England down to 6th in test rankings

[Richard]

I don't think so necessarily. But there must be a reason why he hasn't been selected, whether that's fitness or attitude or pace or whatever else. We might bash the selectors but I'm sure they do what they do in good faith and for what they think is good reason.

If so, then quite frankly I think they've damn well got an obligation to give the public their reasoning for what seems a completely inexplicable series of selections.

 

[Uppercut]

Which is 1 more match than Swann and Panesar have played together.

Swann and Panesar bowling together:
24 W @ 37.92

Swann 14 @ 32.78
Panesar 10 @ 45.10

Vettori and Patel:
49 @ 31.45

Vettori 27 @ 30.40
Patel 22 @ 32.72

Harby and Mishra:
38 @ 25.81

Harby 20 @ 26.70
Mishra 18 @ 24.83

Yeah, that's pretty conclusive. Swann's played the same number of tests as Mishra and has come out with a very similar average, yet somehow one is now a proven test bowler and the other is an unknown quantity?

Leg-spinners get such an unnatural amount of crap sometimes. There's an expectation that they'll be erratic and liable to give lots of runs away when there's no evidence at all to suggest it. Mishy's List A economy rate is better than Graeme Swann's FFS.

Completely agree re: Patel+Vettori too. Would have those two over Swann-Monty every time.

 

[Rant0r]

Hoggard will never play for England again barring some drastic regime change, involving I'm-not-remotely-sure-which position. Someone, somewhere has decided he isn't playing again. There are now any number of inferior and vastly inferior options who've played Tests ahead of him.

He is, as far as I can see, bowling about as well now as he generally has done. Yet someone has decided he's out and he ain't coming back.

Maybe one day we'll find-out the reasons, but they sure as anything ain't related to on-field performance.

i'm still stunned by his exclusion, no really for the exclusion, but for as you say, his replacements, i really didn't think he was going that bad, pace was down sure, but i'd certainly take him over mahmood

Shah, as I had predicted, turned out to be as crap as Bell.

Watch out now for Swann to turn out as crap as Monty.

harsh, i don't think either of them are crap, a more accurate description may be underachieving. not sure what monty's deal is, someone said that he just hasn't developed since he started, maybe that's it.

I agree completely that the wicketkeeper isn't the worst of the current problems. However, I think it is a problem. Alec Stewart asserted that Prior had kept "pretty well" in the First and Second Tests, after his dreadful performance in the Fourth. I don't agree. Prior's performance in the first couple (and in India) was merely less poor than previously.

We've seen several of the alternatives, and Tim Ambrose is indisputably a vastly superior gloveman. Davies, apparently, is as well. Foster certainly is.

Of course, it'd very probably weaken the batting to bring any of them in in place of him, though I still say I'm waiting to see Prior get some runs against good-quality seamers before I'm sure about him as a Test batsman.

If he continues to score and Shah exhausts his chances (sadly that may now have happened) then Prior should play as a batsman as long as his good performances continue and someone else should come in in place of Shah to keep wicket.

Prior's wicketkeeping is simply not good enough for Test cricket. It does not meet the minimum standard expected and thus it is always going to be a disadvantage to England to have him behind the sticks.

when i first seen prior i didn't think he was that bad, and any technical footwork problems could be ironed out, but from what i've heard they haven't. and i agree that his batting isn't that great and shouldn't be holding him in the team, he flattened the west indies in his first series then folded against a better indian attack. maybe having stewart as his mentor who was another batsman first wicketkeeper second isn't the best thing for him.

i haven't seen a lot of ambrose, but i feel he would be a far better option at the moment than prior. or down the track, davies.

pieterson didn't look like he was making many runs prior to the second innings of the last test either.

is the fast bowling stocks really that bare/injured/ out of form ? or do they just need to be persistent and hope they can get a fit and in form anderson/flintoff/sidebottom/harmison combo with one of either monty or swann ?

michael vaughan anyone ?

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, that's pretty conclusive. Swann's played the same number of tests as Mishra and has come out with a very similar average, yet somehow one is now a proven test bowler and the other is an unknown quantity?

