Squads for Bangladesh

[Common as Mook]

I was probably being a bit unfair to Broad who is a decent prospect but I do think that if he batted like Panesar, he'd have been told to go back to the county championship to sharpen up his game before he got the chance to take those wickets at the Oval.

But that would have been the wrong thing to do wouldn't it? He DID bowl a match winning spell and he has bowled another against South Africa. And the batting thing is all hypothetical because he is a very decent batsman with a few half centuries to his name already.

 

[Gwylan]

But that would have been the wrong thing to do wouldn't it? He DID bowl a match winning spell and he has bowled another against South Africa. And the batting thing is all hypothetical because he is a very decent batsman with a few half centuries to his name already.

Well, of course it's hypothetical.

But let's contrast his treatment with that of Panesar, who had a duff series and found himself dropped - but that's after he'd taken 8 five-fors in only a few more games than Broad.

If Panesar had batted like Broad, he wouldn't have been dropped so readily (it was quite right to drop him of course because Swann has taken to test cricket so readily but England haven't always made the easy decisions). But Broad really has to push on now - if we're only go to play 4 bowlers then they all have to be firing and he needs to take a couple more Michelles in BD and over the course of next summer.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I wonder if there are any "malingers" around.....not a brilliant bowler, but pure pace who on his day can be unplayable.

I can only remember one bowler with out and out pace and that was Devon Malcolm

The problem I have with English bowlers is they are all basically the same.....Broad, Anderson, Onions, Plunkett, the asian bloke from lancashire.....Hoggard was a different bowler as he used to swing it loads was replaced by Sidebottom who does the same...BUT there is nothing different...nothingh out of the ordinary. we dont have a strike bowler like Morkel and that is where I think we need to concentrate.

It is no good relying on Swann to get 5 wickets every innings

 

[Chesney Christ]

I think it's a bit unfair to lump Broad into the 'bits and pieces' catergory. He is a front line bowler who at the moment makes an ideal number 8.

Agreed - its an utter nonsense to describe Plunkett and Broad as "bits and pieces". They are both quality bowlers, who just happen to be able to hold a bat as well. Its like describing Mitchell Johnson as "bits and pieces". Codswallop.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

I wonder if there are any "malingers" around.....not a brilliant bowler, but pure pace who on his day can be unplayable.

I can only remember one bowler with out and out pace and that was Devon Malcolm

The problem I have with English bowlers is they are all basically the same.....Broad, Anderson, Onions, Plunkett, the asian bloke from lancashire.....Hoggard was a different bowler as he used to swing it loads was replaced by Sidebottom who does the same...BUT there is nothing different...nothingh out of the ordinary. we dont have a strike bowler like Morkel and that is where I think we need to concentrate.

It is no good relying on Swann to get 5 wickets every innings

I agree. We are missing a very aggressive bowler like Flintoff and Harmison in their pomp, or someone that can bowl 90 plus consistently

 

[Gwylan]

Agreed - its an utter nonsense to describe Plunkett and Broad as "bits and pieces". They are both quality bowlers, who just happen to be able to hold a bat as well. Its like describing Mitchell Johnson as "bits and pieces". Codswallop.

If you'd read the whole thread you'd have seen that I agreed that it was harsh to describe Broad as a "bits and pieces" cricketer. But I certainly wouldn't have described Johnson that way - in fact, my whole point is that Australia pick the six best batsmen and four best bowlers - if some of those bowlers can bat, all well and good, but that's not the be-all and end-all.

I do wonder whether England think that way. Duncan Fletcher was big on the idea that tailenders could bat but I think that this has got to be based on the idea that they're test class bowlers. Plunkett's been tried before and not been a success - he might be this time but I can't help thinking his selection has been skewed by his batting ability.

The seam attack has been picked exclusively from three counties: Durham, Yorkshire and Notts. Coincidentally, these teams play on the most seam-friendly pitches in the country. I'd be more impressed with a bowler who takes wickets at the Oval than at the Riverside TBH.

I'd liked to have seen a bit of a gamble with the squad and take another untried youngster: Steve Finn, Tim Murtagh, Chris Woakes. I know they're taking Shahzad but, like I said, I think that's because he can hold a bat rather than for his bowling ability. I also refuse to believe that Treadwell is a better spinner than Panesar,but he's certainly a lot better at batting.

