England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Richard]

Ealham was a good player

He still is.

 

[tooextracool]

No, 31 is OK when you consider what came before. No-one is going to average 40 series after series - when you go into a series averaging more than 40 over the last 6 series 31 is perfectly acceptible.

err no its not OK for 2 reasons.
1)since 98 he hadnt averaged over 40 in any series.....
2) he was pretty much the worst player in that series too....
ramprakash 31
tresco 48
butcher 43
hussain 38
thorpe 42.50(okay so he only played 1 test)
vaughan 53
white 41

so the only batsman he averaged more than in that series was flintoff, and given flintoffs ability against spin bowling back then that wasnt something to be proud about. so in his last 2 series he was the worst batsman in the side...gee i wonder why he was dropped?

Let me remind you that there was just that one instance in the entire New Zealand series where the pitches were flat - the time from the middle of the third day, when Thorpe (after being dropped second ball) and Flintoff put-on about 250, the Richardson ended with 76 to his name despite being absolutely plumb lbw on 44. Ramprakash had already been dismissed for 11 by a ball which seamed back in, which he dragged on.

so it just got flat after ramprakash got out? thats just ridiculous. it was certainly flat while he was batting and he just wasnt good enough to take advantage of it. mind you the 2nd test was not exactly a seamers paradise either, the first inning offered something for both bowlers and batsman and in the 2nd inning the pitch was dead flat. interestingly though giles picked up 4 wickets in the first inning of that match, amazing how these finger spinners started bowling well on seamer friendly wickets these days....

The series in India was far more bowler-friendly than it might be convenient for you to remember, too - the Bangalore Test was about as seamer-friendly as you'll see, it would have had a result almost beyond question but for all the rain; and the Ahmedabad Test provided a surface which turned sharply and England would probably have won had Giles bowled better on the last day.

you dont need to tell me about the bangalore test, i was at the ground. yes there was a bit in it for the seamers i'll grant you that. the ahmedabad test was dead flat though, if you had indeed watched that game you would have realised that it didnt turn sharply at all,rather it turned slowly.....i watched nearly every ball of that series and i can assure you that it was a dead wicket. in fact almost every other batsman cashed in in that match(& the series for that matter) bar ramprakash of course.

Failure on seaming (or turning) pitches should not be condoned at all, but it should be taken in context..

this is rubbish, every one else succeeded in those 2 series bar him. the first 2 tests in that india series were dead flat so stop trying to defend your beloved ramprakash when he failed miserably.....

Well there are no technical flaws in either, just flaws in the shot-selection which has meant both have failed, even if Chopra has been very poor while Smith has been a bit worse having had far less opportunity.

interesting that....when i said ed smith was a failure you said that 3 tests werent a good enough indication, now you yourself say that both of them failed.

No, it's been demonstrated on an occasional occasion, and those are very much in the minority. Knight, Hick and Fairbrother are about the only examples in Test-matches (they were England's best one-day-international batsmen probably in the whole ODI history) in the last 20 years..

ramprakash?mullally?matthew maynard?adam hollioake?

And whether I would have dropped Stephen Waugh, Atapattu or anyone else (not Tendulkar, given that his average never dropped below 29.87 after his 3rd game) is irrelevant, because they weren't dropped - Chopra, it seems, has been..

so you would have dropped attapattu & steve waugh then? just goes to show how far your opinions count.....and why not tendulkar too?unless chopra shouldnt make the team because he averages 1 run less then tendulkar did at the time....

 

[tooextracool]

Thorpe's average of 68 in that series, incidentally, owes just about everything to a dropped catch by Nathan Astle (his first-chance average was 15.60) and Foster owes it to lots of not-outs which were easy to achieve, and a first-ball dropped catch by Parore (his first-chance average was 29.67, still impressive for a wicketkeeper but not that good by batsmen's standards).

yet mark ramprakash's average of 15 in the same conditions can be considered as good!

Flintoff was pretty good but still that was only because the attack was so poor in his 2 good innings.

yes the same attack that ramprakash failed miserably against!

Even if no-one was as bad as Ramprakash, they were all still pretty poor.

they were not poor given the conditions. most of them averaged arond 30 which is nearly twice as much as ramprakash. i find it hard to understand how someone who can dismiss ramprakash's performances due to the conditions yet call the others who performed far better than him as poor.

 

[tooextracool]

No, there weren't that many - but there were several.
Whatever my argument, it doesn't change the facts that I can't think of any times when he bowled against Zimbabwe at the death, and you attempted to say that he did..

no i said if he had every bowled at the death it would be when the game was already won or in seaming conditions where quite frankly it didnt really effect his ER, probably made it better too.

Mullally didn't bowl at the death very often, because he isn't very well suited to it - like Ealham, much best used in the first 30 overs.

rubbish he bowled far more often than ealham did.

As many as you like - I'm right, you're wrong.

can you prove it? how about a poll to see whos right and whos wrong then?

 

[marc71178]

Even if no-one was as bad as Ramprakash, they were all still pretty poor.

Which is why they all scored so many more runs per innings than him.

If they were pretty poor with averages like that, what words can be used to be described Ramprakash?

(Please remember that this forum is open to those of all ages though)

 

[Richard]

err no its not OK for 2 reasons.
1)since 98 he hadnt averaged over 40 in any series.....

