Why wasnt Ed Smith not called up?

[marc71178]

err...no he doesnt, everytime he gets to 50-60 he loses his concentration and plays a stupid shot much like he did yesterday.

I think his concentration lapse is more to do with a long rain break than anything else.

 

[tooextracool]

I think his concentration lapse is more to do with a long rain break than anything else.

analysing butchers performances over the last 2 years

against sri lanka - 51, 54,4,6, 23, 37

against SA - 13,-,19,70,106,8,77,61,32,20no,

against australia- 54,40,22,4,9,0,25,6,124,34,

against india - 29,18,53,16,42,54,-

taking all scores above 30 as times when he has got set and accustomed to the conditions and anything under 100 as a lapse of concentration u have:

15 failures,13 starts and 2 hundreds

now for a player oozing class that is a poor statistic, so many starts and only 2 centuries in 2 years and there were no rain breaks on any of those occasions. id like to see him convert those 50,60,70 starts into 100s and those 30, 40s into 80s and 90s

 

[Rik]

Interesting that you named 3 Warwickshire players and as A Warwickshire fan they hadn't occurred to me based on recent form.

Troughton's form should have made you notice, being picked in the wrong form of the game and not performing doesn't mean he's not up to International Cricket. Anyway, he's only just 25 and has scored 2007 runs from 29 FC games at an average of 45 and he scored 748 at 41.55 from 12 games last season. He's a very exciting talent and hasn't had a bad season yet. Bell has allways impressed me whenever I've seen him, I can't understand why he's not performing, he's looked the buisness and he's been doing well in OD cricket of late, so why not give him a chance in ODIs? Wagh went to the academy, impressed with his batting and also his part-time off-spin and he's got a FC 300 to his name. Not a bad player at all. I also missed out Fulton and Ian Ward, Fulton because of his eye problems and Ward because he needs to get that flaw sorted out still, although he's been scoring shedloads of run of late.

 

[marc71178]

Troughton's form should have made you notice, being picked in the wrong form of the game and not performing doesn't mean he's not up to International Cricket.

I guess his break midseason to play for England meant that I didn't really notice his form as it wasn't one long run.

Bell has allways impressed me whenever I've seen him, I can't understand why he's not performing, he's looked the buisness and he's been doing well in OD cricket of late, so why not give him a chance in ODIs?

He's a strange character - appears talented, but really needs to show it in 2004 or he maybe in danger of missing the boat.

Wagh went to the academy, impressed with his batting and also his part-time off-spin and he's got a FC 300 to his name. Not a bad player at all.

Of the 3, he's the one I'd pick first - I wonder if it's the fact there is less said about him means he's under less pressure to perform?

I also missed out Fulton and Ian Ward, Fulton because of his eye problems and Ward because he needs to get that flaw sorted out still, although he's been scoring shedloads of run of late.

I can't see either of them coming close to the side again, and not without reason IMO.

 

[Rik]

I guess his break midseason to play for England meant that I didn't really notice his form as it wasn't one long run.

He's a strange character - appears talented, but really needs to show it in 2004 or he maybe in danger of missing the boat.

Of the 3, he's the one I'd pick first - I wonder if it's the fact there is less said about him means he's under less pressure to perform?

I'd go for Troughton, he's really talented and has the record to prove it. Wagh performed well for the Academy and has been forgotten since, which is odd to say the least, since Read got into the side purely on performing for the Academy, it's even more odd. I only suggested Bell for the ODI side, he's got a lot more to do before he can be considered for Tests.

I can't see either of them coming close to the side again, and not without reason IMO.

I didn't mention them for those reasons, Ward's flaw and Fulton's eye.

 

[Craig]

Is Mark Wagh ever good enough for England?

Also has his action improved since when he got banned from bowling a few years back?

 

[marc71178]

Well he was allowed to bowl extensively last season - took a 7fer once I think (somewhat bizarrely)

However, with Hogg there this year, he won't be used as much I don't think.

 

[Craig]

So just part-time?

 

[Richard]

Yeah, hopefully, he's just a fingerspinner, and seemingly not the most accurate one either.
But his batting is seriously impressive and I find it baffling that he's never been mentioned as a possiblity for the Test side when Collingwod and Strauss have been picked, Collingwood despite an ordinary 2003.

 

[Craig]

So Wagh's batting is good enough for England?

 

[Richard]

Quite possibly, yes, I reckon.
Won't know unless he gets picked in the event that a spot becomes available, though.

 

[marc71178]

Collingwood despite an ordinary 2003.

But a superb 2001 and 2002 then an injury just when he was a certain to be picked.

Yes he returned from injury and didn't do a lot, but fortunately the selectors have longer memories than 4 games.

 

[Richard]

It is a very good job he started his Test career with something actually challenging, rather than a free-boost-your-average series like Zimbabwe.
Memories need to extend beyond 4 games, yes, but they also need to extend a year. I never think picking someone who is out of form is much of a good idea. And 27 is, I'd say, for a good county player like Collingwood, out of form, just coming off a long cricketless period or not.
If Collingwood has a good 2004 (hoping he doesn't play in the Caribbean, as that will mean disturbance in the middle-order, either through injury or poor form) he will fully merit his selection for the winter tours of 2004\05 or any games in the summer.

 

[marc71178]

Memories need to extend beyond 4 games, yes, but they also need to extend a year.

2 years of success followed by 4 games of poor scores suggests that the memories have to be of when he was good.

I never think picking someone who is out of form is much of a good idea.

So you'd have dropped Tendulkar after the 3rd Test then?

And 27 is, I'd say, for a good county player like Collingwood, out of form, just coming off a long cricketless period or not.

It all depends on how he plays - low scores does not always mean poor form.

 

[Richard]

2 years of success followed by 4 games of poor scores suggests that the memories have to be of when he was good.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

So you'd have dropped Tendulkar after the 3rd Test then?

I think you've misuderstood that deliberately, as you do when saying "if we picked the Test team on county averages Knight and Hick would be playing every game". You know perfectly well that I mean "select on international averages then domestic averages" there.
And I think you know perfectly well that I mean you should not select someone for the step-up in a level if they're not showing recent form. Not that you should immidiately drop someone averaging 55-57 because they've had 5 Tests averaging 20.
That is not to say that you should select someone just because they are showing short-term form.

It all depends on how he plays - low scores does not always mean poor form.

Love didn't seem to have much trouble in the same period.

 

[marc71178]

Not that you should immidiately drop someone averaging 55-57 because they've had 5 Tests averaging 20.

Yet you're complaining about them picking someone who was averaging over 50 for 2 seasons because of 4 recent games...

Love didn't seem to have much trouble in the same period.

So what?

We're talking about Collingwood, nothing about Love!

 

[Richard]

Yet you're complaining about them picking someone who was averaging over 50 for 2 seasons because of 4 recent games...

And you're trying to draw parallels that are not there.
If you ask me you shouldn't pick him for the first time because of those recent 4 poor games.

So what?

We're talking about Collingwood, nothing about Love!

They had to bat in the same conditions.
So that.

 

[marc71178]

They had to bat in the same conditions.
So that.

And that says absolutely nothing about how Collingwood batted.

 

[Richard]

No, but if Love scored runs and Collingwood didn't that says it's unlikely that Collingwood's scores didn't say anything about his form.

 

[marc71178]

No, but if Love scored runs and Collingwood didn't that says it's unlikely that Collingwood's scores didn't say anything about his form.

Based on what?

How can you say that because 1 player scored runs then the other was out of form when he didn't score as many?

Love's performances have no bearing on how well Collingwood was batting.