England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Craig]

no, ealham was one dimensional, in that he could only be used in between overs 20-40 and only to bowl 10 overs for 40 odd with barely any wickets. warne and caddick could both take wickets,the latter could also bowl in the first 15 overs.and mind you caddick had an ER of 4.01, which is better than ealhams,yet would you consider him to be one of the best ODI bowlers around?

I never said that was the case.

Hey if you have a guy running in taking wickets yet is going for a few, and you have Ealham at the other end to keep it quiet or if the side get off to a flyer he can also be used in that role. And besides the keeper is able to stand up to the stumps which puts the batsman in two minds about leaving his crease.

oh what insight!
if ealham bowled in the slog overs he would probably have had an ER of around 4.7 odd, and thats definetly not good enough if all you could do at the intl level was bowl!

By that token somebody like Simon Jones shouldn't be within a country mile of the England one-day set-up, and James Anderson's is around the 4.8 mark last I checked (was a while ago).

 

[tooextracool]

I never said that was the case..

yes so the point is that there have been other bowlers who bowled more effectively in the middle overs than ealham and could also take wickets like andy caddick could

Hey if you have a guy running in taking wickets yet is going for a few, and you have Ealham at the other end to keep it quiet or if the side get off to a flyer he can also be used in that role. And besides the keeper is able to stand up to the stumps which puts the batsman in two minds about leaving his crease.

yes which is why he was decent enough to be in the side in the 90s, the fact is at 35,when he have other bowlers who can do the same, along with taking wickets,being fitter and perhaps even better fielders why should ealham be considered?

By that token somebody like Simon Jones shouldn't be within a country mile of the England one-day set-up, and James Anderson's is around the 4.8 mark last I checked (was a while ago).

ive never said that simon jones should be in the side......i doubt anderson is good enough either, but the fact is that anderson bowled in the death and on flatter wickets than ealham did, and this along with the fact that he is a wicket taker. as i have said ealier, if ealham bowled in the death his ER would be hovering around the 4.7 mark.

 

[Richard]

no he never bowled in the death and i very rarely did he bowl in the 15 overs either.

Totally and inequivocally wrong.
Ealham rarely did not bowl in the first 15 and bowled at the death on several occasions.
I wonder how many times I'm going to have to say it?
I suggest you go and look at some b-b-b's, before you make a complete fool of yourself by stating blatantly that things which happened did not happen!

 

[Richard]

New ball swings differently in ODIs than Tests, though? Certainly does stranger things, anyway...

It's not as pronounced as it was a few years ago, certainly.
Anyway, the broad point is that all new-balls swing if the bowlers are good enough, and when catches have been taken Vaughan has by and large failed miserably at the top of the order in Test-matches.
In the middle, however, he's always been one of the first names on my teamsheet. Ever since that 33 from the 2 for 4 at The Wanderers.

 

[Richard]

he never said anything of the sort......regardless:

vs NZ in 99 he averaged 25
vs aus in 01 he averaged 39(decent but still not upto the standard at the domestic level and even then he only had one score of more than 40 in that series)
vs india in 01 he averaged 31
vs NZ in 02 he averaged 15

where is the case that someone who played as bad as this for 4 yrs should be retained in the side?

If I never said anything of the sort why did you not take it as read that a middle-order batsman's failings at the top of the order mean sod-all?
I'll go through the truth of the matter in a minute.

 

[Richard]

of course he was....
with averages of
1999 22.14
2000 13.57
2001 36.69
2002 15.40

oh wait even chopra averaged more than him!

And these stats are a good example of why some tell such lies and some reveal the truth of the matter. These are about the biggest set of lying figures you can find.
First of all I said since 1998 so let's add that on instead of conveniently overlooking it, shall we?
So, overall the average is 33.something since 1998 - still not impressive, you might be forgiven for thinking.
However, take into account the fact that, in 2000, a player just becoming settled in the middle-order was dropped after a slightly poorer series than his recent ones (one in which almost all batsmen on both sides experienced drops in their averages) and then recalled as an opener unsurprisingly failed in a big way.
So, instead of another lying average of 33, we find a much more reliable reflection, an average of 37 from 1998 onwards when batting in his proper position... no, not as high as his domestic average, but still impressive when the surfaces and attacks are considered. No Englishmen had much higher averages.

why not?the fact that he only played 5 innings shows you that he was a failure....why would any selector in his right mind give a player with no potential more than 5 innings?

And who says he's got no potential? He was even selected in the "A" squad the following winter so clearly the selectors haven't completely given-up on him.
Failure cannot, like it or not, be absolutely judged on 5 innings.

no the point is that they both had significantly lower batting averages and significantly higher bowling averages in intl cricket. if domestic performances are translated to the intl level then shouldnt they be just about as successful at the intl level as they were in domestic cricket?

