*Official* England in Sri Lanka

[Richard]

Not quite.

<quack> The following conversation may or may not have taken place last season:

Rikki Hey, Ian. Getting much turn out of the wicket?
Ian Dunno, mate. I'll let you know when I hit it.

My money's on not.
Everyone knows Clarke and Salisbury aren't especially close mates. Him and Wardy are much closer, just a shame Wardy decided to break the dream team and leave, clearing the way for Scott Newman to prove he's the next Clarke.
Eddie, if the duck is listening will you please instruct him never again to criticise Ian Salisbury in my presence, otherwise I am likely to do a better job than even you. Salisbury in 1999 and 2000 was a brilliant, brilliant bowler and from 2001 onwards he has been a shadow of this great. If he could bowl like he did in 1999 and 2000 all the time he'd be England's best bowler ever (well, maybe except Sydney Barnes).
You get the picture? I am rather fond of Ian Salisbury. I don't claim he's been terribly unlucky since 2001 or anything, he's been sub-par, no disputes.
But to write him off as some sort of Dawson-clone is not on.

 

[Richard]

Well because he's been picked as a bowler and hasn't performed. But since he plays for England, any performance will be enough to keep him in the side, even if he's been picked as a bowler and he performs with the bat. Hell, the England selectors managed to keep picking Giles all summer under the pretense that he offered "variation" dispite averaging 70 with the ball.

These are the same selectors who are saying that Nasser Hussain is under pressure to keep is place and might not play in the last Test because of Paul Collingwood's "form." Right, ok, Colly hasn't been too bad, he's helped save 2 games, but still to say his form warrents replacing a proven batsman like Nass, come on! 89 runs in 4 innings at 22.25 with a highest score of 36 and a strike rate of 28.25! That's FORM? Give me a break.

I thought exactly the same when I heard the rumours about Collingwood. Eddie makes some valid points in posts subsequent to this, but I like you and him, I maintain that the selection of Collingwood over Hussain for this Test would have been madness.

 

[Richard]

if you count Read as a batsman

And I most certainly don't.
Get Jones in there ASAIHP.
Bearing in mind the England selectors and their penchant for "consistency" (aka someone is allowed to fail countless times and they get away with it for some obscure reason - probably in Read's case "he's our best wicketkeeper") I would bet on 2 more Tests of failure being neccesary before Geirant gets his consideration.

 

[Richard]

Hussain being dropped???!! No chance, that would be too brave from the selectors! I dont rate him as much of a batsman, so maybe after losing the captaincy this would be the time to discreetly say "thanks"...

No, not for me.
There is ample evidence that Hussain is a Test-class batsman AFAIAC. One bad period (2000 and most of 2000\01) and aside from that he's been consistency personnified. He wouldn't have played over 90 Tests if he wasn't.

 

[Richard]

Did anyone else notice that Vaughan's dismissal was an action replay of his first-innings at Old Trafford in 2002? Same bowler, same ball, same shot, same result.

 

[Richard]

But did Murali deserve a wicket?

Certainly didn't deserve that 38!

Originally posted by marc71178
Vaughan nutmegged by Murali.

Impending doom, but if a batsman lets it go through his legs, the bowler clearly didn't deserve a wicket for that pie.

Yes, a poor shot, but a good ball nonetheless.
And Murali deserved every run of the 38. I didn't see any let-offs, did you?
As for the Trescothick one, he didn't get a wicket, so did he deserve one? No, he just got it against his name.

 

[luckyeddie]

Murali has scored more runs in 2003 than SRT at the current time - at a better average too.

 

[Tim]

62.3 Fernando to Flintoff, no run, digs that in short, Freddie bails half way through a hook shot
62.2 Fernando to Flintoff, no run, slower, loopy ball, picked by the big guy, pokes it out to point on the front foot

Does the Cricinfo commentator know Flintoff personally or something? lol.

 

[Tim]

137/9...Flintoff out so that pretty much wraps up the game.

 

[marc71178]

The 77 has clouded matters, it was going really well for us Flintoff-detractors before that.

Apart from his extremely good bowling.

 

[marc71178]

Collingwood deserved to lose his place, he batted far too slowly in the second-innings of the First Test.

Please tell me you wrote that as a laugh.

 

[marc71178]

It doesn't look like Murali is tiring too much Marc....17 overs 3/24 suggests he might even be getting better.

I was talking about the first innings, but it appears that he has superhuman powers to bowl that many overs in such a short space of time.

 

[marc71178]

Scott Newman to prove he's the next Clarke.
Eddie, if the duck is listening will you please instruct him never again to criticise Ian Salisbury in my presence, otherwise I am likely to do a better job than even you. Salisbury in 1999 and 2000 was a brilliant, brilliant bowler and from 2001 onwards he has been a shadow of this great. If he could bowl like he did in 1999 and 2000 all the time he'd be England's best bowler ever (well, maybe except Sydney Barnes).

Salisbury is one of the worst bowlers to ever play for England, although Batty is running him close in this series.

So he took a few wickets in County Cricket - that means absolutely nothing.

 

[marc71178]

Murali has scored more runs in 2003 than SRT at the current time - at a better average too.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

He has probably played a fair few more games though.

Interesting to see who England's leading Test wicket taker in 2003, if only he had a better attitude!

 

[Rik]

Interesting to see who England's leading Test wicket taker in 2003, if only he had a better attitude!

Unsurpisingly the only bowler other than Giles who got a consistant run in the side...

 

[Rik]

So he took a few wickets in County Cricket - that means absolutely nothing.

It's more about the way he took those "meaningless wickets" which was rather impressive...

He didn't have a dry dusty pitch like the Northants spinners...

 

[marc71178]

Unsurpisingly the only bowler other than Giles who got a consistant run in the side...

He only played 8 out of 13, hardly a consistent run.

Anderson also played 8 and his 5 less wickets cost him 10 runs more apiece, yet who is the one people want to pick more of the 2?

 

[Rik]

He only played 8 out of 13, hardly a consistent run.

Anderson also played 8 and his 5 less wickets cost him 10 runs more apiece, yet who is the one people want to pick more of the 2?

When he was fit he was picked.

Anderson happens to be seriously less experianced so a comparison is out of the question here.

 

[raju]

Salisbury was a fantastic bowler who was never given the extended run he deserved for the national side. And like Ramprakash he seems to attract the jealous snipers. Their impressive international record speaks for itself. :frog:

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Their impressive international record speaks for itself. :frog: