WAT England A 2006 selectors wanted

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I am concerned that we can just look at the averages and take a view based on that.

No one would advocate any such thing: knowledge of a player (first hand, second hand or otherwise) is to be sought out where-ever possible... as is (more importantly) a detailed understanding of specific performances is vital (knowledge of what role a bowler played in a particular attack on a particular day, of the pitch conditions, fields and match situation during key spells and so on).

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Last year we omitted Plunkett [..] he was later selected by England and IMO performed well. But we excluded him.

Quite right too. He shouldn't have been calledup, bombed quite predictably throughout his first few matches and is only in contention for a place to Australia because of injuries to far,far more deserving prospects.

If Jones, Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff and Anderson were all fit... along with Giles and Panesar... Plunkett would be a LONG way from contention... and I suspect that once Tremlett gets fit you could bump Plunkett yet another place down the line.

As a straight bowler I'd also place him behind Lewis, Sidebottom and even Mahmood: he's ONLY in contention because somefolk think he knows one end of a bat from the other... though as yet he's shown VERY little to substantiate that claim.

[admin]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I am concerned that we can just look at the averages and take a view based on that, without actually having seen the bowler bowl or the batter bat.

I certainly don't do that. I take into account their class as shown by their record in representative cricket eg U19s, Eng A, ODIs, Test. I also consider their recent consistency in the past couple of seasons. If they've been selected for WAT before and backup with another strong year I tend to favour them over a new county star who I've never heard of before.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Last year we omitted Plunkett, despite the fact that those who had seen him bowl (like me) claimed that the stats did not tell the whole story, and that he had potential beyond the figures, he was later selected by England and IMO performed well. But we excluded him.

Plunkett was one of those guys, like Shreck and Onions that I'd never heard of before. For me, I couldn't ignore the consistency of Davies and Mascarenhas. Tremlett was also another guy who has been through the Academy and was close to Test selection having made a number of Test squads. I haven't had a close look at Shreck and Onions yet but it's hard to ignore Mahmood's credentials. He has been to the Academy, played Eng A, ODIs and Test matches. That puts him way up the pecking order. I can't see one good season by Shreck and Onions matching that. As I see it, the pace attack is Mahmood, Tremlett and Broad.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by admin

As I see it, the pace attack is Mahmood, Tremlett and Broad.

Broad? Great long term prospect but he's exactly that: he's miles off being the finished product and has yet to do enough to warrant consideration let alone selection. These sorts of positions should not be given out on a whim: he should be left to go off and do enough to be in consideration for NEXT year.

Mascarenhas, Tremlett, Doshi and Shreck look in pole position for me.

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Broad? Great long term prospect but he's exactly that: he's miles off being the finished product and has yet to do enough to warrant consideration let alone selection.

Broad already has good pace (82-85mph) and he also has the control (an economy of 3.72 doesn't do justice to some of the flat tracks at Grace Road he's had to bowl on, whereas Tremlett and Mascarenhas get the bowler friendly wickets of the Rose Bowl) to be able to create pressure on batsmen. He can extract good bounce with his height (over 6' tall) and is set grow over the winter. His strike rate is also up there which means he can occupy the strike bowlers slot.

[Rachael]

I'm not disputing that broad is VERY promising... but Mascarenhas CURRENTLY presents a far, FAR more worthy case: he's doing it in division 1, he's taking stacks of wickets, his average is outstanding, he's economical... and he's proving a VERY decent bat against those self-same division 1 bowlers who've been murdering many supposedly 'promising' batsmen.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Vrock

Broad already has good pace (82-85mph) and he also has the control

His strike rate is also up there which means he can vacate the strike bowlers slot.

Onions has all of those, 45 wickets and an average of 26 against Broad's 30. Just to try to keep him in the running amidst the military medium crusade. Just a note, if we went for Mascarenhas as a number 7 again and an all-rounder, we could then pick Tremlett, Shreck, Onions and Doshi/Dalrymple/Rashid/A.N.Other spinner. I won't go for Mahmood because he is already in the frame and likely to go to Australia and play more tests. He's gone beyond A team level, whether or not he's ready for it I don't know yet.

Secondly, do you mean "vacate" or "occupy"? Not meaning to be picky but I've lost your thread there...

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Rachael

he's doing it in division 1, he's taking stacks of wickets, his average is outstanding, he's economical... and he's proving a VERY decent bat against those self-same division 1 bowlers who've been murdering many supposedly 'promising' batsmen.

I'll point you in the direction of this scorecard, it is from the third Championship match of the season. This was also Mascerenhas' third first class match of the season and he'd bowled* 45 overs for 102 runs and taken only one wicket at Old Trafford and the Rose Bowl, not flat decks early season by any means considering Bruce was doing pretty well both matches with Taylor for company in the second. I'll come back to why I included those other two matches later.

