If not, why is he not playing?
>Alex Tudor is not playing because of the ground, the Test Match is
>being played at, ie Lords. Alex Tudor is primarily selected for his
>bowling, even we could have done with his batting at Lords. Alex
>Tudor is still relatively inexperienced as a test bowler, and at the
>moment despite his raw pace, he is slightly wayward and inaccurate.
>He also is still growing and the slope on the Lords pitch is likely to
>disturb his rhythm and action causing him to be wayward, causing
>him to lose his confidence. I believe the selectors did not select him
>because they believe he would not have the necessary experience or
>patience to correct any loss of form or confidence caused by the slope
>and the last England wants is to crush the confidence of a potential future
>fast bowler. England do not want another Devon Malcom incident.
If Tudor bowled badly, he could've always been replaced by one of the
other 4 bowlers! But, at least you could've had the *option* of trying
him instead of including a debutant batsman who doesn't give you the
option of the extra bowler!
I also think that one innings is enough time to correct any loss of form.
Check out Lance Klusener's test debut against India - 10 overs 0/75 in the
first innings and 8/64 in the second. It took him one innings to learn not
to bowl to the Indians (especially Azhar) on their pads.
A wayward bowler might take two vital wickets, as well. Heck! The least
you could've done was reward him for his performance in the first test!
Of course, all of the above is assuming Habib isn't much of a bowler. Even
if he is, I still think Tudor should've been taken. Unless he was injured.
-Samarth [ shaking his head... England selectors vs India selectors -
should be a good contest, I think ].
Of course, the injury did not manifest itself until this morning, so it
may well be that, bearing in mind these wishes of the selectors, David
Graveney snuck in to Tudor's hotel room last night while he was asleep
and gave his knee a frightful twist, with the result that Tudor pulled
out of the match.
Being the dull old stick that I am, I find the second theory a little
At least the World Cup's over for another four years
> If Tudor bowled badly, he could've always been replaced by one of the
> other 4 bowlers! But, at least you could've had the *option* of trying
> him instead of including a debutant batsman who doesn't give you the
> option of the extra bowler!
> I also think that one innings is enough time to correct any loss of form.
> Check out Lance Klusener's test debut against India - 10 overs 0/75 in the
> first innings and 8/64 in the second. It took him one innings to learn not
> to bowl to the Indians (especially Azhar) on their pads.
> A wayward bowler might take two vital wickets, as well. Heck! The least
> you could've done was reward him for his performance in the first test!
> Of course, all of the above is assuming Habib isn't much of a bowler. Even
> if he is, I still think Tudor should've been taken. Unless he was injured.
> -Samarth [ shaking his head... England selectors vs India selectors -
> should be a good contest, I think ].
>To call Alex Tudor a match winning strokemaker in top form, is an
>accolade indeed. I still persist that Alex Tudor is primarily a bowler
>who can bat. His 99no at Edgbaston was indeed a fine innings but
>lets look at the circumstances he got this score. When a side comes
>in needing 200 runs to win a match on a pitch getting easier, the
>batsman know that they only have to survive the first hour and a half or
>so while there is still moisture in the wicket and the bowling side knows
>it needs to get early wickets. New Zealand bowled a very poor line and
>length on that saturday which Ian Botham often refers to as buffet bowling.
>They conceded a lot of runs in that first hour and in do so release the
>on the England batsmen and put it on themselves. Tudor, like many middle
>to lower order batsman rode his luck, played some good shots and took
>advantage of a golden opportunity offered to him. I agree the innings
>probably deserved the retention of his place in the side.
>Tudor I believe has now played in four tests now and each time, there is
>a gap between each test. He played in Perth and bowled well, which he
>do on a fast and boucy wicket. He then had a slight injury for the next
>Adelaide and did not play. He was never in the running at Melbourne. He
>played at Sydney, which was bound to be turner when the Australians
>selected three spinners and so it proved. The team selected by the English
>was crazy. He then played at Edgbaston, another six months gap. Now he is
>not selected by England. His record for playing large number matches in a
>for his county Surrey is poor due to regular injuries or strains. He is
>fragile and needs looking after and a young fast bowler needs confidence
>be in top form to bowl well or reasonably. If he was severly restricted by
>knee injury, then he should not play taking into mind the slope at Lords.
>As far as Aftab Habib is concerned, I am not totally convinced he is a test
>but taking Tudors and Habibs records at county level, you expect Habib to
>successful as a batsman than Tudor. This has not proved the case yet.
>Adrian (Hoping England might turn the Test around at Lords)