Vaughan to score an ODI ton before his 100th ODI?

[Richard]

if anything i think he'll be better of at 3, because he has more time to play himself in and is less likely to come in after 30 overs or so.

Well - we shall see.
I still find it a little odd if it's so obvious that he's not batted three for Warwks more.

 

[superkingdave]

and as I say I'm still waiting for Vettori's record to change and I'm absolutely positive it will.

i'm still waiting for Rikki Clarke's record to change but unfortunately i don't think it will

 

[Richard]

no the point is that as an ODI bowler, you should not flight it but bowl it flatter, bowling marginally quicker doesnt change anything. and the reason why kumble has become less effective is because of he doesnt bowl 'the rocket ball' anymore, which was extremely quick and if accurate was never easy to get to.

Kumble is less effective because he flights the ball far, far more generously nowadays than he used to pre-injury.
Of course bowling flat is important but even so bowling flat at 50mph will still give the batsman ample chance to give the charge effectively.

at least hes shown potential to bat as can be seen from his test performances. ealham has never looked like being anything other than rubbish in ODIs or tests.

Because Ealham played close to as many Test-innings as Giles has, didn't he? Giles was every bit as rubbish as Ealham was early in Tests.

yes possibly because hes a good one?
its no surprise that as usual you go on with the ignoring the good finger spinners as anomalies and simply look at the poor ones.

So how many fingerspinners have been tried and been found wanting, then? I'll name a few, just to give the picture that the successes have been very much anomalies: Gareth Batty, Ian Blackwell, Jeremy Snape, Paul Wiseman, Murali Kartik, Vijay Bharadwaj, Nilesh Kulkarni, Sunil Joshi, Nathan Hauritz (who wouldn't know what flight was if it punched him on the nose), Omari Banks, Ryan Hurley (who is in the same boat as Hauritz), Nehemiah Perry, Neil McGarrell, Thilan Samaraweera, Russel Arnold, Jayasuriya, Nico Boje, Robin Peterson, Dirk Viljoen... not to mention the numerous part-timers. So yes, I think I'm entitled to ignore the odd poor one!

even though its not even close to being true? the fact is that flighting the ball often in ODIs is never going to help, although you'd do quite a good job if you tossed the odd one up, but nowhere have i ever heard of needing to bowl at least 60 mph to be successful. im sure giles is more than capable of bowling it flat.

So why, then, have Dharmasena, the old Kumble and Utseya had considerable success bowling quicker than bowlers who turn it equally little? Because they bowl it flat, yes, but also because they're quicker through the air than the convention.

 

[Richard]

i'm still waiting for Rikki Clarke's record to change but unfortunately i don't think it will

That's because his domestic record quite clearly shows that he should never, ever have been picked for ODIs.
It's a different thing waiting for a poor record to become a good one to waiting for a good one to become a poor one.

 

[Richard]

no its not, because a spinners job is to be economical in conditions that dont help him, and then turn wicket taking when they do. ealhams job has never been to take wickets, because hes a medium pacer, not a pace bowler, and his job is solely to be accurate.

So given that hardly any ODI pitches outside the subcontinent and certain West Indies grounds help fingerspinners to bowl economically, it's fairly safe, then, to say that Ealham-type bowlers are the best bet most of the time.

 

[Richard]

now that someone has already gone on to name 5 finger spinners who've gone on to do that,please sherlock name me 5 leg spinners in the modern era who've managed to do the same?
and as desperate as you will be when you look it up, murali doesnt count, because he isnt a conventional wrist spinner.

Murali is a wristspinner, he counts.
The others are Warne and Mushtaq Ahmed.
So, where have you got the idea that I think wristspinners are the way to go, then?
I've stated so many times that most of the time wristspinners are pointless in Tests and ODIs because it's incredibly difficult to bowl wristspin accurately enough, only very few ever do.
If you do, you're like golddust but most people can't.
To have a good wristspinner, one up to Test or ODI standard, is exceptionally rare.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah - really impressive 8 in 52 (1 in 6.5)
It's terrible, and it's even worse when you remove substandard-team games.

