Best 'Keeper In T' World (nothing to do with batting ability)

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by JohnnyA "yeah, i think we should weaken our team now, not later ... becasue then we will have a weakened team for longer"

It won't be a weaker team for longer, because either way, whenever he retired he would have to be replaced! England might as well find someone who can play WC 2007 from now and let him get adjusted.

"What difference would it make" ... huh? That's silly. By that logic Ambrose and Walsh should have been replaced 10 years ago.

I don't know where in my statement you saw that logic. Stewie is 40! Ten years ago, Walsh and Ambrose were 30.

By that logic we should replace Thorpe and Hussain and Butcher now.

Of course. Seeing as they are all pushing 40. :rolleyes: Where are you seeing 'that logic'??

Sorry. The new keeper should know how to catch the damn ball. You don't need 5 years to learn that!!!

IMO Stewart was not going to be around for WC 2007 and the 4 years is not to teach someone to catch the ball - Read does it better than Stewie. It's to allow England a chance to try different options until the find the right one. up. Now it looks chaotic.

Backward step IMHO, not a forward step. [/B]

Backward step to replace a 40 year man in an ageing batting lineup? Right. :rolleyes:

 

[JohnnyA]

1. One Day Cricket is irrelevant IMO ... Test cricket is the only important game.

2. Stewie hasn't played One Day Cricket since the WC anyway.

3. Age is not a factor ... he can play til 50 if he's still capable. He was the fitest member of the team, and the most important in terms of the balance between batting and bowling.

4. The points about Walsh, Ambrose and the three English batsmen were not serious points ... of course they should not be replaced ... there's no-one good enough to fill their boots ... like Stewie. Playing a mediocrity for 5 years is not gonna turn him into a world beater. By that logic, Bangledesh will be a great team if they stick with the same players. They might be a better team ... but it's not like they're replacing a wolrd class player like Stewie .. so they've nothing to lose.

5. Not wanting to argue ... but the point is that England are getting worse rather than better ... and there's no reason for this to happen, because Stewie could play for 4 or 5 more years.

6. The next in line could get experience playing One Day Cricket (ala Gilchrist and Healy), and then there would be little or no transition to be made (not that there should be any!).

7. You have great chances against England this Spring Mr Mx ... feel grateful we've completely destroyed the once excellent balance of our team

Best,

Jon

 

[PY]

Now it's more like 6 batters, a WK who avaerages in the 20's, and 4 bowlers ... in effect 10 players.

They should never have let Alec retire. Biggest mistake England have made in the last 10 years. It's typical of the reactionary nature of English cricket ...

1) Players' choice (but you've given your opinion on this)
2) How is 6+4+1 = 10? Might be just mis-understanding what you mean.
3) Maybe Stewart wanted to retire at his home ground? Grueling tour of the sub-continent, then not-so-grueling but still harsh tour of WI and then another home series before he could retire at the Oval.

I think it made it more special that it was at The Oval where he's been playing for over a decade.

 

[JohnnyA]

1) Players' choice (but you've given your opinion on this)
2) How is 6+4+1 = 10? Might be just mis-understanding what you mean.
3) Maybe Stewart wanted to retire at his home ground? Grueling tour of the sub-continent, then not-so-grueling but still harsh tour of WI and then another home series before he could retire at the Oval.

I think it made it more special that it was at The Oval where he's been playing for over a decade.

1. My point was that that whether or not Stewart is around for the WC in 2007 is irrelevant. He doesn't have to play One Day Cricket. Test match cricket, and building a team that can beat Austrialia is the most important thing ... the only important thing.

2. Sorry for any confusion, what I meant to say is this: previously we had 7 batters and 5 bowlers. Everyone contibuted to either batting or bowling. Now we have 6 batters, and 4 bowlers, and a "wasted" WK slot. Flintoff's not a number 6 yet ... especially with no cover behind him. If you play 6 batters and Flintoff at 7 (I'm not sure we have 6 bats worthy of a place mind you), then Freddy continues to be overworked as the 4th bowler ... and much more prone to further injury.

Flintoff is the big loser in my opinion. Just like Vaughn, he makes significant strides forward, and is then lumbered with a position that will negatively effect his game. Looking at his recent statements, I think he's upset about this too.

3. I agree that it was a special occasion for Stewart. That might have slightly swayed his decision. But it was a fatalistic decision in my view. Like I said, pure ageism ... he realised everyone wanted him out because of his age, not his ability.

Stewart liked nothing more than playing for England and pulling that cap every morning. Before he made the decision (before the "Vaughn Revolution" :rolleyes: ) Stewart was adament he had no plans for retiring. I firmly believe he was pushed out by the whole cricketing establishment.