No, but he had averaged well over 40 for the period from 1998 onwards.

2) he was pretty much the worst player in that series too....
ramprakash 31
tresco 48
butcher 43
hussain 38
thorpe 42.50(okay so he only played 1 test)
vaughan 53
white 41

so the only batsman he averaged more than in that series was flintoff, and given flintoffs ability against spin bowling back then that wasnt something to be proud about. so in his last 2 series he was the worst batsman in the side...gee i wonder why he was dropped?

So, if someone averages 40 when all his fellows are averaging 60, despite an average over the last 3 years of 50 he must immidiately be dropped for his disgraceful performance!

so it just got flat after ramprakash got out? thats just ridiculous. it was certainly flat while he was batting and he just wasnt good enough to take advantage of it. mind you the 2nd test was not exactly a seamers paradise either, the first inning offered something for both bowlers and batsman and in the 2nd inning the pitch was dead flat. interestingly though giles picked up 4 wickets in the first inning of that match, amazing how these finger spinners started bowling well on seamer friendly wickets these days....

No, not ridiculous at all. It would be understandible to dismiss it as ridiculous if one were so determined to believe I'd try to make a player look good, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that, wouldn't you? In fact, not one ball really moved off the seam after the ball which dismissed Ramprakash. He got a very similar ball in the next innings, in the next Test.
Not especially amazing, either, that Giles got 4 wickets on a pitch that offered turn only out of an occasional foothold (the ball with which he dismissed Astle being an example), and simply managed to get Vincent's wicket next to his name (one of about 10 or 11 times he played shots that should have resulted in his dismissal that series, the number of let-offs he got was astonishing) and then managed the notoriously hard task of dismissing Chris Drum.

you dont need to tell me about the bangalore test, i was at the ground. yes there was a bit in it for the seamers i'll grant you that. the ahmedabad test was dead flat though, if you had indeed watched that game you would have realised that it didnt turn sharply at all,rather it turned slowly.....i watched nearly every ball of that series and i can assure you that it was a dead wicket. in fact almost every other batsman cashed in in that match(& the series for that matter) bar ramprakash of course.

There was considerably more than a bit in the Bangalore wicket. If you had watched the Ahmedabad Test properly you would have seen both Giles and Kumble turning it considerably at times, no examples better than Giles' ball to dismiss Kumble.
Just because those two in the respective first-innings were the only ones to bowl well in the match doesn't give you the excuse to label the pitch as lifeless.

this is rubbish, every one else succeeded in those 2 series bar him. the first 2 tests in that india series were dead flat so stop trying to defend your beloved ramprakash when he failed miserably.....

Everyone else suceeded in New Zealand, now that is rubbish. I've already shown why the only batsmen who suceeded in New Zealand were Flintoff to an extent and Hussain, who still needed some fortune.
Ramprakash's dismissal in the first-innings of the First Test had far more to do with a brilliant catch by Das than any batting fault and that in the second-innings of the Second Test owed purely to the need for quick runs.
In his two innings where he actually failed for reasons due to poor batting in India he went back to Kumble in the way almost every batsman has and somehow managed to drag-on Tendulkar with the innings collapsing around him.
I look forward to seeing you attempt to dismiss this as making excuses and "trying to defend your beloved Ramprakash".

interesting that....when i said ed smith was a failure you said that 3 tests werent a good enough indication, now you yourself say that both of them failed.

Smith failed, yes - Steve James failed, too. But those failures weren't a fair indication that these players aren't up to Test standard, because they have been so limited, and both involved a not-inconsiderable amount of RUDs or poor decisions - James had just about everyone's sympathy with his situation, facing Donald and Pollock in full cry.
If you play one innings and score a duck, you've failed, but that one failure is not a fair indication of your ability.

ramprakash?mullally?matthew maynard?adam hollioake?

I've already explained that Maynard would probably have succeeded if given a better chance. Hollioake's record when he was first picked was nowhere near as good as it is now, once he really started to improve he was too old. Mullally is another seam\swing bowler and surprisingly not that many of the surfaces he's played his Test-career on have been seamers. And Ramprakash I've already showed umpteen times that he wasn't a failure, it's your problem if you won't accept that.

so you would have dropped attapattu & steve waugh then? just goes to show how far your opinions count.....and why not tendulkar too?unless chopra shouldnt make the team because he averages 1 run less then tendulkar did at the time....

After the number of innings Chopra has played, Tendulkar averaged 41.21. Hardly worth being dropped.
And it doesn't go to show anything that I might have dropped Stephen Waugh or Atapattu - it just shows how rare it is that players fail that badly for that long and still come good.
It's not even as if Atapattu hasn't had plenty of spells in his career that mirrored his debut. He's always been almost as inconsistent as Vaas.

 

[tooextracool]

No, but he had averaged well over 40 for the period from 1998 onwards..

you cant sit back on what someone did 4 years ago! thats as stupid as saying that michael vaughan is allowed to have 3 bad years just because he was so brilliant in 2002! hes failed in 4 out of his last 5 series, in 2 of them he was the worst batsman in the side.

So, if someone averages 40 when all his fellows are averaging 60, despite an average over the last 3 years of 50 he must immidiately be dropped for his disgraceful performance!

the difference is that while everyone averages nearly 40 in the last 3 years he was averaging in the 20s.....

