|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 13, 2014 17:18:02 GMT
Well I agree with this paragraph: "Sometimes you need characters who ruffle and question and offend. Sometimes you need characters who have the arrogance and aggression to change what appears an inevitable course. Sometimes you need the sort of player a mild-mannered former England captain might describe as "an absolute c***". " Buy my goodness, he's a total embarrassment in that 'polite enquires' video with Jarrod Kimber at the top of the article, isn't he?  - and I thought I'd given you an opportunity to call a truce, BM . . .  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 17:23:46 GMT
Meanwhile, the England test squad keeps growing and growing as futher 'options' are added.
We started with 12 players for the two tests v Sri Lanka. Then Stokes was added at Trent Bridge to make it 13, and now with the addition of Kerrigan we have a 14 man squad for Lord's.
Can anyone remember 14 ever being named before for a home Test match (and I'm not counting players like Buttler on stand-by due to injury concerns) ? At this rate, by Old Trafford England will be sending a squad to Manchester that's the size of the one sent on a three months winter tour...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 17:27:52 GMT
Well I agree with this paragraph: "Sometimes you need characters who ruffle and question and offend. Sometimes you need characters who have the arrogance and aggression to change what appears an inevitable course. Sometimes you need the sort of player a mild-mannered former England captain might describe as "an absolute c***". " Buy my goodness, he's a total embarrassment in that 'polite enquires' video with Jarrod Kimber at the top of the article, isn't he? - and I thought I'd given you an opportunity to call a truce, BM . . . Yes, but come on, fb. I'm right, aren't I? You cannot deny that video is embarrassingly crass and deserves this to be stuck on its smug chops:  And to be ultra-serious for a moment, the only truce we need is for the Israeli terrorists to stop the shameful murder of innocent civillians in Gaza. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 7:35:05 GMT
I was thinking more about this 14 man squad for a home Test match.It's not really about "options"; it comes about because Moores doesn't seem to want to offend anyone by dropping them, so instead of dispensing with players who are not going to make the XI, you keep them around as supernumeraries in addition to their replacements.
Woakes was never going to play in the Trent Bridge test. Even if there had been an injury to Anderson or Broad, Jordan was first bowling reserve, while Stokes had overtaken him as the bowling all-rounder. So why was he kept in the squad?
Similarly,if Jordan isn't going to play at Lord's then why not send him back to Sussex? Should something change and he is needed at the last minute due to injury to another fast bowler, then he isn't exactly a million miles away.
Or perhaps Moores is simply building up the playing numbers to counter the criticism that England's support staff outnumber the players they're meant to be supporting!
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 14, 2014 7:47:42 GMT
According to the Guardian today, commenting on the return of Kerrigan....
Jordan and Woakes were withdrawn from county fixtures to link up with the England squad at Lord’s on Tuesday. Kerrigan, who returned north over the weekend to play in Lancashire’s championship game against Nottinghamshire that started on Sunday, is likely to join them, although Moores will assess the state of the game before deciding whether he may benefit more from staying at Aigburth to bowl in the middle.
I agree with you about Woakes, and wonder what is the motivation for constantly naming him in the squad. I'm sure you will have noted that he's almost always the one to be released to play in county matches, so cannot seriously be considered as a first reserve. It does look as if Moores likes a certain comfort factor: "If I've got so and so in the squad then I've got all the bases covered" sort of thing, though here the inclusion of Kerrigan would mean destorying completely the balance of the side.
Not the least of the strengths Swann brought was his additional batting and fielding attributes that helped to reduce the need for a traditional all rounder. Now without him we have a gap at second slip and if Kerrigan plays, one of Stokes or Plunkett must go, thus potentially weakening the batting and placing more work on the remaining three fast bowlers in the event of another death strip.
My own guess is that Jordan will come in for Plunkett, whose renaissance looks to be limited to the ability to bowl short stuff at a cunning angle, Kerrigan will keep on learning his trade in the county game, and everyone will pray that there is a bit more grass and juice in the wickets yet to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandavefan on Jul 14, 2014 9:13:14 GMT
Jordan to Horsham.
Kerrigan for Ali.
Kerrigan to go round the ground. Not good enough in my eyes.
Moores seems to be stuck in the mindset, Lancashire have all the best players!
He needs to open his eyes, get out and see what is out in the county game (all formats). England is not only Lancashire & Yorkshire! Watch the TV if he can't get to grounds. Ask some pundits? Atherton? Hussain? not Vaughan because he'll have all Yorkshiremen playing!
I'm convinced better players are out there, waiting for a selector to see them!
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 14, 2014 9:35:37 GMT
Jordan to Horsham. Kerrigan for Ali. Kerrigan to go round the ground. Not good enough in my eyes. Moores seems to be stuck in the mindset, Lancashire have all the best players! He needs to open his eyes, get out and see what is out in the county game (all formats). England is not only Lancashire & Yorkshire! Watch the TV if he can't get to grounds. Ask some pundits? Atherton? Hussain? not Vaughan because he'll have all Yorkshiremen playing! I'm convinced better players are out there, waiting for a selector to see them!Interesting. Who do you have in mind? |
|
|
|
Post by grandavefan on Jul 14, 2014 10:21:11 GMT
Stoneman, Lyth, Luke Wright (4 day form), Westley, Dawson (When fit), Luke Fletcher, to name a few without looking too deep.
