England 17-man squad

[tooextracool]

His T20 performances was by no means poor. He was never smashed because he showed his he is a good enough spinner in that format already. In the future he should clearly play T20 games for England.

Rubbish, I for one hope we dont see Adil Rashid playing limited over cricket again anytime soon. From his record, it appears that his own county side doesnt trust having him in the side for t20.

No doubt it was a stupid selection ATT. But i'd say we should give the selectors some credit for seeing KPs special ability.

Err no. You dont need to be very attentive to see ability in KP.
I'd give them far more credit for picking Graham Onions or even Ryan Sidebottom, but thats as far as I'll go for giving them credit because AFAIC, they have made some absolute howlers when it comes to selection. Amjad Khan for one, has to be the worst player I have seen play international cricket in a very long time. Possibly even worse than Hauritz.

 

[Top_Cat]

Few people have made as emphatic a claim for a place in the test side as KP had done by the time the Ashes rolled around in 2005. Forget about the fact that he was one of a select few who was averaging 50+ in FC cricket in England, here is a lad who went on an A tour to India and absolutely murdered everyone, finishing with 3 centuries at an average of over 100. When you factor that in with the fact that he had played some fine ODI innings under immense pressure which showed his mettle, it really was a question of when he was going to play rather than if. As has been suggested, he should have played against Bangladesh, but for whatever reason he didnt.

I have no issues with KPs selection for that series, what really bugged me was that Thorpe was England's best bat bar none in that side and got dropped. If anyone else had been dropped for KP, it wouldnt have been much of an issue.

I gathered at the time they were making a statement of looking towards the future, unscarred players, etc. Truth is, no-one had any idea Bell would do so poorly against the Aussies. He looked good enough that you'd have backed him for a ton against the Aussies.

Thorpe was a proven player in all conditions and had a good record against the Aussies, true. But Bell was the future and I guess they thought it was time to make a bold choice. It didn't come off but I can understand why the selectors might have perceived it worth the risk. Wasn't Thorpe carrying an injury at the time too? Remember plenty being said about his back not being up to a full Ashes series.

 

[tooextracool]

I gathered at the time they were making a statement of looking towards the future, unscarred players, etc. Truth is, no-one had any idea Bell would do so poorly against the Aussies. He looked good enough that you'd have backed him for a ton against the Aussies.

Perhaps so but that is besides the point. The batting card at the time consisted of:

Trescothick - who was yet to have a successful series against Australia at the time, and had been Gillespie's bunny for ages.
Strauss - struggled against the swinging ball in the ODI series
Vaughan - was badly out of touch, pretty much like most of his career.
Bell - playing his 2nd test (excluding bangladesh)
KP - making his debut
Flintoff
Jones- who was just not very good.

That middle order in particular was shockingly inexperienced and it showed because time and time again that series the batting fell apart. Thorpe was needed to provide stability,
If they didnt want to have anyone with scars then they should have dropped Trescothick as well considering that he had 2 failed Ashes series under his belt and had struggled miserably with the bat in both of them.

Thorpe was a proven player in all conditions and had a good record against the Aussies, true. But Bell was the future and I guess they thought it was time to make a bold choice. It didn't come off but I can understand why the selectors might have perceived it worth the risk. Wasn't Thorpe carrying an injury at the time too? Remember plenty being said about his back not being up to a full Ashes series.

Yeah there were murmurs that he was playing with painkillers and a bad back. Nonetheless, it is really no different from Flintoff or KP at the moment. As unfit as he was supposed to be it didnt stop him from scoring over 100 runs without being dismissed against Bangladesh and scoring a few half centuries for Surrey in the build up to the Ashes series.

 

[aussie]

Few people have made as emphatic a claim for a place in the test side as KP had done by the time the Ashes rolled around in 2005. Forget about the fact that he was one of a select few who was averaging 50+ in FC cricket in England, here is a lad who went on an A tour to India and absolutely murdered everyone, finishing with 3 centuries at an average of over 100. When you factor that in with the fact that he had played some fine ODI innings under immense pressure which showed his mettle, it really was a question of when he was going to play rather than if. As has been suggested, he should have played against Bangladesh, but for whatever reason he didnt.

