WAT Future England Test Cricketer award 2005

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

For me to then make him the player you choosing as the most promising is astounding, especially when you have the likes of Cook, Shah and Joyce to choose from

We don't have to go for a batsman you know. If my opinion astounds you then so be it, I still think Davies deserves his chance. Cook has had an excellent season and that's why I nominated him as a key player for the A team alongside Davies, however Davies has a longer record of proven consistency, with a remarkable economy, average and strike rate. As for the point above about the guys with the average of 25 and the strike rate of 2 - keeping the run scoring down at one end is a very valuable asset for a bowler. Say if Davies was in the team and did manage to hold down an end (though I do believe he would take wickets more often than 70!), then the batsmen would be tempted to have a go at GBH et al - which as the Aussies showed at Lords on day 1 is not the best thing to do.

[flanflinger]

Colly,

I accept your opinon, but to say that Davis is the most outstanding is going a bit far IMHO...

Especailly when you have guys like Cook and Shah on that list.

I have no doubt that Davis does a great job for Durham, but do you really think he will take the same number of wickets at Test level?

[Collyisamackem]

You can never know until someone has been tried - but the same can be said of Cook or anyone else; can anyone be sure somebody will score runs or take wickets until they've been tried? The answer is no. All we can go on is their stats and an appraisal of their performance. You could say that medium pace bowling is dying a death in test cricket, but they said leg spin was dying before Warne came along. Now, I'm not equating Mark Davies to Shane Warne there (!), but I'm saying that Davies deserves a chance based on two seasons plus of outstanding bowling - Durham only began to slide down to second/third in the table when Davies was injured this season and his bowling was one of the crucial factors in Durham's turnaround.

I will say that I would support Cook if there is no support for Davies, since he was my other key player when I nominated my England A team, and I do believe he is an outstanding prospect. The only thing I am going on is Davies' consistency.

Bowling averages

class mat balls runs wkts bbi bbm ave econ sr 4 5 10
First-class 41 6647 3199 146 6/32 21.91 2.88 45.52 2 7 0

Now can it really be that a bowler with 146 first class wickets at 21 might just do well at test level? I believe so. If he had the same stats but his mph was up by 5 or 10 then he'd be a certainty.

[flanflinger]

Colly,

Let's look at it this way - the title of this thread is Future England Test Player...

If you are going to make that award you need to think about a player who is being looked at by England as that, for me Davis has not even made the Academy so should not be inthe runnning.

Last year we chose Keedy, based on emotion rather than logical thoughts, let's choose a player who may actually play for England - for me that is either Shah, Joyce, Cook, Tremlett or Plunkett - it should also include Louden...

[The Phantom Ram]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

let's choose a player who may actually play for England - for me that is either Shah, Joyce, Cook, Tremlett or Plunkett - it should also include Louden...

You coulds add Panesar to that list. It will happen.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

If you are going to make that award you need to think about a player who is being looked at by England.

Last year we chose Keedy, based on emotion rather than logical thoughts

Is Cook in the academy squad? I hadn't checked so I can't comment on it from that perspective.

If Plunkett had been selected in the side, as I believe he should have been, I may have gone for him as my pick. Alas, he was eliminated in favour of a slower bowler (Sidebottom). So if your argument for Davies not being given a chance is based on somebody else being faster, we could have said the same thing about Sidebtottom and Plunket, to an extent given that Sidebottom is faster than Davies.

I think it is logical to look at a player's stats over two years, which are excellent, and say they deserve a chance, rather than to look at one outstanding year for a player (Cook) and say that he should jump the queue. I don't believe it is emotional at all.

[Rachael]

I'm not sure that Cook should really be in the reckoning here: he didn't have a season to match either Shah (heavy scoring, lots of conversions to big scores) or Joyce (consistent heavy scoring).

[flanflinger]

The point of this award is to state which Cricketer of those selected for the A team, most merits England selection -

That is is the "Future Test Cricketer" and not "Player of the Season",

Cook - who is in the Academy squad - unlike Davies - therfore should be in that list along with Shah and Joyce....

[admin]

Cook is in the reckoning as far as eligibility for the award is concerned but Rachael is referring to the most deserving player to receive the award this year. Clearly Joyce and Shah bettered Cook year this year and, in terms of consistency, had better stats last year. Of the batsmen Shah and Joyce are the leading contenders for the award. Of the bowlers, Davies is the most deserving on his performances over the past couple of years but there is a doubt that his pace will be effective at Test level. That leaves Shah and Joyce as the only contenders for this year's award.

[Rachael]

I'm not particularly with you on the bowling front... but your summary on the batting front is fair enough. Sadly, however, being most deserving is not proving enough to make Joyce and Shah clearcut favourites. I don't think that's got anything to do with anything very credible... just the "glamour" factor: Cook obviously appeals as a player in ways that have bugger-all to do with cricket.

I'd suggest it's the same with Tremlett and Plunkett: Davies and Panesar have made far more compelling cases... but few of us appear to care. The superficial glamour of speedsters again threatens to sweep reason aside.