*Official* England in South Africa

[aussie]

You saw two list A games? You must be an expert.

I agree some players are just bad, but stats whilst they can be suspect, still provide a good guideline..

Not in ENG, its very misleading given the poor standard in some areas. This is why ENG selectors should not be so robotic in picking players. I'm not just solely judging Plunks performances based on the two games i saw him in either. Its a fair set of ENG players who have done well in CC in recently that have failed in test - most recently Bopara.

ENG just have to accept the cupboard is bare ATM in batting & bowling & just have to deal with what is available until some real talent really steps up. No need picking these county wastes.

Plunkett did well, he gets rewarded. Harmison sucks, he gets shafted. It's not that dificult.

Harmo sucks yea. But as i keeps saying if the pitches in SA are like what AUS had earlier this year, especially in the Jo'Burg & Durban tests - Harmo is the best man ENG could have had to exploit those bouncy tracks.

 

[marc71178]

You contradict yourself so much that at times I don't even think you know what you're trying to argue for and what you're arguing against.

 

[aussie]

Funnily I don't agree with Flintoff opening what so ever, I never have done. He is no Botham. He is a spectacular cricketer of this era, he however is no longer a batsman capable of batting in the top 4.

Actually i meant a "Non-Flintoff ODI XI" you know - not one where Freddie should open if he is available. I am happy to work with Strauss/Denly opening for the time being.

I doubt we will agree with Cook or Denly atm, considering both have a lot to prove themselves, I am sure they are under pressure to deliver. So I presume the results will show for themselves. I do think Cook is perhaps as bad he appears in limited overs and I do think he will be capable of delivering on his promise of flaying the Aussie bowlers to all parts even if it was a first class game way back in 2005 at Chelmsford, it should come to fruition sometime soon.

Highly doubt it TBH. He has never showed that in test of international cricket for 4 years, thas was just an odd thing i'd say. That sort of reminds of of when AUS toured WI in 2003 when Carlton Baugh flawed them in a similar scrubby FC game & well you know what his position these days...

 

[aussie]

You contradict yourself so much that at times I don't even think you know what you're trying to argue for and what you're arguing against.

No contradictions - i am very clear in what i'm debating.

 

[marc71178]

Oh yes, the performing well in county cricket but failing Internationally argument that you're using against Plunkett whilst advocating Harmison in the same breath - that's not at all contradictory!

 

[aussie]

Oh yes, the performing well in county cricket but failing Internationally argument that you're using against Plunkett whilst advocating Harmison in the same breath - that's not at all contradictory!

Big difference is that we know what we could get with Harmison given we have seen him do it before in test. Although it has been to frustration of us all - few & farrrrrrrrr between.

Without Flintoff the attack has nothing intimidating. I'm not advocating Harmo being a fixture again far from it - just that is very likely their will be conditions in the test series where Harmo could be the perfect 'Horses for courses" pick & i fear the selectors have missed a trick.

 

[marc71178]

Big difference is that we know what we could get with Harmison given we have seen him do it before in test.

How is that a big difference? We know what we could get with Harmison in 2004, but it's nearly 2010 now and we know what we have been getting in recent times.

What makes you decide we can use one rule for one and one for another?

 

[Pratters]

Good to see you properly involved in the forum Marc.

 

[Furball]

Big difference is that we know what we could get with Harmison given we have seen him do it before in test.

And what you'd get from Harmison, particularly in an overseas tour, is the square root of **** all.

Plunkett bowled well this season for Durham and is well worthy of a place on the tour. The season might be a one off, Plunkett might never amount to much, but he has earned the right, through good, consistent domestic performance, to get the opportunity to shine or fail.

 

[Jarquis]

I don't get how picking the best performers in the county circuit is the wrong move aussie. You can't honestly suggest that people who perform worse against the appalling English County standard attacks wouldfare better against the South African bowling attack?

 

[aussie]

How is that a big difference? We know what we could get with Harmison in 2004, but it's nearly 2010 now and we know what we have been getting in recent times.

What makes you decide we can use one rule for one and one for another?

And what you'd get from Harmison, particularly in an overseas tour, is the square root of **** all.

As i said like 10 times already. The reason Harmo should have been picked for THIS tour is because their is enough proof based on what occured on AUS tour to SA earlier this year - that Harmo will have surfaces to his assistance - especially in Jo'Burg & Durban.

It would be highly inaccurate to use Harmo's past overseas record as a guide, since in Harmo's career ENG have never been on a overseas tour since WI 04 where the pitches have been bowler friendly - all where generally flat.

And Marc their is no bending of rules to suite Harmo here. Its fairly obvious what Arthur said about Harmo is fact - ENG attack is lacking a bowler capable of doing what Johnson & Siddle did earlier this year. Plunkett was garbage is international cricket before & even if i dont' believe his has improved - he clearly aint a tall hit the deck bowler that could utilise those SA pitches.

Plunkett bowled well this season for Durham and is well worthy of a place on the tour. The season might be a one off, Plunkett might never amount to much, but he has earned the right, through good, consistent domestic performance, to get the opportunity to shine or fail.

