Woakes and Kerrigan- Should England's selectors be sacked?

At the moment, it looks right up there with Darren Pattinson at Trent Bridge in 2008. They talk about being ruthless and desperate to win 4-0, then they effectively field two experiment players? Come on.

It doesn't say much for England's countless development squads and Lions tours either, apparently designed to turn English cricketers into hardened performers who are more than ready to take the next step up, when Kerrigan gets to the big stage, and is completely unable to control his nerves. That was excruciating. I wonder how much of a say Andy Flower and Alastair Cook got got? Did they really want them both in the England side for this test? Or was it Rusty Miller and co who wanted a look at a few fringe players in a dead rubber? Because if this was the first test match of the series being played at the Oval, there's no way on Earth they would have both been picked. Complacency to the max.

That should guarantee them both long and successful careers

If Monty hadn't been Trev'ed in the first place.

is Kerrigan the new Watkins?

I thought Woakes was ok actually.

horace wrote:is Kerrigan the new Watkins?

McKerriGain

embee wrote:

horace wrote:is Kerrigan the new Watkins?

McKerriGain

Good one!
 

They should be sacked because of every bad decision they've made in between making the easy decision.

I'd persevere with Woakes ... but dump Kerrigan rapido.

sounds like Danny waxed the bikini line a little too low today

If these two are the only mistakes your selectors have made then i don't think you have too much to complain about. Look at the parade of shyte that our selectors have given us over the last 2-3 years.  

but it is easy for our NSP...the dubber production line of carp never stops...

Henry wrote:Because if this was the first test match of the series being played at the Oval, there's no way on Earth they would have both been picked.

Which is exactly why it doesn't really matter that much. If they'd picked them for a series decider, fair enough, but we've got some useful knowledge now that these players are not (yet at least) up to the task, which could give us a better winter tour squad. Do we sack England football managers for experimenting in friendlies or matches that don't really affect whether we will qualify?

It's somewhat confused thinking that led to this particular line-up, it could be argued that they weren't the right players to bring in and the Lions system is another debate, although no Lions match can prepare you for playing in front of a full house in Ashes cricket, some will take to it and others will freeze.

Obviously the counter-argument is handing the momentum back to Australia ahead of the winter, but winning dead rubber Tests never did us any good in the long run, and we may have just hindered their prospects by cementing Watson and Smith's places in the side for the foreseeable future.

horace wrote:sounds like Danny waxed the bikini line a little too low today

There's no accountability. They haven't made an astute decision since they brought Root into the middle order. Their last good decisions before then were to take Tremlett on tour to Australia.

Brass Monkey wrote:

horace wrote:sounds like Danny waxed the bikini line a little too low today

There's no accountability. They haven't made an astute decision since they brought Root into the middle order. Their last good decisions before then were to take Tremlett on tour to Australia.

Well is it just that there's nobody ready to step up, that the cupboard is pretty bare in all areas at the moment, and we have to cross our fingers and hope we're not forced into an Australia/India situation where all our decent players retire at once and there's nobody to replace them?

beamer wrote:
Well is it just that there's nobody ready to step up, that the cupboard is pretty bare in all areas at the moment, and we have to cross our fingers and hope we're not forced into an Australia/India situation where all our decent players retire at once and there's nobody to replace them?

Well, sticking with J. Knicks and moving Root up the top was a horrendous mistake that has been softened by the fact that Aus are too pants to capitalise on it. They've been picking the wrong people at the wrong times, IMO - not something that is a new thing - it's been happening for years.

Is it REALLY a good thing that we've found out these two are pants before we played them when it REALLY matters? No. Because they'll turn Tim Bresnan and Monty into a couple of messiahs. Already there's plenty of "England are realising in this match just how valuable Tim Bresnan is...." talk.

This was the England selectors saying "oh what the heck, let's go nuts", and it's been a disaster for them. If they were going to go 'nuts' then I would have preferred Chris Jordan or Azeem Rafiq- Guys with real talent.  

There goes any chance of a bold, slightly left field, but quite possibly correct, selection ever happening again.

It'll be safe city forever now.

