James Troughton

[Rik]

His FC form suffered a bit, too, after The NatWest Series. If he keeps his FC form up when a Test-place becomes available, he surely must be one of the first in-line.

I doubt that. Anthony McGrath's selection made it possible for the England selectors to pick anyone regardless on ability or record.

Troughton looks like an Owais Shah to me, will score loads of runs in FC cricket but only will be picked in ODIs and when he doesn't do amazingly well in them, gets dropped and never will get close to the Test side.

 

[marc71178]

There hasnt been a Graham Smith or a Ricky Ponting, who have just looked destined to do well in the big time from a young age...

Bell seems to have a lot of votes in that respect (even though he's yet to be given a go in the middle order)

 

[marc71178]

Regarding Jamie Troughton (if I remember rightly he was actually christened Jamie and has never been called James)

It's Jim more than Jamie.

for me he was picked for the wrong form of the game. His List-A OD record isn't great (not as poor as some, but not something suggesting ODI calibre) and his selection for ODIs was IMO a bad idea.

Spot on. His 2nd season didn't match up to his first quite that much, but not as bad as a lot of second season players (Bell anyone?)

His FC form suffered a bit, too, after The NatWest Series. If he keeps his FC form up when a Test-place becomes available, he surely must be one of the first in-line.

As a Bears fan he deserves a go, but IMO so do Bell and Wagh - it's nice to have a 3,4,5 all under 25, English and reasonably good players!

 

[badgerhair]

If you ask me, Habib got a raw deal. To describe him as a comedy act is just a touch unfair. I was glad he was dropped when he was, but he has a good FC-record and to only play 3 Test innings isn't really a fair chance.

I presume you didn't actually watch him play for England, then. Footwork non-existent or wrong, with the bat held as far as possible from the body. It is a complete mystery how such a bad batsman makes any runs at all. (But see Ormond)

Similar to Ed Smith, though he got a bit more of a chance than Habib did. But a player who, by all accounts, should have suceeded but I'm glad failed as I think there are better players around (Thorpe in Smith's case, Atherton in Habib's).

I'm glad they aren't picking Smith now. I'd just about managed to learn to tolerate Stewart's interminable bat-twirling, but a career of any length for Smith and I'd have been driven out of my mind by his mannerisms at the crease.

Rik seems impressed by Smith's deliberate text-book shots against medium pace bowling on a slow pitch. I'm less impressed by his horrid shots dabbed in gully's direction when the bowling is a bit more challenging, but I'm just a touch picky that way.

Given where this thread started, we have a plethora of interesting-looking young batsmen, some of whom will probably make it, though Hutton knows which. It is incumbent on them, therefore, to make the most of their opportunities when they transpire.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Rik]

I presume you didn't actually watch him play for England, then. Footwork non-existent or wrong, with the bat held as far as possible from the body. It is a complete mystery how such a bad batsman makes any runs at all. (But see Ormond)

Because he has a fantastic eye and you can't fluke an average of 40+

I'm glad they aren't picking Smith now. I'd just about managed to learn to tolerate Stewart's interminable bat-twirling, but a career of any length for Smith and I'd have been driven out of my mind by his mannerisms at the crease.

Mannerisms have never been a reason to drop a player.

Rik seems impressed by Smith's deliberate text-book shots against medium pace bowling on a slow pitch. I'm less impressed by his horrid shots dabbed in gully's direction when the bowling is a bit more challenging, but I'm just a touch picky that way.

I was impressed by his obvious amount of time he had to play his shots, his range, the way he played them which reminded me of some of the great England batsmen. He obviously had talent and shouldn't have just been dumped, why not send him to an academy to iron out a few flaws? Anyone who is willing to play his shots is likely to play a loose one every so often.

 

[Craig]

Mark Wagh is one of the those batsmen who goes about his business scoring his runs and taking wickets when he bowls, without going out and making large statments in the media (if he has, I have heard of it) about this and that.

He has a decent record and not a bad batsman.

 

[Richard]

I doubt that. Anthony McGrath's selection made it possible for the England selectors to pick anyone regardless on ability or record.

Troughton looks like an Owais Shah to me, will score loads of runs in FC cricket but only will be picked in ODIs and when he doesn't do amazingly well in them, gets dropped and never will get close to the Test side.

