*Official* England in Bangladesh

[aussie]

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

It has nothing to do with me. Nobody can seriously tell me that Morgan was even THOUGHT of as potential ENG player based on seeing him in Ireland colours, it was just talk he was a good little member nations player like Steve Tikolo, Ten Doescate (spell check) etc. All the hype came during when he came to Middlesex, so i dont see why his Ireland record comes into the equation here at all.

 

[Jarquis]

Because his Ireland record is part of his International cricket career, which started poorly, so he didn't take to it like a duck to water.

 

[marc71178]

You clearly have very little memory then - I can remember that he was talked about as a very good prospect when he made his debut for Ireland, and there's also the fact that he only played 4 games for Ireland before coming into County Cricket,

 

[aussie]

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..

Totally inaccurate - dont think nor do i post with the premise that i know BETTER THAN ANYONE - my opinion has equal merit to anyone who posts on CW. Why DO I HAVE to agree with an opinion i disagree with?.

If in a discussion two people are debating & point & no one agrees it theirfore comes to a matter of ideology, just like it is in politics. I will take my opinion to the grave unless i see a creditable evidence to change it.

For example before the recent tour to SA my opinion was that Morkel was garbabge, some people didn't think so. No my opinion has changed on Morkel that he should become a top-quality seamer..

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?

Not they are misinformed, its just that given his age & the fact their is enough solid fast-bowlers in state cricket. Some dont see the fuss for him, which i can understand. But his performances in the past year - rather than my opinion clearly shows that he merits being not being just a T20 specialist.

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.

I see the logic in Wrights ODI selection to A LEVEL as well. But him being picked more so highlights the lack of quality all-rounders in ENG, rather than him being any special.

With regards to Wright FC batting making him a better test option than Morgan

So answer me this don't you just MAYBEEEE think seeing Wright back in international cricket, that him averaging 47 in FC cricket is a disturbing fact?

Plus its not a matter of if any alternative player in county cricket wold offer that option for the test squad. Now that Flintoff is retired their is clearly NO QUALITY TEST ALL-ROUNDER in county cricket - thus we dont need to pick one. Luke Wright certainly doesn't deserve to be in the test squad NOW as much as Andrew Flintoff didn't deserve to be picked in 1998.

So if you are comfortable with Wright being in the test squd right now, i have to question your views on cricket...

 

[marc71178]

With regards to Wright FC batting making him a better test option than Morgan

Remind me which of the 2 averaged double the other in 2009 when playing in the higher standard of competition.

 

[Jarquis]

The fact Wright averaged 47 is maybe a bit misrepresentitive of his ability but nobody is suggesting he'll average 47 in Tests. There may be a considerable difference in standard between the County Championship and a Test match but the best players should still rise to the top of the field. In the County Championship there isn't a player better than Wright at what he does. So surely it makes most sense to pick him if he's the type of player we need?

 

[aussie]

Because his Ireland record is part of his International cricket career, which started poorly, so he didn't take to it like a duck to water.

I dont see it like that & certainly think the ENG selectors saw it like that either. His ENG carrer began on a clean slate AFAIC.

If Morgan plays lets say 150 ODIs with a batting average of 35 & lets say if we removed his ireland record at that point it goes up to 40. If anyone where to suggest "Morgan didn't start his internatioanl career like a duck to water" by highlighting his Ireland record, that surely would be madness, since its his ENG record is what counts. Nothing more.

 

[Jarquis]

I dont see it like that & certainly think the ENG selectors saw it like that either. His ENG carrer began on a clean slate AFAIC.

If Morgan plays lets say 150 ODIs with a batting average of 35 & lets say if we removed his ireland record at that point it goes up to 40. If anyone where to suggest "Morgan didn't start his internatioanl career like a duck to water" by highlighting his Ireland record, that surely would be madness, since its his ENG record is what counts. Nothing more.

You do that, I'll be sure to use the start of his International career when deciding whether he took to it like a duck to water or not. In fact I can already make that decision, he didn't.

 

[aussie]

Remind me which of the 2 averaged double the other in 2009 when playing in the higher standard of competition.

Remind me which one them has looked international quality when playing international cricket in 2009.

