Gough slams England's selection favouritism

[Richard]

IT doesn't really matter that England have not won thus far or that India have outplayed them. Simple fact is that with any team, the team selections are important in attaining the best possible results.

As said previously, and I think these setiments hold true for a lot of posters on here especially England fans is that having Bopara and Patel at 7/8 is utterly pointless. Bopara doesn't even bowl, add to that he is a specialist batsman who was one of the best List A players last season and he is batting at 8?

Patel on the other hand is in a similar position as to that of Bopara. For some strange reason he is being selected as a spinner as opposed to the batsman he is for Notts. Then you got Prior who should be batting at no. 7.

I guess throughout this all it is a matter of England having too many batmsne who play in the same position; Bell, Shah, Prior, KP, Bopara, Patel and Collingwood are all 3-5 batters. So you have makeshift opener, specialist batsmen at 7/8 and other issues.

Yeah, I (and IIRR a few others) said it a few months back - the problem is that almost all of England's few good OD batsmen are players who are best-served batting between three and five, rather than in the lower-middle-order or opening. It compounds the problems when you pick mediocrities like Shah in those precious few top-order places.

For me, the best three OD batsmen in the country are Pietersen, Afzaal and Trott. They should be batting three, four and five. But Bopara, Patel and Flintoff all have a fair case to play there as well. And it's quite possible that in time Davies will do too.

Meanwhile the only real hitters we have are people who you'd not want to be put down on the scorecard to bat higher than eight really - Swann, Mascarenhas, to an extent Broad. Obviously these types can be promoted if needbe, but if you're 100-5 or, worse, 90-4, the very last thing you want to see is one of Swann, Mascarenhas or Broad stepping out.

 

[Goughy]

For me, the best three OD batsmen in the country are Pietersen, Afzaal and Trott.

So of Englands 3 best OD batsmen, 2 of them have never played an ODI
and interestingly, none of them were born in England.

 

[Richard]

Afzaal learnt his cricket here though UIMM. But yeah, Pietersen and Trott being SAfrican by upbringing is, well, ITSTL.

And yeah, doesn't particularly surprise me that 2 of the best 3 ODI batsmen in the country have never played a ODI. I've said it before, the selectors for the most part simply don't have a clue what they're doing when it comes to selecting players for ODIs. The fact that the likes of Bresnan and Mahmood have played ODIs is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[andruid]

If he takes 3 wickets at the start of the innings, then he can potentially help stop the batsmen getting on a rampage. If he takes 4 or 5 wickets in the middle, then he's got a chance of stopping rampaging batsmen.However, both the above are unusual, and the latter almost unheard of. I think I've seen a spinner do it a handful of times, but no more than that. And I've been watching ODIs for 10 years.

If a bowler produces wicket taking deliveries on a regular basis I do not see why he should struggle to take wickets at any given point in the innings be it at the beginning or at the end of an innings.

However, taking wickets at the death will never slow the scoring-rate. You have to hit good areas - only your own accuracy can slow the rate in the death overs. Wicket-taking at the end of the innings is utterly meaningless if you're still being smashed.

Um...I think you will find that it is especially if it means removing two well set batsman and then another before he is well set and putting at least one tailender at the crease.

And if you have the choice of 10-30-0 and 10-55-2 when bowling outside the death overs, I know which one I'd prefer, and it's not the latter.

You will find that with the former the opposition will probably go and compensate for the lost 15 and then add some more on top of that on the back of having several strong batsmen in the hutch.Now obviously giving away 55 runs in 10 outside the death is poor bowling but surely a bowler regularly getting 0/30 ought to try getting one or two wickets even if he ends up getting 2/45.

 

[Rant0r]

I wouldn't - at least, not normally. If all 4, or 3 of 4, of those wickets have come at the start of the innings with the bowler cleaning-out the top-order, then maybe, yes. But that's extremely unusual.

