Selection errors tally thread

[Pup Clarke]

Nah, was alluding to the fact that you can work on your fitness in the space of 2 months, I know Sidebottom is probably a tad overweight, and that obviously doesn't help with regards to his fitness

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The England selectors currently have a thankless task. The main dilemma facing selectors from a major Test playing nation should be who to leave out from a nucleus of proven International class cricketers. Currently England can't even put together a First XI of anything like proven quality.

 

[wpdavid]

The England selectors currently have a thankless task. The main dilemma facing selectors from a major Test playing nation should be who to leave out from a nucleus of proven International class cricketers. Currently England can't even put together a First XI of anything like proven quality.

True. Given that we're looking likely to be wallopped in this and the next series, the trick is going to be deciding who is worth sticking with despite results rather than working their way through truck loads of players. Not easy.

 

[aussie]

Hey, I'm not saying my sources are perfect, maybe someone else here can give us better recent knowledge. His output in CC matches hasn't improved (3 wickets @ 34 this season, he's barely even bowled) and the selectors are leaving him well alone, so I'm yet to see much to suggest that the situation has changed.

It does seem pretty likely to me that he's been left out for fitness reasons though. Because i don't think anyone doubts that he's good enough for England when his body can take it.

I dont read Sidebottom's position that way TBH. It is clear during the WI tour & as you said in the CC you say, he was still suffering from his injury woes & his pace was down.

But that fact that he was bowling so sharp in the T20 WC shows that he is back. If it was a case where he was allowed to unleash himself in just 4 overs, surely we would have seen that in new-ball spells during the WI test matches?.

I am not overly stressing about his FC form. If helpful are seen within the next 4 test, he should definately play ahead of Onions. Only Harmison should keep him out ATS.

 

[zaremba]

Doctrove

 

[GIMH]

I dont read Sidebottom's position that way TBH. It is clear during the WI tour & as you said in the CC you say, he was still suffering from his injury woes & his pace was down.

But that fact that he was bowling so sharp in the T20 WC shows that he is back. If it was a case where he was allowed to unleash himself in just 4 overs, surely we would have seen that in new-ball spells during the WI test matches?.

I am not overly stressing about his FC form. If helpful are seen within the next 4 test, he should definately play ahead of Onions. Only Harmison should keep him out ATS.

If you're going to only bowl 4 overs then you will go for it much more than in your first four of what could be 20-30

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hauritz and Hilfenhaus, eh? Clueless, these Aussie selectors.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hauritz and Hilfenhaus, eh? Clueless, these Aussie selectors.

Yeah Hilfenhaus has done really well and Hauritz apparently bowled well this morning so...maybe they knew what they were doing. Especially if either of them bowl us to victory. Lee may have been handy about now if fit as it seems to be starting to reverse.

 

[GIMH]

I smell a 'was still an error' argument tbh

 

[BoyBrumby]

I smell a 'was still an error' argument tbh

What? A gentleman who takes his lumps in good humour like Dicko? Surely not.

 

[Richard]

I smell a 'was still an error' argument tbh

Like it or not, no-one had any reason to suspect either would bowl as well as they have done. Anyone who claims they did is lying.

And no, no-one deserves the slightest credit for either Hilfenhaus or Hauritz bowling well and reasonably respectively than the bowlers themselves.

Still, not many are going to accept that no selector has the power to look into the future, so there's little point me wasting my time arguing the matter with said minded people.

 

[Richard]

Still doesn't mean I think he is any good.

Nor do I. But there was no case not to play him in the opening Test of this series, and the case to drop him for the next one isn't strong.

One more shocker at Lord's though and if he's left-out that'll be fair enough.

 

[Uppercut]

Like it or not, no-one had any reason to suspect either would bowl as well as they have done. Anyone who claims they did is lying.

And no, no-one deserves the slightest credit for either Hilfenhaus or Hauritz bowling well and reasonably respectively than the bowlers themselves.

Still, not many are going to accept that no selector has the power to look into the future, so there's little point me wasting my time arguing the matter with said minded people.

 

[aussie]

Like it or not, no-one had any reason to suspect either would bowl as well as they have done. Anyone who claims they did is lying.

And no, no-one deserves the slightest credit for either Hilfenhaus or Hauritz bowling well and reasonably respectively than the bowlers themselves.

Still, not many are going to accept that no selector has the power to look into the future, so there's little point me wasting my time arguing the matter with said minded people.

With you on Haurtiz of course. But not on Hifly, if you saw him bowl in SA it would always have been fair to assume he would bowl well if given the chance over here.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Like it or not, no-one had any reason to suspect either would bowl as well as they have done.

Interesting that you somehow get to see Aussie Domestic cricket rather regularly...

 

[BoyBrumby]

Richard's becoming a parody of himself now, "no-one had any reason to suspect either would bowl as well as they have done." What crap. He pre-supposes his own correctness and then doggedly refuses to accept that actually he might've been wrong, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary.

No-one had any reason apart, of course, from the selectors who actually made the ballsy call to bring in Hilfenhaus. Much as he'd like to think otherwise chaps like Messers Boon, Hughes, Cox and Hilditch who've actually seen the bloke play on a semi-regular basis saw something in him which (hey!) gave them reason to suspect he would bowl as well as he did.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The "tally" stands at 0-0. Onions would have been (and always will be) fodder on a good wicket against good batsman. Australia might chosen Clark, but it was not a glaring "error" not to.

 

[Uppercut]

The "tally" stands at 0-0. Onions would have been (and always will be) fodder on a good wicket against good batsman. Australia might chosen Clark, but it was not a glaring "error" not to.

Even if Onions wasn't the right call, Monty Panesar was still a mistake. I'd have backed Gary Keedy or Shaun Udal ahead of him. They might have taken figures along the lines of 1/150 too but at least they'd have been less of a liability with the bat and in the field.

 

[Craig]

I absolutely can't stand Hauritz. I mean in the first innings he gets smacked around by Swann and Anderson, and hell they even reverse sweep him (that has to be a insult to Hauritz) and yet in both innings he ends up with reasonable figures and his Test stats are not that bad. I wish Australia were touring India so they could pick him, and Sehwag, Gambhir, SRT, Laxman, and Dhoni can hit him into the stands on a regular basis.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Even if Onions wasn't the right call, Monty Panesar was still a mistake. I'd have backed Gary Keedy or Shaun Udal ahead of him. They might have taken figures along the lines of 1/150 too but at least they'd have been less of a liability with the bat and in the field.

England don't have any Test quality spinners. Swann has done well against moderate opposition but like it or not Panesar is still the best spinner (best of a poor bunch). Udal and Keedy shouldn't be considered under any circumstances. If England actually had high quality seamers they wouldn't have played two spinner despite all the talk about the pitch.