Now to reply to the people who can have reasoned debate without dismissing a massive part of cricket
Papa_Smurf said:
What wrong did Steve Davies commit to be dropped just before the WC, and not get looked in again?
He didn't do anything wrong, England have as much of a clue as some of the posters on here - none. England regularly pick the same players over and over, Davies would have to wait until Prior flops bigtime before getting a chance as Prior is one of the 'gang'. England came up with a half-baked rationale for picking Prior, that he was 'in form'. Not in ODIs he wasn't, and in Tests he was batting seven not opening.
England haven't learned from their mistakes, NINE of the ODI squad played in the Tests. England went with the same policy at the World Cup and it was doomed to fail. 'Fatigue' was the excuse at the World Cup, not good enough is the truth and several of the Test players are questionable picks in the ODI side. I'm not one who believes batsmen should score at a run a ball all the time, but some seem to be stuck in one gear when they play ODIs. Anderson is too often too expensive, I'm not surprised he was retained though.
Papa_Smurf said:
I've only seen Kieswetter in the WT20 last year, and Davies in the handful of ODI's he's played. On the whole, I was more impressed by Davies than Kieswetter. But yeah, both are better options than Prior.
Kieswetter has impressed in T20s format, I guess England want to pick the same keeper for both formats.
War said:
I presume Finn is only in because Shazad has been out of from & Bresnan is just recovering from injury, since he is not a ODI/T20 bowler.
And England lack imagination. Finn takes wickets, I suppose we ought to give credit to the selectors for that even though he is not exactly tight control.
Sureshot said:
I don't think there's a lot between the two of them, so I'm not massively fussed. Tremlett out of ODIs is slightly surprising, with his form you might expect him to be a dead cert. I'm happy with the squad though, Samit Patel fully deserves his place and the bowling is exciting with Dernbach, Finn and Woakes all fighting for a place. I think Woakes should be ahead of the others, I'm not wholly convinced of Finn in ODIs, even if I think he should be in the Test side.
That is true re keepers, you could pick one over another and form could be all that vindicates you or not. Tremlett is an odd choice to leave out, England did talk about fatigue and it was their number one excuse last winter, yet still they picked NINE Test players for the ODI squad
Already agreed pretty much re Finn, Patel needs to take this chance by the balls and hold on. Pressure will be on him as he is the second spinner. No Collingwood may make the captaincy bowling changes, rotation etc rather interesting.
Still absolutely adamant England could have two near if not entirely separate squads for Tests and ODIs. There's only a handful of Test players you'd scratch your head and wonder who would replace in the ODI side, but mostly you can't persuade me the likes of Morgan, Finn, Prior, Davies/Kieswetter, Broad, Anderson, Trott, Bell etc are definites for inclusion in both squads. Swann and Pietersen are the two you'd make strong cases for being in both.
It seems a shame they dropped Strauss from the ODI squad, he plays positively even if his captaincy isn't often/always. Scores of 0 and 5 against Sri Lanka and South Africa perhaps put in perspective by his 158 against India.
Still England, like some on here, are stuck in theory, England's being the pinch-hitter keeper. None has yet to cement that role a la Gilchrist, shocking that. I suspect England will find one before they give the theory up.
----------
Sorry, I didn't quite state my point. I'm not someone who thinks Broad should be on the side, so I'm not trying to back him up. I'm just trying to say that the 'pressure' situation is real.
It isn't 'real', it is an opinion which I disagree with. Good bowling takes wickets, wicket taking creates wickets because it gets new batsmen to the crease and causes pressure on the whole side. What Broad does is give the batsmen plenty of sighters, and he isn't exactly a skinflint in terms of run concession, not compared to others. If he pitched it up more his average might just drop, fact is that bowlers averages are generally a fair reflection of how good they are.
I've heard similar excuses for strikers in football, why they don't score enough goals is because they cause the defence problems, win the long balls and take the defenders away from their defensive positions. Again it is a theory
And where did I say I never had an intrest in stats? Im a big fan of stats, obviously don't have a fetish for them like you,
Two points, one you stated "enough of Owzat's stats rubbish." and two I used the conditional "if" so I didn't make a statement that you have no interest of stats, I said "if you have no interest in stats"
but whilst I don't think stats tell the whole story, usually when you factor in the situation it includes 'excuses'.
Well the funny thing is other bowlers don't need the excuses/factors, and OTHER bowlers can be unlucky or bowl tight but the bottom line is the stats don't lie, some people just try to excuse them or claim that their stats are weakened and that they create wickets at the other end.
It's not a "fetish", it is a good back up to discussion/argument rather than the usual wishy washy cr ap about x is better than y with no substance behind it.
)
