Current players who should quit while they're ahead.

[social]

Err, what? Vaughan achieved little in Ashes 2005. It was Ashes 2002\03 that was his magnum-opus.

He's being selected for his captaincy from '05

 

[FRAZ]

He's being selected for his captaincy from '05

He is one of the best players of the fast bowling . He is just superb ! Success rate is a different issue . I am a huge fan of Vaughan's batting against the express fast bowlers . His back lift is just awesome . He and Saeed Anwar are my favorite batsmen against the express fast bowling . I never saw him making huge mistakes while he was captaining against Pak in Pak , it was only Shoaib who truly made the difference .. I mean tastelessly talking against a batsman (whom one doesn't like) or uselessly hating a whole team or baselessly being against other people on the hidden grounds of .. is just plain 'bad' IMHO !!!

 

[social]

He is one of the best players of the fast bowling . He is just superb ! Success rate is a different issue . I am a huge fan of Vaughan's batting against the express fast bowlers . His back lift is just awesome . He and Saeed Anwar are my favorite batsmen against the express fast bowling . I never saw him making huge mistakes while he was captaining against Pak in Pak , it was only Shoaib who truly made the difference .. I mean tastelessly talking against a batsman (whom one doesn't like) or uselessly hating a whole team or baselessly being against other people on the hidden grounds of .. is just plain 'bad' IMHO !!!

What r u on about?

 

[Richard]

He's being selected for his captaincy from '05

He was captain - and a damn good one - before that, chum...

 

[social]

He was captain - and a damn good one - before that, chum...

Ancient history, chum - just like full fitness and his standing as one of Eng's 6 best batsmen

 

[Richard]

Ancient history or not, The Ashes 2005 has little to do with Vaughan's retention.

Oh - and if you seriously don't believe it's possible for Vaughan to regain full fitness and regain his status as one of the best batsmen in the country you need headache-pills.

 

[social]

Ancient history or not, The Ashes 2005 has little to do with Vaughan's retention.

Oh - and if you seriously don't believe it's possible for Vaughan to regain full fitness and regain his status as one of the best batsmen in the country you need headache-pills.

Sorry but anyone that has seen Vaughn attempt to walk around a field (let alone turn and chase) knows that he's goooooone

His retention is solely reliant on the perception that he is Eng's best captain and so the selectors have gone back to the tried and failed method of picking the man for that role before they pick the x1

In the process they've ignored the fact that he is, and generally always has been an ordinary ODI player and an extreme liability in the field

 

[DCC_legend]

They all still contribute to their team.

Why do people forget that? Its as if because they're no longer averaging 55 consistently, they should just call it a day, forgetting that its a team sport.

got to agree with that.
if they can still get the odd 50 here or there along with a few 30s and 40s then nobodys gunna be complaining. if the bowlers can still take a few wickets every game and keep the run rate down then ther is no real reason why they should be considered for retirement.

 

[Richard]

Sorry but anyone that has seen Vaughn attempt to walk around a field (let alone turn and chase) knows that he's goooooone

His retention is solely reliant on the perception that he is Eng's best captain and so the selectors have gone back to the tried and failed method of picking the man for that role before they pick the x1

In the process they've ignored the fact that he is, and generally always has been an ordinary ODI player and an extreme liability in the field

Err, he's been an ordinary ODI player all his career - hasn't stopped him getting picked. You said "living in the past" not so long ago - if there was any past to live in with regards ODIs, they'd be living in it.

In any case - given the number of utterly rubbish batsmen who've played for England in ODIs of late, it's hardly a case of pick-captain-then-pick-team either.

