What ever happened to?

[Richard]

Not even Brett "51.5-7-276-4" Lee?!

No, not at all.8D
You have to look back at the previous 28 months to see how rubbish he really is.

 

[Richard]

Taking Stephen Harmison, Anthony McGrath and Richard Dawson as prime examples...obviously!

The stupid thing is, none of these have ever had a really good year! Dawson and McGrath were selected for reasons that can surely never be explained (in both cases there were about 10 better options) and we all know why Harmison was selected - because of the "the faster the better" mentality doing the rounds at selection tables reached DG, Geoff Millar and co. Other benefactors have been Brad Williams, Lee, Sami and Bond. All had their moments in Test-cricket, but when the going's been anything like big-boy standard, they've all been ruthlessly exposed.
Bond less than most. Mind, he is a fantastic one-day bowler. Silly thing is, all of them bar Harmison have got one-day averages that are stupidly deflated.

 

[Richard]

Not so much any more - they need more than that to get in nowadays, thankfully.

They've always needed more than that to get in and stay in.
One good season should never earn you selection.
You have to do it consistently for at least 2 years, ideally more.

 

[Richard]

Smith didn't really have enough to dismiss quality batsmen in decent conditions (or rather Matt Elliott on his way to 199)

It was a superb ball.
Who knows how much Thorpe truly owes Smith.
You really can't put a price on that.

 

[Richard]

I agree that some players are one test wonders. It seems that if you have 1 semi decent season the media hype you up and more often than not the selectors will cave into the medias demands.

As for Smith im just astonded he hasnt played one day cricket for england for years. He is consistently bowling teams out or at the very least not going for runs.
If i remember correctly he was the most (or one of the most) economical bowlers in last years Twenty 20 cup! 8D.

Twenty20 doesn't mean a thing - it's the National League and C&G (and in previous years the B&H) that you want to think about.
It is seriously worrying that people are talking about Twenty20 in terms of England selection. It is not designed to make players better cricketers, it is designed to try and make a bit of badly needed money.
But Smith's record in proper one-day cricket is seriously impressive. Terrible selection that some of the rubbish that has been selected ahead of him has been.
Selection on one decent season is fortunately happening a bit less ATM than it did a few years ago. But the media have, naturally, had everything to do with that - the "you can't trust county cricket" bandwagon has had some influence.
Remember, Space, the journalists make most of the selections. Graveney and co. just sift through the most held opinions. That's why I don't heap opprobrium on them all the time for such terrible selections in the ODIs.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Who knows how much Thorpe truly owes Smith.

Or rather England, no?

 

[Richard]

Stuart Law being an example , while others who frankly dont deserve do get near test cricket (Anthony McGrath , Mr Peterson , Blessing Mahwire , Khaled Muhmud) play a number of tests due to geography / colour.

McGrath didn't get seleted because he plays for us...:!( come on, that's an old argument that has had no substance for many years. He got selected because bizarre decisions are made occsionally (see Foster, Maddy, Adams for other examples).
But it's a real shame that Law played one Test innings, got 54* and never got another chance.
There are plenty worse players than him who did. And I mean for Australia. Katich being the latest example. He's good, but he's not as good as Stuey Law.
And another thing: an example of what? One-Test wonders? Usually they don't deserve their selection. Usually. Mike Smith, clearly, is an exception.

 

[marc71178]

Taking Stephen Harmison, Anthony McGrath and Richard Dawson as prime examples...obviously!

They weren't talked in by the media (and you accuse me of bringing up the same names all the time :P)

 

[marc71178]

They've always needed more than that to get in and stay in.
One good season should never earn you selection.
You have to do it consistently for at least 2 years, ideally more.

Doesn't this directly contradict you pushing for a certain Kent wicketkeeper?

 

[Salamuddin]

Nirendra Hirwani, what happened to him ???

