The England development squad

[BoyBrumby]

Jefferson is an interesting one. I have to be honest and say I've never even seen him bat on telly, but with his height he must be strange to bowl at. Potentially at least he could be able to turn good length balls in half-volleys. Although I suppose by extension he might be susceptible to the yorker.

Surprised he doesn't bowl too, obviously I'm thinking stereotypically but he'd stand a fair chance of getting troubling bounce from up there regardless of his pace!

 

[marc71178]

Okay who are England's number 3,4,5 openers behind Strauss and Trescothich and number 2 and 3 spinners behind Giles?

In the event of injury, you've already got Key, Butcher and Vaughan as cover.

After that I'd say probably Cook of Essex is next in line.

In terms of spinners, it'd be Swann than Batty I'd say.

 

[marc71178]

1st of all mate i dont think ENG have so much openers in the county circuit who could make it at test level, for me only Michael Powell of Glamorgan comes close.

Powell the number 4 you mean?

 

[Richard]

We were battling hard to get wickets against the clock, Hoggard had bowled something like 10 in a row, yet poor little Alex was too tired to bowl more than 2 before Hoggy had to be recalled.

And whether or not we got the wickets didn't matter in the slightest as to get the wickets would not change the result of the series.

 

[Richard]

Idiotic thing, of course, is that Michael John Powell (Glam) did open, batting totally out of position, in the "A"-team games recently.
Michael James Powell (Warks) has been an opener all his life but, sadly, has also been an underachiever with a First-Class average of merely 33.

 

[Richard]

Jefferson is an interesting one. I have to be honest and say I've never even seen him bat on telly, but with his height he must be strange to bowl at. Potentially at least he could be able to turn good length balls in half-volleys. Although I suppose by extension he might be susceptible to the yorker.

Surprised he doesn't bowl too, obviously I'm thinking stereotypically but he'd stand a fair chance of getting troubling bounce from up there regardless of his pace!

Before I watched him the same thought did go through my head that his height might give him freakish advantages but in all honesty there isn't really any difference.
And obviously a Half-Volley for him is a good-length ball for a 5"10' guy, but that's the same with all batsmen of different height.

 

[Richard]

Okay number 2 and 3 spinners behind Giles?

Number-two (or I'd say level-par number-one) spinner is Robert Croft, who as we all know got treated poorly and retired prematurely from Test-cricket.
As for the rest, as we've seen with Batty and Dawson - probably not worth bothering to pick them, much, much better to go for another seamer. People talk as if Keedy is better - they said that about Batty and Dawson, guys.
It is, I must say, a little puzzling that Graeme Swann seems to have been totally overlooked but it's almost certainly for the best. Had he been picked he'd probably have done every bit as poorly and been thrown on the scrapheap. If he gets picked in the future he might do a slightly better job but I won't hold my breath.

 

[marc71178]

And whether or not we got the wickets didn't matter in the slightest as to get the wickets would not change the result of the series.

Yes it would, it would turn it from 1-0 to 2-0, which makes a lot of difference mentally if nothing else.

 

[marc71178]

Number-two (or I'd say level-par number-one) spinner is Robert Croft, who as we all know got treated poorly and retired prematurely from Test-cricket.

For those of you who are unsure this is the Robert Croft who plays for Glamorgan and averages 36.05 in his non-Test career (which will have been almost exclusively played in substandard County Cricket)

Quite how is on a par with Ashley Giles - average 25.69 in his non-Tests, is something I'd like to find out.

 

[badgerhair]

It is, I must say, a little puzzling that Graeme Swann seems to have been totally overlooked but it's almost certainly for the best.

Swann has not been overlooked at all. Having blotted his copybook very badly indeed on the 1999-00 tour of SA, he was parked until evidence began to build that he had decided to take his head out of his backside and grow up.

As occasionally happens with 20-y-os, it took him a few years to realise that being an arrogant idiot wasn't really big or clever after all, but now that he has, he is back in favour and is a member of the 25-man development squad of players whose careers are being directed by the England management.

From what I've seen of him this season, he is now a better bowler than Batty (he may have been for some time, but I haven't seen him for a couple of years), and he offers at least as much with the bat as well. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that he is now regarded as Giles's number two in selectorial circles.

I realise that I'm obviously mistaken, since alleged facts which contradict your theories are in error by definition, but to those of us who haven't achieved your level of enlightenment it would appear that this statement of yours is balderdash.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

Yes it would, it would turn it from 1-0 to 2-0, which makes a lot of difference mentally if nothing else.

Mentally to who? England? Nope, that series was the only one we won in 7 against Test-class teams - winning it was simply a relief, whether it was 1-0 or 2-0 didn't matter in the slightest.

 

[Richard]

For those of you who are unsure this is the Robert Croft who plays for Glamorgan and averages 36.05 in his non-Test career (which will have been almost exclusively played in substandard County Cricket)

Quite how is on a par with Ashley Giles - average 25.69 in his non-Tests, is something I'd like to find out.