No, not ridiculous at all. It would be understandible to dismiss it as ridiculous if one were so determined to believe I'd try to make a player look good, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that, wouldn't you? In fact, not one ball really moved off the seam after the ball which dismissed Ramprakash. He got a very similar ball in the next innings, in the next Test.!

im sure he did.....and all the times chopra got out were all of seaming deliveries too.

Not especially amazing, either, that Giles got 4 wickets on a pitch that offered turn only out of an occasional foothold (the ball with which he dismissed Astle being an example), and simply managed to get Vincent's wicket next to his name (one of about 10 or 11 times he played shots that should have resulted in his dismissal that series, the number of let-offs he got was astonishing) and then managed the notoriously hard task of dismissing Chris Drum

what an amazing pitch that was...apparently it offered seaming conditions for the pacers and turn too!
amazing you left out parores wicket too, of course hes a useless batsman. and i seem to remember you saying that spinners cant take wickets from turn only out of a foothold......

If you had watched the Ahmedabad Test properly you would have seen both Giles and Kumble turning it considerably at times, no examples better than Giles' ball to dismiss Kumble.Just because those two in the respective first-innings were the only ones to bowl well in the match doesn't give you the excuse to label the pitch as lifeless.

this is total rubbish,its typical of you to make up stories that didnt happen. i watched every ball of that series and i can assure you that it was a completely dead wicket. the only turn on offer was slow turn and we already know how effective that is. in fact i distintcly remember ravi shastri and every other commentator saying that there was absolutely nothing in the wicket at all.also england got more than 400 in the first innings so it definetly wasnt too hard to bat on it so just because ramprakash failed it doesnt give you the excuse to label it as a turner.

Everyone else suceeded in New Zealand, now that is rubbish. I've already shown why the only batsmen who suceeded in New Zealand were Flintoff to an extent and Hussain, who still needed some fortune.

rubbish, tresco and butcher both averaged nearly twice as much as him which was decent given the conditions and given that they are both openers. hussain was by far the best batsman of the series and flintoff batted far better than ramprakash too. vaughan failed yes,but not to the extent that ramprakash did. and thorpe whatever way you look at it did better than ramprakash. ramprakash was by far the worst player in the series in NZ and then again the worst player in india. but of course he should still be retained so that he can continue to disgrace himself for another 4 years......

Ramprakash's dismissal in the first-innings of the First Test had far more to do with a brilliant catch by Das than any batting fault and that in the second-innings of the Second Test owed purely to the need for quick runs.
In his two innings where he actually failed for reasons due to poor batting in India he went back to Kumble in the way almost every batsman has and somehow managed to drag-on Tendulkar with the innings collapsing around him.
I look forward to seeing you attempt to dismiss this as making excuses and "trying to defend your beloved Ramprakash"..

oh this is just so very sad......ramprakash failed, his stats say so and theres nothing else to it. it doesnt matter if it was a brilliant catch by das because he played a bad shot to hit it to him in the first place. if he made a fool against kumble while no one else did it just goes to show that hes not good enough. and if he couldnt score quick runs when everyone else managed to it still doesnt say that hes good enough to play for england. he was a failure for england and thats why he was dropped.

Smith failed, yes - Steve James failed, too. But those failures weren't a fair indication that these players aren't up to Test standard, because they have been so limited, and both involved a not-inconsiderable amount of RUDs or poor decisions - James had just about everyone's sympathy with his situation, facing Donald and Pollock in full cry.
If you play one innings and score a duck, you've failed, but that one failure is not a fair indication of your ability.

no if you play 3 tests,show no potential then you dont deserve to get more chances....it would be stupid if the selectors allowed players like these to fail time and time again at the international level,which is why they were dropped.

I've already explained that Maynard would probably have succeeded if given a better chance..

how can you prove that?he was picked when he was in form in domestic cricket yet in his 4 tests he averaged 10.88 and in 14 ODIs he averaged 14. of course he deserved more chances so that he could average less than mullally

Hollioake's record when he was first picked was nowhere near as good as it is now, once he really started to improve he was too old. ..

it was still a decent record that was still far better than his international record.

Mullally is another seam\swing bowler and surprisingly not that many of the surfaces he's played his Test-career on have been seamers.

if he could only bowl on seamer friendly wickets why should he be selected i ask you?he emphasises the point that successful domestic bowlers dont always turn out to be successful international players!

And Ramprakash I've already showed umpteen times that he wasn't a failure, it's your problem if you won't accept that.

so averaging lower than chopra is not a failure then?amazing how someone who averages 28 is a failure despite only playing 8 tests while someone who played 52 and averaged 27 isnt! of course the fact that he average 22 in his last 3 years in the middle order means that he should be retained!

After the number of innings Chopra has played, Tendulkar averaged 41.21. Hardly worth being dropped..

no if you would look at the stats correctly,tendulkar after 8 tests averaged 30.75

And it doesn't go to show anything that I might have dropped Stephen Waugh or Atapattu - it just shows how rare it is that players fail that badly for that long and still come good...

so lets look at that list that you would have dropped then shall we? attapattu,waugh,rhodes,flintoff,harmison,mcgrath etc

indeed the world of cricket would have been so much better with you as selector!