Stuart Broad, whilst Mascerenhas was going wicketless against Middlesex (division one batsmen) at the Rose Bowl early in the season, was bowling for England A against Sri Lanka(who had played two warm up matches previously) in a four day match prior to the test series. (which Sri Lanka drew 1-1 I hasten to add) Unfortunately, for Broad, Jon Lewis and Liam Plunkett were awarded the new ball so Broad had to contend without the use of a new ball and facing some good batsmen. In the first innings Lewis (it must have been a helpful pitch! ) and Plunkett pretty much took the chance for Broad to bowl at proper batsmen away. Still, 10 overs with an economy of 2.2 whereas the opening bowlers were going at 3 per over isn't too bad. The second innings comes round (Broad having made 14* against dicision one... sorry, test bowlers) and this time Broad gets an opportunity, presumably, on a pitch that will have got a little easier for batting. 3-17 from his 11 overs shows, once again, impressive control and, once again, better economy than the opening pair who have both played test matches. He didn't pick up the biggest of wickets, only Mahela Jayawardene and Tillakaratne Dilshan, who, the other bowlers had failed to pick up and was on a role with 40*.

So, we have Broad and Mascerenhas, fresh at the start of the season, as change (only first change, both, once) bowlers. Both have helpful pitches for pace bowling (as shown by their opening bowlers) but it's Broad who is taking wickets against better quality opposition, it is Broad who is beating his fellow test match bowlers . These are test standard bastman, division one doesn't quite reach test standard for me. Broad is beating him early season simply by playing in the A team, he's beating him in performances also.

Back to the other two matches* that Mascerenhas played before the Middlesex match, now. Taylor had become injured, I believe, part way through the season (this is before Tremlett returned to partner Bruce opening the bowling) so Mascerenhas has been given a go at opening the bowling. Picking out a match at the Rose Bowl, once again, and he's bowling well with, of course, a helpful pitch. He's got the new ball in his hand and is collecting the rewards. However, taking the latest match for Hampshire, at the Rose Bowl, against Warwickshire (Division one side) he is now down to first change bowler and picking up all but zero wickets.

No new ball now for Mascerhenas and he's struggling to take wickets. Whereas, Stuart Broad, who is opening the bowling on a flat deck this week against Worcestershire (division two) who just so happen to be, as a side, on supreme batting form. He has taken a couple of wickets, not with the new ball, but in the middle overs. He's not getting the help that either Bruce/Taylor/Tremlett/Mascerenhas are getting at the Rose Bowl with the new ball, he's getting Grace Road; which is playing like a slow pancake throughout the whole match for pace bowlers. He is averaging 30 runs per wicket this season and is actually providing the Foxes with a glimmer of hope in providing a decent performance from the pace department. Mascerenhas will end up (for the majority of the seasons) playing second fiddle to opening forces of Bruce/Tremlett and only offering control. Broad is offering control AND wickets, even in the middle overs. It wouldn't, either, surprise me if Mascerenhas' average actually goes up in the last four matches, his only hope of getting the new ball is if the Hampshire pace department lose one of their strike bowlers and, if it's Tremlett, we don't want that to happen.

*
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/hamps...ch/225005.html
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/hamps...ch/225000.html

Originally Posted by Collyisamackmen

Secondly, do you mean "vacate" or "occupy"? Not meaning to be picky but I've lost your thread there...

I did mean occupy, thanks for pointing out that error Colly, I'll go and fix it. The long break from school is affecting my use of words it seems.

[greg]

Just throwing a name in the hat but if Adil Rashid plays the remaining games of the season would he come under consideration and should we take into account his amazing performance in the under19 test seeing as everybody is staking a claim for Mahmood on the grounds that he would have played 5 games but for international duty.

If he plays all the games he will have played 5 matches but missed 2 while away with England and after 2 days of his 2nd match he has 9 wickets @ under 20.Surely he is a case of when he plays for England not if.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Broad? Great long term prospect but he's exactly that: he's miles off being the finished product and has yet to do enough to warrant consideration let alone selection.

Admin, and here proves my point. Broad deserves his place in the team because of his potential, not because of his figures alone (although his figures are good).

Selection for the team should be more than just based on figures. I would have Tremlett, Broad and Mahmood. But sadly I feel the case for these guys will be countered and won by people who want to reward good county seasons alone. Hence why Plunkett was omitted last year and that made the team look very silly when Plunkett was called up during the winter.

Selectors need to be more savvy than just reading off a load of stats and "making a case", despite never actually having seen the player play.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Admin, and here proves my point. Broad deserves his place in the team because of his potential, not because of his figures alone (although his figures are good).

Is anyone disputing Broad's potential? He's clearly got bucketloads. Does that mean he should have a red carpet rolled out and get carried aloft all the way to the pinnacle of the sport?

Caps are devalued if they are not worked for... and the entire system is devalued if those who DO work for them (like Mascarenhas, who has done more than anyone could ever have asked of him) get overlooked.

ps. I trust we are all agreed that Mascarenhas HAS done everthing that could be asked of him