Leg-spinners get such an unnatural amount of crap sometimes. There's an expectation that they'll be erratic and liable to give lots of runs away when there's no evidence at all to suggest it. Mishy's List A economy rate is better than Graeme Swann's FFS.

Completely agree re: Patel+Vettori too. Would have those two over Swann-Monty every time.

Think, as is usually the case on this forum, my post has been very well misinterpretated. I am getting a bit older now, and perhaps my memory isnt as good as it used to be, but I'd like to be shown where I have claimed that Swann & Monty have outperformed either the NZ duo or the Indian duo? or claimed that they are better? I have been as big a critic as anyone on Monty, in fact for the record, he has been rubbish for 99.99% of his career. My point though was that if he bowled with the sort of thoughtfulness as he did in Trinidad consistently, he and Swann have the 'Potential' to be the 2nd best spin duo in the world.

We all know that you are a big fan of Mishra, and yes he undoubtedly has a lot of potential. However, Harbhajan has been around for a long time now and hes by and large been hopeless away from home. Spin bowling is not just about ripping the ball past the outside edge, unless you are Murali, spin bowlers need to be thoughtful, deceptful, innovative and enticing and the fact is you often have to get wickets by deceiving the batsman and making them play a stroke they would not normally do rather than fizzing a ball past their outside edge. I dont rate Harbhajan as a particularly bright spinner, much the same as I dont rate Panesar as one either. As far as Mishra is concerned, there are question marks over his ability abroad and I will have to see how he goes before I can truly rate him as a bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

Which is 1 more match than Swann and Panesar have played together.

Vettori and Patel:
49 @ 31.45

Vettori is a fine spinner and I have no doubt abou that although if there is one criticism that could be levelled at him is that he could be a bit more attacking in test match cricket.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the 2 of them barely play together so it seems illogical to count them as a 'duo'. Its almost akin to saying that Flintoff and Jones are the best pace duo going around IMO. Patel basically plays on pitches that are turning a yard and a half and not surprisingly enough his record on those pitches looks a bit better than if he were playing on a regular basis.

 

[Flem274*]

Patel in his bugger all tests has played at least twice in Napier and one test in that spinners haven SA.

And he's taken a 5-fer at Napier.

 

[aussie]

If you think England have ever had a worse wicketkeeper let's see some names. Admittedly there's been a bit of competition since Read was dumped.
Prior should never play for England again unless it's purely as a batsman and even then he needs to prove he can score runs against proper bowling attacks.

I understand the frustration with Prior keeping. But i think people on this site at least have given him a bit too much stick for him keeping in this series.

He aint the best no doubt, but the byes he conceded in Trinidad with some of the wayward bowling from Amjad Khan & some strange & funny movements of the ball from the pitch weren't all the bad.

His keeping has definately improved since he has come back & he hasn't dropped anything. Thats good enough for me.


On his batting well, it has never really been an issue has it (except for IND 07)

 

[BoyBrumby]

He is yet to be tested against quality seam and swing bowling. I am sure he will be during the Ashes. I have little doubt that hes the best batsman-wicket keeper going around, but he hasnt proven himself completely as a batter yet, nor has he convinced anyone about his wicket keeping skills

Would disagree there. I imagine more than a few observers are now convinced he's arse. His display in the 5th was the probably worst I've seen. Didn't shell any, but his general tidyness was woeful. Standing up (as he did a lot with our new spin twins bowling in tandem for stretches) he's a liability.

I don't think so necessarily. But there must be a reason why he hasn't been selected, whether that's fitness or attitude or pace or whatever else. We might bash the selectors but I'm sure they do what they do in good faith and for what they think is good reason.

It's because he hasn't been very good for a while now. In his last 13 tests from the start of the Pakistan series in 2006 he took 36 wickets @ 39.72 which isn't very flash at all.

He then probably got the selectors' backs up by moaning that he was dropped after "one bad test", which sadly wasn't so.

