Haha indeed.
He could quite conceivably have been, he just doesn't deserve the chance, while others deserve it far more.
As far as the best interests of Australia, I would have thought that would be having as many good players available as possible, and having their young talents playing shield cricket rather than spending a year in rehab.
Bad idea. In Test cricket you do best by picking your best team. As and when that best team includes players in their 20s, then pick them. Do not use age as a criteria - if the best players are all in their 30s, then they should continue to be picked for as long as they remain the best players - when they cease to be the best players then replacements should be brought in, and those replacements should once again be the best players, whether they are in their 20s or 30s.
I'm a believer in experience being useful in a batting line-up, and that the youngsters can benefit in the long run by playing with the more experienced players.
I'm a believer that all they need to do is mingle, chat and absorb - inexperienced cricketers' names do not have to share a place on a scoresheet with experienced ones in order for experiences to be passed-on.
That isn't unusual. In far more cases than not since WW1 England would've killed for some of Australia's decent-but-far-from-outstanding players.
From my (admittedly limited) experience, you learn a lot actually on the field when you're batting with someone who is experienced, or they are captaining when you are playing.
Can't say there's ever been substantial evidence to suggest it to me (I find a quiet, thought-out chat away from the intensity of a game is far superior where learning is concerned), but we're about as likely to change each others' viewpoints on the matter as a cod is to swin to the Moon, so we'd probably best ATD.
Obviously Ferguson is a fair way ahead of, say, Bopara or Morgan, despite both actually possessing fairly superior career records to him. Like I said, it's generally the way - as a general rule (though clearly not without plenty of exceptions), Australian > English when all is equal.And of course I would also take Pietersen and Collingwood too, but they're hardly young up and coming players. Saying you'd take Pietersen over Ferguson is about as controversial as saying you'd take you'd take Hussey over Bopara.
Indeed.Can't say there's ever been substantial evidence to suggest it to me (I find a quiet, thought-out chat away from the intensity of a game is far superior where learning is concerned), but we're about as likely to change each others' viewpoints on the matter as a cod is to swin to the Moon, so we'd probably best ATD.
I'm just in an argumentative mood this evening.
Shocking.
That you hate him so much gives me confidence that he'll do well when picked.
Symonds was a) recovering from injury and b) undergoing disciplinary proceedings for comments made on radio about Brendon McCullum when Ferguson made his debut, so no, Symonds wasn't an option.
Indeed. And I don't see why him taking advantage of the elevation and doing well means that it was underserved.
Exactly.
Can't see how it isn't a big loss for Australia. He's performed really well in the ODI squad and has been absolutely key in getting Australia to a credible total in a fair few games. Having him down the order is nice security, and the guy's only 24. I'd definitely say it's quite a big loss for the one day team.
How on Earth did you deduce that from anything I've said so far? I said Ferguson deserves full credit for taking the chances offered him, but that the chances weren't really earned.
