***Official*** West Indies in England

[FBU]

We are naming the squad next weekend. 18 days before the 1st Test instead of the usual 4 days.

'Miller said that the timing of selection has been forced because players involved in the Indian Premier League want to know how long they can stay in South Africa for the tournament. If, as is likely, Ravi Bopara and Owais Shah are omitted by England, they will be able to earn roughly $75,000 (about £50,000) and $45,000 respectively from their franchises by staying on for one more week'.

The way I see it Pietersen, Collingwood and Flintoff are in the team and come back from the IPL at the end of April. The other two can stay as long as they want. They are sending one selector out (Whitaker) to the IPL.

Neither Bopara and Shah are likely to play in the 1st Test so I can't see the point. It cuts short the time the selectors have to look at the other people and they have decided to have a larger squad.

You would think they want the new coach in before next week then so he can have a say on who he wants in the squad.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Squads are named for press coverage more so than anything else. That is, if they want to change it at a later date, they're entitled to. It's not a huge deal when they name the squad except that it indicates to the players who are left out that they've got a lot of work to do. Which is a good thing surely.

 

[FBU]

Squads are named for press coverage more so than anything else. That is, if they want to change it at a later date, they're entitled to. It's not a huge deal when they name the squad except that it indicates to the players who are left out that they've got a lot of work to do. Which is a good thing surely.

Well this match at Lords will be the only chance for the selectors to see how Vaughan does. All the bowlers won't have played at all when the squad is announced. So Harmison is dropped from the last Test in the West Indies. Where does he stand? They are picking a larger squad of 14/15 because they won't have seen the players play. Will they be any wiser of who is in form and who isn't. At least if they picked the squad the usual 4 days before most of the players would have played two f/c games.

I suppose the 15 would be
Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Prior, Sidebottom, Harmison, Broad, Anderson, Panesar, Swann, Harmison.

Sidebottom has hardly bowled in 6 months. Harmison is unfit and has also had very little bowling according to what he needs to be in top form.The new coach probably won't be in place so he can have his say in who he wants. You would expect the same players to be playing against the West Indies and the Australians.

Very rarely do they change their selection once it is announced unless there is an injury.

 

[wpdavid]

Dav's an Oldham fan, tbf, so has form in that area.

MPV back in at 3? Unless he makes an absolute Horlicks of the Loins game I reckon it's a goer. If Shah's the answer we're obviously asking the wrong question.

My guess:

Strauss*
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior+
Broad
Swann (assuming recovery)
Harmison
Anderson

Unless he's at full gallop Sid is a passenger, Amjad had his radar fitted by the same engineer as Saj so think Harmy is the default pick.

Makes sense, especially as the Lions game is looking increasingly like a wash out. The only possible alternative at number 3 is if Key makes a shedload of runs. Vaughan's record over the last 5 years isn't the best by any stretch, but I'd fancy his chances ahead of Shah now that he's had a breather & got his head in order compared to the end of last season.

As for the final fast bowler's place, I find the situation too depressing to add anything to what you said.

 

[Evermind]

Dav's an Oldham fan, tbf, so has form in that area.

MPV back in at 3? Unless he makes an absolute Horlicks of the Loins game I reckon it's a goer. If Shah's the answer we're obviously asking the wrong question.

My guess:

Strauss*
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior+
Broad
Swann (assuming recovery)
Harmison
Anderson

Unless he's at full gallop Sid is a passenger, Amjad had his radar fitted by the same engineer as Saj so think Harmy is the default pick.

Every time see Flintoff at #6, I get a shock. I should be used to it by now, but it never fails to get me. Why doesn't Prior bat higher, given that he's a far better batsman?

 

[Richard]

Because people believe and have believed all career that Flintoff is a better batsman than he is.

 

[The Masterplan]

West Indies Squad :
Gayle (c)
Ramdin (vc)(wk)
Smith
Simmons
Sarwan
Chanderpaul
Nash
Deonarine
Taylor
Edwards
Baker
Richardson
Pascal
Bernard jnr
Richards
Sammy
Benn

Why have they put Devon Smith in the squad again, I like the guy he's a solid little player but to be honest he never makes more than about 20 odd. Is there really that much lack in depth?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ravi Rampaul took another 5 wickets today at least report. Proving further how unfair it was to pick Pascal ahead of him.

 

[Beamer]

Why have they put Devon Smith in the squad again, I like the guy he's a solid little player but to be honest he never makes more than about 20 odd. Is there really that much lack in depth?

Well the fact that they overlooked a guy averaging 50 in FC cricket with 5 hundreds in 20 games suggests that there are options. The chief selector said he thought Smith was 'on the verge of a big innings'. Awful logic IMHO, but there we go.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Why have they put Devon Smith in the squad again, I like the guy he's a solid little player but to be honest he never makes more than about 20 odd. Is there really that much lack in depth?

If you followed the conversation above you'd see that there are indeed other options.

I suspect Devon Smith is getting a proper run in the side, which he really has not had before. That said, Dale Richards has an excellent opportunity to push into the side.

