You should throw in Cork to that particular comment, in fact the farce was that Caddick (93), Gough (94) and Cork (95) being played very few times as a trio despite making debuts in consecutive years and being our best three bowlers of that era. If only the consistent selection applied now had been about then, all three could bowl, field and bat and yet we chopped and changed too much.
Soooo true. But IIRC wasn't Gough injured alot during the 94-99 period?. So that didn't help.
Ealham did ok, I think it's harsh to criticise his selection and especially the Ashes 1997 (105 runs @ 35.00 & 8 wkts @ 23.88).
MA Ealham
8 Tests, 210 runs @ 21.00 & 17 wkts @ 28.71
64 ODIs, 716 runs @ 17.46 & 67 wkts @ 32.79 (ER 4.08)
Ealham was never going to be test quality, i was 8 years old during the 97 Ashes & i could have told you that.:laugh.
So i criticise his selection on the basis that we could have picked a better player.
That was the period when ENG where picking the likes of Ealham & Cork to bat @ 7. It was never going to bring long-term success.
For ODIs several players like Ealham and Hick were dropped way too early for some very ordinary cricketers coming in yet you don't mention that
Actually i did when i said "most ENG ODI selections where usually bad". Ealham should have gone to the 2003 cricket world cup for sure.
The biggest crimes were Giles playing 50+ Tests and Key being given as many Tests as he got.
Thats a bit harsh. Giles was key member of the ENG team between 2000-2006. He wasn't the greatest - but deserved the play 50 tests.
Key deserved to play tests. Right now he should have been on the tour to Bangladesh as Strauss replacement instead of Carberry IMO.
POOR SELECTIONS/POLICIES
Kabir Ali - 5 wkts @ 27.20 and only ONE TEST
I'm gald he never played another test. He played @ Leeds 03 as Harmo's injury replacement & when Harmo returned for the Oval, ENG said bye bye. An utter joke player.
He should have never played tests.
Richard Dawson
James Foster
Well to fair to these two. They only where picked for the 2001 tour to IND given that many of the senior players didn't want to tour IND given that was just around the 9/11 attacks, when people where afraid to tour IND.
But yes Dawson probably shouldn't have toured AUS 2002/03.
Foster is the best glovesman in the country. If Flintoff was a fit player i reckon Foster could have been our # 1 keeper this decade.
Richard Johnson
James Kirtley
Well to be fair to selection IIRC. They where picked as injury replacements during the 2003 summer. The selectors got rid of them fairly quickly too.
Like Saggers vs NZ 04. He was definately a horses-for-courses pick vs SRI 06. I remember the talk before the Bridge test, is that the conditions was going to be fairly bowler friendly. But it didn't turn out that way - thus Lewis was poor in that test.
Intially i was behind his selection since he looked impressive in county cricket & was doing well on England A tours. So i agree with his selection intially. Mahmood's just wasn't international quality when he played.
Wasn't he a sort of horses-for-courses pick vs NZ 04?. Didn't see a problem with his selection at the time.
Nah Shah deserved to be picked intially, he wasted his chances & was rightly dropped.
Dont think he was bad selection at all to be fair vs SA 03.
Nah Tremelett was fine. Vs IND 2007 our entire first choice pace attack was injured, Tremlett did very well in that series.
Injuries is his problem. If he has a good county season for Surrey, he should be in the Ashes squad later this year.
His debut was dumb for sure, given he was picked ahead of Caddick in the 98/99 Ashes :doh.
But he had potential, injuries messed him up i'd say.
I would say his selection for the tours to PAK/IND 05/06 was justified to be honest. Dont think there was any better back-up spinner/offspinner in the country to Giles at the time.
And for me the worst selection 'crime' between 1988 and 2010 was picking Bicknell in 1993 and again in 2003 for the saffer series, but not picking him inbetween. He was one of the most solid and best pros in the counties and had a good ODI record (24.00 with bat, 26.69 with ball) So he failed against the aussies. It wasn't like players like Capel, Malcolm etc were cementing their places in the side. He could have been our McGrath, we'll never know. But pick me 10-20 better bowlers in the list above
Interesting on Bicknell. I wasn't old enough to see his early test in the 90s. All i remember was his fairly solid performances when picked vs South Africa 2003.
War added 6 Minutes and 27 Seconds later...
Agree regarding 05. Even Lord's wasnt that fast, though the entire universe makes way too much out of that Harmy bouncer that hit Ricky, he's been hit plenty of times, no big deal. Srinath got him in 99, so what. Sick of hearing about that 05 ball!
:laugh. You know it sir. People tend to remember things from the Ashes alot more.
Right now its the same thing with people making a big issue out of Roach hitting Ponting in the Adelaide test. You would swear Ponting was neverrrr hit before, the way the media was making is making it sound ATM.
But yes obviously the major factor in England winning was the reverse swing, and the ability for pretty much all the bowlers to have 'on' days every bloody day, it was so much like the 80's WI style pf play where there was no let up ALL day. Quite odd and unexpected to watch in 05. Our batting just didnt cope, our bowlers did an ok job I still think- but too many crazy sessions where we just went for way over 100 runs and couldnt contain their batsmen, especially in the 2nd and 3rd tests.
On point like a lazer beam.
. But I can understand your viewpoint 
