England Squad to Tour SA

[Langeveldt]

Yes - perhaps this time you're right.

What goes against your judgement though (in comparison to that of DF) is that you disagreed with him over Harmison, I seem to recall - and deep down, you still do really.

Harmison would have been out of my England side after his performance in Perth..

And the series in the West Indies could well have been a 2-2 draw.

Ive done the word eating, and he is my first choice bowler for England now..

 

[marc71178]

We know you have, but what's to say Fletcher and co aren't right about Clarke as well?

It took a real boot up the backside to get Harmison performing the way he is now, and similarly for Flintoff (although significantly both took it upon themselves to do something about it after that nudge) - maybe this is Clarke's "boot"?

 

[Langeveldt]

Well, put it this way..

Harmison had pace, yet was very wayward
Clarke cannot breach a wet paper bag, and is very wayward.

It is like a rubbishy simultaneous equation, and it equals failure

I will gladly eat my PC, and peripherals if Clarke takes 100 ODI wickets or scores 1000 ODI...

 

[Andre]

So the moral of the story on here is to agree with you and Neil, and I will also turn out to be correct?

You'll never be correct if you don't have an opinion - merely a force-fed sheep.

 

[badgerhair]

So if I agree with Richard on something, does that mean we're both right?

And besides what is Clarke's role in the ODI team? He is a bits-and-pieces player IMO.

Also I believe Marc isn't exacatly a fan of young Rikki.

Please explain the difference between a "bits-and-pieces player" and an "all-rounder" in terms other than "I don't think much of " and "I like".

I'm another who has yet to be impressed by Clarke, but I'm scratching my head to think of any other up-and-coming players who even seem to offer the combination of batsman/quick bowler all-rounder, let alone actually deliver on the offer. In the absence of any other candidate, persisting with trying to develop Rikki makes a deal of sense. He's clearly very unlikely to provide the kind of fireworks that Fred now does, but it won't upset the balance of the team as much to have an adequately-performing Clarke as his injury replacement as using batsmen who can turn their arms over like Collingwood or Bell.

I mean, who doesn't find the statements that Collingwood has been picked as cover for Flintoff a bit worrying? If it's the management's plan to try and develop at least one player who can step in for Fred and not make a complete idiot of himself, then that's surely to be approved of, isn't it?

So the question which Rikki's detractors have to answer is whom else Team England should be trying to develop into a serious batsman/quick bowler all-rounder who can at least hold the fort while Fred is having surgery or recovering from a torn hamstring.

As a Rikki-detractor, I have to admit that I haven't got a good answer to that question - and until I have, I'm not going to question the wisdom of the selectors' trying to keep him on board. (This may also be the position in which the selectors find themselves, of course: Clarke doesn't seem to be the beneficiary of judicious leaks from the selectors saying they think he's a fantastic prospect, unlke several other young players, so maybe they're just going with him until a real prospect turns up.)

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Craig]

You'll never be correct if you don't have an opinion - merely a force-fed sheep.

Excuse me, but having an opinion is one thing I have never been short of. And how many times have people posted in threads that just fence sit and don't express an opinion and yet you never say anything. Explain that to me.

So what is your point?

 

[Langeveldt]

Please explain the difference between a "bits-and-pieces player" and an "all-rounder" in terms other than "I don't think much of " and "I like".

I'm another who has yet to be impressed by Clarke, but I'm scratching my head to think of any other up-and-coming players who even seem to offer the combination of batsman/quick bowler all-rounder, let alone actually deliver on the offer. In the absence of any other candidate, persisting with trying to develop Rikki makes a deal of sense. He's clearly very unlikely to provide the kind of fireworks that Fred now does, but it won't upset the balance of the team as much to have an adequately-performing Clarke as his injury replacement as using batsmen who can turn their arms over like Collingwood or Bell.

I mean, who doesn't find the statements that Collingwood has been picked as cover for Flintoff a bit worrying? If it's the management's plan to try and develop at least one player who can step in for Fred and not make a complete idiot of himself, then that's surely to be approved of, isn't it?

So the question which Rikki's detractors have to answer is whom else Team England should be trying to develop into a serious batsman/quick bowler all-rounder who can at least hold the fort while Fred is having surgery or recovering from a torn hamstring.