I accept there's a need to strike a happy medium - it wasn't that long ago that the England 9,10, jack was Malcolm, Mullally and Tufnell; try picking the best batsman out of that lot.

 

[sten_super]

The seam attack has been picked exclusively from three counties: Durham, Yorkshire and Notts. Coincidentally, these teams play on the most seam-friendly pitches in the country. I'd be more impressed with a bowler who takes wickets at the Oval than at the Riverside TBH.

The stats don't back that assertion up at all. 3 Durham players averaged over 50, despite playing half of their games at the Riverside, the same number of players as averaged over 50 in the Somerset side playing on the flatest pitch in the country. Similarly, 3 Notts players averaged over 50, while Warks had only 2. At Middlesex only Hughes and Strauss (playing 3 games each) averaged over 50. So they seemingly aren't the cracked pitches you are suggesting. Either the Durham bowlers know how to exploit the Riverside pitch, or maybe they are just very good bowlers? Plunkett is the 3rd fast bowler at Durham (behind Onions and Harmison in terms of average last year) but he took 49 wickets at 24.8 so I think it's unfair to say he's in due to his batting (although incidentally he did average 44.4 so well into AR territory).

I'd liked to have seen a bit of a gamble with the squad and take another untried youngster: Steve Finn, Tim Murtagh, Chris Woakes. I know they're taking Shahzad but, like I said, I think that's because he can hold a bat rather than for his bowling ability. I also refuse to believe that Treadwell is a better spinner than Panesar,but he's certainly a lot better at batting.

I agree that I can't get my head around Shahzad, they must be taking him as an AR, but that makes no sense when he averaged 34.4 with the ball last year in county cricket. I think the reason they haven't taken Finn or Woakes is because they are young and they want them to play more county cricket first. Not so sure about Murtagh, as for him it's now or never really. Maybe they just don't fancy him.

 

[8ace]

Dwayne Smith has been named in the Windies squad for their tour of Australia.

Gayle in charge of injury-hit squad | Cricket News | Australia v West Indies 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com

 

[CHAPPERS]

Plunkett is the 3rd fast bowler at Durham (behind Onions and Harmison in terms of average last year) but he took 49 wickets at 24.8 so I think it's unfair to say he's in due to his batting (although incidentally he did average 44.4 so well into AR territory).



.

Yup, 49 wickets at 24 is a decent record and considering his last go in the test side came when he was 21 or something I think it's fair that he gets another go.

 

[keaton]

I never understood why Plunkett was shelved so quickly, he wasn't fantastic first time around but he did always seem to take wickets and as a 'partnership-breaker'. And he did have to put up with Saj Mahmood bowling with him which can't help much

 

[Gwylan]

Plunkett is the 3rd fast bowler at Durham (behind Onions and Harmison in terms of average last year) but he took 49 wickets at 24.8 so I think it's unfair to say he's in due to his batting (although incidentally he did average 44.4 so well into AR territory).

My beef with Plunkett is that I remember him playing test matches before and looked a long way off a test cricketer - he has an average of 40 after 9 games, which is not much to write home about. It also should be noted that he was on the 5-0 Ashes whitewash tour and didn't get a game and was on the recent SA tour and didn't get a game - and neither of these was a series where the incumbent seam attack looked world beaters.

However, I didn't see him last season and by all accounts he has improved no end and I can see that his stats would warrant a second chance. I'm suspicious but the selectors see a lot more cricket than I do.

But my real objections were Shahzad, Treadwell and Wright. I refuse to believe that Shahzad is one of the top five seamers in the country and that Treadwell is one of the best two spinners and that Wright is one of the best seven batsman - they're in the squad because of notional all-round skills and I'm not sure whether that's the best approach.

 

[sten_super]

But my real objections were Shahzad, Treadwell and Wright. I refuse to believe that Shahzad is one of the top five seamers in the country and that Treadwell is one of the best two spinners and that Wright is one of the best seven batsman - they're in the squad because of notional all-round skills and I'm not sure whether that's the best approach.

I certainly agree with most of this assertion. I can understand the selection of an allrounder in Wright; if that's a path they want to go down he's going to need time in and around the squad. He at least has the makings of a genuine AR, whereas Shazad and Tredwell are most certainly bowlers that can bat a bit; much more bits and pieces. I'm mystified as to why Davies hasn't been picked, as he was called up to the squad for the Saffer tour as cover.