 

[tooextracool]

If most players get worse then let's see some players whose averages got so much worse in their mid-30s..

as i said earlier, you've already made that list

I didn't - I said anyone batting at eight isn't likely to have made a success out of their batting career. And that Ealham has batted, while not most often, then a considerable amount, at eight.

no he batted more often at 7 so it makes him a no 7!and i have already shown you a list of successful players at no 7!

The half-century count may have something to do with the fact that Richardson played 29 innings to Ealham's 21.

and the average?that of course was because he was better than him

Kaif, Boucher, Klusener and Parore's reasonable records in terms of average and half-centuries may have something to do with the fact that all are either good or very good lower-order one-day batsmen, much better than Ealham and something I've never denied.
An unfair comparison if there ever was one. Maybe you'd do better to compare some lower-order batsmen of comparable ability?

thats the point.....there is no one of similar ability who maintained their place in the side because they were considered useless. you asked me to show you "successful no 7s" and that is precisely what i did then you come up with the excuse of having players of comparible ability. the fact that there have been players who have scored runs at no 7 shows that no 7 isnt exactly a position where you get no chances, and ealham certainly didnt take any of his.

Because in an one-day game once you've made 20 it's a reasonable achievement that can conceivably regularly make a difference to the game. Especially if you're batting in the lower-order.
And as I say, I'd like to see someone who made a success of batting at eight in a one-day game

why 8?ealham batted more often at 7 and there have been several players who have made a success at 7 while ealham couldnt!

regardless i will look at a few players at 8....
razzaq 45.33 from 16
moin khan 25 from 35
chris harris 48.10 from 20
pollock 22.41 from 50
boucher 26.22 from 15
klusener 64.32 from 33

Angus Fraser by and large was before Ealham's time

err no fraser only turned 35 in 2000 so he was definetly available throughout ealhams career

and Caddick's massive difference of .07 sure proves a lot.

of course the fact that he has a better average than ealham doesnt prove a thing?or the fact that he could bowl in the first 15 overs!!

In any case, I'd say Fraser was a better bowler than Ealham. But for injury he'd be one England's all-time greats IMO..

no fraser,caddick,gough,white and mullally were all better bowlers than ealham.

And yes, I do read, and I am without doubt that you are wholly wrong that Ealham's economy-rate would be around 4.7-an-over if he'd bowled the last few overs in most ODIs. Equally, I'm without doubt that it'd be about 3.7-3.8-an-over if he had never bowled in the last 10 overs and regularly bowled exclusively from overs 10 to 30.

and as i have said on countless occasions he rarely bowled in the death or in the 15.

Thorpe is not a clumsy catcher by any stretch. He's dropped the odd clanger, but who hasn't? He certainly hasn't dropped them with anywhere near the regularity that Butcher has..

err no thorpe has dropped more catches than anyone else in the side bar butcher so he is by no means reliable

Mark my words, I've got videos of games which include Ealham diving to save boundaries.

im sure you do....got videos of gough bowling left handed too?

Yes, he was, his record is excellent when it's put in context..

no it was worse when it was put into context....

No, Zimbabwe have got steadily worse since 2000 when they lost Johnson and Goodwin, but the big decline came post-March 2003, and only after then can they be considered sub-par by international standards..

rubbish, post 2000 there useless, they were only as good as kenya. and if kenya are minnows so were zimbabwe.

Just because some of Chaminda's best has come against Zimbabwe it doesn't mean he hasn't bowled well.

no as i have shown, by your count chamindas record is useless outside of seamer friendly conditions except when you put the zimbabwe games in context.in other words for him to not look like a seamer track bully we have to look at his record against zimbabwe and that just shows how desperate your case is.....

 

[Richard]

yet mark ramprakash's average of 15 in the same conditions can be considered as good!

No, not good, but not as bad as it might sound.

yes the same attack that ramprakash failed miserably against!

Yes, the same bowlers, no, not the same attack. In the only innings where Flintoff succeeded and Ramprakash failed, I've already explained that the last ball of the match that seamed was the one that dismissed Ramprakash and brought Flintoff to the crease!

they were not poor given the conditions. most of them averaged arond 30 which is nearly twice as much as ramprakash. i find it hard to understand how someone who can dismiss ramprakash's performances due to the conditions yet call the others who performed far better than him as poor.

I didn't dismiss his poor performance as due to the conditions, I just said it should be remembered. Actually, four of his dismissals were due to poor strokes (even if two were off balls that seamed), one to a poor decision and one to a very good piece of deception by a Tuffey slower-ball.
What you are saying is that your surmisial that everyone else was good and Ramprakash was very poor is wrong. The truth is that everyone else was poor and Ramprakash was very poor, but both were understandible due to the conditions.

 

[marc71178]

No, not good, but not as bad as it might sound.

When can an average be anything but woeful?

It was nowhere near the rest of the side, yet you said that the others were also disappointing...

Face it, Ramprakash was a failure, pure and simple.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, the same bowlers, no, not the same attack. In the only innings where Flintoff succeeded and Ramprakash failed, I've already explained that the last ball of the match that seamed was the one that dismissed Ramprakash and brought Flintoff to the crease!

Of course, so as if by magic, the ball stops seaming as soon as he got out?

