*Official* England in West Indies

[Richard]

It's not a discipline issue. They obviously believe that his fitness issues mean he would be less effective as a player, thus someone else is a better bet.

That said if they had these fitness tests 20 years ago Mike Gatting would never have played a test for England and Botham would probably have been forced to retire in 1986.

Probably earlier.

There are many reasons English cricket was in such a shambolic state in the second half of the 1980s. One of those was the lack of attention placed on basics like fitness.

Personally I don't really have a problem with Patel being made an example of. He may be a better batsman than Gareth Batty is bowler, but he's still to date a very moderate ODI player indeed. England can easily afford to expend his services for one series in order to make it clear to him and hopefully everyone else that poor standards of fitness are not acceptable.

 

[Richard]

LOL Richard you can't just make up your own spellings because you feel like it

I can and will.

 

[Richard]

My XI for the final Test;

Strauss
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bopara
Prior
Broad
Swann
Amjad
Anderson

An XI with 1 very good Test cricketer and 3 above average (possibly I am being generous). The rest well below that.

Yeah, would agree with that. Though of course several are below it purely because they are unproven.

Amjad Khan's selection simply smacks of "if we try enough poor-quality players we'll get lucky every now and then and they'll have a good game on debut so thus we can make it look like we've made an inspired pick".

Much as I don't want Sidebottom to play if as unfit as he was last Test, there are better bowlers in this country than Amjad Khan, many of them, and anyone who can judge a cricketer should be able to see that.

Khan is aleast better than Liam Plunkett. But we're talking very small mercies indeed here.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why does Mark Davies never seem to even warrant a mention on this forum? Is it just the fact that he'll break down every three Tests or is there a deeper reason?

 

[Richard]

Davies is the classic slip-under-the-radar player. And part of that, of course, is because he almost never plays a full season to get attention.

He'll grab 7-for-nothing, then get a couple of for-for-not-much's, then maybe miss a couple of weeks, come back, grab another 7-nothing, then get dropped for the Plunketts and Onionses who aren't fit to lace his boots as bowlers for a little while because they "look" better. Then he'll come back toward the end of the season and maybe take a couple of relatively inexpensive 3\4-fors.

All the sort of thing that just doesn't really register on the consciousness. Even I have to think carefully before remembering him.

That said, I've also not seen him bowl since 2001, at which point he was a very poor bowler indeed. If I'd seen just one of the many massive hauls he's taken down the years, I'd probably remember him forever and bang-on about how he should be playing as much as I do with Jonathan Trott in the ODIs.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Can't bowl 140kph duh lolz.

 

[ozone]

Thing is, cricket is a team sport and the team will more often than not suffer as a result of Patel's fitness inadaquacies.

I hope you're reffering to fielding because if you're on about his running between wickets, there is no argument. If Pietersen was **** between the wickets would he get dropped? Fact is, if he's good enough on batting ability he should be playing. On fielding, his faults will be no more so than they suffered playing someone who is completely inadequate as a fielder such as Panesar. In fact probably less.

 

[ozone]

Personally I don't really have a problem with Patel being made an example of. He may be a better batsman than Gareth Batty is bowler, but he's still to date a very moderate ODI player indeed. England can easily afford to expend his services for one series in order to make it clear to him and hopefully everyone else that poor standards of fitness are not acceptable.

Point is, much as it might send a good message to other young cricketers, what message does it send to Samit himself?

 

[Pup Clarke]

Well seeing as fielding in ODI's and Twenty20s is every bit as important as batting and bowling, Patel could easily concede 15-20 runs per innings more often than not.

The team will always be more important than one individual player and although as you stated he's scored runs freely in the one-day game for the past two seasons, being physicially fit is paramount to playing your best cricket.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Point is, much as it might send a good message to other young cricketers, what message does it send to Samit himself?

That he'll need to get fitter...

 

[Uppercut]

Why does Mark Davies never seem to even warrant a mention on this forum? Is it just the fact that he'll break down every three Tests or is there a deeper reason?