 

[Swervy]

That 8-for would've been great had it not been followed-up by 20-117-0. That sort of thing takes the gloss off something somewhat - same with Hoggard at Christchurch.

oh the 0-117 was a shockingly bad display of bowling against some amazing WI batting, but that doesnt take away from such a fine display in the first innings

1985 was the only time he bowled semi-decently from the Second Test 1981\82 onwards, and even then he was still nothing like as good as he had been before 1981\82.

unfair really, there havent really been any bowlers bar maybe Imran, Marshall, Hadlee and Waqar in the last 30 years to match Bothams wicket taking prowess in the first half of his career. Yeah he declines, but from a very high standard. He still produced moments of real bowling impact post 1981

And with the bat from the second-innings of the Third Test of 1984 to 1989 (I refuse to base anything whatsoever on the Botham of 1991 and 1992, his career should have ended in 1989 IMO) he passed 50 6 times in 44 innings. You could probably go so far as to say he had a really big influence (the type he had for fun in his first 111 innings) on the game once in said period.

again yeah he wasnt as successful, but to pick out a particular innings and say from that moment on, he was no good to England as a batsman isnt fair. He played several key innings after 1984 which probably wont get remembered compared to his classic innings', but in there own way were as good. Some of the 1985 innings were class (but not hundreds), there was the 60ish he made vs NZ in 1986, which was genius like hitting in real bowling conditions vs Hadlee , the monumental 50* on the last day to halp save the game vs Pakistan in 1987, the 130 odd vs Australia in 1987.
In fact he was, from what I can remember one of the only batsmen to put up even a small amount of fight vs the WI in WI in 85/86, despite his modest average.

And in ODI's, Botham was one of the very first 'pinch hitters' who actually had success (1986/87) when he opened the batting

I'd say it's stretching credulity to claim Botham was anything other than decidedly poor from mid-1984 onwards. Not quite Khaled Mahmud-esque, but certainly nothing more than a Paul Strang \ Chandika Hathrusinghe type player. Useful of times, but nothing more.

A lot more than those players, its laughable that you even think it Richard.

He still had the attitude, of course, and that could go some way to making him look a bit better than he was any more.

IMO there's no better illustration of the two parts of Botham than two incidents in 1981 and 1985. Both triumphant summers, but 1981 saw the innings at Old Trafford where he slammed Lillee, Whitney and Bright all over the shop for 118 off 102 balls. In 1985 at The Oval he slammed Hughes for 16 in an over... then was caught off McDermott.

Same attitude, same style of play... far, far less effective.

This is really where you fall down , your facts are all over the place. First off, Merv Hughes wasnt even on that Ashes tour I dont think. He hit McDermott for whatever in that over..first ball 6, then I think 3rd ball 6...out on his 7th I think....but to suggest that that was representitive of his decline is stupid. England needed fast runs for declaration, there was some wet weather on the way, it was late in the day, and England wanted a dart at Australia before the close. Botham did exactly what was required at the time, he went for the quick runs and ultimately sacrifised his wicket.

Again Richard, you seem to get mudled up with context, which is every bit as important as the actual scorecards and averages

 

[Neil Pickup]

Again Richard, you seem to get mudled up with context, which is every bit as important as the actual scorecards and averages

That would be the Asperger's. Explains a hell of a lot.

 

[Swervy]

That would be the Asperger's. Explains a hell of a lot.

I couldnt really figure out whether he was telling the truth about that to be honest.

But you are right, yeah it does explain a lot

 

[Richard]

That would be the Asperger's. Explains a hell of a lot.

It might explain some things but it doesn't explain what you just quoted.

