Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:43 am  

Seems odd that Rashid is not going? Strauss should have gone, he is hardly flowing with runs is he!

Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:44 pm  

Rashid needs to be put back in county cricket for a full season, along with other fringe players. Geoffrey Boycott called it 'the best finishing school in the world' and, after a few years of treading water, it is a serious competition again. It's no good having Rashid etc. bumming around playing 2-bit tour games against some sheep shearers. They need to be playing good, hard, competitive cricket.

Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:11 pm  

PAUL M wrote:

Seems odd that Rashid is not going? Strauss should have gone, he is hardly flowing with runs is he!

I can't believe Strauss isn't going! Surely he doesn't need a 5 month break from batting No wonder they're mentally weak at times with the bat when they're being offered rests like this. I'd imagine most cricketers worth their salt would want to go and fill their boots with big runs in Bangladesh after having 2 tough series recently.

I'd have taken 3 spinners aswell if they're going to play 2 but looking at the county stats you can't blame them for taking Tredwell. If they were looking at taking 3 maybe they should have taken Rashid but then if he just went and carried the drinks again everybody would just talk about that and it could damage his confidence. Maybe they could have given Monty a chance to get some confidence back but then i'd guess the Bangers will play spin pretty well and if he's low on confidence getting whacked about the place by Bangladesh won't do him any good.

Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:13 pm  

PAUL M wrote:

Seems odd that Rashid is not going? Strauss should have gone, he is hardly flowing with runs is he!

Rashid just hasnt played enough cricket. He bowls plenty of overs during July & August and that's it for the year. He's then expected to bowl in a competitive 20/20 international a couple of months later with hardly any overs under his belt.

His selection as team waiter for the last two international tours has set him back years. It would be a mistake to take him to Bangladesh as, if selected, he would be making his debut without being in any sort of form with either bat or ball.

He needs 3 or 4 months of regular cricket before playing for England. Otherwise there is a real danger that a major talent will be ruined.

Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:29 am  

Cibaman wrote:

Rashid just hasnt played enough cricket. He bowls plenty of overs during July & August and that's it for the year. He's then expected to bowl in a competitive 20/20 international a couple of months later with hardly any overs under his belt.

His selection as team waiter for the last two international tours has set him back years. It would be a mistake to take him to Bangladesh as, if selected, he would be making his debut without being in any sort of form with either bat or ball.

He needs 3 or 4 months of regular cricket before playing for England. Otherwise there is a real danger that a major talent will be ruined.

That's a fair call. I just don't see why they took him to SA then? They might aswell given him the winter off and allowed him to play elsewhere.

Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:38 am  

PAUL M wrote: That's a fair call. I just don't see why they took him to SA then? They might aswell given him the winter off and allowed him to play elsewhere. I could see the logic of taking him to the Windies to give him experience of being with the squad. I just dont understand why it was repeated in SA. He was never a serious option to play. He needs to be bowling regularly prior to playing in a test and in this day and age there aren't enough games between the tests. His debut for England, if it comes (and it really should) should be in late summer in England after bowling a string of 20+ a day overs for Yorks. Have to say I agree with Moxon's view, although I dont think Yorks have handled his development that brilliantly http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 19,00.html

PAUL M wrote: That's a fair call. I just don't see why they took him to SA then? They might aswell given him the winter off and allowed him to play elsewhere. I could see the logic of taking him to the Windies to give him experience of being with the squad. I just dont understand why it was repeated in SA. He was never a serious option to play. He needs to be bowling regularly prior to playing in a test and in this day and age there aren't enough games between the tests. His debut for England, if it comes (and it really should) should be in late summer in England after bowling a string of 20+ a day overs for Yorks. Have to say I agree with Moxon's view, although I dont think Yorks have handled his development that brilliantly http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 19,00.html

Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:02 pm  

It's nice to provide some continuity for England's squad through the winter.

They've had one promising Yorkshire cricketer waste three months of his life carrying drinks around in South Africa, so they may as well have another one doing the same in Bangladesh.

If the reason for not taking Rashid to Bangladesh is because he hasn't bowled enough, how much bowling has Tredwell done in the last 2-3 months? It's a horsesh*t excuse IMO.

As for the captain deciding he can't be bothered (that's effectively what it is, don't swallow the BS coming out of Geoff Miller about him being "rested") he can count himself lucky that there isn't another strong captaincy candidate around or I would have taken it off him. It should be the biggest honour for any English cricketer, and to opt out of doing it because you don't fancy a trip to the sub-continent is a disgrace.

I can honestly see England being lucky not to lose in Bangladesh if the ECB are basically allowing players to pick and choose whether they can be bothered. It just sets a completely negative tone for the whole trip from the kick-off, and anyone who has watched Bangladesh against India this week will see they're not a bad side by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:00 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

It's nice to provide some continuity for England's squad through the winter.

They've had one promising Yorkshire cricketer waste three months of his life carrying drinks around in South Africa, so they may as well have another one doing the same in Bangladesh.

If the reason for not taking Rashid to Bangladesh is because he hasn't bowled enough, how much bowling has Tredwell done in the last 2-3 months? It's a horsesh*t excuse IMO.

As for the captain deciding he can't be bothered (that's effectively what it is, don't swallow the BS coming out of Geoff Miller about him being "rested") he can count himself lucky that there isn't another strong captaincy candidate around or I would have taken it off him. It should be the biggest honour for any English cricketer, and to opt out of doing it because you don't fancy a trip to the sub-continent is a disgrace.

I can honestly see England being lucky not to lose in Bangladesh if the ECB are basically allowing players to pick and choose whether they can be bothered. It just sets a completely negative tone for the whole trip from the kick-off, and anyone who has watched Bangladesh against India this week will see they're not a bad side by any stretch of the imagination.

Agree 100%...what Im wondering is A) how much authority Cook is going to have when everyone knows he's just a stand-in, and B) if Strauss is "fatigued" and needs a rest, then why arent other players who've played in all the same tests he has??

[John_D]

Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:39 pm  

If you're not taking Rashid to Bangladesh, then it's time to admit that you'll never pick him for a Test match and stop all the fannying about right now.

Re: Super Cricket- England in SA : Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:09 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

It's nice to provide some continuity for England's squad through the winter.

They've had one promising Yorkshire cricketer waste three months of his life carrying drinks around in South Africa, so they may as well have another one doing the same in Bangladesh.

If the reason for not taking Rashid to Bangladesh is because he hasn't bowled enough, how much bowling has Tredwell done in the last 2-3 months? It's a horsesh*t excuse IMO.

As for the captain deciding he can't be bothered (that's effectively what it is, don't swallow the BS coming out of Geoff Miller about him being "rested") he can count himself lucky that there isn't another strong captaincy candidate around or I would have taken it off him. It should be the biggest honour for any English cricketer, and to opt out of doing it because you don't fancy a trip to the sub-continent is a disgrace.

I can honestly see England being lucky not to lose in Bangladesh if the ECB are basically allowing players to pick and choose whether they can be bothered. It just sets a completely negative tone for the whole trip from the kick-off, and anyone who has watched Bangladesh against India this week will see they're not a bad side by any stretch of the imagination.

Can you imagine Ponting or Smith not going on tour with 'their' side? It's beyond belief and as for Cook taking over the captaincy I don't get that either. He's been struggling with his form for a year and looked like in South Africa he was just getting back to near his best. He's now got that much on his plate outside of batting that I can see him going back into a slump.

I'd have asked Collingwood to do it and believe he would have thrived on it in the way that Ponting and Smith do.