No, no-one is very likely to be as successful at international level as at domestic - international level is a higher standard. The most successful players at domestic level are most likely to be the most successful at the next level up - it is highly unlikely someone will be good enough for international cricket but not for domestic. DeFreitas and Lewis weren't, quite, good enough for international cricket - though both had their moments.

as i said earlier, why would any selector in their right mind continue to give useless players more chances?they were clearly not upto it at the intl level despite successful count records

Clearly? No, not clearly at all. For clarity, you need about 10 or 15 innings.

no they werent successes but yet they averages significantly better in domestic cricket than in test cricket

To an extent, yes. So? Unless you're a domestic success it doesn't matter whether you're a small failure of a terrible failure at international level.

 

[Richard]

look at it in context....im talking about ODIs....you want to pick ealham in ODI dont you?
gooch
1991 30.50
1992 30.71
1993 16.88
1994 27.33
1995 1.00
career avg 37

ambrose
1997 30.79 4.03
1998 32.67 4.26
1999 34.53 3.56
career 24.13 3.48(ive left 2000 out because he didnt play enough)

walsh
1998 54.00 5.40
1999 21.72 3.06
2000 75.00 5.77
career 30.48 3.48

stewart
1999 18.25
2000 61.44(har largely to do with playing against zimbabwe and b'desh with a few not outs)
2001 18.78
2002 36.25
2003 28.70
career avg 32

I find it interesting that you left-out 2000 because Ambrose didn't play enough but not Gooch, despite the fact he didn't play enough either! It's not as if you need either to make much of a difference.
Yes, true, there was not much of an improvement in the records of any of these. There was in Tests, long as you recognise that.
The fact is, there are players who have got better with age and even if none of these lot overtly improved their stats in ODIs it does not mean no-one else could.

no id expect someone who could bat for his life to be capable enough of scoring a 50.....

Who says he's not capable of doing so. How often do you think he got the chance?

rubbish he never did...except against zimbabwe and in other useless scenarios

Yes, he did. As I said earlier, I suggest you actually check the facts before stating contrariwise to them.

no its not good for someone as 1 dimensional as ealham....he couldnt bowl in the death,he couldnt take wickets and he couldnt field. and as i showed you earlier if he had bowled in the death that E/R would be around 4.7-4.8 which by any standard is appalling

No, you said you thought it would. And even if it would, it doesn't matter, because Ealham is not a death bowler and not being one is no slight. There are many who are not.
And I'm getting rather tired of telling you you're wrong that Ealham couldn't field - well.

some of them got better, the rest improved their stats against the minnows and on seaming tracks.

Remove the minnow games and the stats will still have got better.

 

[marc71178]

However, take into account the fact that, in 2000, a player just becoming settled in the middle-order

Settled with that 1999 average?

And there was me thinking you had high standards.

 

[Richard]

Clever selective quoting there.
If you run it on a bit you'll see I allowed for that previous poor series.

 

[marc71178]

Erm where have you "allowed for that 1999 average"?

It is woeful, as was Ramprakash. If not, why was he dropped?

 

[tooextracool]

Totally and inequivocally wrong.
Ealham rarely did not bowl in the first 15 and bowled at the death on several occasions.
I wonder how many times I'm going to have to say it?
I suggest you go and look at some b-b-b's, before you make a complete fool of yourself by stating blatantly that things which happened did not happen!

rubbish ive watched most of englands ODI games over the last decade and ealham very rarely bowled in the first 15 and 99/100 times didnt bowl in the death. they had 3 better bowlers in the death, gough,mullally and white. you yourself mentioned that he rarely bowled in the death now you say that he did so on several occasions. total tripe, you cant make false claims and get away with it.

 

[tooextracool]

And these stats are a good example of why some tell such lies and some reveal the truth of the matter. These are about the biggest set of lying figures you can find.
First of all I said since 1998 so let's add that on instead of conveniently overlooking it, shall we?.

no he failed for 4 years in a row....you dont retain a player for what he did in 98 i can assure you.

So, overall the average is 33.something since 1998 - still not impressive, you might be forgiven for thinking.
However, take into account the fact that, in 2000, a player just becoming settled in the middle-order was dropped after a slightly poorer series than his recent ones (one in which almost all batsmen on both sides experienced drops in their averages) and then recalled as an opener unsurprisingly failed in a big way.
So, instead of another lying average of 33, we find a much more reliable reflection, an average of 37 from 1998 onwards when batting in his proper position... no, not as high as his domestic average, but still impressive when the surfaces and attacks are considered. No Englishmen had much higher averages.

as i said earlier...that 37 has mostly to do with what he did in 98....he failed for 4 years thereafter with or without batting in the middle order hence he didnt deserve to be in the side.

