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.)