The England Thread

[tooextracool]

Thats true, but stats don't tell the whole story you just had to see him bowl vs PAK last summer to see that he has potential to be a wicket-taking threat.

There were times when it looked like he could barely land the ball on the pitch last summer. He bowled absolute garbage short and wide stuff in his 2nd ODI.
No one can be wicket taking if they arent accurate, no matter how much potential they have. This is the problem with English cricket and english selectors. Its all about pace and bounce as opposed to accuracy, discipline and variety.

Whats up with Collingwood, Anderson, Panesar & Strauss, surely you can't leave them out. Otherwise i may have taken that XI with the possiblity of having Pothas in has keeper as well since he's a very solid batsman & a pretty safe keeper. I might go overall

Vaughan
Bell
Ramprakash
KP
Freddie
Collingwood
Pothas
Dalrymple
Lewis
Anderson
Panesar

Joyce/Loye
Chapple
Strauss
Mascarenhas

This is IMO the problem with english cricket. What is the problem with Strauss and Collingwood?Forget about the fact that Strauss averages 30 odd and Collingwood 28.5 when you remove games against minnows. The problem is far deeper than that. What is your answer to the question why has our batting been so miserable over the last 2 years? Why have we been bowled out more times than most in the last 2 years?
I mean we cant drop bell, we cant drop Pietersen, we cant drop Flintoff, not Dalrymple, Vaughan is captain, and clearly according to you we cant drop collingwood and strauss either. Sounds like we're the best side in the world really given that all of our batting picks itself.
The biggest problem is that when Strauss and collingwood bat they look like they spend more time getting set rather than scoring runs . Strauss infact looks like has has absolutely no idea how the game of ODI cricket works. When was the last time you saw Strauss(or for that matter anyone other than Pietersen) take advantage of the 20 over restrictions and hit the ball over the top of the infield? The problem is that they cant hit over the top, nor can they nudge and nurdle and take singles every ball so why on earth are they dead certainities in this English ODI side?

 

[Richard]

I said 'superior wicket keepers'. Im pretty sure you could pick out any jim and gary from domestic cricket that can keep and they'd average at least 20 odd with the bat and their keeping would be far better than jones'. Chris Read is a case in point.
Bottom line was that Jones was picked for his batting and his batting alone, the fact that he could keep was supposed to be a bonus. Averaging 25 odd with the bat after your first full series is simply not good enough then.

Err, Jones was picked as a specialist batsman?

No.

He was picked as a wicketkeeper-batsman (not a batsman-wicketkeeper like Alec Stewart - there's no way on Earth he'd have come close to selection had he had no professions whatsoever to being a wicketkeeper).

The fact that there were better wicketkeepers around at the time is neither here nor there. The day of the specialist wicketkeeper who can play and average 20 (or less) with the bat is gone.

Which is why Jones cannot be considered for England again IMO.

 

[Richard]

Ealham was not very good as you seemed to rate him. and Fraser was certainly better and should have played ahead of him. Nonetheless for the while that he played he routinely did a decent job which is more than most other English bowlers have in the last decade and a half. And any fast bowler who doesnt bowl in the last 10 in ODIs deserves to have his record tarnished rather than made to look better.

Yes, but equally anyone who is clearly totally dissuited to bowling in the last 10 overs deserves not to bowl in them (Gavin Larsen and Chris Harris, for instance) and have himself assessed from there. And if he then manages to go for less than 4-an-over, he deserves credit for doing an important job that many have proven incapable of doing.

Where on Earth have I ever said Ealham was better than Fraser, BTW?

Have you seen Smith bat? Even the most average of spinners like Tim May and Raju had him tied in knots. Stewart wasnt the best, but at least he was good enough to score runs against average spinners and moreover kept his place in the side as a wicket keeper.

I never saw him face the likes of May and Raju but I find it utterly inconceivable that either could ever trouble anyone with any pretensions at all as a batsman on a non-turning pitch.

 

[Richard]

No immediate effect? Hick never scored a century against Australia, he never even came close to doing so after that. You dont think that master sledger Ian Healy didnt remind him constantly when he batted how he cried after Atherton's declaration? It certainly had an effect on his confidence, youd have to be a complete fool if you didnt think that someone like Hick who was already a quite fragile personality was having to play with a captain that seemed to care less about him as well as the coach and management. everything takes its toll. its almost like saying Trescothick didnt have any mental frailities because he scored a century on return last summer.

