Robert Key to replace Butcher?

[Richard]

Bell, Wagh (much prefer see him picked than McGrath, even if he has been batting one place too high for my liking this season), Walker, Smith (never known why he's never even been considered), Shah (I wish, equally I'd much prefer him to be picked than McGrath).
Or Crawley, Adams (I hope to God not) or Weekes (in truth, there'd be worse options)...
Wouldn't totally rule-out Jefferson being picked, either.
I really, really hope they don't pick an opener though - even more than I hope they don't pick a proven failure like Hick or Adams.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Weekes?! Is that a random player?

Smith's not been considered because he gave everyone watching him heart problems last summer against South Africa.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Weekes?! Is that a random player?

Smith's not been considered because he gave everyone watching him heart problems last summer against South Africa.

Smiths had a **** season as well. Dropped well out the frame. I hope Key doesnt do the same. Back on topic it HAS to be Bell. in the form of his life, will fit into thorpes place in the batting order perfectly, great pitch for him to start off on too.

 

[marc71178]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if McGrath got picked.

Seriously, what other candidates are there?

Why not bat Hoggard up the order and play a second spinner?

 

[Richard]

Weekes?! Is that a random player?

Smith's not been considered because he gave everyone watching him heart problems last summer against South Africa.

Sorry, didn't make it clear I meant Ben Smith.
Even so, Ed Smith got one RUD and one poor decision - his failure is not conclusive by any standards.
And genuinely, there would be worse picks than Paul Weekes. First-Class average in the mid-30s, averaging over 50 this season. Not saying I think he'd make a Test-class batsman, by any stretch (and I'm certainly not stupid enough to even mention his bowling), but I do think there are some who'd do worse.

 

[Richard]

Smiths had a **** season as well. Dropped well out the frame.

Certainly he had a very poor start but full credit to him he's turned it totally around and is now averaging 41.35 for the season. His overall average hovers tantalisingly on 39.80.
I hope the selectors haven't completely ruled him out because I can certainly think of far less deserving players.

 

[Craig]

Why not bat Hoggard up the order and play a second spinner?

Like who?

Prefer ones that look like being up to Test standard.

 

[Craig]

I really, really hope Bell doesn't get picked for Test-cricket just because he's recovered his form for one season.
His First-Class average is still only 43, and IMO it could and will be up around 50 if he doesn't play Test-cricket too soon.
That can only do him good.

Richard, if a spot comes vacant and somebody is in the form of his life and has made a career best 262* along the way, chances are the selectors are going to be pick that guy who happens to be in a golden run of form.

 

[Craig]

Its got to be Bell, Collingwood is injured. Although Hick is in good form atm......

Then it will be proven that Chris is on the England selection panel.

 

[Richard]

Richard, if a spot comes vacant and somebody is in the form of his life and has made a career best 262* along the way, chances are the selectors are going to be pick that guy who happens to be in a golden run of form.

Craig, you know me, one of my most important principles of selection is never pick someone who's clearly out of form.
But you know what they say about temporary and perminant. Not that I don't think Bell hasn't got plenty of class, but I'd so much prefer to see him have two consecutive good seasons rather than be picked on one.
As it is, this season is still just making-up for lost time in the previous two.

 

[marc71178]

Like who?

Prefer ones that look like being up to Test standard.

Craig, it wasn't a serious point.

We struggle to use 5 bowlers, so picking a 6th is mad.

 

[marc71178]

But you know what they say about temporary and perminant. Not that I don't think Bell hasn't got plenty of class, but I'd so much prefer to see him have two consecutive good seasons rather than be picked on one.

And what sort of signal would it send to him if he wasn't picked?

If Butcher and Thorpe are missing (as looks about 99% certain), then Bell has to be picked - regardless of whether he's had a poor previous season - I mean his 2004 form is far more relevant to now than 2002 or 2003.

 

[Craig]

Craig, you know me, one of my most important principles of selection is never pick someone who's clearly out of form.
But you know what they say about temporary and perminant. Not that I don't think Bell hasn't got plenty of class, but I'd so much prefer to see him have two consecutive good seasons rather than be picked on one.
As it is, this season is still just making-up for lost time in the previous two.

Like who?

As it stands Ian Bell of all England eligble batsmen is in the best form of his career and is all but certain to recieve a Navy Blue England Cap from Michael Vaughan on Thursday.

The 4th Test IMO Robert Key really must take or he could be on the outer - for good IMO even though he scored 221.

