The T20 World cup has got nothing to do with Bangladesh, so that's irrelevant.
Where did the T20 WC come into it? I have no regard for that format as an event
I'm just showing that under your system, a player could tear up every bowling attack around (lets be hypothetical) and average 100 or something, yet you wouldn't pick him because he's only played for 2 years and not three? That has to be the most stupid thing that I have ever heard. You pick people on ability, not on longevity.
Three years/seasons shows that the person has experience and makes sure they're not picked for a level they're not ready for yet, to pick them because they had two good seasons is not clever. I'm trying to avoid our repeated stupidity of picking young players before they are ready and then they end up in the wilderness which is worse than them having two good seasons and having to wait ONE more.
County cricket is arguably the worst arena for proving yourself, as proven by our selections of large numbers of players per decade many of whom play one Test or series and disappear.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it "stupid", and you're over-rating the significance of tearing up county attacks! (see MR Ramprakash if you need to understand where I'm coming from) I'm guessing you don't disagree that one good season is not grounds enough, I find it bizarre if that assertion is correct that you think two is definitely the right number and three is "stupid"
You may not agree with three, but it's not 13 or 23, it is pretty damned near to two :sarcasm
Being excellent in two years, is a lot better than being decent over 3 years, in summary.
I didn't say "being decent over 3 years", and I stand by my statement that we need to know a player is quality and three seasons of top performances is the test I would advocate, more likely to apply for youngsters but also applies to older players. Of course a lot does depend on the qualifying standard to be reached, but if you list the top 10 batsmen and top 10 bowlers in terms of runs and wickets in the past three county seasons and Wright is up there then you could justify his inclusion - simples
The bold bit though, again bizarre to say the least. If you have 7 people in the side on batting ability, one of them has to bat at 7, that's just the way it goes.
So you think having seven batsmen in a side at the expense of an all-rounder or proper bowler is the way to go in ODIs?!?!? He's either a batsman and should be batting up the order, or should be fulfilling an all-rounder role. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that, if he's only the seventh best batsmen in the side and (you are alluding to) his bowling not being why he's in the side then I say do we not have a better batsman on that skill alone? (my answer is we must have) How many ODI sides do you reckon have a specialist batsman or batsman who fiddles in a few overs in their side?!?!? Collingwood is a better bowler and better batsman, he doesn't bat seven.
I really don't know what else I can say about that to be honest. One thing though, is that Wright is the best in County cricket at hitting boundaries late on, that's why he's chosen for the England side, to fulfill that role. What's the point in having a Trott coming in at 7 if he's going to struggle to clear the ropes in the last few overs, which is when he'd be batting? Cricket is about picking the correct team, not just sticking who you think is the 11 best players and not worrying about how it's actually going to work.
But I wouldn't put Trott down at seven, that should be where an all-rounder or the keeper bats, not an extra batsman. This isn't Test cricket, we do need to bowl 50 overs and frankly our frontline bowlers ain't up to enough as is constantly shown by Collingwood and others being called in to make up overs while supposed frontline bowlers are often short of their 10 over allocation.
I think it bizarre you should want to include a specialist batsman or "boundary hitter" at the expense of a proper batsman or all rounder/someone who can bowl 10 overs. I find it ironic you talk about picking the "correct team" and yet justify a batsman at seven because he can hit boundaries. Team needs BALANCE, no side with seven batsmen is truly balanced. Christ we've even got two keepers in the side at the moment!
Swann can bat higher, as I said, he's as good as Broad, if not better so it's a toss up as to who bats at 8 and who bats at 9 or wherever. However, Wright is better than both, as his stats domestically show. Last year he had a great year in FC with the bat. I think you just see him throwing the bat (because that's his role) and think that he can't do anything else, when he can get big scores (especially in FC Cricket).
The point with Swann vs Wright is not to compare them but their ROLES, Swann is wasted down at 9 and 10 in Tests and ODIs, Wright is not a good enough bowler and I refuse to believe/accept he is that good a batsman to be in on that skill alone at the expense of an all-rounder. You need BALANCE in your side, not having enough bowlers so you can bat down to 10 with a bits n pieces Wright at seven is pointless. I guess you think he's fantastic with the bat, I sure as hell don't. Pick him for T20 knockabout cricket by all means, he's a lot to do to prove to me he's worth a place in the ODI side and to include him in the Test squad was a joke.
Owzat added 3 Minutes and 16 Seconds later...
That's about where the similarities stop between those two.
I wasn't trying to say they were similar, I was talking about the roles played and whether we need whatever it is role that Wright is supposedly filling. Swann is a capable enough smasher of the ball, what is it Wright does besides stop before/on 52 and not bowl very well?
MUFC1987 - I hate continued multiquotes, you might not agree with my views on Wright or with my assertion that players should have three good seasons in county cricket before being thrown into Tests (in particular), fair enough we agree to disagree, but I'm retiring from multiquotes because it does my head in. Have the last three hundred part-replies by all means, I'm off to do something else (or perhaps post in another thread on here if there is some general chat of interest)
Ciao
