Idiots Guide to Test Cricket *England Selectors Pls Read*

[Richard]

Is Sidebottom appreciably faster than he was earlier in his career?

During his second coming he was actually decidedly sharp at times (mid and even high 80s), and of course when a guy gets exaggerated swing at sharp pace he can give the illusion of being even quicker.

Sidebottom all career has been someone who's lacked a bit of fitness, to me. There are times when all is going well and the adrenaline's flowing where he's up at 85mph or so. Then there's other times when he's down at 77-78, and sometimes even slower. That was the one worry I had when he was called back in, and after initially believing it unfounded, I'm now beginning to wonder again.

I remember this as far back as 1999 and 2001. And nothing is different now.

Just as a general comment, despite Plunkett being generally regarded as crap, Anderson somewhere near crap, and Sidebottom somewhat polarising, all three of these guys have made me very nervous in recent years when playing the Black Caps. This is basically because they all have the ability to get big swing at good pace. It really doesn't surprise me that much that there were people who thought they were worth persisting with.

Anderson has been worth persisting with, to some of the extent that he has been (he's played sometimes when he shouldn't have). Plunkett was never worth picking and never has been. He's never even had a remotely good season in county cricket. There are odd occasions where he looks really dangerous, but mostly he's all over the place and doesn't do all that much with the ball.

 

[thierry henry]

Pretty sure Plunkett was also swinging it big in the pool games v NZ in the 06/07 CB series, otherwise he wouldn't have worried me. I distinctly remember the final (I think) pool game where Fleming made that painful century and NZ ended up somehow losing. NZ got off to a flying start, with Plunkett and Mahmood seemingly set on a world record for extras. However, neither Fleming nor Astle (the openers) were actually looking at all comfortable- Plunkett was swinging it all over the place at pace, Mahmood was very rapid indeed, and it was basically this insane period of play of 5 wides here, play and miss there, etc. Whenever I hear Plunkett/Mahmood rubbished, I always think back to this, although obviously I've missed the bits where Plunkett has looked simply inaccurate AND ineffective, as opposed to pacey but all over the place.

With Sidebottom, I don't recall him bowling below 80mph at all during the 07/08 NZ summer. Indeed, during his new balls spells in the ODIs he was probably AVERAGING 85mph.

 

[Richard]

Pretty sure Plunkett was also swinging it big in the pool games v NZ in the 06/07 CB series, otherwise he wouldn't have worried me. I distinctly remember the final (I think) pool game where Fleming made that painful century and NZ ended up somehow losing. NZ got off to a flying start, with Plunkett and Mahmood seemingly set on a world record for extras. However, neither Fleming nor Astle (the openers) were actually looking at all comfortable- Plunkett was swinging it all over the place at pace, Mahmood was very rapid indeed, and it was basically this insane period of play of 5 wides here, play and miss there, etc. Whenever I hear Plunkett/Mahmood rubbished, I always think back to this, although obviously I've missed the bits where Plunkett has looked simply inaccurate AND ineffective, as opposed to pacey but all over the place.

Well I only remember him being all over the place, gifting NZ a good start then coming back and being gifted 3 more wickets because NZ had gotten behind the rate. The only time in the 3 occasions he took 3-fors in those last 4 games of said CB Series that he actually bowled threateningly was the second final. In the last two group games he was just in the right place at the right time.

As for Mahmood, his utter awfulness had been established long before that winter (summer in NZ terms). That was, thankfully, the last we've seen of him at international level. Hopefully it'll stay that way.

With Sidebottom, I don't recall him bowling below 80mph at all during the 07/08 NZ summer. Indeed, during his new balls spells in the ODIs he was probably AVERAGING 85mph.

I don't think he did. But he has done many times since (and did also in Sri Lanka earlier in said season). And as I say, the story was the same in domestic cricket as far back as 1999 and 2001.

 

[sudhindra9]

Pick up players who might play for other International teams if not picked

Ex : Darren Pattinson

 

[zaremba]

Giles playing the opening couple of Tests of 2006/07 ahead of MSP was a similar error (and no greater, no matter how the MSP-lovers screamed blue-murder at it).

