Pietersen gets the nod

[Craig]

thorpe declared himself fit only a couple of days ago. fact is if he performed the same way he did against SA where he was also struggling with his back, he'd still have made a good enough contribution to englands cause in the series.

And is Thorpe a doctor is he?

Of course he would declare himself fit, he would be silly not to?

 

[aussie]

it seems that the selectors have forgotten about the main point, they seem far too interested about 'looking to the future'. this series is not about the future at all, its about this ashes series, and england need to pick their best team for this series only. thorpe is the man for now, pietersen is the man for the future.

exactly the selectors have surely jumped the gun...

 

[shaka]

It might be counter productive as England are playing the number 1 team in the world. If he does badly it may play a hand in his selection in future tours. To create the best you must face up to the best

 

[The Baconator]

It might be counter productive as England are playing the number 1 team in the world. If he does badly it may play a hand in his selection in future tours. To create the best you must face up to the best

Even if he does fail I'm sure, bar injury, he'll be on the plane to Pakistan this winter for the tests.

 

[kendall]

And is Thorpe a doctor is he?

No but the person who assesed him was

 

[sledger]

And is Thorpe a doctor is he?

Of course he would declare himself fit, he would be silly not to?

brainless comment there craig, no offense.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh. Please. Who WOULDN'T do that if it was their last series against Australia?? If I had a broken leg, I could fake a decent walk to play. Players have ALWAYS pulled stunts like this. Jeff Thomson played his first Test with a broken foot for crying out loud! Anyway, I'm definitely of the opinion (unsubstantiated) that Thorpe's injury is far worse than people (including him) are letting on..

i dont think scoring 73 is equivalent to faking a decent walk. knowing thorpe i'd doubt that he'd put his team in jeopardy by playing in a series when he knows hes not fit enough to do so.

Errr, the gulf in talent isn't quite as huge as that for one.

i think it more or less cancels out with the fact that dravid, sehwag etc have the experience and the skill to cover tendulkar up. england dont.
you cant pick a side from head to toe with unproven test batsmen, ahead of the most important series in the last 20 years. and you most certainly cant have a 5-6-7 consisting of pietersen,flintoff & jones who are extremely likely to change 120-3 to 122-6 by hooking the ball to deep fine leg.

For two, if Tendy had a back problem like Thorpe's which, if he wrenched it, would hurt him and the team, he wouldn't get picked would he? I mean it's not as if it hasn't happened before. How many matches did Tendy play against Australia in the last series? You make it sound like a ridiculous proposition when it has a very recent precendent (tennis elbow)..

except for the fact that tendulkar said he was unfit. thorpe did the opposite.
and lets not forget the fact that tendulkar was picked by the selectors in the squad for the first test against australia, even though he was clearly having problems with his elbow before that series.

Look, I'm not just thinking of the injury and form in of itself. Think of the psychological boost for the Aussies if Thorpe was picked and subsequently injured during the Test. Think about what the Aussies would be saying if Thorpe was carried off the ground retired hurt. If I was them, I'd be thinking, "Why didn't the English pick a totally fit player? Do they have that little confidence in their reserves?"

err you dont get carried off the pitch for having a bad back. AFAIC if during the game your back gets worse, the player can take injections and get through the game. seriously i'd be extremely surprised if thorpe didnt bat in any of his FC innings because of his back. he went through the entire SA tour with a bad back. maybe thorpe might not last all 5 tests, but i think that the england side would be better off even if thorpe thorpe were to play 2 out of 5 tests this series.

No, picking Thorpe unfit sends the wrong message to the Aussies. Especially since it would give the Aussie bowlers something to target; you think they wouldn't give Thorpe EVERY opportunity to test the back out? I know I would! Even if Thorpe wasn't as injured as above, if he gets a bouncer and he feels a twinge, it could prey on his mind or gradually get worse. Now, for England's best batsman, that's a psychological boost which is too risky to hand over to the Aussies.

err the aussies most certainly cant assume that hes unfit, because theres no proof that he is. so you cant be sending the wrong message at all.
and i dont know about you, but anything that would give me a psychological boost would be to see a middle order containing pietersen, flintoff and jones when england are 250/2 and saying if we get one, we can probably get 4.

