That's a good point.vic_orthdox said:There's also the chance that the affliction isn't directly affecting Marcus himself. Although may be affecting a Trescothick...?
You're right, but AFAIK, only me and Pedro Delgado have mentioned bipolar, and we've both tried to say "bipolar, clinical depression or something else." Apologies if it came out any other way.Gloucefan said:I think we need to back away from bi-polar disorder really, we don't know what he has. It could be shingles or angina for all we know, they are both stress related illnesses which if accute would make playing cricket quite difficult. Once you've had shingles it can clear up but a hot climate and a bit of stress can make it really flair up. All conjecture I know but that's my point "I fell out of love with cricket" doesn't necesarrily mean he has a serious mood disorder. We've gone from 'stress-related illness' to bi-polar depression one of the most accute mental illnesses.
There was a suggestion in an article I read last night that suggested that Trescothick's problems may have something to do with his wife suffering from severe post-natal depression.vic_orthdox said:There's also the chance that the affliction isn't directly affecting Marcus himself. Although may be affecting a Trescothick...?
Yeah, I read that too. I couldn't even start to imagine how traumatic post-natal depression is, but to have it and be all by yourself raising a child while your husband is half the way around the world, would not only be a burden on her, but Marcus aswell.Slow Love™ said:
doesn't matter who wins once the cricket is great. But its not like if any of Shah, Key or Joyce have been that convincing & would cause Australia much headaches if selected (well its Joyce now), as i said i'd much rather Vaughan to come back in & hopefully he still can.marc71178 said:Of course you would, you don't want England to win.
No, the thing is that very few players have excellent overall FC stats(especially in England), in fact most players start of poorly and then end up improving them after several years as they get better. Collingwood is a clear case of this. If you are to base your selection around picking players purely based on excellent overall FC records then you end up picking the Hicks and Crawleys and basically any other 30 something year olds. The logical thing to do then is to pick players who have had success over the last couple of seasons, and who have obviously improved their games since they started. Players like Key, Shah, Strauss, Bell, Collingwood are all clear cut cases of this, and thus they are obiously not controversial selections. However when the likes of Plunkett, Batty etc are picked despite never having a half decent season, you really wonder what Fletcher has been smoking.Woodster said:Without wanting to drag this discussion on too much, I'm not particularly sure that 1-2 good seasons denotes excellent domestic stats. Freddie and Harmy may not have been at ease immediately but that wasnt my point, not everyone settles immediately, but still their 1st class stats were average.
I think if a player scores in excess of 1000 runs in his last 2-3 seasons at an extremely good average, it isnt exactly 'seeing something in him'. Like i said earlier if you dont pick players based on their most recent domestic records, then your only other option left is picking 30 year old county pros, which England had the habit of doing in the 90s.Woodster said:I never questioned Strauss's selection, I really dont think at the time he was beating the door down. He has a decent domestic average, nothing breath taking, but Fletcher saw something in him and I think its fair to say, since then he has taken his game to another level. Yes, Cook and Pietersen record excellent first class averages, and were selected on that (It always appeared with Cook as though it was a case of when, not if ).