England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Tom Halsey]

just about as likely as some of the similar quality leg spinners have been. see qadir and kumble who are/were both largely home based spinners.

Very conveniently missing out argubly the best ever, Warne.

 

[Tom Halsey]

these were not 'slow' turning wickets....the first test wicket offered turn largely from the footholds along with uneven bounce also from the footholds. the 2nd test was definetly not a 'slow' turning wicket either because there was exceptional turn and bounce from the wicket itself.
and yes giles bowled well in the first test, better than what i and everyone else expected him to.

Sorry, but how on Earth are these wickets not slow?

The 1st Test wicket was exceptionally so, and the 2nd Test wicket, while maybe having a bit of pace on the first day, became gradually slower as the match went on.

 

[Tom Halsey]

then show me how many english bowlers had a better record than 27 at 3.84.
the only one i can think of are bob willis who played in a completely different era so he doesnt count. angus fraser perhaps had a better record with 30 at 3.54. so i dont see any reason why he isnt one of the best english ODI bowlers

Bob Willis, just because he played in a different era, is still in it.

How many people say that Viv Richards or Malcolm Marshall don't count as great players just because they played in a different era? None, mefinks.

I'd rate Gough a better ODI bowler, Fraser and Caddick on a par.

Besides, bowling isn't all about statistics.

 

[Tom Halsey]

the tracks in SA arent the flattest in the world i can assure you, and if you look at his record in the recent ODI series in NZ you will see precisely what i mean, he averaged 95 with an ER of 3.95. and i have never said that pollock doesnt take more than enough wickets.....

Where did I say that they weer the flattest in the world? I said 'flattish'. OK, so Pollock had one series where he didn't take very many wickets at all. His career record would suggest that he does, though.

 

[tooextracool]

no my point was that on flattish wickets and against a good batting lineup he generally tends to be economical without taking wickets. his record is pretty good because he is very dangerous if the wicket or the conditions offer something,as we saw in england last year.

 

[tooextracool]

Bob Willis, just because he played in a different era, is still in it.

How many people say that Viv Richards or Malcolm Marshall don't count as great players just because they played in a different era? None, mefinks.

I'd rate Gough a better ODI bowler, Fraser and Caddick on a par.

Besides, bowling isn't all about statistics.

2 things to note,
even if you look at your methods(rightly or wrongly) mullaly is still amongst the top 3 bowlers england have ever had in ODIs, so the use of the phrase "one of the best" would still be valid.
as far as bob willis is concerned the wickets on which he played ODI cricket in offered a lot more for the bowlers and ODI cricket hadnt developed as much then as it has now. they didnt have the 15 over rule then and the fact that slogging wasnt exactly as great as it is now also would have had a major role in that ER. if you look at most bowlers in that era you will see that they all had brilliant ER's compared to the standards today.
IMO caddick wasnt on par,just marginally behind, and the stats show that

 

[tooextracool]

The 1st Test wicket was exceptionally so, and the 2nd Test wicket, while maybe having a bit of pace on the first day, became gradually slower as the match went on.

oh dont get me wrong here, the first test was slow, but there was barely any turn of the wicket. most of the turn came of the footholds and therefore there was also uneven bounce and the lara dismissal shows that clearly.
the 2nd test though offered turn from the pitch, but if you had been watching closely, you would have seen that there was also bounce.

 

[tooextracool]

Caddick. But there isn't too much difference IMO.

an average difference of 4.5 is a pretty big difference i can assure you. caddick average was pretty good for an ODI bowler, but ealhams was in the 30s and that made it only not very good at all..

 

[tooextracool]

Very conveniently missing out argubly the best ever, Warne.

im prepared to say that nearly all his successfuly performances have been either on wickets that have offered turn for the bowlers and/or due to poor batting.

 

[Tom Halsey]

no my point was that on flattish wickets and against a good batting lineup he generally tends to be economical without taking wickets. his record is pretty good because he is very dangerous if the wicket or the conditions offer something,as we saw in england last year.

