• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why wasnt Ed Smith not called up?

Craig

Craig

World Traveller
Well why wasnt he?

When Butcher got injured and Thorpe's back played up, I could see the logic in calling up a batsman as cover, but why did they call up Andy Strauss?

Straudss is in opener, so I dont see the logic in picking an opener as cover for a middle order batsmen when he if picked may not as done as well.

And yet Smith you would of been the ideal replacement as he is an opener and middle order bat. He opened for Kent until 2001 before moving to three and IMO would of been more suited as a cover batsman to bat in the middle order.

If Strauss plays and doesnt do well in them iddle order, maybe we will see the crazyiness of picking an opener to bat in the middle order.
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
My guess is that Ed Smith's chance has gone for now, and possibly for good.

He never really set the world alight in the A Tour, and Strauss is scheduled to be out in the Windies soon anyway, so I guess they want to keep him involved with the squad.

The one good thing is that they didn't say they didn't need cover because Rikki Clarke is already out there!
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
No I don't, because of Strauss being called.

I cannot actually work out Clarke's role on the tour, perhaps he mixes a mean Rum Dhaquiri?
 
Craig

Craig

World Traveller
ROFLMAO!

You never know he might have worked as a barman while trying to make in cricket.

Does Halsey rate Clarke as he was born in Essex?
 
T

tooextracool

International Coach
Craig said:
Well why wasnt he?

When Butcher got injured and Thorpe's back played up, I could see the logic in calling up a batsman as cover, but why did they call up Andy Strauss?

Straudss is in opener, so I dont see the logic in picking an opener as cover for a middle order batsmen when he if picked may not as done as well.

And yet Smith you would of been the ideal replacement as he is an opener and middle order bat. He opened for Kent until 2001 before moving to three and IMO would of been more suited as a cover batsman to bat in the middle order.

If Strauss plays and doesnt do well in them iddle order, maybe we will see the crazyiness of picking an opener to bat in the middle order.
Click to expand...
ed smith doesnt deserve a place in the squad after poor performances in the A tour and also against SA. not that it really matters because i doubt that if he were called up he would get to play considering collingwood despite a century is struggling to find a place in the starting lineup.
there are rumours that michael vaughan wants to bat at number 3 so if strauss does play they might make some adjustment there. also with tresco still playing for england theres always a need for a replacement opener
 
Rik

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Craig said:
ROFLMAO!

You never know he might have worked as a barman while trying to make in cricket.
Click to expand...
Kristian Adams formerly of Kent was.
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Craig said:
You never know he might have worked as a barman while trying to make in cricket.
Click to expand...
If it kept him away from the England team, he could have a job at the CW Bar.
 
Rik

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
My guess is that Ed Smith's chance has gone for now, and possibly for good.
Click to expand...
Because, like Harmison, he hasn't had the luxury of boosting his average against the 2 weakest teams in the world, and unlike Harmison and Giles, he's not got the undying affection of the selectors who would pick them even if they stopped bowling.
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
You really don't like those 2 players do you?

Pity that the selectors do, and it's their opinion that counts...
 
Rik

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
You really don't like those 2 players do you?

Pity that the selectors do, and it's their opinion that counts...
Click to expand...
Not personally I don't, but they have done nothing to justify their continued selections so I will oppose them being selected.

Indeed it is a pity that the English selectors show such favoritism, especially as it is for 2 players who only weaken England's side.
 
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
I just dont think Smith had 'the look' of a test class batsman...its that little thing that no matter how good your FC figures are etc, if you lack that thing, whatever it is, you wont make it as a test player.

When you see someone play you can instinctivly see whether they have that test magic....Waugh had it early in his career even when he wasnt scoring that well, Sarwan has it, Vaughan certainly had it,Lara had it.

And it is that thing that selectors are looking at....like harmison, yeah he is raw and a bit wild,but i think he has something there to work with, same for Jones...Anderson definatly has it,even before he played for Lancs, people in the know knew he would play for England.........and that is why you just cant go off domestic averages
 
Rik

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
When I saw Smith play I had exactly the opposite view! He had superb natural timing, was a little loose but seemed to have a lot of time to play his shots and looked to score off every bad ball. The problem is that people think he will be a failure, but then, Mark Waugh "only" averaged 41 in Test Cricket and he was classed as a bit of a failure, yet everyone thought he was a very good player because of the quality of his innings and the ability shown in his stroke-making. Smith has a long reach, all the shots and superb timing, with minor flaws in his technique and temprement tempering those, but then, exactly the same is true about Harmison who's action has many flaws and who's temprement is famously brittle.

The other major problem is that Harmison and Jones were picked purely because they bowled quickly, but it's been shown many a time pace alone doesn't win you matches, you can't just pick an average pace bowler and expect him to be effective. Brett Lee's shown that if you can't put the ball in the right place, it doesn't matter weather you bowl 99mph or 50mph! Shoaib and Bond are the only 2 pace bowlers effective in Tests, because they swing it late and get the ball in the right place, their pace is just a bonus that makes them a little more effective. Jones has potential though, he gets the ball in the right places. Harmison relies mainly on batsman error or a weakness against short-pitched bowling. If the player can play short-pitched bowling he's taken to the cleaners, just cast your mind back to his "bouncer war" against Graeme Smith...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top