Giddins (was Giddins)
James Brant
performance, or Mick & Son etc would have raised the posse and organised a
lynch mob!
Please read what we said. Is it really necessary for England to choose 'the
best players for the particular conditions' when we're playing Zimbabwe in
England? Surely it hasn't come to that. Our point was simply that Ed is
unlikely to be a long term presence in the England line up (can anybody
really see him taking wickets in Oz?), whereas maybe (just maybe) Harmison
could. So why on earth not introduce him to Test cricket now, against
Zimbabwe? That is not a criticism of Giddins - he must have bowled well, and
if we are up against a top class side in England maybe we should play him.
It's the difference between tactics and strategy.
As for Gough, I have not yet been able to see any of the coverage, live or
recorded. But I made a post to this NG not long ago to the effect that on
present form Gough would not be an automatic selection for Yorkshire if
everyone was fit., so I am not that surprised that he has struggled in this
match so far. Given his character I'm sure he'll come back; but perhaps it
would do him no harm to miss the next Test. Perhaps we should try Harmison,
Hoggard, and Tudor-unless Silverwood is fit in which case he clearly should
be given a run out before the Windies appear.
Jim
Ian Diddams
>Please read what we said. Is it really necessary for England to choose 'the
>best players for the particular conditions' when we're playing Zimbabwe in
>England?
Personally its a step in the right dierction IMO. I'm not convinbced that
the
selectors have been doing this for several years. I am convinced that if
the
ECB/TCCB selectors had selected Olympic athletic teams in the past Linford
Christie would have been antered in the 10,000m and the marathon because
after
all he is "our" fastest runner isn't he?
> Surely it hasn't come to that. Our point was simply that Ed is
>unlikely to be a long term presence in the England line up (can anybody
>really see him taking wickets in Oz?),
Headley did. Fraser did. Botham did. Greig took wickets in the Windies.
I'd suggest there wasn't much difference between these bowlers - espcecially
the last two - and Giddins. And whose to say he won;t be a long term
selection? Apart from Jim and Chris, naturally... ;-)
> whereas maybe (just maybe) Harmison could.
He could. Or he could not. Who's to say?
> So why on earth not introduce him to Test cricket now, against
>Zimbabwe?
Agreed, FWIW. So drop the bowler that is a completely known factor, Gough.
Play both Giddins and harmison - give them the responsibility. Get Gough in
the nets and tell him to learn to bowl properly again, in the first innings
when it matters. Especially if as Jim suggests he's striggling to make the
Yorks 1st team...
One thought.... given that we are dealing in ifs and buts and maybes...
IF
Giddins plays in all 5 tests against the Windies and IF he takes (say) 30
wickets and IF England as a result win the series (say) 3-1, would his
selection be seen as "short termism" or "justified and beneficial",
especially
in the overall result of creating an England team that presumably would now
have some belief in itself?
Didds