***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

Ramps in particular was never given an extended run in a key position and played a fair chunk of his test innings at 6 (or lower). In fact one of the better runs he had higher in the order was when he was thrust into an opening role, another unusual role for him.

Aside from the fact he was in and out of the side a fair bit in any case, when he was in he never had any real sort of run at #3 or #4, he'd get a couple of Tests there before they decided to push him back to 6 again.

You know why he was in and out of the side so much between 1991 and 1995/96? Because he averaged 16. Regardless of anything, that is execrable.

Ramprakash did bat at six (as well as higher) later in his career, and made a pretty decent fist of it, averaging 37 as a middle-order batsman from 1997 onwards.

But as a new player, you have to bat below established stars. That's just the way it is. If you have Gooch, Atherton, Smith, Gower, Lamb and others in the side, you don't walk into the top five. You get the chance lower down, and if your performances merit it you get moved up as other names move on. That's the way it's always been throughout history.

Sadly, due to temperamental deficiencies, Ramprakash was unable to achieve Test success early in his career. But it's near enough unthinkable that an exception being made to the age-old rationale of batting positions would have changed this.

 

[PavlovsDog]

But as a new player, you have to bat below established stars. That's just the way it is. If you have Gooch, Atherton, Smith, Gower, Lamb and others in the side, you don't walk into the top five.

Actually for his first couple of tests, he batted at #5, while Smith came in at 6.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, you know, I'd always thought Broad was taller than Onions.

TBF, there can't be that much difference, surely?

I think they're both about 6"7. Same height as Morkel in fact, and his bounce is ridiculous. To be fair, Glenn McGrath was "only" about 6"5.

But you'd have to give Broad's action a complete overhaul to get the kind of bounce Morkel, McGrath or Onions do. Even with his height. Onions suddenly becoming accurate may seem far-fetched, but James Anderson seems to have managed it i hate to admit.

 

[Richard]

It'll take more than 2 or 3 Tests for me to start thinking that. I said the same with Harmison back in 2004.

 

[Richard]

Actually for his first couple of tests, he batted at #5, while Smith came in at 6.

Smith had also batted six the previous summer, behind another incoming player, John Morris. Then went up to four in the winter.

He floated around the order almost as much as Ramprakash, in fact. He made a decent fist of it though.

 

[Uppercut]

It'll take more than 2 or 3 Tests for me to start thinking that. I said the same with Harmison back in 2004.

Hmm. Brett Lee then.

 

[Richard]

Yep, he'd be a good example.

One of a tiny number, however. Which is why I felt so astonished and almost outraged when he managed to do it.

 

[Uppercut]

Indeed. But because he had the raw pace and ability to swing the ball to begin with, there was always that small chance he would develop into the top-class bowler he is today. Stu Broad has nothing of the sort.

 

[Richard]

Oddly enough, Broad has both the ability to bowl at 90mph and perhaps even more remarkably, the ability to swing the ball away from the right-hander. He's demonstrated both this summer.

However, he does neither with the frequency required and his accuracy is not as good in Tests as in ODIs (presumably because of the fact he realises bowling accurately isn't enough in Tests, that taking wickets is required, and tries to vary things [thus losing his accuracy] in pursuit of wickets). Hence his Test and domestic-FC records are poor.

I don't doubt Broad could one day be a good Test (and domestic-FC when available) bowler. But it's maddening to see someone so poor picked ahead of better players purely because of what he might be some day. I don't want the here and now sacrificed because we think 2 years down the line is now.

 

[PavlovsDog]

Oddly enough, Broad has both the ability to bowl at 90mph and perhaps even more remarkably, the ability to swing the ball away from the right-hander. He's demonstrated both this summer.

However, he does neither with the frequency required and his accuracy is not as good in Tests as in ODIs (presumably because of the fact he realises bowling accurately isn't enough in Tests, that taking wickets is required, and tries to vary things [thus losing his accuracy] in pursuit of wickets). Hence his Test and domestic-FC records are poor.

