• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* England in West Indies

T

tooextracool

International Coach
Goughy said:
You know, if they did that a year ago then at least there would be a clear logic. It wouldnt be my pick but at least you could see what they were thinking.
Click to expand...
You know, scoring 6 big 100s in a season at an average of 61 in the first division is still far better than anything Vaughan and Shah have managed in recent times. If Ramps was 5 years younger, hed be the first name on the team sheet. Forget about all his failures, we've had Harmison around despite his mediocrity for half a decade and we've done the same for many based on potential and we continue to pick them. At least with Ramps we know that if he succeeds he is likely to be as good a batsman as anyone in the world and I know we cannot say the same about Shah or Vaughan.
 
ozone

ozone

First Class Debutant
tooextracool said:
The typical English attitude IMO, is to forgive and forget very quickly IMO. 1 year ago, Vaughan was in the exact same position as Bell and people were calling for his head for his lack of performance. A year later, nothing has changed, and people are yearning for his glory days again, which we havent seen in 7 years. It really is a merry go round is English cricket and the possibility that we could pick Vaughan now, watch him fail in the ashes and then go back to Bell again ticks me off. Picking Vaughan would be settling for mediocrity, ditto picking Bell and Shah which is the state in which English cricket is at the moment. The number 3 spot is typically reserved for the best players in the side and we continually give those to the worst players in the side.
Click to expand...
That certainly is a typical English attitude, I was merely highlighting another one. I would argue that the most versatile player should be at number 3, especially in a mediocre side. Of the three who are more obvious canditates, Vaughan would be the most versatile, and also the one with the proven record at the highest level. And some (including myself FTR) would have argued that he should never have been dropped from the side when he lost the captaincy. He is too good a player to simply forget about.
 
T

tooextracool

International Coach
ozone said:
Forget averages, I just think from what I've seen of him he doesn't look good enough to be facing up to the Australian Bowlers in a Test Match. In no way factual proof, but just my personal feelings.
Click to expand...
Interesting, is this based on what you have seen off him in CC? I havent seen much off him, I like what I saw in the ODIs but what I have seen off him is limited to say the very least.



ozone said:
A year or so ago, maybe, but there comes a point when a player goes too long without playing. And even if he was to come back, I would still have doubts about his ability to score in big games; he was stuck on 99 FC hundreds for a long time this season. On that basis, Vaughan would be the next best proven alternative.
Click to expand...
There isnt really that much risk involved in taking a chance with him. Even in the worst case scenario he couldnt do that much worse than Bell and a few others. The upside is high and the downside is not that low.
 
T

tooextracool

International Coach
Goughy said:
That is taking the piss.

Vaughan is frustrating but he has produced and at important times.

His record is impressive and calling a player like him the worst in the team is plain wrong.
Click to expand...
Vaughan has delivered. but that was 7-8 years ago. Vaughan at 34 years old is not the same player that he was back then and people need to separate the 2. The Vaughan from 2004 onwards is definetly a candidate for being the worst batsman of all the specialist batsmen in the England side over the last 5 years. His record was impressive, but it has been smoothed out into mediocrity and now it only means as much as Ian Bells.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Harmison's been a bit below par in the past because he's not had enough overs under his belt. You can do something about that and pick him or not pick him accordingly.

Ramprakash and Bell don't perform because they're not there mentally. There is no point whatsoever in ever picking either of them because that fact has not changed.
 
Evermind

Evermind

International Debutant
England have been in real danger of making their Pietersen into India's late-90s Tendulkar. The whole team can't depend on him to make runs all the time. Even the best fail, occasionally.

This is England's last (relatively) reliable batting partnership. Flintoff is not a serious batsman. These two cannot afford get out.

I just realised something - outside of Sri Lanka, Harby is the best spinner in the world. Now there's a depressing thought.
 
ozone

ozone

First Class Debutant
tooextracool said:
Interesting, is this based on what you have seen off him in CC? I havent seen much off him, I like what I saw in the ODIs but what I have seen off him is limited to say the very least.
Click to expand...
If I said I'd seen a huge amount of him, it would be a lie, but I have seen him in all the ODIs, a couple of times on TV and once in a county game at Hampshire. To me, he looks to be poor, or at least below average on the short ball. As a test class fast bowler bowling to him, I would have a man on the hook, and would fancy my chances of getting him caught at any stage during his innings. He also, IMO, has a condition of 'Bellitus' where he can get himself out in some pretty soft ways having got a start.

On Ramps, you're right about his highs and lows, but I just think the chances of a high are so small, it wouldn't be worth the gamble.
 
shivfan

shivfan

Banned
Evermind said:
England have been in real danger of making their Pietersen into India's late-90s Tendulkar. The whole team can't depend on him to make runs all the time. Even the best fail, occasionally.

This is England's last (relatively) reliable batting partnership. Flintoff is not a serious batsman. These two cannot afford get out.

I just realised something - outside of Sri Lanka, Harby is the best spinner in the world. Now there's a depressing thought.
Click to expand...
Benn is the new Alf Valentine!
:laugh:
 
T

tooextracool

International Coach
ozone said:
If I said I'd seen a huge amount of him, it would be a lie, but I have seen him in all the ODIs, a couple of times on TV and once in a county game at Hampshire. To me, he looks to be poor, or at least below average on the short ball. As a test class fast bowler bowling to him, I would have a man on the hook, and would fancy my chances of getting him caught at any stage during his innings. He also, IMO, has a condition of 'Bellitus' where he can get himself out in some pretty soft ways having got a start.

On Ramps, you're right about his highs and lows, but I just think the chances of a high are so small, it wouldn't be worth the gamble.
Click to expand...
tbh its not much smaller than Vaughan.

As far as Patel is concerned, you could be right, although his conversion rate is not that bad. Whats even more impressive is his SR, which is higher than our beloved KP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top