Such figures mostly result from near-meaningless and utterly-meaningless middle-over and end-of-innings wickets, which any bowler will get if they bowl at the right time and get lucky with the batsmen hitting injudiciously. If someone gets 10-53-4 by taking 1 top-order wicket then being gifted 1 in the 32nd over and a couple more in the 48th, I'll take 10-30-0 over that ANY day.

It's only if they actually knock over the top-order and reduce a side to 70-5 off 15 overs that I'll start to not mind about a bowler being expensive.

wickets win matches, after bowler x has bowled his 'magic' spell of 10 overs 0/30, the middle order having seen him off and cash in at the death and reach near 300, bowler y gets valuable wickets at the end which stops the acceleration as new batsmen are constantly coming to the crease and having to swing from the start leaving a very gettable target.

as for gough, i like the guy, but why would you pick someone based on performance in a 6 a side competition on a postage stamp sized oval.

england need to get over their obsession with one day specialists, it's been going on for years, try developing 'cricketers' first... i hate to use australia as a blueprint because it's easy to point at what the world champs are doing, but everyone in that team can play all 3 types of cricket, masceranhas will never play tests, as handy as he is.

 

[Rant0r]

I don't think so, not a chance.

Say, for example, that 10-54-1 contains 8-32-1 in the first 40 and 2-22-0 in the slog. 11-an-over is very poor in the slog overs. A good death bowler will generally do better than this.

Now then, if you were comparing 10-30-0 all in the first 40 overs and 10-44-2 (the wickets is kinda immaterial, but say you get 1 in the slog overs) then it'd be a much fairer time to say they're on an equal footing.

Presuming, of course, that the 10-44-2 went, say, 7-28-1 then 3-16-1. If it's 7-20-1 then 3-24-1 then obviously that's still pretty poor in slog-over terms.

i'm sure you just post for the sake of posting, you know how many different possibilities there are for this argument ?

 

[Rant0r]

However, taking wickets at the death will never slow the scoring-rate.

that is a load of absolute tott, you can't score when you're out

everyone thought mick lewis was a hero in the chappell hadlee when he took 3/60 when his last over went for squat all and took 2 wickets and a run out, up to that point nz were going hammer and tongs, and no it doesn't always have to do with the quality of bowling, one dayers, flat pitches, old balls, small grounds... the pitch at wanderers during the 400/400 game was like a road for example, so minimising the damage to 5-6 an over and earning as couple of wickets in this day and age is a win for your team

 

[Sanz]

I guess throughout this all it is a matter of England having too many batmsne who play in the same position; Bell, Shah, Prior, KP, Bopara, Patel and Collingwood are all 3-5 batters. So you have makeshift opener, specialist batsmen at 7/8 and other issues.

Very Few English batting lineups would be able to chase 300 runs targets. The problem has been English bowling and not their batting. As for team selection, how many people questioned team selection when this team won in SA ?

 

[Goughy]

As for team selection, how many people questioned team selection when this team won in SA ?

England have never won an ODI series in SA and in fact have only won 3 out of 18 games away against SA.

As for general questioning of the team, I have questioned the ODI selection and approach of the English for years and have continued to do so at every opportunity. Losing 2 games doesnt change anything as the problems were already there.

 

[BoyBrumby]

We had to be realistic. Whoever we bring in is far from guaranteed of out-performing the incumbent.

If one looks at the List A averages for 2008 of the English-qualified players who aren't in the current squad there's only really Trott &, at a stretch, Davies who have cases. All the others have been tried (Solanki), are probably too old now (Gallian), have retired (Tres) or aren't eligible to play for us (van Jaarsveld, Kieswetter, Ruldolph).

 

[Richard]

If a bowler produces wicket taking deliveries on a regular basis I do not see why he should struggle to take wickets at any given point in the innings be it at the beginning or at the end of an innings.

I know that - the point is a big wicket haul isn't that much use if spaced out over the innings. It has to come exclusively or for the majority at the start to be worth more than a good economical spell.

