***Official** West Indies in England***

[Richard]

Caddick always looked very much like he could bat to me. I also happen to think he did show it a fair few times, especially in the 1999 sort of time. Of course, Plunkett plays in an era where bowling in general is far weaker - and their own cases demonstrate such a thing. Caddick would average far more with Plunkett bowling at him than Plunkett would facing Caddick.

 

[Prince EWS]

Caddick would average far more with Plunkett bowling at him than Plunkett would facing Caddick.

That has a lot more to do with the fact that Caddick is a superior bowler than anything else though. Pollock would average more with Herschelle Gibbs bowling at him than Gibbs would facing Pollock, but we all know who the better batsman is there.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Is Pothas even eligible to play? Pretty sure he's still classed as a Kolpak, though then again Warne was calling for his inclusion...

Small nit-picky point, but Pothas has never been a Kolpak. He qualifies because he holds an EU (Greek) passport.

He's actually sitting his UK citizenship test tomorrow tho, if Kevin Mitchell is to be believed. Very interesting article on the impact of Kolpak & EU passported players on our game too. Linky:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,,2078634,00.html

Paul Wilson, Eddie Butler & Vic Marks also comment on the affect on football, Union & cricket respectively. Kudos to Wilson for use of the word "dire" too.

 

[Richard]

That has a lot more to do with the fact that Caddick is a superior bowler than anything else though. Pollock would average more with Herschelle Gibbs bowling at him than Gibbs would facing Pollock, but we all know who the better batsman is there.

That wasn't the point. The point was that those two demonstrate the fall in quality of bowling as well as anyone.

 

[Richard]

Small nit-picky point, but Pothas has never been a Kolpak. He qualifies because he holds an EU (Greek) passport.

He's actually sitting his UK citizenship test tomorrow tho, if Kevin Mitchell is to be believed. Very interesting article on the impact of Kolpak & EU passported players on our game too. Linky:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,,2078634,00.html

Paul Wilson, Eddie Butler & Vic Marks also comment on the affect on football, Union & cricket respectively.

And the Victor part is the one I'm most conscious of.

One other thing, raised by Matthew Engel in his most recent Wisden notes and generally ignored by almost all other discussions of the subject: what does all this do to the game in South Africa (and almost all notable defectees are from there)? The vastly superior wages offered by the English domestic game is in serious danger of weakening South Africa as a cricket nation, not by depriving them of South Africans to play for South Africa, but by weakening domestic cricket over there. If, for instance, you have no chance of playing for either England or South Africa, which domestic game do you choose given the choice? Easy.

Some Englishmen, of course, are shallow and selfish enough to care only about our own game and not that in South Africa. This ignores the fact that England vs South Africa is a vital part of the cricket calender.

 

[BoyBrumby]

And the Victor part is the one I'm most conscious of.

One other thing, raised by Matthew Engel in his most recent Wisden notes and generally ignored by almost all other discussions of the subject: what does all this do to the game in South Africa (and almost all notable defectees are from there)? The vastly superior wages offered by the English domestic game is in serious danger of weakening South Africa as a cricket nation, not by depriving them of South Africans to play for South Africa, but by weakening domestic cricket over there. If, for instance, you have no chance of playing for either England or South Africa, which domestic game do you choose given the choice? Easy.

Some Englishmen, of course, are shallow and selfish enough to care only about our own game and not that in South Africa. This ignores the fact that England vs South Africa is a vital part of the cricket calender.

TBF it isn't our problem tho, is it? We aren't holding a gun to these chaps heads to make them come over, are we?

Obviously the money is the main attraction, but I'm sure there's also a perception amongst some white SA cricketers that they aren't getting a fair shake of it in their home nation. The strength of stirling/weakness of the rand is only a cricketing issue in the broadest sense, but that & other issues in their homeland can be addressed.

 

[Bob Bamber]

I get the feeling Plunkett won't play. Flintoff should bat at Number 7 , Shah 6 , Prior 8. That would give the team the right balance. Lets not forget Strauss managed England to a 2-0 (well technically 3-0) Win against Pakistan , with only 4 bowlers.

