English Seamers

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes, and it's the same selectors that saw enough in Vaughan, Trescothick and Butcher to stick by them.

Harmison's improving immensely, and will continue to do so with experience.

Forgive me, but I just can't see how Saggers could be any worse than Harmison or Kirtley or the like.

 

[marc71178]

But the selectors obviously can.

For a start Harmison and Saggers are different types of bowler, and Kirtley hasn't done that badly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Neither has Saggers though! He's done as well if not better than Kirtley over the past few years but he hasn't gotten a chance. Therefore, you can't use Kirtley's Test performances in this argument because Saggers may have done as well for all we know.

[I[Originally posted by me[/I]
The same selectors who watched Anthony McGrath

No comment? I didn't ask of Vaughan and Tresco...

 

[marc71178]

Neither has Saggers though! He's done as well if not better than Kirtley over the past few years but he hasn't gotten a chance. Therefore, you can't use Kirtley's Test performances in this argument because Saggers may have done as well for all we know.

The selectors have seen a lot more of him than you or I, and they know what they're looking for in a bowler.

How many times do I have to say that wickets in CC are easy to take, and they need something extra to do it in Tests?

The selectors obviously rate Kirtley's ability higher than Saggers, and he performed fairly well on debut.

At the end of the day, they know more than anyone on here, and it's their jobs on the line if they fail, yet they still get criticism.

No comment? I didn't ask of Vaughan and Tresco...

No, but you attacked them for making poor selections, when they've also picked a few out of the bag that have worked to great effect.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

At the end of the day, they know more than anyone on here, and it's their jobs on the line if they fail, yet they still get criticism.

I'm certainly not claiming to know better than the selectors, but I will say that that is not necessarily true. I'm not targeting the England selectors alone when I say that a 10-yr old could have made better selections than a couple in recent times in world cricket.

 

[Rik]

I'd much rather pick someone who's proven that he can bowl consistantly than someone who has shown terrible inconsistancy in County Cricket and is then picked in the England side and continues in that veign, a few good performances aside. Yes Harmison may be a different bowler but many people, myself included, don't really give a damn weather a bowler can bowl 45mph or 90mph as long as they take wickets. Therefor, despite Harmison's 4for (which included 2 gifted wickets thanks to careless strokes and amazing catches), I think many people would rather have Saggers in there simply because he really would struggle to do any worse.

As for your comment on the fact that you "don't want a bowler picked on county wickets", right, then what is the point of having a domestic competition? Didn't Trescothick just start scoring runs for Somerset just before his England call-up?

Anyway, top English wicket taker this series ends up as James Anderson, what a turn-up! Not to be biased to Harmison, even after this 4for, but many English fans I've spoken to would still rather have a Saggers in the team instead of Harmison any day of the week.

 

[Rik]

I'm not targeting the England selectors alone when I say that a 10-yr old could have made better selections than a couple in recent times in world cricket.

Or a monkey...

 

[marc71178]

To clarify, I said a bowler purely selected on the number of County wickets taken.

Besides that, Harmison has shown on numerous occasionas that when he gets it right (which is becoming a lot more frequent), he is a very dangerous bowler.

 

[Bazza]

From what I've seen of Saggers he has a bit of pace and can move it, and bowls a full length, which to me is very important. I think he probably deserved a chance more than Kabir Ali!

Anyway, my 5 seamers on tour would be:

Hoggard
Johnson
Harmison
Anderson
Flintoff

Hoggard has proved he has the discipline to bowl in the subcontinent, and recently took career best figures so is back in form.

Johnson is accurate and moves the ball both ways. He also hits the bat hard, somehow getting a little more bounce than you think he would.

Harmison has made a breakthrough and offers something different.

Anderson is our most talented young bowler and must be persevered with. Surely the next Goughie?

Flintoff is a banker.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Anderson is our most talented young bowler and must be persevered with. Surely the next Goughie?

Unless his they kill him off young with fatigue...

 

[Rik]

To clarify, I said a bowler purely selected on the number of County wickets taken.

Besides that, Harmison has shown on numerous occasionas that when he gets it right (which is becoming a lot more frequent), he is a very dangerous bowler.

My arguement is that a bowler who has been successful in the CC (unlike Harmison) is likely to get it right more often than someone who's FC bowling average is 31 despite having taken 200+ wickets.

 

[Langeveldt]

Or a monkey...

Or a Jellyfish

 

[Rik]

Or a Jellyfish

Or my breakfast cerial...

 

[marc71178]

My arguement is that a bowler who has been successful in the CC (unlike Harmison) is likely to get it right more often than someone who's FC bowling average is 31 despite having taken 200+ wickets.

And we all know that if I state my argument it'll just go round in circles.

Suffice to say that the selectors seems to subscribe to my view, and recent England seamers with superb County figures don't seem to have pulle dup too many trees, whereas Harmison is definitely improving with every game.

 

[Rik]

And we all know that if I state my argument it'll just go round in circles.

Suffice to say that the selectors seems to subscribe to my view, and recent England seamers with superb County figures don't seem to have pulle dup too many trees, whereas Harmison is definitely improving with every game.

...which, with his current record, means diddily squat.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Suffice to say that the selectors seems to subscribe to my view, and recent England seamers with superb County figures don't seem to have pulle dup too many trees, whereas Harmison is definitely improving with every game.

Harmison is not exactly fast-improving. My point has been that Saggers has been treated unfairly because he has outbowled Harmison (from all reports) in domestic cricket over the last few years and yet hasn't gotten a chance yet. He may well have been a success for England. Indeed, he may well still be, but one thing is for sure - we won't know know if they don't pick him.

 

[marc71178]

But the thing is Liam, the volume of wickets he's taken means they must have watched him on numerous occasions, and if they still cannot see anything in him to promote him, we should respect that opinion and accept that he's no better than the current crop.

 

[Rik]

But the thing is Liam, the volume of wickets he's taken means they must have watched him on numerous occasions, and if they still cannot see anything in him to promote him, we should respect that opinion and accept that he's no better than the current crop.

Well we shouldn't have to respect their opinion, I've seen Saggers bowl in a few OD games for Kent and he's quick, swings it, bowls deadly straight. From what I've seen and from the consistantcy of his stats over the last few years, I'd say he's quite easily better than the current crop.

 

[marc71178]

Well, in that case, why have't the selectors picked him then?

Only one reason, they don't think he's good enough, and since they're the ones who make the choices and have to live or die by them, they know best.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Marc, why haven't the selectors picked Adam Hollioake? Is it so hard for you to accept that maybe, just maybe they aren't always right??