The fact Wright averaged 47 is maybe a bit misrepresentitive of his ability but nobody is suggesting he'll average 47 in Tests. There may be a considerable difference in standard between the County Championship and a Test match but the best players should still rise to the top of the field. In the County Championship there isn't a player better than Wright at what he does. So surely it makes most sense to pick him if he's the type of player we need?

1. Luke Wright isn't good enough to average 47. I question the standard of bowling in division 1.

2. In England has it has been PROVEN over the years - not my opinion the top who MAY rise to field even though the gap in quality between CC/list A & test cricket/ODI is evident, have on MANY occassion fell short of consistent international standard.

For example all those pits & pieces all-rounders who have been TRASH in ODIs & the many batsmen like Hick, Ramprakash, Crawley, Key etc etc who have failed to translate domestic form into test cricket.

This is why i saw the selection CAN given that recent history strike a balance betwen selection on FC from & a bit of raw talent & not be robotic to tradition. Simple.

3. No it makes no sense to pick Wright - he is not the player (all-rounder) we need since their is NO quality FC all-rounder in England now that Flintoff has retired. How can anyone who has watched Wright think he could be test quality ATS is totally beyond me.

 

[Jarquis]

Where did I say he was Test quality FFS? We're definitely better off picking Wright rather than nobody. We're also better off picking Wright rather than a player who wasn't anywhere near as good in a supposedly incredibly weak FC competition.
Give the bloke a chance to balls up at least.

 

[aussie]

You do that, I'll be sure to use the start of his International career when deciding whether he took to it like a duck to water or not. In fact I can already make that decision, he didn't.

I will do that & he did based on this ENG RECORD where he DID take to international cricket a duck to water. So if that hypotetical scenario where to play out like that in the next 5-10 years, i will always maintain this.Bringing is Ireland record into this is totally wrong.

Plus just checking even if you did mistakenly include his ireland record he scored 99 on debut & scored a hundred in his 5th ODI. So technically like with his separate ENG record, for Ireland he actually did take to international cricket like a duck to water

 

[aussie]

Where did I say he was Test quality FFS? We're definitely better off picking Wright rather than nobody. We're also better off picking Wright rather than a player who wasn't anywhere near as good in a supposedly incredibly weak FC competition.
Give the bloke a chance to balls up at least.

The dynamics with Wright vs Morgan is simple.

1. Wright a clearly poor player unqualified for test cricket ATM who has looked averaged in ODIs & T20s. His average of 47 is FC cricket is questionable & leaves a black mark over division 1's standard. We aren't "better of picking Wright", WE have seen his type & this type of useless selection before in David Capel, Mark Watkinson, Gavin Hamilton, Rikki Clarke, Mark Ealham, Ben Holliake, Ronnie Irani, Flintoff (98, 99) i.e trying to pick a useless bits a pieces county wastes 'all-rounders" to potentinally do a role as a # 6/7 batsman who can bowl a bit. So the ENG selectors should learn from their mistakes of the last 2 decades, which they clearly haven't.

2. Morgan a player with enormous potentially has looked international quality in ODIs & although his FC record is not superb ATM. He deserves to considered in the test squad sicne he is CLEARLY THE MOST TALENTED YOUNG BATSMAN IN ENGLAND AT THE MOMENT - behind the main middleorder quartet of Trott/KP/Colly/Bell even without having a strong FC season behind him. Given that no other batsman in county cricket ATM is better than him in a potential middle-order role.

So it makes sense even if he may not play a test in BANG to get him involved in the test squad over a useless waste like Luke Wright. Very easy stuff..

 

[Johnners]

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

Where the West Indies rank, Edwards' career record to date & the quality of WI domestic cricket is all relevant. You used Edwards as an example as to how picking players on raw talent can sometimes work. Even if he is improving as a bowler, it doesn't change the fact that apart from a good first couple of test matches, he's struggled to make a consistent impact for the vast majority of his international career.

Generally the players who get picked on "raw talent", and succeed from the get go, are the very best. I'm sorry to say, but given that it seems Morgan hasn't really even been able to take to 2nd Division First Class cricket in England, like water to a ducks back, makes the idea that he can suddenly do it in test matches all the more ridiculous.

