Selection Panel V: The ECB Strikes Back

[oldandfat]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

At best, county cricket hides flaws that are exposed at international level,

I doubt Pujara would so denigrate the standard of Div 1 CC...

[square leg umpire]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Nope, Bairstow continues with gloves.

That's not good. Playing a specialist batsman at 7 never works. He just ends up batting like a 7, though players who either keep or bowl are often very successful there.

[Breacan]

Originally Posted by square leg umpire

That's not good. Playing a specialist batsman at 7 never works. He just ends up batting like a 7, though players who either keep or bowl are often very successful there.

Personally I'd have described Gilchrist as a specialist batsman who was also (or became) quite a reasonable keeper as well.

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by Breacan

Personally I'd have described Gilchrist as a specialist batsman who was also (or became) quite a reasonable keeper as well.

I think he was almost always the keeper when he played for Australia. Whether or not he might have been able to keep down a place as a specialist batsman had they had someone else keeping, I think if he is the keeper he isn't a specialist batsman. Otherwise the term "specialist" has swapped its normal descriptive meaning for a strange evaluative one.

[Psyduck]

I wouldn't have picked Jos but I can't say I'm too disappointed to see him recalled. I just hope he bats like Jos Buttler rather than trying to be too conservative. The decision to move Bairstow up to 5 seems like a no brainer to me.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by oldandfat

I doubt Pujara would so denigrate the standard of Div 1 CC...

Matt Henry may be less complimentary about the batting in Div 2. Well actually he might be very complimentary about it!

[sharky]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

I think he was almost always the keeper when he played for Australia. Whether or not he might have been able to keep down a place as a specialist batsman had they had someone else keeping, I think if he is the keeper he isn't a specialist batsman. Otherwise the term "specialist" has swapped its normal descriptive meaning for a strange evaluative one.

True, the beauty of Gilchrist's batting was that he had the freedom to play in an ultra-aggressive way because he was performing another role in the team. If he didn't have the gloves he may have not been able to play in such a swashbuckling way and been a long way down the list for a place in that Aussie team. Contrast it with Sangakkara, who genuinely did play better when giving up the gloves as he was more of a classical batsman and therefore I'd say the less strain he had in the field, the more energy he could spend batting long periods. I suspect Bairstow falls more into the Sangakkara camp than the Gilchrist camp, whereas Prior was more in the latter (by no means am I saying either England player is in their league though). Buttler batting at 7 but not keeping is a strange experiment, and I don't really see what he offers there more than Mo who can also provide a decent spin option from number 7, but it's worth a go I suppose.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by sharky

Buttler batting at 7 but not keeping is a strange experiment, and I don't really see what he offers there more than Mo who can also provide a decent spin option from number 7, but it's worth a go I suppose.

Hopefully he'll offer lots more than Mo did in his last few Tests. If he doesn't the experiment will end swiftly.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

If he doesn't the experiment will end swiftly.

Will it? Why? If you select someone with limited red ball experience (5 games in 3 years) is it fair to reject him before giving him a decent run in first class cricket. All this summer and the forthcoming tours at least. He will still be the same super talented Jos Buttler, even if it doesn't come off for a year or two.

[square leg umpire]

Originally Posted by sharky

True, the beauty of Gilchrist's batting was that he had the freedom to play in an ultra-aggressive way because he was performing another role in the team. If he didn't have the gloves he may have not been able to play in such a swashbuckling way and been a long way down the list for a place in that Aussie team. Contrast it with Sangakkara, who genuinely did play better when giving up the gloves as he was more of a classical batsman and therefore I'd say the less strain he had in the field, the more energy he could spend batting long periods. I suspect Bairstow falls more into the Sangakkara camp than the Gilchrist camp, whereas Prior was more in the latter (by no means am I saying either England player is in their league though). Buttler batting at 7 but not keeping is a strange experiment, and I don't really see what he offers there more than Mo who can also provide a decent spin option from number 7, but it's worth a go I suppose.

