Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Durhamfootman wrote:Is there any chance at all that England might drop Denly for Daws when they name their final 15?

I reckon it's about 70-30 in Denly's favour. He's the man in possession.

Obviously I'm biased, but for me the place should absolutely be Dawson's. He's a better bowler, more used to featuring in important matches (finals etc), and naturally bats down at 6 or 7. Denly looks completely out of place down there for England; he's a top four batter.

st_brendy wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:Is there any chance at all that England might drop Denly for Daws when they name their final 15?

I reckon it's about 70-30 in Denly's favour. He's the man in possession.

Obviously I'm biased, but for me the place should absolutely be Dawson's. He's a better bowler, more used to featuring in important matches (finals etc), and naturally bats down at 6 or 7. Denly looks completely out of place down there for England; he's a top four batter.

Totally agree. Denly isn't a proper bowler or middle order one day batsman so Dawson is clearly a better option. But, as you say, is very unlikely to get selected.

Of course if Dawson does get called up this week, then we'll be monumental underdogs for the final on Saturday. That would leave us with no Vince, no Dawson, no Wood, no Markram and no Rahane. Weatherley and Taylor would probably both have to start, who between them have bowled three overs and haven't faced a single ball so far in the competition.

st_brendy wrote: Denly looks completely out of place down there for England; he's a top four batter.

I like Denly, and I wish him well, but I agree.... he's the wrong horse for the course they want him to ride. I personally think that if Dawson was in England's mind then he'd have played some part in this last series. But this is England, of course, so common sense can be immediately disregarded

Durhamfootman wrote:

st_brendy wrote: Denly looks completely out of place down there for England; he's a top four batter.

I like Denly, and I wish him well, but I agree.... he's the wrong horse for the course they want him to ride. I personally think that if Dawson was in England's mind then he'd have played some part in this last series. But this is England, of course, so common sense can be immediately disregarded

Speaking of common sense , Nasser Hussain was talking about David Willey and said one thing that might boost his chances of making the squad was because the games start at 10.30 as opposed to 11am.

st_brendy wrote:Of course if Dawson does get called up this week, then we'll be monumental underdogs for the final on Saturday. That would leave us with no Vince, no Dawson, no Wood, no Markram and no Rahane. Weatherley and Taylor would probably both have to start, who between them have bowled three overs and haven't faced a single ball so far in the competition.

Why no Rahane?

Berg tweeted this morning indicating he isn’t playing today, not sure if being rested for Saturday

SaintPowelly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:Of course if Dawson does get called up this week, then we'll be monumental underdogs for the final on Saturday. That would leave us with no Vince, no Dawson, no Wood, no Markram and no Rahane. Weatherley and Taylor would probably both have to start, who between them have bowled three overs and haven't faced a single ball so far in the competition.

Why no Rahane?

I don't know if this is the case but perhaps there's a rule about not being able to play in the final if you haven't played in the group stages?

captaincolly wrote:

SaintPowelly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:Of course if Dawson does get called up this week, then we'll be monumental underdogs for the final on Saturday. That would leave us with no Vince, no Dawson, no Wood, no Markram and no Rahane. Weatherley and Taylor would probably both have to start, who between them have bowled three overs and haven't faced a single ball so far in the competition.

Why no Rahane?

I don't know if this is the case but perhaps there's a rule about not being able to play in the final if you haven't played in the group stages?

I did think that, little harsh if the guy is playing the other formats. I know they bought in a rule after Essex signed Bravo for Finals Day, but I assumed that was a T20 rule

SaintPowelly wrote:

captaincolly wrote:

SaintPowelly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:Of course if Dawson does get called up this week, then we'll be monumental underdogs for the final on Saturday. That would leave us with no Vince, no Dawson, no Wood, no Markram and no Rahane. Weatherley and Taylor would probably both have to start, who between them have bowled three overs and haven't faced a single ball so far in the competition.

Why no Rahane?

I don't know if this is the case but perhaps there's a rule about not being able to play in the final if you haven't played in the group stages?

I did think that, little harsh if the guy is playing the other formats. I know they bought in a rule after Essex signed Bravo for Finals Day, but I assumed that was a T20 rule

Yeah, it's almost impossible to keep track of the rules because the ECB keep tinkering with them.

I was a little surprised that SA haven’t let Markram stay with us until start of tournament, surely playing in a Lords Final is better prep than a training camp?

SaintPowelly wrote:I was a little surprised that SA haven’t let Markram stay with us until start of tournament, surely playing in a Lords Final is better prep than a training camp?

I think that's because once he's named in their squad he can't play any other form of cricket. The ruling is an ICC one not an ECB one so , for once, the dreaded ECB can't be blamed.

captaincolly wrote:

SaintPowelly wrote:I was a little surprised that SA haven’t let Markram stay with us until start of tournament, surely playing in a Lords Final is better prep than a training camp?

I think that's because once he's named in their squad he can't play any other form of cricket. The ruling is an ICC one not an ECB one so , for once, the dreaded ECB can't be blamed.

Just seen we need ICC permission for Vince, should Dawson be picked up we could be screwed.

Our Run Rate is 2.5, Mullaney has bowled 11 overs for 9 runs, its embarrassing now.

SaintPowelly wrote:

captaincolly wrote:

SaintPowelly wrote:I was a little surprised that SA haven’t let Markram stay with us until start of tournament, surely playing in a Lords Final is better prep than a training camp?

I think that's because once he's named in their squad he can't play any other form of cricket. The ruling is an ICC one not an ECB one so , for once, the dreaded ECB can't be blamed.

Just seen we need ICC permission for Vince, should Dawson be picked up we could be screwed.

As you said earlier the logical decision would be for one or both to be available. But as DFM said, logical decisions aren't often made.