Using Warner, Marsh & Watson as examples of players being selected based on how they looked doesn't fit either. Warner's selection in the T20 team had at least some merit to it, as did his ODI call-up given the problem with Injuries at the time (iirc). However, as we've since seen, he's some way off being a reliable ODI batsmen. Whilst Marsh's ODI selection was most likely based on his T20 form, he was also having quite a good List A season at the time, so again, there was merit to his selection. Sure there were players in Australia who had better domestic records than Warner/Marsh, and their selections were based on the longer term but at least they were playing good T20/OD cricket at the time of their selection - something that I understand Morgan is not doing in FC cricket. Surely you can also understand that there is a vast difference between picking players for ODI's based on T20 form, compared to picking players for test matches based on OD form.

No, Watson didn't exactly have any experience as an opener, but he'd at least proven he was a very good first class batsmen. There was far more evidence to suggest he could succeed as a test match batsmen, no matter the position, than there currently is for Morgan, who hasn't even made an impact in England's 2nd tier comp.

 

[aussie]

God damn, yo i admire your persistence. But like Eminem & Biggie Smalls said your DEAD WRONG

Where the West Indies rank, Edwards' career record to date & the quality of WI domestic cricket is all relevant. You used Edwards as an example as to how picking players on raw talent can sometimes work. Even if he is improving as a bowler, it doesn't change the fact that apart from a good first couple of test matches, he's struggled to make a consistent impact for the vast majority of his international career.

Generally the players who get picked on "raw talent", and succeed from the get go, are the very best. I'm sorry to say, but given that it seems Morgan hasn't really even been able to take to 2nd Division First Class cricket in England, like water to a ducks back, makes the idea that he can suddenly do it in test matches all the more ridiculous.

Using Warner, Marsh & Watson as examples of players being selected based on how they looked doesn't fit either. Warner's selection in the T20 team had at least some merit to it, as did his ODI call-up given the problem with Injuries at the time (iirc). However, as we've since seen, he's some way off being a reliable ODI batsmen. Whilst Marsh's ODI selection was most likely based on his T20 form, he was also having quite a good List A season at the time, so again, there was merit to his selection. Sure there were players in Australia who had better domestic records than Warner/Marsh, and their selections were based on the longer term but at least they were playing good T20/OD cricket at the time of their selection - something that I understand Morgan is not doing in FC cricket. Surely you can also understand that there is a vast difference between picking players for ODI's based on T20 form, compared to picking players for test matches based on OD form.

No, Watson didn't exactly have any experience as an opener, but he'd at least proven he was a very good first class batsmen. There was far more evidence to suggest he could succeed as a test match batsmen, no matter the position, than there currently is for Morgan, who hasn't even made an impact in England's 2nd tier comp.

Firstly you are misrepresenting Edwards career to date. At the beginning his first 4 years he was hot & cold thats fact. But since SA 07/08 he has been a consistent threat in test cricket & has been test quality.

So given that he was basically picked on raw talent (i.e bowling to Brian Lara in the nets) - he has become test quality. Cased closed. Where the windies rank has nothing to do with this. The only relevance the Windies competition has as i've told you before is because its off a poor quality, they are FORCED to pick players on raw talent instead of depending on a consistent output from a quality FC competition. The likes of Jermone taylor & Roach have never dominated in WI FC cricket before selection, but Ricky Ponting of all people will tell you the first time he has faced both of them, they where damn good.

Yes generally the players who succeed based on just raw talent rather than on the basis of a strong FC performances like the famous examples of Akram, Inzamam, Bond etc usally turn out to be the best. I am not saying/suggesting Morgan will become one the "best" - but ATM for the one hundreth millonth time - he is CLEARLY THE MOST TALENTED YOUNG BATSMAN IN ENGLAND AT THE MOMENT - behind the main middleorder quartet of Trott/KP/Colly/Bell even without having a strong FC season behind him. Given that no other batsman in county cricket ATM is better than him in a potential middle-order role.

So based on those hardcore truths ENG aren't in a position to NOT consider him for a test squad even at this stage. Again this is tour to BANGLADESH, he doesn't have to play - but this tour would be a perfect oppurtunity to get him involved in the test set-up.


