Selection errors tally thread

[Uppercut]

Think how you'd feel if Ireland deliberately didn't pick Boyd Rankin, ever again. Albeit Rankin actually genuinely does appear to have lost it completely, unlike Hoggard. Granted, he's picked the wrong county to join - he'd have a much better chance at Headingley than Edgbaston.

Rankin will be fine when he pulls on an Ireland shirt, don't worry about that.

There's a much better analogy regarding Peter Connell, who was our best bowler over a period of a year or so leading up the the World T20. He was then unceremoniously dropped, only played one game in the tournament and only bowled one over in it. He's recently been left out of the squad for the game against Scotland (which rain has just robbed us of) with rumours of a bad attitude being responsible.

Personally, I'm happy to leave the judgement of players I rarely see to those who train with them day in, day out.

 

[Richard]

I'm not - I've seen far too many instances of said judgement being, quite blatantly to my mind, mistaken.

 

[sledger]

Harmison playing over Onions at The Oval is a ****ing joke and I don't care if he gets gifted 17-89 it's still a ****ing joke. Not that surprising, though, because the Harmison myth has outstripped the Harmison reality all career (no, not just since early-2004; it did so before then as well). The overwhelming likelihood is that he'll damage England's chances and they'll have to win the game despite him. Onions on the other hand could, possibly, have contributed to improving the chances of victory.

First thing I saw when I woke up this morning was the news that he had been selected ahead of Onions, just groaned and put my palm to my face, highly illogical selection.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think I'm paying out on "no Hauritz" as an error, tbh.

 

[sledger]

Harmison not exactly justifying his inclusion thus far either.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Harmison not exactly justifying his inclusion thus far either.

No, true. & if we'd gone for the extra spinner it'd probably have been Broad rather than him to miss out, so I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.

On the "credit where it's due" front tho: Trott. Test too late, but they got it right eventually.

 

[sledger]

No, true. & if we'd gone for the extra spinner it'd probably have been Broad rather than him to miss out, so I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.

On the "credit where it's due" front tho: Trott. Test too late, but they got it right eventually.

Yes indeed, Broad missing out would have been bad anyway, but in hindsight it's even easier to see this. Thank god he wasn't binned. Even on the first morning of the match Athers was saying Broad ought to have been left out, blimey.

As for Trott, I do agree, but from just looking at him bat, he looks very impressive, the way he has kept hold of his wicket and taken his timein scoring is great, had we had that control in earlier matches....well it probably wouldn't have made a massive amount of difference, maybe we would have saved the first test a bit easier, and the deficit at Headingly would have perhaps been reduced...but yes, glad to see him finally in the team, and on his current performance he ought to have cemented his place for a while imo.

 

[GIMH]

Think I'm paying out on "no Hauritz" as an error, tbh.

I said in the match thread, it might be to 2009 what "we're gonna have a bowl" was to 2005. Might not have influenced the result but such a ****-up.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You were the only team that looked like taking 20 at Cardiff not because you bowled better (Hilfenhaus spared). You did so because half of England forgot how to bat, and the other half didn't know how to.

Right, but this always seems to be the case

 

[GIMH]

Right, but this always seems to be the case

Yeah, certainly seemed to be the case yesterday