quote:

Originally posted by gh05:

quote:

Originally posted by B@sil:

quote:

Originally posted by gh05:

quote:

Originally posted by B@sil:

quote:

Originally posted by Lapidary:
'E's been lucky...

He certainly has and it will be interesting to see how he goes against India against much superior batting.

How is bowling well in county cricket for years without being picked and then eventually taking the chance given in test cricket lucky?

"Lucky" in the sense that

1) he made his comeback against one of the poorest sides to tour England in living memory.

2) the overhead/pitch conditions were ideally suited to his type of bowling.

But you can't do as well as he did on luck alone.

Let's have this conversation after the series against India.

jeezz...talk about waiting for someone to fail. He's got all the attibutes to be successful if given the chances. The same people writing him off would give countless chances to a 22 year old kid who could bowl 88mph.

Yes I would and I do. The 22 year old has a future. Ryan is very much in the 2nd half of his career. I can't see him troubling the best and he will never get good enough to be a world beater.

All of these guys criticising promising young players should remember that that is the convential route for players to get into the team. Almost all of England's best players of any era were picked young. There are very few exceptions such as Alec Steward and David Steele...

quote:

Originally posted by THICKEDGE:

All of these guys criticising promising young players should remember that that is the convential route for players to get into the team. Almost all of England's best players of any era were picked young. There are very few exceptions such as Alec Steward and David Steele...

The very best players are often fairly obvious choices and in the old days even the young players, except maybe one or two truly outstanding ones, had scored a couple of thousand runs or taken 100 wickets in CC when first selected.

quote:

Originally posted by NB:

quote:

Originally posted by THICKEDGE:

All of these guys criticising promising young players should remember that that is the convential route for players to get into the team. Almost all of England's best players of any era were picked young. There are very few exceptions such as Alec Steward and David Steele...

The very best players are often fairly obvious choices and in the old days even the young players, except maybe one or two truly outstanding ones, had scored a couple of thousand runs or taken 100 wickets in CC when first selected.

Wouldn't say many of best players were obvious choices at all at the time of their first selection...

quote:

Originally posted by THICKEDGE:

quote:

Originally posted by NB:

quote:

Originally posted by THICKEDGE:

All of these guys criticising promising young players should remember that that is the convential route for players to get into the team. Almost all of England's best players of any era were picked young. There are very few exceptions such as Alec Steward and David Steele...

The very best players are often fairly obvious choices and in the old days even the young players, except maybe one or two truly outstanding ones, had scored a couple of thousand runs or taken 100 wickets in CC when first selected.

Wouldn't say many of best players were obvious choices at all at the time of their first selection...

That's why I specified very best.

There is no foolproof way, KP was outstanding and had a proven track record in CC, but so did Hick, but a track record in CC is still the way to bet IMO.

Nothing wrong with going by gut instinct though, like Fletcher did with Trescothick, but I don't like the idea that certain players are earmarked as future England players like Bell was and Broad is today, on either a handful of performances, or the fact that they were very good at U19 level. If they score like Bradman at junior level then maybe try them straight away in test cricket

I think too may promising players have been picked to early in recent years especially bowlers with Fletcher not often letting them play CC.

quote:

Originally posted by THICKEDGE:

quote:

Originally posted by gh05:

quote:

Originally posted by B@sil:

quote:

Originally posted by gh05:

quote:

Originally posted by B@sil:

quote:

Originally posted by Lapidary:
'E's been lucky...

He certainly has and it will be interesting to see how he goes against India against much superior batting.

How is bowling well in county cricket for years without being picked and then eventually taking the chance given in test cricket lucky?

"Lucky" in the sense that

1) he made his comeback against one of the poorest sides to tour England in living memory.

2) the overhead/pitch conditions were ideally suited to his type of bowling.

But you can't do as well as he did on luck alone.

Let's have this conversation after the series against India.

jeezz...talk about waiting for someone to fail. He's got all the attibutes to be successful if given the chances. The same people writing him off would give countless chances to a 22 year old kid who could bowl 88mph.

Yes I would and I do. The 22 year old has a future. Ryan is very much in the 2nd half of his career. I can't see him troubling the best and he will never get good enough to be a world beater.

All of these guys criticising promising young players should remember that that is the convential route for players to get into the team. Almost all of England's best players of any era were picked young. There are very few exceptions such as Alec Steward and David Steele...

Not necessarily true- the likes of Hussain and Collingwood only became established as test batsmen later in their careers, in their late 20s. You are also ignoring improvements in fitness and diet generally, which mean that pace bowlers, if looked after properly, can play into their late 30s in some cases now.

True. Just look at Andy Caddick. What is he, 37 now?
For me, selection has to depend on county form, whether old or young, not on individual performances. For example, if Adil Rashid takes 7-55 against Glamorgan or Derbyshire, that doesn't scream out as abnormal for a bowler, and certainly doesn't put him in line for an England call up. But if these type of performances are put in consistently, againt the likes of a Durham or Sussex, week in week out, thet that may place someone in contention no matter how young or old.

quote:

Originally posted by THICKEDGE:
Yes I would and I do. The 22 year old has a future. Ryan is very much in the 2nd half of his career. I can't see him troubling the best and he will never get good enough to be a world beater.

Sorry i thought mystic meg had retired. SiBo has qualities needed to make a very good pace/swing bowler that England haven't seen in a long time. Only time will tell if he takes (or is given) his chances, but he has the qualities, as JKLever pointed out, to beat the best.

You can't guarantee any bowler a future. It's ridiculous to say a 22 year old has a future when these days most break down because they aren't tough enough. Sidebottom could potentially have five or six years left.

I'm sure there are people on this forum who would pick Mahmood, Anderson or Plunkett over someone like Stuart Clark (if he were English) just because of the age. A lot of fast bowlers peak at around 30 and beyond.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:
Not necessarily true- the likes of Hussain and Collingwood only became established as test batsmen later in their careers, in their late 20s. You are also ignoring improvements in fitness and diet generally, which mean that pace bowlers, if looked after properly, can play into their late 30s in some cases now.

Also the healthcare available to the players these days. They can have surgery within days that can literally add years to their career. It's the only reason the more injury prone bowlers stand a chance.

Whatever happens, don't let Ryan come inside your house !!!!!! You'll never get it back.....

cdasd

Yo Krusty, whazz cooking girl?