I must admit I thought it was a good decision at the time, and I can still see the logic to it.

IIRC Monty had played one warm-up game and done nothing in it.

Moreover it would have been close to suicidal going into an Ashes series opener with a 6, 7, 8 of Flintoff, Read and Hoggard. I've no doubt that this is precisely why Warne was talking up Read and Monty before the teams were announced for that match.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I must admit I thought it was a good decision at the time, and I can still see the logic to it.

IIRC Monty had played one warm-up game and done nothing in it.

Moreover it would have been close to suicidal going into an Ashes series opener with a 6, 7, 8 of Flintoff, Read and Hoggard. I've no doubt that this is precisely why Warne was talking up Read and Monty before the teams were announced for that match.

Come now, do you really think that Australia ever rated Giles enough as a batsman to actively double bluff England into selecting him?

 

[oitoitoi]

I must admit I thought it was a good decision at the time, and I can still see the logic to it.

IIRC Monty had played one warm-up game and done nothing in it.

Moreover it would have been close to suicidal going into an Ashes series opener with a 6, 7, 8 of Flintoff, Read and Hoggard. I've no doubt that this is precisely why Warne was talking up Read and Monty before the teams were announced for that match.

Considering the results could it have been any worse?

If your not getting the runs, it's the top 6 batsmen's fault, don't start blaming the bowlers. Nobody blames the batsmen for not being part timers when the bowlers fail. Fletcher had this stupid obsession with the no.8 position, all it was was trying to hide the top 6's failures.

Personally I thought it was a travesty that Read was dropped for Jones, who had been dropped for a reason. Read had done nothing wrong, in fact his glovework had been impeccable and he'd guided the tail nicely a few times, which is what you really need from a keeper; consistent contributions, not the odd 100 when you've already got 450 on the board. IMO the decision to drop him was as bad as taking the captaincy from Strauss and giving it to the drunkard, a man with 0 captaincy credentials. Not playing MSP when he'd just done so well vs Pakistan was inexplicable, I mean Giles was useless as a bowler, possibly the worst spinner to get that many tests in the history of the game. You pick your 4 or 5 best bowlers if you want to win test matches, not a second rate county trundler who can bat a bit.

 

[zaremba]

Come now, do you really think that Australia ever rated Giles enough as a batsman to actively double bluff England into selecting him?

It sounds unlikely doesn't it? But when you consider how much Monty detracts from the team - to his wretched batting must be added his pathetic fielding - I wouldn't put it past them. More likely, though, is that Warne suspected Read and Monty were about to be dropped, and praised them to try to put pressure on their replacements.

Considering the results could it have been any worse?

No, but that's not the point - I'm talking about the selection on its merits at the time.

If your not getting the runs, it's the top 6 batsmen's fault, don't start blaming the bowlers.

I'm not blaming the bowlers!

We frequently hear this argument that runs are for the top order to score, but, with respect, it's just completely ignores the reality of the situation. You need a lower/middle order - and preferably a tail - that are competent, because they can score vital runs: they can rescue a dire situation, they can allow you to capitalise on a strong situation. This happens all the time in Test cricket and it's an essential part of any successful team.

Put it this way: if your team is effectively all out by the time your 5th wicket falls, your team is going to get pretty p;sspoor results.

Read had done nothing wrong, in fact his glovework had been impeccable and he'd guided the tail nicely a few times, which is what you really need from a keeper; consistent contributions, not the odd 100 when you've already got 450 on the board.

I can see where you're coming from but to be fair he'd been given plenty of chances and had failed with the bat time and again. His Test batting average was just under 19, his ODI batting average just under 18. He is a truly outstanding keeper but the story doesn't end there. Flintoff-Read-Hoggard at 6-7-8 would have heralded just about the longest tail in Test history and I think that to pick that team would have been rash.

 

[oitoitoi]

No, but that's not the point - I'm talking about the selection on its merits at the time.


I'm not blaming the bowlers!

We frequently hear this argument that runs are for the top order to score, but, with respect, it's just completely ignores the reality of the situation. You need a lower/middle order - and preferably a tail - that are competent, because they can score vital runs: they can rescue a dire situation, they can allow you to capitalise on a strong situation. This happens time and again.