I don't doubt Broad could one day be a good Test (and domestic-FC when available) bowler. But it's maddening to see someone so poor picked ahead of better players purely because of what he might be some day. I don't want the here and now sacrificed because we think 2 years down the line is now.

Apologies if you have already posted it, but all I have read is who you don't rate.

Let me see your ideal Test XI and better still, if you have the time and inclination, post up your ideal squad for the Tests in India.

 

[Uppercut]

Oddly enough, Broad has both the ability to bowl at 90mph and perhaps even more remarkably, the ability to swing the ball away from the right-hander. He's demonstrated both this summer.

However, he does neither with the frequency required and his accuracy is not as good in Tests as in ODIs (presumably because of the fact he realises bowling accurately isn't enough in Tests, that taking wickets is required, and tries to vary things [thus losing his accuracy] in pursuit of wickets). Hence his Test and domestic-FC records are poor.

I don't doubt Broad could one day be a good Test (and domestic-FC when available) bowler. But it's maddening to see someone so poor picked ahead of better players purely because of what he might be some day. I don't want the here and now sacrificed because we think 2 years down the line is now.

I've seen the odd quick ball, yes, but never any swing- although that's not to say he's never swung the ball, just that i wasn't watching. I don't dispute that he could develop into a good test bowler, and i completely agree with your point about him being picked over better players because he might become good.

IMO, though, if you're going to pick someone on potential, it's best to pick a player who can be erratic at times but who still poses a genuine threat- think early Dale Steyn. Broad sometimes keeps it fairly tight, but i have not seen one unplayable delivery from him. That's not the type of player who should be picked speculatively.

 

[Richard]

Apologies if you have already posted it, but all I have read is who you don't rate.

Let me see your ideal Test XI and better still, if you have the time and inclination, post up your ideal squad for the Tests in India.

If I'd picked the Test team for tomorrow, this is what I'd have picked:
Strauss
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Anderson
Sidebottom if he was fit
Panesar \ Hoggard

Try not to mistake who I rate as someone who could be a Test-class player \ could be very good at Tests with who I think should be in the side. It's not always possible to pick 11 players who fully convince you - in fact virtually no-one has ever done that in Test history, even the very best sides of them all.

Of the above, Anderson and Collingwood are two who've never really convinced me despite some good innings'\spells and of course I doubt Ambrose has convinced anyone.

Of those who I'd pick for India, well, I won't be saying a thing there until after this Test TBH. No point.

 

[Richard]

I've seen the odd quick ball, yes, but never any swing- although that's not to say he's never swung the ball, just that i wasn't watching. I don't dispute that he could develop into a good test bowler, and i completely agree with your point about him being picked over better players because he might become good.

IMO, though, if you're going to pick someone on potential, it's best to pick a player who can be erratic at times but who still poses a genuine threat- think early Dale Steyn. Broad sometimes keeps it fairly tight, but i have not seen one unplayable delivery from him. That's not the type of player who should be picked speculatively.

TBH, I'm just generally against speculative picks. It'll work really, really occasionally, and it'll also go balls-up very often.

Anyone who's going to be good enough will force their way in via domestic deeds eventually, you don't need to guess early on them at all. It's far best, IMO, to just pick the best-qualified candidates. This is the most likely way to success, short-term and long-term. Players don't, contrary to what some people think, get any better by playing Test cricket before they're good enough.

 

[Uppercut]

TBH, I'm just generally against speculative picks. It'll work really, really occasionally, and it'll also go balls-up very often.

I'd agree with that in principle. Sometimes, though, you know the "best-qualified" candidate won't be good enough and have to punt for someone.

What England did by picking Stu Broad was the equivalent of picking a reasonable young off-spinner over early-90s Shane Warne (bearing in mind how mediocre his FC record was). What was the best that could possibly have happened? He suddenly realised he was a foot taller and could get great bounce? The ball mysteriously started to swing for him? The chances of him proving a threat against test batsmen were precisely nil. It's true that for every Warne you'll get a hundred Sajid Mahmoods, but at least there's a chance of unearthing something special. When the selectors picked Broad there was no such chance.

