*Official* Pakistan in England 2010

[Furball]

Is that based on his less-than-stellar showing in ODIs or his much-worse-than-Davies showing in County Cricket?

Ha, you missed a gem of a rant from aussie about 7 or 8 months ago where he claimed both Kieswetter and Mustard were better at scoring quickly than Davies, despite the stats overwhelmingly proving the opposite to be true.

 

[Woodster]

Unlucky to a degree yes. But given the balance of the ENG team, as i said in test we really couldn't afford to bat him @ 7, given Flintoff was so injured. He is a classic test match number 8. Plus the recent improvement of Prior with the bat, would have kept him out too.

If Flintoff & Jones where 100% fit & still playing. Foster could have probably played in a test XI like this:

Strauss
Cook
Trott
KP
Colly
Bell
Flintoff
Foster
Swann
Jones
Anderson

I agree mate, he'd have been fortunate to get an extended run at 7 in the Test side, his batting hasn't really looked up to that standard, especially when you see what Matt Prior can do in that spot. But in terms of T20 definitely thought there was a role for a gloveman of his exceptional standard and useful energy down the order with the bat.

 

[aussie]

Ha, you missed a gem of a rant from aussie about 7 or 8 months ago where he claimed both Kieswetter and Mustard were better at scoring quickly than Davies, despite the stats overwhelmingly proving the opposite to be true.

DEAR GOD. When i see such comments from posters like yourself, i am convinced some of you really dont know much about or dont pay keen enough attention to the history of domestic List A cricket in ENG.


This is KEY point. The argument is not based on the stats of the domestic cricket over the 2009 season or their respective averages in List A/T20 that may show Davies has a higher SR.

But rather who againts international ODI/T20 bowling can take advantage of the power-plays better. Given that in List A cricket for years their hasn't been much 90 mph new-ball bowlers/high 80s or even enough quality swing bowler in List A cricket - the transition to being able for most openers except Trescothick, Robin Smith, Knight in transfering List A power-play/15 overs dominance into international cricket has being a problem in the ENG ODI team since WC 92.

This why the likes of Mal Loye, Ali Brown, Darren Maddy, Cook, Atherton, Solanki, Bell, Prior, Jones, Wright (so far) where failures/didn't look international quality as ODI/T20 openers. Theirfore from seeing Kieswetter Mustard & Davies IMO - Mustard is more likely to translate his List A strike rate againts international players of 90 mph etc more than Davies since Mustard is far better power-hitter againts those type of bowlers. Davies to me would be one to score 50 off 60-80 balls opening more often, while Kieswetter & Mustard would be the man to score a run a ball 50 or less againts international ODI/T20 bowlers.

Kieswetter proved this in the T20 WC. But of course Mustard regardless of that skill, has many other issues in his technique which would inhibit him from scoring a run-a-ball 50 consistently againts international new-ball ODI bowlers - that is why he was dropped. I reserve judgement on Davies until i see in international cricket again - since it is unwise to take his SR in domestic as a clear guide as to what he can do in international cricket.

It is unbelievable how these OBVIOUS dynamics of English doemstic cricket, where by being all averages in English domestic cricket can't be taken on face value isn't universally accepted on CW by some.

20 years of generally mediocre performances in ODIs (while being hot & cold in tests) should tell us fans & the selectors this quite clearly. But for some people like yourself, this seems lost.


Further more you dont have much credibility in question the theory of not taking FC performances with a pinch of salt furball. IIRC 7-8 months on CW in the ENG vs BANG tour thread - i was ONLYYYYYYY person advocating for Morgan to picked for test immediately based on ODI performances, since his talent was evident to me regardless of his average FC form. Since then myself & the selectors gut feeling have since been proven right:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2128048-post213.html

Morgan's looked good in one form of the game, where his talent and innovation can flourish, until he can settle down and play good long form innings then selecting him on the basis of a few ODI performances is just stupid.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2129242-post272.html

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.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Going to ignore most of that, but Morgan's suitability to the longer form of the game is still very much up for debate - one Kamran-aided century followed by 75 balls faced in the whole month of August is entirely inconclusive.

 

[aussie]

Going to ignore most of that, but Morgan's suitability to the longer form of the game is still very much up for debate - one Kamran-aided century followed by 75 balls faced in the whole month of August is entirely inconclusive.

