*Official* England in Bangladesh

[Uppercut]

Australia threads are the same though. Wonder what the common theme is...

Whatever it is, it would probably go away if people didn't keep on acknowledging it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Fraser a medium pacer so obviously completely useless according to you, averaged 27.

Nah, even in his dotage Gus was a medium-fast bowler at absolute worst. When he first burst onto the scene he was brisk, but had back issues so concentrated on the old virtues of line and length. He might not have been rapid on the speed gun (a slower ball for Gus was 77mph and an effort ball might just touch 80mph), but because he was such a tall bowler he always got good bounce and carry.

I reckon if Davies had Gus's (or Bicknell's) height he'd have played tests by now.

 

[zaremba]

I reckon if Davies had Gus's (or Bicknell's) height he'd have played tests by now.

Since I'm bored, that kind of comment has me reaching almost involuntarily for cricinfo...
Bicknell 6'4"
Davies 6'3"

I didn't realise that either of them was that tall

 

[aussie]

I know why you do it - I've done it myself from time to time.

My thinking these days is, if I find myself tempted to multi-quote, alarm bells should ring on two fronts:

(a) it's a sign that I'm getting sucked too deeply into an endless one-on-one debate and

(b) if I give into the temptation to multi-quote I can be sure that no-one else is going to bother reading it, except (perhaps) for the person I'm arguing with.

Haa all true. But then again the MAIN reason i come on this site is to discuss cricket issues, so for me i doesn't matter if its with who. If i'm not doing that i wouldn't have a reason to come on CW since i have no interest in other area's of this site (except for the football thread of course)

 

[BoyBrumby]

Since I'm bored, that kind of comment has me reaching almost involuntarily for cricinfo...
Bicknell 6'4"
Davies 6'3"

I didn't realise that either of them was that tall

Huh. Would've had Bicknell maybe an inch taller and Davies at least two shorter. Only ever seen him bowl once tho, in all fairness.

Fraser probably down at 5' 7", no doubt.

 

[Johnners]

Good job continuing the miss the point & understand the dynamics of English frist class cricket...now i have seen everything..

I get your point, you think he's a raw talent and should be picked. However, you said he deserves a spot on the Bangladesh tour? That's rubbish. Realistically, the players who deserve a chance/spot on the tour are those who have comfortably outperformed this raw talent on both the same tier (or a tier higher) of first class cricket. It all comes back to what PEWS said earlier. You're expecting a guy who has been somewhat unimpressive in a lower level of cricket, to suddenly start scoring runs at a much higher level, despite the fact that better performing players than he, have failed to do so. Say what you like about his raw talent, but there is absolutely no way he deserves a spot on any tour.

Using the West Indies, and Fidel Edwards as an example as to how this selection policy can sometimes work is the irony of it all. Of the top 8 cricketing nations, have you not noticed where exactly the WI rank? And Fidel Edwards? The same Fidel Edwards that takes his wickets at 40 after 40 test matches? Hardly the poster boy for examples as to why picking players based on "raw talent" works

 

[zaremba]

Huh. Would've had Bicknell maybe an inch taller and Davies at least two shorter. Only ever seen him bowl once tho, in all fairness.

Fraser probably down at 5' 7", no doubt.

And I'm 11 stone of pure muscle

 

[aussie]

I get your point, you think he's a raw talent and should be picked. However, you said he deserves a spot on the Bangladesh tour? That's rubbish. Realistically, the players who deserve a chance/spot on the tour are those who have comfortably outperformed this raw talent on both the same tier (or a tier higher) of first class cricket. It all comes back to what PEWS said earlier. You're expecting a guy who has been somewhat unimpressive in a lower level of cricket, to suddenly start scoring runs at a much higher level, despite the fact that better performing players than he, have failed to do so. Say what you like about his raw talent, but there is absolutely no way he deserves a spot on any tour.