It's nothing of the sort, Trescothick only scored that century because he had about 3 lbws against him turned-down incorrectly.

And with regards the immidiate effect - he didn't play Australia again for another 4 years, in the interim of which he'd had 2 horror series. So quite where Healy comes into it I'm not sure. And given that he continued to score runs for another year after that, I'd say it had no immidiate effect.

Furthermore your argument was this:
"Oh, come on! How could they have been handled better?"
Whether or not it had immediate impact on him is rather irrelevant because it is basic fact that he wasnt handled properly.

OK, Atherton could have done better by not declaring on him - and he himself did say that, as well as saying that he always had faith in Hick and desperately wanted him to score runs - as he did, under his captaincy, for a long while. Why he handled him so poorly in that SCG Test, then, is an open question.

Firstly he was dropped in 93 after the 2nd Ashes test at Lords. This despite the fact that he was the only competent cricketer in India, played brilliantly against SL and also scored 64 in the innings before he was dropped. I guess of course averaging 45 odd in his last 6 tests werent good enough for the English management. Surprisingly enough they recalled him against after 2 tests and he scored more runs.

I know perfectly well that he missed 3 Tests in 1993 but his performances before that were so good I just assumed he was injured. If he really was dropped in 1993 that's stupid beyond belief.

Hick was dropped in 95?

Yep.

Oh yes what clear logic that is. Here is someone averaging 45 over the last 3 years, the best out of all the English batsman including Stewart, Atherton, Thorpe and all the others that were consistently playing for England, why dont we drop him after 6 poor innings. because of course 3 years of top quality cricket against Ambrose, Walsh, Benjamin, Warne, Pollock, Mcdermott, Hughes and Donald counts for absolutely nothing. By your logic, everyone from Tendulkar to Richards and everyone else would have been dropped multiple times in their career.

And yet Ramprakash should have been dropped in 1999\2000? Despite the fact he'd scored runs against mostly the same bowlers for the previous year?

Maybe he was a little hard-done by, but the past comes back to haunt batsmen often, and a lengthy poor start is hard to shake-off even if you have 1 or even 3 good years.

Even after he was dropped for what should have been merely a kick on the backside, he didnt play test cricket for 2 years(and ODI cricket for about a year), despite scoring prolifically in FC cricket arguably in his very prime. Logic?

Because there was a gap in the side in that 2 years? Hussain and Stewart were finally established, Thorpe had been for ages, and Crawley, who took his place, scored loads of runs at the start and earned himself a run, then scored enough to keep his place for a while. By the time Crawley was dropped, Ramprakash was established and he only got back in in 1998 because of Thorpe's back.

Err and despite being the 2nd best English ODI player of the modern era, how many times was he dropped in that form? Even in 96 when he was dropped in both forms, he averaged 41 against India in the texaco trophy, the series just before that.

The fact that he was ever dropped from ODIs just shows how poorly the pre-1990s generation (who are mostly still in selection-committee and Press now) distinguished the two game-forms - that was evident again when Read was finally recalled against Pakistan last summer - and mysteriously got the ODI call-up (which he should never have needed, given that he should never have been dropped from ODIs ITFP) at the same time. And in countless examples besides those 2, probably. If someone's dropped or recalled to Tests, the same often follows in ODIs and even averaging 40-plus often fails to help.

Really i dont think Hick could have been handled any worse than he was. Yes when he was picked in the subcontinent in 2000-01 there were many including me who were praying for him to be dropped as it would tarnish his reputation even further considering that he was well past it. However for most of his career he was never ever given any sort of confidence in the side, certainly dropping him after a handful of poor innings was quite a joke.

I'd say the 1993 dropping and the 1994\95 declaration were the only times you could genuinely say he was handled poorly.

 

[tooextracool]

It's nothing of the sort, Trescothick only scored that century because he had about 3 lbws against him turned-down incorrectly.

And with regards the immidiate effect - he didn't play Australia again for another 4 years, in the interim of which he'd had 2 horror series. So quite where Healy comes into it I'm not sure. And given that he continued to score runs for another year after that, I'd say it had no immidiate effect..

rather aimless post. Whether it was 3 years later or not is irrelevant, the point was that it could not have helped his confidence in those 4 tests that he played against Australia thereafter, a century under your belt gives you a good deal more confidence not just against Australia but against everyone else as well.
As far as Trescothick is concerned, he also averaged 55.40 against SL in the ODI series, which once again disproves your argument

OK, Atherton could have done better by not declaring on him - and he himself did say that, as well as saying that he always had faith in Hick and desperately wanted him to score runs - as he did, under his captaincy, for a long while. Why he handled him so poorly in that SCG Test, then, is an open question.

