*Official* England in Bangladesh

[Furball]

As i've said before. It wouldn't kill to go againts the tradition this one time & do like the Asian sides, West Indies & pick players based on a bit of raw talent.

I'm not opposed to picking players based on raw talent, but at the same time they should have accomplished something domestically first, Morgan had a shocking FC season last season (in division 2 ffs)

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Surely Rashid must have done something wrong in South Africa, something we haven't heard about. Otherwise there is no explanation whatsoever for him not being on tour. You could accept Tredwell being called into the squad as cover for Swann in South Africa (especially as he was already there?) as a like-for-like replacement if they were just going to play one spinner and wanted an offie for a bit of stability. But surely even the selectors wouldn't just drop Rashid for what would be the most ideal of ideal opportunities for a legspinner to enter international cricket - Bangladesh away?

 

[aussie]

I wasn't defending the left-field selection, simply suggesting that your reaction is OTT

Well i'm not the only one in this thread who has reacted harshly to Shazad's selection, who also like me may not have ever seen him bowl.

And as we've all been saying over and over again - nobody is or was saying Davies is going to be the best international bowler ever, simply that to write him off is ridiculous given his domestic achievements.

I know nobody was saying that Davies was likely to be the best ever international bowler. I was just shocked that their was no pushback.

I write off his domestic achivements as i've said before because i see his domestic stats as gorss abberation, based on the times i've seen him bowl.

- I rather see his excellent doemstic average a indictment on our FC competition given that a medium pacer like him such a fabulous average. I question the quality of batting in division 1.

- Secondly because medium pace bowlers like Davies have been an extinct breed in test cricket since the Alec Bedser, Don Shackleton, Bob Appleyard days of the 1950s & 60s. The last medium pace type bowlers to play test cricket in recent times where Gavin Larsen, Brain Strang & our own Jon Lewis they where poor test bowlers - with Lewis although he played one test it was very unlikey he would have had a successful test career anyway.

Both Larsen & Strang where superior medium pacers than Davies based on what i've seen - so i have no hope in Davies ever being a test quality bowler & i rather/hope he never plays test cricket for England. Simple.

I'm not opposed to picking players based on raw talent, but at the same time they should have accomplished something domestically first, Morgan had a shocking FC season last season (in division 2 ffs)

Yea but he certainly has looked very much international quality based on his ODI exploits. Compared to someone like Bopara who slammed runs in FC cricket for Essex - but then looked woeful vs AUS in the Ashes.

West Indies for example picked players like Samuels, Roach, Edwards (who Lara picked in 2003 just from facing him in the nets) with basically no serious FC experience. It was always evident that they looked special from game 1. Same thing applies with Morgan for me, he should be in Bangladesh, since their isn't exaclty any other middle-order batsman in domestic cricket (old or young) thats better than him last i checked.

 

[Scaly piscine]

aussie talking total bollocks as always.

I suppose he's now going to say Angus Fraser was genuinely a fast-medium like the comically inaccurate Cricinfo profile suggests.

 

[aussie]

aussie talking total bollocks as always.

I suppose he's now going to say Angus Fraser was genuinely a fast-medium like the comically inaccurate Cricinfo profile suggests.

Haa its FARRR less bollocks than your suggestion than Ian Blackwell should be near the test side , your views on James Anderson in recent months & how you overate Onions.

 

[Furball]

- I rather see his excellent doemstic average a indictment on our FC competition given that a medium pacer like him such a fabulous average. I question the quality of batting in division 1.

So what does that say about the ability of the players you are championing?

 

[Jarquis]

Domestic cricket suxxxx, stats are irrelevant. How a player "looks" is the bottom line, not the performances and results they actually achieve. :rolleyes:

 

[Scaly piscine]

Haa its FARRR less bollocks than your suggestion than Ian Blackwell should be near the test side , your views on James Anderson in recent months & how you overate Onions.

Fraser a medium pacer so obviously completely useless according to you, averaged 27. Sidebottom in his last Test bowled Davies pace, still nowhere near as useless as Anderson. Vaas bowled slower than Davies pace in last 1-2 years. Pollock and McGrath were around Davies pace in their last years. I don't remember any of them averaging 35 like a certain person. Davies has bowled that pace his career and is awesomely successful at it.