Don't tell me, but it only started seaming when he went out to bat as well?

 

[Richard]

you cant sit back on what someone did 4 years ago! thats as stupid as saying that michael vaughan is allowed to have 3 bad years just because he was so brilliant in 2002! hes failed in 4 out of his last 5 series, in 2 of them he was the worst batsman in the side.

And now he's moved back the the middle-order he's looking the million-dollars again - just like he didn't in 2002 because most of his big scores needed a tremendous amount of luck. He scored a chanceless century at three (Pakistan, 2001), another one at four at Lord's then 87 in the second-innings. In nearly twice the innings, he's passed 50 chancelessly just 6 times.
I'm not "sitting back" on Ramprakash's performances in 1998, I'm simply saying that they allow his subsequent performances which kept him in the side did so perfectly legitimately.

the difference is that while everyone averages nearly 40 in the last 3 years he was averaging in the 20s.....

Wrong - he averaged in the 40s from 1998 to 2001, in the 30s from 1999 to 2001 and all but 30 from 1999 to 2002.
Not outstanding, but still enough to keep him in the side without any questions asked until two dismal failures against New Zealand.

im sure he did.....and all the times chopra got out were all of seaming deliveries too.

No, they weren't. That's just you trying to misrecall stuff, as per usual.

what an amazing pitch that was...apparently it offered seaming conditions for the pacers and turn too!
amazing you left out parores wicket too, of course hes a useless batsman. and i seem to remember you saying that spinners cant take wickets from turn only out of a foothold......

Not especially amazing that I left-out Parore's wicket - anyone who watched that series closely would remember that he batted in a manner that was very, very distracted for the first two games, explained by his subsequent retirement. He played down the wrong line of a reasonable (but not wicket-taking) ball and Giles had another wicket.
The pitch didn't offer turn, the footholds did - Giles got Astle with one that turned out of the footholds.
I didn't say spinners can't take wickets from turn just out of footholds, that's just the usual instance of you trying to manipulate my words - I said rarely do footholds that make fingerspinners dangerous occur. And this was one of those instances where fingerspinners weren't dangerous - that was the only wicket of the match that fell to turn out of a foothold.
It did offer seam for the first couple of days, though - as shown, and exploited, by Caddick.

this is total rubbish,its typical of you to make up stories that didnt happen. i watched every ball of that series and i can assure you that it was a completely dead wicket. the only turn on offer was slow turn and we already know how effective that is. in fact i distintcly remember ravi shastri and every other commentator saying that there was absolutely nothing in the wicket at all.also england got more than 400 in the first innings so it definetly wasnt too hard to bat on it so just because ramprakash failed it doesnt give you the excuse to label it as a turner.

Yes, and you have been known to "watch every ball" of stuff before and come-out with stuff that's completely false, so you'll forgive me for noting that you have done so again here.
The fact is, Giles bowled Kumble with a ball that turned square (as well as drifting and dipping). That pitch offered plenty of turn, I saw with my own eyes Giles, Kumble and Harbhajan turning the ball plenty (and none of them ever turn the ball much on normal surfaces).
I'm afried while you might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of some who are keen to see me discredited, but you can't change my memory. It is far more typical of you to deny blatant fact than for me to make-up stories that didn't happen - such as "Ealham didn't bowl in the first 15 in ODIs very often" when he did. We can add "Giles, Harbhajan and Kumble didn't turn the ball" when they very clearly did.

rubbish, tresco and butcher both averaged nearly twice as much as him which was decent given the conditions and given that they are both openers. hussain was by far the best batsman of the series and flintoff batted far better than ramprakash too. vaughan failed yes,but not to the extent that ramprakash did. and thorpe whatever way you look at it did better than ramprakash. ramprakash was by far the worst player in the series in NZ and then again the worst player in india. but of course he should still be retained so that he can continue to disgrace himself for another 4 years......

Flintoff didn't bat better than Ramprakash - he succeeded once where Ramprakash failed, he failed four times where Ramprakash also failed (though one of those failures owed exclusively to a poor decision, for both batsmen incidentally).
Ramprakash might have been the worst batsman in New Zealand but the fact is, if the pitches had been better he'd still quite possibly have done enough to keep his place safe, while the like of Thorpe, Butcher, Trescothick and Vaughan may (or may not) have excelled.

oh this is just so very sad......ramprakash failed, his stats say so and theres nothing else to it. it doesnt matter if it was a brilliant catch by das because he played a bad shot to hit it to him in the first place. if he made a fool against kumble while no one else did it just goes to show that hes not good enough. and if he couldnt score quick runs when everyone else managed to it still doesnt say that hes good enough to play for england. he was a failure for england and thats why he was dropped.

No, he was dropped because he averaged 16 in his first 6 years as a Test-player and averaged 13.57 as an opener.
There is something else to it, meanwhile - if someone averages 10 in a series where they weren't at fault for 4 out of 6 of their dismissals it's extremely foolish to say their failure shows much about a lack of ability.
Incidentally, I'd like to see the others that apparently scored quick runs (ie the rate that the team were hoping for, about 4 to 5-an-over) in that second-innings at Motera. And it wasn't much of a poor shot against Harbhajan in the first-innings at Mohali, it was just a leading-edge that went very close to the ground and 9 times out of 10 would not have been caught.

no if you play 3 tests,show no potential then you dont deserve to get more chances....it would be stupid if the selectors allowed players like these to fail time and time again at the international level,which is why they were dropped.

