Who would you have picked instead of Darren Pattinson ?

[tooextracool]

I don't disagree at all. I just reckon Pattinson is at least in with a shot. Would you rather Broad played? If the selectors continue wrapping Jones in cotton-wool, Pattinson has to be in with a chance of retaining his spot ahead of Broad when Sidebottom comes back.

If Broad doesnt play, there is a snowball chance in hell of England not picking another batsman. As decent as Sid is with the bat, he is no number 8, and with Ambrose at 6 and Flintoff at 7, it makes the batting even more fragile. Would probably result in the longest England tail in history.

 

[Top_Cat]

If Broad doesnt play, there is a snowball chance in hell of England not picking another batsman. As decent as Sid is with the bat, he is no number 8, and with Ambrose at 6 and Flintoff at 7, it makes the batting even more fragile. Would probably result in the longest England tail in history.

It already is, really. I remember when England essentially had four 11's in the side; the tail essentially starts at 6 with this one. Flintoff, if he's to be picked as a bowler, shouldn't even be batting at 7.

Some would say it's time for Ramps but that he was seriously in the frame for selection at the start of this season and has averaged barely 40 seems more than merely coincidence. Either way, they need another bat. If they can find someone to bat at 6, having Ambrose at 7 and Flintoff at 8 will turn it from being one of England's logest ever tails to one of teh best lower-orders in existance!

 

[tooextracool]

It already is, really. I remember when England essentially had four 11's in the side; the tail essentially starts at 6 with this one. Flintoff, if he's to be picked as a bowler, shouldn't even be batting at 7.

Some would say it's time for Ramps but that he was seriously in the frame for selection at the start of this season and has averaged barely 40 seems more than merely coincidence. Either way, they need another bat. If they can find someone to bat at 6, having Ambrose at 7 and Flintoff at 8 will turn it from being one of England's logest ever tails to one of teh best lower-orders in existance!

Its a pity that Ramps has gone the way that he has gone so far this season as I firmly think that he would surely have come fairly close to test selection otherwise. Nonetheless, I dont think there is much of a debate here, England have to pick a batsman to replace Broad and Sidebottom should replace Pattinson.

 

[Top_Cat]

Its a pity that Ramps has gone the way that he has gone so far this season as I firmly think that he would surely have come fairly close to test selection otherwise. Nonetheless, I dont think there is much of a debate here, England have to pick a batsman to replace Broad and Sidebottom should replace Pattinson.

I think you're right but if they won't pick Collingwood to bat at 6, who should replace him?

 

[tooextracool]

I think you're right but if they won't pick Collingwood to bat at 6, who should replace him?

Well in my eyes Collingwood should be picked ahead of everyone else, but if not I guess Owais Shah is next in line and deserves his shot. Im not convinced about Shah and some of his recent ODI performances in bowler friendly conditions have left me a little bit worried to say the least but they are 2 different forms of the game and hes got to be a decent run in the side especially with no other options shouting out.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well in my eyes Collingwood should be picked ahead of everyone else, but if not I guess Owais Shah is next in line and deserves his shot. Im not convinced about Shah and some of his recent ODI performances in bowler friendly conditions have left me a little bit worried to say the least but they are 2 different forms of the game and hes got to be a decent run in the side especially with no other options shouting out.

Yeah I was thinking Shah would be the next in line logically although I share your opinion about him. I'm no expert on CC, though, and on pure numbers, it would seem Ravi Bopara is doing well but I haven't heard him mentioned as a Test possibility for some time.

 

[tooextracool]

Dont think hes good enough or ready yet. He got a decent run in SL not too long ago and looked far short from being test class despite the sky's commentators and cricinfo's best attempts to compare him to Tendulkar. I highly doubt half a season in CC has changed much in that regard and Shah should have played ahead of him in SL ITFP. Shah did extremely well on his debut in Mumbai and not so well in his next against the WI but those tests were spaced wide apart and hes still not got a fair crack at the international level. Dont know much about Samit Patel, but cant argue with his statistics over the last few seasons.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Its a pity that Ramps has gone the way that he has gone so far this season as I firmly think that he would surely have come fairly close to test selection otherwise.