McGrath was by no means an isolated case - Dawson, Harmison, Foster, Maddy, Adams, all recent examples of baffling selections when all logic in the form of domestic averages suggested against. Because of circumstances McGrath still has a fantastic Test record (40 with bat, 15 or something with ball) and Harmison has an average of under 30 when by all accounts it should be about 40. The rest have all been ruthlessly exposed as terrible selections.
Troughton, Shah and in the other respect Knight and Hick are infuriating cases, but Pakistani and Sri Lankan selectors especially do the stupid mixing-up of the game-forms all the time. They also do the strange, baseless selections when domestic averages suggest otherwise, and like everyone else, it fails most of the time.

 

[Richard]

I'm not glad Ed Smith failed, because nearly every shot I saw him play looked total quality. He looked the most stylish batsman I've seen for a long time, playing for England, and that even includes Michael Vaughan. Smith had that Mark Waugh esq ease of stroke and time to play the shot, Vaughan has time but seems to put too much effort into how the shot looks, for example his pull shot he will stand there for ages after he's played it.

I know what you mean - Smith, quite simply, must be a good player, he has a First-Class average of 40 over quite a few years. You don't really need to watch him to know that, but having done so his ability is clear to see. However, I'd prefer have seen this:
Trescothick
Vaughan
Butcher
Hussain
Stewart
Thorpe
than this:
Trescothick
Vaughan
Butcher
Hussain
Smith
Stewart
which is what we saw.
And frankly, Smith can't argue with his axing when it came. He played some poor shots to get out; fair enough, he was unfortunate in his innings at The Oval being lbw to one going over the top, but in the previous 4 occasions he played 4 poor shots to get out while scoring just 74(?) runs.
Certainly he's one to give another go whenever the place becomes available, but he's got to keep scoring the runs - and you can bet if he's averaging 45 and someone else who's averaging 70 that season with a career average of 30, there will be far more calls for the latter player from the public and Press. It will be up to the selectors to make the right choice.

 

[Richard]

Bell seems to have a lot of votes in that respect (even though he's yet to be given a go in the middle order)

And that's a crying shame - up to the start of 2002, that respect applied almost to a teed with Bell. From 2002, when he was put too high in the Warks order, he started failing and no-one can have any qualms whatsoever over his non-selection for Tests.
If Warks could just select this next season:
Powell
Knight
Wagh
Ostler
Bell
Troughton
then I'm sure it would help everyone. Dominic Ostler being pitched in where he was last season was a terrible waste of a player who had shown his undoubted class the previous 2 seasons and it clearly didn't help Bell either.

 

[Richard]

It's Jim more than Jamie.

How many young men these days are called "Jim"?
Honestly, James Anderson made it clear as quickly as he could that he hated being called "Jimmy"; does Jamie Troughton honestly like being called "Jim"?

 

[Rik]

I know what you mean - Smith, quite simply, must be a good player, he has a First-Class average of 40 over quite a few years. You don't really need to watch him to know that, but having done so his ability is clear to see. However, I'd prefer have seen this:
Trescothick
Vaughan
Butcher
Hussain
Stewart
Thorpe
than this:
Trescothick
Vaughan
Butcher
Hussain
Smith
Stewart
which is what we saw.
And frankly, Smith can't argue with his axing when it came. He played some poor shots to get out; fair enough, he was unfortunate in his innings at The Oval being lbw to one going over the top, but in the previous 4 occasions he played 4 poor shots to get out while scoring just 74(?) runs.
Certainly he's one to give another go whenever the place becomes available, but he's got to keep scoring the runs - and you can bet if he's averaging 45 and someone else who's averaging 70 that season with a career average of 30, there will be far more calls for the latter player from the public and Press. It will be up to the selectors to make the right choice.

Yeah I would have preffered to see Thorpe in there. But Smith deserved a go and I don't see why someone with obvious talent should be dumped totally from the set-up. Why not send promising players to academies or organise them going to other countries to improve? Why should it all be down to the player? If a player needs to iron out a few flaws before he becomes a selectable player again, why not help him out or advise him what to do or what he needs to change?