Who knows - like everyone else, I haven't seen all of their First-Class careers.
The only reasonable explanation is that Croft has had a) better batting against him and b) less turning pitches to bowl on.
Because their records at the top level are practically identical.

 

[Richard]

Swann has not been overlooked at all. Having blotted his copybook very badly indeed on the 1999-00 tour of SA, he was parked until evidence began to build that he had decided to take his head out of his backside and grow up.

As occasionally happens with 20-y-os, it took him a few years to realise that being an arrogant idiot wasn't really big or clever after all, but now that he has, he is back in favour and is a member of the 25-man development squad of players whose careers are being directed by the England management.

From what I've seen of him this season, he is now a better bowler than Batty (he may have been for some time, but I haven't seen him for a couple of years), and he offers at least as much with the bat as well. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that he is now regarded as Giles's number two in selectorial circles.

I realise that I'm obviously mistaken, since alleged facts which contradict your theories are in error by definition, but to those of us who haven't achieved your level of enlightenment it would appear that this statement of yours is balderdash.

Sorry, I said Swann has not possibly been overlooked because of perceived attitude-problems where exactly?

 

[marc71178]

The only reasonable explanation is that Croft has had a) better batting against him and b) less turning pitches to bowl on.

In spite of the fact they've played in the same competition.

That excuse is about as likely as it is that I will come on as 12th man next Thursday at Lords.

 

[aussie]

If you're going to tell jokes, at least make them credible or funny. This one is neither, as Powell isn't an opening batsman and isn't useless enough for the suggestion to be otherwise hilarious.

Cheers,

Mike

well he opened the batting in a few A team games mate, so that what i'm basing it on, so dont get all sarcastic with me

 

[badgerhair]

Originally Posted by Richard
The only reasonable explanation is that Croft has had a) better batting against him and b) less turning pitches to bowl on.

In spite of the fact they've played in the same competition.

That excuse is about as likely as it is that I will come on as 12th man next Thursday at Lords.

They have played in the same competition, but not necessarily under the same circumstances.

There's some truth in b) although it's nowhere near a full explanation. Sophia Gardens isn't a turning track, but Edgbaston is even less of one. However, Sophia Gardens has a tendency to be dead and Edgbaston is usually pretty lively. The big difference this makes is that a Glamorgan spinner is liable to have long stretches of effectively stock bowling while a Warwickshire spinner will be used far less in that role since the seamers take the wickets quicker and are better bets as stock bowlers too. So a Warks spinner will more bowl when it's favourable proportionately more often than a Glamorgan spinner who will have a larger and often more thankless workload.

I realise that you've deputed the other statrats to dig up the figures on Croft and Giles, but it is certainly the case that in the Tests they have played together, Croft has comprehensively outbowled Giles. What this is supposed to mean exactly isn't very clear, as Croft is three years older than Giles and when they were in the side together, Giles wasa rookie and Croft could be at least deemed an experienced Test player, but it would not be unreasonable to say that five years ago, Croft was a better bowler than Giles was. I think that Giles is now a better bowler than Croft was then, although I shall have much more evidence to go on after this winter's tours: Croft was actually a *good* spinner in the subcontinent and Giles has so far been average at best (except in the one innings at Karachi), so it will be an interesting test of my hypothesis.

It is probably also the case that five years ago Croft was a better bowler than any of the current "challengers" to Giles is now.

However, I don't think he's as good a bowler now as he was then. Seeing him bowl in domestic one-dayers, he seems to be keen to get back to doing the captaincy thing - in other words he doesn't seem to me to be concentrating as hard on his bowling as he used to.

Frankly, I can't stand the bloke, since he's spent most of his career whingeing about something or other and has displayed rather a tendency to blame anyone but himself for his failures, but he did do some good things as Test player and he's done a lot more good for Glamorgan than Giles has for Warks.

Doesn't mean Giles isn't a much better bowler than him now, though.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

I don't see how he's done a lot more for Glamorgan than Giles has for Warwickshire though?

 

[badgerhair]

I don't see how he's done a lot more for Glamorgan than Giles has for Warwickshire though?

Answer these questions, grasshopper, and enlightenment will dawn:

How many games has Croft played for Glam, and how many has Giles played for Warks?

How many wickets has Croft taken for Glam, and how many has Giles taken for Warks?

How often has Croft captained Glam, and how often has Giles captained Warks?

How many trophies have Glam won under Croft's captaincy, and how many have Warks won under Giles's?


Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

So longevity is the only thing you've got then?

 

[Richard]

Giles has so far been average at best (except in the one innings at Karachi), so it will be an interesting test of my hypothesis.

I hardly see how - Giles has played 10 Tests in the subcontinent, 2 of which were on pitches offering absolutely nothing to spin (Bangalore and SSC 2003\04) and he's done either pretty reasonably or very well in 6 of those 8 games. The only 2 times he's bowled very poorly were the first 2 in Sri Lanka in 2000\01, when he was still affected by his calf.