That means taking 3 or 4 wickets in 6 or 7 overs. No bowler can do this more than once in a while, however good he is.

Um...I think you will find that it is especially if it means removing two well set batsman and then another before he is well set and putting at least one tailender at the crease.

Nah. If there's just 7 or 8 overs left and the bowling is constantly length, both top-order batsmen and less-than-useless tailenders will smash it for 8\9-an-over, or even more. It's just that the top-order batsmen will probably get 45* off 29 balls where you might get 3 tailenders combined scoring 45 for 3 wickets off 30. But the outcome for the team is exactly the same.

The only way to stop lots of runs being scored at the end, provided a decent few wickets are left, is to consistently hit the blockhole. Taking wickets is no use, you won't slow the rate that way. The only way taking wickets in the last 10 will help restrict the total is if you manage to knock over 5 or 6 wickets in 5 or 6 overs to lead to a team being all-out with 3 or 4 overs left, which as I say just doesn't happen very often. Almost never will a team going into the last 10 with even 5 wickets down be bowled-out with more than a few deliveries remaining.

You will find that with the former the opposition will probably go and compensate for the lost 15 and then add some more on top of that on the back of having several strong batsmen in the hutch.Now obviously giving away 55 runs in 10 outside the death is poor bowling but surely a bowler regularly getting 0/30 ought to try getting one or two wickets even if he ends up getting 2/45.

The point, really, is that one bowler is not the team. A team needs five bowlers - and if there are five who can consistently concede less than 4-an-over, ideally a fair bit less (rather than seeing a team 158 for 3 off 40 overs, if you can keep them to 143 for 3 off 40, for example) then the opposition is going to have to go one hell of some at the death to get a particularly good total. And if the death-bowling's good (ie, capable of keeping the batting side to 60 or 70 in the last 10) that shouldn't be happening too often.

No one bowler can carry a team. If one bowler gets 10-30-0 or 10-54-4, the total will still be a very big one if the rest of the attack get carted without taking wickets. It's not about what one bowler does but what several do.

 

[Richard]

wickets win matches, after bowler x has bowled his 'magic' spell of 10 overs 0/30, the middle order having seen him off and cash in at the death and reach near 300, bowler y gets valuable wickets at the end which stops the acceleration as new batsmen are constantly coming to the crease and having to swing from the start leaving a very gettable target.

Have you actually seen one-day cricket? Batsmen constantly come in, swing from the start, and score a small, very quick innings. If that innings is only 18 off 10 balls, it doesn't matter, as if you have quite a few wickets in hand you can afford a few small knocks like that. Wickets in the death overs are near-useless.

as for gough, i like the guy, but why would you pick someone based on performance in a 6 a side competition on a postage stamp sized oval.

england need to get over their obsession with one day specialists, it's been going on for years, try developing 'cricketers' first... i hate to use australia as a blueprint because it's easy to point at what the world champs are doing, but everyone in that team can play all 3 types of cricket, masceranhas will never play tests, as handy as he is.

I don't really see how six-a-side stuff matters, six-a-side cricket is completely different to ODIs, the difference is impossibly larger than that between ODIs and Tests (which is considerable itself). One-day specialists are quite essential. Some good four\five-day cricketers are not good at the limited-overs game. The two games are very different, and you need to pick good limited-overs players for ODIs and good four\five-day players for Tests. You should never, ever let a player's skill at one form impact in the slightest on your selection for the other.

As for everyone in Australia can play both types of cricket... here's a few good Australian Test players who were either not that good or completely useless in ODIs: Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Stephen Waugh, Justin Langer, Allan Border, Simon Katich, Ian Healy, Stuart Clark. A few the other way around? Dean Jones, Michael Bevan, Andrew Symonds, Adam Dale, Nathan Bracken. Not like Mark Waugh and Adam Gilchrist played remotely comparable roles in Tests and ODIs either.

