James Troughton

[Richard]

Funny how you make that post, but neglect to mention the selections of for example, Vaughan (same series as Adams), Trescothick (came after him).

Maybe because they are outnumbered 6 to 2. And I could name many more examples; you could name Gower (36 or so compared to 44) and probably 1 or 2 others in the last 20 years.
Players who fail at domestic level and succeed at Test level are exceedingly rare; nothing whatsoever you can do about that. They do happen, but they are anomalies and, like all anomalies, are most productive when discounted from the general scheme.

 

[Richard]

And what's the point of spending money 28, 29 and 30 year olds when that cash could be spent on 19-23 year olds?

Long Term gain is surely better?

How about using some on both instead of wasting God knows how much on God knows what?

 

[Rik]

The scrapping of A-tours was a very bad move IMO. There are plenty of worse things to spend the cash on. The National Academy was a good move, but it's different - aimed at 19-23-year-old's; A-teams are age-bias-less.

Very true, the A Tours were one of the few positives most winters.

 

[Rik]

And what's the point of spending money 28, 29 and 30 year olds when that cash could be spent on 19-23 year olds?

Long Term gain is surely better?

Because what is the point in wasting talent if it's still there to be utilised? If there's this batsman averaging 50 and he's 30, would you pick the batsman averaging 40 over him just because he's 22?

 

[marc71178]

Because what is the point in wasting talent if it's still there to be utilised? If there's this batsman averaging 50 and he's 30, would you pick the batsman averaging 40 over him just because he's 22?

If the batsman is 30 with a career average of 50, I suggest he would've been selected for England before then.

If it's a seasonal average of 50 then what's he been doing for the last 7 or 8 years?

 

[Rik]

If the batsman is 30 with a career average of 50, I suggest he would've been selected for England before then.

If it's a seasonal average of 50 then what's he been doing for the last 7 or 8 years?

It was a purely hypothetical situation. So which would you pick? Experiance or youth? The better record or the youngster with obvious potential?

 

[Neil Pickup]

It's the Dave Fulton vs Whoever debate again!

 

[marc71178]

It was a purely hypothetical situation. So which would you pick? Experiance or youth? The better record or the youngster with obvious potential?

If a career record, the 30yo, if based on one season, neither, but the younger one would be worth an Academy slot.

 

[Richard]

It's the Dave Fulton vs Whoever debate again!

No, that was precisely the problem marc highlights - he averaged 70 in 2001 (when, I might add, there were only two new batsmen picked - two too many - Ian Ward and Usman Afzaal) and he'd averaged 22 the season before. Fulton could have been picked for the Fifth Test against SA, but look at what happened with Trescothick in that instance. Otherwise there was no instance of the selection of an opening batsman being a good idea.

 

[Craig]

For me I hope Ed Smith gets another chance.

He has a goodish technique and he did play in two Tests were it was difficult for batsmen and did get some good balls. At The Oval he did get a bad decision.

Ok he is fielding isnt fine but he is a good elegent batsman and there have been batsmen selected by England who have failed for more then three Trests as batsmen and keep getting picked.

One example is Andrew Flintoff.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

there have been batsmen selected by England who have failed for more then three Trests as batsmen and keep getting picked.

One example is Andrew Flintoff.

Flintoff wasn't picked as a batsman.

 

[Craig]

He sure as failed enough times with the bat over the years and got plenty of chances.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But he still wasn't picked as a batsman.

 

[marc71178]

He sure as failed enough times with the bat over the years and got plenty of chances.

By that logic, how did Courtney Walsh play for the Windies?

 

[marc71178]

For me I hope Ed Smith gets another chance.

I can't see him getting a go for a while, if ever.

Middle order batsmen (ie 3-6) ahead of him:

Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Flintoff, Clarke, Collingwood.

In the wings:

Bell, Troughton, Pietersen, Wagh, ...

 

[Rik]

It's a sad word if Rikki Clarke gets picked over a batsman like Ed Smith.

 

[marc71178]

I agree, but looking at the selector's views, and also the fact that Clarke offers a bowling option, he's more likely to be number 6 than Smith (adding fielding as well!)

 

[Rik]

I agree, but looking at the selector's views, and also the fact that Clarke offers a bowling option, he's more likely to be number 6 than Smith (adding fielding as well!)

Well I look at Clarke's ODI record and realise how many chances he's had and how little he's done and then look at Smith's Test record, and then remember the ways Clarke got out over and over again playing down the wrong line and how his bowling was smashed all over the place, and then wonder how these selectors get away with it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

The difference being that you are comparing an ODI record with a test record. Anyhow, Clarke is 21 or whatever it is, and Smith is 26 or 27.

 

[Rik]

The difference being that you are comparing an ODI record with a test record. Anyhow, Clarke is 21 or whatever it is, and Smith is 26 or 27.

Indeed but Smith has shown himself to be one of the best English batsmen in domestic cricket for the last few years, whilst Clarke has proven he can score runs against demorilised teams coming in at 300-400 for 5 and was in the 2nd team some of this year because Surrey opted for Azhar Mahmood. I might be harsh to Rikki but anyone who looked as hopeless as he did in his 1st ODI series and who gets considered and then picked over a tried and tested player like Paul Collingwood, with no excuse other than "youth," deserves all he gets.