I have no issues with KPs selection for that series, what really bugged me was that Thorpe was England's best bat bar none in that side and got dropped. If anyone else had been dropped for KP, it wouldnt have been much of an issue.

The thing is though you couldn't have played him vs BANG ATT, becuase many where backign Bell as a test player & Thorpe playing in the Ashes was pretty much a no-brainer to everyone.

What could/should have happend for me, was to start the Ashes with Bell & Thrope. Then if either failed (Bell most likely), KP could have debuted in the 3rd test.

But one can argue again that all that is hindsight, since ARE WE 100% sure that Thrope could have batted the way KP played @ Lord's, then later at the Oval?. I don't know. Thats why i'd say well done selectors & Vaughan for picking him so quickly.

 

[aussie]

Rubbish, I for one hope we dont see Adil Rashid playing limited over cricket again anytime soon. From his record, it appears that his own county side doesnt trust having him in the side for t20.

We should really worry about his county record for Yorkshire. Fact is in T20 is already clear that have spin is a key wicket-taking ingredient, Rashid showed enough potential to be persisited in that format. I wouldn't pick him in ODI's just yet though.

 

[GIMH]

Few people have made as emphatic a claim for a place in the test side as KP had done by the time the Ashes rolled around in 2005. Forget about the fact that he was one of a select few who was averaging 50+ in FC cricket in England, here is a lad who went on an A tour to India and absolutely murdered everyone, finishing with 3 centuries at an average of over 100. When you factor that in with the fact that he had played some fine ODI innings under immense pressure which showed his mettle, it really was a question of when he was going to play rather than if. As has been suggested, he should have played against Bangladesh, but for whatever reason he didnt.

I have no issues with KPs selection for that series, what really bugged me was that Thorpe was England's best bat bar none in that side and got dropped. If anyone else had been dropped for KP, it wouldnt have been much of an issue.

All things considered I am glad KP never played against Bangas as it was nice that he got his maiden ton in the biggest Test match in the history of cricket (I said so). If he'd played against Bangas he'd have murdered them.

 

[Richard]

I gathered at the time they were making a statement of looking towards the future, unscarred players, etc.

As has been said, the "unscarred" stuff is complete nonsense. Only players with very poor mentalities will suffer from that - most will just relish the latest opportunity to reverse the trend of so far.

Any time you look past your best players in favour of perceived "freshness" it's always very dodgy ground.

Truth is, no-one had any idea Bell would do so poorly against the Aussies. He looked good enough that you'd have backed him for a ton against the Aussies.

Thorpe was a proven player in all conditions and had a good record against the Aussies, true. But Bell was the future and I guess they thought it was time to make a bold choice. It didn't come off but I can understand why the selectors might have perceived it worth the risk.

No-one could reasonably have expected Bell to do quite so poorly as he did, for certain. But contrary to some beliefs, there was no especially convincing case to play him at all in 2005 - only in 2004 had he really begun to deliver on the potential all had always known he had. Had he been left-out entirely, he'd have lost nothing and probably gained a lot.

All things considered, not picking him made more sense than picking him. Neither option would've been a crass error, but on balance no made more sense than yes.

Wasn't Thorpe carrying an injury at the time too? Remember plenty being said about his back not being up to a full Ashes series.

Much of it was just excuses to exclude him, frankly. He was fit to play and almost certainly fit to perform. Many players have been less fit and still been picked (eg Atherton against Australia in 1998/99).

 

[tooextracool]

The thing is though you couldn't have played him vs BANG ATT, becuase many where backign Bell as a test player & Thorpe playing in the Ashes was pretty much a no-brainer to everyone.

Pietersen has always had more going for his selection than Bell, and thats even after Bell was averaging 297 in test cricket. If England wanted to make a bold, brash move, they should have selected Pietersen for Bdesh, having already committed the crime of dropping Bell for the tour of SA.

But one can argue again that all that is hindsight, since ARE WE 100% sure that Thrope could have batted the way KP played @ Lord's, then later at the Oval?. I don't know. Thats why i'd say well done selectors & Vaughan for picking him so quickly.

KP's performance at Lords meant little because England still got thrashed. As far as Thorpe is concerned, for all we know had he played, England might never have been in the down in the mire situation that they ended up in.