Yes, and it's why Chopra has apparently been dropped - because, as far as the selectors were concerned, he'd not shown the potential to succeed.
The England selectors believed that Smith hadn't shown the potential to succeed either.
It is not fact that he he didn't show potential, it is your (and, seemingly, our selectors') opinion.
And who knows, it may be right.
But neither of you can show it compellingly on 5 innings, espcially when 3 resulted in dismissal that couldn't realistically have been avoided. And yes, like it or not, that does mean something.

how can you prove that?he was picked when he was in form in domestic cricket yet in his 4 tests he averaged 10.88 and in 14 ODIs he averaged 14. of course he deserved more chances so that he could average less than mullally

So you think that Chopra has potential in Tests and you don't think Matthew Maynard did.
I can only assume you've never seen him bat.

it was still a decent record that was still far better than his international record.

Yet it wasn't anywhere near good enough to suggest he'd be a success in international cricket.

if he could only bowl on seamer friendly wickets why should he be selected i ask you?he emphasises the point that successful domestic bowlers dont always turn out to be successful international players!

No, of course they don't always - in fact, who has been a consistently successful bowler for England in the last 20 years? Fraser has come the closest, and even he was foiled eventually by injury.
How many seamers around The World at the moment can move the ball on wickets that don't offer seam, incidentally? I can't think of very many. That's why there are so many massive scores and hugely inflated batting-averages around ATM.

so averaging lower than chopra is not a failure then?amazing how someone who averages 28 is a failure despite only playing 8 tests while someone who played 52 and averaged 27 isnt! of course the fact that he average 22 in his last 3 years in the middle order means that he should be retained!

Actually in the last 3 years of his Test-career in the middle-order he averaged 29.60, not 22.
In those last 3 years he had two bad series, and two reasonable ones considering what had gone prior.
If Ramprakash hadn't been forced to open the batting when he was I'd be surprised if he wasn't still in the side now.
Well, or maybe that should be wasn't still in the side up to the first part of this summer.
Incidentally, I've never actually said that he should have been retained after the New Zealand 2001\02 series - you've just assumed that because I've defended him from misunderstood criticism.
But it's funny how his middle-order average of 33.56 over the time between 1999 and 2001 kept him completely devoid of any question over his place whilst he was playing.
Incidentally, both his average from 1999 to 2001 and 1999 to 2002 are better than Chopra's career average, so your attempted criticism of my methods is kinda void there.

no if you would look at the stats correctly,tendulkar after 8 tests averaged 30.75

No, if you look at the stats correctly, he averaged 41.21 after 15 innings.
Number of matches are not an accurate comparison - innings are.

so lets look at that list that you would have dropped then shall we? attapattu,waugh,rhodes,flintoff,harmison,mcgrath etc

indeed the world of cricket would have been so much better with you as selector!

And of course there are so many fantastic players playing anyway, aren't there?

 

[Richard]

Of course, so as if by magic, the ball stops seaming as soon as he got out?

Don't tell me, but it only started seaming when he went out to bat as well?

No, it was seaming all over the place until Thorpe and Flintoff came together.
If you allowed yourself to recall that match with an open mind instead of trying to make it fit your arguments you might realise that it's not as magic as it sounds.

 

[Richard]

as i said earlier, you've already made that list

No, I haven't.

no he batted more often at 7 so it makes him a no 7!and i have already shown you a list of successful players at no 7!

No, it doesn't "make him a number-seven". There is no such thing as "a number-(insert-one-to-eleven)" unless they batted nowhere else in their career.
Ealham batted most often at seven but had he batted just 2 of those innings one place further down he would have batted equally often at eight.
The difference is not significant, and hence it is fair to compare performances of those at seven and eight.

and the average?that of course was because he was better than him

Not by much, but a bit.
The average was by courtesy of having played in a better side.

thats the point.....there is no one of similar ability who maintained their place in the side because they were considered useless. you asked me to show you "successful no 7s" and that is precisely what i did then you come up with the excuse of having players of comparible ability. the fact that there have been players who have scored runs at no 7 shows that no 7 isnt exactly a position where you get no chances, and ealham certainly didnt take any of his.

And I never said Ealham should have maintained his place in the side, I just said he wasn't as bad as some might try to make-out.
I've never called him a Klusener, Boucher or Kaif.
Yet again you have just made the assumptions to suit your argument.

why 8?ealham batted more often at 7 and there have been several players who have made a success at 7 while ealham couldnt!

regardless i will look at a few players at 8....
razzaq 45.33 from 16
moin khan 25 from 35
chris harris 48.10 from 20
pollock 22.41 from 50
boucher 26.22 from 15
klusener 64.32 from 33

err no fraser only turned 35 in 2000 so he was definetly available throughout ealhams career

Angus Fraser played 8 of Ealham's 64 ODIs; he played 9 of his 42 ODIs after Ealham's debut.
Whether or not he was available, most of his career was before most of Ealham's.
So you can't make certain comparisons, and in any case I've said Fraser was a better bowler in my opinion.

of course the fact that he has a better average than ealham doesnt prove a thing?or the fact that he could bowl in the first 15 overs!!

