The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[Richard]

Just how likely is Sidebottom to be in the starting side even if all his niggles clear up? I know he's been mostly very good since his recall, but he looked pedestrian when he did play in the Windies (I know pretty much everyone did with the wickets over there). And I've heard whispers from fans and media alike that he may go the way of Hoggard and be discarded for "loosing his nip" ?

Who knows? Sidebottom of West Indies was poor... and he was poor in 2008 as well... and he hardly set The World on fire in Sri Lanka in 2007/08. He looked unfit in all bar the lattermost.

The concern is, is he ever going to be fit enough to bowl once more how he did in New Zealand in 2007/08 and at home in 2007? If so, he should be in the side without a backward glance. But if not, then he shouldn't. Trouble is, nor should very many others currently. The seam well in this country at present is truly badly dry. Flintoff remains outstanding as a component but not in himself; Anderson remains promising but with unspectacular returns; and apart from those two there's Sidebottom, mentioned above. There's also Hoggard and Kabir Ali who as I mentioned a few posts back I honestly would not be surprised if someone has not decided a while ago that they're never playing for England again, for whatever bizarre reason.

 

[Richard]

yeah I know what you meant, just trying to downsize the quality of the "inconsistently selected" and the quality of the "desired".

Being a selector in a poorly performing team must be tuff gig. How long do you hold out on a guy for the sake of team continuity? Really think it comes down to having a gut feel on whether a guy in the team has the capacity and likelyhood to improve. Decent-but-patchy I would imagine describes a guy that has probably plateaud in ability (which is not quite upto standard), and should therefore be only used if there are no other alternatives.
As an Australian supporter I would rather a promising player be given a chance (ala Laughlin) than a decent-but-patchy (Tait).
Guess it comes down to the quality of the rest of the team, because selection risks should be minimised (despite the recent success of Aus with the punt on Hughes, North, Hilfenhouse and Macdonald all at the same time).

cheers

Australia and England are different questions as there is patently a much larger number of high-calibre players available in Australia than England currently (and indeed has been for most of the last 90 years). Whether Ben Laughlin is currently one is a different question mind.

It is indeed a tough task being a selector of a country whose player-base is weak. Because the fans simply cannot accept that sometimes you have to go with what you've got. The everyday fan simply assumes that if Player T is performing poorly, there must be someone better than him out there. It would require not just one but several strong hands (because a selector who keeps picking players who perform unspectacularly will inevitably lose his job after a few years, so the team needs someone else to come in who will do the same thing) to see past this and just stick with what you've got if there's nothing better out there.

And as I've noted many times, a good selector in international cricket is actually not all that common. Mostly, weak teams' weakness is compounded by poor selection. As strong teams' strength is generally relatively unaffected by poor selection.

 

[aussie]

yeah I know what you meant, just trying to downsize the quality of the "inconsistently selected" and the quality of the "desired".

Being a selector in a poorly performing team must be tuff gig. How long do you hold out on a guy for the sake of team continuity? Really think it comes down to having a gut feel on whether a guy in the team has the capacity and likelyhood to improve. Decent-but-patchy I would imagine describes a guy that has probably plateaud in ability (which is not quite upto standard), and should therefore be only used if there are no other alternatives.
As an Australian supporter I would rather a promising player be given a chance (ala Laughlin) than a decent-but-patchy (Tait).
Guess it comes down to the quality of the rest of the team, because selection risks should be minimised (despite the recent success of Aus with the punt on Hughes, North, Hilfenhouse and Macdonald all at the same time).

cheers

What makes Laughlin more of a promising player than Tait & how is Tait patchy??.

This is the same Tait that was on fire in last WC. The problem with Tait is like Watson they have too much injury problems, once Tait is fit he should always be in the ODI XI.

 

[FBU]

Cricket to Simon Jones is the equivalent to a bull in china shop.

 

[Richard]

What makes Laughlin more of a promising player than Tait & how is Tait patchy??.

This is the same Tait that was on fire in last WC. The problem with Tait is like Watson they have too much injury problems, once Tait is fit he should always be in the ODI XI.

Yo, that's if Tait is fit playa.

 

[Redbacks]

It is indeed a tough task being a selector of a country whose player-base is weak. Because the fans simply cannot accept that sometimes you have to go with what you've got. The everyday fan simply assumes that if Player T is performing poorly, there must be someone better than him out there. It would require not just one but several strong hands (because a selector who keeps picking players who perform unspectacularly will inevitably lose his job after a few years, so the team needs someone else to come in who will do the same thing) to see past this and just stick with what you've got if there's nothing better out there.

