Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

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

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,823

    Morgan vs Carberry: should county cricket be abandoned?

    If performances in county cricket are not being used to select players for the England team, then what purpose does it serve?

    Here, I'm looking at the case of Michael Carberry vs Eoin Morgan....

    In last year's Division One, Carberry scored 1251 runs for Hampshire from 12 matches at an average of 69.5.

    In last year's Division Two, Morgan scored 413 runs for Middlesex from 10 matches at an average of 24.3.

    But, while Carberry plays for Hants against Yorkshire, discarded after only being tried out for one Test in Bangladesh, Morgan makes his Test debut against the same opponents at Lords. Why? Because he makes runs in hit-and-giggle 20/20 cricket, and suddenly finds himself propelled into the Test team ahead of more deserving candidates. That's like saying Kieron Pollard deserves his place in the WI side because he's an IPL star!

    Carberry himself has said that he doesn't know what he needs to do to get selected to play for England, musing that maybe he should've been born outside England....

    This case really rankles me, because it comes after Norman Tebbit made his ridiculous statement about immigrant communities in England supporting cricket teams like India, Pakistan and the West Indies. And yet, here is a guy who's the son of Barbadian and Guyanese parents, born in England, who wants to play for England, and the England selectors give a debut to a mercenary from Ireland, who played for Ireland, who only qualifies on the basis of having played some cricket for Middesex.

    Worse, county cricket should be the yardstick to select players for the longer form of the game, and it's totally disregarded in this selection matter. What happened to the principle of giving a player a run when he's selected? Clearly, that doesn't apply to Carberry, while it will probably be used for Morgan. One law for the Medes, and another for the Persians....

  2. #2
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    1,709
    This case really rankles me, because it comes after Norman Tebbit made his ridiculous statement about immigrant communities in England supporting cricket teams like India, Pakistan and the West Indies. And yet, here is a guy who's the son of Barbadian and Guyanese parents, born in England, who wants to play for England, and the England selectors give a debut to a mercenary from Ireland, who played for Ireland, who only qualifies on the basis of having played some cricket for Middesex.
    Tebbit is a borderline racist and a genuine idiot. I wouldn't worry about anything he's ever said.

  3. #3
    International Regular NasserFan207's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    3,817
    Quote Originally Posted by shivfan View Post
    If performances in county cricket are not being used to select players for the England team, then what purpose does it serve?

    Here, I'm looking at the case of Michael Carberry vs Eoin Morgan....

    In last year's Division One, Carberry scored 1251 runs for Hampshire from 12 matches at an average of 69.5.

    In last year's Division Two, Morgan scored 413 runs for Middlesex from 10 matches at an average of 24.3.

    But, while Carberry plays for Hants against Yorkshire, discarded after only being tried out for one Test in Bangladesh, Morgan makes his Test debut against the same opponents at Lords. Why? Because he makes runs in hit-and-giggle 20/20 cricket, and suddenly finds himself propelled into the Test team ahead of more deserving candidates. That's like saying Kieron Pollard deserves his place in the WI side because he's an IPL star!

    Carberry himself has said that he doesn't know what he needs to do to get selected to play for England, musing that maybe he should've been born outside England....

    This case really rankles me, because it comes after Norman Tebbit made his ridiculous statement about immigrant communities in England supporting cricket teams like India, Pakistan and the West Indies. And yet, here is a guy who's the son of Barbadian and Guyanese parents, born in England, who wants to play for England, and the England selectors give a debut to a mercenary from Ireland, who played for Ireland, who only qualifies on the basis of having played some cricket for Middesex.

    Worse, county cricket should be the yardstick to select players for the longer form of the game, and it's totally disregarded in this selection matter. What happened to the principle of giving a player a run when he's selected? Clearly, that doesn't apply to Carberry, while it will probably be used for Morgan. One law for the Medes, and another for the Persians....
    Morgan was selected on the basis of his odi form. Tbh mate, he's far more talented than Carberry (though I like both of them). Add to the fact that Carberry is 30 and an opener who is probably not as effective as cook or strauss, and you'll see why he's missed out.

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,788
    Where exactly was Carberry suppose to fit in the side with Strauss returning?

    County runs are important but they're not the be all and end all, otherwise we'd still have Mark Ramprakash in the Test side.


