• 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.

Are England really favourites for CT17?

91Jmay

International Coach
Morkel's probably better than all except Woakes.
Doesn't make him a quality bowler and given he is a spud with the bat and in field I wouldn't be rushing him in ahead of Plunkett given the latter is in reasonable form.
 

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Doesn't make him a quality bowler and given he is a spud with the bat and in field I wouldn't be rushing him in ahead of Plunkett given the latter is in reasonable form.
No not specifically... what makes him a good ODI bowler is an avg of 24 with an econ of just under 5 over 109 ODI's... but maybe that is just me.

Did you google that after the post or you had come across it earlier?
Missed this question... read the article a day or two before. Felt apt.

I think he's a physicist IRL.
Yes, kinda... but I`m no bright 'Spark'... (see what I did!)
 

91Jmay

International Coach
No not specifically... what makes him a good ODI bowler is an avg of 24 with an econ of just under 5 over 109 ODI's... but maybe that is just me.

Missed this question... read the article a day or two before. Felt apt.

Yes, kinda... but I`m no bright 'Spark'... (see what I did!)
Using historical stats to prove a guy who has barely played (and played badly) in 12 months seems sketchy at best.
 

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Using historical stats to prove a guy who has barely played (and played badly) in 12 months seems sketchy at best.
The question was not is he in form... question was is he a good bowler. Considering his historical stats and how good I know he could be.. yes he should be playing.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Doesn't make him a quality bowler and given he is a spud with the bat and in field I wouldn't be rushing him in ahead of Plunkett given the latter is in reasonable form.
Plunkett's nonsense, beating up on two teams that didn't qualify for this tournament doesn't mean he's better than Morkel.
 

tobe_ornot2

Banned
morkel really isn't that good an ODI bowler, hasn't he just played one ODI in a 12 month period? In fact, when was the last time he even took a 4 for? 5 for? The morkel of today is not the Morkel of 3-4 years ago
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Was garbage post prior to that. Since 1st of Jan 2016 he is 6th leading ODI wicket taker despite names above him playing quite a few more games

20 matches 39 wickets @ 25 with a RPO of 5.58

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

His economy rate is higher, but then he bowls at home on the pitches with highest RPO in the world
Impressive, he's been better than I thought. I would like to attempt to discredit him by saying he did it against crap opposition but tbf I've got no idea what I'm talking about. All I remember is him going for nearly a hundred against India.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
morkel really isn't that good an ODI bowler, hasn't he just played one ODI in a 12 month period? In fact, when was the last time he even took a 4 for? 5 for? The morkel of today is not the Morkel of 3-4 years ago
Morkel doesn't take too many 4-ers or 5-ers in any format. Which is why even though his numbers are comparable to someone like Broad in Tests, he's nowhere near as effective as an actual match-winner. He can't step up and lead the attack effectively in the absence of Steyn or Philander.

But his short of a length accurate style of bowling is well-suited for ODIs.
 

Top