 

[Neil Pickup]

Anyway Wasti, didn't he get a 100 on debut? Isn't it strange how in 10 innings someone can get two tons and then a combined 75 in the other 8. Still a FC average of 35 suggests he probably wasn't one who got away. He does average a 100 every 5 innings though - almost Bradman-esque! :P

Wasti's Test Career:
Kolkata: 6 & 9 v India
Lahore: 133 & 121* v Sri Lanka
Dhaka: 22 v Sri Lanka
Perth: 5 & 7 v Australia
Rawalpindi: 17 & 1 v Sri Lanka
Georgetown: 8 v West Indies

Then we look at the bowling attack that Wasti made his tons against

Chandika Hathurusingha: 17 wickets @ 46.41
Ruwan Kalpage: 12 @ 64.50
Niroshan Bandaratilleke: 23 @ 30.34
Pramodya Wickramasinghe: 85 @ 41.87
Sajeewa de Silva: 16 @ 55.56

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nirendra Hirwani, what happened to him ???

After taking 16 wickets on debut, Narendra Hirwani took only 50 in his next 16 matches for India.

Those 50 wickets cost 37.02 apiece and included 2x5w. In his 3rd to last Test he took 6/59 (Greatbatch, Twose, Parore, Crowe, Cairns, Germon) which were the first 6 wickets to fall in the innings.

In his final Test he bowled 25-3-91-0 against South Africa.

All 4 of his 5w hauls came in India and he took just 21 wickets in 9 games abroad. Those wickets cost 59 apiece with a SR of 121 and a BB of 4/174. He took only 1 wicket in 8 of his 15 bowling performances abroad.

 

[mavric41]

Whatever happened to Marlon Samuels? He looked a good young player when the WIndies toured here last.

 

[Craig]

He's injured.

 

[iamdavid]

McGrath didn't get seleted because he plays for us...:!( come on, that's an old argument that has had no substance for many years. He got selected because bizarre decisions are made occsionally (see Foster, Maddy, Adams for other examples).
But it's a real shame that Law played one Test innings, got 54* and never got another chance.
There are plenty worse players than him who did. And I mean for Australia. Katich being the latest example. He's good, but he's not as good as Stuey Law.
And another thing: an example of what? One-Test wonders? Usually they don't deserve their selection. Usually. Mike Smith, clearly, is an exception.

Reading the post I quoted you will realise that you had been going on about how you cant judge on one test & some players are unlucky not to have played many more.

I then brought up Stuart Law as the perfect example & what I meant was that a man of his ability should have played many more test matches , while a players such as McGrath , Muhmud , Mahwire etc , get the chance to play more matches than a player of his class due to colour (Mahwire) & geography (McGrath & Muhmud) , I have no doubt McGrath wasnt picked simply as he played for Yorkshire , that argument went out with Ray Illingworth , simply that if he had been born in any other (cough*Australia*cough) country he would not have got anywhere near test cricket.

Probably should've made myself a little clearer & will do so in future.

BTW whats you're problem with Darren Maddy

 

[Craig]

Still whatever happened to Anthony Stuart?

 

[roofromoz]

Whatever happened to Shane George?

He was apparently the next big thing in our bowling ranks back in the mid-90's. Played a few A games, and then seemed to disappear...

 

[Richard]

Reading the post I quoted you will realise that you had been going on about how you cant judge on one test & some players are unlucky not to have played many more.

I then brought up Stuart Law as the perfect example & what I meant was that a man of his ability should have played many more test matches , while a players such as McGrath , Muhmud , Mahwire etc , get the chance to play more matches than a player of his class due to colour (Mahwire) & geography (McGrath & Muhmud) , I have no doubt McGrath wasnt picked simply as he played for Yorkshire , that argument went out with Ray Illingworth , simply that if he had been born in any other (cough*Australia*cough) country he would not have got anywhere near test cricket.

Probably should've made myself a little clearer & will do so in future.

BTW whats you're problem with Darren Maddy

McGrath would be a Test regular for Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.:!(
My problem with Darren Maddy is nothing - my problem is that he was picked when he shouldn't have been - during and after a poor season. His overall record isn't brilliant either. AND he was picked in the middle-order when he's always been an opener.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't this directly contradict you pushing for a certain Kent wicketkeeper?

If Alec Stewart were still playing and people were pushing for it I would be strongly refuting any case for change.
As I was last summer, when people were insanely calling for Read during the SA series.
However, there is little alternative to Jones now - there are no other wicketkeepers who appear as able with the bat as him. I don't rate Matthew Prior at all - a big slogger who benefits from the small size of the Hove ground.
If it were possible to wait for Jones I would. But there is no viable alternative.

 

[Richard]

Or rather England, no?

No, that only cost 1 Test.
It possibly cost Smith a Test career of who knows how many years. Possibly, that's all.