Warner's T20 call-up had as much merit as Morgan potentially call up ATM. All he did was slog a few innings & went straight into the T20 squad. He had a good ford ranger cup (where he scored 160 or something in OD game), but it was only ONE season. By AUS standards over the last decade players have had to to prove they can repeat performances before they get picked in in tests or ODIs. Hardly is a player even picked on one season performances. Only Tait & Hughes come to mind ATS.


Marsh's selection for the ODI squad in 2008 was based solely on his performaces in IPL 2008. His performances for Western Australia in 2007/08 was nothing to write home about as an opener, where he averaged 39. If it wasn't for IPL he wouldn't have been picked in 2008. Clearly the same basis on which ENG can pick Morgan in the test squad without a doubt - which is raw talent.

Its never good to pick players based on ODI form to test cricket ESPECIALLY when you have a STRONG FC competition with many options to choose from like AUS for example. This is why AUS getting Steve Smith as a back-up to Hauritz in the recent test match was so ridiculous. BUT ENG dont have that luxury of a "strong" FC ATM with a luxury of quality back-up options. As i keep telling you outside AUS & SA most nations around the world who have average/poor FC competitions give players a go in test cricket basically based on raw talent or ODI from where they look the part in international cricket. So again given the lack of better option & the fact that Morgan is the best middl-order option available outisde the current test match quartet - this ONE TIME ENG can go againts traditon & pick Morgan. Simple.

Yes Watson had a proven FC record. But that doesn't change the fact he had no solid FC experience as an opener & the AUS selectors defied the tradition & went for a left-field pick to open he could have failed. Look at Ashwell Prince for SA recently, solid FC record but the experiment as an opener has been a failure thus far.

 

[Johnners]

You're missing my point about the Windies rank, and about Edwards. Regardless of the fact that they may have to pick players on "raw potential" (something i'm not convinced on, but that's not the point), in comparison to most, they aren't a very good, or consistent team. Does this not suggest to you that picking players on raw potential may not be the best idea? So what if Edwards has improved since 07/08, it took him 5/6 years of international cricket to get to that level, which is hardly ideal. In any case, it seems that WI cricket fans would rather have their teams picked on the basis of domestic form, regardless of how poor a setup it may be (see Mr Mxyptlk - sp? - argument in the Aus v Windies thread) which suggests that y'know, perhaps picking on raw potential just does not work. Englands domestic competition may not be as strong as Australias or South Africa's, but it is by no means so incredibly dire that you should start picking unproven domestic players ahead of those who have the runs on the board. The argument that because it is a poorer level of cricket, therefore meaning raw potential picks make more sense even though they are still comprehensively outperformed by their apparently less able peers makes more sense, is just plain ridiculous, no matter which country does it.

Anyway, I'll leave it there (should have left it ages ago really) as it's clear you've made your mind up that you are right, despite the idea flying in the face of pretty much everything we've learnt from cricket over the last 100+ years.

 

[Furball]

You're missing my point about the Windies rank, and about Edwards. Regardless of the fact that they may have to pick players on "raw potential" (something i'm not convinced on, but that's not the point), in comparison to most, they aren't a very good, or consistent team. Does this not suggest to you that picking players on raw potential may not be the best idea? So what if Edwards has improved since 07/08, it took him 5/6 years of international cricket to get to that level, which is hardly ideal. In any case, it seems that WI cricket fans would rather have their teams picked on the basis of domestic form, regardless of how poor a setup it may be (see Mr Mxyptlk - sp? - argument in the Aus v Windies thread) which suggests that y'know, perhaps picking on raw potential just does not work. Englands domestic competition may not be as strong as Australias or South Africa's, but it is by no means so incredibly dire that you should start picking unproven domestic players ahead of those who have the runs on the board. The argument that because it is a poorer level of cricket, therefore meaning raw potential picks make more sense even though they are still comprehensively outperformed by their apparently less able peers makes more sense, is just plain ridiculous, no matter which country does it.

