m_vaughan
Chairman of Selectors
England are taking days to take 20 wickets, and a bowler is dropped? [Taken from the BBC]
South Africa in England
- Thread starter Sureshot
- Start date
Broad wasn't taking wickets though, that's why he was dropped. Sidebottom is back and properly fit. Not carrying a niggle. I think Edgbaston could suit our bowlers more, especially with no Steyn.
I am surprised. We want to lengthen our batting, so we bring back in a man who was dropped for not scoring runs, who didn't score any runs for Durham whilst out of the side. Anyway, my point is:
I am surprised. We want to lengthen our batting, so we bring back in a man who was dropped for not scoring runs, who didn't score any runs for Durham whilst out of the side. Anyway, my point is:
I completely agree with Sureshot. We dropped Colly as he wasn't scoring runs and he still wasn't scoring runs. You have to wonder what all the players in county cricket have to do to break into the England side. People like foster not getting a look in and Shah who I have grown to really like as a player in recent times still doesn't make the side.
I'm starting to think the selectors as incapable of picking the best XI in England at the moment.
I'm starting to think the selectors as incapable of picking the best XI in England at the moment.
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
Firstly I don't see those mentioned as being vastly better than James Foster in terms of keeping and in that small snippet you quoted in no place did Nasser say that he was the Best ODI keeper in the world. He said he was the best OD keeper. and from what I've seen of him probably could be his keeping this year from what I've seen has been extraordinary.
To be honest I don't think that McCullum is a world class keeper hes overated IMO.
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
well look at this for best english keepers currently
Pothas yeah! Always a gun for me in ICC
Collingwood50
Club Cricketer
Right - dont know if any of you have noticed - i rather like Colly
But come on give shah a chance at test level
But come on give shah a chance at test level
Skater
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Profile Flag
- England
It's not a bad eleven. In my mind, Collingwood needs a major contribution to the game to keep his place in the future. His intentions are good from what I've read, but if it doesn't come off Shah deserves his spot. I don't think anything Tim Ambrose does will convince me he is better than Foster or Read. He hasn't got a great technique and isn't good enough with the gloves to make up for it. The bowling attack is how I'd like it now. It should be a closer game than it was at Headingley.
Collingwood50
Club Cricketer
I reckon that colly will make a a big ton in this test and then his form will dip again
Yes, but he said in the World. Meaning he's better than any ODI keeper in his eyes. Don't be so foolish.
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
Yeah and I would say that he is better in pure keeping terms over the last year.
Highlander999
ICC President
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Location
- London
I'm ambigous. I think that Colly should be playing he has been fundamental in the side, however, I don't think Broad should have been dropped and I would also like Shah to play which leaves you with twelve players if you dropped Vaughan (which we should) I wouldn't like the selectors job
I would, I'm sure I could do a much better job than making their confused selections!
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
If I was a selector i'd be opening the bowling. Probably for the best that I didn't apply for the job.
England must be the only side obsessed with the keeper, the rest keep the same one for long long periods, we've had FOUR since (and including) the Ashes of 2006/7
Both Collingwood and Vaughan are in poor form with the bat, certainly Shah deserves more chance than he's had or likely to get. I think it is too soon for Bopara.
The balance is good, I hate people harping on about five bowlers as if more bowlers equals more wickets - it doesn't. You need your best bowlers and England have picked their best two seamers in Anderson and Sidebottom who've picked up 91 wickets between them at under 30 apiece in their respective last 10 Tests. Panesar is seen as our best spinner, we should play him if conditions help, although his last 10 Tests have yielded 29 wickets at 36.52. And while I have reservations about Flintoff, he does average around 33 with bat and ball, while the majority of other contenders can't bat to that level and only take wickets at 31+.
I certainly wouldn't reshuffle too much, Collingwood is obviously one of the boys and Vaughan is still given way too much credit for his captaincy. Perhaps when more people realise his captaincy is massively over-rated, then his position will become much weaker and we can bring in a better runscorer and give the captaincy to Strauss.
England batsmen/keeper - last 10 Tests
732 runs : Pietersen (around 1/5 came in his 152)
720 runs : Cook (laughably someone compared persisting with Broad to him)
708 runs : Strauss (around 1/4 came in his 177)
633 runs : Bell (around 1/3 came in his 199)
519 runs : Collingwood (HS 66)
448 runs : Vaughan (around 1/4 came in his 106)
326 runs : Ambrose (has played only 12 innings to everyone else's 17, 1/3 came in his 102)
Broad has 371 runs in 11 inns, but no hundreds so what choice did the selectors have but to drop him? Flintoff has scored 456 runs @ 28.50 (HS 89 vs AUS) and taken 27 wkts @ 34.33 in his last 10 Tests. That puts him ahead of Vaughan in the above order, Vaughan's average for those 448 runs is a mere 30.53
Both Collingwood and Vaughan are in poor form with the bat, certainly Shah deserves more chance than he's had or likely to get. I think it is too soon for Bopara.
The balance is good, I hate people harping on about five bowlers as if more bowlers equals more wickets - it doesn't. You need your best bowlers and England have picked their best two seamers in Anderson and Sidebottom who've picked up 91 wickets between them at under 30 apiece in their respective last 10 Tests. Panesar is seen as our best spinner, we should play him if conditions help, although his last 10 Tests have yielded 29 wickets at 36.52. And while I have reservations about Flintoff, he does average around 33 with bat and ball, while the majority of other contenders can't bat to that level and only take wickets at 31+.
I certainly wouldn't reshuffle too much, Collingwood is obviously one of the boys and Vaughan is still given way too much credit for his captaincy. Perhaps when more people realise his captaincy is massively over-rated, then his position will become much weaker and we can bring in a better runscorer and give the captaincy to Strauss.
England batsmen/keeper - last 10 Tests
732 runs : Pietersen (around 1/5 came in his 152)
720 runs : Cook (laughably someone compared persisting with Broad to him)
708 runs : Strauss (around 1/4 came in his 177)
633 runs : Bell (around 1/3 came in his 199)
519 runs : Collingwood (HS 66)
448 runs : Vaughan (around 1/4 came in his 106)
326 runs : Ambrose (has played only 12 innings to everyone else's 17, 1/3 came in his 102)
Broad has 371 runs in 11 inns, but no hundreds so what choice did the selectors have but to drop him? Flintoff has scored 456 runs @ 28.50 (HS 89 vs AUS) and taken 27 wkts @ 34.33 in his last 10 Tests. That puts him ahead of Vaughan in the above order, Vaughan's average for those 448 runs is a mere 30.53
