1st test v SA squad announcement

English selectors are so funny.

Do they have any method for picking a squad?

JKLever wrote:Another thing regarding Pattinson - I thought you had to serve a qualification period?

How can we pick him after just 7 games for Notts?

He was born in Grimsby - so I guess under the most simplistic definition of where you were born, he is English. Probably has a UK passport too.

PearlJ wrote:English selectors are so funny.

Do they have any method for picking a squad?

Yes - I think it involves one of those bingo machines, Mousie the Chimp dressed in a nurses uniform, a big plate of blancmange and a set of labeled balls. Many of which may or may not say 'Bell' on them.

BTW, I'm not happy that it looks like another installment of my 'David Sales fixation'. Yes, I was annoyed, but I never expected him in there. I had just hoped that he wouldn't not be there instead of a gaggle of shit.

Gary 111 wrote:

PearlJ wrote:English selectors are so funny.

Do they have any method for picking a squad?

Yes - I think it involves one of those bingo machines, Mousie the Chimp dressed in a nurses uniform, a big plate of blancmange and a set of labeled balls. Many of which may or may not say 'Bell' on them.

I don't think it's actually as advanced as that...

Brass Monkey wrote:BTW, I'm not happy that it looks like another installment of my 'David Sales fixation'. Yes, I was annoyed, but I never expected him in there. I had just hoped that he wouldn't not be there instead of a gaggle of shit.

Quite right though. There's no way he should be left out of a 30 man one day squad.

Selectors were probably far too busy picking Australians...

well surely lots of the kolpaks will be able to register as english soon, then we can pick players that are not english in any way at all.

it will be like arsenal becoming the english national team.

Clamson wrote:Rashid is a better batsman than swann and monty as well

not happy with key being there either, really not a one day player

Athers is a crappy Q&A for the Times that I can't bother linking to said that Monty has no pressure from another spinner in the country. Well it's fair to say that Monty is a better spinner than Adil but all the same young Adil is doing pretty damned well as an overall package with very competant batting - probably better than say Broad. Swann has also been doing not so bad in the ODIs. So fair enough Monty is no1 spinner and not at iminent risk but if say we wanted to strengthen our batting it's not as if there aren't options.

i agree, monty is the best around at the moment. swann is a good odi bowler but i dont see why monty cant be as well, given a chance. the only reason we need swann (every game) as a half decent batsman is cos the top order are useless.

im not saying pick 5 rabbits, but the bowlers should be doing their job and the batsmen should do theirs even in ODIs.

Having had a chance to digest the squad a wee bit now, some very concerning trends are developing. The England side has become something of a closed shop whereby even the fringe players are always the same ones, persisted with irrespective of form. In particular respect to the Champions Trophy squad, our supposed up-and-coming, improving side is made up largely of inadequate county journeyman who, whilst they are decent enough on the circuit, possess very little in the way of international talent or spark that really sets them apart. Obviously, the likes of Samit Patel, Darren Pattinson and all the other unfamiliars (in terms of an England squad) shall be shed to leave the Usual Suspects behind for the Champions Trophy, irrespective of form. In some ways, I'd like to see someone like Pattinson given a go to see if he can show these England Selectors that their perception of consistency - ie. a closed shop - is utter bollocks if a half-decent though unspectacular player can make it (assuming of course that he could perform first).

When you see persistent, failing crabs in your ODI side like Alastair Cook, Ian Bell and Andrew Strauss, all of whom shall make the fifteen, you begin to worry. The side is predominantly the one that brought shame upon itself against a pretty poor New Zealand side, both in terms of performances and on the field conduct. Whilst the selection of the Test side can be hidden behind the flawed mantra 'you don't change a winning team', the same cannot be said of a one-day international side that is pretty poor in every area, though especially in the batting. I don't see the selection of players like Tredwell to be a step forward, rather a step back to the days of Ashley Giles where a one-day spinner was seen as a guy to roll his arm over for ten wicket-less overs for as few runs conceded as possible. He, of all the backups, is the most concering because he actually seems to be on the cusp of selection considering the recent trends in the various One-Day Squads selected by the Muppets.