I know perfectly well that he missed 3 Tests in 1993 but his performances before that were so good I just assumed he was injured. If he really was dropped in 1993 that's stupid beyond belief.

heres a little excerpt from cricinfo, Speaks for itself really:
"His mental frailties are undeniable, but even Ray Illingworth would struggle to get over some of the treatment Hick has had: dropped just three Tests after his maiden Test century, that mighty 178 at Bombay in 1992-93; dismissed publicly by Illingworth, who came into Hick's life at the wrong time and never trusted him."
To say that he was dealt fine is a joke of the first order, and clearly could only be made by someone who merely read autobiographies of Atherton.

Yep.

i forgot the infamous illingworth decision. How on earth could anybody back that up? He had just smashed the Aussies and SA and to claim that it was the right decision because he scored 118 on return is absolute drivel

And yet Ramprakash should have been dropped in 1999\2000? Despite the fact he'd scored runs against mostly the same bowlers for the previous year?

context?what does ramprakash being treated poorly have to do with the way hick was treated?

Maybe he was a little hard-done by, but the past comes back to haunt batsmen often, and a lengthy poor start is hard to shake-off even if you have 1 or even 3 good years.

And finally you've realised the futility of your case and receded on your argument even if not completely.
As far as the latter argument is concerned, plenty of good players including Steve Waugh had poor starts to their career, would you have dropped them everytime they had 2 poor games?

Because there was a gap in the side in that 2 years? Hussain and Stewart were finally established, Thorpe had been for ages, and Crawley, who took his place, scored loads of runs at the start and earned himself a run, then scored enough to keep his place for a while. By the time Crawley was dropped, Ramprakash was established and he only got back in in 1998 because of Thorpe's back.

There wasnt? Mark Butcher(and remember Stewart was more than capable of opening the batting and did so several times while hick was out)?Adam Hollioake? Ben Hollioake? Hell even Nasser Hussain wasnt established in the side until the summer of 1997 after his double against Australia. Same with ramprakash who was picked to tour the WI despite being rubbish every single time he stepped on the field before.
Oh and even if you thought Hick wasnt good enough to make the starting XI, howcome Hick didnt make the squads for the winter tours to WI, NZ or zimbabwe?

The fact that he was ever dropped from ODIs just shows how poorly the pre-1990s generation (who are mostly still in selection-committee and Press now) distinguished the two game-forms - that was evident again when Read was finally recalled against Pakistan last summer - and mysteriously got the ODI call-up (which he should never have needed, given that he should never have been dropped from ODIs ITFP) at the same time. And in countless examples besides those 2, probably. If someone's dropped or recalled to Tests, the same often follows in ODIs and even averaging 40-plus often fails to help.

I'd say the 1993 dropping and the 1994\95 declaration were the only times you could genuinely say he was handled poorly.

So being dropped for no reason in 93, then dropped again for 'being soft' in 3 tests against the WI in 95, held back from scoring his only ashes century and being dropped plenty of times from a format that he was one of the very best at, wow they couldnt have treated him any better than that could they? The english management deserves a medal for their treatment of Hick. While Butcher and others failures got some 100 failures to prove themselves during that time, Hick was dropped despite averaging 45 odd and being their best batsman.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, but equally anyone who is clearly totally dissuited to bowling in the last 10 overs deserves not to bowl in them (Gavin Larsen and Chris Harris, for instance) and have himself assessed from there. And if he then manages to go for less than 4-an-over, he deserves credit for doing an important job that many have proven incapable of doing.

Yes he does but it has to be looked at in context. Someone who does both really well is better than one that merely does one. Ealhams problems were that he wasnt wicket taking, nor was he able to bowl successfully in the death.

Where on Earth have I ever said Ealham was better than Fraser, BTW?

Our argument revolved around Fraser, Caddick and Gough all deserving to start ahead of Ealham.

I never saw him face the likes of May and Raju but I find it utterly inconceivable that either could ever trouble anyone with any pretensions at all as a batsman on a non-turning pitch.

Most pitches offer some amount of turn in the 2nd innings. Robin Smith was useless even against poor bowlers on wickets that offered even the slightest bit of turn, while the very best like Warne and Kumble could trouble him anywhere. He was dropped for the same reason Mckenzie was dropped IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, Jones was picked as a specialist batsman?