Given his next FC century will be his 100th Ramps's current rough trot doesn't speak wonders of his ability to handle pressure. His form over the past two years has been imperious, now faced with this major milestone his form has gone to pot (comparitively speaking).

Might just be coincidence, of course, but I doubt it personally.

 

[Flem274*]

After showing the English how to bat, why don't you put Broad a little higher up and the problem is solved?

 

[Goughy]

Given his next FC century will be his 100th Ramps's current rough trot doesn't speak wonders of his ability to handle pressure. His form over the past two years has been imperious, now faced with this major milestone his form has gone to pot (comparitively speaking).

Might just be coincidence, of course, but I doubt it personally.

Its a real shame. As you say, it may just be coincidence but, given a career filled with poor handling of pressure, its far to easy to draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[Richard]

It already is, really. I remember when England essentially had four 11's in the side; the tail essentially starts at 6 with this one. Flintoff, if he's to be picked as a bowler, shouldn't even be batting at 7.

Eh, don't remind me. And DeFreitas at seven too.

 

[Richard]

I don't disagree at all. I just reckon Pattinson is at least in with a shot. Would you rather Broad played? If the selectors continue wrapping Jones in cotton-wool, Pattinson has to be in with a chance of retaining his spot ahead of Broad when Sidebottom comes back.

It sounds straightforward enough, and has broadly already been discussed between you and tec, but for the next game I'd simply bring Sidebottom back for Pattinson and return to picking four bowlers, as apparently was the intention before Sidebottom's injury.

Who that batsman is is a moot point. Shah has probably the best case, but Collingwood would be the one I'd think most likely. I think he has a Championship game in between times as well.

 

[Kweek]

I disagree completely with this. Ambrose and McGrath were both masters of the off-cutter (McGrath even bowled it as his stock-ball sometmes) and could also bowl the leg-cutter. And of course, when a pitch offered movement off the seam, as plenty did in the 1990s and 2000, they exploited it. But even when it did not, their ability to use the off-cutter and leg-cutter meant they could perform on any surface. Neither swung the ball very often, but mostly this was based on length - on the rare occasion they pitched the ball up, both bowlers could and did. McGrath especially.

.

The bit about McGrath, ive spoken with a lot of fast bowling coaches lately...and McGrath is extreamly accurate and has pace, but all he does it bowl it at the same coin, he doesnt do anything intendingly(is that a word?) with the ball!
he just gets it in there and just see's what the ball does...he he bowled the offcutter or leg cutter because he aimed at doing it...at times.

 

[zaremba]

And I'm honestly amazed that anyone objects to removing a whole 7 Tests in 4 months. Do this to the career of any particularly good player and the difference it makes will be negligable.

That Harmison's average goes from 34 to 39 is huuuuuuuuuge.

Sorry to return to this but it's a point I've been mulling over. Your more persuasive point IMO is that Harmison's career bowling average excluding Zim/Bang is 33.84 which is certainly high.

As for the increase in his bowling average when you delete 7 Tests, you're on much weaker ground.

You remove 13.5% of Harmison's tests to get a "huuuuuuge" increase of 5 points on his bowling average.

Do the same to Dominic Cork's record: remove 5 Tests (his first Test and last 4 Tests against relatively weak West Indies batting line-ups) and his average rises by over 6 points from 29.81 to 36.04. Huuuuuuge!

You can do similar things with many, many other players but I won't bore you or myself by trying to crunch all the numbers.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The bit about McGrath, ive spoken with a lot of fast bowling coaches lately...and McGrath is extreamly accurate and has pace, but all he does it bowl it at the same coin, he doesnt do anything intendingly(is that a word?) with the ball!
he just gets it in there and just see's what the ball does...he he bowled the offcutter or leg cutter because he aimed at doing it...at times.

