The Future is Bright, the future is ginger: official Ben Stokes thread

[D/L]

Wordiness does not always equate to detail. I think you're suggesting some players should be deemed undroppable, which would be foolish.

I'd simply repeat that selection should be a balance between merit and the need to develop players, with nobody guaranteed a place.

[stevieh]

Originally Posted by D/L

Wordiness does not always equate to detail. I think you're suggesting some players should be deemed undroppable, which would be foolish.

I'd simply repeat that selection should be a balance between merit and the need to develop players, with nobody guaranteed a place.

I already stated nobody has a nailed-on guarantee. However, a more coherent selection strategy is essential, with better criteria for what constitutes the type of player needed. We have been too content to select from the Test squad, with a few additions of upcoming youngsters or ODI specialists. This won't cut it.

You appear to be advocating the status quo, more or less. I don't think this will be sufficient, even with the word "merit" highlighted.

[D/L]

I think you may be advocating the status quo also, with a few "buzzwords" added.

[stevieh]

No, not at all. The status quo is what got us to this sorry state.

[D/L]

It's good then that a form of words is all that is needed to change it.

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by D/L

Wordiness does not always equate to detail. I think you're suggesting some players should be deemed undroppable, which would be foolish.

I'd simply repeat that selection should be a balance between merit and the need to develop players, with nobody guaranteed a place.

I'd agree, which is why the selectors did so well to pick and stick by that bowler who's taken over 500 international wickets.

[stevieh]

Originally Posted by D/L

It's good then that a form of words is all that is needed to change it.

You have lost me with your cryptic style of expression. Words are not going to do much unless backed up by a consistent and even ruthless commitment to change the way the ODI program operates.

[Aidan11]

[D/L]

Originally Posted by stevieh

You have lost me with your cryptic style of expression. Words are not going to do much unless backed up by a consistent and even ruthless commitment to change the way the ODI program operates.

Jargonese can be puzzling at first too.

I'd add to what's been said before, that it was earmarking young players as the future a while ago that delayed Sidebottom's successful return to international cricket.

[stevieh]

Originally Posted by D/L

Jargonese can be puzzling at first too.

I'd add to what's been said before, that it was earmarking young players as the future a while ago that delayed Sidebottom's successful return to international cricket.

I'll choose to ignore the barb.

Who prevented Sidebottom from resuming his international career? Let me guess; Broad and Anderson. Possibly with a side order of Harmison. Anyone else you have in mind?

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by stevieh

I'll choose to ignore the barb.

Who prevented Sidebottom from resuming his international career? Let me guess; Broad and Anderson. Possibly with a side order of Harmison. Anyone else you have in mind?

Gough and Caddick, maybe.

[D/L]

Originally Posted by stevieh

I'll choose to ignore the barb.

Who prevented Sidebottom from resuming his international career? Let me guess; Broad and Anderson. Possibly with a side order of Harmison. Anyone else you have in mind?

Good; I ignored yours.

Plunkett, Mahmood ...

[stevieh]

Sidebottom is certainly a classic example of a bowler overlooked for far too long after an initial debut for England. Largely, he was a victim of the idea that pacers had to bowl an extra couple of yards quicker, unless named Hoggard.

[D/L]

Also a victim of the policy of identifying players for special treatment and sticking with them as the future "core of the team" in the face of poor performance.

[sharky]

Originally Posted by stevieh

Sidebottom is certainly a classic example of a bowler overlooked for far too long after an initial debut for England. Largely, he was a victim of the idea that pacers had to bowl an extra couple of yards quicker, unless named Hoggard.

I thought his recall was because he had developed the ability to swing the ball both ways, which he wasn't that great at first time round before he left Yorkshire. There wasn't really a vacancy before then as England's bowling unit had been for the large part successful, and Hoggard was offering the swing option very well.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by D/L

Also a victim of the policy of identifying players for special treatment and sticking with them as the future "core of the team" in the face of poor performance.

None of those were core for very long though. I also don't think that Sidebottom was hammering the door down at that stage of his career. I remember seeing him at Notts and thinking he was a class above your standard county level but one below international class. Turned out to be an accurate assessment, certainly in tests and ODIs.

[D/L]

Sidebottom acquitted himself well at international level. It's a shame the type of selection policy now being advocated meant he played far fewer matches than he should have.

[stevieh]

Originally Posted by D/L

Sidebottom acquitted himself well at international level. It's a shame the type of selection policy now being advocated meant he played far fewer matches than he should have.

I'm not disputing your assertion, but why don't you back it up with a brief summary of his accomplishments in his limited opportunities.

[D/L]

Originally Posted by D/L

Sidebottom acquitted himself well at international level. It's a shame the type of selection policy now being advocated meant he played far fewer matches than he should have.

Originally Posted by stevieh

I'm not disputing your assertion, but why don't you back it up with a brief summary of his accomplishments in his limited opportunities.

I think I just did. How brief did you want it to be?

It may be worth adding that Sidebottom's figures may have been better without "old iron gloves" behind the stumps.

[stevieh]

Originally Posted by D/L

I think I just did. How brief did you want it to be?

It may be worth adding that Sidebottom's figures may have been better without "old iron gloves" behind the stumps.

It is a good thing Ryan doesn't have you as his agent when renegotiating his contract with Yorkshire.