And, yes, guess what - so could Ealham!!!!! And no, it doesn't - because I was talking about economy-rate. I didn't bring average into it, so therefore you have no grounds to.

no fraser,caddick,gough,white and mullally were all better bowlers than ealham.

Fraser and Mullally were\are, White certainly wasn't\isn't, Gough is about the same, because he's taken more wickets at a more expensive economy-rate.

and as i have said on countless occasions he rarely bowled in the death or in the 15.

And as I've said on countless occasions, you're wrong.

err no thorpe has dropped more catches than anyone else in the side bar butcher so he is by no means reliable

Let's see some evidence, then?

im sure you do....got videos of gough bowling left handed too?

No, he's never tried it as far as I'm aware, and he certainly hasn't in a game situation.
If you want to know what it looks like, though, just watch film of him bowling in a mirror.
This ridiculous question cannot detract from an ascertation of certainty.

no it was worse when it was put into context....

No, it was worse when you put it into a context it didn't go in.

rubbish, post 2000 there useless, they were only as good as kenya. and if kenya are minnows so were zimbabwe.

That is complete garbage.
Any side with even one player of the calibre of Andy Flower, let alone players of the calibre of Grant Flower, Alistair Campbell and Heath Streak, plus those of the potential of Guy Whittall, Craig Wishart, Stuart Carlisle, Henry Olonga and plenty of others cannot even be considered in comparison with Kenya.
They'd never lost to them until the disharmonious performance of WC2003.
Zimbabwe up to WC2003 were perfectly worthy of Test and ODI status, even if they were the worst of them; they're not now, and neither are Bangladesh. Kenya, however, are worthy of ODI status and deserve it.

no as i have shown, by your count chamindas record is useless outside of seamer friendly conditions except when you put the zimbabwe games in context.in other words for him to not look like a seamer track bully we have to look at his record against zimbabwe and that just shows how desperate your case is.....

No, it just shows how desperate yours is that you cling to the generalisation that Zimbabwe are not up to international standard and try to use it to prove anything.

 

[Richard]

no i said if he had every bowled at the death it would be when the game was already won or in seaming conditions where quite frankly it didnt really effect his ER, probably made it better too.

And you'd be wrong on both counts - he did bowl at the death when it mattered, and it did mean he went for 6, 7-an-over, so it's logical to assume it did have an adverse effect on his career economy-rate.

rubbish he bowled far more often than ealham did.

Again, let's see some evidence, then? Maybe if you look at it you'd realise how wrong you are.

can you prove it? how about a poll to see whos right and whos wrong then?

A poll won't prove anything, because there may quite possibly be some who stick to the same generalisations as you.
What will show who's right and who's wrong will be to look at some b-b-bs, where they're available. And you're the one who's going to do that - I don't need to, I know I'm right anyway.
If you don't do so, it will simply show that you know without looking that you are wrong and have made a complete fool of yourself.

 

[marc71178]

A poll won't prove anything, because there may quite possibly be some who stick to the same generalisations as you.

Lets face it, even if a poll ended 200-1, against you, you'd just write the 200 off as anomalies and insist you're right.

 

[tooextracool]

No, not good, but not as bad as it might sound..

not bad?he was by far the worst player in the side!

Yes, the same bowlers, no, not the same attack. In the only innings where Flintoff succeeded and Ramprakash failed, I've already explained that the last ball of the match that seamed was the one that dismissed Ramprakash and brought Flintoff to the crease!

thats the stupidest explanation ive ever heard, its all so convenient that it stopped seaming and swinging after ramprakash got out!
the conditions got better yes, but it happened a lot later than when flintoff played his first ball i can assure you, both thorpe and flintoff showed application which ramprakash was incapable of .

I didn't dismiss his poor performance as due to the conditions, I just said it should be remembered. Actually, four of his dismissals were due to poor strokes (even if two were off balls that seamed), one to a poor decision and one to a very good piece of deception by a Tuffey slower-ball.
What you are saying is that your surmisial that everyone else was good and Ramprakash was very poor is wrong. The truth is that everyone else was poor and Ramprakash was very poor, but both were understandible due to the conditions.

actually flintoff,hussain and thorpe(to an extent) were all brilliant.
trescothick,butcher were average
vaughan was poor
and ramprakash was pathetic
and you dont get to be retained in the side after 2 pathetic series like that.....

 

[tooextracool]

No, it was seaming all over the place until Thorpe and Flintoff came together.
If you allowed yourself to recall that match with an open mind instead of trying to make it fit your arguments you might realise that it's not as magic as it sounds.

no it was seaming all over the place until somewhere in the middle of the thorpe flintoff partnership.....

 

[tooextracool]

And you'd be wrong on both counts - he did bowl at the death when it mattered, and it did mean he went for 6, 7-an-over, so it's logical to assume it did have an adverse effect on his career economy-rate..

well lets see some proof then?

Again, let's see some evidence, then? Maybe if you look at it you'd realise how wrong you are...

im sure that if we had any evidence of who bowled in the death, we would see that mullally bowled far more often in the death than ealham

A poll won't prove anything, because there may quite possibly be some who stick to the same generalisations as you...

no it would show that you are the only one that has such inane opinions about bowlers who were very ordinary....