 

[Richard]

i'm sure you just post for the sake of posting

Well you're wrong then.

you know how many different possibilities there are for this argument ?

Yes. The above are for-instances.

 

[Richard]

that is a load of absolute tott, you can't score when you're out

No, but the next man in can. And until 10 wickets fall, there's always one of them.

everyone thought mick lewis was a hero in the chappell hadlee when he took 3/60 when his last over went for squat all and took 2 wickets and a run out, up to that point nz were going hammer and tongs, and no it doesn't always have to do with the quality of bowling, one dayers, flat pitches, old balls, small grounds... the pitch at wanderers during the 400/400 game was like a road for example, so minimising the damage to 5-6 an over and earning as couple of wickets in this day and age is a win for your team

You won't minimise the damage to 5\6-an-over in the last 10 by taking wickets. You'll only do that by consistently, ball after ball, hitting the blockhole. If you bowl the odd ball in the blockhole and get a wicket on a few of the occasions you do (say, get 5 wickets in the last 10 overs), and bowl length the rest of the time, you'll get utterly smashed. 100-110 off the last 10 overs is far from OOTQ with such ingredients.

However, if you bowl constantly in the blockhole and batsmen dig you out whenever you do so you end-up just getting 1 wicket in the last 10, you're going to restrict to 6 to 7-an-over far more easily. However, such an outcome is pretty unlikely. The point so many people miss so often is that in the one-day game, a good economy-rate for all or most bowlers = wickets falling. It doesn't, however, work the other way around - at any stage of the innings, never mind the last 10 overs. To bowl economically, you have to hit good areas, otherwise you'll get smashed, even if you do take wickets regularly though the innings.

 

[wpdavid]

England have never won an ODI series in SA and in fact have only won 3 out of 18 games away against SA.

As for general questioning of the team, I have questioned the ODI selection and approach of the English for years and have continued to do so at every opportunity. Losing 2 games doesnt change anything as the problems were already there.

I would think Sanz meant the 4-0 win against SA in England a few months ago, in which case he makes a fair point.

 

[Manee]

that is a load of absolute tott, you can't score when you're out

I can.

 

[Richard]

I would think Sanz meant the 4-0 win against SA in England a few months ago, in which case he makes a fair point.

Not really. CWers - at least, those from these isles, if not neccessarily from Australia - as a rule don't tend to be the "if it works and the team wins then every selection is a good one" types that you see so infuriatingly often.

Many people have criticised England's ODI selection win or lose. I certainly have.

It's plain wrong, nothing else, to suggest that no-one complained when victories were coming.

 

[Sanz]

England have never won an ODI series in SA and in fact have only won 3 out of 18 games away against SA.

As for general questioning of the team, I have questioned the ODI selection and approach of the English for years and have continued to do so at every opportunity. Losing 2 games doesnt change anything as the problems were already there.

My apologies, I meant the recent ODI series vs. SA regardless of where it was played. We can question the selection(of the Current team in India )all we want, but IMO the current bowling attack is almost the best available at the moment and they have failed miserably so far, they have not given the English batsmen to be competitive in this series. Close to 700 runs in 2 ODIs should be just unaacceptable for an attack like that and Every one has performed poorly including Freddie.

 

[Richard]

There is absolutely no way on Earth that Harmison, Anderson and a mixture of Collingwood and Patel are among the best OD bowlers currently available to England.

For starters Sidebottom is far better than the lot of the above, even if he is still injured currently (not sure if anyone knows the answer to that incidentally). For seconds, provided Mascarenhas can get back to his normal self next season, he's far better as well. If he can't, he's merely slightly better.

Mark Ealham is now too old to be playing ODIs as he's exceptionally unlikely to be around in 2010/11 (though I thought that about 2007 in 2004) but he's also better than all the above. Then there's the likes of Neil Killeen.

Only Flintoff is better than all of the above.

 

[GIMH]

Broad?