WAT Future England Test Cricketer award 2005

[Rachael]

You and Ernest are both suggesting that the needs of the senior team are relevent here: the argument is that the award should go to a player who would make an immediate difference if selected. On that basis you are both arguing for a bowler of some description... and I concede that the senior team's need for a second frontline spinner would guarantee Panesar the vote - but by that logic the award could end up going to a non-entity simply because the competition for that spot is poor.

I'm not suggesting that Panesar is a nonentity as I think he's the obvious front-runner in this contest... but the fact that Collingwood is ahead in the queue and the competition from Key and Butcher shouldn't be held against Shah and Joyce: they have both done everything that could have been asked of them.... and deserve consideration.

[admin]

I couldn't agree more. Keedy won the award last year despite the fact that no SLAO bowler is likely to displace Giles in the foreseeable future. But, on merit, Keedy deserved that award for an outstanding season. I don't think any of the contenders would make the transition to Test level easily. So don't focus on gaps in the England team or which areas need support players on standby. Which player deserves the next call up when a position requiring his speciality becomes vacant? There is always a need for back up bowlers because of the numerous injuries to the main bowlers but, by that logic, a bowler would always win the WAT award. That is simply unfair.

[Ernest]

Well can I put it another way, I agree with the concept of our A Team, but it can in a way be likened to academy players.
On Englands last tour of Austraia, Simon Jones got that horrific injury, and also Flintoff never managed a game injured.
My point is, had batsmen been injured, then the England touring party, would have probably sent home for a batsman, as there are many more to choose from.
As it was, England had to call up Anderson from the academy, that could have been one of our bowlers.

[The Phantom Ram]

Originally Posted by admin 74229

Please don't discuss your selections. It may influence other voters. I will accept votes from all WAT members but only those I receive by PM. If you just vote on this thread it won't count.

Sorry I didn't post my vote onto the thread at first but when you started discussing votes - see quote below - I assumed the rules had changed and I could start talking about Panesar.

Originally Posted by admin 74171

I agree with your short list of four although I won't be considering Panesar who played only half the season when bowling conditions suited him.

[admin]

I didn't mention who I was voting for - just who I wasn't voting for.

[Rachael]

Anyone want to contrast the relative claims of Shah and Joyce? From memory, the stats were good on both fronts... but Joyce did it with consistency (lots of 50+ scores) and Shah did it with potentially matchwinning knocks (100+ scores). IS there any good reason to go for one over the other?

[admin]

I'd rather not discuss the relative merits of two players as it might influence voters. I haven't received your vote yet, Rachael.

[The Phantom Ram]

Originally Posted by admin

I didn't mention who I was voting for - just who I wasn't voting for.

Isn't that influencing votes in the same was as saying who you will vote for?

[admin]

Possibly, but let's not compound the issue by talking up players we have voted for.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by admin

I'd rather not discuss the relative merits of two players as it might influence voters. I haven't received your vote yet, Rachael.

Isn't influencing people the entire point? I can see the sense in not posting a poll as tactical voting might appear (e.g. if I saw the only realistic contenders were Joyce and Shah I might give up on Panesar)... but surely NO vote should be case in stone until we've discussed matters and have had a chance to influence thinking!

Can you imagine Cameron and Davies agreeing to only talk abut why they should be leader only AFTER the party has voted in December?

You've not got my vote because I'm still waiting for someone to argue a persuasive case for one from Shah, Joyce, Panesar and Davies. I am inclined to Panesar (so take that as my provisional vote) but am really unsure what to think and am more than open to being influenced - I just want to hear a positive case for someone!