Gough slams England's selection favouritism

[Richard]

Certainly better than Anderson and Harmison, but not as good as the Ealhams, Killeens, Mascarenhases (if he regains form) or Sidebottoms.

And obviously not a patch on Flintoff.

 

[aussie]

There is absolutely no way on Earth that Harmison, Anderson and a mixture of Collingwood and Patel are among the best OD bowlers currently available to England.

For starters Sidebottom is far better than the lot of the above, even if he is still injured currently (not sure if anyone knows the answer to that incidentally). For seconds, provided Mascarenhas can get back to his normal self next season, he's far better as well. If he can't, he's merely slightly better.

Even if Sidebottom where to play ahead of Anderson in these sub-continent conditions (given i think he is the second best potential death-bowler England has) it still wouldn't have made a difference in the first two ODI's. In these conditons our seamers come up a bit short unfortunately but i'd back them to do very well in AUS, SA, ENG, WI, NZ though.

Mark Ealham is now too old to be playing ODIs as he's exceptionally unlikely to be around in 2010/11 (though I thought that about 2007 in 2004) but he's also better than all the above. Then there's the likes of Neil Killeen.

Boring..

 

[Furball]

Certainly better than Anderson and Harmison, but not as good as the Ealhams, Killeens, Mascarenhases (if he regains form) or Sidebottoms.

And obviously not a patch on Flintoff.

Aye, let's dump the top ODI wicket-taker since the World Cup for a bunch of nobodies that Richard likes.

With Aussie on this one. Broad has certainly proven his ODI credentials.

 

[Sanz]

I knew some smartass would come up with Sidebottom's name and that's why I added the word AVAILABLE in my post. Here is it :-

IMO the current bowling attack is almost the best available at the moment.

But knowing Richard and his penchant for making ridiculous arguments just to provoke response from members, it was not really a surprise.

Sidebottom - Injured hence not available

 

[Sanz]

Boring..

Indeed. In the current series :-

Flintoff - ER - 6.10, Wickets 1, SR - 114
Broad - ER - 6.45, Wickets 4, SR - 30

Not saying Broad is better than Freddie because of those stats, but just that every bowler has performed poorly including the best bowler from England.

 

[Richard]

Even if Sidebottom where to play ahead of Anderson in these sub-continent conditions (given i think he is the second best potential death-bowler England has) it still wouldn't have made a difference in the first two ODI's. In these conditons our seamers come up a bit short unfortunately but i'd back them to do very well in AUS, SA, ENG, WI, NZ though.

I highly doubt it'd not have made a difference in the second game. The pitch did all sorts early on, and if Sidebottom had bowled at his best he'd quite conceivably have caused chaos.

Boring..

Good one-day bowling is all about being boring. If you're looking for excitement, pick the likes of Sajid Mahmood, Tim Bresnan, Liam Plunkett etc. - but don't expect to restrict your opponents to small totals very often.

 

[Richard]

Aye, let's dump the top ODI wicket-taker since the World Cup for a bunch of nobodies that Richard likes.

They're not nobodies, they're some of the few good OD bowlers in the English game. Broad may be the top wicket-taker since the 2007/08 season, but that flatters him - immensely. Only in the summer of 2008 did he actually bowl even particularly well.

 

[Richard]

I knew some smartass would come up with Sidebottom's name and that's why I added the word AVAILABLE in my post. Here is it :-

Sidebottom - Injured hence not available

Sidebottom's injury is far from conclusive, no-one quite knows when he'll be fit. In any case, he's not the only potentially available bowler who's ignored, far from it.

But knowing Richard and his penchant for making ridiculous arguments just to provoke response from members, it was not really a surprise.

If enough people keep saying it, it won't make it any truer.

 

[Langeveldt]

Ealham in India, now? Are you on smack?

 

[Richard]

Read carefully. I never said Ealham should play in the current series (though the location is irrelevant), simply that he remains the second-best limited-overs bowler in the country after Flintoff.

