-
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.
Morgan vs Carberry: should county cricket be abandoned?
- Thread starter shivfan
- Start date
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
England haven't got a number 3. You're advancing the selection of a non-existent player. It's true that 3 is a crucial position that should be filled by an experienced, technically sound player who can both attack and defend well depending on the situation he finds himself in. But there's no one in England who fits the bill, unless you want to shift KP to 3, which I think would be a massive mistake. So I reckon Jonathan Trott is as good an option as any.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think he was talking about the theoretical lineup with Carberry batting three until Collingwood returned; not the actual lineup.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Yes but his score against Bangladesh in this game continues his habit of only scoring runs against sub-standard opposition
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes but his score against Bangladesh in this game continues his habit of only scoring runs against sub-standard opposition
Ooh that is good and i amazed nobody has pulled you up on it.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
It is good, but perhaps folks are ignoring it because be wasn't batting at 3 when he made his debut ton. You'd have to say the jury's still out wrt Trott batting at 3.
Ooh that is good and i amazed nobody has pulled you up on it.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ahhh my bad. Thought he was responding to the posts above his.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
1. It was witty
Ooh that is good and i amazed nobody has pulled you up on it.
2. He's not a douche about supporting his team.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ooh get you mr smarty pants.
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
Becoming less and less sensitised to people moaning about how contemporary form should be the sole determinant of selection. Yes, it's logical. Yes, it fits the noble philosophy of 'pick the eleven that will win you the next Test'. But honestly, it defies belief that there's a furore every single time some young gun gets picked over a form player, especially against a minnow side.
Why wouldn't you give a player a chance to get his feet wet in international cricket? Moreover, why care if you're going to theoretically steamroll them anyway? Assuming the player's seen as a long-term investment, why not give him a chance to forge a decent Test temperament sooner rather than later?
It's been shown ad nauseam that domestic form isn't a guarantor of Test ability. See: Hick, Kambli, McGain. None of them - except Hick, who's an outlier - had a chance to develop their ability to mentally adjust to a Test environment.
Granted, there are exceptions. Must-win Tests are no place for kids. Bell shouldn't have been in the 2005 Ashes, Siddle shouldn't have toured India and Sharma got pushed too hard too early. But it's unbelievably rare that one dud selection has ruined a series for one side. And it's not a certainty they'll be a dud anyway.
But deadset, the purist outlook on this sort of thing defies belief. It's the thing that chronically gimped the West Indies beyond 1994-95.
Meritocracy isn't a short-term statistical thing. No, really.
Why wouldn't you give a player a chance to get his feet wet in international cricket? Moreover, why care if you're going to theoretically steamroll them anyway? Assuming the player's seen as a long-term investment, why not give him a chance to forge a decent Test temperament sooner rather than later?
It's been shown ad nauseam that domestic form isn't a guarantor of Test ability. See: Hick, Kambli, McGain. None of them - except Hick, who's an outlier - had a chance to develop their ability to mentally adjust to a Test environment.
Granted, there are exceptions. Must-win Tests are no place for kids. Bell shouldn't have been in the 2005 Ashes, Siddle shouldn't have toured India and Sharma got pushed too hard too early. But it's unbelievably rare that one dud selection has ruined a series for one side. And it's not a certainty they'll be a dud anyway.
But deadset, the purist outlook on this sort of thing defies belief. It's the thing that chronically gimped the West Indies beyond 1994-95.
Meritocracy isn't a short-term statistical thing. No, really.