• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

England 5th Test squad

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Bazza said:
Graham Thorpe is our most proven batsman and he should have been playing since the first test IMO. Did the selectors really think Anthony McGrath was a better alternative? :(
McGrath had played 2 innings and got fifties in both - it would've been a ridiculous decision to not give him another chance after his start, and after 2 games they realised that he wasn't up to it, but until then they didn't know.

Bazza said:
Mr Mxyzptlk - Wouldn't you rather play for Surrey than sit around 'on standby'?
In which case, why did he decline the call claiming he had a bad back - why not speak the truth, especially since the county regulations would've allowed him to start the game and be pulled out if needed.


Bazza said:
Graham Thorpe has never shown anything but commitment to his country.
Apart from the declining the standby, the pulling out mid-tour, the retiring last summer, then saying he's OK, then pulling out again?

So committed (!).

Bazza said:
OK he had some problems, does that mean he doesn't deserve a second chance?
He's already had his second and third chances - how many others would get that many?

Also Bazza, you say we should've copied the Aussies by not picking youngsters for the sake of it. Do you honestly think that if Thorpe were an Aussie and acted like he has, he would still be involved with the National side?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
marc71178 said:
In which case, why did he decline the call claiming he had a bad back - why not speak the truth, especially since the county regulations would've allowed him to start the game and be pulled out if needed.
Exactly. If he didn't know this, he could've asked Kirtley. :)
Also Bazza, you say we should've copied the Aussies by not picking youngsters for the sake of it. Do you honestly think that if Thorpe were an Aussie and acted like he has, he would still be involved with the National side?
This sums up my point perfectly. Thank you Marc.
 

Craig

World Traveller
marc71178 said:
McGrath had played 2 innings and got fifties in both - it would've been a ridiculous decision to not give him another chance after his start, and after 2 games they realised that he wasn't up to it, but until then they didn't know.
You would be surprised that some players who scored a century on their first Test never play Test cricket again.

One took four hours and got a hundred and never played for the West Indies again for being too slow, although fours is a decent time to get your hundred.
 

Bazza

International 12th Man
marc71178 said:
Also Bazza, you say we should've copied the Aussies by not picking youngsters for the sake of it. Do you honestly think that if Thorpe were an Aussie and acted like he has, he would still be involved with the National side?
They've never had a problem putting up with all of Warne's shenanigans, despite the fact they had MacGill as back up, who for a long time looked a world class spinner also. Would have been easier to say 'we already have someone else who can do the job and not make headlines for all the wrong reasons'.

IMO you pick your best players. OK so McGrath did well against Zimbabwe. Keep him in mind if someone gets injured and when you pick the winter tours, but right now our best batsman is back and making runs, and I want him in the side. Tht would be my approach at least.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Warne's issues are different. His are personal issues that really didn't affect his cricket. Thorpe's did.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Craig said:
You would be surprised that some players who scored a century on their first Test never play Test cricket again.
I know, but that's in times past, and those decisions are irrelevant to current International Cricket really.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Bazza said:
IMO you pick your best players. OK so McGrath did well against Zimbabwe. Keep him in mind if someone gets injured and when you pick the winter tours, but right now our best batsman is back and making runs, and I want him in the side. Tht would be my approach at least.
And that approach would soon lose the respect of all the players. If a player performs well and then is dropped, what motivation is there to perform?

How would you feel if you played 2 good games and were then replaced by someone who's let his country down on more than one occasion?
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
And that approach would soon lose the respect of all the players. If a player performs well and then is dropped, what motivation is there to perform?

How would you feel if you played 2 good games and were then replaced by someone who's let his country down on more than one occasion?
McGrath had already failed in the ODIs.

Thorpe is the better player, anyone, even you, know that.

As for the loosing respect of the players, I don't remember that happening when Stuart Law was dropped after scoring 54* on his Test Debut against a stronger Sri Lanka side...

It just shows what a bunch of petty biggots we have running the selection board.
 
Last edited:

anzac

International Debutant
and just to put my two bob's worth in.......

I hope the England selectors have had a long hard & frank discussion with Thorpe b4 announcing his selection - particularly about his committment regarding the past few seasons etc.

I hope that the line has been drawn and that he has been made fully aware of where he stands with management. Similarly I hope that Vaughan & the senior members of the team also have a few words in his ear & the selectors regarding his inclusion!

I'm sorry but regardless of whether he is the best / dominant local batsman in the domestic comp is neither here nor there, unless he is THE best / dominant batsman when in comparisson to the imports also playing.

Bottom line for me is this sort of situation can lead to the establishment of a 'prima donna' brigade, & the potential ramifications could be far more disasterous than loosing this Test series!

ps - I was a Thorpe supporter when he first came into the team many seasons ago.......

:)
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
anzac said:
and just to put my two bob's worth in.......

I hope the England selectors have had a long hard & frank discussion with Thorpe b4 announcing his selection - particularly about his committment regarding the past few seasons etc.

I hope that the line has been drawn and that he has been made fully aware of where he stands with management. Similarly I hope that Vaughan & the senior members of the team also have a few words in his ear & the selectors regarding his inclusion!

I'm sorry but regardless of whether he is the best / dominant local batsman in the domestic comp is neither here nor there, unless he is THE best / dominant batsman when in comparisson to the imports also playing.

Bottom line for me is this sort of situation can lead to the establishment of a 'prima donna' brigade, & the potential ramifications could be far more disasterous than loosing this Test series!

ps - I was a Thorpe supporter when he first came into the team many seasons ago.......

:)
It's not that he's the best domestic batsman around, it's that he was England's main batsman for a number of years until he took time out. His county form this summer has not indicated any loss of ability and remember it wasn't that long ago he scored that 200* and we were all singing his praises.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Rik said:
McGrath had already failed in the ODIs.