Him being dropped during his century shouldn't be dwelled on. Thats just part of the game, many very great innings in test history have not being chanceless. If you going to stress on that drop, you are subcribing to Richard'S FCA theory.

Lets not forget PAK had very good pace-attack & the entire summer of cricket was played in general bowler-fiendly conditons. So Morgan was well tested - he has some technical flaws exposed yes. But overall he showed enough in his hundred after the early chance that he truly has the raw skills for test, id be stunned if he doesn't have a very good test career ATS. Againts a weaker attack on flat wickets - i would backed him to have been more dominant this summer.

One thing for sure is that he deserved being fast-tracked to the test side regardless of his average FC record. Since no other batsman in ENG is/was better @ the time of his selection nor is right now, outside of main test middle-order quartet of Trott/KP/Colly/Bell.

 

[aussie]

I agree mate, he'd have been fortunate to get an extended run at 7 in the Test side, his batting hasn't really looked up to that standard, especially when you see what Matt Prior can do in that spot. But in terms of T20 definitely thought there was a role for a gloveman of his exceptional standard and useful energy down the order with the bat.

Maybe. If we think of what could be ENG best T20 XI (with Flintoff in it)

Lumb
Kieswetter
KP
Colly
Morgan
Flintoff
Wright
Yardy
Swann
Broad
Anderson

Maybe in such a team, Foster could play instead of Wright, But then again Wright in T20s could be a very dangerous hitter in T20s.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Him being dropped during his century shouldn't be dwelled on. Thats just part of the game, many very great innings in test history have not being chanceless. If you going to stress on that drop, you are subcribing to Richard'S FCA theory.

Lets not PAK had very good pace-attack & the entire summer of cricket was played in general bowler-fiendly conditons. So Morgan was well tested - he has some technical flaws exposed yes. But overall he showed enough in his hundred after the early chance that he truly has the raw skills for test, id be stunned if he doesn't have a very good test career ATS. Againts a weaker attack on flat wickets - i would backed him to have been more dominant this summer.

One thing for sure is that he deserved being fast-tracked to the test side regardless of his average FC record. Since no other batsman in ENG is/was better @ the time of his selection nor is right now, outside of main test middle-order quartet of Trott/KP/Colly/Bell.

You are giving the impression that the assertion (a) Morgan was the most deserving player to take Ian Bell's position at six due to his injury is the same debate as (b) whether this summer has taught us anything about Morgan's long-term suitability as a Test cricketer.

I do not think you will get a particular amount of dissent about Morgan deserving a shot this summer - at least not outside Ravi Bopara's immediate family - but it is a great leap to suggest that he has now proven himself as a Test cricketer. There is no doubting what is between his ears; going on beyond the reprieve in the First Test was demonstration of this, but the question mark over Morgan is his technique and footwork/balance against the moving ball - and he got out in similar ways. I'd also like to point out that claiming that dropped catches should be completely ignored is as ridiculous as FCA, if not more so.

Do not respond to this by pointing out that Cook and Collingwood also got out in similar ways, because that's not what is being discussed. I don't want to know whether he can batter a weak attack on flat wickets. I want to know how tight his technique is, and whether he can survive the rough patches in order to cash in.

 

[aussie]

You are giving the impression that the assertion (a) Morgan was the most deserving player to take Ian Bell's position at six due to his injury is the same debate as (b) whether this summer has taught us anything about Morgan's long-term suitability as a Test cricketer.

I do not think you will get a particular amount of dissent about Morgan deserving a shot this summer - at least not outside Ravi Bopara's immediate family - but it is a great leap to suggest that he has now proven himself as a Test cricketer. There is no doubting what is between his ears; going on beyond the reprieve in the First Test was demonstration of this, but the question mark over Morgan is his technique and footwork/balance against the moving ball - and he got out in similar ways. I'd also like to point out that claiming that dropped catches should be completely ignored is as ridiculous as FCA, if not more so.

Do not respond to this by pointing out that Cook and Collingwood also got out in similar ways, because that's not what is being discussed. I don't want to know whether he can batter a weak attack on flat wickets. I want to know how tight his technique is, and whether he can survive the rough patches in order to cash in.

Well IMO this summer has taught us more than enough about Morgan's long term suitability againts as a test batsman.

