England's ashes squad

I also see Cook has been formally nominated as vice-captain - something the selectors have not done for several tours. I hope Strauss stays fit and uninjured.

Presumably the squad fot the one-dayers in the New Year will be announced nearer the time . Maybe Rashid and Shahzad will feature in that.

JKLever wrote:Barring any injuries, yep Allan.

Can't believe they've left Rashid out of both squads

Mo Chambers! ROFL

Hard luck on Morgan if he has to carry the drinks at the 'Gabba. KP, Collingwood and Bell will all be under pressure to perform.

Shahzad yes, Rashid probably not.

Bresnan was very much a 'safe' selection but a bit unimaganative. Pleased for Tremors, boo sucks to you Bas!

No Bops in either squad. Again presumably he will have to wait until the one-dayers. Apart from Monty the selectors have been harsh on Asian-origin players.

Bresnan FFS over Shahzad- Mistake.

And what the hell is going on with Rashid? He MUST have pissed off the management at some stage, surely? It can't be purely cricketing reasons that he's been let out. He averaged 31 with the ball and 45 with the bat this season. He's done nothing wrong. He's probably looking into whether he can qualify for Pakistan FFS.

7 survivors from Freddie's ill-starred tour 4 years ago: Strauss, Cook, Collingwood, KP, Bell, Anderson and Panesar. Anderson makes his 3rd Ashes tour, having been drafted into Hussain's squad in 2002-3 (although not appearing in any Test) as injury cover. Collingwood also appeared in the ODIs during that tour.

Why is the presumption that Rashid has done something wrong? He's 22, not 32. We've seen older, perhaps even better players, and certainly players with much more experience, go on arduous tours and struggle to make an impact. I would love to buy-in to the fairytale of a young leggie going out there and making an impression, but given what happened last time he went away with England, I think experience has led to wisdom and the selectors have wisely given him time to grow at home. He has plenty of time on his hands, but there's literally no point taking him on a tour where the end result is likely to be detrimental to his development. He would only have played in negative circumstances, and if he didn't play he would be gaining nothing.

I'm reasonably content with the squad(s), though they are full of unspectacular cricketers. The likely line-up seems workmanlike, and will struggle to take wickets. Any victory we gain (if at all) will be dependent on a big first innings score and a solid few days work in the field.

eowyn wrote:No surprises at all other than Rashid isn't even in the Performance Squad!!

What on earth has he done wrong?

With you about Rashid - also no place for Moeen Ali. I find that incomprehensible - he scored >1200 runs this season and also took wickets with his off-breaks. otally barmy.

Mo Chambers - WTF??

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Why is the presumption that Rashid has done something wrong? He's 22, not 32. We've seen older, perhaps even better players, and certainly players with much more experience, go on arduous tours and struggle to make an impact. I would love to buy-in to the fairytale of a young leggie going out there and making an impression, but given what happened last time he went away with England, I think experience has led to wisdom and the selectors have wisely given him time to grow at home. He has plenty of time on his hands, but there's literally no point taking him on a tour where the end result is likely to be detrimental to his development. He would only have played in negative circumstances, and if he didn't play he would be gaining nothing.

I'm reasonably content with the squad(s), though they are full of unspectacular cricketers. The likely line-up seems workmanlike, and will struggle to take wickets. Any victory we gain (if at all) will be dependent on a big first innings score and a solid few days work in the field.

He'll be 30 years old and some people will still be saying "He's not ready, if he gets hammered it could dent his confidence."

He wont learn anything sitting on his backside doing nowt over the winter. His omission from the ashes squad I can kind of understand, but his omission from the development squad (yes, for supposedly DEVELOPING cricketers) is baffling.

Rashid's ommission from both squads must mean that he is most unlikely to figure in the line-up for the World Cup, which is a great pity as I think he has more to offer on subcontinental pitches than Yardy whose limitations are becoming more evident with every passing game.

Henry wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Why is the presumption that Rashid has done something wrong? He's 22, not 32. We've seen older, perhaps even better players, and certainly players with much more experience, go on arduous tours and struggle to make an impact. I would love to buy-in to the fairytale of a young leggie going out there and making an impression, but given what happened last time he went away with England, I think experience has led to wisdom and the selectors have wisely given him time to grow at home. He has plenty of time on his hands, but there's literally no point taking him on a tour where the end result is likely to be detrimental to his development. He would only have played in negative circumstances, and if he didn't play he would be gaining nothing.

I'm reasonably content with the squad(s), though they are full of unspectacular cricketers. The likely line-up seems workmanlike, and will struggle to take wickets. Any victory we gain (if at all) will be dependent on a big first innings score and a solid few days work in the field.

He'll be 30 years old and some people will still be saying "He's not ready, if he gets hammered it could dent his confidence."

He wont learn anything sitting on his backside doing nowt over the winter. His omission from the ashes squad I can kind of understand, but his omission from the development squad (yes, for supposedly DEVELOPING cricketers) is baffling.