Think loosing the gloves would help Bairstow because it does affect his batting since he averages more when England bat first and he hasn't had to keep for an innings. Also if Stokes is expected to bowl much Bairstow might have to bat 5, which isn't ideal for a keeper. Better if they'd played Foakes and given him the gloves.

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by square leg umpire

That's not good. Playing a specialist batsman at 7 never works. He just ends up batting like a 7, though players who either keep or bowl are often very successful there.

It’s good that Bairstow retains the gloves, for England and Bairstow himself who insists he doesn’t want to be in the team just as a batsman.

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by Fred

Will it? Why? If you select someone with limited red ball experience (5 games in 3 years) is it fair to reject him before giving him a decent run in first class cricket. All this summer and the forthcoming tours at least. He will still be the same super talented Jos Buttler, even if it doesn't come off for a year or two.

If you select someone with limited red ball experience, be it on your own head. What people would expect is for him to have had a run in first class cricket before being selected for tests. However, as he hasn’t done so, we will have to hope that his super talent is quickly in evidence in the test matches.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Fred

Will it? Why?

I'm not saying that's what I would do, just that's what I'd expect to see from England.

You look at our track record, we try to bring people with different attributes into the side yet when they don't adapt as swiftly as we like they jettison them.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by square leg umpire

Think loosing the gloves would help Bairstow because it does affect his batting since he averages more when England bat first and he hasn't had to keep for an innings. Also if Stokes is expected to bowl much Bairstow might have to bat 5, which isn't ideal for a keeper. Better if they'd played Foakes and given him the gloves.

Why?

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

I'm not saying that's what I would do, just that's what I'd expect to see from England.

You look at our track record, we try to bring people with different attributes into the side yet when they don't adapt as swiftly as we like they jettison them.

Such as who?

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

If you select someone with limited red ball experience, be it on your own head. What people would expect is for him to have had a run in first class cricket before being selected for tests. However, as he hasn’t done so, we will have to hope that his super talent is quickly in evidence in the test matches.

Who would you have picked instead of Bess then?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

I'm not saying that's what I would do, just that's what I'd expect to see from England.

You look at our track record, we try to bring people with different attributes into the side yet when they don't adapt as swiftly as we like they jettison them.

But isn't Smith saying and doing something different?

My point is that by Smith saying, I'm selecting on talent not form, not experience even, (Buttler was good in India but so was Hameed) he maybe digging himself a hole. His argument for his selection is still valid with the usual amount of failures which previous selectors have jettisoned players for. Buttler may fail all year long but Smith's justification of his selection still holds good. Talent, especially x-factor super-talent will eventually come through. So keep him in there, at least the ECB have another marketable test player, who people have heard of, even if it takes him out of the franchises.

[square leg umpire]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

Why?

Because he's more a natural no7 wicketkeeper/batsman.

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

Who would you have picked instead of Bess then?

I don’t know enough about Bess to have a view, although people have been speaking very highly of him.

[Breacan]

Originally Posted by sharky

True, the beauty of Gilchrist's batting was that he had the freedom to play in an ultra-aggressive way because he was performing another role in the team.

I think that's more a reflection on the prowess of the other batsmen in the teams Gilchist played it. Had he played for a different country of the era - except possibly India - I very much doubt he'd have been batting at 7 regardless of whether he had the gloves or not. And he sure wasn't picked for his keeping as he displaced Healy who - annoying as he is as a commentator - was a pretty good keeper (there's even an argument that replacing Healy with Gilchrist cost Warnie a lot of wickets over the next few years).

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by square leg umpire

Because he's more a natural no7 wicketkeeper/batsman.

Is it not more important that he'd be a better batsman and a better keeper than the incumbent?

I've not really seen Foakes play but Bairstow has developed into a good test keeper and I would be surprised if Foakes was better than him.