***Official England in India***

[Richard]

On the Vaughan depate on whether is would still be useful or needed by the England side, well its no clear answer just yet for me. Obviously its a new era now under KP & Vaughan even if he where to find some form, his international career isn't likely to go further than Ashes.

Or if you just want him for the short term especially for the Ashes

This is Test cricket. The short-term is all that matters when picking the actual side is concerned. Each series is as important as the one after it. If someone is part of your best team right now, you pick them - and when they retire or cease to be good enough (and I always hope those two coincide), then you pick the next man.

I hate, absolutely hate, the "well he's only likely to be around another year so he shouldn't really play as of now". If that year is likely to encompass this player being a good Test cricketer, then there is absolutely no good reason not to keep picking him.

The more distant future is just that - the more distant future. If you're picking someone because you think he's going to be vital in 4 years' time, you might as well pick some random 10-year-old out there, if you think he's going to be a vital part of things in 15 years' time. The best players for the next game are all that matters in Test cricket.

 

[GIMH]

Slight hyperbole at the end there, Rich? Agree with the general point though, Test Cricket is not about building a team, it is about playing your best XI. DOn't mind young players getting a run in ODIs between WCs at all, but not in Tests.

 

[Richard]

Slight hyperbole at the end there, Rich?

It's use of exaggeration, to show how silly the "well he's not the future" point is.

 

[aussie]

This is Test cricket. The short-term is all that matters when picking the actual side is concerned. Each series is as important as the one after it. If someone is part of your best team right now, you pick them - and when they retire or cease to be good enough (and I always hope those two coincide), then you pick the next man.

I hate, absolutely hate, the "well he's only likely to be around another year so he shouldn't really play as of now". If that year is likely to encompass this player being a good Test cricketer, then there is absolutely no good reason not to keep picking him.

The more distant future is just that - the more distant future. If you're picking someone because you think he's going to be vital in 4 years' time, you might as well pick some random 10-year-old out there, if you think he's going to be a vital part of things in 15 years' time. The best players for the next game are all that matters in Test cricket.

Yes, well said. But obviously he needs to score runs to prove he hasn't totally lost it.

 

[pskov]

The squad for the ODI series has been named:

Kevin Pietersen (capt), James Anderson, Ian Bell, Ravi Bopara, Stuart Broad, Paul Collingwood, Alastair Cook, Andrew Flintoff, Stephen Harmison, Samit Patel, Matt Prior (wk), Owais Shah, Graeme Swann, Ryan Sidebottom, Luke Wright

Disappointed, if not surprised at Cooks inclusion. Don't really see him having a future in ODIs to be honest, certainly opening anyway.

 

[Richard]

Well if he's no future opening he has no ODI future full-stop. And I'd not be sorry to see him never play another ODI, no, not at all - as long as he's good in Tests I'm happy and I always worry that in trying to get better at ODIs he'll get worse at Tests.

Either way the squad was always a fair formality, just a confirmation of the expected there. There's 23 players who've represented England in serious ODIs since WC2007 - I'd not imagine we'll be seeing Lewis or Yardy again, and hopefully not Plunkett either, so 15 of the 20 are there.

The others are Mascarenhas (just come off a dreadful season and needs to pick-up his performances before playing again, which hopefully he'll do); MSP (shouldn't have played, not a ODI bowler and hopefully currently well out of the picture); Tremlett (probably next cab-off-the-rank and would almost certainly be there had Harmison not reversed his retirement); Mustard and Ambrose (wicketkeepers, and probably both well out-of-the-picture currently).

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, no great shakes here

 

[honestbharani]

But looks a reasonably strong squad though..

 

[Richard]

It'll be interesting to see how well India deal with that, indeed. I'd have backed them big-time if Ganguly and Dravid were still in the squad and performing, but with as much uncertainty as there is in India's team currently there's quite a bit of the unknown in both sides.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Panesar continuing his stunning county form, now has 11 wickets @ 60 this season over 6 matches.

Will be interesting trying to guess what the Test XI will be.

 

[aussie]

Very much so, especially in the bowling attack. Even though Harmo looks very good ATM he will be rendered a bit ineffective in Indian conditions.

 

[BoyBrumby]

BBC's take on the potential squad.

Interesting they suggest Samit only as a spinning option when, with nigh on 1000 FC runs at over 50 for the season, he's arguably got just as good a case for a batting spot as either Shah or Bopara. Unashamed fan of the boy that I am, I think it'd be daft not to take him.

 

[Richard]

It was barely 2 years ago when England last selected a batsman as a bowler. Remember Alex Loudon?

 

[zaremba]

It was barely 2 years ago when England last selected a batsman as a bowler. Remember Alex Loudon?

Mike Yardy likewise

 

[BoyBrumby]

With the greatest of respect to both, Patel is a class above as a batsman. In fact even if he'd never turned his arm over he's worthy of consideration. Of the incumbants only KP has a higher FC average.

I'd say he's a better bowler too & the figures also support this.

 

[zaremba]

With the greatest of respect to both, Patel is a class above as a batsman. In fact even if he'd never turned his arm over he's worthy of consideration. Of the incumbants only KP has a higher FC average.

I'd say he's a better bowler too & the figures also support this.

Haven't read the thread and don't pretend that Yardy is Patel's equal as a batsman or bowler - just pointing out that Yardy was seen by England as a bowler despite being a batsman (whose FC bowling average currently stands at 76.50)

 

[Uppercut]

Can't see why England would want to play a second spinner in India. How many spinners excel on tours of India?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Haven't read the thread and don't pretend that Yardy is Patel's equal as a batsman or bowler - just pointing out that Yardy was seen by England as a bowler despite being a batsman (whose FC bowling average currently stands at 76.50)

Yeah, fair enough. Didn't mean to be overly prickly, it was just that the tone of Richard's post that you quote seemed to suggest he was pooh-poohing Samit's selection because of the failings of others.

Did Yardy make a test sqaud, btw? Thought he was one-day only. Pretty sure Loudon made a test touring squad based mainly on him having a faint suggestion of a doosra.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, fair enough. Didn't mean to be overly prickly, it was just that the tone of Richard's post that you quote seemed to suggest he was pooh-poohing Samit's selection because of the failings of others.

Nope. Though not terribly surprising to see this one try and jump on something and manufacture some form of "wrongness".

Was merely mentioning that it's not been unheard of recently to see batsmen picked for England as bowlers, due to selectorial (and possibly public perception) error. No more, no less. Dalrymple may even be another, to add to Loudon and Yardy. Not entirely sure what he was picked with principally in mind.

 

[zaremba]

Nope. Though not terribly surprising to see this one try and jump on something and manufacture some form of "wrongness".

Was merely mentioning that it's not been unheard of recently to see batsmen picked for England as bowlers, due to selectorial (and possibly public perception) error. No more, no less. Dalrymple may even be another, to add to Loudon and Yardy. Not entirely sure what he was picked with principally in mind.

By "this one" do you mean me?