It hasn't 'gone nuts' for England; that's an over-reaction, or reverse woof, whatever. It's still highly likely that Australia, without another recognised batsman, will lose 6-60 (they're been doing it all tour) and that England can not only win the match but win convincingly. Woakes bowled better on a dead wicket than MANY other bowlers who've debuted for either England or Australia, and it would be foolish to write him off on the strength of one day which wasn't so bad anyway. Kerrigan had a day he will want to forget, but he's young enough to bounce back, and he may yet prove the sceptics wrong in this very match if Australia bats a second time, as I expect they will.

I'm sorry, but whilst I abhor both selections, it's not on the basis of fact.

Facts are that Kerrigan and Woakes have been picking up wickets for fun and to suggest they'd go to people who don't have their form credentials is a bit bonkers really - yes, we could telegraph that maybe they wouldn't go to well, but they've earned their chance.

I didn't like the selections because, as mentioned, we needed to look at Tremlett, we needed to look at a proper #6 batsman. We didn't need some young spinner and a non-proper batsman at 6 - our batting scores have been a mess, whereas we've taken 20 wickets in 3 of our 4 previous matches.

Re: Woakes and Kerrigan- Should England's selectors be sacked?

Ooooh, not arf. Let's come out on the streets to agitate for Trev as Chief Chairman, and have a rotating knee-jerking board under him. Jordan, Chris Tarrant and Ron Atkinson first maybe, and change them all around with kneejerk operations after about 10 days. Get Dom Cork in with Gregg Wallace and Prunella Scales, can't wait. They can all cheer on cue as Trev trevs the fukc out of the next batch of hopefuls to score a 60 or take 3 wickets.

Must agree, though, they've played out their roles. You wonder how much judgement goes behind these decisions, whether it's based on raw numbers - it's possibly worse if the selectors have seen them both and thought they were good picks. They both have technical / ability deficiencies, as did Bairstow.

For a team who likes to keep it vanilla, these are raw old picks to be making.

As I say, it's all well and good when you have four veteran batsmen, a veteran keeper and three veteran bowlers in your side - they drag the team through more often than not. But the supplements they've been picking have been underwhelming to say the least.

I think Root is worth persisting with as an opener and has learned a lot in this series against a fair attack...Ballance must have been close to selection at number...only player to do well in Oz on the Lions tour and has done nothing wrong since, inc a good knock against Oz.

Brass Monkey wrote:I'm sorry, but whilst I abhor both selections, it's not on the basis of fact.

Facts are that Kerrigan and Woakes have been picking up wickets for fun and to suggest they'd go to people who don't have their form credentials is a bit bonkers really - yes, we could telegraph that maybe they wouldn't go to well, but they've earned their chance.

I didn't like the selections because, as mentioned, we needed to look at Tremlett, we needed to look at a proper #6 batsman. We didn't need some young spinner and a non-proper batsman at 6 - our batting scores have been a mess, whereas we've taken 20 wickets in 3 of our 4 previous matches.

Wouldn't argue with a word of this Dan, both Woakes and Kerrigan were selected on merit and current form. I certainly wouldn't have played both ..... and possibly neither of them, for the reasons which you stated.

One final thought.

IMHO, Cooks captaincy regarding Kerrigan in particular was one of the worst decisions I can recall in many a year. It must have been pretty plain that SK was a bag of nerves, so WTF was the skipper thinking of letting him bowl when Watson was on the biff? Two overs before, Watson had taken a couple of fours off the other debutant, Woakes - then followed it by dancing down the pitch to Swann and carting him for a big six.

FFS, 2/3 of the way into the first session, when a batsman is doing that to an established spinner, you don't tell the debutant to have a go, do you? You'd normally give him a go against a new batsman (if possible), or at least wait until close to lunch/tea when even a set batsman won't usually chance his arm the same way.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that Kerrigans performance would have been any different bowling later on, but in the circumstances, IMO Cook didn't just shove SK onto the railway line - he actually threw the boy under the wheels of the bloody train

Yeah, he did throw him to the wolves a bit. I wondered if he thought that it was the perfect time to test his mettle. Either way, two overs of tonk wasn't enough. The levee usually breaks.

Brass Monkey wrote: Yeah, he did throw him to the wolves a bit. I wondered if he thought that it was the perfect time to test his mettle. Either way, two overs of tonk wasn't enough. The levee usually breaks.

Chevvy?