First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

Ashes, WI in NZ, SL in India

Re: First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

Postby alfie » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:49 pm

rich1uk wrote:just because we won doesn't mean the selection of dawson was right, the ends dont always justify the means, i thought that should be obvious

i'm also confused by this argument that in order to get the best out of Moeen as a bowler he needs to think he is playing as a batsman, does that mean we have to pick 2 spinners all the time? if we dont pick a second spinner Moeen wont bowl as well as he did today?

all that sounds like is continued fudging of selection to keep people happy rather than picking the best team

we won the test because we won what turned out to be a very good toss, made the most of batting first then took advantage of a pitch that turned into a bit of a minefield, not because we picked Dawson.


It may not prove that picking Dawson was "right" - but it assuredly didn't prove it was wrong...
Lots of factors involved...but when you win decisively it is a bit of a stretch to claim selection was flawed.

I certainly have reservations about Dawson - or indeed any two spinner picks in English conditions (or Australian later in the year !) but it appears he's nailed on for Trent Bridge as they surely won't pick five seamers ?

Think we will just have to watch and see how it develops.
alfie
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:26 am

Re: First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

Postby rich1uk » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:54 pm

alfie wrote:
rich1uk wrote:just because we won doesn't mean the selection of dawson was right, the ends dont always justify the means, i thought that should be obvious

i'm also confused by this argument that in order to get the best out of Moeen as a bowler he needs to think he is playing as a batsman, does that mean we have to pick 2 spinners all the time? if we dont pick a second spinner Moeen wont bowl as well as he did today?

all that sounds like is continued fudging of selection to keep people happy rather than picking the best team

we won the test because we won what turned out to be a very good toss, made the most of batting first then took advantage of a pitch that turned into a bit of a minefield, not because we picked Dawson.


It may not prove that picking Dawson was "right" - but it assuredly didn't prove it was wrong...
Lots of factors involved...but when you win decisively it is a bit of a stretch to claim selection was flawed.

I certainly have reservations about Dawson - or indeed any two spinner picks in English conditions (or Australian later in the year !) but it appears he's nailed on for Trent Bridge as they surely won't pick five seamers ?

Think we will just have to watch and see how it develops.


i think its a bit naive to just say "ah well we won so everything is rosy"

whether Dawson was in that XI or not we would have won tbh and the reasons for him being a poor selection haven't changed just because we won

its not like Dawson's performance would have made anyone go "oh boy we were wrong about him"

he got completely outbowled by a guy who had a test average of 40+ and contributed nothing with the bat
"I know words, i have the best words" - Donald J Trump

2012 SA vs SL ODIs prediction guru 2012 Movie Cup
2012 CB series guru
2012 Music Cup
2012 WI vs Oz Tests prediction guru
rich1uk
 
Posts: 21950
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:03 pm

Re: First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

Postby Adi » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:39 pm

Durhamfootman wrote:
bigfluffylemon wrote:Obviously having two spinners here was a result of reading the pitch

not so sure myself. the only alternative to having 2 spinners was to have 5 seamers, which seems like overkill, so I think they always planned to give Dawson a go regardless of the pitch

premeditated, if you will

They might have asked Lords to produce a 2 spinner pitch in advance, of course


England playing 2 spinners, especially in England is rare, isn't it :?: I speculate that they might have got some information from groundsman or the think tank on seeing the surface must have realized that it is a spin friendly wicket.
Jonty: The scientist of fielding.

2010 World 20/20
2010 England Vs Australia ODI
2010 Pakistan Vs Australia Tests
2010 Ashes
2011 England Vs Australia ODI
2011 England Vs SriLanka ODI
2011 Friends Life Twenty20
2011 England Vs India ODI
2012 New Zealand Vs South Africa ODI
2012 England Vs South Africa T20
2012 CMS Cricinfo World T20
2013 Caribbean T20
2013 Bangladesh Premier League T20
2013 WI Vs ZIM ODI's + Tests (Combo)
2013 IPL
2013 Yorkshire Bank Pro40
2015 ICC World Cup
2015 Matador Cup
2015 India Vs South Africa Tests
2015 Bangladesh Premier League T20
2016 India Vs Australia ODI's and T20's (Combo)
2016 England Vs South Africa ODI
2016 India Vs West Indies Tests
2016 India Vs NewZealand Tests
2016 West Indies Vs Pakistan Tests
2016 Australia Vs Pakistan Tests
2016-2017 Big Bash (Men)
2017 SriLanka Vs Australia T20
2017 South Africa Vs New Zealand ODI
2017 Aus Vs India Tests
2017 WI Vs Pakistan 4 T20
2017 IND Vs NZ T20
User avatar
Adi
 
Posts: 20165
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:36 am

Re: First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

Postby alfie » Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:04 am

rich1uk wrote:
alfie wrote:
rich1uk wrote:just because we won doesn't mean the selection of dawson was right, the ends dont always justify the means, i thought that should be obvious

i'm also confused by this argument that in order to get the best out of Moeen as a bowler he needs to think he is playing as a batsman, does that mean we have to pick 2 spinners all the time? if we dont pick a second spinner Moeen wont bowl as well as he did today?

all that sounds like is continued fudging of selection to keep people happy rather than picking the best team

we won the test because we won what turned out to be a very good toss, made the most of batting first then took advantage of a pitch that turned into a bit of a minefield, not because we picked Dawson.