Anyway the risk with Pieterson is less than you think; he has form against the Aussies and attitude. Like I said, you'd pick a fully fit Thorpe but if not fit, Pieterson isn't the woeful replacement you guys think he is. ODI form DOES mean something; it's exactly how just about all of the current Aussie team either got into the team or regained their spot after being dropped. Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Damien Martyn, Michael Clarke, Adam Gilchrist, Michael Kasprowicz and Glenn McGrath are perfect examples.

i dont think pietersen is a bad replacement at all. infact i would even have had him in my first test XI over someone else. to suggest that pietersen is good enough to replace the best english batsman in the last 20 years though would be downright stupid, because form or not, hes still got a hell of a lot to do, before he can even be considered good in ODIs let alone tests. and the risk isnt with pietersen at all, the risk is the fact that graham thorpe is not playing which leaves the england side with a very very big gap to fill.
and as far as the list of aussies are concerned, if theres one thing the selectors have got right its tht they've had experienced players leaving one by one instead of in a bunch. its one thing replacing hayden in a side with langer, ponting, martyn, gilchrist etc to clear things up. its another thing replacing thorpe in a side with unprovens like bell,flintoff,jones, tresco and strauss.

 

[tooextracool]

And is Thorpe a doctor is he?

Of course he would declare himself fit, he would be silly not to?

and of course the selectors are doctors arent they?
gee i wonder who would know more about thorpes back, thorpe or the selectors.
and im sure thorpe would have undergone tests to check for his fitness, before the selection was made.

 

[marc71178]

i dont think scoring 73 is equivalent to faking a decent walk. knowing thorpe i'd doubt that he'd put his team in jeopardy by playing in a series when he knows hes not fit enough to do so.

I wonder if, come the 3rd Test, there'll be a massive press appeal for Thorpe to be recalled?

I hope not (since that'll mean the side's played rubbish), but wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Top_Cat]

i dont think scoring 73 is equivalent to faking a decent walk. knowing thorpe i'd doubt that he'd put his team in jeopardy by playing in a series when he knows hes not fit enough to do so.

Another example - Damien Martyn, WC final 2003 with a broken finger. He still played very well but fully fit, he likely would have gotten a hundred and not 88* that day. This Ashes series is arguably almost as big an event and with it being Thorpe's last Test series, again, you can't assume he would only play if totally fit.

AFAIC if during the game your back gets worse, the player can take injections and get through the game.

That's pretty irresponsible as far as the health of the players are concerned. "Yeah we know you're hurt but if it gets worse, we'll just inject you with something and you'll get through the Test." What if he injures it further by playing on it when he shouldn't and then can't play for NSW? The ECB risk legal action, there..........

It's academic, anyway; they know all this and would never take such a risky route. Plus, pain-killing injections really work best on fresh injuries; chronic injuries like Thorpe's, there ain't much that can be done other than to take the edge off the pain.

maybe thorpe might not last all 5 tests, but i think that the england side would be better off even if thorpe thorpe were to play 2 out of 5 tests this series.

You don't pick a player who 'might' be 'okay' for a couple of Tests; you pick players who can damn near guarantee that they will be fit for the entire series. What if, having picked Thorpe, he lasts two Tests and carries the English batting, then succumbs to his injury. Again, you hand the Aussies a psychological boost for the 3rd Test. Picking a player and then hoping their fitness will last for a few Tests or the series is irresponsible and you grossly underestimate the batting talent replacing Thorpe in the side.

They may be unproven but they are also unscarred; those sorts of players have always gotten up the noses of the Aussies and they may well succeed very well.

its one thing replacing hayden in a side with langer, ponting, martyn, gilchrist etc to clear things up. its another thing replacing thorpe in a side with unprovens like bell,flintoff,jones, tresco and strauss.

The ECB's actions thusfar suggest they didn't really have a choice. Can we agree on the fact that a fully-fit Graham Thorpe is a walk-up start into the Test side fromt he selector's perspective? So then, why not pick him?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The ECB's actions thusfar suggest they didn't really have a choice. Can we agree on the fact that a fully-fit Graham Thorpe is a walk-up start into the Test side fromt he selector's perspective? So then, why not pick him?

