The End is Nigh - GBH recalled to the test squad

furriner wrote:I'll bet he does just about enough to retain his place.

So in real terms, thats a couple of 20's and a wicket in each innings then! Having been dropped once!

Brass Monkey wrote: I think it's a I hate Vawn, I'll be going insane now camp-aign.

p.s. Collingwood got dropped for a bowler. To make a 5 man attack. Hope that clears it up.

It's not a "I hate Vaughan" campaign Finkie ...
more like a "Watch Vaughan closely ... he's pulling the wool over our eyes" campaign.

I've always rated his batting (bar his bunny-hops to Steyn) and respect his past record.

But ... living on past glories of 3 years ago ain't what winning tests in the future is all about ...
not when you surround yourself with a cosy select bunch of pets that offer their adulation under
the guise of Team England!

Conquerors of the mighty Kiwis ... but knockabout play-things for the Jaarpies!

holcs wrote:

furriner wrote:I'll bet he does just about enough to retain his place.

So in real terms, thats a couple of 20's and a wicket in each innings then! Having been dropped once!

About and thereabouts.

Merlin wrote:

It's not a "I hate Vaughan" campaign Finkie ...
more like a "Watch Vaughan closely ... he's pulling the wool over our eyes" campaign.

I've always rated his batting (bar his bunny-hops to Steyn) and respect his past record.

But ... living on past glories of 3 years ago ain't what winning tests in the future is all about ...
not when you surround yourself with a cosy select bunch of pets that offer their adulation under
the guise of Team England!

Conquerors of the mighty Kiwis ... but knockabout play-things for the Jaarpies!

Well, I'd like to put to you that when MPV wasn't in the team, shithouses were still getting in nepotistically all over the show. This does span 3 captains and 2 coaches as well as 8 or 9 selectors. Seems to me that the selectors, then and now, have about a set 17 they like and f*ck the rest. I find it abhorrent. To put the blame, as it seems you're doing, on one bloke who doesn't even get a proper say smacks of a weird little obsession.

This thread just isn't about Harmison any more.

Dis toime it's possnull.

Brass Monkey wrote:To put the blame, as it seems you're doing, on one bloke who doesn't even get a proper say smacks of a weird little obsession.

If you've swallowed that line - more fool you!

Not an obsession Fink - I'm just very, very wary of persons who play act at being infallible,
who build a comfort zone around themselves and then take positives from situations
where even a blind man can detect problems; moreso when the one redeeming feature (batting)
is also beginning to look suspect.

Vaughan has been guilty of all these acts at one time or another - and yes, I'll bang on about it till
either he is fired or else Englands fortunes revive through the introduction of new blood in the side -
And then he trumpets about retaining the captaincy for Ashes 2010 - on what meritable ground?!!
Now I'm all for him being skipper if his team are seriously kicking arse around the globe .... but hey .....
the last time I looked they'd mullered the almighty Kiwis.
Impressive stuff !

You know what though merls, there's no incumbent. Not one. Until very recently, AJ wasn't even in the team. There's him and KP. That's all. No viable options. One untried, one tried. Was reasonably impressed with Strauss' captaincy, Monty was on a hot streak and he used him well. Strauss himself flourished as a batsman too. But he had a team who were firing - centuries everywhere, duff bowling to face, some bowlers in form. There's not enough to suggest that our strongest captain for many a year(sort of anyway, got plenty of time for Nass) deserves to be wrenched out. Yet.

As for his batting form, yep - slump. But then, I watched all his games on the return - I saw how others buckled when shit was flying and he was out there in the middle, looking serene, confident and looking like runs. He got sawn a few times and has also been out in unfortunate ways.

Points taken mate - and well put.
however - for my part, my question is this -
at what point (bear in mind Ashes '09 in 10 months time) is his sell-by date reached?

A 3-1 or 2-1 drubbing by the Jaarpies this series?
Continued poor batting form?
Other viable candidates champing at the bit scoring plenty of runs?
A repeat fall-out with Miller?
A combination of all four points ?

Vaughan has always had an excuse - always - to carry on regardless.

My genuine worry is that, despite probably having our hides handed to us by the Jaarps, nothing will have been changed, Vaughan will retain the captaincy through the winter tours, small tweaks to the team here and there - and bingo - we enter Ashes '09 no wiser nor any more stronger than when and where we leave off this summer.

I strongly believe that if you are to re build a team, you start at the top.
Naz knew that and walked away ... and captains before that did the same.

Vaughan, I'm afraid, doesn't have that particular grace.
He will HAVE to be pushed.
And by then it might just be too late for our attempt to regain the Ashes.

Merlin wrote:Points taken mate - and well put.
however - for my part, my question is this -
at what point (bear in mind Ashes '09 in 10 months time) is his sell-by date reached?

A 3-1 or 2-1 drubbing by the Jaarpies this series?
Continued poor batting form?
Other viable candidates champing at the bit scoring plenty of runs?
A repeat fall-out with Miller?
A combination of all four points ?