Anyway, I'll leave it there (should have left it ages ago really) as it's clear you've mind your mind up that you are right, despite the idea flying in the face of pretty much everything we've learnt from cricket over the last 100+ years.

You seem surprised.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just to chime in briefly, and definitely not to get properly involved, Edwards was picked far too early. That's why he averages 40, because he was capped several times before he was good enough. He's only been good enough for a year or so at best.

 

[Nate]

God damn, yo i admire your pesistence. But like Eminem & Biggie Smalls said

And I stopped reading.

 

[Furball]

Just to chime in briefly, and definitely not to get properly involved, Edwards was picked far too early. That's why he averages 40, because he was capped several times before he was good enough. He's only been good enough for a year or so at best.

Yeah, but he had raw talent, so it made sense [/mong]

 

[aussie]

You're missing my point about the Windies rank, and about Edwards. Regardless of the fact that they may have to pick players on "raw potential" (something i'm not convinced on, but that's not the point), in comparison to most, they aren't a very good, or consistent team. Does this not suggest to you that picking players on raw potential may not be the best idea? So what if Edwards has improved since 07/08, it took him 5/6 years of international cricket to get to that level, which is hardly ideal. In any case, it seems that WI cricket fans would rather have their teams picked on the basis of domestic form, regardless of how poor a setup it may be (see Mr Mxyptlk - sp? - argument in the Aus v Windies thread) which suggests that y'know, perhaps picking on raw potential just does not work. Englands domestic competition may not be as strong as Australias or South Africa's, but it is by no means so incredibly dire that you should start picking unproven domestic players ahead of those who have the runs on the board. The argument that because it is a poorer level of cricket, therefore meaning raw potential picks make more sense even though they are still comprehensively outperformed by their apparently less able peers makes more sense, is just plain ridiculous, no matter which country does it.

Anyway, I'll leave it there (should have left it ages ago really) as it's clear you've made your mind up that you are right, despite the idea flying in the face of pretty much everything we've learnt from cricket over the last 100+ years.

I have always mainted picking players on good FC records is clearly the best route. Whether all WI fans, Mr.Mxyptlk want to or not they will always have to pick players based on either raw talent or patchy FC records, or shining in ODIs to the test squad because they have no other choice, given the poor FC that is present in WI. Players unfortuantely have to learn on the job (tests).

Yes its very debatable whether Division 2 is English FC cricket is as dire as the FC competitions in WI, NZ, PAK for example. While Division 1 is beginning to show some holes. So again yes as i keep saying based on this the England selectors need to start not being so robotic & looking solely on players with FC form & pick on a bit of raw talent -which is Morgan's case ATM.

You keeping talking about "picking unproven domestic players ahead of those who have the runs on the board....Who are these proven domestic back-up middle-order batsmen in FC cricket whether Division 1 or 2 that are better than Morgan or are worth being in test set-up ahead of him ATM??

I keep showing you his options of Shah, Andrew Gale, Ed Joyce, James Taylor, Bopara Joe Sayers, Hilderth, Alex Gidman. I dont know what your knowledge of English cricket is, but can you tell me any of these blokes who have the so called "runs on the board" are better than Morgan ATM or should definately be in the test squad?? Or do you also think Luke Wright makes sense in the test squad because he averaged 47 in FC cricket last season???

If Morgan where to start & fail early so be it. He deserves a go ahead of all of those names right now.

Finally dont get arrogant with me, i have made my mind up since i understand the dire the state of English domestic cricket & why things need shaking up, rather than me refusing to open minded in this debate. If i didn't i wouldn't have engaged you in this debate.

Dont also try to give me cricket history lesson by stating wildness the idea.. "flying in the face of pretty much everything we've learnt from cricket over the last 100+ years' blah blah. I have always maintained that preferred route for any team should be to picks bats & bowlers based on solid domestic performances. What i basically undisputable not in my opinon - but rather given the results of ENG cricket over the past 20 years is all FC/List A performances can't be taken on face value given that so much players with so called excellent FC/List A record have failed translate FC/List A form into test/ODI peformances - theirfore a balance in English cricket when it comes selection needes to drawn between FC/List A form vs raw talent. This current tour to BANG would have been a good start to do the latter with Morgan. Case Closed.