 

[Richard]

oh the 0-117 was a shockingly bad display of bowling against some amazing WI batting, but that doesnt take away from such a fine display in the first innings

As I say - IMO it does. If you bowl brilliantly then abysmally in the same match, it kinda levels-out to me.

unfair really, there havent really been any bowlers bar maybe Imran, Marshall, Hadlee and Waqar in the last 30 years to match Bothams wicket taking prowess in the first half of his career. Yeah he declines, but from a very high standard. He still produced moments of real bowling impact post 1981

There's a difference between declining from brilliant to OK and brilliant to decidedly poor. Anyone will produce the odd moment of bowling impact if they play enough - which Botham did, based on past reputation, not current performance.

again yeah he wasnt as successful, but to pick out a particular innings and say from that moment on, he was no good to England as a batsman isnt fair. He played several key innings after 1984 which probably wont get remembered compared to his classic innings', but in there own way were as good. Some of the 1985 innings were class (but not hundreds)

Scores of 60 and 85 were as good? In ANY way?

there was the 60ish he made vs NZ in 1986, which was genius like hitting in real bowling conditions vs Hadlee

Where Gower and Gatting had already made centuries? (Was 59*, BTW)

the monumental 50* on the last day to halp save the game vs Pakistan in 1987

Again - with Gatting playing the infinately larger hand.

In fact he was, from what I can remember one of the only batsmen to put up even a small amount of fight vs the WI in WI in 85/86, despite his modest average.

You were in the Caribbean in 1986, then?

A lot more than those players, its laughable that you even think it Richard.

No, it's not - each played some very, very important knocks and bowled some very important spells in their time. And both had to wait a long time between such things. Anyone, as I say, will play well if they have enough games. Doing well very occasionally, however, doesn't make someone a particularly good player.

This is really where you fall down , your facts are all over the place. First off, Merv Hughes wasnt even on that Ashes tour I dont think. He hit McDermott for whatever in that over..first ball 6, then I think 3rd ball 6...out on his 7th I think....

That's right, actually, I'm getting this and this in the wrong order.

but to suggest that that was representitive of his decline is stupid. England needed fast runs for declaration, there was some wet weather on the way, it was late in the day, and England wanted a dart at Australia before the close. Botham did exactly what was required at the time, he went for the quick runs and ultimately sacrifised his wicket.

Don't try to preach to me about The Ashes 1985, I know it about as well as anyone. The point is, the Botham of 4 years ago would almost certainly have walked off the field 30 or 40-odd*. The situation is irrelevant - Botham played no differently at Old Trafford in 1981 to how he did at Edgbaston in 1985 - he approached near enough any situation aggressively.

 

[Swervy]

You were in the Caribbean in 1986, then?

erm, no, might have watched the highlights, coz it wasnt live on BBC, but what I did do religously was listen to it on the radio, and as I said, I do SEEM to remember Botham and Peter Willy being able in some way to battle it out

Don't try to preach to me about The Ashes 1985, I know it about as well as anyone. The point is, the Botham of 4 years ago would almost certainly have walked off the field 30 or 40-odd*. The situation is irrelevant - Botham played no differently at Old Trafford in 1981 to how he did at Edgbaston in 1985 - he approached near enough any situation aggressively.

right-y-o....mmm...I might be wrong , but at Old Trafford 81 wasnt Bothams score after 28 balls something like 3.
And then after about 50 balls he was still only on about 30...so in fact how you can judge how the 81 Botham would have played that 85 innings is completely beyond me....both situations were completely different.....and the two sitations being so different isnt irrelevant. Again, you show a complete lack of understanding of the game beyond averages

And no, Botham didnt always go out agressively...see start of 81 Old Trafford, or that 50 vs Pakistan and plenty others

 

[Richard]

erm, no, might have watched the highlights, coz it wasnt live on BBC, but what I did do religously was listen to it on the radio, and as I said, I do SEEM to remember Botham and Peter Willy being able in some way to battle it out

How on Earth you can contest that they did so better than Gooch and Lamb (two players who actually - shock-horror - managed to score a few runs against them down the years) is beyond me.

I know perfectly well that it wasn't live on BBC - no overseas Test has ever been live on BBC, the first time BBB was broadcast back home was by Sky in 1990.

right-y-o....mmm...I might be wrong , but at Old Trafford 81 wasnt Bothams score after 28 balls something like 3.
And then after about 50 balls he was still only on about 30

28 off 53, it was. Which is hardly slow.