Using the West Indies, and Fidel Edwards as an example as to how this selection policy can sometimes work is the irony of it all. Of the top 8 cricketing nations, have you not noticed where exactly the WI rank? And Fidel Edwards? The same Fidel Edwards that takes his wickets at 40 after 40 test matches? Hardly the poster boy for examples as to why picking players based on "raw talent" works

You have missed the point with my example of Edwards.

Where Windies rank & Edwards overall career average is irrelevant. My point with the Edwards comparison is that given that the WI had the disadvantage of not having a quality FC competition (just like how ENG have in some area's especially Division 2) to have a clear guide to how players may go in international circket, when selected. Basically all their players have been picked on raw talent or either modest FC records or even based on how they do in ODIs, because they have no other choice. Even Jermone Taylor was picked on similar grounds..

Edward's talent has been evident fromt he first test he has played when he ran through a quality SRI XI & caused ENG a headache in 2004. He has clearly been an improved bowler in test cricket since SA 07/08. Some players who are thrown into the test early may struggle early on, but some players just take the international cricket like a duck to water & i certainly see that in Morgan.

England have reached the stage clearly ATM like the WI (& other weak domestic structures world-wide like IND, PAK, SRI, NZ as well) where they can't take ALL FC performances on face value. With regards to the back-up talent Morgan already is the BEST young middle-order batsman in England behind all main test match quartet of Trott/KP/Colly/Bell - none of Shah, Andrew Gale, Ed Joyce, James Taylor, Bopara Joe Sayers, Hilderth, Alex Gidman ARE better than him.

So AGAIN yes, THIS ONCE he can be given a go based on ODI form performances already. Especially when you consider Luke Wright who has NO future has a test cricketer is on tour. This is BANG FFS, if it was a tour to IND/SRI/PAK i wouldn't be pushing for Morgan to be involved (although i may be tempted to) - but this would be a solid oppurtunity for ENG to get him involved with the test set-up, since he clearly is a BIG part of ENG test matches middle-order future. So yes he deserves to be to the current tour to BANG.

Look at David Warner & Shaun Marsh for AUS he got into the AUS ODI team basically on a few impressive innings in T20 where he basically LOOKED the part (although Warner may have fell back into a T20 specialist ATM) - rather than any strong domestic seasons of one-day batting in state cricket. Watson opened for AUS recently on the back of no creditable FC experience opening for either Queensland or Tasmania - he just looked LOOKED the part in ODIs openeing. The AUS selectors took a risk with them & it has worked.

The ENG selectors can go againts tradition of being robotic & not keep looking at players who have the "FC form behind them since none of them are good enough ATM & certainly can do the same with Morgan ATM..Simple

 

[marc71178]

Uh oh, he's brought out the capitals - it must be serious and full of "facts" now...

 

[Scaly piscine]

Nah, even in his dotage Gus was a medium-fast bowler at absolute worst. When he first burst onto the scene he was brisk, but had back issues so concentrated on the old virtues of line and length. He might not have been rapid on the speed gun (a slower ball for Gus was 77mph and an effort ball might just touch 80mph), but because he was such a tall bowler he always got good bounce and carry.

I reckon if Davies had Gus's (or Bicknell's) height he'd have played tests by now.

They're both just short of medium-fast in my opinion. 80-85mph is medium-fast for me.

I think medium has an this connotation with it in that if you're medium you must bowl dolly mixture stuff like Chris Harris or the like. But there are different kinds of medium pace bowler. The ones who predominantly bowl like a proper bowler, but slower - Fraser, Davies, Vaas etc. and the ones like Chris Harris.

 

[aussie]

Uh oh, he's brought out the capitals - it must be serious and full of "facts" now...

Yes "facts" that you of all people dont have knowledge to disapprove. Leave this discussion to A (me) & B (Clapo) you C your way out..

 

[Jarquis]

Does aussie realise that Morgan actually failed in ODI cricket with Ireland for sometime before his success with England recently? Duck to water my arse.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not sure what he realises and what he doesn't - it's difficult to interpret his posts, but judging by his habit of contradicting himself he'll soon be calling for Wright to play and Davies and Nannes to get call-ups.

