The Ashes '16'

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:31

Michael Vaughan not included according to the BBC, although no other details yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/8111607.stm

Quite why this is news for them I don't know. As they say themselves...

Vaughan has scored only 159 first-class runs at an average of 19.88 in six matches this summer, with a top score of 43

by Chivalry Augustus Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:40

Are England the only team in the world that have to have plans within plans in order to name a squad? It's a home series, why do we need some over-hyped training camp? It's a load of bull. I'm sick of all these squad announcements by England, they've become so frequent that they've lost all meaning.

We would have known who was likely to be involved and who was backup on the basis of the two warm-up matches. 22 players will be involved for two England sides and we'll be able to judge who's in form and who isn't from there. Less of this nonsense, please.

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:44

Agree with you - the 2 games start on the same day.

I'm presuming those not picked for the warm up will play for the Lions?

by skully Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:57

Seems a reasonable forward thinking decision by the English NSP to bypass Vawn.

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:10

Vaughan & Harmison left out, Bell included.

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:16

England Test squad for pre-Ashes camp:

Andrew Strauss (captain, Middlesex)
James Anderson (Lancashire)
Ian Bell (Warwickshire)
Ravi Bopara (Essex)
Tim Bresnan (Yorkshire)
Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire)
Paul Collingwood (Durham)
Alastair Cook (Essex)
Andrew Flintoff (Lancashire)
Graham Onions (Durham)
Monty Panesar (Northamptonshire)
Kevin Pietersen (Hampshire)
Matt Prior (Sussex)
Adil Rashid (Yorkshire)
Ryan Sidebottom (Nottinghamshire)
Graeme Swann (Nottinghamshire)

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:17

England team v Warwickshire at Edgbaston (July 1-3):
Andrew Strauss (captain)
James Anderson
Stuart Broad
Ravi Bopara
Paul Collingwood
Alastair Cook
Andrew Flintoff
Monty Panesar
Kevin Pietersen
Matt Prior
Graeme Swann

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:18

England Lions v Australia at Worcester (July 1-4):
Ian Bell (captain, Warwickshire)
Tim Bresnan (Yorkshire)
Joe Denly (Kent)
Steven Davies (Worcestershire)
Steve Harmison (Durham)
Saj Mahmood (Lancashire)
Stephen Moore (Worcestershire)
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex)
Graham Onions (Durham)
Adil Rashid (Yorkshire)
Vikram Solanki (Worcestershire)

Forking hell, Vikram Slogdonki?

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:26

Early thoughts are.... Monty, really? 86 runs per wicket Monty?

Smart move to get Rashid & Bresnan to play against Aus outside of a test match. Harmison relegated to the Lions, another smart move - lets see how much that hurts.

No Wright or Key for the Lions, thats fair enough they've done jack all this year.

Solanki is just a local pick.

Why we are exposing Onions to the Aussies I don't know. And were the fark is SideArse?

by PeterCS Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:27

So Bell is now the Dominant Male Lion?

by PeterCS Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:29

Perhaps Sid is still injured.

by PeterCS Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:30

Presumably they want one of the Lions seamers to roar like a Lion bar, and demand the right to inclusion in the First Test ahead of Monsta?

by PeterCS Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:31

Paneer apart, I suppose the "First XI" is about as expected.

by PeterCS Mon 22 Jun 2009, 12:32

Poor Vaughany.

He had his heart set on a string of single-figure scores for England.

by Chivalry Augustus Mon 22 Jun 2009, 13:29

The Lions' squad is a really poorly thought-out effort even by the England selectors' standards. Allowing the Australians to get a look at Onions before the Ashes seems a bit odd when he's likely to be our fourth seamer - I can only see that benefitting the Australians. The same thing applies to Rashid who should have swapped places with Panesar. As for Solanki, does he really have an England future? He has been in good form but he falls into the tried, tested, failed category. Eoin Morgan continues to be a joke inclusion off the back of his 36 first-class average for Middlesex in Div Two. An average he is maintaining this season. The guy is crap and I would rather have the talented Irishman (Ed Joyce) in there, though obviously Fat Sam ought to be the one irrespective of fatness.

So yeah, the big pile of pooh you've come to expect from England really. Some of the names are blatantly picked out of a hat. We obviously want to give the Australians an easy win to kick off their tour against the Lions 'cause that team is WANK.

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 13:37

Agree on not exposing Onions, as he's likely to play being the in-form pace bowler.

But if they're seriously thinking of Rashid as a second spinner we need to find out if he can stand up to the test against them.

by Nath Mon 22 Jun 2009, 14:03

Bresnan, isn't he a spud?

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 14:42

Aggers thinks the side picked to play Warwickshire will be the side to play in the first test.

So, by that reckoning we'd be picking Monty with 6 wickets all season at a stupid average over the bloke who has 41 wickets @ 14.

In other words, we'll be fitting square pegs in round holes again trying to find a 2nd spinner even though we have none in any sort of form.

by PeterCS Mon 22 Jun 2009, 16:30

That is, if Aggie is not talking out his arse.

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 16:32

Well, there is that...

by Basil Mon 22 Jun 2009, 17:29

JKLever wrote:Aggers thinks the side picked to play Warwickshire will be the side to play in the first test.

So, by that reckoning we'd be picking Monty with 6 wickets all season at a stupid average over the bloke who has 41 wickets @ 14.

In other words, we'll be fitting square pegs in round holes again trying to find a 2nd spinner even though we have none in any sort of form.

It figures: if there was a real chance of Rashid playing in the first test, I hardly think the Aussies would be allowed to have a gander at him on what will more than likely be a very flat pitch once any juice has gone out of it on the first morning.

Don't know why Vik's been picked - he's hardly in prime form.

And I think Rob Key can kiss goodbye to his England career.

by LeFromage Mon 22 Jun 2009, 18:00

I don't understand the value in showing Australia our "hand" by letting them get a good long look at Onions and Rashid, but it's certainly a spicy attack England have picked for the Lions.

Harmison
Onions
Mahmood
Bresnan
Rashid

If they were all to click, they could give the Aussies a game.

The batsmen are a total mystery, though. Just random names picked out of a hat. Solanki? Morgan? Joe "Ducky" Denly?

Bizarre. They've picked a bowling attack to give Australia a decent challenge, but then gone the other way with the batting, when they could have had Key, Shah, Joyce, Patel and a few others.

Other than that absence of thinking, the squads/teams are no surprise. Panesar isn't worthy of a place in the England XI, but perhaps, on reflection, the selection of Onions, Harmison and Rashid for the Lions is to challenge one of them to make a strong case for Panesar's place by knocking over a few Aussies.

by JKLever Mon 22 Jun 2009, 19:08

I understand Rashid as even witnessed by tonights drossy over he bowled he's still raw and they may want to see how he goes.

But Onions is a mystery. It's as if they think Sidebottom is first choice.

by LeFromage Mon 22 Jun 2009, 19:13

I suppose they just want to be sure Onions is more than a minnow basher.

Wickets for the Lions against the Aussies are worth a hell of a lot more than wickets against a (possible) Warwickshire second XI.

But Sidebottom needs the bowling. So why he's not involved in either game is, again, a mystery.

by beamer Mon 22 Jun 2009, 19:14

JKLever wrote:But Onions is a mystery. It's as if they think Sidebottom is first choice.

I suspect they do have him pencilled in as a starter for the Ashes, even though he's done very little to justify that for the past 12 months. It's almost as if the selectors have had a memory lapse and think he played in 2005...

by Sponsored content

The Ashes '16'

The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'

Re: The Ashes '16'