Thorpe is the better player, anyone, even you, know that.

It just shows what a bunch of petty biggots we have running the selection board.

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So how exactly are they bigots then?

And as for Petty, this man has on more than one occasion let the side down in a massive way, so why should he be immediately allowed back just because he says he wants to return (last time he said he was available he pulled out don't forget)

So, better player or not, you CANNOT just drop someone who had to that point performed in all the Tests he'd played. So he "failed" in ODIs - why should that suggest he would automatically fail in Tests? Had they dropped McGrath for Thorpe because Thorpe decided he wanted to play again, what sort of sign would that give anyone trying to break into the middle order?

"Oh yes, if Thorpe decides he can't be bothered to play, you can play, but regardless of how well you do, if he wants to play again, you're dropped"
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So how exactly are they bigots then?


Oh dear, Marc can't even understand why I'm using the word "Bigot", well, if you want to stand by for an English lesson, I'm using it because they are "intolerant to those who differ" as you say. Thorpe doesn't fit their mould and they don't like that.


And as for Petty, this man has on more than one occasion let the side down in a massive way, so why should he be immediately allowed back just because he says he wants to return (last time he said he was available he pulled out don't forget)


Let the side down, let the side down, let the side down? I'm sorry but I can't see how he's let the side down, he hasn't slept with David Graveny's wife, he hasn't committed any crime, so how exactly has he let the side down? He took a break from all cricket ONCE in order because he had too much on his mind to concentrate on cricket, surely he should be congratulated for this. If you are going to go on about the refusal to take up 12th man duties I'm sure it was just a story cooked up by the papers, since I have seen no statement from the ECB to indicate any truth in what was said.


So, better player or not, you CANNOT just drop someone who had to that point performed in all the Tests he'd played. So he "failed" in ODIs - why should that suggest he would automatically fail in Tests? Had they dropped McGrath for Thorpe because Thorpe decided he wanted to play again, what sort of sign would that give anyone trying to break into the middle order?


Yes, if a player is better you drop them, there are plenty of players much better than McGrath who have been dropped after performing, do you think Stuart MacGill will be there when Shane Warne is fit? Nope. What does it say? It says "We want to win so we will play our best players no matter if you performed or not, we want to win because we know he is a better player than you because he has done more over a longer time than you have". Your thinking is the typical English view, the Australians do not share this view and they can't stop winning, make sense?


"Oh yes, if Thorpe decides he can't be bothered to play, you can play, but regardless of how well you do, if he wants to play again, you're dropped"
You are dropped yes, just ask Stuart Law, 54* and no call since. Life is harsh, but if it saves us having to see someone like McGrath look so hopelessly out of is depth and we get the runs needed to win, then I don't think it really matters. You don't play this game to loose, so why leave out your best players? It certainly doesn't give people the message that you want to win.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Rik said:
Oh dear, Marc can't even understand why I'm using the word "Bigot", well, if you want to stand by for an English lesson, I'm using it because they are "intolerant to those who differ" as you say. Thorpe doesn't fit their mould and they don't like that.
Right, so since bigot refers to Group, Religion, Race or Politics, which of those is it?

Rik said:
Let the side down, let the side down, let the side down? I'm sorry but I can't see how he's let the side down,
Apart from walking away from Tour, walking away from the side last summer, deciding he would play the Ashes then pulling out after being selected and declining to be standby because of an "injury" that didn't stop him playing for Surrey I can't see any incident of the sort either.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Rik said:
Yes, if a player is better you drop them, there are plenty of players much better than McGrath who have been dropped after performing,[/B]
Name them, and name the players who had at that point NEVER underperformed at Test level yet should be replaced by someone who has a history of walking away from the side.
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
Right, so since bigot refers to Group, Religion, Race or Politics, which of those is it?


"Bigot" is a wide reaching word which can mean more than those terms you gave. Thorpe has never been a great "Team Man" and he has never fitted their ideals as a character. Loosely used, the word "Bigot" can also mean "Idiot".


Apart from walking away from Tour, walking away from the side last summer, deciding he would play the Ashes then pulling out after being selected and declining to be standby because of an "injury" that didn't stop him playing for Surrey I can't see any incident of the sort either.
Again you use the injury one, honestly Marc why are you clutching at straws? There is no proof he refused to take the 12th man duties. None what so ever. Seriously, if a friend of yours ran away with you favorite toy would you treat them like this? If you would...oh dear.
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
Name them, and name the players who had at that point NEVER underperformed at Test level yet should be replaced by someone who has a history of walking away from the side.
Your "history" comprises of Thorpe taking time out due to not being up for it, something which should be applauded rather than your attitude which I can only compare to "Witch, witch, burn it!"

Hmmmm, well, why don't I use the example I have used all along but you seem to have ignored every time, yes, maybe you might notice it this time, I defy you to say that Stuart Law did anything wrong and is a worse player than Anthony McGrath.
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
A simple answer to this:

Marc, would you rather England played Thorpe and won the last Test squaring the series? Or would you rather Thorpe was left out, damned for life because he dared to take time out of the game and England lost the game and the series?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ok, you guys have taken over two threads with your childish flame-throwing. One of the threads is an 'Official' thread, so it can't be rightly closed, but this one can and if you guys keep it up, it may be closed soon. I for one don't want that, so can you two just chill and let others who want to comment in a civil manner do so? Thank you.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Look I can understand Thorpe pulling out to be with his kids and to sort out his marrage life if it was going to affect him mentally and emotionally (probably the same thing). You dont want to be going into Tests with a ton of non cricket related stuff.
 

Top