Pietersen gets the nod

[Craig]

brainless comment there craig, no offense.

Brainless comment how?

 

[Craig]

and of course the selectors are doctors arent they?
gee i wonder who would know more about thorpes back, thorpe or the selectors.
and im sure thorpe would have undergone tests to check for his fitness, before the selection was made.

Yes but don't you think the information would have also been passed onto the selectors as well?

Despite what you might think they aren't completely stupid, having never seen a cricket match in their lives etc., it was a risk either way. You are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

But hey TEC when are you applying to be selector of England?

 

[tooextracool]

Another example - Damien Martyn, WC final 2003 with a broken finger. He still played very well but fully fit, he likely would have gotten a hundred and not 88* that day. This Ashes series is arguably almost as big an event and with it being Thorpe's last Test series, again, you can't assume he would only play if totally fit.

nope im assuming like martyn, he'd only play when he thought he was 'fit enough', without being a liability to the team.

That's pretty irresponsible as far as the health of the players are concerned. "Yeah we know you're hurt but if it gets worse, we'll just inject you with something and you'll get through the Test." What if he injures it further by playing on it when he shouldn't and then can't play for NSW? The ECB risk legal action, there...........

except for the fact that you are assuming that he is unfit, when theres no evidence of that.
im not sure how the legal action bit works, but i dont think that the ECB will be sued if a player who was said to be fit went into a game, aggravates the injury and therefore played with injections. if anything its NSWs fault for picking someone who has recurring back problems.

It's academic, anyway; they know all this and would never take such a risky route. Plus, pain-killing injections really work best on fresh injuries; chronic injuries like Thorpe's, there ain't much that can be done other than to take the edge off the pain..

actually the pain gets somewhat tolerable the more you play with it. michael atherton played nearly half his career with a far more severe back injury. its something that you get used to over time. its obviously a lot harder if you're a bowler, because youre straining your back after every delivery, but as a batsman its something that you can endure even when severely aggravated for an entire test match.

You don't pick a player who 'might' be 'okay' for a couple of Tests; you pick players who can damn near guarantee that they will be fit for the entire series.

you give yourself the best chance of winning a series, if that means having thorpe for 2 tests so be it. especially considering that the first 2 ashes test will probably define how the summer goes.

What if, having picked Thorpe, he lasts two Tests and carries the English batting, then succumbs to his injury. Again, you hand the Aussies a psychological boost for the 3rd Test..

really? so you think that the psychological advantage gained by thorpe missing the last 3 tests would be a lot worse than not having thorpe carry the batting and consequently england getting hammered in the first 2 tests?
hell glenn mcgrath is already talking about how much of a moral boost it is once australia get the first 3 wickets, because they will then be bowling to bell, pietersen, flintoff and jones, all unproven quantities at the international level.

Picking a player and then hoping their fitness will last for a few Tests or the series is irresponsible and you grossly underestimate the batting talent replacing Thorpe in the side.

i dont underestimate pietersen at all, i think that you underestimate the value of thorpe to this english side. thorpe is irreplaceable, just like mcgrath or warne is to the australian side. you can bring in macgill and say, well if he did so and so, he might be priceless, but the fact is that no matter how well macgill bowls, having warne or mcgrath in the side would make your team a hell of a lot better. as i said earlier, i dont hate the selection of pietersen in the test side, i hate the non-selection of graham thorpe.

They may be unproven but they are also unscarred; those sorts of players have always gotten up the noses of the Aussies and they may well succeed very well.

oh come off it, we've had plenty of unscarred players before, and we've built up an english side plenty of times before. you cant go into an ashes series filled with jack, jill and john and say these guys are unscarred, and are domestic successes therefore we're likely to win the ashes.

The ECB's actions thusfar suggest they didn't really have a choice. Can we agree on the fact that a fully-fit Graham Thorpe is a walk-up start into the Test side fromt he selector's perspective? So then, why not pick him?

i dont agree with that.IMO the selectors didnt pick thorpe for 2 reasons:
a) because they think hes out of form and past it, using the SA series and recent domestic cricket as examples
b) because they think that he might not have the desire to play anymore and are haunted by what happened with alec stewart and michael atherton in the last 2 ashes series.

 

[tooextracool]

The selectors took a major risk picking Thorpe when he came back after his marital problems. Why, after bringing him back in his mid-30's, would they drop him now?

because when he came back the last time they were really desperate.
they aren't right now, but if they end up losing the first 4 tests, he'll be back(no pun intended), fully fit or not.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes but don't you think the information would have also been passed onto the selectors as well?

it obviously was, but as i said earlier, thorpes non-selection had less to do with injury and more to do with form and desire.

Despite what you might think they aren't completely stupid, having never seen a cricket match in their lives etc., it was a risk either way. You are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

you dont think that the selectors have made decisions as stupid as this before?
if they were smart enough to have picked bell for the tour of SA, we would probably know by now, exactly how much bell is worth. no instead they chose to pick paul collingwood, who without playing a single test got dropped after that series, and isnt even in the reckoning anymore.
AFAIC they succumbed to the hype that is pietersen, and after his 2 50s against australia couldnt see a way to keep him out. and being as blind as they are, they didnt realise that everyone of the top 4 batsmen are worse than thorpe

 

[Craig]

There was a reason why they picked Paul Collingwood - as cover for Flintoff whereas Ian Bell couldn't have offered that and he was no certainty to play any of the Tests and Rob Key had earned his spot on the plane to SA.