As a Rikki-detractor, I have to admit that I haven't got a good answer to that question - and until I have, I'm not going to question the wisdom of the selectors' trying to keep him on board. (This may also be the position in which the selectors find themselves, of course: Clarke doesn't seem to be the beneficiary of judicious leaks from the selectors saying they think he's a fantastic prospect, unlke several other young players, so maybe they're just going with him until a real prospect turns up.)

Cheers,

Mike

But why do they need a Clarkesque role anyway?

Far better to have a batsman who can bat or a bowler who can bowl fill the gap...

 

[Andre]

Excuse me, but having an opinion is one thing I have never been short of. And how many times have people posted in threads that just fence sit and don't express an opinion and yet you never say anything. Explain that to me.

So what is your point?

You posed a question. I answered it. I didn't think that would be too hard to figure out

 

[marc71178]

But why do they need a Clarkesque role anyway?

Far better to have a batsman who can bat or a bowler who can bowl fill the gap...

I disagree - that would totally disrupt the balance of the side.

 

[badgerhair]

But why do they need a Clarkesque role anyway?

Far better to have a batsman who can bat or a bowler who can bowl fill the gap...

They don't need a Clarkesque role. They already have a Flintoffesque role. And it's not as though Flintoff actually got all that many people excited when he started out in international cricket - he too was regularly rubbished as a mediocre bits and pieces player, though there seem to be vanishingly few people still willing to do that.

It may well be your opinion, and it may well also be mine, that Clarke is extremely unlikely to be a player in the Flintoff mould, but the fact remains that the whole structure of the England team at present relies on Flintoff being a major batsman and a major bowler, and if he is missing, then the team will be very unbalanced unless you can substitute someone who can function as a major bowler and a major batsman.

At present, the menu of people who could even potentially fulfil that understudy role is a very short one. If you can think of anyone other than Clarke who could do it, feel free to nominate them, but until you can, there is damn all point in criticising the selectors for trying to develop the only known possible candidate.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Langeveldt]

At present, the menu of people who could even potentially fulfil that understudy role is a very short one. If you can think of anyone other than Clarke who could do it, feel free to nominate them, but until you can, there is damn all point in criticising the selectors for trying to develop the only known possible candidate.

But surely selecting either a specialist batsman or specialist bowler, even if it disrupts the side, would do more good than having a near passenger playing..

England could take a leaf out of the Aussie book, If All Rounder's are your weakness, why pick them?

 

[superkingdave]

But surely selecting either a specialist batsman or specialist bowler, even if it disrupts the side, would do more good than having a near passenger playing..

England could take a leaf out of the Aussie book, If All Rounder's are your weakness, why pick them?

Lehman seems to be capable of keeping the ball on the pitch as does Andy Symonds, Ian Harvey as well, oh and they seem to think Rikki's cousin is ok aswell.

Of course test cricket is a different story, but even the Aussies know you need 5 proper bowlers in ODI's, they are just lucky that they have them - they are also helped by the fact that Warne, Lee etc can bat a little better than Anderson, Gough, Harmison

 

[Swervy]

Lehman seems to be capable of keeping the ball on the pitch as does Andy Symonds, Ian Harvey as well, oh and they seem to think Rikki's cousin is ok aswell.

Of course test cricket is a different story, but even the Aussies know you need 5 proper bowlers in ODI's, they are just lucky that they have them - they are also helped by the fact that Warne, Lee etc can bat a little better than Anderson, Gough, Harmison

no way....he is looking like Viv Richards with the bat these days (as I said on another thread, Harmison has the highest strike rate with the bat of anyone in the world this year with 100 runs in tests)

 

[Langeveldt]

no way....he is looking like Viv Richards with the bat these days (as I said on another thread, Harmison has the highest strike rate with the bat of anyone in the world this year with 100 runs in tests)

With 100 runs in tests....

That will include the proverbial old granny then...

 

[Neil Pickup]

With 100 runs in tests....

That will include the proverbial old granny then...

Stewie retired last year.

 

[badgerhair]

But surely selecting either a specialist batsman or specialist bowler, even if it disrupts the side, would do more good than having a near passenger playing..

England could take a leaf out of the Aussie book, If All Rounder's are your weakness, why pick them?

Can you remind me what the grounds of your protest are?

Nobody is saying that Clarke should be in the one-day or Test side at the moment. The selectors certainly aren't, because he's not in the squad for the pyjama cricket fest beginnning next week, nor has be been put in the Test party to tour South Africa.