Yes, he does excell himself on pitches that offer soemthing, but almost everyone does.

On flattish wickets, his strike rate isn't amazing, I don't have stats for 'flattish' wickets, but I'd guess that his SR on those is roughly 60-65. While that's not amazing, it's a good strike rate at Test level.

 

[Tom Halsey]

the 2nd test though offered turn from the pitch, but if you had been watching closely, you would have seen that there was also bounce.

Aargh!

Bounce does not mean a quick wicket. There may well have been bounce, but it was tennis ball bounce, slow and sitting up slightly if anything was short. Therefore it was slow.

 

[Tom Halsey]

im prepared to say that nearly all his successfuly performances have been either on wickets that have offered turn for the bowlers and/or due to poor batting.

He plays in Australia, where the only ground that offers any significant turn is the SCG (sad t see that it may be losing its Test status) and he still averages 25. Not all of that can be bad batting. Sure, he picks up a few wickets due to bad batting, but every bowler in the World does. That post was rubbish.

 

[Tom Halsey]

an average difference of 4.5 is a pretty big difference i can assure you. caddick average was pretty good for an ODI bowler, but ealhams was in the 30s and that made it only not very good at all..

Economy rate holds as much importance as average in ODI's, let me remind you...

 

[marc71178]

But if a player's eco is fairly similar and his average a lot better - he's surely a much more effective bowler?

 

[tooextracool]

Aargh!

Bounce does not mean a quick wicket. There may well have been bounce, but it was tennis ball bounce, slow and sitting up slightly if anything was short. Therefore it was slow.

err no....the 2nd test wicket was not 'slow', and definetly not as slow as the wickets in te sub continent, there was enough pace and bounce in the wicket for the spinners to get balls that beat the bat often enough. on slow wickets it is a lot easier for the batsmen to go on the back foot,wait for the turn and then play his shots.

 

[tooextracool]

Economy rate holds as much importance as average in ODI's, let me remind you...

OMG do you read at all??
where have i said that the average is more important than the ER in ODIs???
my point was and still is that caddick has not only a marginally better ER but also a much better average that makes him a much better bowler than ealham....

 

[tooextracool]

He plays in Australia, where the only ground that offers any significant turn is the SCG (sad t see that it may be losing its Test status) and he still averages 25. Not all of that can be bad batting. Sure, he picks up a few wickets due to bad batting, but every bowler in the World does. That post was rubbish.

yes i know but when i make the same claim about finger spinner's good performances your pal richard insists that all of them have to be due to poor batting or turning pitches......

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, he does excell himself on pitches that offer soemthing, but almost everyone does.

On flattish wickets, his strike rate isn't amazing, I don't have stats for 'flattish' wickets, but I'd guess that his SR on those is roughly 60-65. While that's not amazing, it's a good strike rate at Test level.

have i said that it was a bad SR?its just that of late hes had the tendency to be extremely economical without taking that many wickets on flat wickets against good batting lineups. there are very few other bowlers that i can think of who do the same so i used the word 'pollockesque'

 

[Tom Halsey]

err no....the 2nd test wicket was not 'slow', and definetly not as slow as the wickets in te sub continent, there was enough pace and bounce in the wicket for the spinners to get balls that beat the bat often enough. on slow wickets it is a lot easier for the batsmen to go on the back foot,wait for the turn and then play his shots.

If you think that wicket wasn't slow, then there isn't anything I can do to prove it is...

 

[Tom Halsey]

OMG do you read at all??
where have i said that the average is more important than the ER in ODIs???
my point was and still is that caddick has not only a marginally better ER but also a much better average that makes him a much better bowler than ealham....

You have never actually said it, but the fact that IMO ER is more important than average in ODI's, and the fact that there isn't too much difference in ER says something. But average does count, so Caddick is a better ODI bowler overall.

But I stand by my opinion that there isn't too much difference.