I just hope Vaughan doesn't return , if Bell and Shah can get themselves some big runs then who knows.

 

[aussie]

I just hope Vaughan doesn't return

No way

 

[Richard]

TBF it isn't our problem tho, is it? We aren't holding a gun to these chaps heads to make them come over, are we?

Obviously the money is the main attraction, but I'm sure there's also a perception amongst some white SA cricketers that they aren't getting a fair shake of it in their home nation. The strength of stirling/weakness of the rand is only a cricketing issue in the broadest sense, but that & other issues in their homeland can be addressed.

It isn't our problem? So it doesn't matter to us if series against SA are no longer a viable prospect in 15 years' time? I'd say it does, myself.

There are things we can do, and things we can't. Stealing many of their best cricketers is one surefire way to make things worse. The Pothases and Rudolphs aren't disenchanted white cricketers who can't get into the system, they're international-calibre players who were established but simply found that, with no way into the Test and ODI sides, well-paid domestic cricket was a better option than less-well-paid domestic cricket.

The only way to stop this is for the county chairmen and cricket committees to put the greater good of the game ahead of their own short-term interests - and that's something we know from experience doesn't often happen. The EU, too, doesn't help the matter, and this from one who's always been very much pro-Europe in the British sense. Treating sport as the same as most matters of employment is, purely and simply, wrong. The sooner the new clause recognising that it is indeed different comes through the better.

 

[Richard]

I get the feeling Plunkett won't play. Flintoff should bat at Number 7 , Shah 6 , Prior 8. That would give the team the right balance. Lets not forget Strauss managed England to a 2-0 (well technically 3-0) Win against Pakistan , with only 4 bowlers.

I just hope Vaughan doesn't return , if Bell and Shah can get themselves some big runs then who knows.

Vaughan clearly has more potential as a Test batsman than Collingwood. While I too would rate Shah ahead of Collingwood and, quite possibly, Vaughan, his presence in the side, if he can recover his form (as he looked to be doing nicely before that blow on the hand), would unquestionably be a plus.

Nor do I really see us going in with 7 batsmen (Prior inc - we live in hope ) and 4 bowlers (Flintoff inc), much as I'd prefer that strategem.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It isn't our problem? <snip>

No, it isn't. Wait until we have our own house in order before we worry about the saffies.

&, tbh, test cricket seemed to get along famously without the saffies for 20+ years.

 

[Richard]

IMO you're burying your head in the sand if you think it's not our problem. Or rather, not something we can play our part in.

 

[Swervy]

The only way to stop this is for the county chairmen and cricket committees to put the greater good of the game ahead of their own short-term interests - and that's something we know from experience doesn't often happen.

I think that is asking way way too much of the counties!!!!

 

[Richard]

 

[TheEpic]

I think it's pretty obvious that, depending Pietersen is fit, the side will be

Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior
Plunkett
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

 

[Richard]

It is.

 

[FBU]

As captain will Strauss have the final say on the team he wants or will Vaughan lurking around the dressing room have his say on who should play?

 

[Richard]

Neither of them should have too much of a say IMO.

 

[FBU]

I think Vaughan should go home and leave the dressing room to Strauss and Moores.

It looks like we might have a different keeper in the ODIs.

Nixon had been the favourite to be selected after playing in the both the Commonwealth Bank series and the World Cup during the winter.

Although he has now missed out on the chance to make his Test debut at Lord's, Graveney insists the Leicestershire player is still firmly in the selectors' thoughts, particularly in terms of one-day cricket.

"As far as the selectors are concerned, Paul did a fantastic job in the West Indies, both in his contribution both on and off the field," he said.

"I'll be speaking to him just to reconfirm he's still very much in our thoughts, particularly when we have one-day and Twenty20 cricket coming up."

 

[Richard]

Twenty20 is quite damn right (not that I'm terribly bothered what happens to the team there), but I cringe at the thought of Nixon playing ODIs from now on, even while I appreciate very much the job he did last winter and have always anticipated that he might be retained beyond the realms of wise.