  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Irish_Opener View Post
    Morgan was selected on the basis of his odi form. Tbh mate, he's far more talented than Carberry (though I like both of them). Add to the fact that Carberry is 30 and an opener who is probably not as effective as cook or strauss, and you'll see why he's missed out.
    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?

    As for Carberry's age, he's about the same age Colly was when he made his Test debut for England....

  6. #6
    International Coach Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Surbiton, UK
    Posts
    11,560
    Quote Originally Posted by pskov View Post
    Tebbit is a borderline racist and a genuine idiot. I wouldn't worry about anything he's ever said.
    Oh Get on your bike!

    Seriously though a fairly awful man.

    Anyway I was against Morgan being selected but I can certainly see why he was, the guy has clearly got a lot of talent and is surley likely to have a longer test career than Carberry.

    Secondly Carberry has made all his runs as an opener for Hampshire, he is in my opinion quite rightly the first reserve for Strauss and Cook and I think he could do a pretty decent job in Australia if one of them got injured, think he would do well on the pitches out there.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    Where exactly was Carberry suppose to fit in the side with Strauss returning?

    County runs are important but they're not the be all and end all, otherwise we'd still have Mark Ramprakash in the Test side.
    Carberry could fit in at number three, especially with quite a few pundits saying that Trott bats better down the order at five or six, like Bell....

    Yes, county cricket is not the ultimate test, but surely you have to at least be able to pass that test to get into the Test side.

  8. #8
    International Regular NasserFan207's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    3,817
    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?

    As for Carberry's age, he's about the same age Colly was when he made his Test debut for England....
    Well its a strange decision to pick Morgan I guess, but they're going by talent rather than what he's acheived in county cricket. Since its only bangladesh, I guess they just wanted to give him a chance.

    Carberry is an opener, don't forget.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,823
    One ball is all it takes for the number three batsman to become an opener, which is why I feel an opener can easily bat at number three....

  10. #10
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    11,347
    Why pick Carberry at 6 which is where Morgan is playing in this test?

    I like Carberry and think he could/should have been looked at long before but Morgan has shown in one day and 20/20 internationals that he certainly has it mentally to succeed at the highest level.He has been picked like Vaughan was not on his first class record but on the fact they think he will cope mentally with any challenge thrown at him,maybe they don't feel the same with Carberry.

    Anyway Carberry better get some runs in the next few months as Lyth might overtake him as the next in line opener the way he is going.

  11. #11
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,788
    Quote Originally Posted by shivfan View Post
    Carberry could fit in at number three, especially with quite a few pundits saying that Trott bats better down the order at five or six, like Bell....

    Yes, county cricket is not the ultimate test, but surely you have to at least be able to pass that test to get into the Test side.
    True, but had Morgan gone back to Middlesex he'd have played 2 FC games before coming into the ODI side for the series against Australia - with one of the games being against a UCCE side.

    In terms of finding out whether Morgan's got "it", I'm like you in that I'd like to see him prove himself in CC first, but in the long run I think the England management and Morgan are better served by him coming into the side for this series.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Why pick Carberry at 6 which is where Morgan is playing in this test?

    I like Carberry and think he could/should have been looked at long before but Morgan has shown in one day and 20/20 internationals that he certainly has it mentally to succeed at the highest level.He has been picked like Vaughan was not on his first class record but on the fact they think he will cope mentally with any challenge thrown at him,maybe they don't feel the same with Carberry.

    Anyway Carberry better get some runs in the next few months as Lyth might overtake him as the next in line opener the way he is going.
    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.

  13. #13
    International Regular NasserFan207's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    3,817
    That batting line up might make sense if your playing a top test side without collingwood, but we're talking about Bangladesh here. The selectors wanted to experiment with Morgan.

  14. #14
    State Regular L Trumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    906
    If they don't select morgan now, when do they supposed to select him? He has to play all the odis and t20 s during the summer and will hardly play 5 to 6 county games with months of break between them, there is no way he is going to hit big runs with that kind of schedule. Besides its not like they abandoned carberry, if top order does fail he is the next in line as far as I know.

    Also debuts of england batsmen in recent years are generally out of the charts.
    Strauss, Cook, Bell, Trott even KP started with a bang. I think if carberry scored a big hundred in bang tour he probably still be in the team.
    Last edited by L Trumper; 28-05-2010 at 12:43 PM.

  15. #15
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,480
    Quote Originally Posted by shivfan View Post
    But don't you have to earn your place in the Test side?
    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.
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


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
  •