England 5th Test squad

[marc71178]

Again you use the injury one, honestly Marc why are you clutching at straws? There is no proof he refused to take the 12th man duties. None what so ever.

They wouldn't have been able to say something like that on the BBC unless there was some proof - the lawyers just wouldn't have allowed them to say it!

 

[marc71178]

Your "history" comprises of Thorpe taking time out due to not being up for it, something which should be applauded rather than your attitude which I can only compare to "Witch, witch, burn it!"

Yes, and just because he now says he wants to play, he has to earn the spot back - last time I checked he wasn't a Selector, and they are the ones who decide when he plays, not him.

They showed a hard line to Gough and Stewart (indirectly ending Gough's career) when declared they wouldn't tour India, so why shouldn't they do the same to others who drop out on more than one occasion)

Hmmmm, well, why don't I use the example I have used all along but you seem to have ignored every time, yes, maybe you might notice it this time, I defy you to say that Stuart Law did anything wrong and is a worse player than Anthony McGrath.

Stuart Law was playing because someone was ruled out through injury, not because someone didn't want to play.

A player returning from injury is a completely different scenario to one deciding he wants to play again.

 

[anzac]

well it's not hard to see that the Thorpe selection has certainly split opinions......

I don't think anyone denys his talent, and that on current domestic form the selectors would have been hard pressed to ignore his previous achievements at international level, especially when you consider that Hussain is out injured and Vaughan is a new Captain & would need all the experience he could get in the side. His selection could have further been helped by other injuries such as White, and loss of form such as Gough - although neither are specialist batsmen both could have provided the 'experience' factor.

The negatives are mainly concerned with Thorpe's 'committment' issues to the team, particularly beyond this test match. He is also not known to be a 'team man' off the field regarding such things as dress codes & training schedules etc.

The biggest question remains is his selection seen as an ongoing prospect with the rebuilding of the team (he is 34 & coming back after 13 months), or a stop gap measure to cover retirements & injury?

 

[Eclipse]

I agree with Rik on this issue McGill has always performed when Warne has not been avalable but we dont stick with him just because he has done nothing wrong. It may not be compleatly fair but that's life.

 

[Craig]

True but he does bowl a lot of bad balls. Either that or Lara, Ganga and Sarwan are all great players of spin (Lara obviosuly).

 

[Bazza]

Exactly Eclipse.

Okay Marc, what has Thorpe done? As I recall he went home from India because his marriage broke up and there were kids involved, I don't think anyone can blame him for that. He went to new Zealand and tried to carry on but apparently he couldn't, so last year he decided to take a complete break and sort himself out.

This summer he has come back and said he is completely committed to his cricket. He's scored alot of runs for Surrey and shown he is still that same batsman, you know - England's best?

You say they showed a hard line to Gough and Stewart - Gough played all 11 ODIs that winter and I believe missed tests through injury. Stewart missed NZ altogether as I recall - 3 tests, 5 ODIs, but he was straight back in against Sri Lanka.

Well Thorpe you may recall has missed 6 tests already this summer plus some 10 (?) ODIs when some people felt he should have played (me included), so IMO he has suffered at least as much as Stewart and Gough, yet you make it sound like he's got off scott free.

Another point worth considering is that in Stewart's absence, Foster proved we couldn't cope without him, in Gough's absence, replacements were hard to come by, and equally in Thorpe's absence, we have struggled to fins a middle order batsman.

He has been talking about 30 tests, which for me shows that he is looking to play on for a good 2-3 years (if given the chance). He also claims to be a different man and I believe him.

I really can't see any good reason to leave him out, except 'he let the side down once a couple of years ago'.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

True but he does bowl a lot of bad balls. Either that or Lara, Ganga and Sarwan are all great players of spin (Lara obviosuly).

Ganga actually is a good player of spin and Sarwan did exceptionally in Sri Lanka 2 years back. Sarwan's problem is that he is extremely reluctant to sweep and Ganga's problem is that he is too willing to. Lara is (IMO) the best player of spin in the world.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

England seriously need to investigate this injury problem they've had. You could probably put their troubles in Aus down to bad luck (although it was a bit more extensive than that), but now they come into 2003 with a bunch of other injuries. It may just be me, but I'm wondering what exactly those physios have been doing. I don't remember any other country being in such an injury rut.