As for the up coming "guelling" tours. This opens the issue of player rotation. This will be a growing issues in international cricket. Wouldn't it have been ideal to have blood the new keeper in the lesser series's (Bang and SL) ... and let Stewart rest for the WI tour and next Summer at home? This is of course more relevant for bowlers ...

... and anyway ... it was ageism that forced Stewart out, not common sense, so asking the England management to adopt such a forward thinking plan is absurd. We'll have to wait until the Aussies impose a player rotation system for tours and B2B matches before we copy it :rolleyes:

I'll fire out more baseball analogies soon ... because they're extremely relevant here. Cricket can learn an awful lot about how baseball teams manage their pitchers and propsects. And why is this relevant now and not previously? Because of the huge increase in games, and the huge demands that are now placed on our bowlers. One key difference is that baseball pitchers get 5 or 6 months to rest after the season. Bowlers do not! tHey play all year round. We're miles behind the management techniques used in baseball ... when in fact we have to be miles ahead due to year round cricket. It's odd. I fear we will be witnessing extremely short shelf lives for bowlers in the future -- witness the drop in effectiveness of Shaun Pollock (78-79 mph!!!!), and the spate of injuries suffered by bowlers all round the world (Austrailia inparticular).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

witness the drop in effectiveness of Shaun Pollock (78-79 mph!!!!)

Pollock's loss of pace has done him no harm. He's still bowling economically and is taking wickets at 20 apiece, so what's the gripe?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

6. The next in line could get experience playing One Day Cricket (ala Gilchrist and Healy), and then there would be little or no transition to be made (not that there should be any!).

ODI cricket is very different to Test cricket and exposure to ODI cricket for an extended period before Test cricket can do more harm than good. Look at Ricardo Powell for example. He's played so much OD and ODI cricket and so little FC cricket, that he can't build an innings. He's all but a wasted talent now. Don't go saying that he didn't have the potential, because his technique is quite good. His temperament is shot. He doesn't understand the concept of building and innings and (say it isn't so) batting all day.

 

[JohnnyA]

Pollock is still a very effective bowler. He's extremely clever, and uses what he has to his advantage. His ability to cut the ball on any surface is the key to his success. But if you seen him bowl this summer, you'd agree he looks extremely jaded ... and he's only 30 years old! He has way to many overs under his belt. He's been overbowled for years now.

As for the ODI issue. I've said this previously, but a WK should not need that much time to adjust to test cricket ... the ball comes to you , you catch it, simple. If you can't do this relatively simple task ... your not gonna make the team anyway. Sink or swim.

My point is that the only thing a player should need to acclimatise himself to is the atmoshpere and pressure of international cricket. ODI's can more than do that. That's why it's a good stepping stone. Did Gilchrist need 4 or 5 years to adjust to test match cricket? He was already a stud one day player by the time he made his debut!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As for the ODI issue. I've said this previously, but a WK should not need that much time to adjust to test cricket ... the ball comes to you , you catch it, simple. If you can't do this relatively simple task ... your not gonna make the team anyway. Sink or swim.

I wasn't referring to England needing 4 years to let one 'keepeer get adjusted. I meant that England would be able to try different options until they find a settled one.

 

[JohnnyA]

I wasn't referring to England needing 4 years to let one 'keepeer get adjusted. I meant that England would be able to try different options until they find a settled one.

And I agree that that's what they'll end up doing .. probably to the detriment of the team. Do they need to? ... well you know my views

 

[marc71178]

Essentially with Alec you had 7 batters (Vaughn to Freddy) and 5 bowlers (Freddy to Harmy) = that's 13 players in effect and lots of options.

Now it's more like 6 batters, a WK who avaerages in the 20's, and 4 bowlers ... in effect 10 players.

You what?

In the first example you counted Flintoff asa batsman and bowler, then in the 2nd you decide he's only one of them? How has he changed?

 

[marc71178]

The next in line could get experience playing One Day Cricket (ala Gilchrist and Healy), and then there would be little or no transition to be made (not that there should be any!).

Erm, Read did, impressed a great deal, and hasn't done too bad for his return - 2 career bests, and 7 dismissals in the 2nd Test (including a blinding catch)

 

[marc71178]

As for the up coming "guelling" tours. This opens the issue of player rotation. This will be a growing issues in international cricket. Wouldn't it have been ideal to have blood the new keeper in the lesser series's (Bang and SL) ... and let Stewart rest for the WI tour and next Summer at home? This is of course more relevant for bowlers ...

And what a farce that would be.

Tried rotating with McGrath in the summer - he performed against Zim, so couldn't be left out - but wasn't up to it when it came to the SA series.

Similarly, Johnson has played twice, got 2 man of the matches, but has been dropped again!

Say Read had avergaed 35-40 in the Bang and SL series (although looking at the current World standins, I question your judgment that SL is the lesser series compared to the Windies) - what basis can you possibly have for bringing someone back?