 

[Richard]

And what sort of signal would it send to him if he wasn't picked?

If Butcher and Thorpe are missing (as looks about 99% certain), then Bell has to be picked - regardless of whether he's had a poor previous season - I mean his 2004 form is far more relevant to now than 2002 or 2003.

Yes, it is far more relevant, but as I say, it merely makes-up for the poor 2002 and 2003.
From 2002 to now his average is only 40, good enough but still not as good as he should be doing.
Should he come in for The Oval, score 150 (not at all OOTQ) it would also throw the batsmen situation further into chaos. Maybe some think it's beneficial to have that - personally I don't. I think it's much better to have a settled side who know they're first-choice but I just can't see Bell or Key being dropped for the First South Africa Test were they both to have good games at The Oval.
For Australia, they never let that cloud things. In England, we're nowhere near as good at managing selection.

 

[marc71178]

I would disagree re: that - the management of selections are a lot better than they used to be regarding settled sides.

 

[Richard]

So,
Take this as a hypothetical situation:
Key and Bell both play at The Oval (not too much hypotheses needed here, it's very likely) and put-on 240 for the 3rd wicket. Key makes 110, Bell 153.
Do the selectors have the courage to restore Butcher and Thorpe to the team for the First South Africa Test, the way Australia's almost undoubtedly would? Because I really don't think they would - there would be outcry at the perceived "looking back" by picking players who've earned their place.
Australia's have had the sense to ignore Michael Clarke several times and stick with Darren Lehmann, finally allowing him to show what a brilliant player he is.
My bet is that, though Lehmann is palpably a massively superior player, England selectors with similar players would have picked the Clarke type every time.

 

[superkingdave]

Well Bell has been picked so we'll just have to see, IMO there's only one spot between them for the tour and Key has it nailed on so Bell is only going to get this game unless another injury occurs

 

[wpdavid]

So,
Take this as a hypothetical situation:
Key and Bell both play at The Oval (not too much hypotheses needed here, it's very likely) and put-on 240 for the 3rd wicket. Key makes 110, Bell 153.
Do the selectors have the courage to restore Butcher and Thorpe to the team for the First South Africa Test, the way Australia's almost undoubtedly would? Because I really don't think they would - there would be outcry at the perceived "looking back" by picking players who've earned their place.
Australia's have had the sense to ignore Michael Clarke several times and stick with Darren Lehmann, finally allowing him to show what a brilliant player he is.
My bet is that, though Lehmann is palpably a massively superior player, England selectors with similar players would have picked the Clarke type every time.

Admittedly you did say this is all hypothetical, but it does seem harsh to damn England's selectors for a situation that has never occurred and therefore has no basis for your assumptions. Yes, some would criticise the "looking back" if Butcher & Thorpe were recalled (notably idiot Lawton in "The Independent"), but most serious commentators would not. Certainly not where Thorpe's concerned, anyway, and I can't imagine him not playing in the 1st SA test, whatever happens at The Oval. Butcher, if we're honest, is a slightly different situation. We all know he's done quite well over the last 3 years, but against today's test attacks on today's wickets, an average of 41 over that period isn't *that* special, and, if someone better were to come along, surely that player should replace him. Obviously it's a debateable point whether Key or Bell falls into that category.

As for the Australians, they haven't been completely unwilling to ditch players with a decent track record if they think better options are available. Healey & Slater spring immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are others.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

So,
Take this as a hypothetical situation:
Key and Bell both play at The Oval (not too much hypotheses needed here, it's very likely) and put-on 240 for the 3rd wicket. Key makes 110, Bell 153.
Do the selectors have the courage to restore Butcher and Thorpe to the team for the First South Africa Test, the way Australia's almost undoubtedly would? Because I really don't think they would - there would be outcry at the perceived "looking back" by picking players who've earned their place.
Australia's have had the sense to ignore Michael Clarke several times and stick with Darren Lehmann, finally allowing him to show what a brilliant player he is.
My bet is that, though Lehmann is palpably a massively superior player, England selectors with similar players would have picked the Clarke type every time.

Butcher hasnt had the best time with the bat in the run up to his injury...Thorpe would deffo walk back in as he's too important to england.

 

[marc71178]

Australia's have had the sense to ignore Michael Clarke several times and stick with Darren Lehmann, finally allowing him to show what a brilliant player he is.

Would that not be more because Clarke's First Class Record is distinctly poor, whereas Lehmann's is not?