No.

He was picked as a wicketkeeper-batsman (not a batsman-wicketkeeper like Alec Stewart - there's no way on Earth he'd have come close to selection had he had no professions whatsoever to being a wicketkeeper).

The fact that there were better wicketkeepers around at the time is neither here nor there. The day of the specialist wicketkeeper who can play and average 20 (or less) with the bat is gone.

Which is why Jones cannot be considered for England again IMO.

He was picked because he was supposed to be a good batsman who could also keep not the other way around. When read was picked that was not the case. At the end of the day his wicket keeping didnt merit selection for keeping alone and his batting was about as ordinary as it gets.

 

[Richard]

rather aimless post. Whether it was 3 years later or not is irrelevant, the point was that it could not have helped his confidence in those 4 tests that he played against Australia thereafter, a century under your belt gives you a good deal more confidence not just against Australia but against everyone else as well.

Except that despite not having that confidence he continued to perform well for a year...

And he didn't do terribly in 1998\99, either.

As far as Trescothick is concerned, he also averaged 55.40 against SL in the ODI series, which once again disproves your argument

How? I've never mentioned Trescothick, only you have.

heres a little excerpt from cricinfo, Speaks for itself really:
"His mental frailties are undeniable, but even Ray Illingworth would struggle to get over some of the treatment Hick has had: dropped just three Tests after his maiden Test century, that mighty 178 at Bombay in 1992-93; dismissed publicly by Illingworth, who came into Hick's life at the wrong time and never trusted him."
To say that he was dealt fine is a joke of the first order, and clearly could only be made by someone who merely read autobiographies of Atherton.

Where did I say he was dealt fine? I've already slightly modified what I initially posted; and I've certainly done far more than "merely read autobiographies of Atherton". Yes, Hick had some poor treatment, I've acknowledged that, haven't I?

i forgot the infamous illingworth decision. How on earth could anybody back that up? He had just smashed the Aussies and SA and to claim that it was the right decision because he scored 118 on return is absolute drivel

Who claimed that? Me or Raymond?

context?what does ramprakash being treated poorly have to do with the way hick was treated?

IIRR you've said before now that Ramprakash was rubbish and wasn't poorly treated.

As far as the latter argument is concerned, plenty of good players including Steve Waugh had poor starts to their career, would you have dropped them everytime they had 2 poor games?

We've done this one before, remember? Many people have poor starts to their careers - in Stephen Waugh's case he sort of rendered it irrelevant by averaging 61 in the 80-odd Tests in the middle part of his career. Hick did not.

There wasnt? Mark Butcher(and remember Stewart was more than capable of opening the batting and did so several times while hick was out)?Adam Hollioake? Ben Hollioake? Hell even Nasser Hussain wasnt established in the side until the summer of 1997 after his double against Australia. Same with ramprakash who was picked to tour the WI despite being rubbish every single time he stepped on the field before.
Oh and even if you thought Hick wasnt good enough to make the starting XI, howcome Hick didnt make the squads for the winter tours to WI, NZ or zimbabwe?

Hussain was established in the side when he got that century against India in 1996 and you know it. Stewart hardly ever opened after 1996, because he finally achieved some consistency as a middle-order-batsman\wicketkeeper, and as such another specialist opener was required, that's why Butcher and Knight got as many opportunities as they did. As for the Hollioakes, unless I'm much mistaken they were picked due to the impression that they could both bowl.
Ramprakash replaced Crawley when he finally got dropped, and immidiately established himself. There was no other place in the side for a specialist-batsman in that time. Therefore Hick could not have got the instant recall we may have been expecting when he was dropped in 1996.

So being dropped for no reason in 93, then dropped again for 'being soft' in 3 tests against the WI in 95, held back from scoring his only ashes century and being dropped plenty of times from a format that he was one of the very best at, wow they couldnt have treated him any better than that could they? The english management deserves a medal for their treatment of Hick. While Butcher and others failures got some 100 failures to prove themselves during that time, Hick was dropped despite averaging 45 odd and being their best batsman.

In case you haven't spotted it the management that handled Butcher was mostly different to that which handled Hick...

 

[Richard]

Yes he does but it has to be looked at in context. Someone who does both really well is better than one that merely does one. Ealhams problems were that he wasnt wicket taking, nor was he able to bowl successfully in the death.