...so in fact how you can judge how the 81 Botham would have played that 85 innings is completely beyond me....both situations were completely different.....and the two sitations being so different isnt irrelevant.

It is. As I say, quick runs were the thing (as they very usually were), and Botham had the talent to get them very often 1977\78-1984. But he didn't too often thereafter.

Again, you show a complete lack of understanding of the game beyond averages

Rubbish. You don't seem to understand that average means very little to me, especially in this case.

And no, Botham didnt always go out agressively...see start of 81 Old Trafford, or that 50 vs Pakistan and plenty others

Which is why I said near enough. When you play a stackful of games, there's inevitably going to be the odd occasion you approach something differently. However, aggression was in the overwhelming majority of Botham innings the overriding impression left.

 

[Swervy]

How on Earth you can contest that they did so better than Gooch and Lamb (two players who actually - shock-horror - managed to score a few runs against them down the years) is beyond me.

Lamb didnt do much that tour anyway, Gooch was ok I guess, TBH everyone was about as bad as each other so there you go

I know perfectly well that it wasn't live on BBC - no overseas Test has ever been live on BBC, the first time BBB was broadcast back home was by Sky in 1990.

Ok dont get shirty...I wasnt challenging your cricket broadcasting knowledge

28 off 53, it was. Which is hardly slow.

It is when you consider the hundred came up in 86 balls or whatever it was

It is. As I say, quick runs were the thing (as they very usually were), and Botham had the talent to get them very often 1977\78-1984. But he didn't too often thereafter.

What you havent grasped though is that Botham couldnt go out swinging in 1981 because of the match situation. He needed to stick around in very tricky batting conditions, England in fact were in trouble when he came in to bat...that is totally different to being told you have twenty minutes to bat with the score 550-4 with the rain on its way. You said the 81 botham would have been 40 or so in that situation, well infact that year , Botham was probably in the best form of his life with the bat, but its a completely stupid thing to say by you anyway, what you said is meaningless

 

[Richard]

Lamb didnt do much that tour anyway, Gooch was ok I guess, TBH everyone was about as bad as each other so there you go

Lamb didn't do much but he did a damn sight more than Willey and Botham. Willey, at least, managed one innings of substance.

But I guess they gave off an aura of being prepared to counter-attack. Which is far more important than actually doing it.

It is when you consider the hundred came up in 86 balls or whatever it was

It's slow only compared to the 2nd part, which even by today's standards (89 off 49) is extraordinary, but it's not so slow as to be "defensive" batting, especially in that age.

What you havent grasped though is that Botham couldnt go out swinging in 1981 because of the match situation. He needed to stick around in very tricky batting conditions, England in fact were in trouble when he came in to bat...that is totally different to being told you have twenty minutes to bat with the score 550-4 with the rain on its way. You said the 81 botham would have been 40 or so in that situation, well infact that year , Botham was probably in the best form of his life with the bat, but its a completely stupid thing to say by you anyway, what you said is meaningless

OK, I could just as easily have said the Botham of 1982 or 1978. It just so happens that 1981 was against Australia, like 1985.

I'm perfectly well aware England were in trouble in Old Trafford '81 and that they weren't in Edgbaston '85, but do you really imagine he was given a brief of "you've got 20 minutes"? That'd be utterly pointless. You might as well just declare. 20 minutes is going to make no difference at all in the grand scheme of things.

Fact is, had Botham continued, Gower would've held off. Probably until Botham had 40* or so. But sadly, he wasn't the player he once was, so could only manage 18 off 7 where once he could do 89 off 49.

 

[cricketboy29]

Could someone explain why Kapil Dev could not be considered, better or at par with Imran and Botham?. I was under the impression, he was a fairly talented man with both bat and ball.

 

[adharcric]

Fairly talented? Definitely. Very good? Yes. Better than Botham? No. Imran? No way in hell.