Wrongful Droppings

[TheJammyTurtle]

Matt Henry being dropped by New Zealand for the World Cup when he was their best seamer along with Boult.

 

[hendrix]

He was our fourth best seamer.

 

[TheJammyTurtle]

Who was ahead of him then?Hw was performing better then Milne at the time and Milne hardly justified his inclusion ahead of him in the World Cup.

 

[Flem274*]

peter ingram got run out by his partner twice and never played another test

i will not let this go

 

[hendrix]

Who was ahead of him then?Hw was performing better then Milne at the time and Milne hardly justified his inclusion ahead of him in the World Cup.

Errr, did you watch much of the world cup? Milne was awesome. Impossible to get away even on those flat pitches, a perfect foil adding to the pressure that Southee and Boult build with their early spells. He absolutely justified his inclusion.

Southee, Mills and Boult were equal first picked bowlers, but only as opening bowlers. Milne was the first choice third seamer. McCleneghan was the second choice 3rd seamer. Henry leapfrogged McCleneghan due to the latter's lack of match time.

 

[wpdavid]

Ramprakash after his debut 1991 WI series, where he'd regularly kept reaching 25 or so against Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh & Patterson so without staying there and making the good score that would have seen him up and running in test matches. With all due respect to the kiwis, the 1992 tour of NZ should have been a chance for him to establish himself in the side, but the selectors thought otherwise and we know the rest.

Thorpe was replaced by Craig White for the first few home tests in 1994. Good call Illy.

 

[Daemon]

Pankaj Singh.

 

[GIMH]

Phil Hughes in 2009. An absolute joke of a decision.

The 2009 one was probably right, and your mate Watson did a job. It was 2013 where I felt he was stiffed.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah I felt Hughes' 2013 dropping was worse. He'd just scored a 70-dd in that partnership with Agar to keep Australia in the match.

 

[Furball]

The 2009 one was probably right, and your mate Watson did a job. It was 2013 where I felt he was stiffed.

Nah. Was a complete panic selection.

Up until that point Hughes was averaging high 50s in Shield Cricket, had averaged 60 on his first tour to South Africa (a harder tour for an opening bat) and dominated early county cricket. The selectors **** the bed because he had a couple of poor innings when all the available evidence suggested he would work things out and score good runs.

You just don't lose faith in a batsman that good that quickly.

I forgot about 2013, an equally dreadful decision.

 

[andruid]

Boycott. After a double century too

 

[GIMH]

Nah. Was a complete panic selection.

Up until that point Hughes was averaging high 50s in Shield Cricket, had averaged 60 on his first tour to South Africa (a harder tour for an opening bat) and dominated early county cricket. The selectors **** the bed because he had a couple of poor innings when all the available evidence suggested he would work things out and score good runs.

You just don't lose faith in a batsman that good that quickly.

I forgot about 2013, an equally dreadful decision.

Nah, the evidence was that he was struggling with Freddie (and Harmison, who wasn't back in the side just yet).

Young players are especially best taken out of the firing line in those circumstances. Far more damaging in the long-term to keep someone in who is struggling. However, the way he was handled afterwards (throughout his international career really) was very poor anyway.

Not sure South Africa is a harder place for openers than England, unless you're specifically referring to the bowlers at the time.

And as I said, Watson did well that series. Sure, in the long run his 50 and outs may have been insufficient, but he did what was needed of him in that series (with the bat. Was way off with the ball on the rare occasions he was called upon). You can't just look at the player dropped, who replaced them matters as well. Everyone thought it was a bad dropping before a ball was bowled, but unless we're going to be all Richard about it (who specifically posted that it would remain a horrendous decision if Watson scored 271* or words to that effect) then it's hard to say it did not pay off as a decision.

Yes, you may argue that Hughes could have gone on to score big in that series etc etc. We will never know. But the decision worked out. I don't think it belongs in here; it's the way they handled him afterwards that was poor.

 

[mr_mister]

Hughes test career never really recovered did it

 

[ImpatientLime]

yeah i'm not so sure hughes being dropped in 2009 was the worst decision. he had a glaring technical deficiency exposed and ruthlessly exploited.

i mean i know he never looked the best, even when in form. but he looked terrible in those first two tests because england just didn't give him any width.

 

[weldone]

Ganguly

 

[mr_mister]

yeah i'm not so sure hughes being dropped in 2009 was the worst decision. he had a glaring technical deficiency exposed and ruthlessly exploited.

i mean i know he never looked the best, even when in form. but he looked terrible in those first two tests because england just didn't give him any width.

so youre saying they had to bowl short to stop him from feasting on their bowling ala bodyline

 

[fredfertang]

Boycott. After a double century too

Good one, though there was a precedent, so he had been warned

 

[Immenso]

Amre

 

[adub]

dizzy. After a double century too

efa

 

[vic_orthdox]

Obviously not the most popular guy around here, but Hodge's dropping only four innings after a double century was stiff.