And as I've noted many times, a good selector in international cricket is actually not all that common. Mostly, weak teams' weakness is compounded by poor selection. As strong teams' strength is generally relatively unaffected by poor selection.

Aye! Very good point, it's a very common theory that a losing side needs to make changes. Put into practice in most sports, where a free market for players exists, alot of the time this method can bring about a quick change of fortunes. Thus reinforcing in the public's mind, that changes to a squad is generally linked with success (forgetting the fact that bad changes will lead to failure/stagnation).

There is generally the feeling, this XI lost therefore if we don't change, we are accepting losing/mediocrity....regardless of whether this is true or not.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

What makes Laughlin more of a promising player than Tait & how is Tait patchy??.

This is the same Tait that was on fire in last WC. The problem with Tait is like Watson they have too much injury problems, once Tait is fit he should always be in the ODI XI.

Truth is I really don't know that much about Laughlin, just stretching for two players that fitted the example. Probably meant that Laughlin has done reasonably well in very few games, so therefore is a punt. Tait on the other hand has been well tested, and IS patchy.

Tait looks like a world beater when he's firing. its just that that only seems to happen every 3rd or 4th game. Usually he bowls wildly and at his pace wild usually equalls expensive.

When looking at bowlers I also look for and stock in (very personal thing this and I understand if no-one else agrees) whether the bowlers has talent in the field and with the bat. If the answer is yes then I have confidence that the bowler is able to improve. If the fielding and batting are poor (Tait fits in nicely here) then I usually don't hold out much hope for much improvement in bowling. Also why I believed that Johnson would be better than his initial output suggested. It all comes down to multiskilled=able to learn, adapt, improve; one trick pony= single natural talent with little scope for imrovement.

Of course that involves no science and just gut feel kinda stuff.

So,
Laughlin = raw, unproven, possibility
Tait = raw, proven, patchy.

What makes Laughlin more a promising player than Tait is that I've yet to be convinced that he is ****.

 

[inbox24]

Laughlin will be a failure, guaranteed.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Laughlin will be a failure, guaranteed.

Yeah your most likely right. Probably 2 out of 3 pace bowlers are.

 

[Prince EWS]

Truth is I really don't know that much about Laughlin, just stretching for two players that fitted the example. Probably meant that Laughlin has done reasonably well in very few games, so therefore is a punt. Tait on the other hand has been well tested, and IS patchy.

Tait looks like a world beater when he's firing. its just that that only seems to happen every 3rd or 4th game. Usually he bowls wildly and at his pace wild usually equalls expensive.

When looking at bowlers I also look for and stock in (very personal thing this and I understand if no-one else agrees) whether the bowlers has talent in the field and with the bat. If the answer is yes then I have confidence that the bowler is able to improve. If the fielding and batting are poor (Tait fits in nicely here) then I usually don't hold out much hope for much improvement in bowling. Also why I believed that Johnson would be better than his initial output suggested. It all comes down to multiskilled=able to learn, adapt, improve; one trick pony= single natural talent with little scope for imrovement.

Of course that involves no science and just gut feel kinda stuff.

So,
Laughlin = raw, unproven, possibility
Tait = raw, proven, patchy.

What makes Laughlin more a promising player than Tait is that I've yet to be convinced that he is ****.

FMD, Lauglin's taken ten First Class wickets at an average of 54. His best bowling is 2/55.

I don't rate him at all but I could see some (very, very small) amount in logic in picking him for the ODIs as he'd just had an awesome (figures wise) OD season for Queensland. He rarely ever made their Shield team though and when he did he was poor.

 

[Top_Cat]

Calls for Vaughan to made number 3 against Aus.

Vaughan again and Leadbeater's gearbox | The Spin | guardian.co.uk Sport

Vaughan is the closest thing England have got to a psychological edge over Australia

He must be joking. If anything, picking Vaughan at 3 will give Australia the psychological edge, so much would it smack of desperation. Whilst this may be true;

...Australia would love it, just love it, if England's No3 this summer is either Ian Bell (who will surely come again in Test cricket) or Owais Shah (who may well not).

.....Aus would love Vaughan at 3 even more right now.

