The England development squad

[Richard]

well none of them seem suitable so far. i would like to see Prior have a go. Im not looking for a Gilchrist or a sangakkara, because that is unrealistic. Just some consistancy, like Stewart provided

If Prior ever becomes a quarter of the player Stewart was I'll eat my computer. No, Jones doesn't seem suitable so far - but believe me, if you think he's brainless wait until you see Prior in Tests, because he'll be even worse, mark my words.

 

[Richard]

err trent bridge was not 'proper english' conditions, it was a flat pitch that turned into a turner as the game progressed. how in the world someone as poor as him managed to perform consistently every season is beyond me, perhaps he managed to bowl well on every seamer friendly wicket that he encountered in england.

There was swing for most of the match, and while Saggers managed to swing the ball he bowled poor lines. What surprises me most is how someone as good as he's been in domestic-First-Class-cricket managed to bowl as poorly as he did in his 2 Tests.

 

[Richard]

to say that kirtley was anything greater than rubbish would be overestimating him IMO. had one good inning on an uneven bounce wicket, which was the only thing he could ever do. got caned in SL and got caned in virtually every ODI he played.

Got caned in ODIs because he's a rubbish one-day bowler who should never, ever have been picked once for ODIs, let alone 3 times.
Kirtley may not have bowled well at Headingley where he should have done, and of course he was never going to be effective in SL (as you'd notice if you were able to watch him bowl on flat pitches in domestic cricket), but he most certainly was not rubbish, merely substandard.

 

[Richard]

no i dont think johnson has a dodgy action it was just a typo, doesnt take away from the fact that i dont rate him though.

Why not? There are few bowlers who've managed his consistency, even while he's been horrible since 2004.

 

[Richard]

if u are refering to this one proper test that Johnson played to the GALLE test, well after he ran through poor Zimbawe & BAN in his previous 3 test he didn't look all that hot in that test, i agree with your stand on its a bit rough to rate a player after just one test but come on mate do really think he would or could have been a bowler of test class?

I certainly do, I think he was exceptionally unfortunate to only play a single Test, aged nearly 30, on a pitch offering about as little to seamers as it's possible to offer.

 

[Richard]

u sure thats why Kirtley bowls the way he does, because i have never heard that before, frankly he think he chucks umm

Everyone knows that's why Kirtley looks like he chucks, if you've never heard that before you've had your ears shut, because that's the explanation everyone who knows what they're talking about has provided.

 

[Richard]

Like many before him, he can get batsmen out in County Cricket.

There's a whole different knack to getting them out in Tests.

No, it's not, you still have to do the same things.
And you don't know he wouldn't have been able to get batsmen out in Test-cricket given that he only had 1 opportunity and it's wholly ludicrous to rate a player on a single Test.

 

[Richard]

Or was it the fact he was up against batsmen with more ability so his potency was reduced to next to nothing?

No, it was the fact that he didn't bowl anywhere near as well as normal.
Not like NZ's batting-line-up is anything to shout about.

 

[Richard]

i saw swann bowl in his only ODI back in 99/00. looked like a fairly decent bowler who turned the ball quite a bit. got one to turn sharply from off stump to way outside leg. only bowled 5 overs though and got dropped after that.

The ball you're referring to, of course, went for 4 byes, turning so much even Read couldn't stop it.
Extremely odd, too - the only such ball to do so in the entire game - but it's always puzzled me how little success Swann has had, given that he's not a conventional fingerspinner and uses his wrist in a way that bears very, very slight similarity to Murali, though obviously without the benefit of a double-joint.
He's always been said to have a poor temperament, of course, and he's presumably just bowled poorly too often.

 

[aussie]

I certainly do, I think he was exceptionally unfortunate to only play a single Test, aged nearly 30, on a pitch offering about as little to seamers as it's possible to offer.

well he hasn't done much on the county circuit for somerset in the last season or so, that may make the ENG selectors look in his direction so that he could make you proud since u feel he could be a bowler of test class

 

[aussie]

Everyone knows that's why Kirtley looks like he chucks, if you've never heard that before you've had your ears shut, because that's the explanation everyone who knows what they're talking about has provided.

well now i know thanks for that little education on Kirtley cause honestly i didn't know that

 

[Richard]

well he hasn't done much on the county circuit for somerset in the last season or so, that may make the ENG selectors look in his direction so that he could make you proud since u feel he could be a bowler of test class

He'll not be a bowler of Test-class bowling the way he's bowled the last 2 seasons - maybe he's not as good as he used to be. Shame, really - because like I said if he'd been given a chance 7 or 8 years ago I reckon he'd, with good fitness-management, have been a very good bowler.

