last season - plus has an overall average FC record. But unlike Boapra he has looked superb/international quality in ODIs & given that ENGs middle-order batting depth is gash, ENG can risk given Morgan a go even without much of FC record behind him. His talent is obvious..

 

[Johnners]

Of course the MAIN prefernece is took pick batsmen & bowlers who have solid FC runs/wickets behind them. But if your FC system is poor as England's is in many area's the selectors after all these years if fans can recognise it - can't be taking all domestic performances on its face value. England can go out their comfort zone & pick players on a raw talent like Morgan, since their is no better young/old batsman in FC cricket who is as good as him ATM. So ENG need to strike a balancing act of picking on FC form if they are really good + a bit of raw talent.

Nations like West Indies, NZ, India (up until recently), SRI, PAK who have poor FC competitons historically have been doing that for years now. You use the WI for example since Gayle/Sarwan debuted in 2000 almost the entire WI team has debuted based on the back of either either raw talent/or patchy FC records.

Australia don't have this problem, basically ALL FC performances can be taken on face value since the standard of shield cricket is still very strong.

This has got to be the worst example ever.

Dare I suggest that it is when you start moving away from selecting players based on domestic results/performances, that you start to struggle. I know the England domestic scene isn't the greatest, but to suggest it's as poor as the WI, and therefore that's why you should be pay little notice to FC/List A performances is quite simply flabbergasting.

 

[FBU]

Oh my mistake i thought i remembered reading somewhere when the test squad was announced for the SA tour that he had averaged 50 for Sussex. But 47.90, is still way above his ability ATM.

Anderson averaged 28 in FC cricket. Gough was 27, we both know who was superior.

Davies FC average if 21 is comaprable to the Great Sir Alec Bedser (an acutaly great medium pacer) who averaged 20 in FC cricket. Clearly as you can see why FC averages need to be taken as i said with BIG pinch of salt.

I don't think Davies would be fit enough to play international cricket. He has never managed a full season, last season 9 matches, 19 wickets at 29.57.

 

[aussie]

This has got to be the single most worst example ever.

Probably because you dont follow WI cricket.

Perfect example. Fidel Edwards was picked basically he bowled to Brian Lara in the nets twsted him & on debut ran through a quality SRI batting line-up - he had no serious FC experience. His talent was obvious from test one. So its not as if picking players based on how they look isn't something that can't be done.

 

[Johnners]

Probably because you dont follow WI cricket.

Perfect example. Fidel Edwards was picked basically he bowled to Brian Lara in the nets twsted him & on debut ran through a quality SRI batting line-up - he had no serious FC experience. His talent was obvious from test one. So its not as if picking players based on how they look isn't something that can't be done.

Have edited, was more I forgot to put in.

 

[aussie]

This has got to be the worst example ever.

Dare I suggest that it is when you start moving away from selecting players based on domestic results/performances, that you start to struggle. I know the England domestic scene isn't the greatest, but to suggest it's as poor as the WI, and therefore that's why you should be pay little notice to FC/List A performances is quite simply flabbergasting.

I was never suggesting ENG FC cricket competition is as bad as WI domestic competition (although you could argue in some area's of Division 2 it probably is) & thus its a reason to play little notice to FC/list A performances.

I was refering to your point where you mischarcterised my position by stating this:

I don't get you aussie. Just reading this argument suggest to me that you think FC/List A performances mean little, and that selectors should pick almost exclusively on how players look, as opposed to their actual performance output?

My point is their is NO clear better qualified batsman in FC cricket whether they have FC form or not who is better than Morgan ATM. Morgan without doubt is the best middle-order back-up ENG outside the test quartet of Trott/KP/Colly/Bell - thus should have been on the tour to BANG.

Morgan's current legimtimate challengers would range from Shah, Andrew Gale, Ed Joyce, James Taylor, Bopara Joe Sayers, Hilderth, Alex Gidman (im stetching it here with the last 3 names). Not any quality competition although some could argue a case for Ed Joyce.

So clearly its a case where ENG can go againts tradition & risk picking Morgan based basically on ODI form & the fact that he just looks the goods, simple. If he ends up failing ENG will no for sure our depth is worse than they think, but i dont mind putting my head of a block for Morgan ATS..

 

[Furball]

Oh my mistake i thought i remembered reading somewhere when the test squad was announced for the SA tour that he had averaged 50 for Sussex. But 47.90, is still way above his ability ATM.

Anderson averaged 28 in FC cricket. Gough was 27, we both know who was superior.