Obviously they are, but where exactly did I claim Ealham was a wicket-taker or able to bowl successfully at the death? I never have done either. There haven't been a huge number who've been able to do that successfully for England in the modern era - Gough and Flintoff are the only two that come to mind, and even they have hardly been faultless the way Donald and de Villiers, for instance, near enough were.

Our argument revolved around Fraser, Caddick and Gough all deserving to start ahead of Ealham.

Err, eh? When on Earth have I ever said Ealham was better than Fraser or Caddick in ODIs?

Most pitches offer some amount of turn in the 2nd innings. Robin Smith was useless even against poor bowlers on wickets that offered even the slightest bit of turn, while the very best like Warne and Kumble could trouble him anywhere. He was dropped for the same reason Mckenzie was dropped IMO.

Most pitches offer some amount of turn the second-innings?

Pitches usually either turn or they don't.

 

[Richard]

He was picked because he was supposed to be a good batsman who could also keep not the other way around. When read was picked that was not the case. At the end of the day his wicket keeping didnt merit selection for keeping alone and his batting was about as ordinary as it gets.

Yes, it turned-out it was, but there was no reason to presume that this would be the way it would turn-out.

Jones was worth a go and picking him ITFP was the right choice. So was dropping him.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, it turned-out it was, but there was no reason to presume that this would be the way it would turn-out.

Jones was worth a go and picking him ITFP was the right choice. So was dropping him.

Err thats not what i argued. Jones deserved to be picked and i was amongst those who recommended it. However his record after the NZ series in 04 is not worthy of a place in the side.

 

[tooextracool]

Except that despite not having that confidence he continued to perform well for a year...

And he didn't do terribly in 1998\99, either.

How? I've never mentioned Trescothick, only you have..

Trescothick proves my case. If Trescothick could average 55.4 in an isolated series despite mental frailities then so could Hick. When someone is incredibly talented like Hick there are always going to be times when they succeed despite temperamental issues. There is no doubt in my mind that the selectors lack of faith had to do with his poor performances after 96.

Who claimed that? Me or Raymond?

I presumed that you subscribed to it given that you didnt include it as one of your instances where he hadnt been dealt with properly.

IIRR you've said before now that Ramprakash was rubbish and wasn't poorly treated.

I dont think its wise to jump back onto old arguments, we've done it before and it only goes downhill from there. Ramprakash has nothing to do with Hick.

Hussain was established in the side when he got that century against India in 1996 and you know it.

Deservedly? Averaging 37, 32 and 29 in 3 series after that doesnt exactly make for a convincing case. Certainly Hick had done far less to get dropped.

Stewart hardly ever opened after 1996, because he finally achieved some consistency as a middle-order-batsman\wicketkeeper, and as such another specialist opener was required, that's why Butcher and Knight got as many opportunities as they did.

And by middle order you mean batting at 3? because thats exactly what he did during that period. Further he then swapped positions with Butcher in the WI(http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1997-98/ENG_IN_WI/SCORECARDS/ENG_WI_T4_27FEB-03MAR1998.html) and opened for the entire series while Butcher batted at 3.

As for the Hollioakes, unless I'm much mistaken they were picked due to the impression that they could both bowl.

No Adam was picked because he could bat and for his exploits in the ODI series against Australia. If he was picked for his bowling, he would surely have bowled in more than 3 out of 6 innings and he would also have bowled more than 24 overs in his test career.

Ramprakash replaced Crawley when he finally got dropped, and immidiately established himself.

because he held such a fabulous test record until then. Hick was a better player than Ramprakash on the domestic circuit at the time, and he had done brilliantly in tests for a while.

 

[tooextracool]

Obviously they are, but where exactly did I claim Ealham was a wicket-taker or able to bowl successfully at the death? I never have done either. There haven't been a huge number who've been able to do that successfully for England in the modern era - Gough and Flintoff are the only two that come to mind, and even they have hardly been faultless the way Donald and de Villiers, for instance, near enough were.

Yes and thats exactly why ive put Ealham up there are one of the best England have had. Because hes amongst the best of a very bad bunch.

Most pitches offer some amount of turn the second-innings?

Yes 80% of the wickets do. It might not turn square but it turns a little bit, sometimes out of the rough, sometimes off the wicket. That was more than enough for Robin Smith.

Pitches usually either turn or they don't.

thats tripe. Pitches deteriorate as the game goes on. The centurion pitch in the recent pak v SA game being a clear example.