As i said after his chance in the 1st test hundred. He basically dominated the PAK attack in what was still bowler friendly conditons - which is all we needed to see. Of course has the series progressed, they exposed a slight technical flaw with the ball moving away from him just outside off-stump. But IMO that is not something that can't be eradicated soon, since i've seen worse techniques from players around the world, like someone like Cook who has so many flaws.

Drop catches should be ignorned. Drop catches are just part of cricket.

- If Courtney Brown had caught Steve Waugh on 42 @ Bridgetown 1995, Windies probably would won that series

- If Warne had caught KP @ Oval 05. AUS may have not last the Ashes that year

- If Healy had caught Lara @ Bridgetown 99, AUS would have won

etc etc etc

All we can do is judge those innings like Morgans hundred after he was dropped & he played that top PAK attack in testing conditions superbly.

FCA is not ridiculous. It is very solid theory - just that i dont subscribe to the portion of FCA which basically dictates you have do make always make a dwell on the drop catches.

Plus you would definately find MUCH dissent about Morgan deserving a spot this summer at least on this site. Just search the England tour to BANG thread from early this year. I dont remember much supporting his call up.

So ye basically IMO i just think he needs to adjust his technique when he first comes into bat, where he probably needs to cover his off-stump more, to counter the weakeness againts outswingers. Since when he is then set (20-30 runs) - thats not a area where bowlers can target him really.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I can't even work out what you're trying to argue.

That post contained:
(a) "Drop catches should be ignored"
and (b) "FCA is not ridiculous"

... before simultaneously talking about Morgan's technical flaws and concluding we have seen enough to make a long-term judgement about his Test batsmanship.

You also managed to argue a completely different point to the one I made, regarding little dissent about Morgan having been worthy of the chance. Opinion before the Bangladesh series is totally irrelevant to retrospective analysis.

I'm out on this one.

 

[marc71178]

Ha, you missed a gem of a rant from aussie about 7 or 8 months ago where he claimed both Kieswetter and Mustard were better at scoring quickly than Davies, despite the stats overwhelmingly proving the opposite to be true.

No, I'm pretty sure I was one of the people pointing out the slight inconsistencies between the workings of Aussie's mind and reality,

 

[Top_Cat]

This is going off topic a bit but FCA is ridiculous. I've held my tongue on it for years now, mainly because Dicko is a nice bloke in general and, well, eviscerating it statistically just wouldn't be very nice. But don't fool yourself, it's statistically indefensible and to make it even vaguely valid, you have to apply so many caveats to the data to make it virtually unworkable and even then conclusions drawn from it would have to be very cautious.

 

[aussie]

I can't even work out what you're trying to argue.

That post contained:
(a) "Drop catches should be ignored"
and (b) "FCA is not ridiculous"

... before simultaneously talking about Morgan's technical flaws and concluding we have seen enough to make a long-term judgement about his Test batsmanship.

You also managed to argue a completely different point to the one I made, regarding little dissent about Morgan having been worthy of the chance. Opinion before the Bangladesh series is totally irrelevant to retrospective analysis.

I'm out on this one.

FCA average as defined by Richard all these years on CW is a therory which basically reflects on important events in test history i.e drop catches (run outs i think as well), which the scoreboard records alone dont adequately show.

If you subscribe to this, that means every innings in test history where a batsman gave a chance is looked down upon, regardless of how good he played afterwards, which is the ridiculous part.

That is why i said its not a ridiculous theory overall because it is fair to reflect & take note of such instances in test history that the scorecards dont, since one let-off can change the course of an entire series. But its ridiculous to look down on a innings where chances where given, since that is part of the game, many great test innings have not been chanceless.


Secondly yes IMO we have seen enough about Morgan this summer to make fair enough long term assesment on his judgement. It is very possible to look a key details on player early in his career & make a long-term judgement on how they may go in tests. Some examples of players i've did that with are:

- In the early stages of Cook's career, when he toured AUS 06/07. Since the AUS technically exposed him then, i was always of the opinion he would struggle long-term. Which has been the story of his career so far

- When i first saw Steyn vs ENG 2004/05. I always thought he had the raw skills to be a top-quality bowler one-day & so it has proved to be.

- When Mendis first came on the scene causing havoc, i was not totally convinced he was the real deal, given i thought batsmen where playing him too much as a big-spinner of the ball instead of a medium pacer. Now that batsmen have improved in that sense - Mendis has been less effective.