 

[marc71178]

Okay Marc, what has Thorpe done?

Not going through all this again, I'm sure you understand why

You say they showed a hard line to Gough and Stewart - Gough played all 11 ODIs that winter and I believe missed tests through injury. Stewart missed NZ altogether as I recall - 3 tests, 5 ODIs, but he was straight back in against Sri Lanka.

Both refused to tour India for Tests but said they would tour NZ, so the selectors reacted by refusing to let them pick and choose.

Gough didn't miss any matches through injury.

It is a similar thing to Thorpe refusing to play, then saying he's ready and being made to wait until they wanted to select him, not just immediately pick him when he said he was ready.

I really can't see any good reason to leave him out, except 'he let the side down once a couple of years ago'.

It's already been well documented in this forum that it's more than just once...

 

[anzac]

I agree with Rik on this issue McGill has always performed when Warne has not been avalable but we dont stick with him just because he has done nothing wrong. It may not be compleatly fair but that's life.

MacGill & Warne are 2 different types of leggie. Warne's strengths are his accuracy & variety, whereas MacGill gets more side spin and is more attacking. As a consequence MacGill will always bowl a loose delivery per over, which is his weakness.

As far as I know MacGill's figures are better than Warne's at the same stage of their careers. I would not have dropped him while he was still taking 5 wicket bags!

 

[anzac]

what about Fraser's comments about Thorpe not being a 'team player' off the field?

the main question remains how does he as a 34 yr old fit into England's new youth policy in rebuilding the team over the next 4 years?

 

[Rik]

what about Fraser's comments about Thorpe not being a 'team player' off the field?

the main question remains how does he as a 34 yr old fit into England's new youth policy in rebuilding the team over the next 4 years?

Well it's because the "young" players just haven't done the buisness. Also Caddick doesn't exactly fit the mould of the perfect "Team Player" yet Fletcher stuck by him and occasionally got rewarded for his faith.

 

[anzac]

I don't think you can make a judgement on the results of 12 months when rebuilding a team, especially when the 'youth' call has only been made by Vaughan re ODIs since the WC.

The bowling attack was decimated by injury during the Ashes tour and has yet to get back to full strength. The bowlers are getting no assistance from these pitches, and so their figures are a bit abnormal. The SA seamers are doing it much easier because of their batting totals and individual experience. It seems very similar to the type of graft required on 'dead' sub continent pitches, and I don't think this English attack has had much experience of that.

While there are valid criticisms that can be levelled at the bowlers individually I don't think they should be cast aside based on these results. The newbies such as Kirtley, Ali & Bicknell have been on a hiding to nothing IMO and deserve consideration for further tours b4 an informed decision can be made.

Similar story with the batting lineup regarding Smith & McGrath, although they do not have the same excuses as the bowlers on these wickets.

Bottom line - you need stability & consistency when rebuilding b4 the results will come. Quick fire changes every match as in this series do nothing except throw more lambs to the slaughter and undermine player confidence & not just the newbies.

 

[Langeveldt]

what about Fraser's comments about Thorpe not being a 'team player' off the field?

the main question remains how does he as a 34 yr old fit into England's new youth policy in rebuilding the team over the next 4 years?

Is it just me, or do England seem to be permanently having a "Youth Policy".... Sounds like an excuse for lost test matches to me...

 

[marc71178]

The bowlers are getting no assistance from these pitches, and so their figures are a bit abnormal.

Are these the same Trent Bridge and Headingley pitches which had uneven bounce and were criticised by all and sundry for being too bowler-helpful?

 

[gibbsnsmith]

ofcourse

how can any kind of bowler be expected to use those kind of pitches to their advantage

 

[Bazza]

Is it just me, or do England seem to be permanently having a "Youth Policy".... Sounds like an excuse for lost test matches to me...

They do and it's the wrong approach in test cricket, which is why England were right to recall Thorpe, and why they appear to have a first choice side looking a bi like this:

Vaughan
Trescothick
Butcher
Hussain
Thorpe
Flintoff
Read
Giles
Seamer (maybe spinner in Ban/SL)
Harmison
Anderson