• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why wasnt Ed Smith not called up?

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Rich2001 said:
When did you jump the fence Marc? - I thought while everyone was calling for Kev' you was saying he was just a slogger and overated, or iam I mistaken with someone else?
No I never said that. What I did do was express concern as to how he would adapt his game to playing International Cricket as I still feel he may be too positive a player which could see some poor dismissals, but as it stands, I can't really see anyone pushing for a place in the middle order (Collingwood aside as IMO if there were a spot available he's take it and not give it up for a long time)
 

Rich2001

International Captain
marc71178 said:
No I never said that. What I did do was express concern as to how he would adapt his game to playing International Cricket as I still feel he may be too positive a player which could see some poor dismissals, but as it stands, I can't really see anyone pushing for a place in the middle order (Collingwood aside as IMO if there were a spot available he's take it and not give it up for a long time)
Sorry, must have been mistaking you with someone else then :)
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
Marc, you surely cannot be serious that England have absolutely no other middle order options...instead they are having to wait on a South African to gain residency?
 

Craig

World Traveller
Langeveldt said:
Naah he wasnt that bad :)

I thought Nathan Hauritz was far worse... Like an Aussie Richard Dawson...
Hauritz isnt that bad at ING Cup level. He isnt the worst though.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Tim said:
Marc, you surely cannot be serious that England have absolutely no other middle order options..
I was racking my brains to think of one to back up the current 4, and there's no outstanding candidate IMO.

Pietersen will be next in line when he qualifies, but until then, it's those 4 plus Flinotff are the only ones I can see getting a game.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well, AFAIK he's been announced fit, so he couldn't have broken his ankle... unless he's less than human. :alien8:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Struggling to think - shame Kevin's 6 months away.

I guess someone like Ian Bell would be more likely to get the call than Ramprakash, whose International career is surely over?
Yes, probably more likely.
I'd prefer Troughton to Bell myself.
Still, I think Ramprakash has got a better case than any of them. Even with a New Zealand series around the corner. :(
Bell has no case for selection IMO; one good season 2 years ago. That's all he's done. Because it happened to be his 1st and he'd also done well at near-meaningless U19-cricket, it got people raving about him.
Having seen him play I don't doubt he's got ability, but until he makes it known he's got that ability I don't see how on Earth anyone can call for him to be picked in the Test-matches. Troughton, though, has had two good seasons, on the trot, and should IMO have been ahead of Collingwood who had a poor 2003 in FC cricket.
But of course, the fact that Troughton failed in ODIs (when he should never have been picked ITFP) was given far more weight. APU. :rolleyes:
 

Rich2001

International Captain
Richard said:
Yes, probably more likely.
I'd prefer Troughton to Bell myself.
Still, I think Ramprakash has got a better case than any of them. Even with a New Zealand series around the corner. :(
Bell has no case for selection IMO; one good season 2 years ago. That's all he's done. Because it happened to be his 1st and he'd also done well at near-meaningless U19-cricket, it got people raving about him.
Having seen him play I don't doubt he's got ability, but until he makes it known he's got that ability I don't see how on Earth anyone can call for him to be picked in the Test-matches. Troughton, though, has had two good seasons, on the trot, and should IMO have been ahead of Collingwood who had a poor 2003 in FC cricket.
But of course, the fact that Troughton failed in ODIs (when he should never have been picked ITFP) was given far more weight. APU. :rolleyes:
I agree with some of that Richard, IMO like you say Bell hasn't performed to his true ablity in the last couple of seasons, But his OD games has improved alot with him bowling a bit now.

Troughton is doing ok, but I think you were being a bit unfair on saying he should have been picked above Colly after last seasons stats. If I recall correctly Colly was out with a injury for over half of the season, and he only had time for 4 matches when he returned, also IMO you need to take the team he plays for into account Durham aren't the best of sides infact in the whole of last season any amount of games only 3 players avg'ed over 40 (2 of them only played 1 match each and the other was a Aussie) So it suggests to me that he does get much time out in the middle (batting at 4/5 as well) to actually score any runs, so his avg of the low 30's with over 5000 runs isn't as bad as it looks.

And mainly the reason why IMO Colly should be ahead is the fact he has proven himself in the ODI and dersevers the step up.

