Very good point! But I don't care if Gough is or isn't there in 2007. Between now and the WC we need someone to give the attack some stability, someone to keep it tight. What is the point in going all-out for youth if it means your more likely to loose? What you need is the young core players and build them into a strong team and keep finding new players, make it a gradual process. Loosing every game doesn't help anyone, especially not young players and their confidence, even if they themselves are doing pretty well. It doesn't really matter if Gough isn't there in a year's time, as long as we find someone who definately will be there for the WC and can do the same job just as well.Richard said:What was the point dropping him if they were going to recall him later?
Either they believe him that he's going to be around in 2007 or they don't!
Well do you expect Anderson to take over Gough's role immediately? Not a chance, we need need to build the team up gradually.Richard said:The one problem with that is it can give a false indication of a young player's ability.
You see, I think England did far better in the summer than the team merited. Had Gough not been there (being the best bowler of the ODIs) I think South Africa would have done better.
The last thing you want is to get 2 years down the line with England being quite successful and then Goughie to retire and suddenly you find-out all these other bowlers aren't anywhere near as good as he helped them look.
Richard said:What was the point dropping him if they were going to recall him later?
Either they believe him that he's going to be around in 2007 or they don't!
Kind of goes without saying, like saying india wouldn't have got as far as they did in the WC without tendulkar, called being a key player.Richard said:The one problem with that is it can give a false indication of a young player's ability.
You see, I think England did far better in the summer than the team merited. Had Gough not been there (being the best bowler of the ODIs) I think South Africa would have done better.
The last thing you want is to get 2 years down the line with England being quite successful and then Goughie to retire and suddenly you find-out all these other bowlers aren't anywhere near as good as he helped them look.
I was just pointing out that i don't think they could have done without his 600+ runs, cannot guarantee that the other batsmen would have made up for his absence, you never can with a player of his magnitude.Richard said:You see I think they would - because the rest of their team is packed with class players too:
Ganguly
Sehwag
Dravid
Yuvraj Singh
Kaif (he is talented, really)
Srinath
And Khan and Nehra did pretty well for most of the tourno too.
Whereas with England, this was their bowlers:
Johnson (List A record very, very poor); Anderson (we all know about him); Harmison (equally, we all know how poor his domestic and international limited-overs record is); Flintoff (we all know how good his one-day records are); Giles (for most of the tournament he looked even worse than normal); then part-timers like McGrath and Vaughan.
I don't, personally, see much that suggests "immidiate international success" there. Gough's influence, IMO, was enormous. I was delighted for him, of course, that he made such a succesful return, but sadly I think it made other bowlers look a little better than they actually are.
Well then this is a fruitless argument, i'll wait until the facts appear.Richard said:You can never gurantee anything.
You can only make a guess on the probablity.