 

[aussie]

He'll not be a bowler of Test-class bowling the way he's bowled the last 2 seasons - maybe he's not as good as he used to be. Shame, really - because like I said if he'd been given a chance 7 or 8 years ago I reckon he'd, with good fitness-management, have been a very good bowler.

fair enough. i'll take you on that

 

[tooextracool]

If you go on Sussex's website they have highlights of the CC match vs notts. Swann looks to be bowling pretty well, and Read's keeping was looking pretty sublime

thx, that comes in handy for someone who hasnt been able to watch much domestic cricket.
on a side note- murray goodwin is all class, its a pity he didnt get to play as much as he should have. would probably have ended up being a very very good player.

 

[Richard]

Might well have been good enough to play for Australia had he been born a few years earlier.

 

[badgerhair]

He'll not be a bowler of Test-class bowling the way he's bowled the last 2 seasons - maybe he's not as good as he used to be. Shame, really - because like I said if he'd been given a chance 7 or 8 years ago I reckon he'd, with good fitness-management, have been a very good bowler.

He remains the last bowler to take all ten in f-c cricket in England. (Middx v Derbys, Derby, 1994) And he was a very good bowler back then. He was picked for the 1995-6 tour of South Africa but had to pull out because of a back injury. He has never been quite the same bowler since, and has always been on careful fitness management programmes, and the fact hat he got as far as he did is a tribute to his commitment. But unfortunately he didn't have the body to cope with the demands of being an international bowler.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

He remains the last bowler to take all ten in f-c cricket in England. (Middx v Derbys, Derby, 1994) And he was a very good bowler back then. He was picked for the 1995-6 tour of South Africa but had to pull out because of a back injury. He has never been quite the same bowler since

Maybe not, but still good enough to average under 30 in all of 1997, 98, 99 and 2000, and even better in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
Started 2004 well, too, but has been very poor since midway through it.

 

[badgerhair]

He has never been quite the same bowler since

Maybe not, but still good enough to average under 30 in all of 1997, 98, 99 and 2000, and even better in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
Started 2004 well, too, but has been very poor since midway through it.

I'm not entirely certain what the point, if any, at issue is any more; both of us are of the opinion that Johnson at least was a Test-class bowler for most of the last dozen years - when fit. The back problems lost him a yard or two of pace, which is not uncommon with bowlers who get back problems, which had the further effect of reducing his ability to surprise batsmen.

That led to his having to do more work to get the same number of wickets, which put more strain on his body, strain which his body was not able to cope with on a sustained basis despite careful fitness management.

Which basically meant that every time the selectors were thinking about picking a new quickie, he wasn't actually available since he was either injured or so recently returned that it would be too much of a risk.

You appear to have implied that if the selectors had given him a better deal, he would have been a sustained success at Test level, which is ultimately a criticism of the selectors. What I fail to see is why they should be criticised for failing to take a punt on someone with such a terrible fitness record.

It's a pity he didn't fulfil his promise, but it isn't the fault of a short-sighted England management as has been the case with various others who didn't eventually make it. It's nobody's fault, just a shame.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

My criticism wasn't of the selectors, it was of the fitness management team - if one even existed in 1995. Most fitness problems these days are solvable in some way or other. That Johnson's inability to stay fit has persisted, to such a massive extent, can have blame laid at some door or other.
I can think of no point at which Johnson should have been selected and wasn't - particularly. I maintain, however, that if, at any point, Gareth Batty, Anderson, Harmison, Jones, Dawson, Schofield, Tudor, Silverwood, Simon Brown or Mullally were picked when he was fit and available then the selection was poor.

 

[sledger]

i didnt think tudor was all that bad to be honest.