 

[Richard]

Err thats not what i argued. Jones deserved to be picked and i was amongst those who recommended it. However his record after the NZ series in 04 is not worthy of a place in the side.

And I didn't say it is. I said it was until 2005\06, and from then on it definitively hasn't been.

 

[Richard]

Trescothick proves my case. If Trescothick could average 55.4 in an isolated series despite mental frailities then so could Hick. When someone is incredibly talented like Hick there are always going to be times when they succeed despite temperamental issues. There is no doubt in my mind that the selectors lack of faith had to do with his poor performances after 96.

Trescothick proves nothing of the sort, unless you know of the exact state of his mind last summer. There were many articles which suggested he had temporarily recovered and merely suffered a relapse when in Australia.

I presumed that you subscribed to it given that you didnt include it as one of your instances where he hadnt been dealt with properly.

What I said was "you can hardly argue that Hick being dropped in 1995 was a bad decision, because he responded with a brilliant century". Frankly, until Hick talks about it (maybe in an autobiography of his own) we can't know what affect it had on him, we can only presume. In your favourite book Atherton's autobiography, he presumes it had a positive effect. You presume the opposite. But without Hick talking about it we can't know for certain.

I dont think its wise to jump back onto old arguments, we've done it before and it only goes downhill from there. Ramprakash has nothing to do with Hick.

Except for the fact that there is one instance (their being dropped after one poor series having done well for a good few Tests prior to that) where their cases bear similarity.

Deservedly? Averaging 37, 32 and 29 in 3 series after that doesnt exactly make for a convincing case. Certainly Hick had done far less to get dropped.

Except that Hussain didn't score 5 single-figure scores in 6 innings. Maybe if he'd done that in the last of those series, he too might have been dropped.

And by middle order you mean batting at 3? because thats exactly what he did during that period. Further he then swapped positions with Butcher in the WI(http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1997-98/ENG_IN_WI/SCORECARDS/ENG_WI_T4_27FEB-03MAR1998.html) and opened for the entire series while Butcher batted at 3.

I know that, and it made no sense whatsoever, as it weakened the batting by putting Russell in the side while completely taking Butcher out of position. If they wanted Butcher in the side, they should've persisted with him as an opener. If they thought his form was too poor, they should've dropped him. SA are now doing exactly the same thing with AB de Villiers.

I don't really know that you can expect someone responsible for such a stupid decision to then go and pick Hick instead of Butcher.

No Adam was picked because he could bat and for his exploits in the ODI series against Australia. If he was picked for his bowling, he would surely have bowled in more than 3 out of 6 innings and he would also have bowled more than 24 overs in his test career.

So you think he'd have been picked (for ODIs or Tests) if he had never picked-up a ball in his career?

because he held such a fabulous test record until then. Hick was a better player than Ramprakash on the domestic circuit at the time, and he had done brilliantly in tests for a while.

If you mean Hick was averaging 55 and Ramprakash 50, then yes, he was, but given what ended-up happening with Ramprakash in WI and for most of the next 3 years when he wasn't opening, I'm happy enough that Ramprakash was given the go.

Ramprakash had also scored a crucial 48 in the last innings of the summer, which might have had something to do with him being in the squad and Hick not.

 

[Richard]

Yes and thats exactly why ive put Ealham up there are one of the best England have had. Because hes amongst the best of a very bad bunch.

And not so long ago you were arguing that he was absolutely rubbish because he never bowled in the last 10 overs.

Yes 80% of the wickets do. It might not turn square but it turns a little bit, sometimes out of the rough, sometimes off the wicket. That was more than enough for Robin Smith.

Turn out of the rough is rarely any problem for a right-hander as mostly the rough is in a position where they can simply pad it away.

So what's Smith's second-innings record like against the likes of May, then?

thats tripe. Pitches deteriorate as the game goes on. The centurion pitch in the recent pak v SA game being a clear example.

Some pitches deteriorate to offer turn as the game goes on. Others don't. And it's extremely unusual for a pitch to turn more and not get slower at the same time.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Ah, welcome back guys.

 

[Richard]

'Twas only a matter of time, and has happened many times before now (as have comments along the lines of yours when it has happened).

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ah... another hijack by this pair, trying to prove why they should never ever ever ever ever ever be given the responsibility of watering the high concentrate orange juice for the mid-innings break let alone anything else.

 

[Richard]

Fortunately, you do not decide on either that or the phenomina of "hijacking" threads... which fortunately doesn't exist.