|
Post by philh on Jul 31, 2018 15:49:08 GMT
So, Rashid gives up red ball cricket for Yorkshire and ends up in the England Test team. Is that right or wrong? Michael Vaughan thinks that it is a terrible decision, mainly on the grounds that he is not match-fit or ready for Test Match bowling, although on Radio 5 last night he and Agnew seemed to saying that it wasn't fair to others who have worked hard on the County circuit.
It's a tough one. I can see Ed Smith's point of view as an England selector. He wants to field the strongest possible team for England to beat India. But, I can see how Yorkshire are put out given that they recently had to loan a spinner for a game.
Whether Rashid is the right selection is not really what the argument is about. Can England pick who they like? Well, they certainly can and do and there's no requirement to play so many County games to qualify to play for England. England do want they want when it comes to country vs county.
I'm not sure how this will play out. If Rashid does well, Vaughan will have to fall back on the 'not fair to others' argument. If he does badly, he can say 'I told you so'. As for Rashid himself, I guess he has got to decide what he wants in the future and whether red ball cricket is for him. Whether that is with Yorkshire or one of the other 17 counties remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 31, 2018 17:21:14 GMT
It's a difficult situation, but let's remember that Ed Smith selected Rashid - Rashid didn't select himself! If you don't agree with the decision, you should criticise Smith. You can't blame Rashid for agreeing to play for England, can you? Is there a reluctance to criticise Smith, who is very new to the job. He has since said that this is a "one off situation" - I wonder why he feels the need to say that?
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 4, 2018 21:36:36 GMT
Hindisght says that this selection was entirely vindicated. Rashid was effectively used as a white ball bowler, to be given ultra-short spells of tactical bowling and in this he succeeded magnificently, with figures of 8-0-31-2 and 4-1-9-1. Additionally his batting was valuable beyond his own scores in supporting the second innings restoration charge of Curran.
Of course it might have been a different story if Edgbaston had been a different kind of wicket and India had perhaps batted first on their way to a big score. Then Adil Rashid might have had figures like 20-1-114-0 and no second innings redemption. But it didn't work out like that and he is a usueful member of a winning team. On to Lord's and let us see what Smith and co decide.
|
|