Davies FC average if 21 is comaprable to the Great Sir Alec Bedser (an actual great medium pacer) who averaged 20 in FC cricket. Clearly as you can see why FC averages need to be taken as i said with BIG pinch of salt.

Anderson's FC average of 28 includes Tests. Take his Test stats out of the equation, and Anderson's First Class record is excellent.

 

[Furball]

Morgan's looked good in one form of the game, where his talent and innovation can flourish, until he can settle down and play good long form innings then selecting him on the basis of a few ODI performances is just stupid.

 

[aussie]

Anderson's FC average of 28 includes Tests. Take his Test stats out of the equation, and Anderson's First Class record is excellent.

So...?

All i can see that to mean is that if lets say his FC average would go down to 22-23 if you take out his test record. His test average puts his overall FC average into proper context.

Morgan's looked good in one form of the game, where his talent and innovation can flourish, until he can settle down and play good long form innings then selecting him on the basis of a few ODI performances is just stupid.

No it would be stupid NOT to consider him given the last batsman who had a season of good "long form" innings againts joke domestic bowlers in Bopara - ended up looking woeful in test cricket in the Ashes againts a proper international attacks. Added to fact that is CLEAR no other batsman in England outside the main middle-order quartet in Trott/KP/Colly/Bell - in Shah, Andrew Gale, Ed Joyce, James Taylor, Bopara Joe Sayers, Hilderth, Alex Gidman ARE better than him. So yes he can given a go based on ODI form already.

Plus its not as if his entire ODI career has just been where he has JUST displayed innovation, where he has had to slog out, use his reverse sweeps etc. His innings vs Sri Lanka in the Champions Trophy he had to battle test match style initally & build his innings in order to aid England to victory - just like how Andrew Symonds had to do in his famous 143* in WC 2003.

But just to make sure i'm clear. A good FC record before test selections always remains the preferred course when selectiong players for tests. Just that in Morgan's & England's case for reasons i've already stated - he CAN make the jump in test match cricket already especially for this current tour to Bangladesh.

 

[Furball]

So...?

All i can see that to mean is that if lets say his FC average would go down to 22-23 if you take out his test record. His test average puts his overall FC average into proper context.




No it would be stupid NOT to consider him given the last batsman who had a season of good "long form" innings againts joke domestic bowlers in Bopara - ended up looking woeful in test cricket in the Ashes againts a proper international attacks. Added to fact that is CLEAR no other batsman in England outside the main middle-order quartet in Trott/KP/Colly/Bell - in Shah, Andrew Gale, Ed Joyce, James Taylor, Bopara Joe Sayers, Hilderth, Alex Gidman ARE better than him. So yes he can given a go based on ODI form already.

Plus its not as if his entire ODI career has just been where he has JUST displayed innovation, where he has had to slog out, use his reverse sweeps etc. His innings vs Sri Lanka in the Champions Trophy he had to battle test match style initally & build his innings in order to aid England to victory - just like how Andrew Symonds had to do in his famous 143* in WC 2003.

But just to make sure i'm clear. A good FC record before test selections always remains the preferred course when selectiong players for tests. Just that in Morgan's & England's case for reasons i've already stated - he CAN make the jump in test match cricket already especially for this current tour to Bangladesh.

Bopara had also shown his calmness and composure in difficult chases vs Sri Lanka in the World Cup, and in an ODI against India in 2007. ODI performances mean **** all.

 

[aussie]

Bopara had also shown his calmness and composure in difficult chases vs Sri Lanka in the World Cup, and in an ODI against India in 2007. ODI performances mean **** all.

Bopara never convinced me as an ODI player even with those performances, nor was i ever fond of his future test match credentials either & that uncertainly about him was eventially proven in the Ashes last year. So for me this is irrelevant.

With Morgan it is totally different i see endless potential, he clearly IS the most young batsman available to ENG ATM behind the current test match middle-order quartet. If he doesn't become test match quality i will be shocked & ENG will know for sure then our depth is even worst that is currently thought.

So again he already deserves/should have been to given an oppurtunity in the test set-up for this current tour of Bangladesh. Especially when you consider a player like Luke Wright is their who has no future in test match cricket is one tour just making up numbers.

 

[Jarquis]

Reckon Patel's a better batsman than Morgan, even if did have a poor season last year and istoo fat to be picked.

 

[GIMH]

It's getting painful reading England threads lately and these are the main reason I post in CC. I mustn't be thge only person who is thinking this?

 

[four_or_six]

It's almost enough to make you support Australia.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's almost enough to make you support Australia.

Australia threads are the same though. Wonder what the common theme is...