In terms of alternatives to Tredwell, I don't think Panesar is one in his current form. The Rashid decision really rankles with me; if we are playing two spinners you really want two that are going to move the ball opposite ways; i.e. an offie and a leggie or an offie and a slow left armer. Heck, even an offie and a left arm chinaman would at least give a slightly different angle, but they've picked two identikit spinners. Blackwell and Rashid are the two obvious ones that I can see from the averages table, although (just to quickly contradict myself!) Tredwell did take 69 wickets in Div 2 at 26.6.

 

[Gwylan]

I certainly agree with most of this assertion. I can understand the selection of an allrounder in Wright; if that's a path they want to go down he's going to need time in and around the squad. He at least has the makings of a genuine AR, whereas Shazad and Tredwell are most certainly bowlers that can bat a bit; much more bits and pieces. I'm mystified as to why Davies hasn't been picked, as he was called up to the squad for the Saffer tour as cover.

In terms of alternatives to Tredwell, I don't think Panesar is one in his current form. The Rashid decision really rankles with me; if we are playing two spinners you really want two that are going to move the ball opposite ways; i.e. an offie and a leggie or an offie and a slow left armer. Heck, even an offie and a left arm chinaman would at least give a slightly different angle, but they've picked two identikit spinners. Blackwell and Rashid are the two obvious ones that I can see from the averages table, although (just to quickly contradict myself!) Tredwell did take 69 wickets in Div 2 at 26.6.

I'm a Davies fan too and I'd have preferred him to Plunkett although, as I said, I can see why Plunkett got his chance.

As for Luke Wright: if he ever takes a test five-for, I'll dance naked at the Cromwell Road end singing the Albanian national anthem.

I've seen Tredwell bowl and he looks ugly. But then, Paul Harris doesn't look like a spinner and he gets wickets. Rashid would have been a more adventurous choice. I've always rather rated Gary Keedy, he's too old now, but I can't understand why he never got a chance - unless, again, his batting wasn't deemed good enough.

 

[Common as Mook]

I think it boils down to the fact that we haven't got a very good armourmy of seam bowlers, outside of Anderson Onions Broad and Sidebottom. The second string are very much much of a muchness and it is only sensible therefore to pick someone who knows one of a bat from the other.

For too long, as you say, we had the likes of Mullally, Malcolm, Fraser and Giddins propping up the tail. The all round game is definitely something that needs to be taken into consideration.

 

[Perry Milkins]

I wonder if there are any "malingers" around.....not a brilliant bowler, but pure pace who on his day can be unplayable.

I can only remember one bowler with out and out pace and that was Devon Malcolm

The problem I have with English bowlers is they are all basically the same.....Broad, Anderson, Onions, Plunkett, the asian bloke from lancashire.....Hoggard was a different bowler as he used to swing it loads was replaced by Sidebottom who does the same...BUT there is nothing different...nothingh out of the ordinary. we dont have a strike bowler like Morkel and that is where I think we need to concentrate.

It is no good relying on Swann to get 5 wickets every innings

Harmison?

 

[Perry Milkins]

I never understood why Plunkett was shelved so quickly, he wasn't fantastic first time around but he did always seem to take wickets and as a 'partnership-breaker'. And he did have to put up with Saj Mahmood bowling with him which can't help much

Crikey. I agree with you.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Good news if Dwayne Smith plays for the Windies, means we can sign him as a Kolpak player next season.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Good spot

 

[Gwylan]

Good news if Dwayne Smith plays for the Windies, means we can sign him as a Kolpak player next season.

I really don't understand this Kolpak business: why does this mean that we can sign Smith as a Kolpak player?

And why did Jacques Rudolph had to stop playing for SA to become a Kolpak player while Smith has to do the reverse?

 

[8ace]

I really don't understand this Kolpak business: why does this mean that we can sign Smith as a Kolpak player?

And why did Jacques Rudolph had to stop playing for SA to become a Kolpak player while Smith has to do the reverse?

I'm not sure if it's good news or not, I don't understand all these kolpak rules. :US:
This should make it easier for him to get a work permit, would he still have been able to come back as our second overseas player this summer without one?