Potential team in 2-3 years:

CH Gayle (c)
A Barath
RR Sarwan
DM Bravo
S Chanderpaul
DJ Bravo
D Ramdin (wk)
JE Taylor
NO Miller
R Rampaul
FH Edwards

Loads of other players who are clearly talented enough to force in there though.

 

[The Masterplan]

Loads of other players who are clearly talented enough to force in there though.

I'd love to see Wavell Hinds open the batting again but unfortunately that's pretty much impossible.

 

[roseboy64]

Not really. Stranger things have happened re:selecttion before.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Every time see Flintoff at #6, I get a shock. I should be used to it by now, but it never fails to get me. Why doesn't Prior bat higher, given that he's a far better batsman?

Because people believe and have believed all career that Flintoff is a better batsman than he is.

Disagree with Dicko (quelle surprise, etc, etc...). Think it's weak management on our part. Flintoff seems to think he's a batsman who bowls dispite all evidence to the contrary but is such a vital cog in the machine our coaches/selectors seem to feel the need to pander to his ego.

I doubt many selectors, writers, fans or pub bores really think Fred's better than Prior with the willow.

 

[Richard]

There's absolutely no reason it can't be both, you know. People do and have always rated Flintoff a better batsman than he is. All career. That isn't just my opinion - it's happened and continues to happen.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There's absolutely no reason it can't be both, you know. People do and have always rated Flintoff a better batsman than he is. All career. That isn't just my opinion - it's happened and continues to happen.

Who then? Not trying to be funny, I just don't know of anyone on CW, in the media or in real life who talks up much less overrates his batting.

 

[Richard]

Most people on CW - and I say, most - have now accepted the relative moderateness of his batting. As I've said many times, CW typically enjoys a higher calibre of cricket discussion than elsewhere. I don't read every newspaper article from everyone so I can't really offer a real cross-section of attitudes from Pringle, Barnes et al but I've seen more than one article (and statement) right up to the very most recent set of games suggesting Flintoff is "out of form" and "struggling to get his batting back after his injury" when in reality he's just performing, of late, exactly as he's performed for the majority of his career.

And there's still the odd poster on CW who maintains that Flintoff "hasn't done justice to his batting ability" (or along those lines), rather than "has performed roughly to his ability with one or two glorious exceptions where he's risen way above his normal level".

As I say, I (and a good deal of other CW posters) reckon Flintoff is a good lower-order batsman who isn't typically going to offer more than occasional weighty contributions against good-quality Test bowling, because he just doesn't have the game for it. But some still believe he can bat, regularly, like a top-order batsman. I'd say we've had 8 years of evidence now that he can't.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Most people on CW - and I say, most - have now accepted the relative moderateness of his batting. As I've said many times, CW typically enjoys a higher calibre of cricket discussion than elsewhere. I don't read every newspaper article from everyone so I can't really offer a real cross-section of attitudes from Pringle, Barnes et al but I've seen more than one article (and statement) right up to the very most recent set of games suggesting Flintoff is "out of form" and "struggling to get his batting back after his injury" when in reality he's just performing, of late, exactly as he's performed for the majority of his career.

And there's still the odd poster on CW who maintains that Flintoff "hasn't done justice to his batting ability" (or along those lines), rather than "has performed roughly to his ability with one or two glorious exceptions where he's risen way above his normal level".

As I say, I (and a good deal of other CW posters) reckon Flintoff is a good lower-order batsman who isn't typically going to offer more than occasional weighty contributions against good-quality Test bowling, because he just doesn't have the game for it. But some still believe he can bat, regularly, like a top-order batsman. I'd say we've had 8 years of evidence now that he can't.

Hmmm.

Unconvincing at best.

Just because someone says he's out of form with the bat (and he is) it doesn't follow that they're suggesting he's top six material.

 

[Richard]

The point is not absolutely neccessarily that anyone is suggesting he's top-six, merely that by saying Flintoff is out-of-form currently they're exhibiting head-in-ground syndrome. Because he simply isn't. He's batting at the moment (and was last summer as well), as I say, exactly as he has for the majority of his career - ie, struggling to make all that many runs against good-ish Test attacks.

As long as the above continues to happen, I am justified in saying "people believe and have believed all career that Flintoff is a better batsman than he is". Of course, CW posters need to be careful about reading more into me saying that than there is there.

Incidentally, I doubt there's very many people at all who believe Flintoff is currently a good bet to score more Test runs than Matthew Prior. But many people believe he will come good to a better extent than he is ever likely to, and Prior or no Prior, this is the reason he has batted at six ever since Alec Stewart departed.

 

[GIMH]

I actually think he is out of form though, can hardly remember him getting into double figures lately, and he ain't tailender bad

 

[Pothas]

Well yeah he would have to be a pretty awful batsman to not be out of form. I do actually think that the vast majority of England cricket fans and commentators realise that he should not be batting at 7. But I think Richard is right in some regards in saying this was not the case a few years ago as I would freely admit to supporting the idea of Flintoff at 6 when Geriant Jones was in the side and I think I and everyone else was perfectly right in doing so.