I wouldn't say that actually. The actions and words of the selectors suggest to me that they wanted Pietersen in the team rather than Thorpe, which is quite a poor move in my mind. It's telling that in the match immediately following the announcement Thorpe was fit to play and made runs, while Pietersen was not.

 

[Top_Cat]

I wouldn't say that actually. The actions and words of the selectors suggest to me that they wanted Pietersen in the team rather than Thorpe, which is quite a poor move in my mind. It's telling that in the match immediately following the announcement Thorpe was fit to play and made runs, while Pietersen was not.

The selectors took a major risk picking Thorpe when he came back after his marital problems. Why, after bringing him back in his mid-30's, would they drop him now?

And I think your last sentence is co-incidence.

 

[greg]

The selectors took a major risk picking Thorpe when he came back after his marital problems. Why, after bringing him back in his mid-30's, would they drop him now?

Media pressure

 

[greg]

Elaborating...

Virtually every media pundit in the country has been saying since the match at Bristol that "you must pick Pietersen" with, it seems, little thought about what it would potentially do for the balance of the team (we now have someone who would be a perfect test no6. coming in at no5). There was a brief wobble after the two Lords matches but equilibrium was restored after the Oval. ( a problem considering the conditions at Lords are far more likely to be what we can expect in a test match at Lords, unsurprisingly). Having quite rightly set their stall out with Bell, and equally properly ignored Shane Warne's musings about how England should go in with a four man attack ("because it's good enough for Australia" - ignoring the fact that Australia would have to seriously reconsider that strategy if they didn't have two all time greats as part of that attack), that only left one option for them.

Unfortunate in the extreme that we now have NO left handers between 2 and 10 to disrupt Warne's line and length, but I suppose a small plus in the improvement in fielding we shall see.

 

[greg]

Incidentally, it won't happen now, but i wouldn't be surprised, assuming this is the England middle order for the forseeable future, if it wouldn't be better for Pietersen to come in at 4 with Bell at five (or Bell and Vaughan at 3 and 5).

 

[marc71178]

The selectors took a major risk picking Thorpe when he came back after his marital problems. Why, after bringing him back in his mid-30's, would they drop him now?

They did make him wait though, which IMO was correct.

 

[marc71178]

Incidentally, it won't happen now, but i wouldn't be surprised, assuming this is the England middle order for the forseeable future, if it wouldn't be better for Pietersen to come in at 4 with Bell at five (or Bell and Vaughan at 3 and 5).

Pietersen never seems to bat at 4 in County Cricket though, whereas Bell is always at 3.

 

[greg]

Well county cricket's a different game, the positions don't tend to correlate that well. (I remember a couple of years ago England had a line-up consisting of literally 6 specialist openers! (+Ramprakash who did it in 2000) ) I just want to break Pietersen and Flintoff up - it makes no real sense to have them at the wicket together. Aside from the danger of them trying to outhit each other, you only need one of them at the wicket to score quickly in a position of strength and they are wasted if they are both simultaneously having to bat cautiously due to England being in trouble.

 

[wpdavid]

I wonder if, come the 3rd Test, there'll be a massive press appeal for Thorpe to be recalled?

I hope not (since that'll mean the side's played rubbish), but wouldn't be surprised.

Doubt it even so. If we're doing badly, the tabloids will have lost interest anyway. Maybe one or two guys like Atherton, who were against him being dropped in the first place. But it would be hard for Fraser to demand Thorpe's recall since he was arguing against him being picked anyway. Any idea what some of the broadsheet writers were saying a week ago about who shul;d be picked?

I can see Thorpe coming back if Bell or KP is injured and if the series is still alive, but not otherwise.

 

[wpdavid]

Well county cricket's a different game, the positions don't tend to correlate that well. (I remember a couple of years ago England had a line-up consisting of literally 6 specialist openers!

Yes, but that was never a good idea, if you're talking about 2001. IIRC it did us no favours at all.