 

[four_or_six]

I hope we pick whoever is in form at three. Shah is going to find it difficult to prove that, being at the IPL until the next test, so if one of Bell or Vaughan start the season pretty well I expect they'll be in there against the Windies.

 

[tooextracool]

If Vaughan scores at the start of the season, I have no problem with him being in the Ashes side. However, I dont think Shah is cut out for test match cricket and I will be quite happy to see his back for the rest of his playing career. The Australians will easily exploit his many technical weaknesses IMO.

 

[Richard]

I hope we pick whoever is in form at three. Shah is going to find it difficult to prove that, being at the IPL until the next test, so if one of Bell or Vaughan start the season pretty well I expect they'll be in there against the Windies.

Yeah, I see absolutely no sense in applying any form of previous Test performances to any of the three early this summer. It should all be about who can get some runs in April and May.

I hope that Vaughan makes a strong case for playing, and if he does and doesn't get picked, I'll be exceptionally disappointed. But if he doesn't, he can't play simply because "he might give England a psychological edge".

 

[NUFAN]

Number 3 issue you say?

1 Andrew Strauss
2 Alastair Cook
3 Matthew Prior
4 Kevin Peitersen
5 Paul Collingwood
6 Andrew Flintoff
7 James Foster
8 Stuart Broad
9 Graeme Swann
10 Ryan Sidebottom
11 James Anderson

 

[Uppercut]

Number 3 issue you say?

1 Andrew Strauss
2 Alastair Cook
3 Matthew Prior
4 Kevin Peitersen
5 Paul Collingwood
6 Andrew Flintoff
7 James Foster
8 Stuart Broad
9 Graeme Swann
10 Ryan Sidebottom
11 James Anderson

How about:

1 Andrew Strauss
2 Alastair Cook
3 Matt Prior
4 KP
5 Paul Colingwood
6 Samit Patel
7 Andrew Flintoff
8 James Foster (or whoever the right choice for keeper is)
9 Graeme Swann
10 Ryan Sidebottom/Stuart Broad (or whatever quick suits)
11 James Anderson

Three fast bowlers, a spinner, a useful part-time tweaker and a medium pacer. Bats down to 8. This is the best balance i can find.

 

[NUFAN]

How about:

1 Andrew Strauss
2 Alastair Cook
3 Matt Prior
4 KP
5 Paul Colingwood
6 Samit Patel
7 Andrew Flintoff
8 James Foster (or whoever the right choice for keeper is)
9 Graeme Swann
10 Ryan Sidebottom/Stuart Broad (or whatever quick suits)
11 James Anderson

Three fast bowlers, a spinner, a useful part-time tweaker and a medium pacer. Bats down to 8. This is the best balance i can find.

I could live with your team Uppercut as I don't particularly rate Broad too highly. I'm not too aware of Patel's ability though so I'll stick with Fred at 6, since the rest of the tail is decent anyways considering the duck-less Anderson is coming in at number 11.

 

[four_or_six]

I hope even our selectors aren't mad enough to go with that.

Edit: Hopefully something like:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan/Bell/Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Harmison/Panesar/Sidebottom

With the two spots decided by form this season and conditions.

 

[Uppercut]

I could live with your team Uppercut as I don't particularly rate Broad too highly. I'm not too aware of Patel's ability though so I'll stick with Fred at 6, since the rest of the tail is decent anyways considering the duck-less Anderson is coming in at number 11.

Patel was ranked second most qualified player (and leading English one) by the Professional Cricketers Association last season. Of every player in the top division of county cricket, Patel was third only to Ramprakash and Butcher in the batting averages amongst Englishmen. Lack of fitness recently kept him out of the ODI side- where he was fairly successful despite it being nowhere near his best format- but if he gets in shape, he'll surely be in the reckoning.

That said, England seem happier than I am with Flintoff at six, so he might well not get a look in at all.

 

[NUFAN]

I hope even our selectors aren't mad enough to go with that.

Edit: Hopefully something like:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan/Bell/Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Harmison/Panesar/Sidebottom

With the two spots decided by form this season and conditions.

Mate our sides aren't that different.

It's basically Vaughan Bell or Shah for a bloody good keeper who can still bat and more importantly CATCH THE BALL!!

Then the only other change is Harmy who bowls if he's lucky 1 good spell per series over the left arm seamer in Sidebottom.

Prior has a brilliant technique and could easily bat at 3. Look at Cook he opens. Prior over Cook technique wise especially against the Aussies.