England players and selection discussion thread

[Pothas]

Hope Crawley could turn out to be actually good. Jennings still the best hope I reckon, they always say how much the management like him, his bowling is a lot of fun as well.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Where's Tom Abell?

Think him and Northeast of the batters can consider themselves most unlucky.

Both good enough to play for the Loins in February when they beat Australia A for the first time ever and now not in the top 55 suddenly.

 

[Jack1]

Plunkett should be in the team still never mind the 55. Harsh when he’s younger than Anderson.

 

[Howe_zat]

Liam Plunkett: Surrey and England bowler open to playing for USA

I'll get my own international team, with blackjack, and hookers

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Seems a good fit. I don't think much of Plunkett, and I don't think much of the USA cricket team.


They are far more brazen about poaching players than even you English lot

 

[Bijed]

Plunkett should be in the team still never mind the 55. Harsh when he’s younger than Anderson.

Nowhere near as good though, even allowing for the differing requirements of the formats. In terms of performance he's probably unlucky to have been cast aside, but there's almost no way he'd still be around for the next World Cup so you I don't think you can really call it a ridiculous decision to move on.

Pleased with what we ultimately got out of him though. Went from being a bit of a joke to becoming a important part of our ODI side and contributed to us winning the World Cup.

 

[wpdavid]

Alan Jones the latest player to be awarded an England cap. Only took 50 years, but better late than never.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Alan Jones the latest player to be awarded an England cap. Only took 50 years, but better late than never.

I think he was awarded them at the time and was never asked to give them back when the matches were stripped of Test status. I don’t actually believe ROW matches should have Test status, but pleased for him though.

 

[Jack1]

England ought to pick Foakes. I can't believe Bairstow and Ali are rumoured for recalls. Leach and Foakes would be in the team instead for me.

Nowhere near as good though, even allowing for the differing requirements of the formats. In terms of performance he's probably unlucky to have been cast aside, but there's almost no way he'd still be around for the next World Cup so you I don't think you can really call it a ridiculous decision to move on.

Pleased with what we ultimately got out of him though. Went from being a bit of a joke to becoming a important part of our ODI side and contributed to us winning the World Cup.

Plunkett takes key wickets. He did it throughout the World Cup. He's been a gun bowler in ODI cricket for a while now. I find it weird he's been discarded so fast when he was key in the WC success.

 

[tony p]

I think he was awarded them at the time and was never asked to give them back when the matches were stripped of Test status. I don’t actually believe ROW matches should have Test status, but pleased for him though.

Nor should the Match between Australia & World Xl at Sydney in 2005 be counted as a Test, exactly the same as those games in England in 1970, their either all Tests or their not.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

England ought to pick Foakes. I can't believe Bairstow and Ali are rumoured for recalls. Leach and Foakes would be in the team instead for me.



Plunkett takes key wickets. He did it throughout the World Cup. He's been a gun bowler in ODI cricket for a while now. I find it weird he's been discarded so fast when he was key in the WC success.

His figures may have considerably improved, but I can't say his bowling really looked any better at all. Never rated Plunkett in the slightest. Very lucky bowler

 

[grecian]

His figures may have considerably improved, but I can't say his bowling really looked any better at all. Never rated Plunkett in the slightest. Very lucky bowler

I hated Plunkers first time round, was woefully inaccurate, whilst trying to bowl a la Jimmy Anderson. Yet the secondary one was much quicker hurried batsman, had decent variety and bowled incredibly well in those middle overs, he did it again and again, just silly to call him lucky.

I'd have persevered, I'm a firm believer in you pick someone for today, not the future, in the end as a Seam bowler it's not even as if others won't get chances in the rotation, and inevitable injuries anyway. Let those other guys earn the spot and force Plunkett out of the side.

 

[MW1304]

It's just pure stubbornness. He was undeniably good in the World Cup, whatever you think of how he looks, and actually in the 4 years leading up to it too. That's a ****ing long lucky streak.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

While I can understand looking ahead and Plunkett won't be around for the next WC you could just as easily say we should drop Morgan under the same scenario which you wouldn't do. Harshly treated for me.

 

[Bijed]

While I can understand looking ahead and Plunkett won't be around for the next WC you could just as easily say we should drop Morgan under the same scenario which you wouldn't do. Harshly treated for me.

It's conceivable that Morgan will be around for the next WC though, whereas it's highly unlikely that Plunkett would be (older plus fast bowlers generally not lasting as long). Don't get me wrong, I think Plunkett has been a bit harshly treated here but equally it's hardly an outrage that he's been left out.

As for his effectiveness or whatever, I've said before that it a player gets results over a decent length period you've got to accept that they're doing something right, even if you might not like the look of how they go about their work. In Plunkett's case I thing it was just of having enough pace that he was always in with the chance of a wicket whilst not being so inaccurate (though it was never his strength) that those wickets weren't unacceptably expensive. His value to the team will probably be shown by his absence tbh, he may not have been a world-beater but I don't really back anyone else in contention to do his job as well as he usually did.

 

[honestbharani]

Plunkett is the reason England won the WC, AFAIC. He is being treated extremely harshly here. Just allow the man one more year and let him bow out on his own terms or drop him if he becomes a liability but dropping someone who is being the best middle overs seamer around in LO cricket was silly.

 

[Bijed]

Yeah, giving this year would have been the best idea really. You don't have to go full-on building for the next WC immediately.

 

[Flem274*]

excellent historical revisionism in this thread.

plunket is meh and the mediocre english odi bowlers rallying for a few decent games doesn't change the fact they are largely mediocre barring the mercenary who was fire at the wc.

the english attack is mid-table at best. fortunately they had ben stokes, two crap umpires and a fortunate deflection to tie a final.

 

[Flem274*]

Plunkett is the reason England won the WC, AFAIC.

what drug trip is this? england were buried without stokes. stokes is the only playing human who caused me to ask for a cricket wc in the maccas drive through at 6am on a monday morning.

Yeah, giving this year would have been the best idea really. You don't have to go full-on building for the next WC immediately.

yes you do. you want as many games in your 2023 side as possible.

 

[grecian]

Flem ignoring the 4 years of exceptional one-day cricket, to focus on one match, which we probably should have lost. Even if we had we'd still have been the best One-day side in the World for a decent time, and Plunkett was part of that.

Still, must suck to have never won a World Cup, I'd probably be bitter too...