Regarding the Test squad, it is very much as you were, as expected. Somehow, Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood have connived their way into the squad despite failing to produce any form for England over a prolonged period in all forms of the game. The One-Day series was heralded as an opportunity for both to prove their Test credentials, presumably on the basis that persistent failures would render their places undefendable. That was not the case, however, as the selectors attempts at continuity for continuity's sake continued. I wonder at their justfication for their myopia, their belief that all is rosy simply because we struggled past a pretty poor side, lacking both in style and killer instinct. The batting is still woefully inept, unable to muster a 400 score irrespective of the quality of the attack or the quality of the pitch. Unfortunately, it will now take a defeat to precipitate the changes that are necessary to make England a winning team. With respect to the long-term, it might be the best thing for English cricket if we are to lose spectacularly and convincingly at Lord's next week.

Augustus wrote:even the fringe players are always the same ones, persisted with irrespective of form.

A travesty for English cricket really. Just think of the number of careers that have been ruined, wasted, mis-timed or just plain ignored because of the lack of a commonsense by the selection panel. The whole selection policy seems to revolve around the 'jobs for the boys' principle.

The thing that sticks in my craw is that it's transparently obvious that England are in a rut, but everyone concerned with English cricket seems perfectly content with being in a rut.

It's like they've just given up.

im surprised none of you have slated ambrose yet.

he looks like a crock of shit to me, put all 9 fielders behind square off side and he will get caught for no runs.

still, he generally keeps wicket well, which is a bonus

In terms of the JAMODI squad, the lack of imagination in terms of changing a losing side is worrying. The batting needs a massive overhaul, we need an attacking opener who isn't just a hit-and-miss slogger, there must be someone like that in the county game worth a go?

In terms the bowling, don't know too much about Tredwell but I would argue with the previous poster's views on one-day spinners - unless you have a Murali available then your one-day spinner should be there to get 10-0-40-0 on most occasions, and perhaps frustrate the occasional batsman into throwing his wicket away. The selections I'd have most concern about, although they almost certainly won't make the 15, are Mahmood and Plunkett, they frequently go at 8 an over so shouldn't get anywhere near the one-day side. That's your backward step. You want your new ball bowlers to get wickets, but not at the expense of numerous boundaries.

The Test side, well, as expected really. Did anyone seriously think the selectors would make a change? I'll predict now that we will lose by an innings at Lord's. Then let's see if they keep faith with the same eleven!

Clamson wrote:im surprised none of you have slated ambrose yet.

he looks like a crock of shit to me, put all 9 fielders behind square off side and he will get caught for no runs.

still, he generally keeps wicket well, which is a bonus

I think he's a better all-round batsman than people give him credit for. He drives beautifully and is strong off his legs.

It's just that the cut shot is his security blanket when he first comes to the crease and tries to settle.

well i never got to see him at county level, but ive been unimpressed this summer. I notice he got 100 something in NZ, but im not nocturnal. especially in one day cricket he needs to stop looking for the cut shot when its clearly not there, it makes him look foolish. his record isnt too bad so ill wait until sep for full judgement, but i have my doubts!

still, its this old post-stewart problem aint it - either have a quality keeper who couldnt hit a football with a tennis racket or a quality batsman who couldnt catch an apple falling out a tree.

beamer wrote:
In terms the bowling, don't know too much about Tredwell but I would argue with the previous poster's views on one-day spinners - unless you have a Murali available then your one-day spinner should be there to get 10-0-40-0 on most occasions, and perhaps frustrate the occasional batsman into throwing his wicket away.

I'd like Rashid there to offer 3 parts of his game to the team. Improves the fielding, lengthens the batting and offers genuine wicket taking ability.