Oh, and as for Stewart loving to play for England - what about India?

 

[JohnnyA]

And what a farce that would be.

Tried rotating with McGrath in the summer - he performed against Zim, so couldn't be left out - but wasn't up to it when it came to the SA series.

Similarly, Johnson has played twice, got 2 man of the matches, but has been dropped again!

Say Read had avergaed 35-40 in the Bang and SL series (although looking at the current World standins, I question your judgment that SL is the lesser series compared to the Windies) - what basis can you possibly have for bringing someone back?

Oh, and as for Stewart loving to play for England - what about India?

McGrath, Ed Smith etc etc etc = mediocrities. They're not test match players. They have no batting technique!! They were droped for being crap, not because they were rotated. McGrath was given ample opportunity to prove himself ... he failed. Has nothing to do with rotation. And Johnson got injured, not dropped.

The same was said in the Premiership when squad rotation started. The established players hated it. Now it's standard practice. The rotation will have to come ... it has too. There are too many games, too many B2B games, too many ODI's, too many innings for the fast bowlers. FAst bowling injuries will amplify out of control unless some sort of lid is put on the workloads.

It's not a question of being dropped ... it's a question of understanding that you need to be fully rested to perform ... especially fast bowlers. England are fortunate to have so many quality fastbowlers. They have to use that depth to their advantage.

Maybe Read is the answer? If he can show me good technique and ballsy batting when the chips are down, he'll be a strong candidate (Foster, to some degree has already shown this). If he can average a solid 30, and regularly contribute to partnerships and competative totals, he'll do for me. We'll have to see about that. Bangledesh are not a good team to judge a person by. An county stats are meaningless (see Ed Smith).

And as for Stewie and India ... he's admitted many times that that was a mistake ... even at the time.

 

[JohnnyA]

Erm, Read did, impressed a great deal, and hasn't done too bad for his return - 2 career bests, and 7 dismissals in the 2nd Test (including a blinding catch)

Bangledesh mate ...

 

[Top_Cat]

McGrath was given ample opportunity to prove himself ... he failed.

4 Tests and in those he scored 2 50's in 5 innings. How is that 'ample' opportunity to prove himself and aside from that, how is that 'failure' averaging 40? I can think of a many players who've been given more chances for England and have genuinely failed. Saying he wasn't up to Test standard is one thing (probably correct there) but saying he failed is harsh. He did everything asked of him which was to score a few runs and contribute with the ball, which is exactly what he did. No-one expected him to be a world-beater.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

McGrath, Ed Smith etc etc etc = mediocrities. They're not test match players. They have no batting technique!!

There are Test players who lack correct technique and yet are still successful.

 

[LankanPrince]

Couldn't agree with you more my man. Take the example of Sanath Jayasuriya. As a Sri Lankan even I think his batting technique is quite poor and outrageous at times, but look at some of his past successes. He has had test scores of 340 vs. India and 213 vs. England even with his extremely unorthodox battting.

However you get some who have no technique and subsequently fail at the top level i.e. Romesh Kaluwitharana. I admit I love him as a player but sometimes he is way too extravagant and plays some of the most ridiculous shots againsts the likes of McGrath and Lee. It is great comedy but his lack of control and orthodox technique mean he won't prosper at test level but will remain a handy ODI player.

 

[JohnnyA]

There are Test players who lack correct technique and yet are still successful.

There's a difference between having a "bad" technique and an "unorthodox" technique. Smith and McGrath looked pretty out of their depth against good bowling.

Jayasuria has a simple technique ... I wouldn't even say unorthodox by today's standards. Chanerpaul is a classic example of a unique, effective unorthodox style. Ugly but effective. Ganguly too.

 

[Rik]

McGrath, Ed Smith etc etc etc = mediocrities. They're not test match players. They have no batting technique!!

Hmmmm, Ed Smith having no technique? Hell I don't rate Mags one bit but to say he has no technique makes me wonder weather you've seen him bat. He's a pretty solid player although he has a big weakness against the short ball and against the moving ball he's a little suspect. Ed Smith has a few flaws but is a really stylish, elegent batsman with time to play his shots. He seemed rather loose at times but a bit more work and he could be a fine batsman for England. He obviously has a lot of talent so I don't feel dropping him completely was the best idea, groom him as the eventual successor to Thorpe.

 

[Rik]

I fear we will be witnessing extremely short shelf lives for bowlers in the future -- witness the drop in effectiveness of Shaun Pollock (78-79 mph!!!!), and the spate of injuries suffered by bowlers all round the world (Austrailia inparticular).

Polly may have dropped in speed, but I can't see any evidence he's dropped in effectiveness, didn't he just recently take 6 wickets and is still averaging under 21 with the ball?