In one part this can be directed at
Bennett too:
Serious question here. Has Broad hit puberty?
In my opnion I think that England should stick with a similar squad for a few seasons, and maybe bring in the odd player or two and so on. Every time I turn the tele on England has a new keeper or new player, who everyone seems to be overating. I think players need time to adjust to international cricket. Imagine if when KP entered the international scene, and had played as poorly as he has or recent, he wouldn't have stood a chance, and that would just be wasted talent.
Where did they get these guys from
Udal
Perfectly justifiable selection. In Pakistan, you expect to need spinners if you're England, because you expect Pakistan will put something in the pitches for spinners. It turned-out they didn't, and Udal, being a fingerspinner, had nothing to offer, as didn't his fellow Giles (who, last time he went there and the pitches were spin-friendly took a bagful). Not a bad selection though.
So far as ODIs are concerned, Blackwell was picked as a batsman on 3 out of the 4 occasions he was picked. This beggars belief so much it's untrue. He averaged low-20s in the one-day game and simply happened to have performed in a couple of televised games, while his First-Class average, due largely to games at Taunton, was ridiculously high for such a woeful batsman. His spin-bowling has been far more effective than it had any right to be, though, and this caused the thought that he might do well in India. He played one game on a completely dead surface and should never have done so.
One of the most awful picks, in either game-form, ever. Some ability with reverse-swing and fairly tall. None of which is any real use unless you can pitch the ball in the right areas, which Mahmood patently can't, and one look at his domestic record would tell you that.
Not the most brilliant bowler, undoubtedly, but one of the better of a bad bunch. Bowled awfully on Test debut - picked because of the hope he'd swing it, I don't think he swung so much as 1 ball all game.
Should never have played ODIs, as either batsman or wicketkeeper, as he can't bat at all in the shorter game. In Tests was worth a go I suppose, but I've long had doubts over his technique despite his success, more than not at the small ground at home.
Rose Bowl bully IMO, but has actually bowled pretty well in 2 out of his 3 Tests. Worth another go.
Almost a case of read Lewis - decent bowler, but no more than that. Except he hasn't played a Test. Lewis > Chapple, by about 2 points on a First-Class average, and both tending to be OK but not top-notch OD bowlers.
Decent batsman, but totally unsuited to the role he's been given in more of his ODIs than not. A strike-rotator, not a biffer.
Promising middle-order batsman... so he gets picked as an opener. Great.
Worst selection ever? It's a candidate.
Terrible selection again. Decent long-form batsman, barely averages 20 in OD cricket. So what does he get picked for? You guessed it - ODIs.
Certainly worth a go in ODIs. Has had success as a strokeplaying opener, didn't at ODI level, partly due to the fact you don't mess around sweeping Glenn McGrath. Was definitely worth a go though, and if he was younger would have been worth another.
Picked basically on half a season. Terrible selection.
Pretty much read-above.
Wouldn't have any of the above in my squad.
As you can see, in more cases than not I agree. I don't think blaming selectors exclusively is the way to go, however, as it's certainly not unique to them. The trouble is the general mindset, worse than ever in this country but certainly not unique to it, of the failure to realise that:
a) one-day and four\five-day cricket are different, massively so
b) domestic and international cricket are not games played under different sets of rules. The rules are the same, the play is done in the same way, the only difference is the standard. Therefore, if someone can't hack domestic cricket, there's fat chance of him being able to hack international.
This is common amongst all. See that there was little outcry in even the worst cases (Bresnan and Mahmood) because the selections weren't thought to have been wrong at the time. Those in the commentary-box and behind the typewriter (nowadays that's a metaphor only) are every bit as wrong as those at the selection table. Selectors cannot be expected to be cut from a different cloth as the majority of the nation.
By-and-large, CW enjoys a higher calibre of cricket discussion than anywhere else I've encountered. If some of us on CW were in charge of cricket, it'd be a better game.