 

[tooextracool]

Fact is in T20 is already clear that have spin is a key wicket-taking ingredient, Rashid showed enough potential to be persisited in that format. I wouldn't pick him in ODI's just yet though.

Good spin is a key wicket taking ingredient, but Rashid does not possess the requisite accuracy or the experience to be able to handle the international stage in limited overs cricket at this point IMO. He needs more experience for Yorks before he plays again.

 

[tooextracool]

All things considered I am glad KP never played against Bangas as it was nice that he got his maiden ton in the biggest Test match in the history of cricket (I said so). If he'd played against Bangas he'd have murdered them.

Never cared much for milestones tbh. For me scoring 99 or scoring 100 means one and the same, well done but you still screwed up by not going on further to get a big score.

 

[aussie]

Pietersen has always had more going for his selection than Bell, and thats even after Bell was averaging 297 in test cricket. If England wanted to make a bold, brash move, they should have selected Pietersen for Bdesh, having already committed the crime of dropping Bell for the tour of SA.

If my memory serves me correct Bell was still behind Butcher & Rob Key who had performed vs well in the 2004 summer. He probably could have been picked ahead of Collingwood (who was useless test selection ATT). But Bell was never likely to get a test.

Fast forward to the 05 summer, with Butcher now seemingly passed it & Key looking a bit out of depth in SA. Bell who was the hot kid in county cricket longggg before KP, had to be picked.

KP's excellent A-team batting vs IND & ODI runs vs SA couldn't have given a place vs BANG ahead of Bell or Thorpe.

KP's performance at Lords meant little because England still got thrashed. As far as Thorpe is concerned, for all we know had he played, England might never have been in the down in the mire situation that they ended up in.

Nah man how can discredit KP's batting like that?. Given that KP had that "ODI player/slogger" tag over him going into that lord's test, the way KP batted patiently in those testing conditions, showed us a new side to his batting that wasn't intially expected.

Thorpe no doubt would have still been a solid presence in most of those tough situations that Bell failed in during 05.

But as i said the best scenario that could have happed was, Bell & Thorpe starting the series & when Bell failed, KP could have debuted later in the series.

 

[aussie]

Good spin is a key wicket taking ingredient, but Rashid does not possess the requisite accuracy or the experience to be able to handle the international stage in limited overs cricket at this point IMO. He needs more experience for Yorks before he plays again.

For ODI's i'd agree. But he handled the pressure of the T20 WC pretty well. If the future T20 bowling attack for ENG is Anderson or Sidebottom/Freddie/Braod/Swann/Rashid, thats very good.

 

[Richard]

Fast forward to the 05 summer, with Butcher now seemingly passed it

Butcher actually missed most of 2005 with that wrist injury.

Bell who was the hot kid in county cricket longggg before KP, had to be picked.

Not true at all. Bell had a good first season in 2001, disappointed completely in 2002 and 2003, and only begun to recover in 2004 (in which he made an excellent Test debut as a replacement player). Pietersen, on the other hand, had been barnstorming the place up since his arrival in 2001. FTR, he averaged 57.95 in 2001; 62.21 in 2002; 51.53 in 2003; 52.20 in 2004; and 38.54 in the matches he played early in 2005.

Only thing that could possibly have seen Bell preferred to Pietersen for the Bangladesh "Tests" was that Bell started 2005 superlatively; Pietersen merely started it OK-ish. That should not, in my view, have overridden the longer-term reality that Pietersen had done far, far better.

Nah man how can discredit KP's batting like that?. Given that KP had that "ODI player/slogger" tag over him going into that lord's test, the way KP batted patiently in those testing conditions, showed us a new side to his batting that wasn't intially expected.

If people didn't expect it that's their mistake; and superbly though he batted all match, it still counted for nothing as England were thrashed. His first-innings at Edgbaston, however, played a very big part in the day that turned the series - same way Trescothick and Strauss' opening stand did, and Flintoff's knock that came before Pietersen's.

 

[tooextracool]

Fast forward to the 05 summer, with Butcher now seemingly passed it & Key looking a bit out of depth in SA. Bell who was the hot kid in county cricket longggg before KP, had to be picked.

KP's excellent A-team batting vs IND & ODI runs vs SA couldn't have given a place vs BANG ahead of Bell or Thorpe..