- First time i saw Sehwag opening in tests here in 2002. Always thought his technique would not make him a poor opener againts quality pace-bowling in testing conditions, which has consistently proven to be the case.


etc etc etc

Your opinion of before the BANG series may be different irrelevant to your analysis of him after the tests vs PAK. But not for me at all.

I was convinced he would adapt to test well early if fast-tracked & continue to think he would continue to do well long term, just needs to iron out some minor technical glitches as i said before.

But overall my mentioning of Morgan was to simply give an example of why i always saw FC performances in our domestic cricket (especially List A cricket) can't always be taken on face value & sometimes you need to judge on raw talent. I & the selectors saw it ATT, while others especially here on CW opposed his selection to the test squad.

 

[Uppercut]

This is going off topic a bit but FCA is ridiculous. I've held my tongue on it for years now, mainly because Dicko is a nice bloke in general and, well, eviscerating it statistically just wouldn't be very nice. But don't fool yourself, it's statistically indefensible and to make it even vaguely valid, you have to apply so many caveats to the data to make it virtually unworkable and even then conclusions drawn from it would have to be very cautious.

So now we know .

 

[Spark]

I can only assume that FCA is "First Chance Average"? If so...

 

[Furball]

Further more you dont have much credibility in question the theory of not taking FC performances with a pinch of salt furball. IIRC 7-8 months on CW in the ENG vs BANG tour thread - i was ONLYYYYYYY person advocating for Morgan to picked for test immediately based on ODI performances, since his talent was evident to me regardless of his average FC form. Since then myself & the selectors gut feeling have since been proven right:

On the contrary, it's those of us who expressed reservations about Morgan being in the Test side who have the right to be a bit smug. There's nothing I said in the post of mine that you quoted which I don't stand by now. He's massively talented, but at the minute he's not quite up to Test standard yet. I'd prefer him to do the hard yards in FC cricket first before he's given another chance, his summer in Test cricket hasn't been a resounding success. I also wasn't opposed to him being in the Test squad this summer.

Congrats on once again spectacularly missing the point when it comes to Davies, Kieswetter and Mustard's SR.

 

[Goughy]

I dont claim to have read the last few pages but a quick glance seems to be that the concept has been put forward that a guy who cant smack around med-quicks at domestic level will suddenly be able to step up a level and smash 90+ mph balls to all parts at international level. Is that a fair assessment of the 'logic' presented?

 

[Faisal1985]

DAWN.COM | Cricket | Asad Shafiq, Mohammad Irfan to join ODI squad

Looking forward to Mohammad Irfan for sure. almost 7 feet tall.

 

[tombarlow123]

DAWN.COM | Cricket | Asad Shafiq, Mohammad Irfan to join ODI squad

Looking forward to Mohammad Irfan for sure. almost 7 feet tall.

Well once Asif and Amir get their life bans you're gonna need someone like him.

 

[tombarlow123]

I don't understand why people even bother attempting a discussion with this aussie guy.

He seems completely incapable of making any sort of relevent point; has some strange views on things; and he tends to get his facts wrong. (like my previous point about Kieswetter, whose "solid base" clearly didn't stop him getting his stumps murdered every time, did it?).

I have nothing more to say on the matter.

 

[aussie]

Congrats on once again spectacularly missing the point when it comes to Davies, Kieswetter and Mustard's SR.

Whatever point you tried to make about SR regarding that trio that you think i missed. If what i said in reply is not understood - then as i've always continously said some poster here on CW clearly have not spend enough time understanding the dynamics of ENG domestic cricket, especially List A cricket over the last 20 years.

I have nothing more to say on this. Lets just wait to see Davies in international cricket again & see if he replaces his domestic SR againts quality new-ball bolwing.

I dont claim to have read the last few pages but a quick glance seems to be that the concept has been put forward that a guy who cant smack around med-quicks at domestic level will suddenly be able to step up a level and smash 90+ mph balls to all parts at international level. Is that a fair assessment of the 'logic' presented?

You would have had to seem in in international cricket first i.e ODIs or T20 to make that judgement. Since obviously in ENG domestic cricket he/the player would not have been tested with 90 mph or any form of quality pace-bowling much if @ at all.

Thus if he looks capable againts 90 mph in ODIs/T20 in test match like scenarios (which was evident with Morgan since the CT last year to me personally), one can fast track him into the test set-up regardless of FC form.