England v South Africa, 2nd Test, Trent Bridge, 14-18 July, 2017

Interesting question, beams. My own thoughts are that unless the selectors pull a bowler out of their arses who's even half as good, he may just do it. It's not just a matter of finding someone who's any good though is it ? They have to be sure that any replacement is able to stay fit and firing for a full series. At one time or another, we've had Finn, Woakes, Trembler and now Wood all touted as possible long term regulars.

The problem is simply that, as engineers would say - whereas Jimmy is forged from the finest Sheffield steel, those four have been cast in cheap shitty Chinese monkey metal - buckles and breaks at the slightest hint of stress, and can't remain fit for purpose from one week to the next.

Have I missed something - why isn't Plunkett considered for Tests?

skully wrote:Abject.

Well played South Africa.

Series now interesting.

lardbucket wrote:Have I missed something - why isn't Plunkett considered for Tests?

A very good question, so good that I'm struggling for answer. To be fair though, it's not the bowling that's let us down.

I'd like to suggest that Trevor Bayliss isn't all he's hyped up to be.

I mean, can anyone name an England player who has made his debut since Bayliss was coach, and turned out to be a success? I'd like to know what he actually DOES as head coach? Or is his entire job just to give post match interviews where he says, "aww yeah look, it's disappointing...."??

What swung Bayliss' appointment was his success in white-ball cricket - it was Strauss' undisguised priority to improve our ODI / T20 form and that has succeeded to a large extent.

Still, we have the likes of Ramprakash in also on the coaching staff, so the blame can't all be placed at Bayliss' door.

Growler wrote:...

The problem is simply that, as engineers would say - whereas Jimmy is forged from the finest Sheffieldsteel,....

HOW ABSOLUTELY DARE YOU!

'Lad's born, bred an burnished in BURRNLI, LANCS!!

lardbucket wrote:Have I missed something - why isn't Plunkett considered for Tests?

Quite. See my team musings above.

He's been out of favour for Test contention for what seems yonks now. Occasionally injured, but no more than an average quick, pounding in. They just don't fancy him, it seems.

Granted, he would be only a stopgap solution, not looking to the future as has been warned above. But if Wood is carrying (masking??) an injury, I'd swop North-Easterners, and try to get an Overton or Curran or possibly (but only possibly) Ball up to Test snuff.

"Carbs" seems to be another they don't want to trust with more than a couple of overs at a time.

Basil wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Have I missed something - why isn't Plunkett considered for Tests?

A very good question, so good that I'm struggling for answer. To be fair though, it's not the bowling that's let us down.

The bowling wasn't that great at TB, but generally true, yes.

There is a problem, again, of thin resources in the bowling at Test level, though - especially when some who might are not considered.

Growler wrote:Interesting question, beams. My own thoughts are that unless the selectors pull a bowler out of their arses who's even half as good, he may just do it. It's not just a matter of finding someone who's any good though is it ? They have to be sure that any replacement is able to stay fit and firing for a full series. At one time or another, we've had Finn, Woakes, Trembler and now Wood all touted as possible long term regulars.

The problem is simply that, as engineers would say - whereas Jimmy is forged from the finest Sheffield steel, those four have been cast in cheap shitty Chinese monkey metal - buckles and breaks at the slightest hint of stress, and can't remain fit for purpose from one week to the next.

Well, Woakes might - hopefully - soon be back and a regular. He had slipped my mind a couple of posts above, considering what available stocks of quicks there might be.

PeterCS wrote:

Basil wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Have I missed something - why isn't Plunkett considered for Tests?

A very good question, so good that I'm struggling for answer. To be fair though, it's not the bowling that's let us down.

The bowling wasn't that great at TB, but generally true, yes.

There is a problem, again, of thin resources in the bowling at Test level, though - especially when some who might are not considered.

When people start talking seriously about Toby Roland-Jones getting a game, you know how thin our resources are!

Woakes, if fit, and Ball, when fit, come into the frame but after that, it's all rather worrying.

PeterCS wrote:

Growler wrote:...

The problem is simply that, as engineers would say - whereas Jimmy is forged from the finest Sheffieldsteel,....

HOW ABSOLUTELY DARE YOU!

'Lad's born, bred an burnished in BURRNLI, LANCS!!

