Top_Cat said:
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.
Top_Cat said:
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.
Top_Cat said:
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.
Top_Cat said:
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.
Top_Cat said:
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.
Top_Cat said:
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.
Top_Cat said:
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.
Top_Cat said:
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.