No need to waste time with that. This is why i say given our poor domestic standards the selectors need not be so robotic in selections & look out of the box sometimes. Some players doing well you just know its an abberation due to poor standard.

Unfortunately the cupbaord is bare & no quality "out of the box" players exist on the circuit. So ENG as i said just have to utilize what we have until real talent comes about.

I don't get how picking the best performers in the county circuit is the wrong move aussie. You can't honestly suggest that people who perform worse against the appalling English County standard attacks wouldfare better against the South African bowling attack?

Preferably clearly you would want to pick the best county performers to play test or ODI cricket. But it is not that straightforward when selecting players for ENG.

We have just seen Bopara after a few years of scoring runs againts poor county attacks , smoking an poor WI attack - then being exposed in the Ashes.

We have seen Bell continue to be exposed technically in tests but still managing to score heavily for Warwickshire.

Ramps a test failure dominating county attacks & at 39 he could have actually played in the Ashes tests.

I can go on & on, but you see what i'm saying...

 

[Jarquis]

All that your saying is people are not performing as well in Tests as they are in the County game because *bomb shock horror** the majority of Test bowling attacks are considerably better than the average county attack.

With Ramps it seemed to be a case of handling pressure. Which is almost irrelevant. In a one off match with no consequences I'd expect Ramps to score against any Test attack but you put him in a Test match situation against an inferior attack and it'd have an adverse effect on his performance imho

Bopara also seemed to suffer from stage fright in the Ashes. Against the WI he was ****y and arrogant against the Aussies he was a rabbit in a headlight. I didn't watch any of his innings live but all I saw in the highlights was an obvious inability to keep the ball on the floor. Make of that what you wish

Bell doesn't wash with me, he's an average - good Test match player. Who obviously scores more runs against inferior attacks as you'd expect any player to do so.

 

[whitedazzler]

im a kiwi just wanting to add my 5cents to this.

its the test series that matters isn't it and i believe eng v rsa was upgraded to 5 test status (**** nz gets 3 if they're lucky) and without flintoff england i feel will struggle with their balance. not including harmison was strange to say the least i guess they just have to hope the likes of jimmy anderson can get the ball swinging and knick a few of the proteas out then again if it is swinging good luck facing d steyn. rsa need to sort their openers out, i think with stephen cooks 390 the other day will prolly get him in2 the side unless they decide to open with prince or de villiers. pietersen vs smith is always a great contest, pity pietersen isn't the captain anymore. going with the proteas on this.

 

[Furball]

As i said like 10 times already. The reason Harmo should have been picked for THIS tour is because their is enough proof based on what occured on AUS tour to SA earlier this year - that Harmo will have surfaces to his assistance - especially in Jo'Burg & Durban.

And there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that taking Harmison overseas is a complete waste of time.

Look at his record in Australia ffs.

 

[aussie]

All that your saying is people are not performing as well in Tests as they are in the County game because *bomb shock horror** the majority of Test bowling attacks are considerably better than the average county attack.

Exactly. Their shouldn't be that bomb shock horror.

With Ramps it seemed to be a case of handling pressure. Which is almost irrelevant. In a one off match with no consequences I'd expect Ramps to score against any Test attack but you put him in a Test match situation against an inferior attack and it'd have an adverse effect on his performance imho.

The handling of pressure is very relevant. If he is just good for smashing average attacks, thus when he plays test cricket & comes into a pressure situation in a test match he becomes useless. In your FC competition you should develop that steel.

The problem with Ramps dominating CC for the past 3 seasons & disappointing actually a whisker away from playing that Oval test, was that their was no young English player pushing for a place. Which shows a serious whole in the batting talent available right now.

Bopara also seemed to suffer from stage fright in the Ashes. Against the WI he was ****y and arrogant against the Aussies he was a rabbit in a headlight. I didn't watch any of his innings live but all I saw in the highlights was an obvious inability to keep the ball on the floor. Make of that what you wish.

Their was stage fright, but it was more due to him being exposed technically. Not many people after he bullied that poor WI attack of those flat pitches where convicned going into the Ashes, that he was the real deal to hold down that # 3 spot.

Bell doesn't wash with me, he's an average - good Test match player. Who obviously scores more runs against inferior attacks as you'd expect any player to do so.

The thing is with Bell which further proves how bad the county system is. Well after he has constantly being exposed in test, you would think him going back to CC & scoring heavily would be a solid to suggest - Bell is back in form. But when he was recalled nothing has changed, which is irritating.

Looking at these few examples that why i always say runs & wickets in CC & List A cricket over here can't always be taken as clear guide to how players will go in tests & ODIs. The selectors have continously failed to notice this & the selection of Wright & Plunkett shows this.

The cupboard in ENG is bareeee ATM

 

[aussie]

And there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that taking Harmison overseas is a complete waste of time.

Look at his record in Australia ffs.

Yes. But in Harmo's career at no point in time has an ENG tour had really bowler friendly conditions, that this tour to SA will have. The only tour in Harmo's ENG career where the pitches where helpul was WI 04.

