*Official* Pakistan in England and Ireland 2016

[91Jmay]

Has to be said him being totally fine bowling for Lanky a day after the test starts is very odd. Not like he has been out for ages so lacking form.

 

[Top_Cat]

One should never, ever trust any quick saying they're good to go ("'tis but a flesh wound!") but it is odd that the coach and skipper were both saying pick him and got over-ruled on medical grounds.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think it was a good call. If it was a deciding Test or something then maybe ignore medical advice, but it was the first Test of a four match series. Sure they lost but it wasn't a risk worth taking IMO. He should be fresh and ready to go for the next three.

 

[StephenZA]

I would love to have known the headlines if Anderson had been picked against medical advise and broke down half-way through the test?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I would love to have known the headlines if Anderson had been picked against medical advise and broke down half-way through the test?

This.

Clearly the sensible option was taken regardless of the result of the match. Would it even had been mentioned had it been anything but a Pakistan win?

 

[OverratedSanity]

One should never, ever trust any quick saying they're good to go ("'tis but a flesh wound!") but it is odd that the coach and skipper were both saying pick him and got over-ruled on medical grounds.

I think it was a good call. If it was a deciding Test or something then maybe ignore medical advice, but it was the first Test of a four match series. Sure they lost but it wasn't a risk worth taking IMO. He should be fresh and ready to go for the next three.

I would love to have known the headlines if Anderson had been picked against medical advise and broke down half-way through the test?

This.

Clearly the sensible option was taken regardless of the result of the match. Would it even had been mentioned had it been anything but a Pakistan win?

I'm not sure I understand these posts. Isn't the issue that Anderson bowled for lancashire anyway? Of course it was a county game and his intensity wouldn't have been at maximum, so it was clearly to ease him back into tests. But still, when he's bowling for the county at pretty much the same time he's missing a test due to an 'injury', it's just very strange.

What if he'd broken down while bowling for Lancashire then?

 

[StephenZA]

What if he'd broken down while bowling for Lancashire then?

Nobody would really have cared and the Dr`s advice would have been vindicated... Hindsight is always perfect sight..

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's stupid though. If they'd taken the doctor's advice, then Anderson shouldn't have played at all, right? Not for England, and not for Lancashire.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not sure I understand these posts. Isn't the issue that Anderson bowled for lancashire anyway? Of course it was a county game and his intensity wouldn't have been at maximum, so it was clearly to ease him back into tests. But still, when he's bowling for the county at pretty much the same time he's missing a test due to an 'injury', it's just very strange.

What if he'd broken down while bowling for Lancashire then?

Yeah, I don't think he should've played for Lancs; he should've been given the week off. But that's the issue rather than the fact that he didn't play the Test.

 

[Top_Cat]

The medical thing is a furphy, in my view. The English selectors have been spooked by their lack of bowling depth so feel the need to treat Anderson as if he has a glass shoulder. If they had strong back-up for Broad, I think he'd have played and just bowled less.

If I was Pakistan and had a competant batting line-up, I'd be pretty happy with what I saw from the other mob. As it stands, though, doubt it'll matter.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I'm not sure I understand these posts. Isn't the issue that Anderson bowled for lancashire anyway? Of course it was a county game and his intensity wouldn't have been at maximum, so it was clearly to ease him back into tests. But still, when he's bowling for the county at pretty much the same time he's missing a test due to an 'injury', it's just very strange.

What if he'd broken down while bowling for Lancashire then?

I think the extra couple of days made a difference too as far as the medics were concerned.

 

[burr]

One should never, ever trust any quick saying they're good to go ("'tis but a flesh wound!") but it is odd that the coach and skipper were both saying pick him and got over-ruled on medical grounds.

Who are England selectors? Are the coach and skipper not selectors or did they just get outvoted or something?

 

[theegyptian]

No way of really knowing if the selectors were overly cautious not picking Anderson.

Anderson playing 2 days of a first class game at the same time of a test match I didn't have a problem with given the context. If we have an issue with Anderson, surely a similar issue with Stokes.

Lords recently very flat. Not bowling in a game for month+ beforehand having injured his bowling arm. First match of series. Back to back tests.

Presumably whilst fit the medical staff thought a 5 day test was too intense.

Likes of Broad, Bresnan and Prior have played in the recent past whilst injured/ not competely recovered and being crap and broken down further. Players will nearly always want to play because they are competitors and/or scared of losing their place. Others have played and being fine.

 

[Compton]

Him playing for Lancs wasn't the same issue. There wasn't assurances that he was fit for the test match, but the Lancs game started a few days later, and Anderson was only ever going to bowl in one innings. It's a totally different thing.

I don't know what the fuss is. If doc says don't pick him, don't pick him.

 

[Daemon]

There's also the fact that if he felt a niggle during the FC game he could always stop but if it's a Test match he'd likely keep mum and bowl through it at least for a while, or if he did choose to stop, it would affect England's chances of winning greatly. All conjecture of course.

 

[Burgey]

He's scored the most FC runs of anyone in the world over the past 18-24 months whatever it was from the early stages of this county season. Has experience in New Zealand and Sri Lanka (was good in NZ and nowt special in SL) Averaged 40+ and scored 1000+ runs season after season for Durham at one of the least roady grounds you'll get. Played one Test, played for the Lions/A side and did well. He also bowls better than part-time leg spin and is a very good slip fielder. Oh and he bats at 3.

He was perfect to come in against Sri Lanka, never mind Pakistan. Each Test they don't select him makes them look even more stupid, particularly when they've picked the air fairy Vince and selected Balance based on one innings at one of the flattest pitches in the UK and possibly not selected Borthwick based on three innings.

Showed on debut he lacks the temperament for Test Match Cricket.

 

[Black_Warrior]

England still have a great chance. Just let the ball move a nanometer and rise above penis height and see pak fall like a pack of cards. IIRC Pakistan's record at old Trafford is pretty bad.

The last time England lost at Old Trafford was against your ****** team.

 

[Black_Warrior]

The medical thing is a furphy, in my view. The English selectors have been spooked by their lack of bowling depth so feel the need to treat Anderson as if he has a glass shoulder. If they had strong back-up for Broad, I think he'd have played and just bowled less.

If I was Pakistan and had a competant batting line-up, I'd be pretty happy with what I saw from the other mob. As it stands, though, doubt it'll matter.

You're probably right but they have no reason to though. They won two major tests against Australia and South Africa without Anderson. Finn was awesome in South Africa. Woakes is awesome now. Ball was pretty decent and can improve. Wood is likely to come back. I just don't see a shortage of competent seam bowlers in England. The batting depth is what I would worried about.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Him playing for Lancs wasn't the same issue. There wasn't assurances that he was fit for the test match, but the Lancs game started a few days later, and Anderson was only ever going to bowl in one innings. It's a totally different thing.

I don't know what the fuss is. If doc says don't pick him, don't pick him.

Plus this wouldn't have been an issue had England been 1-0 now..which tells me that Anderson or selectors is not the problem. Losing the 1st test is. A predictable but completely unnecessary knee jerk reaction

 

[Groundking]

You're probably right but they have no reason to though. They won two major tests against Australia and South Africa without Anderson. Finn was awesome in South Africa. Woakes is awesome now. Ball was pretty decent and can improve. Wood is likely to come back. I just don't see a shortage of competent seam bowlers in England. The batting depth is what I would worried about.

The batting ans more so, the complete lack of acceptable spin options, is what I'm most worries about. However our batting wouldn't be too much of a problem if they would stop playing such stupid shots all the time, they have no patience these lot.