It may not prove that picking Dawson was "right" - but it assuredly didn't prove it was wrong...
Lots of factors involved...but when you win decisively it is a bit of a stretch to claim selection was flawed.

I certainly have reservations about Dawson - or indeed any two spinner picks in English conditions (or Australian later in the year !) but it appears he's nailed on for Trent Bridge as they surely won't pick five seamers ?

Think we will just have to watch and see how it develops.


i think its a bit naive to just say "ah well we won so everything is rosy"

whether Dawson was in that XI or not we would have won tbh and the reasons for him being a poor selection haven't changed just because we won

its not like Dawson's performance would have made anyone go "oh boy we were wrong about him"

he got completely outbowled by a guy who had a test average of 40+ and contributed nothing with the bat


Not letting this one go , are you , rich :)

Look no-one is saying everything is rosy are they ? We get that you disapprove of the selection of Dawson (and you may well be correct in that there may be better choices not taken) ; but Dawson surely did a job with the ball (obviously not with the bat) in this match , never mind that Moeen had much the better figures. I have no doubt England would have won had , say , Stoneman played instead of Jennings or Ballance ; or Plunkett replaced Wood ... but this does not automatically mean their selections were "poor" , does it ?

Doesn't make me , for one , suddenly become a Dawson fan but it also doesn't have me demanding the selectors admit they were wrong - because they picked a team to win this match and it did. If Dawson fails badly next week you'll have some ammunition to back up your assertions that he isn't up to it but I honestly can't see that this match provided any clear evidence in that direction. I wanted an extra batsman before the game (still do !) ; but I'm willing to admit that what they did worked and since my ideas were untested we have no way of knowing whether they would have done the same.

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but really it is just that ; and throwing around words like "obvious" and "naive" is a bit ...well , "rich" ( In my opinion.)
alfie
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:26 am

Re: First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

Postby rich1uk » Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:40 am

i still dont get your assertion that they got the selection right because we won when he contributed very little to the win, yeah he bowled ok but i repeat what i said earlier, it was on a pitch where the other spinners involved both outbowled him and neither Maharaj or Moeen are exactly top notch test spinners, in fact based on the comments before the game it was being suggested Ali wasn't even needed as a bowler and could be playing merely as a batsman

and as for your last sentence all i have to say is, if you want to persist with the line that Dawson's selection was astute or that it proves the selectors right purely because we won then i stand by what i said

if Dawson's main contribution was as a "comfort blanket" for Moeen and to take the pressure off Moeen being expected to be the main spinner, as has been suggested by Bayliss, then i dont see how that can possibly merit a spot in an international test side

whats even more confusing is you seem to be agreeing in the other thread that we are a batsman short and carrying too many bowlers
"I know words, i have the best words" - Donald J Trump

2012 SA vs SL ODIs prediction guru 2012 Movie Cup
2012 CB series guru
2012 Music Cup
2012 WI vs Oz Tests prediction guru
rich1uk
 
Posts: 21950
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:03 pm

Re: First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

Postby alfie » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:50 pm

Hey sorry if I wasn't making this clear , rich...I shouldn't be nit picking ...

Truth is I am largely in agreement with you re Dawson : I didn't want him in the team for Lord's , and I have serious reservations about him as a prospect going forward. As you noted , I said on the other thread I'd favor an extra batsman.

The only difference really is that you seem to be claiming that the first Test events served to vindicate your - and my - objections to the selection : I reckon if anything it went a bit the other way , and suggested that there was at least an arguable case for going the way they chose. It hasn't convinced me that Dawson is the way forward ; but I do think it is a little unreasonable to criticize the selectors for a choice which on this particular occasion , basically helped to get a result. Just an opinion.

It is not a big deal really but I guess we will have to agree to differ on the detail - at least for that game.

Of course if Dawson makes 50 or so and takes a five wicket haul at TB I will have to start to take him seriously but for now I see him as a bit of a stop-gap. I kind of hope Bayliss does too , despite his encouraging words ; but on that I guess we will have to wait and see...
alfie
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:26 am

Re: First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

Postby rich1uk » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:42 pm

i dont think i said it vindicated my opinion he shouldn't have played, merely that the fact we won doesn't prove it was the right decision to play him

i dont think we can go to australia later in the year with this 6 bowler setup and are missing an opportunity to blood another top order bat by selecting someone that really isn't needed
"I know words, i have the best words" - Donald J Trump

2012 SA vs SL ODIs prediction guru 2012 Movie Cup
2012 CB series guru
2012 Music Cup
2012 WI vs Oz Tests prediction guru
rich1uk
 
Posts: 21950
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:03 pm

Re: First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

Postby alfie » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:33 pm

rich1uk wrote:i dont think i said it vindicated my opinion he shouldn't have played, merely that the fact we won doesn't prove it was the right decision to play him

i dont think we can go to australia later in the year with this 6 bowler setup and are missing an opportunity to blood another top order bat by selecting someone that really isn't needed


That I agree on. ( Though Root's comments rather suggest the team management doesn't.) I hope the later games will see some adjustment to the setup because I could see the current batting lineup getting murdered at Brisbane.

My fear is they just don't rate any of the fringe batting contenders and are prepared to trust to the all rounders to keep bailing them out in order to have this luxury of "bowlers for all conditions". Don't think it will travel well...
alfie
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:26 am

Previous

Return to Live Cricket Matches

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arthur Crabtree and 1 guest