posted Jul 26, 2008

NeonSpaceman talks of Collingwood's average.We should consider his "average" on bad umpiring decisions - that affects the stats.He,like Bell and Strauss before him,has had some really poor raised fingers!

I just read Michael Atherton in the Times - says it all about selection and management,without getting himself into really hot water.

It's not just about averages - it's about the mental approach,the selection breeding mutual confidence amongst the players(who know who and what should be best) and the psychological understanding of the professional sportsman's needs....remember Brearley?

It would be a huge encouragement to all who love this sport if Hugh Morris would deliver a real clean out of the stables amongst the non players involved at all levels.

We shall see a compromise selection today with the attendant excuses about "building" a side and nursing talent.

I,for one,will lose interest in the best form of cricket played over two innings and five days unless there is a radical chage at the top.

With all the money in quick fire rubbish,perhaps that is exactly the objective of those whose responsibility it is to plan the future...........and to select a Test team........

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 26, 2008

I think that Tim Ambrose has to be dropped as he just isn't scoring runs. Why not look at Phil Mustard up at Durham as he is an excellnt wicket-keeper who also scores runs which he is doing now. As for the bowling drop pattinson and broad and bring in sidebottom and harmison/hoggard as they are both bowling well for the counties. Vaughan has to start scoring runs as well or he should start to think about his own place in the side.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 26, 2008

just read the article on England selectors.....So Miller had a clear the air meeting with Vaughan...may have been a meeting ....but not of minds.

If some think we need a new PM,how much more important it is to recognise that we need a change cricket selection,management and captaincy....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 26, 2008

The team might do well,the selectors have not done the job - the captain is still there and also Ambrose.Harmison over Broad based on figures? - well, we shall see.

The selectors should be able to keep their jobs based on results over a span of three matches only(all forms of competition)more than one loss means good bye.The same should certainly apply to the head coach ...but he has a contract...and no one seems to understand what part he has played in our confusion/poor performances.

No Shah is a truly fundamental mistake.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 26, 2008

Collingwood got one bad decision, in the first test. but he was woefully out of form with the bat all season long in test and first class cricket and your telling me thats all because of bad decisions? sorry, thats monkey poo. Yes, selection hould breed confidence, but what sort of confidence can be gained from having a top six batsman whos top test score for the season is 24. Its all very well saying we need grit and mental strength, but we need performances as well. if you can't drop a top 6 batsman for averaging under 10, you'll never drop anybody. its not like hes having a poor time and averaging under 30, its under TEN! for a top 6 batsman. his role in he side is to score runs, not to prove how gritty he is by scoring 7.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 27, 2008

The only selection dilemma is this - why is Vaughan and/or Strauss still in the squad? They are the poorest performers by far. Look at Vaughan's last three innings for England. Absolutely outstanding! NOT. And don't give us the 'great captain' chestnut - they scored nearly 600 and still drew the match. They both need to EARN their places and they aren't doing it. How Vaughan has the brass neck when interviewed to talk of 'selection problems' is incredible. There is only one key selection problem - HIM.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2008

Perhaps I am the only person to think this, but Flintoff was nowhere near fit enough to play in the last test and I doubt that he will be anywhere near peak condition for the start of this weeks test. And with the inclusion of Pattinson the England team were at sixes and sevens and stuggling. Just the encouragement the South Africans needed. England looks like they are at the beginning of a restucturing schedule which is at least another two years in the making. And is it time for Vaughan to stnd down?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2008

Just goes to show how much we need Sidebottom in the team!!
Broad has consistently out-batted half of the top order of late, so it would seem absurd to drop him. He's almost worth his place as a batsman. He has a great future ahead of him.
Flintoff came in apparently with poor batting form, but batted well.
We keep trying to stick to one wicketkeeper for all forms of the game. I believe that is wrong.
We struggled to get the SAs batsmen out, in great contrast to the first test.
Nobody says being a selector is easy. Let's hope they hit it on the head for the next 2 tests, otherwise we will surrender to the South Africans.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2008

Vaughan is nobody's "bunny". He has simply slipped in his standards as a world-class batsman. Just look at the way Matthew Hayden fought back to greatness when he had a fairly miserable 2005 Ashes. Vaughan, being the class batsman he is, will bounce back...no matter who is bowling.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2008

Let's see....

Michael Vaughan has played 81 tests, and has a Test batting average of 41.

Ramnaresh Sarwan has played 72 Tests, and has a Test batting average of 40.

Most WI fans believe that Sarwan has not fulfilled his batting potential. To me, there's not a lot of difference between the stats of Sarwan and Vaughan....

add comment | complain about this comment