 

[Top_Cat]

TBH, I'm just generally against speculative picks. It'll work really, really occasionally, and it'll also go balls-up very often.

Anyone who's going to be good enough will force their way in via domestic deeds eventually, you don't need to guess early on them at all. It's far best, IMO, to just pick the best-qualified candidates. This is the most likely way to success, short-term and long-term. Players don't, contrary to what some people think, get any better by playing Test cricket before they're good enough.

Yah, this is true. Peopel often bring up the examples of Vaughan but after initial success, his Test average has started to resemble his FC average. Aussies take much the same attitude; even a genuine batting giant like Rick Ponting had a solid two seasons of averaging 50+ in FC cricket before he was picked and he'd been playing FC cricket for abotu 4 years in total. Damien Martyn, same deal. Matt Hayden had around 8 years in between his first Test and getting a regular go in the Test side scoring mountains of runs for QLD in the interim and same with Justin Langer for WA. Nuff said about Mike Hussey. And on it goes......

It's only recently that the Aussie selectors have started picking on potential and it hasn't really paid-off with Mitch Johnson and defenitely not with Beau Casson. I guess they're trying to unearth the next superstar and, in fairness, it worked with Glenn McGrath(eventually) who was picked after 8 FC matches. But then, he absolutely dominated for NSW in those matches. Warne was probably the last genuine pick on little else other than but potential and that certainly paid-off!

 

[Richard]

Even with Warne, I simply find it impossible to believe a bowler as good as he wouldn't have eventually seen his domestic-FC deeds look up had Greg Matthews been retained for even longer (or had four seamers been gone for again).

If he was made to force his way in, I'm sure he would have done so. The best players tend to do whatever's required of them eventually, even if they'd normally be reluctant to.

And as for Vaughan, David Byas' comments to Nasser Hussain when Hussain spoke to him about him in 1999, the season before his Test debut, seem oddly familiar:

He always looks good, looks a million dollars. But he always gets out.

 

[Uppercut]

Even with Warne, I simply find it impossible to believe a bowler as good as he wouldn't have eventually seen his domestic-FC deeds look up had Greg Matthews been retained for even longer (or had four seamers been gone for again).

If he was made to force his way in, I'm sure he would have done so. The best players tend to do whatever's required of them eventually, even if they'd normally be reluctant to.

Indeed. But in any case the young leggy who could get huge turn was preferable to a young offy who could bowl with reasonable accuracy the way Broad can. And that was what was most depressing about his selection. It was an obscene gamble with no chance of any reward whatsoever.

 

[roseboy64]

From someone supporting a poor team, I'd think someone averaging close to 40 for the last few years and being one of your best bowlers would be enough to earn him to bat at 6.

Will have to check the stats, saw it mentioned before in this thread but if true, you're all being greedy and should worry about your top 5. Similar to West Indies. Have heard people caqlling for a batsman at 6 and Bravo at 7. Thing though is the blame shouldn't be on Bravo for a poor score, blame should fall on the top 5 for gifting their wickets.

 

[PavlovsDog]

From someone supporting a poor team, I'd think someone averaging close to 40 for the last few years and being one of your best bowlers would be enough to earn him to bat at 6.

Will have to check the stats, saw it mentioned before in this thread but if true, you're all being greedy and should worry about your top 5. Similar to West Indies. Have heard people caqlling for a batsman at 6 and Bravo at 7. Thing though is the blame shouldn't be on Bravo for a poor score, blame should fall on the top 5 for gifting their wickets.

QFT

 

[tooextracool]

The last Test was the poster game for long batting line ups and how each partnership between good batsmen has an individual value.

So what do England do, shorten their lineup

Bopara shouldnt be in the squad. But as he is, he should be selected ahead of Broad.

This is the worst managed summer in recent memory.

Yeah if anything, it was England's batting that cost them the game last time around whilst their bowling was probably more impressive than South Africas. And it appears as though they have attempted to strengthen the bowling further. I think even Bopara would have thought that he was a shoo-in for the XI before the side was named. I guess the selectors are trying to make their point we can expect the unexpected from them these days.