Vaughan has always had an excuse - always - to carry on regardless.

My genuine worry is that, despite probably having our hides handed to us by the Jaarps, nothing will have been changed, Vaughan will retain the captaincy through the winter tours, small tweaks to the team here and there - and bingo - we enter Ashes '09 no wiser nor any more stronger than when and where we leave off this summer.

I strongly believe that if you are to re build a team, you start at the top.
Naz knew that and walked away ... and captains before that did the same.

Vaughan, I'm afraid, doesn't have that particular grace.
He will HAVE to be pushed.
And by then it might just be too late for our attempt to regain the Ashes.

Merls, no offense - but Fark the Ashes.

We are never going to compete with this side. Never in a million years on their current form over the past 18 months (our batters mainly). I'd rather we rebuilt now with a few tweaks and got dumped on in the Ashes, but at least we were building and becoming a better side. The problem we have is its the same shoite different day scenario, and no one seems to believe this is the case within the setup!

Couldn't care less who the skipper is, I just want a top 6 capable of making runs consistently. Vaughan just happens to be bottom of the averages for 2008 of the lot!

Merlin wrote:Points taken mate - and well put.
however - for my part, my question is this -
at what point (bear in mind Ashes '09 in 10 months time) is his sell-by date reached?

A 3-1 or 2-1 drubbing by the Jaarpies this series?
Continued poor batting form?
Other viable candidates champing at the bit scoring plenty of runs?
A repeat fall-out with Miller?
A combination of all four points ?

Vaughan has always had an excuse - always - to carry on regardless.

My genuine worry is that, despite probably having our hides handed to us by the Jaarps, nothing will have been changed, Vaughan will retain the captaincy through the winter tours, small tweaks to the team here and there - and bingo - we enter Ashes '09 no wiser nor any more stronger than when and where we leave off this summer.

I strongly believe that if you are to re build a team, you start at the top.
Naz knew that and walked away ... and captains before that did the same.

Vaughan, I'm afraid, doesn't have that particular grace.
He will HAVE to be pushed.
And by then it might just be too late for our attempt to regain the Ashes.

It's hard to know when, IMO. It's not like Graeme Qunt has 'out-captained' Michael Vaughan. It's indicative that if your charges act like wankstains(SA bowling 1st innings, Lord's; England bowling 1st innings, Headingley) then you get punished, badly. Then, if your soft-bellied little wimps crumble, constantly out to a shit shot rather than been gotten out(SA batting 1st innings, Lord's; England batting 1st innings, Headingley) , again you will get punished, badly.

Whilst this must be at least partially up to the captain, the blame spreads because after an analysis of the scorecards, you'll see 8 failures or however many. I agree with you that he's somewhat lost it: FWIW, the MPV of two years ago may have been able to rouse some battle for the 2nd innings at Headingley, but the cancerous rot that losses cause is hard to get rid of IMO.

These blokes have been perpetual losers... Bell, Strauss, Cook, Anderson and so on for a couple of years. At least against anyone difficult.

I don't think it's feasible to change. We've not got loads more series before the next Ashes - there's no doubt that these question marks(Strauss[very much less so], Bell, Cook, Anderson, Panesar) will all be there or thereabouts this time next year. It's inexorable, it seems. The selectors(in particular) keep picking same old, same old.

The difference between Nass and Vaughan was age and how much they gave. Nass did it non-stop. Wrenched us single-handed out of the mire. Then suddenly felt he no longer had the team - blood and guts that bloke, but that would've hurt him immensely more than someone a bit more pragmatic like Vaughan. He probably sees this and wants the challenge. I'm intrigued to see how it'll go.

Balls Vaughan - You spin spouting @rse!!

And goes back to harping on about being one down against the NZudders who are shoite!!!!

We didn't bat well enough so we pick Collingwood. You are a fool Vaughan. Although its the selectors that picked him so they are QUNTS!

Brass Monkey wrote:

The difference between Nass and Vaughan was age and how much they gave. Nass did it non-stop. Wrenched us single-handed out of the mire. Then suddenly felt he no longer had the team - blood and guts that bloke, but that would've hurt him immensely more than someone a bit more pragmatic like Vaughan. He probably sees this and wants the challenge. I'm intrigued to see how it'll go.

Agree with your take on Naz v Vawn totally.
Bottom line is that clearly Vaughan believes he is here to stay, postives and all, like it or lump it.
He's made that perfectly clear, and the selectors haven't said anything to believe otherwise.
But surely there must come a time ... and soon you'd have thought!
How much longer can this lurching from one "positive" to another be tolerated?

Likewise ... it intrigues me too, as I honestly do not see a point in time (unless after Ashes '09)
when he finally packs it in because he cannot extract what he clearly thinks he can right now,
out of a team who are so imbalanced it galls to watch them.

So the question is : If he can't do it - then why hang around selfishly when others could have a stab?

But, like you said - Vawn is more pragmatic ... and I would add ... he lacks the grace to accept it ain't
happening for him or the team, and as such, walk away from the captaincy whilst concentrating on his batting.