Well at the time I was hugely in favour of going in with a team similar to the one that had taken on Pakistan (I also wanted Ramprakash at 3), I never rated Giles and thought the team selection at the time pointed at a boys club from the 05 ashes that had an inflated opinion of themselves because of the British press. It also pointed at a hideously poor understanding of the nature of test cricket and a severe underestimation of the Australian's.

Regarding your point about the tail, obviously it's helpful if the tail can score but I would never drop a frontline bowler for a worse one because he was unable to contribute with the bat. Chandrashekar was perhaps the most extreme example, he was physically incapable of ever batting well, however his wicket taking ability negated that. Bowler's save runs by taking wickets, Giles was never going to take wickets in Australia at anything reasonable so Monty should definitely have been your first choice.

Similarly keeper's save runs by holding catches, Prior has the worst runs conceeded through dropped catches and byes to runs scored ratio of any of the many England keepers after Stewart retired, Jones wasn't much better. Read actually has the best since Stewart, just shows how incompetent the England selectors are. Look at Boucher, he's never been the best batsmen but he doesn't drop catches and what d'ya know, South Africa win tests because of it. Gilchrist's career has put a ridiculous amount of emphasis on a keeper's batting ability, when one dropped catch off a top class batsmen usually negates any runs they do score.

 

[martin88]

8. If all else fails, SA always has good cricketers.. After all, you did make the place civilized, so why not reap the rewards?

I certainly hope that was a joke. Even then it sounds quite distasteful.

 

[martin88]

Never ever make Pietersen the captain of the team. Ever.

 

[zaremba]

Similarly keeper's save runs by holding catches, Prior has the worst runs conceeded through dropped catches and byes to runs scored ratio of any of the many England keepers after Stewart retired, Jones wasn't much better. Read actually has the best since Stewart, just shows how incompetent the England selectors are.

Read is a hell of a lot better as a keeper than Stewart, who was competent but never outstanding in the way that Read was and is. Which just underlines the point that when it comes to wicketkeeping you can't ignore the runs they score. If it had been all about keeping, Stewart would never have earned a single Test cap given that his contemporaries included Jack Russell and Warren Hegg.

It might be possible to accommodate a Chris Read in a Test team if you have enough talent around him; but not if you have only 5 batsmen, an utterly unreliable all-rounder at 6 and a dreadfully incompetent tail.

 

[oitoitoi]

Read is a hell of a lot better as a keeper than Stewart, who was competent but never outstanding in the way that Read was and is. Which just underlines the point that when it comes to wicketkeeping you can't ignore the runs they score. If it had been all about keeping, Stewart would never have earned a single Test cap given that his contemporaries included Jack Russell and Warren Hegg.

It might be possible to accommodate a Chris Read in a Test team if you have enough talent around him; but not if you have only 5 batsmen, an utterly unreliable all-rounder at 6 and a dreadfully incompetent tail.

Well personally I think Read's test batting wasn't that bad because he could score runs when they were needed, he just needed a more extended run. My point is that Prior and co are giving away massively more runs than they're scoring through dropped catches and byes, never mind the extra time in the field, the blows to morale and how bad it makes the bowlers look. You've got to take this balance into account and Prior and co just don't add up positively. I'd rather have a guy who can give you a gritty 30 or 40 (or even 25) when the team needs it, or keep a batsmen company for 15 overs + and takes his catches. Stewart scored so many runs and tough runs that it made up for his merely adequate keeping, Prior doesn't, at test level his runs are easy a la Ian Bell and don't really help the team. For heaven's sake he's played just 11 tests and he's already the only keeper to give 30+ byes twice. Chris Read had a positive ratio and would have helped the team more. Bear in mind this is test cricket not ODI's.

 

[Prince EWS]

Regarding your point about the tail, obviously it's helpful if the tail can score but I would never drop a frontline bowler for a worse one because he was unable to contribute with the bat. Chandrashekar was perhaps the most extreme example, he was physically incapable of ever batting well, however his wicket taking ability negated that. Bowler's save runs by taking wickets, Giles was never going to take wickets in Australia at anything reasonable so Monty should definitely have been your first choice.

