Selection errors tally thread

[Burgey]

Maybe, but Green pitch = Stuart Clark plays over Hauritz = Australia win anyway!

Hope so!

But really, to take 20 wickets cheapish they have to get the 1st 10 asap. Surely something lively gives them the best chance of that?

 

[Richard]

Basically, England are reliant on not just the deck, but winning the toss. If the toss automatically went to the home side, then it'd be easier to prepare a deck favouring England, but as it is it might possibly be a case of preparing one that favours the toss-winner.

 

[tooextracool]

If England end up preparing a green pitch, they might as well just put the Ashes on a platter and hand it back to Australia instead of bothering to show up. The only time this series the Australian bowlers have genuinely looked like taking 20 wickets was at Headingley when they had something in the pitch to work with.

 

[aussie]

If England end up preparing a green pitch, they might as well just put the Ashes on a platter and hand it back to Australia instead of bothering to show up. The only time this series the Australian bowlers have genuinely looked like taking 20 wickets was at Headingley when they had something in the pitch to work with.

Yes. But at the same time, it doesn't mean the AUS pace attack is incapable of bowling on non bowler friendly pitches. ENG batting doesn't have KP, so either way is advantage AUS.

 

[Richard]

The only time this series the Australian bowlers have genuinely looked like taking 20 wickets was at Headingley when they had something in the pitch to work with.

I must say it surprises me that anyone claims this when only Monty Panesar's unexpected ability to bat for 11 overs (or whatever it was) stopped them taking 20 wickets in a game that lost 60-odd overs to rain. Sure, they didn't look like taking 20 in the Second and Third Tests, and didn't quite do it in the First when they should have, but they certainly did look like doing so and only failed to do by a whisker.

 

[zaremba]

Maybe, but Green pitch = Stuart Clark plays over Hauritz = Australia win anyway!

Hope so!

But really, to take 20 wickets cheapish they have to get the 1st 10 asap. Surely something lively gives them the best chance of that?

AWTBurgey.

Yes on a green pitch Clark and the other crim seamers might run amok, but if England is going to win this match they'll have to bowl well themselves. A spin-based strategy is out of the question for the reason given by Burgey (although they'll pick Swann at least to give them some versatility), and so the seamers will have to be relied on to outbowl Australia. Which will be difficult, but not impossible, and they have to back themselves to do it.

 

[Richard]

I once said to myself in perhaps my greatest piece of phrasemaking that "a cricket team can never afford to jeopardise their own strengths for fear of the opposition's strengths".

The trouble though is that England's strengths are overwhelmingly swing; the Australians' are much more seam. Seam is to a fair extent controllable by good groundsmanship; swing relies totally on getting a good ball, and unfortunately the stupid laws of the game do not allow bowlers very much control over whether or not they get a good ball, even though batsmen are allowed complete and total control over whether they get a good bat.

In short there's not too much England can do to enhance the prospects of their own strengths; they can however enhance those of Australia.

 

[zaremba]

I can't believe that after our disagreements about the matter a few months ago, I'm now using the expression "seam" to mean "pace"...

 

[FBU]

. Not remotely surprised given England's selection errors in the last 2-and-a-bit years are simply too many to remotely keep count of, but every new one still remains disappointing.

Here you are, England's fast bowlers since 2000 - 26 to Australia's 13.
(all rounders not included)

Gough
Caddick
Mullally
Silverwood
Giddins
Hoggard
Cork
Sidebottom
Tudor
Ormond
Jones
Harmison
Johnson
Bicknell
Ali
Kirtley
Saggers
Anderson
Plunkett
Mahmood
Lewis
Tremlett
Broad
Pattinson
Khan
Onions

McGrath
Fleming
Lee
Gillespie
Kasprowicz
Williams
Bracken
Tait
Clark
Johnson
Siddle
Bollinger
Hilfenhaus

 

[Richard]

Here you are, England's fast bowlers since 2000 - 26 to Australia's 13.
(all rounders not included)

Gough
Caddick
Mullally
Silverwood
Giddins
Hoggard
Cork
Sidebottom
Tudor
Ormond
Jones
Harmison
Johnson
Bicknell
Ali
Kirtley
Saggers
Anderson
Plunkett
Mahmood
Lewis
Tremlett
Broad
Pattinson
Khan
Onions

McGrath
Fleming
Lee
Gillespie
Kasprowicz
Williams
Bracken
Tait
Clark
Johnson
Siddle
Bollinger
Hilfenhaus

That post wasn't purely in reference to seam bowlers TBH. Nonetheless, there's a hell of a lot there whose selections, at the time they were initially made, had precious little going for them. Gough and Caddick obviously don't count as they were established in the side as of 1996/97 and 1999 respectively so didn't have any "initial selection" in 2000.

But I could make a fairly strong case as to why none of the others should have been picked. And that includes bowlers who, on a long-term basis, I thought could have been good Test bowlers, like Cork and Tudor.

For example: Bicknell and Saggers were ignored throughout or almost throughout their in-form times (respectively 1987-2001 and 2000-2003) then picked after their peak had passed (2003 and 2004 respectively). Sidebottom's selection had plenty going for it in 2007 but absolutely nothing whatsoever in 2001. With Hoggard you can replace 2007 with 2004 and 2001 with (collectively) 2000, 2001 and 2001/02.

Only a handful should never, ever have been picked under any circumstance (Plunkett, Khan, Mahmood; to date, Broad). It's purely and simply disgraceful that these ever got anywhere near international cricket. The sort of selection that no selector has any excuse, whatsoever, for making.