However, the best OD bowlers are the best OD bowlers. Ealham might expect to be less effective in India than in England but he's still overwhelmingly likely to do better than the likes of Anderson and Harmison, because he's simply a far better OD bowler than them.

 

[Rant0r]

Aye, let's dump the top ODI wicket-taker since the World Cup for a bunch of nobodies that Richard likes.

high 5

 

[Rant0r]

Read carefully. I never said Ealham should play in the current series (though the location is irrelevant), simply that he remains the second-best limited-overs bowler in the country after Flintoff.

However, the best OD bowlers are the best OD bowlers. Ealham might expect to be less effective in India than in England but he's still overwhelmingly likely to do better than the likes of Anderson and Harmison, because he's simply a far better OD bowler than them.

i know who i'd rather face

 

[Rant0r]

I highly doubt it'd not have made a difference in the second game. The pitch did all sorts early on, and if Sidebottom had bowled at his best he'd quite conceivably have caused chaos.

Good one-day bowling is all about being boring. If you're looking for excitement, pick the likes of Sajid Mahmood, Tim Bresnan, Liam Plunkett etc. - but don't expect to restrict your opponents to small totals very often.

dunno about anyone else, but i'd rather bowl a team out for 250 in the 45th over than have them 4/230 at the same time

 

[Rant0r]

No, but the next man in can. And until 10 wickets fall, there's always one of them.

You won't minimise the damage to 5\6-an-over in the last 10 by taking wickets. You'll only do that by consistently, ball after ball, hitting the blockhole. If you bowl the odd ball in the blockhole and get a wicket on a few of the occasions you do (say, get 5 wickets in the last 10 overs), and bowl length the rest of the time, you'll get utterly smashed. 100-110 off the last 10 overs is far from OOTQ with such ingredients.

However, if you bowl constantly in the blockhole and batsmen dig you out whenever you do so you end-up just getting 1 wicket in the last 10, you're going to restrict to 6 to 7-an-over far more easily. However, such an outcome is pretty unlikely. The point so many people miss so often is that in the one-day game, a good economy-rate for all or most bowlers = wickets falling. It doesn't, however, work the other way around - at any stage of the innings, never mind the last 10 overs. To bowl economically, you have to hit good areas, otherwise you'll get smashed, even if you do take wickets regularly though the innings.

no one can hit the blockhole every ball, except mcgrath, nor would they try to anymore, it's too predictable, you need to get them out and get a fresh batsman in who's not seeing it, or get into the tail with little idea.

 

[Rant0r]

As for everyone in Australia can play both types of cricket... here's a few good Australian Test players who were either not that good or completely useless in ODIs: Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Stephen Waugh, Justin Langer, Allan Border, Simon Katich, Ian Healy, Stuart Clark. A few the other way around? Dean Jones, Michael Bevan, Andrew Symonds, Adam Dale, Nathan Bracken. Not like Mark Waugh and Adam Gilchrist played remotely comparable roles in Tests and ODIs either.

all of those players played both forms, or could very well play both forms, my point, they are all cricketers, england seem obsessed with breeding specialists, while some of those players might not have done well at one form than the other, they could all play both (or all 3 these days) did dean jones not average in the mid 40's in test cricket ? steve waugh played in 4 world cups, i could go on.. but it defeats my point. it also goes a little beyond my point of the current team.

lets be fair, masceranhas will never play a test, maddy will never play another test (and probably shouldnt have) phil mustard won't play tests, dalrymple is unlikely to play a test, ealham wouldn't scare an australian grade cricketer. mal loye will not play again.

for a country that plays so much one day domestic cricket, it's a wonder they are so bad at it (cb series 2 years ago excluded). perhaps this is why, breed more first class cricketers and turn them into one day players, a few years ago, mike hussey wasn't in his state one day team.

 

[Richard]

i know who i'd rather face

And I also know who you'd score least runs off. And it's the latter, not the former, that counts.

