Selectors
A rather general point about the selectors. I haven't been impressed with their extremely short term views.
In my opinion, they've made 3 bad decisions (and I expect them to make a couple more before the summer is over).
One is pretty obvious and that was picking Pattinson based on 6 games. Batsmen have to go 6 seasons of 1500 runs before they get a look in. The fact that there were more experience bowlers who were bowling well and who can adapt to different conditions but were ignored irked me (re. Hoggard/Jones).
The second was telling Flintoff that he had a chance to play against New Zealand. As a result, he rushed himself to get fit too early and got himself injured which meant missing a couple of months. The selectors were better off telling him that they would rather he played for Lancashire all summer and an England place would become available for the winter and no sooner (or at least not until South Africa).
And the third was retaining Collingwood from the start against New Zealand. His shoulder was stopping him from batting well, and England were better off giving Shah or Bopara a chance against NZ and letting Collingwood rehabilitate and be completely fit for the ODIs.
1 comment:
Definitely agree with you on the lack of a selection of Hoggard.
Not so sure about the other two. Flintoff could have got that injury anywhere at any time - it just so happened he got it as he was about to come back internationally.
The Collingwood one is interesting - I don't think he would use his shoulder as an excuse. He's not stupid though - he knew that giving up his place against one of the weaker sides in world cricket would give Shah or Bopara the chance to put in performances that meant he'd have no way back.
Broad and Anderson got 5 games to play themselves into form, often in bowler friendly conditions, before having to play South Africa, and as a result Hoggard has been sidelined, so I'm pretty sure that Hoggard would argue Collingwood was right to take his injection and get on with it.
Post a Comment