In none of his two AUS tours where the pitches bowler friendly. Plus in 2002/03 he was raw, so you really cant consider that series.

 

[analyst]

Exactly. Their shouldn't be that bomb shock horror.



The handling of pressure is very relevant. If he is just good for smashing average attacks, thus when he plays test cricket & comes into a pressure situation in a test match he becomes useless. In your FC competition you should develop that steel.

The problem with Ramps dominating CC for the past 3 seasons & disappointing actually a whisker away from playing that Oval test, was that their was no young English player pushing for a place. Which shows a serious whole in the batting talent available right now.



Their was stage fright, but it was more due to him being exposed technically. Not many people after he bullied that poor WI attack of those flat pitches where convicned going into the Ashes, that he was the real deal to hold down that # 3 spot.



The thing is with Bell which further proves how bad the county system is. Well after he has constantly being exposed in test, you would think him going back to CC & scoring heavily would be a solid to suggest - Bell is back in form. But when he was recalled nothing has changed, which is irritating.

Looking at these few examples that why i always say runs & wickets in CC & List A cricket over here can't always be taken as clear guide to how players will go in tests & ODIs. The selectors have continously failed to notice this & the selection of Wright & Plunkett shows this.

The cupboard in ENG is bareeee ATM

No Bell proves, persistence is not necessarily the right answer all the time, you need to select a player but you don't offer them their test cap immediately. In countries like Australia, India, South Africa, it is ridiculously hard to make your way into international hard, it seems extremely simple to make your way into international cricket and all you have to do is score runs in county cricket.

The point is, county runs are not useless, they are a good indicator of form but they are not going to reflect for sure if you are ideal for international cricket, selectors for the last two decades with the likes of Ramprakash, Hick, and Bell have made these mistakes, by either pushing them around the order too much or pushing them into international cricket too early. These players need to be left on the bench perhaps touring with the side but ultimately being selected when the selectors feel they are of the right maturity.

Maturity is a key indicator of the responsibility an international cricketer/sportsman has on their shoulders, the decisions they have as opposed to the lax carefree approach a domestic sportsman would have. It is very similar to the argument, the old age argument of how English footballers played better for their domestic teams but failed when they turned up for the national team.

Similarly in cricket it is upto the captain, coaches and the management to make sure they don't and ofcourse the indidual responsibility each cricketer has once they develop that maturity which I am speaking of.

 

[four_or_six]

The thing is with Bell which further proves how bad the county system is. Well after he has constantly being exposed in test, you would think him going back to CC & scoring heavily would be a solid to suggest - Bell is back in form. But when he was recalled nothing has changed, which is irritating.

Ian Bell hasn't been constantly exposed in tests, he averages 40, only three less than he averages in the whole of first class cricket, and he's only 27 years old. He also has a decent enough ODI record (average of 35). Maybe he's not been quite good enough, or maybe there's some mental issues, but he's been a decent player for England so it's no surprise he gets runs when he plays for Warwickshire. That's no indictment of county attacks at all.

 

[Furball]

Looking at these few examples that why i always say runs & wickets in CC & List A cricket over here can't always be taken as clear guide to how players will go in tests & ODIs. The selectors have continously failed to notice this & the selection of Wright & Plunkett shows this.

No-one is saying that.

However, you cannot ignore domestic form entirely. When it comes to selecting players, I'd far rather they were selected on solid domestic form than a selectorial "hunch." The point I've always made, particularly with regards to the ODI side, is that you have to pick the players who are performing best in domestic One Day cricket. Will they always be successful? No, but I'd far rather the selectors went with players like Saj Mahmood who have shown a bit of form in the format, rather than players like Onions because they've done well in Tests.

Plunkett's selection for this tour is fair enough. Onions and Harmison aside, no other England qualified bowler not already around the team has put their hand up for selection.

 

[aussie]

No Bell proves, persistence is not necessarily the right answer all the time, you need to select a player but you don't offer them their test cap immediately. In countries like Australia, India, South Africa, it is ridiculously hard to make your way into international hard, it seems extremely simple to make your way into international cricket and all you have to do is score runs in county cricket.

The point is, county runs are not useless, they are a good indicator of form but they are not going to reflect for sure if you are ideal for international cricket, selectors for the last two decades with the likes of Ramprakash, Hick, and Bell have made these mistakes, by either pushing them around the order too much or pushing them into international cricket too early. These players need to be left on the bench perhaps touring with the side but ultimately being selected when the selectors feel they are of the right maturity.

Maturity is a key indicator of the responsibility an international cricketer/sportsman has on their shoulders, the decisions they have as opposed to the lax carefree approach a domestic sportsman would have. It is very similar to the argument, the old age argument of how English footballers played better for their domestic teams but failed when they turned up for the national team.

Similarly in cricket it is upto the captain, coaches and the management to make sure they don't and ofcourse the indidual responsibility each cricketer has once they develop that maturity which I am speaking of.

This is essentially the point i am making. As you rightfully said we have seen this problem with ENG in the past with Hick & Ramps & the selectors have no learnt from it.