 

[tooextracool]

Whether or not Hoggard's recent performances havent been quite flash or not, hes still a far more skillful and capable bowler than Sidebottom and Harmison.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, that's pretty conclusive. Swann's played the same number of tests as Mishra and has come out with a very similar average, yet somehow one is now a proven test bowler and the other is an unknown quantity?

Leg-spinners get such an unnatural amount of crap sometimes. There's an expectation that they'll be erratic and liable to give lots of runs away when there's no evidence at all to suggest it. Mishy's List A economy rate is better than Graeme Swann's FFS.

Completely agree re: Patel+Vettori too. Would have those two over Swann-Monty every time.

Vettori no doubt is a better bowler than the English duo. Both they both are clearly better than Patel, so i dont see the logic behind that assesment.


I would also agree with TEC, that Monty/Swann of the trinidad test could definately become to most potent spin duo general conditons (Harbhajan/Mishra will though be more lethal in sub-continent conditions of course) behind Murali/Mendis.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Whether or not Hoggard's recent performances havent been quite flash or not, hes still a far more skillful and capable bowler than Sidebottom and Harmison.

Well, he was, but from what I've read a few writers whose opinions I respect (noteably Mike Selvey & Vic Marks) have suggested he's lost his "nip". Nothing that shows up on the speed gun (Hoggy was never quick anyway), but wasn't hitting the bat as he was.

Wouldn't rule him out because I love the man and did think he'd been hard done by myself when he was dropped, but when I checked his actual performances it was apparent he hadn't been up to his usual standard for a good 18 months and longer.

He had mitigating circumstances (his injury), but when one factors in his age (32 now IIRC) and regression to sub-farcical batting it was one of the less daft decisions of late.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Reckon Pattinson's a better bowler than most of the blokes that you've bothered trotting out anyway.

 

[Athlai]

Patel in his bugger all tests has played at least twice in Napier and one test in that spinners haven SA.

And he's taken a 5-fer at Napier.

Yeah guy has never really played on a true spinning deck.

 

[GIMH]

Reckon Pattinson's a better bowler than most of the blokes that you've bothered trotting out anyway.

I thought Pattinson looked okay; it wasn't really his quality or lack of that had people appalled though.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah guy has never really played on a true spinning deck.

Just going into this in detail, these are the four non-Bangladesh tests he's played.

2006 at Cape Town- a 500+ plays 500+ bore-draw

Final-day victory in the first test against England in NZ last February Panesar finished with 4-150, mainly declaration-charge wickets. Vettori picked up 3-104.

Third test in the same series, had to do a lot of donkey work on a flat deck after NZ collapsed batting second. Panesar finished with six wickets in the fourth innings, so maybe there was more there to work with than Vettori and Patel made it seem.

The most recent match against the West Indies, fresh in the memory, where he bowled brilliantly with little to work with to end up with a 5-wicket haul.

The "he only plays on raging turners" idea is blatantly false, it seems.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Reckon Pattinson's a better bowler than most of the blokes that you've bothered trotting out anyway.

Possibly. Think he's a victim of circumstance as much as anything. He's hardly the first Anglo-Aussie to play for us, but most of them have to at least undergo the residence qualification; because he was born in Grimsby (emigrated at 5 from memory?) he didn't have to. The perception was he was hardly off the boat and was straight into the test team. Not his fault at all, but I suspect quite a few "real" English cricketers weren't too pissed off his debut test wasn't an unqualified success.

A writer (can't recall who) came up with a good line which I'll steal: we applied the letter rather than the spirit of the qualification criteria with Pattinson.

 

[Rant0r]

Would disagree there. I imagine more than a few observers are now convinced he's arse. His display in the 5th was the probably worst I've seen. Didn't shell any, but his general tidyness was woeful. Standing up (as he did a lot with our new spin twins bowling in tandem for stretches) he's a liability.



It's because he hasn't been very good for a while now. In his last 13 tests from the start of the Pakistan series in 2006 he took 36 wickets @ 39.72 which isn't very flash at all.

He then probably got the selectors' backs up by moaning that he was dropped after "one bad test", which sadly wasn't so.

bahahaha