Intentionally, is probably the word you're looking for.

And you're right, mainly. There probably would've been little changes of the angle of the seam and that - maybe point his fingers slightly one way, but he always had his fingers bolt upright behind the ball, not running his fingers down the side of it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Intentionally, is probably the word you're looking for.

And you're right, mainly. There probably would've been little changes of the angle of the seam and that - maybe point his fingers slightly one way, but he always had his fingers bolt upright behind the ball, not running his fingers down the side of it.

Early days it was different. Used to rip the off-cutter but had little else. McGrath had all the tricks but was just smart about when he used them and against whom. I've watched him in the past and have seen occasionally when he really showed his repertoire in an over or two instead of over the course of a session. Time and again the ball would rip past the outside or inside edge so much movement was he getting even on a road. McGrath has been quoted many times as saying he didn't see a lot of value in doing that all the time, though. Hard to argue with his results.

 

[zaremba]

I remember Angus Fraser being asked what his stock ball was. He said "probably the off-cutter. I try to bowl leg-cutters but they usually don't work and end up going the other way." I liked that.

 

[Richard]

Fraser and McGrath were pretty similar - and for mine if Fraser hadn't suffered so many injuries he could've been fairly close to McGrath and had a decent claim on being England's best seam-bowler ever.

If, that is, you consider that Trueman's away record is sufficiently disappointing for his position as England's best seamer to be compromised.

 

[Richard]

Sorry to return to this but it's a point I've been mulling over. Your more persuasive point IMO is that Harmison's career bowling average excluding Zim/Bang is 33.84 which is certainly high.

As for the increase in his bowling average when you delete 7 Tests, you're on much weaker ground.

You remove 13.5% of Harmison's tests to get a "huuuuuuge" increase of 5 points on his bowling average.

Personally I consider anything involving Bangladesh (and, since April 2003, Zimbabwe) with precisely zero seriousness when I'm considering "international cricket". It just doesn't count AFAIC.

I'm actually surprised that those 7 Tests in early 2004 are as much as 13.5% of his career but even so, this isn't a particularly large proportion. That means that for 86.5% of his career he was utterly hopeless. I'd say that's fairly telling myself.

Do the same to Dominic Cork's record: remove 5 Tests (his first Test and last 4 Tests against relatively weak West Indies batting line-ups) and his average rises by over 6 points from 29.81 to 36.04. Huuuuuuge!

I'm amazed you can consider West Indies' batting, inclusive of the likes of Campbell, Richardson, Hinds, Lara, Chanderpaul, Adams, Jacobs and Sarwan "relatively weak". Cork bowled at worse batting-line-ups in his own career.

You can make a fair case with Cork by taking his first 11 (IIRR) Tests as "Part One" and saying that most of the rest of his career, bar the odd game here and there, was poor, and that's quite true. Cork for most of the time between the Second Test in 1996 and his farewell (with the seventh ball of a seven-ball over - I forget which idiot Umpire was responsible - being edged for four ) in 2002 wasn't all that good a Test bowler. Not much of this, IMO, was his own fault, and I've always said that had the cookie crumbled better for him he could've been an excellent Test bowler, but that doesn't change the way things actually were. And sadly, for most of his career, he wasn't all that good.

But removing West Indies makes little sense, IMO.

You can do similar things with many, many other players but I won't bore you or myself by trying to crunch all the numbers.

Don't see anything wrong with it, personally. Almost no cricket careers of any length involve things staying the same constantly. So for most Test careers, I'm happier breaking down than pretending everything was always the same.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Fraser and McGrath were pretty similar - and for mine if Fraser hadn't suffered so many injuries he could've been fairly close to McGrath and had a decent claim on being England's best seam-bowler ever.

If, that is, you consider that Trueman's away record is sufficiently disappointing for his position as England's best seamer to be compromised.