I mention him quite often actually. He's subject to the bias against medium-fasts at test level. I'd say he could do a job every bit as well as every single bowler in the England team at the moment (with Freddie injured), fitness dependent. He needs a bit to work with, but it's not as though the current England pack are any different evidently...

 

[Richard]

I hope you're reffering to fielding because if you're on about his running between wickets, there is no argument. If Pietersen was **** between the wickets would he get dropped? Fact is, if he's good enough on batting ability he should be playing. On fielding, his faults will be no more so than they suffered playing someone who is completely inadequate as a fielder such as Panesar. In fact probably less.

The alarming thing - which the fact he's been replaced by Gareth Batty seems to once again confirm - is that Patel still appears to be being selected as a bowler who bats rather than what he is, which is a batsman who bowls.

In any case, fielding and running between wickets aren't really separate-able. The things which require speed in the field are the same as those which require speed between the wickets. Other aspects of fielding (hands, anticipation, arm, etc.) are separate again to fitness.

Thus if Patel is lacking in the field, he's also lacking in running between wickets.

 

[Richard]

Point is, much as it might send a good message to other young cricketers, what message does it send to Samit himself?

Ship-up or shape out.

Or something along those lines, at least.

 

[Goughy]

Well seeing as fielding in ODI's and Twenty20s is every bit as important as batting and bowling, Patel could easily concede 15-20 runs per innings more often than not.

I dont believe that.

 

[ozone]

In any case, fielding and running between wickets aren't really separate-able. The things which require speed in the field are the same as those which require speed between the wickets. Other aspects of fielding (hands, anticipation, arm, etc.) are separate again to fitness.

So a player being dropped because of poor fitness is being dropped because he's slow? Hate to say it, but some aren't meant to be streamlined fit people.

Thus if Patel is lacking in the field, he's also lacking in running between wickets.

Agree, but the point is, being poor between the wickets isn't a major problem (IMO, at least), whereas being a substandard fielder in terms of speed obviously is considered such by many.

 

[aussie]

Mark Davies WTF, Hahahaha.

The only quality test match bowling option that could have been taken to the WI is Hoggard. But he has been banished by the selectors.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My initial thoughts. Surely good running between the wickets is arguably the most important thing for an ODI middle-order player?

Nah, Shah or Pietersen would never have been capped if so. Both very ordinary runners, Shah especially.

I've hoping Sammy's exclusion is just a bit of a foot up the arse. A few years back a similar trick was played on Flintoff when the coaching staff let it be know he weighed in at around 18.5 stone.

 

[Woodster]

I think it's fair enough excluding Patel if he cannot get himself in a fit enough state, in line with the standards set by the England management. It is of course possible to be visibly carrying a few extra pounds, yet still be one of the fittest players, so it's not just the fact he is a little rotund, but he is not at an acceptable fitness level to play international cricket, a small thing to ask if you really want to play for your country.

 

[Richard]

So a player being dropped because of poor fitness is being dropped because he's slow? Hate to say it, but some aren't meant to be streamlined fit people.

Of course. However, all can do something to get the most out of whatever speed they have. Evidently, it's thought Patel is not doing anywhere near enough to that end.

Agree, but the point is, being poor between the wickets isn't a major problem (IMO, at least), whereas being a substandard fielder in terms of speed obviously is considered such by many.

I know. The point is, once you're one, you're the other - even if the other isn't terribly relevant.

 

[Richard]

Mark Davies WTF, Hahahaha.

The only quality test match bowling option that could have been taken to the WI is Hoggard. But he has been banished by the selectors.

Mark Davies is far, far, far more likely to be a Test-quality option than Amjad Khan is or any number of others who've either been tried or come closer to being tried than Davies has.

Whether Davies would be Test-class is, of course, not something that can be known without trying. Whether some bowler who isn't even good enough for county cricket would be Test-class can be known almost beyond all doubt without trying. And there's any number of below-average county bowlers who've played or been picked in squads or been placed on standby of late.