Some, meanwhile, were decent bowlers, far better than the Plunketts of this World, but were always in the "probably not all that likely to make it at Test level" category (Kirtley, Giddins, Kabir Ali, Lewis). I'd not say these were in themselves bad selections, but all were picked when they were picked over the heads of candidates with better cases.

 

[Burgey]

AWTBurgey.

Yes on a green pitch Clark and the other crim seamers might run amok, but if England is going to win this match they'll have to bowl well themselves. A spin-based strategy is out of the question for the reason given by Burgey (although they'll pick Swann at least to give them some versatility), and so the seamers will have to be relied on to outbowl Australia. Which will be difficult, but not impossible, and they have to back themselves to do it.

And I think they can do it, FWIW. They outbowled Australia at Lord's and Edgbaston, Australia outbowled them at Cardiff and Headingly. It's not like Australia have been consistently better at the bowling caper than England this series.

What concerns me is the way Australia mangaged its bowlers this tour. Johnson was wrapped in cotton wool, Siddle did little bowling (though tbf he was injured for a large part of the build up) and Buildahouse only played one warm up as well. Of course, Lee and Clark were both also under-done due to injury before the tour.

It seems the management was content to see a number of our blokes actually use the first few tests to run into form, and it frankly nearly cost us the series but for some excellent second innings batting at Edgbaston. One would think, given what was known about Johnson from his past 12 months, that they'd have had him bowling consistently in the build up. Last summer he just got better and better the more he bowled. He's doing it again now, but they almost left it too late. Given they brought three injury-recovering quicks on tour (Lee, Clark and Siddle) it was a huge risk. Frankly, they're pretty lucky it hasn't cost them the whole show.

 

[GIMH]

That post wasn't purely in reference to seam bowlers TBH. Nonetheless, there's a hell of a lot there whose selections, at the time they were initially made, had precious little going for them. Gough and Caddick obviously don't count as they were established in the side as of 1996/97 and 1999 respectively so didn't have any "initial selection" in 2000.

But I could make a fairly strong case as to why none of the others should have been picked. And that includes bowlers who, on a long-term basis, I thought could have been good Test bowlers, like Cork and Tudor.

For example: Bicknell and Saggers were ignored throughout or almost throughout their in-form times (respectively 1987-2001 and 2000-2003) then picked after their peak had passed (2003 and 2004 respectively). Sidebottom's selection had plenty going for it in 2007 but absolutely nothing whatsoever in 2001. With Hoggard you can replace 2007 with 2004 and 2001 with (collectively) 2000, 2001 and 2001/02.

Only a handful should never, ever have been picked under any circumstance (Plunkett, Khan, Mahmood; to date, Broad). It's purely and simply disgraceful that these ever got anywhere near international cricket. The sort of selection that no selector has any excuse, whatsoever, for making.

Some, meanwhile, were decent bowlers, far better than the Plunketts of this World, but were always in the "probably not all that likely to make it at Test level" category (Kirtley, Giddins, Kabir Ali, Lewis). I'd not say these were in themselves bad selections, but all were picked when they were picked over the heads of candidates with better cases.

Get a grip, who's he keeping out that's better? No-one

 

[Richard]

Sidebottom's still a far better bowler, and had Flintoff been fit for Headingley there might well have been an irresistable case to play him ahead of Broad. Either way, the point I'm making is that at no point in his career so far has Broad really merited any call-up (not neccessarily retention) that he's been given.

 

[Richard]

One would think, given what was known about Johnson from his past 12 months, that they'd have had him bowling consistently in the build up. Last summer he just got better and better the more he bowled.

I can only guess that the fear, based on his previous, has been there of over-bowling him and causing some sort of serious long-term injury. With injury-prone bowlers who only tend to bowl well after sustained periods of bowling, it's a bit of a rock-and-hard-place scenario.

 

[tooextracool]

I must say it surprises me that anyone claims this when only Monty Panesar's unexpected ability to bat for 11 overs (or whatever it was) stopped them taking 20 wickets in a game that lost 60-odd overs to rain. Sure, they didn't look like taking 20 in the Second and Third Tests, and didn't quite do it in the First when they should have, but they certainly did look like doing so and only failed to do by a whisker.

That may well be the case but it has largely to do with some completely inept batting in both innings from England at Cardiff than anything else. Australia, with the exception of Hilfenhaus and possibly Hauritz in the 2nd dig bowled pathetically that game and were very fortunate to even come close to taking 20 wickets. It is a shame they even got 10.

 

[tooextracool]

The trouble though is that England's strengths are overwhelmingly swing; the Australians' are much more seam. Seam is to a fair extent controllable by good groundsmanship; swing relies totally on getting a good ball, and unfortunately the stupid laws of the game do not allow bowlers very much control over whether or not they get a good ball, even though batsmen are allowed complete and total control over whether they get a good bat.

Not necessarily. You'd have to make the distinction here between conventional and reverse swing. Whilst conventional swing is almost entirely down to the conditions and the ball, the amount of reverse swing is affected by certain attributes of the pitch and the outfield.

 

[tooextracool]

Get a grip, who's he keeping out that's better? No-one

Someone by the name of Matthew Hoggard surely?

 

[marc71178]

It's 2009, not 2005.

 

[Uppercut]

Someone by the name of Matthew Hoggard surely?

 

[tooextracool]

It's 2009, not 2005.

Err yes, because the 2007-09 version of Hoggard would average nearly 40 with the ball.
People constantly seem to forget 2 things. One that Hoggard is still not yet 33, only a year older than Sidebottom. and 2 that Hoggard wasn't very quick to begin with, so the whole 'losing his zip' bit is the biggest load of codswallop I've ever heard.