Err why not? He had the better record than Bell the whole time and had shown that he had the temperament to succeed at the international level, albeit at a different format. Like i said, Bell had already been left out before, so its not like they had to drop him against Bangladesh, they simply had to not select him and select Pietersen instead.

Nah man how can discredit KP's batting like that?. Given that KP had that "ODI player/slogger" tag over him going into that lord's test, the way KP batted patiently in those testing conditions, showed us a new side to his batting that wasn't intially expected.

Errr not really, Pietersen batted aggressively in those innings and batted aggressively all series. And why shouldnt he have given thats what he was picked in the side for. It did show that his technique was good enough for the task, because there were question marks regarding his obvious favoring for the leg side, but he was never considered a 'slogger' or anything of the sort.

Thorpe no doubt would have still been a solid presence in most of those tough situations that Bell failed in during 05.

But as i said the best scenario that could have happed was, Bell & Thorpe starting the series & when Bell failed, KP could have debuted later in the series.

Either way Thorpe should have played. KP would have been the right move over Bell IMO, not with the benefit of hindsight, but given the approach that they wanted to take that series.

 

[tooextracool]

For ODI's i'd agree. But he handled the pressure of the T20 WC pretty well. If the future T20 bowling attack for ENG is Anderson or Sidebottom/Freddie/Braod/Swann/Rashid, thats very good.

Anderson isnt the future for limited overs, he doesnt have the variety in his bowling or the required accuracy. As long as Sidebottom is fit I would have him in the side.

 

[Top_Cat]

Either way Thorpe should have played. KP would have been the right move over Bell IMO, not with the benefit of hindsight, but given the approach that they wanted to take that series.

All the info I've read suggests he wasn't fit to last a full series. Fully fit, sure. But otherwise, Bell was the right choice at the time for number 4.

 

[tooextracool]

All the info I've read suggests he wasn't fit to last a full series. Fully fit, sure. But otherwise, Bell was the right choice at the time for number 4.

Whether he was fit enough or not to last for an entire series is pure speculation. What we do know is that he was fit to play the first test at Lords and therefore he should have been picked. He was crucial to Englands chances even if he played half a series, it would have been better than him not playing anything. Not to mention that I'd take an injured Thorpe over half of the batters in the England team at the time.

 

[Top_Cat]

Whether he was fit enough or not to last for an entire series is pure speculation. What we do know is that he was fit to play the first test at Lords and therefore he should have been picked. He was crucial to Englands chances even if he played half a series, it would have been better than him not playing anything. Not to mention that I'd take an injured Thorpe over half of the batters in the England team at the time.

Well firstly, it wasn't speculation. I've read it in a few places (Thorpe himself said it I think) that Thorpe's back was giving him a heap of trouble.

Second, absolutely disagree you pick an injury risk like that. Aus did it after Edgbaston with McGrath, he played a Test then was out again for the following one which put a massive dent in Aus's chance in the series, in my view (would rather he missed Tests 2 and 3 to play in 4 and 5 than missing 2, playing 3, missing 4 then playing 5)

As it turned out, Thorpe wasn't that crucial anyway because they won the series 2-1 and, but for weather, probably would have won by more.

 

[tooextracool]

Well firstly, it wasn't speculation. I've read it in a few places (Thorpe himself said it I think) that Thorpe's back was giving him a heap of trouble.

Thorpe declared himself fully fit before the squad was announced for the first test:
Thorpe declares himself fit | Cricket News | Australia in England | Cricinfo.com

If he really didnt think he was fit, he wouldnt have carried on playing for Surrey during the season despite announcing his retirement from International cricket. Playing with an injury is something people have been doing for years, you honestly think he was playing pain free before that while he was scoring all those runs? Flintoff has said many times that he has played the vast majority of his career with pain as well, its part and parcel of being a test match cricketer. If it was affecting him, he wouldnt have been scoring runs.

 

[Top_Cat]

Haha, oh you mean the player declared himself fit? That's unusual!

It seems the English selectors didn't believe him anyway. They picked him for the Bangladesh series and it would have been weird if they picked him then had they not intended to give him the Ashes series too. All the rumblings at the time suggested he was dropped because he just wasn't going to play a whole series.