What will show who's right and who's wrong will be to look at some b-b-bs, where they're available. And you're the one who's going to do that - I don't need to, I know I'm right anyway..

actually no, you are the only one who thinks that ealham did bowl several times at the death when the fact is that he didnt. obviously you refuse to have a poll because you know you will be proved wrong if we did

 

[tooextracool]

No, I haven't..

yes you did....gooch,stewart,ambrose,walsh and a few others that you mentioned....

No, it doesn't "make him a number-seven". There is no such thing as "a number-(insert-one-to-eleven)" unless they batted nowhere else in their career....

rubbish so tendulkar isnt an opener then?

Ealham batted most often at seven but had he batted just 2 of those innings one place further down he would have batted equally often at eight.
The difference is not significant, and hence it is fair to compare performances of those at seven and eight...

okay then i'll look at players at 7 and 8 then(the same list that you chose to ignore in the post)

at 7 at 8
razzaq 35 45
moin 25 25
harris 31 48
pollock 24 22
boucher 25 26
klusener 32 64

the argument is lost yet again....but of course they are all anomalies.

Not by much, but a bit.
The average was by courtesy of having played in a better side....

he averages about 7 runs higher at 7 than ealham.....and richardson wasnt even much of a batsman.
and the average doesnt have anything to do with the side...if anything the opportunities he would have got to play a long innings would have been seldom as opposed to ealham...yet he has a 50 to his name.

And I never said Ealham should have maintained his place in the side, I just said he wasn't as bad as some might try to make-out.
I've never called him a Klusener, Boucher or Kaif.
Yet again you have just made the assumptions to suit your argument.....

err no, go back and look at the argument. i said that ealham couldnt translate his domestic performances to the ODI games and you said that nobody batting at 8 could be successful and asked me to show you a list of successful players at 8. the latter of which ive shown and now you change the argument by saying he wasnt a klusener,boucher or kaif, personally i agree with that but i would also add that hes a bit of a rikki clarke.....

Angus Fraser played 8 of Ealham's 64 ODIs; he played 9 of his 42 ODIs after Ealham's debut.
Whether or not he was available, most of his career was before most of Ealham's

why should he not be considered?we had a better bowler sitting on the sidelines playing for some useless county side while someone like ealham was bowling in his place rather pathetically at the international level!

And, yes, guess what - so could Ealham!!!!! .

yes at 33 a piece(largely due to performances against zim,b'desh and kenya) as opposed to caddicks 28 a piece.

And no, it doesn't - because I was talking about economy-rate. I didn't bring average into it, so therefore you have no grounds to.

OMG you are so deluded its not funny! caddick had a marginally better economy rate and a better average, so it adds to my point that he could do a better job than ealham at the international arena!! bowling in ODIs doesnt have to do solely with being economical, it also has to do with picking up wickets.

Fraser and Mullally were\are, White certainly wasn't\isn't, Gough is about the same, because he's taken more wickets at a more expensive economy-rate..

dont be a fool, gough is ahead of ealham by a country mile. only an idiot would consider ealham to be equal with gough who was one of the best english ODI bowler ever(perhaps the best). goughs higher ER had primarily to do with bowling nearly half his overs every game in the death.
im sure that if we had a straw poll to see who was better not one person(bar a lunatic) would pick ealham ahead or even on level terms with gough.
and white too was better, he has a very similar average and ER to gough, once again largely to do with bowling in the death.

And as I've said on countless occasions, you're wrong...

and as ive said time and time again you are wrong. and im sure plenty of people agree with me on that.....

Let's see some evidence, then?...

well if you have been watching the match today you would have seen thorpe drop a sitter at gully. he also dropped a catch last test match of banks(an absolute sitter at mid on) and then one of gayle in the same match,although it wasnt an easy one and dropped plenty of catches in the carribean and in the series against NZ(the one of papps at headingly comes to mind)

No, he's never tried it as far as I'm aware, and he certainly hasn't in a game situation.
If you want to know what it looks like, though, just watch film of him bowling in a mirror.
This ridiculous question cannot detract from an ascertation of certainty..

well lets see some proof then?

That is complete garbage.
Any side with even one player of the calibre of Andy Flower, let alone players of the calibre of Grant Flower, Alistair Campbell and Heath Streak, plus those of the potential of Guy Whittall, Craig Wishart, Stuart Carlisle, Henry Olonga and plenty of others cannot even be considered in comparison with Kenya.
They'd never lost to them until the disharmonious performance of WC2003.
Zimbabwe up to WC2003 were perfectly worthy of Test and ODI status, even if they were the worst of them; they're not now, and neither are Bangladesh. Kenya, however, are worthy of ODI status and deserve it
No, it just shows how desperate yours is that you cling to the generalisation that Zimbabwe are not up to international standard and try to use it to prove anything.

but how far are they from the top 8 teams ? zimbabwe in 99 were extremely competitive and perhaps not the worst ODI side around. post 2000 however they are far from the standard of the other 8 sides in the world.
the fact that chaminda vaas' record against them improves immensely after 2000 only goes to show that they have gotten a lot worse.
chaminda vaas vs zimbabwe pre 2000 averages 27.24 at 3.82
chamind vaas vs zimbabwe post 2000 averages 18.18 at 3.55