As for the squad you would want a 3rd spin option. You're generally looking for a batsman who bowls given the only way they'd play is in a 5-man attack. Blackwell has a very good record in FC cricket in recent time and a very good career batting average in FC cricket. He would also have complimented both Rashid and Swann. If you're going to pick someone who's a bit of a county plodder you may as well make it someone who's actually damned good at it.

 

[aussie]

So what does that say about the ability of the players you are championing?

Morgan unlike other supposedly other middle-order options or options that the selectors probably have their eyes on like Bopara, Joyce, Hildereth, Gale, Shah its all poor (although Joyce could still have a future). Morgan looks to be special & is worth been thrown into the test cricket ATS given the lack of quality depth clearly.

The only young batsman that really seems exciting is James Taylor. But i'd say he is few season away from seriously coming into consideration.

 

[aussie]

Fraser a medium pacer so obviously completely useless according to you, averaged 27.

Fraser at his best was not a medium pacer at his peak. He was always above 80 mph, capable of hitting 85 mph at his fastest.

Davies is in the 75-80 mph range, like John Lewis.

He probably was Davies pace during the 99 WC, but even so Fraser as medium pacer at the back end of career>>>Davies. No comparison.

Sidebottom in his last Test bowled Davies pace, still nowhere near as useless as Anderson.

Haaaa, are you out of your mind clearly you didn't watch that Jo'Burg test, if you going to seriously compare Sidebottom's pace in that test to Davies that is madness. Sidebottom was consistenly between 130-135 Kmph's throughout the test (with a few balls in 77-79 mph) & the ball that got got Kallis was around 140 IIRC - if Davies ever bowled @ 140 Ks he might break his back

Vaas bowled slower than Davies pace in last 1-2 years. Pollock and McGrath were around Davies pace in their last years. I don't remember any of them averaging 35 like a certain person. Davies has bowled that pace his career and is awesomely successful at it.

Incorrect. McGrath & Pollock in the last days of their test & ODI careers where still consistently over 80 mph. McGrath has only been medium pace (120-125 mph) in the IPL 2009 & 2008.

Same thing with Pollock he was only that pace for Mumbai Indians in IPL 2008. In his last international series for SA vs WI 07/08 consistently between 130-135 kmph with a few balls in 75-79 mph range.

Vaas also was not "slower than Davies" in his last 2 years - he was rather was of similar pace to Davies. But coincentially when Vaas lost his pace, it was the worst period for SRI lanka - which pretty much proves my point that such bowlers are useless in modern day test cricket with so much flat pitches around.

Vaas even then had the ability to be effective on flat pitches as he did in Guyana 2008 - conditions where Davies in a test match scenario with be absolutely useless.

Finally whats your point in highlighting the obvious that Anderson averages 35??. You make it sound as if Anderson hasn't been improving - which he clearly has.

As for the squad you would want a 3rd spin option. You're generally looking for a batsman who bowls given the only way they'd play is in a 5-man attack. Blackwell has a very good record in FC cricket in recent time and a very good career batting average in FC cricket. He would also have complimented both Rashid and Swann. If you're going to pick someone who's a bit of a county plodder you may as well make it someone who's actually damned good at it.

Blackwell is joke. He should not be near to squad nor should Tredwell - we dont need no "county plodders" in the squad. It would have a error to pick Blackwell as picking Tredwell is currently.

England dont need a third spin option or 5 bowlers in BANG. This is not a tour to SRI/IND/PAK, its Bangladesh. The fast-bowlers should be main source of wickets & Graeme Swann should be enough for "spin" Bangladesh.

If ENG can't take 20 BANG wickets with Onions/Sidebottom/Broad/Swann, something is really wrong.

 

[aussie]

Domestic cricket suxxxx, stats are irrelevant. How a player "looks" is the bottom line, not the performances and results they actually achieve. :rolleyes:

Thats a shockingly poor way to judge & view English domestic cricket. Thank god i never anything remotely close to that.

