Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: Morgan vs Carberry: should county cricket be abandoned?

  1. #16
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,790
    Quote Originally Posted by shivfan View Post
    But don't you have to earn your place in the Test side? And surely to do so, you need to make runs for Middlesex in the longer version of the game? Otherwise, what's the point of county cricket?
    I believe that if you look at records when selected, the likes of Trescothick, Vaughan and Collingwood didn't scream out as being players who should be picked.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  2. #17
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,920
    Or Flintoff I guess
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  3. #18
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,742
    Quote Originally Posted by shivfan View Post
    This could easily have been the batting order....

    1) Strauss
    2) Cook
    3) Carberry
    4) KP
    5) Bell
    6) Trott
    7) Prior
    etc

    That way, Bell and Trott could concentrate on batting where they score best, down the order. Both of them have generally not enjoyed batting one down.
    Well if England were looking for a permanent replacement or even a one-off Test against a better opportunity for someone to fill in during they might've gone with that, but Collingwood's just being rested.. he'll be back soon so then you'd have to re-re-shuffle the batting order and completely confuse Trott as to what his role is. Resting a player (although I disagree with it in principle anyway) gives an opportunity to select a younger player with talent to get a look at him. Given England decided to rest one of their best batsmen, they were obviously making it pretty clear that they weren't selecting the team on merit for this series to begin with. Giving Morgan experience probably makes more sense than picking Carberry for this series if they reckon he's a future Test regular.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 29-05-2010 at 01:16 PM.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  4. #19
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Not really. England's selectors, quite rightly, have no obligation to principles of fairness in selecting the team. Nor do they have any obligation to pick players who "want" to play for their country. In any case, Morgan always wanted to play for England- trust me, I'm Irish. Your criticisms of him in the opening post are wildly inaccurate.

    They only have an obligation to making the English cricket team as successful as possible. Picking a fantastically talented 23-year-old middle order batsman to bat at 5 in a gimme home series against Bangladesh is surely better for England's long-term interests than shoehorning a 30-year-old opener into a position he's not used to. This is the case even though Carberry is, by any reasonable measure, the better longer-format batsman at this moment in time.
    What a surprise to find Uppercut has already made my point.


  5. #20
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,317
    Why would you stuff around with the line-up that much to put your least qualified batsman in the side batting @ number 3; what is widely seen as the most important position in the side?

  6. #21
    International Coach morgieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Dishing out broken ****ing floggings
    Posts
    11,187
    Hmmm.....but Morgan's a gun for the future, regardless of runs in CC (remember Tres, Vaughan, Collingwood, heck even Flintoff?), whereas Carberry is an ageing county pro. I know which one's my choice.
    5-0

    RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012

    Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.

  7. #22
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,724
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Why would you stuff around with the line-up that much to put your least qualified batsman in the side batting @ number 3; what is widely seen as the most important position in the side?
    England haven't got a number 3. You're advancing the selection of a non-existent player. It's true that 3 is a crucial position that should be filled by an experienced, technically sound player who can both attack and defend well depending on the situation he finds himself in. But there's no one in England who fits the bill, unless you want to shift KP to 3, which I think would be a massive mistake. So I reckon Jonathan Trott is as good an option as any.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  8. #23
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    England haven't got a number 3. You're advancing the selection of a non-existent player. It's true that 3 is a crucial position that should be filled by an experienced, technically sound player who can both attack and defend well depending on the situation he finds himself in. But there's no one in England who fits the bill, unless you want to shift KP to 3, which I think would be a massive mistake. So I reckon Jonathan Trott is as good an option as any.
    I think he was talking about the theoretical lineup with Carberry batting three until Collingwood returned; not the actual lineup.

  9. #24
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,991
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    So I reckon Jonathan Trott is as good an option as any.
    Yes but his score against Bangladesh in this game continues his habit of only scoring runs against sub-standard opposition

  10. #25
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    Yes but his score against Bangladesh in this game continues his habit of only scoring runs against sub-standard opposition


    Ooh that is good and i amazed nobody has pulled you up on it.

  11. #26
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,924
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post


    Ooh that is good and i amazed nobody has pulled you up on it.
    It is good, but perhaps folks are ignoring it because be wasn't batting at 3 when he made his debut ton. You'd have to say the jury's still out wrt Trott batting at 3.

  12. #27
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I think he was talking about the theoretical lineup with Carberry batting three until Collingwood returned; not the actual lineup.
    Ahhh my bad. Thought he was responding to the posts above his.

  13. #28
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,187
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post


    Ooh that is good and i amazed nobody has pulled you up on it.
    1. It was witty
    2. He's not a douche about supporting his team.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  14. #29
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    1. It was witty
    2. He's not a douche about supporting his team.
    Ooh get you mr smarty pants.

  15. #30
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,674
    Becoming less and less sensitised to people moaning about how contemporary form should be the sole determinant of selection. Yes, it's logical. Yes, it fits the noble philosophy of 'pick the eleven that will win you the next Test'. But honestly, it defies belief that there's a furore every single time some young gun gets picked over a form player, especially against a minnow side.

    Why wouldn't you give a player a chance to get his feet wet in international cricket? Moreover, why care if you're going to theoretically steamroll them anyway? Assuming the player's seen as a long-term investment, why not give him a chance to forge a decent Test temperament sooner rather than later?

    It's been shown ad nauseam that domestic form isn't a guarantor of Test ability. See: Hick, Kambli, McGain. None of them - except Hick, who's an outlier - had a chance to develop their ability to mentally adjust to a Test environment.

    Granted, there are exceptions. Must-win Tests are no place for kids. Bell shouldn't have been in the 2005 Ashes, Siddle shouldn't have toured India and Sharma got pushed too hard too early. But it's unbelievably rare that one dud selection has ruined a series for one side. And it's not a certainty they'll be a dud anyway.

    But deadset, the purist outlook on this sort of thing defies belief. It's the thing that chronically gimped the West Indies beyond 1994-95.

    Meritocracy isn't a short-term statistical thing. No, really.
    "The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-10-2009, 10:51 AM
  2. #Link to Cricket Chat forum#
    By Deja moo in forum Testing Forum
    Replies: 8273
    Last Post: 27-08-2007, 07:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •