Occasionally, Richard, the fact that you can't bat to save yourself comes out in your posts. This is a great example.
Indeed, but I completely disagree with your theory that slower bowlers make you play more defensive shots when you should be leaving. It's completely the other way in my experience - if a bowler is quicker, I have to commit to the shot earlier and am more likely to misjudge the ball. I can play slower bowlers a bit later and leave tighter in towards my body with greater confidence that I've read the line correctly.
Was Vaughan first and then Pietersen later TBF. I'm never in favour of something being done, as I say, to try to prop-up a player who clearly isn't up to it. If it's someone who's established and clearly just needs to get back on his game, that's a different matter.
I'm not bothered about other bowlers. I'm bothered about someone who's done poorly being shown, as clearly as possible, to have done poorly. Selection is not done in a separate World - selectors listen to what people say, and much as Broad has enjoyed massive favour with the masses, I think that could conceivably be different had he averaged 70 over his first 10 Tests.
The point is that the whole strategy is errant - thus, every stage of it is not excused. That you did not start or design it does not excuse in any way.
Yes but such individual feats are inevitably far smaller and rarer.
I also like to see the self-belief of players tested TBH. If you react to adversity by resolving to better yourself, that's far better than having the cracks slightly papered-over and having everyone assure you that you just need to keep doing the same thing and just play a bit more. If, on the other hand, you mope and feel sorry for yourself about how bad it's going, that tends to suggest you're not going to be very viable as a long-term option.
I'm not suggesting slower bowlers draw you into more strokes. I'm suggesting that quicker ones leave your options to not leave - which should be the first instinct - reduced.
Dare I say it that the captain felt Broad was capable of more? They may have known more about his ability than we did, and wanted him to start hitting what they felt he should.
I don't think selectors just read the scorecard and pick the team Richard. He was obviously picked on the basis that he was felt to have potential and the fact that he was batting well. He didn't bowl well, and really anything over 40 it becomes kinda moot, it's a poor average. They wanted to give him a chance.Richard said:
This is a bit silly. it's like me saying, "I don't like my house, so I'm never decorating it." If the skipper has been told, "this bowler plays for X tests" then he should damn well do all he can to ensure that he develops over those tests, of course he shouldRichard said:
Smaller how? Rarer sure, but a ton in a T20 is a marvellous achievementRichard said:
Not everybody is the same and treating them as though they are, in terms of their own development is an archaic strategy that is thankfully dying out in both sport and business. People need their own needs catered for. Now sure, Broad does seem a confident type who doesn't get phased by much, that doesn't mean he wouldn't benefit from a small ego boost every now and again.Richard said:
Well if so, they were wrong as well, IMO.
They may not read the scorecard and pick the team exclusively, but it plays a big part, of course it does. And so do the words of those others who're watching the game and reading the 'card. The pressure (both from within and externally) to exclude a bowler averaging 70 will be far more considerable than to exclude one averaging 45. I'm surprised you'd suggest otherwise TBH.
I don't think that's silly at all TBH. If I thought my house was **** and I couldn't wait to get a different one, I can't say I'd be all that bothered about decorating it. If a skipper disagrees with a bad selection policy, he should in my view do all in his power to change it. To do otherwise is to neglect his duty. The selectors aren't in complete charge of everything, the captain does have some power to influence how the team moves forward and he should not just dumbly accept everything the selectors tell him.
40-odd can easily be a significant score in a Twenty20. I couldn't really care greatly about such scores, they need to be bigger for me to really enjoy their construction.
Phased? Fazed, surely? I realise not everyone is the same and that individual needs need to be catered for. This, however, is a different kettle-of-fish to trying to stop a player from ever encountering a situation he won't be any good if he doesn't learn how to deal with (becuase it's for sure - no-one can stop a player encountering it forever). There will be times in a cricketer's career where his self-belief will be tested - it helps no-one to try to delay this.
Mills since 2005 or 2006 has been extremely consistent. In fact his poor bowling (after not bowling for a few weeks at all due to injury) showed just how important he is and how we've been taking his consistency for granted.
Not neccessarily is better, but certainly always looks better. Thus, when judging potential rather than current skill levels, it can indeed sometimes count against a player.
Think you guys missed the crucial part of the thread...Mills since 2005 or 2006 has been extremely consistent. In fact his poor bowling (after not bowling for a few weeks at all due to injury) showed just how important he is and how we've been taking his consistency for granted.The other guy? Kulasekara? I'd possibly agree with Kulasekara being slighlty better than Broad atm, but not sure about Vaas and Mills. Mills is far too inconsistent for my liking. When he's on form he's incredibly dangerous, but take his last game for example, was just bowling pies and got rightly spanked. If you take out his record against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe then he's not got a great record. Averaging over 30 against Australia, England and India, with averages in the high 20's against Pakistan and South Africa. He does have a good record against Sri Lanka and West Indies though.I'd say Mills, Vaas and the other guy (can't remember his name) are all better ODI bowlers than Broad.
I would take him ahead of Johnson though, wish he'd start taking wickets in tests.
I'd take Broad over Mills tbh, and if push came to shove I'd Kulasekara over Broad, but their records are very close. Vaas isn't as good a bowler as he once was either, Broad's better than Vaas at the minute. Vaas has only averaged under 30 in 1 of his last 5 ODi series.
Kulusekera (sic) is the guy yep.
Pah. Can't take the heat, clearly.Rich, gonan call time on this one as we obviously are on polar opposities here and would never agree, so no point going round in circles. And yeah, I meant fazed.
And obviously I was right
Yea, as Richard says, you should probs read the first post.
I'd argue the opposite. Technique can be learnt much more easily than hand-eye co-ordination (it's all moot here, because Johnson's technique is every bit as good as Broad's when he decides the time is right to bat "properly").