Wouldn't we all like to see the Jaarpies taken apart at Edgbaston and TB ?
Damn right we would ... but, can we see that happening?
'fraid, try as I want, I just can't.

Not sure I'd agree entirely. We don't know Vaughan. We don't know that he's hanging around selfishly. He's not the sort of bloke to give up - tipified in a good proportion of his centuries and the way he kept going with his wonky knee. You're casting aspersions a little.

Basically, he is the best man to lead this side. His captaincy has been astute, under Duncan Fletcher his man management was excellent, many have pointed to that - including his predecessors. He's the only man to have beaten Aus in ages, whether you like it or not. These sort of things help in small ways - I'm sure Ponting feels mildly intimidated by him.

Things changed a bit when the power had been shifted about a bit. It burst their infamous 'bubble'. Not sure he and Moores are on the same page. Think Strauss and he would suit each other better. Personally, I would sack Moores at the end of the series though, so that's pretty moot.

Anyways, we all want the same thing as you say - smashing the Japies, then the Indians and then the Aussies. At least two of these teams are arch-thunderqunts of world cricket. They're also the best three sides. So it will be near impossible. What we do need for this is to have our best attack. In this regard, we're at 6's and 7's. Nobody knows. I'd warrant that it would be the 2005 pace attack and Monty, give or take a Sidebottom. But that obviously seems defunkt. They're all in form, however, and they should be given some sort of look in. There hasn't been any world beaters in our 3rd seamer slot, SiBo has been immense, Anderson had looked immense at times - mercurial still though, but then there's been no-one IMO.

Therefore the ones, who I stress again are in-form, with noticable talent; be it pace and bounce(Harmison), the use of the old ball(Jones) or canny line&lengths(Hoggard) should be given the right to play. None of this moving on shit. Some haven't had the oppotunity, some have had too much but there isn't a limit to chances.

Good arguments all round, will be very interesting to see what happens tomorrow.

I think some of you are underestimating Collingwood's bowling a little when saying Shah, Bell or Pietersen could do the same job. When we've needed Collingwood's bowling, i.e. with the 4 man attack, he's been tidy enough...

4 man attack (7 overs per match on average)
14 wickets at 42.14, economy rate = 3.19

5 man attack (3 overs per match on average)
0 wickets at - (85 runs conceded)

But Shah can feel disappointed he hasn't had more than 2 caps, I agree with this.

Oh, and so much for me saying there's no way the selectors would recall Harmison just to make him 12th man!

It is literally impossible to second guess our selectors, I should have known this...

Gary 111 wrote:

It is literally impossible to second guess our selectors...

If they don't know what the f*ck they're thinking, how can anyone else?

It does seem a strange decision to call him up and not play him. Why did they not go for someone more likely to be suited to the conditions, if that's the reason why he was left out?

Dello wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

It is literally impossible to second guess our selectors...

If they don't know what the f*ck they're thinking, how can anyone else?

Maybe they would make good chess players with this unpredictability.

Although saying that, they would probably select an extra two pawns to start the game, overlooking the more talented bishops on the basis of being a bit too arrogant and not team players with their fancy diagonal movements...

beamer wrote:It does seem a strange decision to call him up and not play him. Why did they not go for someone more likely to be suited to the conditions, if that's the reason why he was left out?

And why accept all the criticism that they would get for selecting Harmison, and raise all the baggage that comes with picking him, if they had no intention of picking him anyway...!

Madness.

Gary 111 wrote:

Dello wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

It is literally impossible to second guess our selectors...

If they don't know what the f*ck they're thinking, how can anyone else?

Maybe they would make good chess players with this unpredictability.

Although saying that, they would probably select an extra two pawns to start the game, overlooking the more talented bishops on the basis of being a bit too arrogant and not team players with their fancy diagonal movements...

No, they'd have a row of prawns. And the top hat from Monopoly. And the rules of backgammon close to hand.

And Gilo would be naked.

Dello wrote:

And Gilo would be naked.

For that image - much thanks!

Brass Monkey wrote:

Anyways, we all want the same thing as you say - smashing the Japies, then the Indians and then the Aussies. At least two of these teams are arch-thunderqunts of world cricket.

So, which is the odd one out?

JKLever wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Anyways, we all want the same thing as you say - smashing the Japies, then the Indians and then the Aussies. At least two of these teams are arch-thunderqunts of world cricket.

So, which is the odd one out?

England!

beamer wrote:It does seem a strange decision to call him up and not play him. Why did they not go for someone more likely to be suited to the conditions, if that's the reason why he was left out?

A more logical choice would have been Jonah, but I guess that the selectors doubt his ability to bowl the required number of overs.

Basil wrote:

beamer wrote:It does seem a strange decision to call him up and not play him. Why did they not go for someone more likely to be suited to the conditions, if that's the reason why he was left out?

A more logical choice would have been Jonah, but I guess that the selectors doubt his ability to bowl the required number of overs.

Unlike Iron Ankles Flintoff...