Not convinced Ballance has the skills against better bowling ditto Robson, right hand clone of Cook. Crowds are going to flock to see those two racing away at 2 an over!
Flair, skill, lets get away from boring...
That's why we lack spinners. Coaches prefer safety first no risk approach. That means boring back of a length seamers...Yawn, yawn,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 7:20:56 GMT
Have I got this right? The ECB's position over the Anderson fracas is:
1) Nothing happened and our player is innocent of all charges.
2) Something happened but it was Jadeja and we're laying counter charges against him.
I am confused...
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 16, 2014 7:36:45 GMT
Have I got this right? The ECB's position over the Anderson fracas is: 1) Nothing happened and our player is innocent of all charges. 2) Something happened but it was Jadeja and we're laying counter charges against him. I am confused... The most charitable interpretation seems to be that Jadeja approached JA aggressively and JA put up his hands in a fending off gesture. So, if JA was acting in self defence, then that may explain your apparent inconsistency. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 14:11:15 GMT
Have I got this right? The ECB's position over the Anderson fracas is: 1) Nothing happened and our player is innocent of all charges. 2) Something happened but it was Jadeja and we're laying counter charges against him. I am confused... The most charitable interpretation seems to be that Jadeja approached JA aggressively and JA put up his hands in a fending off gesture. So, if JA was acting in self defence, then that may explain your apparent inconsistency. Sadly, we cannot take at face value anything the ECB says or does. They put out a press release yesterday claiming "surprise". Yet it now transpires that the Indian complaint was laid within 24 hours and an ICC lawyer flew to Britain last Friday and spoke to both sides to see if a settlment could be reached. When it couldn't, the matter entered a designated legal process, as both parties were fully aware. So what were the protestations of "surprise" all about ? |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 16, 2014 14:13:04 GMT
The most charitable interpretation seems to be that Jadeja approached JA aggressively and JA put up his hands in a fending off gesture. So, if JA was acting in self defence, then that may explain your apparent inconsistency. Sadly, we cannot take at face value anything the ECB says or does. They put out a press release yesterday claiming "surprise". Yet it now transpires that the Indian complaint was laid within 24 hours and an ICC lawyer flew to Britain last Friday and spoke to both sides to see if a settlment could be reached. When it couldn't, the matter entered a designated legal process, as both parties were fully aware. So what were the protestations of "surprise" all about ? Surprise that a settlement couldn't be reached over such a "trivial matter"? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 14:25:59 GMT
Sadly, we cannot take at face value anything the ECB says or does. They put out a press release yesterday claiming "surprise". Yet it now transpires that the Indian complaint was laid within 24 hours and an ICC lawyer flew to Britain last Friday and spoke to both sides to see if a settlment could be reached. When it couldn't, the matter entered a designated legal process, as both parties were fully aware. So what were the protestations of "surprise" all about ? Surprise that a settlement couldn't be reached over such a "trivial matter"? The ECB press release says: "The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has today reacted with surprise that the India team has made allegations against James Anderson under Level 3 of the ICC Code of Conduct." When they put out that statement, they had been aware of the allegations for five days. And the rest of the statement is similarly inconsistent. The ECB descibes it as " a minor incident" - and yet then says "the ECB has notified the ICC of its intention to lodge code of conduct breaches against Jadeja". So they are lodging a serious complaint and invoking a quasi-judicial process over an incident they have already dismissed as "minor"? I'd say that renders the ECB's charge against Jadeja as what the law describes as "vexatious". |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 16, 2014 14:48:25 GMT
Surprise that a settlement couldn't be reached over such a "trivial matter"? The ECB press release says: "The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has today reacted with surprise that the India team has made allegations against James Anderson under Level 3 of the ICC Code of Conduct." When they put out that statement, they had been aware of the allegations for five days. They were surprised that India went ahead with formal allegations.And the rest of the statement is similarly inconsistent. The ECB descibes it as " a minor incident" - and yet then says "the ECB has notified the ICC of its intention to lodge code of conduct breaches against Jadeja". So they are lodging a serious complaint and invoking a quasi-judicial process over an incident they have already dismissed as "minor"? I'd say that renders the ECB's charge against Jadeja as what the law describes as "vexatious". Although the MCC regard the incident as minor, if India persist in accusing Anderson of a level 3 offence, then the MCC has no option but to plead that Jadeja's conduct must be similarly treated. It's a counter-claim. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 15:20:50 GMT
But the allegations were formally laid to the match referee last Thursday/Friday and he felt obliged to call in the ICC lawyers immediately. So how is the ECB in any way "surprised" about it five days later? Once the allegations had been lodged and the ICC had not brokered a deal, the matter was no longer in the hands of the Indians as it had entered a legal process under the control of the ICC (although presumably the Indians could inform the ICC at any stage that they wished to withdraw?)
As for your second point, if the ECB believes the Indian claim to be vexatious (which is what in effect Cook has said today by describing it as a destabilising "tactic"), they would be better advised to adopt the high moral ground rather than getting down in the gutter with their own vexatious "counter-claim" over a matter they have already peremptorily dismissed as "minor". It is now for the ICC not the ECB to rule whether the matter was minor or not. Andreson and Jadeja have been told not to comment and it would surely be better if the ECB, Cook and MS Dhoni were also told to shut up and stop spinning while we wait for the formal procedures to take their quasi-judicial course.
Meanwhile, it will all add some terrific spice to the second Test. But do you really believe the ECB comes out of this with any credit or credibility?
|
|