And as I haven't mentioned Kent in a while, G.Jones could have quite easliy slipped into the middle order, there was no need for Andy Strauss to be called up :D
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
IMO Jones is likely to make a better middle-order batsman than Strauss ever will. What a waste of a plane ticket, flying Strauss all that way for... what? Why didn't they just content themselves with Collingwood and Jones?
Yeah, you're right that Collingwood was out for a lot of last season (closer to 2\3s than 1\2) but despite that unfortunate fact, he still didn't do well in his few First-Class games. Love, Aussie or not, did. The substandardness of Muchall, Thorpe, Pratt, Mustard, Peng, etc. and the fact that Lewis and Gough had disappointing seasons doesn't IMO say anything about Collingwood. If he'd played well he'd still have had a better average than he did.
His long-term First-Class record isn't especially relevant - 1999 is a long time ago - and in 2001 and 2002 Collingwood's First-Class form was good. But, simply, I don't believe it's ever a great idea to pick a player whose most recent games \ season hasn't been good.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wasn't Strauss due to join the ODI squad anyway? Therefore it can't be a waste of a plane ticket. In fact, they may have even gotten a better deal this time around. :P
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain
Richard said:
IMO Jones is likely to make a better middle-order batsman than Strauss ever will.
Got any reasons for that?

I prefer not to move openers down the order, but it's not immediately obvious to me why someone who normally opens shouldn't be able to do well in the middle order as long as he isn't one of these nervous nellies who simply cannot stand waiting around to bat. Strauss isn't that sort: he's a pretty level-headed sort of chap and wouldn't be fazed at going in out of position. And he's not opening because it keeps him away from spinners, either, because he's a pretty competent all-round bat.

I haven't seen Jones bat, so I've nothing to go on for a comparison, but I've been reasonably impressed with Strauss - not so much that I'm jumping up and down saying "Pick him!" but enough that I don't think I'd mind him being picked.

So what's Jones got that Strauss hasn't? (Don't say "Welsh ancestry.")


What a waste of a plane ticket, flying Strauss all that way for... what? Why didn't they just content themselves with Collingwood and Jones?
Yeah, you're right that Collingwood was out for a lot of last season (closer to 2\3s than 1\2) but despite that unfortunate fact, he still didn't do well in his few First-Class games. Love, Aussie or not, did. The substandardness of Muchall, Thorpe, Pratt, Mustard, Peng, etc. and the fact that Lewis and Gough had disappointing seasons doesn't IMO say anything about Collingwood. If he'd played well he'd still have had a better average than he did.
His long-term First-Class record isn't especially relevant - 1999 is a long time ago - and in 2001 and 2002 Collingwood's First-Class form was good. But, simply, I don't believe it's ever a great idea to pick a player whose most recent games \ season hasn't been good.
Remind me how badly he did in Sri Lanka and in the rather farcical game between indeterminate numbers of Englaish tourists and Jamaicans, which for some reason I think happened after the end of the English season and might have a certain relevance to this discussion.

Even so, I can't understand why you're debating Jones when the majestically super-duper Rikki Clarke is hovering in the wings after his formidably impressive tour of Bangladesh.

Cheers,

Mike
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Tim said:
Marc, you surely cannot be serious that England have absolutely no other middle order options...instead they are having to wait on a South African to gain residency?
No, it's just because he's damn good and Rice managed to turn him from an average batsman who relied more on his off-spin in South Africa into a dominating batsman who bowls some off-spin, which has fallen away, which is a shame. He's too good to leave out. There isn't a lack of batsmen, it's just that the selectors don't pick players who deserve a chance or work with ones who have shown promise...
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Well, AFAIK he's been announced fit, so he couldn't have broken his ankle... unless he's less than human. :alien8:
Or more than human :P
 

Craig

World Traveller
Richard said:
Yes, probably more likely.
I'd prefer Troughton to Bell myself.
Still, I think Ramprakash has got a better case than any of them. Even with a New Zealand series around the corner. :(
Bell has no case for selection IMO; one good season 2 years ago. That's all he's done. Because it happened to be his 1st and he'd also done well at near-meaningless U19-cricket, it got people raving about him.
Having seen him play I don't doubt he's got ability, but until he makes it known he's got that ability I don't see how on Earth anyone can call for him to be picked in the Test-matches. Troughton, though, has had two good seasons, on the trot, and should IMO have been ahead of Collingwood who had a poor 2003 in FC cricket.
But of course, the fact that Troughton failed in ODIs (when he should never have been picked ITFP) was given far more weight. APU. :rolleyes:
IMO if Troughton hadnt lost form from the Natwest Series & Challenge he might have been in a few Test squads.

Bell is good enough for ODIs.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Rik said:
There isn't a lack of batsmen, it's just that the selectors don't pick players who deserve a chance or work with ones who have shown promise...
Which ones are you talking of here.

The problem is our middle order is pretty set, and it needs to be a very good performance to dislodge one of them long term.
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
Which ones are you talking of here.

The problem is our middle order is pretty set, and it needs to be a very good performance to dislodge one of them long term.
I was talking about the middle order batsmen who are waiting in the wings. You stated you couldn't think of any, but I can think of quite a few.

England's middle order is fine with Butcher, Nass and Thorpe, as long as Nass scores enough runs his experiance is needed.
 

Top