And who says he's got no potential? He was even selected in the "A" squad the following winter so clearly the selectors haven't completely given-up on him.
Failure cannot, like it or not, be absolutely judged on 5 innings.

no he just wasnt good enough at the intl level then....it was quite clear and so he was dropped. he had some flaws he needed to iron out, and those flaws hadnt exactly been found out at the domestic level for reasons that we know off.

No, no-one is very likely to be as successful at international level as at domestic - international level is a higher standard. The most successful players at domestic level are most likely to be the most successful at the next level up - it is highly unlikely someone will be good enough for international cricket but not for domestic. DeFreitas and Lewis weren't, quite, good enough for international cricket - though both had their moments..

no you've got it wrong...its quite likely that most players who were good enough for the intl level were good enough for domestic cricket.... you would expect that from any intl quality player.

Clearly? No, not clearly at all. For clarity, you need about 10 or 15 innings...

umm no...you dont retain players who fail miserably that long. generally you get about 1 test series and i think its fair to judge whether or not someone has potential from one series

To an extent, yes. So? Unless you're a domestic success it doesn't matter whether you're a small failure of a terrible failure at international level.

no they were several players who were decent(not brilliant) domestic players but failed miserably at the intl arena. if domestic performances are translated to the intl arena then they should perform just about as well.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, true, there was not much of an improvement in the records of any of these. There was in Tests, long as you recognise that...

this is just typical of someone who has been proven wrong....you said that there were several players who maintained their ODI record after 35, well lets see you name those several ppl then.

The fact is, there are players who have got better with age and even if none of these lot overtly improved their stats in ODIs it does not mean no-one else could..

no the fact is there have been very few if any at all and even then they would be called anomalies, that trend must say something. ealham was dropped for a reason.....he wasnt good enough then so why should he be brought back when there havent been many players at all who have improved in ODIs after 35? if people tended to remain as good as they were then there would be no reason for them to retire either

Who says he's not capable of doing so. How often do you think he got the chance?

in the days when england were one of the worst ODI teams around....id say he got plenty of chances. he batted at 7 and there have been several players of better teams who have scored 50s batting at 7

Yes, he did. As I said earlier, I suggest you actually check the facts before stating contrariwise to them

no he didnt...you should check the facts, he was a one dimensional bowler, who wasnt very good at his only skill

No, you said you thought it would. And even if it would, it doesn't matter, because Ealham is not a death bowler and not being one is no slight. There are many who are not.

and those bowlers had better stats than ealham its that simple. england have younger bowlers capable of doing what ealham did and perhaps bowl at the death, why should he be given another chance

And I'm getting rather tired of telling you you're wrong that Ealham couldn't field - well..?

he was ordinary...he didnt exactly have a safe pair of hands,wasnt the quickest around in the field and would never dive to save a boundary. and all this at 32...can you imagine what hed be like when hes 38?

Remove the minnow games and the stats will still have got better.

thats definetly not the case for vaas i can assure you

 

[Craig]

yes which is why he was decent enough to be in the side in the 90s, the fact is at 35,when he have other bowlers who can do the same, along with taking wickets,being fitter and perhaps even better fielders why should ealham be considered?

What I am defending is that your claims that Ealham is a rubbish bowler. Virkim Solanki was picked in England's squad, and yet he has a less then 2% chance of making it.

 

[tooextracool]

ealham wasnt rubbish,but he was very ordinary. he was good enough to play for england at the time, but he wouldnt really have made any other team around the world then or now.
as far as solanki is concerned,whatever way you look at it, solanki has more of a chance of making it into the final 15 than ealham would if he was in the 30.

 

[marc71178]

No matter how much we put down Solanki, he has more than a 2% chance of selection.

In some ways I could see him being in the ICC Tournament squad, although I can't see him being any more successful than he was previously.

 

[Craig]

In what 'some ways' are those?

 

[marc71178]

Because the rest of top order are hardly all justifying their prolonged selection.

 

[V Reddy]

Virkim Solanki was picked in England's squad, and yet he has a less then 2% chance of making it.

I don't think you have seen Solanki bat. The guy definately has real talent but takes too many risks like Sehwag did early in his career . But the thing is he has played for about 7-8 yrs and still commits the same mistakes. But he has been scoring heavily this season and if has become more solid then i certainly wouldn't put it out of his reach as the top order isn't doing that great in onedayers.

 

[Craig]

Man I love brainless assumptions about me by other Cricketweb members.

It has nothing do with how much talent you have, if you do not take advantage of it, then there is clearly something wrong.