 

[Richard]

dunno about anyone else, but i'd rather bowl a team out for 250 in the 45th over than have them 4/230 at the same time

That much is really rather obvious. However, if the choice is between bowling them out for 250 and having them 170-4... well, I don't think you need to think too hard about that one.

 

[Richard]

no one can hit the blockhole every ball, except mcgrath

Wasim Akram, Fanie de Villiers and Allan Donald were all better at it than McGrath. And obviously no-one can do it every ball, but four out of six per over should guarantee you a pretty decent over, and a good death-bowler can do that. Likewise, there is a little margin-for-error - a low Full-Toss isn't easy to hit, and a Half-Volley is almost impossible to hit in the air.

nor would they try to anymore, it's too predictable, you need to get them out and get a fresh batsman in who's not seeing it, or get into the tail with little idea.

You've got a pretty good chance of getting them out by hitting the blockhole ball after ball. And it's not too predictable at all. You can predict a delivery all you want, doesn't make it any easier to score off if it's bang in the blockhole or close to.

If they try to score at the rate batsmen generally hope to score in the last 10, there's a substantial chance they'll get out. If they play the ball on its merits, they'll probably get 50 or 60 off the last 10, which is an outstanding result for the bowling team.

 

[Richard]

all of those players played both forms, or could very well play both forms, my point, they are all cricketers, england seem obsessed with breeding specialists

Not really. There's a hell of a lot of talk about this nonsense of "your best Test players should be your best OD players", which simply ignores reality. England have picked lots of OD specialists, nonetheless - the trouble is they've picked the wrong ones. The fact that they think Tim Bresnan and Paul Grayson can be ODI-standard players doesn't change the fact that Usman Afzaal and Dimitri Mascarenhas could be if given the chance. Darren Maddy, meanwhile, was never picked as a ODI specialist at all, his brief foray was into both forms at the same time.

while some of those players might not have done well at one form than the other, they could all play both (or all 3 these days) did dean jones not average in the mid 40's in test cricket ? steve waugh played in 4 world cups, i could go on.. but it defeats my point. it also goes a little beyond my point of the current team.

Stephen Waugh was a wholly average OD player even if he did play in 4 WCs, Dean Jones hardly ever scored many runs outside dead Tests, I could go on. All the players I named were good or excellent at one form and either not particularly good or utterly useless at the other.

lets be fair, masceranhas will never play a test, maddy will never play another test (and probably shouldnt have) phil mustard won't play tests, dalrymple is unlikely to play a test, ealham wouldn't scare an australian grade cricketer. mal loye will not play again.

So? Tests are Tests, ODIs are ODIs. A player's ODI calibre is absolutely nothing to do with his Test calibre.

for a country that plays so much one day domestic cricket, it's a wonder they are so bad at it (cb series 2 years ago excluded). perhaps this is why, breed more first class cricketers and turn them into one day players, a few years ago, mike hussey wasn't in his state one day team.

England play far less domestic OD cricket now than they did for the previous 30 years. It hasn't changed a thing.

You can't turn good First-Class players into good one-day players. They need to learn the skills early in their career - before they become professionals. If they don't do it then, they almost certainly never will.

 

[aussie]

I highly doubt it'd not have made a difference in the second game. The pitch did all sorts early on, and if Sidebottom had bowled at his best he'd quite conceivably have caused chaos.

Really?. This is where you guys are so paranoid towards England's ODI performances.

Gambhir & Yuvraj should take all the credit, this was England's best bowling available and they were mastered simple.

Good one-day bowling is all about being boring. If you're looking for excitement, pick the likes of Sajid Mahmood, Tim Bresnan, Liam Plunkett etc. - but don't expect to restrict your opponents to small totals very often.

Ha, its boring because you always bring up Ealham & Killeen. Give it up mayn, damnnnn.They both would have gone for a 100 if they played