Everyone on here acts as if he's the next big thing because they've seen him post some interesting figures against dogsh*t county sides on cricinfo. The guy's already had international exposure and frankly was sh*t. He wasn't even that good but for the sake of me liking the guy I'll stick to that. Now everybody wants him to be thereabouts in terms of the Test side so he can potentially play in the hardest tour of the lot on some of the flattest pitches against a side that knocked Chucky Chuck Chuck around as if he was a net bowler.

It's not about him being inexperienced (although even the greatest leg-spinner of all time had less international exposure and fewer first-class matches to his name by Rashid's age), it's about picking a side based on logic and experience to try and give us the best chance of a positive result D'ahn Under. England's selectors have visited the Rashid saloon already, they've seen what he has to offer, and they've learned from their experience. They have rightly realised that he is neither good enough nor strong enough at this moment in time to play Test Matches, and after his damaging experiences last year, why does everybody want him to go on another tour that will likely be exactly the same as his last?

Frankly, you're all living in la-la land. Especially you, Henry, picking England squads off cricinfo - 'cause apparently you know better.

Well actually i've seen him bowl on tv quite a few times. He wasn't sh!t at all. Maybe your judgement of what makes a good cricketer is sh!t.

If he played for Notts, he'd probably amazing in Chiv's estimation.

I didn't say he is sh!t, merely that during his international performances he was sh!t, and came back worse for his experiences as a twelfth man/stand-in last winter. But in their infinite wisdom, FBers think that it's best for his development that we try the same again and hope it turns out better this time. The selectors, quite correctly, have learned that trying the same thing twice probably isn't going to work and have omitted a cricketer who obviously features highly in their plans for the future. Personally, I am going to trust the opinion of our best coach in a while over Messrs Henry and Welshy.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:I didn't say he is sh!t, merely that during his international performances he was sh!t, and came back worse for his experiences as a twelfth man/stand-in last winter. But in their infinite wisdom, FBers think that it's best for his development that we try the same again and hope it turns out better this time. The selectors, quite correctly, have learned that trying the same thing twice probably isn't going to work and have omitted a cricketer who obviously features highly in their plans for the future. Personally, I am going to trust the opinion of our best coach in a while over Messrs Henry and Welshy.

Well discussing it is pointless now as the teams have been picked!

I think he got some tap in 1 ODI against South Africa last winter, when their batsmen deliberately set out to target him. Apart from that, he was widely considered to be impressive in the few games he played in the 2009 world T20, and he didn't succeed with the ball but he made some plucky runs with the bat in an ODI against Aus last year.

He's hardly had a whole heap of opportunities to prove himself in the way that say, Bresnan has had this summer.

He's young. He'll produce the odd bad performance. But what's the point in picking him, then dropping him, then picking him again? He needs to be given the opportunity to learn from his mistakes.

Well done England, you're well on the way to ruining a highly talented young cricketer.

Well, I think that last statement's a bit melodramatic - England can't win in this instance: they're accused of ruining him if they pick him and give him drinks duty and ruining him if they don't pick him, giving him free reign to mix his own drinks as and when the mood takes him.

That said, there's still no logical reason why Rashid - the leading wicket-taker among spinners in the country for the second time in three years - isn't in the performance squad, while James Tredwell and Danny Briggs, an even younger, more green spinner, are.

Nor the absence of the most promising fast bowler in the country in Nathan Buck instead of the hopeless Jade Dirtbag. Nor, as has been mentioned, the omission of Moeen Ali - although that at least is partly tempered by the fact that there's some pretty decent batsmen in the party. Jimmy Adams, though, is nothing better than an honest trier. He won't play international cricket.

As for the main Ashes squad, it's all very safe and predictable - watchwords for the Strauss era, I would say. Tim Bresnan is destined to be this generation's Ashley Giles: a total gashlord who's well-liked within the set-up and can hold a bat.

Won't ever take Test wickets.

free rein?

Montay, Tremmers and Fat Brezzy. I'm quaking in my boots.

So which world-beaters do Australia have as second choice spinner and 4th and 5th pace bowlers?

This is about England's squad, beams. My fears of Aus's chances have been well documented in here.

So both teams are going to lose? Even the dodgiest bookies in the entire subcontinent couldn't engineer that one...

My point is that every team's reserves are a bit sh!t, well maybe the West Indies of the 1980s would have had a couple of reserve fast bowlers who opponents wouldn't have looked forward to facing much more than the first choice ones but there can't have been many teams in history like that.

Whatever you reckon, beams. I merely questioned the quality of some members of your squad. What's Monty or Tremmers done to deserve a trip, and Fat Brezzy is just sh!t.

"Promising fast bowling in the country"

James Harris would like a word - being the most promising in two countries.

Skulls, Tremors has been bowling very well. Didn't look out of place in his test series against India either.

Perhaps you've just seen him in some ODI's...