I know he's Lancashires finest Peter, however I think you'd agree that

"whilst Jummy is moulded from the finest Burnley black puddin', the others are snotty, cheap second-rate Chinese tofu"

doesn't quite work, does it? As I'm sure you know, Burnley was full of cotton mills rather than steel mills .....

Basil wrote:What swung Bayliss' appointment was his success in white-ball cricket - it was Strauss' undisguised priority to improve our ODI / T20 form and that has succeeded to a large extent.

Still, we have the likes of Ramprakash in also on the coaching staff, so the blame can't all be placed at Bayliss' door.

Surely it's time for separate coaches for red(/pink) and white ball cricket... we already have separate captains and largely different teams, so why not? Why Ramps was brought in I've no idea though, serial underachiever at this level. To say "do everything I didn't" to them?

Anyway looks like Ballance could be out injured for the Oval so the selectors will be forced into trying at least one new batsman.

beamer wrote:

Basil wrote:What swung Bayliss' appointment was his success in white-ball cricket - it was Strauss' undisguised priority to improve our ODI / T20 form and that has succeeded to a large extent.

Still, we have the likes of Ramprakash in also on the coaching staff, so the blame can't all be placed at Bayliss' door.

Surely it's time for separate coaches for red(/pink) and white ball cricket... we already have separate captains and largely different teams, so why not? Why Ramps was brought in I've no idea though, serial underachiever at this level. To say "do everything I didn't" to them?

Anyway looks like Ballance could be out injured for the Oval so the selectors will be forced into trying at least one new batsman.

TBF Aus did bring in Hick as a batting coach.

Growler wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

Growler wrote:...

The problem is simply that, as engineers would say - whereas Jimmy is forged from the finest Sheffieldsteel,....

HOW ABSOLUTELY DARE YOU!

'Lad's born, bred an burnished in BURRNLI, LANCS!!

I know he's Lancashires finest Peter, however I think you'd agree that

"whilst Jummy is moulded from the finest Burnley black puddin', the others are snotty, cheap second-rate Chinese tofu"

doesn't quite work, does it? As I'm sure you know, Burnley was full of cotton mills rather than steel mills .....

Aye, bu' think on ....

There's a bit of talk around Tom Westley now that Ballance is likely out for the Oval.

Personally I'd go for Malan. Sure, he hasn't been 'mr prolific' in county cricket, but then neither were Trescothick and Vaughan when they were first picked. Sometimes a player just 'has' something that makes him look like an international cricketer. I think Malan is one of them.

Henry wrote:There's a bit of talk around Tom Westley now that Ballance is likely out for the Oval.

Personally I'd go for Malan. Sure, he hasn't been 'mr prolific' in county cricket, but then neither were Trescothick and Vaughan when they were first picked. Sometimes a player just 'has' something that makes him look like an international cricketer. I think Malan is one of them.

Good call about Malan. He also has the advantage of having been in the game for the best part of a decade - he's not going to stare into the headlights like a frightened rabbit. The same could be said about Stoneman.

True that, Bas - for every wonderkid like Garry Sobers or Sachin Tendulkar selected as a teenager and become universally recognised as great, there are many, many more who don't make double figures in tests played.

All too often, we've seen people given a debut in the wrong match playing the wrong opponents. The most glaring example in recent years was Simon Kerrigan. An excellent young spinner (just turned 24) taking wickets almost for fun, and easily worth a look at in Tests - but not against Australia. Smith and Watson took just 8 overs to end his test carreer in a couple of sessions, and he's never been quite the same bowler since.

By the same token, if we're going to look at new, younger batsmen for the future, it makes more sense to me to wait until WI get here, and tell him he will play all three matches. I see nothing to gain by risking a youngster against this SA attack, especially if he has to come in at bugger-all/3 or 4.

Growler wrote:True that, Bas - for every wonderkid like Garry Sobers or Sachin Tendulkar selected as a teenager and become universally recognised as great, there are many, many more who don't make double figures in tests played.

All too often, we've seen people given a debut in the wrong match playing the wrong opponents. The most glaring example in recent years was Simon Kerrigan. An excellent young spinner (just turned 24) taking wickets almost for fun, and easily worth a look at in Tests - but not against Australia. Smith and Watson took just 8 overs to end his test carreer in a couple of sessions, and he's never been quite the same bowler since.