It's actually 13 in 62 - which is under 1 in 5.

 

[marc71178]

Yep - because I don't see how he's any different to every other conventional fingerspinner in the modern ODI-game.

Maybe you shouldn't generalise so much then?

 

[marc71178]

4.5 is very mediocre.
It's only once you're bowling at the death regularly that you can be forgiven for going near that.

Absolute rubbish when you consider the way the game has become batsman friendly.

Also pays absolutely no regard to differing match siutuations.

 

[marc71178]

a) Less than 4-an-over, really - 4.2 is OK and 4.3 is - just - acceptible.

How harsh is that sort of criteria?

The game doesn't go along at 4 an over any more.

 

[Richard]

It's actually 13 in 62 - which is under 1 in 5.

Well, yeah, it's now 9 in 53.
Still am amazed that you can think this is especially good.

 

[Richard]

Maybe you shouldn't generalise so much then?

And if Giles goes on to have a 150-match ODI-career and continue to be as economical as he has been I'll freely admit that I was wrong, in this case, to do so. Because no rule is without exceptions - Giles could be one. But I think Kemp showed today just why he's unlikely to be one.

 

[Richard]

Absolute rubbish when you consider the way the game has become batsman friendly.

Also pays absolutely no regard to differing match siutuations.

It's become run-weighty because of poorer bowling, something you can tell quite clearly when you look at how successful McGrath, Warne, Murali, Vaas, Pollock etc. have continued to be throughout these changes. Pollock earlier today demonstrated that perfectly - stupidly short boundaries, incredibly flat pitch, yet he still got 10-35-1.
If the thresholds have changed, it's because people are willing to accept mediocrity the way they once weren't.

 

[Richard]

How harsh is that sort of criteria?

The game doesn't go along at 4 an over any more.

Nope - because there are not currently anywhere near as many bowlers capable of regularly restricting batsmen to that sort of rate as there were 5 or 6 years ago.

 

[marc71178]

Well, yeah, it's now 9 in 53.

No, he has played 62 games and hit 13 half centuries.

Look at his career record.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Tufnell who played the sum-total of 5 ODIs in the respective period. No coincidence, either, that of his mere 20 ODIs overall half of them were against the weak New Zealanders and Zimbabweans; against Australia, India and The West Indies his economy-rate is much higher.
Vettori I'm still waiting, I'm quite sure his economy-rate will rise very soon, and I've been sure of it for some time.
Croft's record is excellent and it's pure folly that he didn't play more ODIs than he did.
Hooper I've already done.
Even May only played 33 ODIs in the period, and while that's enough to say he was a good bowler (never saw him bowl myself, and still haven't) it's not exactly like he was as much of a fixture as plenty have been.
Maybe I should have added that they had to have played a reasonable amount.
You've got four, and as I say I'm still waiting for Vettori's record to change and I'm absolutely positive it will.

5 more then?

Shaun Udal: 10 matches post 01/01/92, Economy Rate 3.90
Dipak Patel: 28 matches, ER 3.88
Matthew Hart: 13 matches, ER 3.91
Pat Symcox: 80 matches, ER 4.15
Ray Price: 26 matches, ER 4.14

 

[marc71178]

And if Giles goes on to have a 150-match ODI-career and continue to be as economical as he has been I'll freely admit that I was wrong,

Why 150 games?

What's wrong with the number he's played already?

 

[Richard]

No, he has played 62 games and hit 13 half centuries.

Look at his career record.

He's played 53 games and scored 9 half-centuries.
Look at his career record excluding games against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Holland and Namibia.
It's pretty clear.
No mistakes can be made.

 

[marc71178]

Nope - because there are not currently anywhere near as many bowlers capable of regularly restricting batsmen to that sort of rate as there were 5 or 6 years ago.

No, it's because the whole game is far more batter friendly.

All the rule changes favour batsmen.

All the pitch conditions favour batsmen.

 

[Richard]

Why 150 games?

What's wrong with the number he's played already?

All right - 90 or 100 games.
150 was an out-of-hand number that I typed at random.
It's possibly unrealistic to expect him to play so many.