Whilst I'd generally agree with you in most circumstances, the difference with this England team was, of course, Flintoff. He wasn't even close to being good enough to play as a specialist batsman yet he was selected in the team to bat #6. He was obviously good enough on bowling alone though, so that gave you four frontline bowlers already (not including Giles/Panesar) and a weak #6 - another bowler who cannot bat to save himself does not seem like the right balance option given all that, IMO.

Selecting your best four bowlers and your best five batsmen is always a good idea as a starting point - then you can see what your strengths and weaknesses are and what sort of players you have in reserve to fill the last two spots. England did that. Picking four bowlers ignoring batting completely when you already have Flintoff at 6 is never going to be particularly good idea.

There's also the fact that, as has been stated, Giles looked a lot better in the tour games on bowling alone and in all honesty actually bowled pretty decently in the Tests he played that series.

 

[zaremba]

Agree with Prince EWS, as you might imagine. The only thing I'd add is the role that the spinner in this team was going to play, namely that of the defensive, holding bowler. This is a role which Giles was actually very well equipped for.

Personally I'd never play Flintoff batting at 6. I'd like him in my team at 7 or even 8, where he could play the role that's suited to him - that of an extraordinarily dangerous hitter - rather than the role of a frontline batsman, which he simply isn't.

 

[fredfertang]

The biggest difference between England selecters and those from anywhere else has always seemed to me to be a tendency to look back rather than forwards - as Flintoff batted like a number 6 between 2003 and 2006 they believe he will again - the same sort of thinking seems to persist with the likes of Harmison and Vaughan and will doubtless surface if Jones regains any decent level of fitness

Now I do, of course, own several sets of rose tinted eyewear myself........ but then I'm not responsible for the well-being of English cricket

 

[Scaly piscine]

Wish people would stop going about how brilliant a keeper Read is. The guy didn't go for catches that were vaguely near first slip. As for his batting and the guy generally he was mentally fragile.

 

[zaremba]

Wish people would stop going about how brilliant a keeper Read is. The guy didn't go for catches that were vaguely near first slip. As for his batting and the guy generally he was mentally fragile.

He's impressed me every time I've seen him. I appreciate he's no Phil Mustard, though.

 

[Uppercut]

All very well in theory but in the cold light of day, when you're 100-4 and the next man in is Chris Read with Malcolm, Mullally, Tufnell and Giddins to come, you might wish you'd taken a different route. Lower order run-making potential should not be underestimated.

Just reading through this thread- i completely agree with this post. Too often people make comments like "i want the best wicket keeper around regardless of batting", "i don't care about his batting, he's in the side to bowl", and, "good fielding is just a bonus, always take the best batsman". You pick the side that is most likely to win you the match, and lower order batting often makes the difference between winning and losing. Where would India be in the current test if it weren't for Harbhajan and Zaheer's rearguard on the first day from 200/6? How often does a match hinge on a crucial dropped chance by a substandard fielder?

These are things that most certainly should always be taken into account. They are, of course, sometimes given too much credence, but often they're crucially ignored at the cost of the team. They're key components of the game, and should never be neglected.

 

[Uppercut]

Agree with Prince EWS, as you might imagine. The only thing I'd add is the role that the spinner in this team was going to play, namely that of the defensive, holding bowler. This is a role which Giles was actually very well equipped for.

Personally I'd never play Flintoff batting at 6. I'd like him in my team at 7 or even 8, where he could play the role that's suited to him - that of an extraordinarily dangerous hitter - rather than the role of a frontline batsman, which he simply isn't.

What would really have helped England out then, as it would now, would be a part-time tweaker in their batting lineup of the standard of Gayle or Sehwag. That gives you the freedom to play Flintoff as one of four specialist bowlers, and with six specialist batsmen above him Freddie's a luxury rather than a liability. Not only that, but they could have a quality keeper who would only need to bat at 8- where again, any runs scored would be a bonus.

Having Flintoff as one of four bowlers is fine, but it's not ideal when your fifth option is Collingwood. I think it would make a pretty disproportionate difference if they had someone who could send down a few nothing-breaks before lunch and steal the odd wicket.