 

[Richard]

I presume you didn't actually watch him play for England, then. Footwork non-existent or wrong, with the bat held as far as possible from the body. It is a complete mystery how such a bad batsman makes any runs at all. (But see Ormond)

I did see the First and Second New Zealand Tests and no-one disputed he looked dreadful, but I've also seen him elsewhere and by all accounts his Test play was completely out of character. He can justifiably claim to have got a raw deal IMO. He has made all the runs he has because he isn't as bad as he looked in the Tests.

Rik seems impressed by Smith's deliberate text-book shots against medium pace bowling on a slow pitch. I'm less impressed by his horrid shots dabbed in gully's direction when the bowling is a bit more challenging, but I'm just a touch picky that way.

Smith won't have faced too much medium-pace in his professional career - there aren't many around the county circuit and there certainly weren't any in the South African attack he played against.

 

[Richard]

Mannerisms have never been a reason to drop a player.

I don't, to be fair, think Mike was saying they should have dropped him if he'd averaged 40 against South Africa just because of it - he was just saying that the fidgeting annoyed him watching.

 

[Neil Pickup]

How many young men these days are called "Jim"?
Honestly, James Anderson made it clear as quickly as he could that he hated being called "Jimmy"; does Jamie Troughton honestly like being called "Jim"?

Based on..?

I know more kids who are referred to as "Jim" than "Richard" - most of them (if not all in my experience) call themselves "Rich".. It's Jim Troughton.

 

[Richard]

Yeah I would have preffered to see Thorpe in there. But Smith deserved a go and I don't see why someone with obvious talent should be dumped totally from the set-up. Why not send promising players to academies or organise them going to other countries to improve? Why should it all be down to the player? If a player needs to iron out a few flaws before he becomes a selectable player again, why not help him out or advise him what to do or what he needs to change?

The scrapping of A-tours was a very bad move IMO. There are plenty of worse things to spend the cash on. The National Academy was a good move, but it's different - aimed at 19-23-year-old's; A-teams are age-bias-less.

 

[Richard]

Based on..?

I know more kids who are referred to as "Jim" than "Richard" - most of them (if not all in my experience) call themselves "Rich".. It's Jim Troughton.

Me, I'm "Dickie" to some people, "Rich" to some, "Richie" to others... like to diversity, me.
Jim is a 1950s\60s abbreviation of James. 1990s\2000s boys are more commonly Jamie or Ja.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Which doesn't stop them being called Jim...

 

[badgerhair]

I don't, to be fair, think Mike was saying they should have dropped him if he'd averaged 40 against South Africa just because of it - he was just saying that the fidgeting annoyed him watching.

Absolutely right. What counts for selection is whether he delivers the runs/wickets he's supposed to, not whether or not I find watching the bloke enjoyable or not.

Smith not making the grade is a relief since I don't have to watch his rituals unless I go and watch Kent, and then I will be entirely free to hope that he will be out as soon as possible, as I am bound to be supporting the other side.

Just as I am already fairly pleased that Robert Key has slipped out of the picture: I kept becoming fascinated by what an enormous dome he has and speculating as to whether he is related to one of those dinosaurs with great big hollow things extending their heads rather than watching him bat.

Admittedly, neither of them carried their irritation factors into media interviews, unlike the appalling Stewart, whose addiction to starting every platitudinous and uninformative answer with "Oh, very much so...." ipssed me off no end as well.

But I am prepared to put up with all sorts of irritiating player habits if the player in question is busily scoring hundreds or taking five-fers, or whatever it is they're supposed to do.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

The scrapping of A-tours was a very bad move IMO. There are plenty of worse things to spend the cash on. The National Academy was a good move, but it's different - aimed at 19-23-year-old's; A-teams are age-bias-less.

And what's the point of spending money 28, 29 and 30 year olds when that cash could be spent on 19-23 year olds?

Long Term gain is surely better?

 

[marc71178]

McGrath was by no means an isolated case - Dawson, Harmison, Foster, Maddy, Adams, all recent examples of baffling selections when all logic in the form of domestic averages suggested against. Because of circumstances McGrath still has a fantastic Test record (40 with bat, 15 or something with ball) and Harmison has an average of under 30 when by all accounts it should be about 40. The rest have all been ruthlessly exposed as terrible selections.

Funny how you make that post, but neglect to mention the selections of for example, Vaughan (same series as Adams), Trescothick (came after him).