 

[marc71178]

As i've said before. It wouldn't kill to go againts the tradition this one time & do like the Asian sides, West Indies & pick players based on a bit of raw talent.

And where exactly would you propose batting him? He's not an opener, so are you going to drop KP for him?

 

[marc71178]

Left-field selections are just as bad as selectorial errors, as picking a player with no creditable FC credentials (although this may fluctuate given the standard of FC cricket in ENG). I.e Darren Pattinson vs SA 08, Gavin Hamilton & Flintoff to SA 99/00,

Fail:

Hamilton in 1998 - 578 runs @ 32.11 & 59 wickets @ 20.54
Hamilton in 1999 - 567 runs @ 47.25 & 43 wickets @ 19.18

 

[Furball]

Fail:

Hamilton in 1998 - 578 runs @ 32.11 & 59 wickets @ 20.54
Hamilton in 1999 - 567 runs @ 47.25 & 43 wickets @ 19.18

Also had an excellent World Cup for Scotland in 1999.

 

[marc71178]

Thats a shockingly poor way to judge & view English domestic cricket. Thank god i never anything remotely close to that.

Erm, more fail.

You're also not remotely close to writing posts that can be understood.

 

[Furball]

Morgan unlike other supposedly other middle-order options or options that the selectors probably have their eyes on like Bopara, Joyce, Hildereth, Gale, Shah its all poor (although Joyce could still have a future). Morgan looks to be special & is worth been thrown into the test cricket ATS given the lack of quality depth clearly.

The only young batsman that really seems exciting is James Taylor. But i'd say he is few season away from seriously coming into consideration.

Was referring to bowlers.

If you're going to trash a guy who's taken 250 odd wickets @ 22, and blame the poor standards of batsmanship, then what does that say about players who haven't come any where near that sort of standard domestically?

 

[aussie]

Was referring to bowlers.

If you're going to trash a guy who's taken 250 odd wickets @ 22, and blame the poor standards of batsmanship, then what does that say about players who haven't come any where near that sort of standard domestically?

Thats i'd love to know the answer to that myself. Since some of England best bowlers since 1990 like Gough, Caddick, Fraser, Flintoff, Jones, Cork - along with the current trio of Anderson & co dont average that well domestically. They all are lightyears ahead of Davies.

Thats why i always say the selectors should take players domestic form with a BIG pinch of salt, since in many area's our FC cricket is gash (especially division 2) & it seems to creeping into Division 1 now. Luke Wright averaging 50 odd with the blade last season was another disgrace/shocker.

 

[aussie]

And where exactly would you propose batting him? He's not an opener, so are you going to drop KP for him?

No clownford, i was not advocating for him to be be in the starting XI. He should be in the squad to BANG, what use does Wright have?. I suppose you see him as the next Flintoff? haa

Fail:

Hamilton in 1998 - 578 runs @ 32.11 & 59 wickets @ 20.54
Hamilton in 1999 - 567 runs @ 47.25 & 43 wickets @ 19.18

Haa sometimes i does want to know how much of English cricket you have followed over the years - this is ridiculous. Hamilton choice to 99/00 SA tour was clearly not viewed highly in England by any means. He was throughly joke cricketer regardless of this high average in those two seasons. His failures came as no suprise.

Luke Wrigh averaged almost 50 with the bat last season you know. Of course you see that as clear sign that he is next flintoff right??

 

[aussie]

Erm, more fail.

You're also not remotely close to writing posts that can be understood.

The same way your views on English cricket can't be understood. So i feel your pain..

 

[Furball]

Thats i'd love to know the answer to that myself. Since some of England best bowlers since 1990 like Gough, Caddick, Fraser, Flintoff, Jones, Cork - along with the current trio of Anderson & co dont average that well domestically. They all are lightyears ahead of Davies.

Thats why i always say the selectors should take players domestic form with a BIG pinch of salt, since in many area's our FC cricket is gash (especially division 2) & it seems to creeping into Division 1 now. Luke Wright averaging 50 odd with the blade last season was another disgrace/shocker.

Anderson's domestic record is actually really good.

And Luke Wright didn't average 50 with the blade last season.