By the same token, if we're going to look at new, younger batsmen for the future, it makes more sense to me to wait until WI get here, and tell him he will play all three matches. I see nothing to gain by risking a youngster against this SA attack, especially if he has to come in at bugger-all/3  or 4.

I don't buy it. Australia aren't renowned players of spin and if he can't bowl to a guy who averaged mid 30s in his test career (Twatson) then he can't cut it at the top level. Kerrigan was an example of a lack of decent temperament being ruthlessly exposed at the top level. We found out he's just not able to cut it. IMO it was better that we found that out in a dead rubber test. Sooner or later he'd have to play the best teams and the best players, and bowling against Watson was a much easier introduction (potentially) than bowling against Kohli and co in India. It's international cricket. Not kindergarten.

Trev, of course I take your point - but whilst Australia aren't renowned players of spin, they've been known to make hay now and then against far better spinners than SK. He could just as easily made his debut earlier in the summer against NZ, for example, and they don't have so many destructive batsmen. If he really was that poor, we'd have found out just the same.

Had he not got so carted around the park from the off - who knows if his nerves would have settled and played another few tests. I think it's harsh to say someone has a lack of temperament on a single performance, and IMO we saw too much of it in days gone by.

While it's not kindergarten, if we are really serious about finding future test players - then we should give them a fighting chance. I don't think Kerrigan really got that mate, that's all I'm trying to say.

Ok fair enough. Perhaps it can lead to a discussion as to why batsmen seem to get plenty of chances to establish themselves or otherwise in the England team (Ballance, Vince, Hales) yet bowlers still get such a short rope. (Kerrigan, Rashid, Ball,)

Why aren't the bowlers given equal opportunity to establish themselves in the England side and gain confidence?

Kerrigans's debut was the bowling equaivalent of a king pair, yetif a young English batsman made a king pair on debut, he'd almost certainly get another chance in the next test. It's double standards,really.

That is exactly what I was trying to get across, and you've summed it up perfectly. I've pointed out more than once the example of Jimmy A being selected for the 2004/5 tour to SA where he played a solitary test with his confidence shot to shit, and memories of Graeme Smith & Co two summers earlier - and for the 2006/7 tour to Aus having missed the home season with a stress fracture.

Now, please don't take this as a sly dig - but if someone had said that his poor temperament had been ruthlessly exposed at the highest level, few would have argued would they? He could so easily have been cast aside - but as it happened, Peter Moores (for all his other faults) gave England a decade of their best pair of opening bowlers since Gough & Caddick, for sure. Maybe since Botham & Willis.

Look at the Belfard - 70 on debut v WI, then 65* and 162* v Bangles before the 2005 Ashes. His average of 17 exposed temperament rather than technique in that series, but as we know - he was ever present from then on. I'm not so sure he'd have toured Pakistan and India the following winter had his debut been the Ashes series. Quite possibly would have, but as you said - it's very doubtful that a new bowler going for 4.5 rpo taking, say 6/330 in the series would even have been up for discussion.

In the case of Kerrigan, whilst no doubt talented, he does have a slightly ungainly, jerky looking action that could be hard to repeat over and over when under pressure.

What's happened to him anyway? Fallen off the radar for good? I don't think he's even playing for Lancs these days? Parry seems to be the main spinner at the moment. The English system swallows up yet another promising young spinner.

I'm always wary of picking 30-year-olds for Test debuts as it begs the question "why was he never good enough before" and perhaps suggests an ordinary county journeyman having a mid to late career purple patch, who will be found out at the higher level.

I suppose it can come off on occasions and we do need some short term fixes at the moment. I see the point about throwing in young players but perhaps that often shows their true colours, not everyone will make a big score or take a hatful of wickets on debut and it sometimes takes a few goes to fully establish a player, but they can give the impression they belong at that level, or the complete opposite. I mean, if we hadn't thrown Cook and Root in when we did, where would we have ended up?

Well in the case of Malan he didn't qualify for England until his early 20s. Then he got pigeon-holed a bit as a white ball specialist.

Stoneman had to score most of his runs on the bowler-friendly Chester Le Street pitch until he moved to Surrey this year. If he's going to make his debut it may as well be at the Oval, but for goodness sake he has to open, doesn't he? He's opened the batting his entire life and it would be extremely unfair to ask him to go in at three for his test debut.