 

[Craig]

Brainless comment how?

Look sledger I don't care if you don't think I know the difference between a torker and long off, but come on if you are going to make a silly comment like that and I challenaged you to ask a question that has would have had the habit of winding me up you run off like a little wimp.

 

[tooextracool]

There was a reason why they picked Paul Collingwood - as cover for Flintoff whereas Ian Bell couldn't have offered that and he was no certainty to play any of the Tests and Rob Key had earned his spot on the plane to SA.

paul collingwood is a test class all-rounder?
commone now, thats clutching on straws really. i find it a bit odd that ian bell has a better bowling and batting record in FC cricket than paul collingwood.

 

[greg]

You really shouldn't believe Graveney's propaganda. Collingwood was picked to be a substitute fielder a la Solanki.

 

[Craig]

paul collingwood is a test class all-rounder?
commone now, thats clutching on straws really. i find it a bit odd that ian bell has a better bowling and batting record in FC cricket than paul collingwood.

I never said he was - it was their justifcation.

 

[Zinzan]

England have to be the best batting side in the world if they can drop Thorpe.

Wouldn't quite go that far SJS

 

[King_Ponting]

More like the england selectors heads must have been hollowed out for them to drop thorpe

 

[shaka]

Thorpe is a brilliant player and its hard to drop him, but England have guts to drop him because of injury plagued season, even after knowing his past achievements.

 

[tooextracool]

I never said he was - it was their justifcation.

and you think that that decision makes the selectors look intelligent?

 

[badgerhair]

A player proves himself worthy of a place in first class (and perhaps ODI) cricket, which KP has pretty much done, and then waits for a place in the team to open up. This was always going to be Thorpe's last series... he's going to retire after it. KP could have been brought into the team then. As it is, I'd say England are significantly less likely to win with KP than with Thorpe, who was a master batsmen under pressure and dug England out of a hole on countless occasions.

I don't entirely follow your logic here.

England are making a pretty emphatic statement with this selection: they intend to attack the Australians with both bat and ball. They are not content to play the long game, making sure they have insurance against an early collapse so they can hang in there and take advantage of any opportunities which may crop up later in the game.

It seems to be England's assessment that their best chance is to try and put the pressure on Australia by bowling faster and hitting the ball harder than Australia do, and that the former strategy of hoping that staying vaguely competitive so that they can sneak a win if Australia fall flat on their faces is outdated.

It's clearly a high-risk strategy, because if your players aren't good enough, it is liable to end up in an embarrassing mess. But England feel that their players are good enough this time.

It's rather sad that Thorpe's career may well have ended in such an anti-climactic fashion, but he wasn't all that convincing in South Africa, didn't look good against the Bangles, has been injured this season and has been moved out of the slips because his reactions aren't quick enough these days.

Thorpe was the bulwark which protected the middle order, and that role has now been passed to Ian Bell, who certainly has the technique to do it: he is the nearest thing I've seen to an exact clone of Geoff Boycott, except that he seems content to start playing positive shots rather earlier in his innings than Boycott usually did (although it has to be pointed out that Boycs was facing the new ball rather than the old one Bell should mostly be seeing).

People have been commenting on the potential fragility of Pietersen and Flintoff, without commenting that the idea of Bell followed by Thorpe has every chance of wasting the opportunities for rapid scoring afforded by an old ball and tiring bowlers.

My view of the selection of Bell and Pietersen rather than Thorpe and one of them is that it gives England more chance of winning but also more chance of losing. It's a highly aggressive selection.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[pasag]

Pietersen edges out Thorpe in Ashes squad

Cricinfo staff

July 14, 2005

Kevin Pietersen has been included in the squad of 12 for England's first Ashes Test against Australia at Lord's, which starts next Thursday. Pietersen has been included ahead of Graham Thorpe, who has been struggling with a back injury. Ian Bell and Christ Tremlett have also been included in the squad.

take a bow selectors, you've just thrown away any chance you had of winning the ashes.

Last time I ever do this, I swear.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Last time I ever do this, I swear.

Haha, what classic quote.

 

[steds]

I will be surprised if S Jones or Giles average under 40 in this series.

Quality call.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I am convinced England selectors will HAVE to bring back Thorpe later in the series. I just hope it isnt too late by that time.

By the way - Ian Bell to score at least two hundreds in this series, you heard it here first.

Well the Engravers for the ashes must have told the english selectors cause Australias name is on the trophy.

thorpe will be back should australia flog england in the first test.

I <3 hindsight.

 

[Richard]

Really, what was the point in digging this thread up?

You could go back 2 years later through just about any longish thread and find countless inaccurate predictions, people are too quick to say "this WILL happen" or "they HAVE got no chance" or something similar.

Something I try to avoid myself, though it's impossible to do with foolproof watertight-ness.