The ideal replacement for Flintoff would be someone who can both bat and bowl. If we can find such a player, presumably that would be a lot better than having someone who can only do one of them. Clarke is the only player I can think of who might, just possibly, if he improves a great deal on what I've seen so far, turn into an understudy - just as MacGill is a big comedown from Warne but will do in a pinch. The selectors have decided to send Clarke to a development Academy for the winter, where he might, just possibly, improve.

You appear to object to the very idea that he could ever possibly improve and think that even attempting to give him the coaching to help him improve is a gross waste of Academy resources. Why?

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Langeveldt]

Can you remind me what the grounds of your protest are?

Nobody is saying that Clarke should be in the one-day or Test side at the moment. The selectors certainly aren't, because he's not in the squad for the pyjama cricket fest beginnning next week, nor has be been put in the Test party to tour South Africa.

The ideal replacement for Flintoff would be someone who can both bat and bowl. If we can find such a player, presumably that would be a lot better than having someone who can only do one of them. Clarke is the only player I can think of who might, just possibly, if he improves a great deal on what I've seen so far, turn into an understudy - just as MacGill is a big comedown from Warne but will do in a pinch. The selectors have decided to send Clarke to a development Academy for the winter, where he might, just possibly, improve.

You appear to object to the very idea that he could ever possibly improve and think that even attempting to give him the coaching to help him improve is a gross waste of Academy resources. Why?

Cheers,

Mike

My objection is him gaining an academy place, which of course means that the intentions are there to bring him in to the team in the future...

I am very sceptical that a winter at the academy can take a poor bits and pieces player, to an international performer.. Im not talking about a world beater, but someone who can put performances in and demand selection...

If Clarke does get transformed this winter, then well done to him, and I think the academy has done rather well, but I think the Academy should spend their money on refining the techniques of someone who has shown a bit more spark (Mascarenhas anyone?) , than trying to drag honest county pros from a lifetime of county cricket...

 

[Neil Pickup]

The Academy should spend their money on refining the techniques of someone who has shown a bit more spark (Mascarenhas anyone?) , than trying to drag honest county pros from a lifetime of county cricket...

It does concern me if you've posted that comment without the slightest hint of irony.

 

[badgerhair]

My objection is him gaining an academy place, which of course means that the intentions are there to bring him in to the team in the future...

I am very sceptical that a winter at the academy can take a poor bits and pieces player, to an international performer.. Im not talking about a world beater, but someone who can put performances in and demand selection...

If Clarke does get transformed this winter, then well done to him, and I think the academy has done rather well, but I think the Academy should spend their money on refining the techniques of someone who has shown a bit more spark (Mascarenhas anyone?) , than trying to drag honest county pros from a lifetime of county cricket...

If it were the intention that everyone who goes to the Academy should play for England in the not-too-distant future, then we would be back to the days of playing XVIII-a-side.

Clarke is 23, some 5 or 6 years from his likely peak. Mascarenhas is 28 and just reaching his.

Clarke has already done as much in his batting career as Mascarenhas has in four more years than he has, which suggests that he has the capacity to be a much better batsman than Mascarenhas. Mascarenhas is a much better bowler than Clarke is, and always has been - his batting success is a relatively recent addition to his portfolio. Clarke's bowling is poor, in my view, but in a strong Surrey bowling side he doesn't get much opportunity - which certainly doesn't help him. But he is at least supposed to be capable of bowling at a very brisk, maybe even properly quick pace, which Mascarenhas is not going to suddenly acquire the ability to do at this stage.

If we were playing the World Cup Final tomorrow, and it was basically a choice between Mascarenhas and Clarke, I'd pick Mascarenhas.

But there isn't much left that the Academy can teach a mature player like Mascarenhas, and there's loads that a 23-year-old can learn.

I think your assessment of the likely cost-benefit of teaching Clarke v teaching Mascarenhas is somewhat flawed.

None of this argument should be taken to imply that I am in any way a Clarke supporter or fan, because I'm not. But I don't see any other all-rounders of 22-24 around, so I'm happy to see the Academy make the effort to make something of him, because it could pay off in a big way, whereas the payoff with someone like Mascarenhas is going to be minimal for the effort put in.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Langeveldt]

It does concern me if you've posted that comment without the slightest hint of irony.

But Mascarenhas seems to be being forced into Jobbing pro-ship... Even Warnie was surprised he wasnt in England colours...