 

[Johnners]

Uh oh, he's brought out the capitals - it must be serious and full of "facts" now...

Cut out the snide comments marc (not the first thread you've done it in lately), does nothing but further agitate everyone involved and bring down the thread.

 

[aussie]

Does aussie realise that Morgan actually failed in ODI cricket with Ireland for sometime before his success with England recently? Duck to water my arse.

How is performances with Ireland even relevant. ENG selectors certainly didn't pick him into the ODI team based on his Ireland performances since it wasn't anything to write home about, he looked very average in the 2007 WC - he was basically based on performances for Middlesex - you better check your facts.

In an ENG shirt in the past few months he has taken to international cricket like a duck to water your arse

 

[aussie]

I'm not sure what he realises and what he doesn't - it's difficult to interpret his posts, but judging by his habit of contradicting himself he'll soon be calling for Wright to play and Davies and Nannes to get call-ups.

I have no habit of contradicting myself. The reason you generally have a problem interpreting is because you knowledge of cricket is limited - FACTS.

I would not be calling for Wright to play, i am the biggest Luke Wright critic on this site pretty easily - i dont even want him int he ODI side. More so YOU will probably be calling for his selection, since you dont seem to have an issue with him being involved in the test squad currently.

Dont try to play a smart arse with me by trying to mention by position on Nannes. Nannes deserves to be involved in AUS team in all formats on merit, all AUS posters know it. You wouldn't since you dont know anything about AUS cricket. So back up..

 

[Jarquis]

L

How is performances with Ireland even relevant. ENG selectors certainly didn't pick him into the ODI team based on his Ireland performances since it wasn't anything to write home about, he looked very average in the 2007 WC - he was basically based on performances for Middlesex - you better check your facts.

In an ENG shirt in the past few months he has taken to international cricket like a duck to water your arse

How are his performances with Ireland relevant? Funnily enough because its exactly the same format and sport that he's playing in now which supposedly justifys his selection in Tets.
How is it not relevant?
He clearly didn't take to International cricket like a duck to water considering that he failed for the first considerable section of his career in it.
If by "a duck to water" you mean a cat being repeatedly drowned until it finally figured how to swim, I'd agree. Not that it justifies Test selection in any way.

 

[aussie]

L

How are his performances with Ireland relevant? Funnily enough because its exactly the same format and sport that he's playing in now which supposedly justifys his selection in Tets.
How is it not relevant?
He clearly didn't take to International cricket like a duck to water considering that he failed for the first considerable section of his career in it.
If by "a duck to water" you mean a cat being repeatedly drowned until it finally figured how to swim, I'd agree. Not that it justifies Test selection in any way.

I am refering to Morgan's ENGLAND ODI CAREER ALL the time here. The selectors DID NOT pick him based on any consideration to his record with Ireland - that should really be obvious to anyone who has follwed Morgan's progression. So yes his ireland record is irrelevant since he started fresh with ENG & in ENG colours he has taken to international cricket like a duck to water.

Plus again since no one has managed to give a creditable response. How is Morgan not justified a selection in the test squad, when Luke Wright is in the test squad???

 

[Jarquis]

Awfully keen to wipe the slate clean when it suits aren't you?

 

[marc71178]

Oh, they've provided a response, but you choose to ignore them, much as you choose to ignore anything that disagrees with you because you think you know better.

Oh, if every single Australian poster on here knows that Nannes deserves to be in the Test and ODI squads, how come nobody but you is calling for him? Are they all misinformed as well?

As for Luke Wright - I could actually see the logic behind his selection, a potential 4th seam option who is more than capable with the bat (and on the basis of what he's done recently far more capable with the bat in the longer format of the game than Morgan is) - I couldn't thing of any alternative in county cricket who would offer that option for the Test squad so have no issue with his call-up.