Richard said:
No, Gooch and Stewart were the only ones who got significantly worse. And Stewart got worse because he was opening the batting too much, not because he was becoming an inferior player.
Once Stewart was moved back down the order he didn't do anywhere near as badly, though not as well as he or I would have liked..
stewart got worse period, and how did walsh not get worse?
1998 54.00 5.40
1999 21.72 3.06(which had largely to do with cheap wickets against bangladesh,scotland and seaming wickets)
2000 75.00 5.77
or even curtly ambrose
1997 30.79 4.03
1998 32.67 4.26
1999 34.53 3.56 (the lower economy rate once again has largely to do with seaming conditions in the first few games in SA, and then again against scotland,NZ and australia in the wc)
career 24.13 2.48
Richard said:
No, he's not - he's someone who's batted as an opener a lot, a number-four a lot and very occasionally elsewhere...
rubbish hes an opener because he batted there for most of his career....everyone bats in different positions throughout their career....does that mean that nobody can be labelled according to position then?
Richard said:
Funny how it's "yet again" when I've won everything so far. You have had to resort to stating that things happened as they did not time and again....
funny how you say that you've won everything, yet later on in the thread admit that you were wrong......
Richard said:
Wow, one single half-century - all that proves is there was one day where he played better than Ealham ever did.
once again you choose to ignore the fact that richardson averged 7 runs higher at that position that ealham
Richard said:
His domestic one-day batting average is quite a bit higher than Clarke's. Clarke is yet another example of mistaken selection with a very poor county record.
Whether that changes we'll have to wait and see.
Well fine, it is something of a surprise that there are that many players who have done as exceptionally and as reasonably as they have. You've shown me something I didn't expect.
Still, you can't prove that Ealham massively underachieved as I've shown when he was dismissed and it's certainly not comparable to the situations he regularly found himself in for Kent..
no but he had enough opportunities, and wasnt successful at the intl level
Richard said:
Because the fact is, his matches were mostly played before Ealham.
That is what I said - for the most part, Fraser was before Ealham's time.
I did not say that he should not have been considered while Ealham was doing his good work.
no but you asked for a list of bowlers that were better than him at the time and fraser was better irrespective of whether he was playing county cricket at that time or not. he was available for selection and was in his early 30s when ealham made his debut
Richard said:
I wasn't talking about taking wickets, I was talking about bowling in the first 15 overs. Which you will, surely, soon realiese that Ealham did most of the time.
no you asked me to show you which bowlers were better than ealham then and caddick was better because he had a similar economy rate but could also take wickets.
Richard said:
This was what I was arguing against, this is the start of this exchange:
Not once did you mention average, you were trying to say that there were lots of bowlers with better economy-rates than Ealham at the same time as his career. And you tried to bring in Fraser and Caddick, and I pointed-out why you couldn't in order to prove anything in this context.
okay then i'll admit that my comment was partly faulty.....i meant that there were bowlers with good economy rates who could also take wickets.
Richard said:
Regardless, Ealham's economy-rate was better.
And White was nowhere near as good as his average might make him seem.
in the same way that ealham wasnt anywhere as good as his ER may seem?
gough was by far the better bowler and you know it. whites record is fairly similar to gough, his ER is higher by .08 and his average is the same. IMO white was better than ealham because he was capable of doing everything with the ball,including reverse swinging it
Richard said:
A sitter, you really don't have much grasp of the game, do you? While a good fielder would expect to catch that (Thorpe will doubtless be disappointed he didn't) it can in no way be described as a sitter!
err no i said the one of banks was an absolute sitter, the one of gayle's was difficult,ive already admitted that.
Richard said:
So he dropped a sitter off Banks in the last match - wow, that sure as hell means he's a crap fielder!.
err you really havent been watching much cricket this year have you? ive shown you 3 catchest that hes dropped. the one of papps at headingly which you didnt take into account was also a regulation slip catch and he dropped plenty of catches in the carribean and the rest of the NZ series too. thorpe is by no means a good fielder.
I
Richard said:
can't show you the proof, I don't know how to transpose videos onto here, and even if I did you'd probably just say something stupid like "you've just made that up".
I have got that evidence - can't you just accept that you're wrong about Ealham not being a good fielder? And plenty who have actually watched him closely have also said he's far better than you might assume by looking at him.
no he wasnt a good fielder, how many time do i have to say it. im certain that he was slow in the outfield and very rarely if ever dived to save a boundary or take a catch. so where you come up with this rubbish i really dont know
Richard said:
But only Andy Whittall, Johnson, Goodwin and Paul Strang were lost up to WC2003 - they then lost all but Grant Flower, Carlisle, Wishart, Streak and Brent, and subsequently they lost them and some others too. Fortunately, they've had their playing reduced after that.
i like the way you say that they lost only those 4 players, like as though good players are a dime a dozen in zimbabwe.
Richard said:
Of course, the fact that Chaminda's record improves immensely against them post-2002 couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that he's bowled some of his best spells in that time, naturally.
nope considering that these best spells only happen to come against useless teams like these zimbabwe just goes to show you that he wasnt as potent against the rest of the teams.
Richard said:
And I might remind you that the stuff you've come-up with includes the ODIs against the substandard Zimbabwe of WC2003 onwards.
yes so how exactly does that not help his record look better than it actually is then?