So often we post 240 and have nothing to offer in the middle overs in terms of wickets taking threat when sides are looking to increase their scoring rate.

beamer wrote:The selections I'd have most concern about, although they almost certainly won't make the 15, are Mahmood and Plunkett, they frequently go at 8 an over so shouldn't get anywhere near the one-day side. That's your backward step.

I don't think it's a backwards step to return to a couple of young bowlers (Bresnan's in the squad too) who came up short 18 months ago. Could they not have improved, learned a thing or two? Is it fair to write blokes off who were perhaps picked too early?

Plunkett's lucky to be in the squad - his game looks in pieces to me. But Bresnan's been performing solidly and Mahmood has been one of the best bowlers in the country in the T20s. He's in some form, playing well.

Chances are none of those three will make the cut, but if they're on fire towards the end of the season, it'd be a risible oversight by the English selectors to have left them out of the provisional 30.

JKLever wrote:

beamer wrote:
In terms the bowling, don't know too much about Tredwell but I would argue with the previous poster's views on one-day spinners - unless you have a Murali available then your one-day spinner should be there to get 10-0-40-0 on most occasions, and perhaps frustrate the occasional batsman into throwing his wicket away.

I'd like Rashid there to offer 3 parts of his game to the team. Improves the fielding, lengthens the batting and offers genuine wicket taking ability.

So often we post 240 and have nothing to offer in the middle overs in terms of wickets taking threat when sides are looking to increase their scoring rate.

Makes sense. They've got a offie, and a SLA. Throw in a leg-spinning all-rounder and you've got all bases covered.

Rashid's obviously not very consistent in limited-overs cricket at present, but when he goes well it tends to come out as something like 10 - 2 - 24 - 3 which - when you throw in runs and fielding - make for a good little package.

I just don't see any potential in Tredwell. He's just there to make up the numbers and will miss the cut.

when is the 15 actually announced?

it seems stupid to me to name 30 people in the squad when the actual event is 3 months away!

assuming they wont change some of the names, it gives those not in the 30 nothing to aim for and i think it sends out the wrong message

They always do it like this, with a provisional 30 named months in advance.

I don't know why - but then I don't understand the motives behind most of what the ECB do...

Well as I said, I haven't seen a lot of Tredwell so don't want to comment on him as an individual, just that I've no objection to defensive spinners in JAMODI cricket. I'd like to see someone like Rashid break through but we need consistency at the moment.

Dello wrote:They always do it like this, with a provisional 30 named months in advance.

I don't know why - but then I don't understand the motives behind most of what the ECB do...

normally its money, but its hard to see how this one is related to money.

why is the ECB full of politicians anyway, its not like Parliament is full of sportsmen... horses for courses

I too have sent an email to Geoff Miller-

Dear Geoff,

F*CK YOU YOU F*CKING C*NT! HOW THE F*CK ARE YOU A F*CKING SELECTOR?! YOU'RE ALL F*CKED AND YOU SHOULD DIE! I HAVE A SHARP AXE AT HOME AND I'M GONNA COME AROUND TO YOUR HOUSE AND I'M GONNA USE IT ON YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!



Just kidding.

With the considerable benefit of hindsight, this would have been my squad:

Kevin Pietersen*
Paul Collingwood
Ravi Bopara
Owais Shah
David Sales
Ian Bell
Samit Patel
Andrew Strauss
Joe Denly
Scott Newman !
James Benning !!
Luke Wright
Matt Prior (wk)
Stephen Davies (wk)
James Foster (wk)
Graeme Swann
Adil Rashid
Ian Blackwell
Stuart Broad
Andrew Flintoff
Dimitri Mascarenhas
Simon Jones
Ryan Sidebottom
Chris Tremlett
Sajid Mahmood
James Anderson
Graham Onions
Kabir Ali
Tim Bresnan
Darren Pattinson !!!

! = Totally left-field choice, in spite of a poor List-A record. He's the player England need at the top to get on with it, in my humble opinion.
!! = I'll keep going on about him until he's picked.
!!! = Now I see why they picked him. They got to 29 and were struggling to find any bowlers eligible for England who could land it on the cut strip.