*Official* England in Sri Lanka

[marc71178]

A bold claim indeed.

How did Neil get the credit for it though?!

 

[Richard]

Quote from Vaughan:

"Rikki playing is another option and he has definitely got a chance. Who is to say that he may not end up opening the bowling?"

Worst. Opening. Bowler. Ever. ?

K Eric Upashantha usually seems to open the bowling whenever he gets picked for Sri Lanka.
Gavaskar may have opened twice but I really think this should be confined to opening bowlers not cricketers who have opened the bowling in Test-cricket. Hence, I would voulenteer Upashantha as the worst bowler I have ever seen picked as a bowler. Mahwire doesn't count as he doesn't get selected as a bowler, he gets selected as a black player. Upashantha gets selected because the Sri Lankan selectors have genuinely seemed to think he's a good bowler.
I'm not saying he's by any means the worst ever - the Pakistan selectors almost must have come-up with something worse - in 50 years nearly of trying - but he's certainly the worst specialist bowler I've ever seen picked.
How they can do that when they've got the like of Dinusha Fernando available is completely beyond me.

 

[Craig]

England seem to handy out Test caps like their is no tomorrow. Paul Collingwood gets his Test cap in place of Rikki Clarke who is left out.

He becomes England's 9th person to make their Test debut this year and only James Anderson looks likely to hold down a Test spot.

Richard Johnson is getting his chance against decent opposition, Kirtley got himself injuried after bowling well IMO in his two Tests, Anthony McGrath wasnt really worthy of a spot, Ed Smith got treated harshly IMO, Kabir Ali played one Test and got the flick (I think he was injuried), Batty got his Test cap who by looking at his FC record deserved his spot expecially as the second spinner, Bicknell getting called up after 10 years out of Test cricket was almost similar to him making a Test debut.

England seem to have a habit of picking players for international cricket and give them the flick straight away. Unless they are injuried thats a different story, but they are usally left out and seem to go a whole career playing only a handful of Tests.

And some of these people didnt really desvere their spot.

 

[Tim]

Craig, England are experiencing the same problems as NZ.

2 or 3 retirements along with 3 or 4 injury problems means no doubt players will come & go...
Collingwood would have been picked ahead of Clarke in the tests at Bangladesh but he was injured so Clarke had to make his debut.

 

[Craig]

Of course that is unavoidable, but what I'm saying some players are picked then discarded with straight away.

McGrath should never have been picked and I even forgot about Saggers.

Anyway this sesson is low from I know of, 21 overs bowled in a session.

 

[luckyeddie]

Of course that is unavoidable, but what I'm saying some players are picked then discarded with straight away.

McGrath should never have been picked and I even forgot about Saggers.

Anyway this sesson is low from I know of, 21 overs bowled in a session.

Would it be better to persevere with a player who isn't performing? We have been particularly critical of England's selection on these boards for some time (McGrath, DD's passim) but some of the selections in the last year have been forced upon them (retirements and injuries) and some were very much on merit (especially Ed Smith).

Low over rate - short session (rain)

 

[Craig]

But why pick somebody who the selectors know arent good enough?

 

[luckyeddie]

But why pick somebody who the selectors know arent good enough?

Silly statement.

 

[Craig]

Care to explain?

Richard Dawson, Anthony McGrath spring to mind.

 

[luckyeddie]

Care to explain?

Richard Dawson, Anthony McGrath spring to mind.

It's one thing to question the selection of a player - we all do that. It's quite another to suggest that the selection is made despite the fact that the selectors 'know they aren't good enough'.

Are you suggesting that the selections you suggested (Dawson, McGrath) were because of a geographical bias or a Yorkshire leaning?

 

[Swanny]

Good start made by England I thought today.Didn;t catch the first session but since then I think we've bowled with good line and length and done the basics well. Flintoff in particular was excellent and Giles has done well and deserved his 3 wickets. Looks a decent batting track so 138/4 is a good start.

 

[Rik]

Galle really is a unique venue, Gareth Batty turns a few almost square on the 1st day even after rain had disrupted the start! Batty hasn't been as successful as Giles but he's turning it a hell of a lot more. Murali might just turn the ball so much on this pitch he will be bowling wides!!!

 

[luckyeddie]

Galle really is a unique venue, Gareth Batty turns a few almost square on the 1st day even after rain had disrupted the start! Batty hasn't been as successful as Giles but he's turning it a hell of a lot more. Murali might just turn the ball so much on this pitch he will be bowling wides!!!

It seems a strange wicket. Sure, Batty turned a couple quite a way but by and large the ball went straight on. Certainly, Ashley Giles never got more than a couple to deviate but that says very little really.

Giles really was quite excellent today, as was Flintoff. I think that Freddie as a third bowler is now a position he occupies very much on merit, and he is now moving into the genuine 'all-rounder' bracket.

Anyway, my match report

Can I go to bed now?

 

[Craig]

It's one thing to question the selection of a player - we all do that. It's quite another to suggest that the selection is made despite the fact that the selectors 'know they aren't good enough'.

Are you suggesting that the selections you suggested (Dawson, McGrath) were because of a geographical bias or a Yorkshire leaning?

You tell me what Dawson and McGrath had done at FC level to justify Test call-up?

AFAIK none of the England sectors had never played for Yorkshire.

Anyhow it looks like Flintoff needs new pants as he has one might hole in pants.

 

[Gaijin-san]

What do you make of this picture? Looks like Freddie split his pants

 

[Tim]

lol..or it could be one of those new innovations for keeping the clothing cool.

Actually it looks decidedly dodgy, it wouldn't be out of a place on a Barmy Army or English Rugby/Football supporter tour.

 

[luckyeddie]

You tell me what Dawson and McGrath had done at FC level to justify Test call-up?

AFAIK none of the England sectors had never played for Yorkshire.

Anyhow it looks like Flintoff needs new pants as he has one might hole in pants.

This is why your first statement on the subject was silly.

What you said was tantamount to questioning the integrity of the selectors, Call them idiots by all means, question their judgment - that's different.

There have been many situations in the past where someone was pulled from obscurity and went on to have a decent test career. It's not always a case of having a number of successful seasons in first class cricket then forcing their way in (usually when they are the wrong side of 30).

With the players you stated, they went with 'a hunch', I suppose.

Now, as for what the players in question in my opinion did to justify the call-up, the amswer can be found below:









er

 

[Tim]

You could say why the hell did the NZ selectors call up Hamish Marshall because his FC stats are well..crap. But he is looking extremely good & even after waiting 3 years for his next international match he has shown just as much maturity.

I'd hate to be a selector, you're damned if you do & you're damned if you don't.

 

[Craig]

Yes but Tim you have said yourself, a lt of these players in Pakistan usually wouldnt be picked for the Black Caps, but more so he probably said yes to going to Pakistan.

 

[luckyeddie]

Trescothick out, caught (yeah) behind off Murali.

Only missed it by about 3 inches.