England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Tom Halsey]

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

Yes, Caddick is a better ODI bowler - but IMO there isn't too much difference.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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......

He has a point though - since the advent of covered pitches, which fingerspinners have been consistantly successful throughout the World? (Note Murali is not a finger spinner, also note that the early covering was pathetic and water still seeped through, so Underwood could possibly be discarded too - not sure on that one though.)

 

[Tom Halsey]

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'

Point taken.

 

[tooextracool]

He has a point though - since the advent of covered pitches, which fingerspinners have been consistantly successful throughout the World? (Note Murali is not a finger spinner, also note that the early covering was pathetic and water still seeped through, so Underwood could possibly be discarded too - not sure on that one though.)

saqlain mushtaq to an extent and vettori might have if it wasnt for his injury. but bar warne(murali isnt a genuine wrist spinner) there hasnt been any other wrist spinner who has indeed been successful everywhere in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

i think theres more than enough difference to suggest that one was clearly better than the other.

 

[Tom Halsey]

saqlain mushtaq to an extent and vettori might have if it wasnt for his injury. but bar warne(murali isnt a genuine wrist spinner) there hasnt been any other wrist spinner who has indeed been successful everywhere in the world.

Murali most certainly IS a genuine wrist spinner - but to be fair I can see another reason for leaving him out - his action is very suspicious.

Mushtaq was an unknown commodity, and it took a while for batsmen to work him out - once they did he became largely harmless - has been for a couple of years now. I can see where you are coming from WRT Vettori though.

 

[Tom Halsey]

i think theres more than enough difference to suggest that one was clearly better than the other.

Yes, I admit Caddick is better.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, Caddick is a better ODI bowler - but IMO there isn't too much difference.

Caddick took 69 wickets @ 28.47 (Eco 4.01) in 54 games
Ealham took 67 wickets @ 32.79 (Eco 4.08) in 64 games

That's a fair difference, seeing as Caddick is more economical, more penetrative and a lot cheaper per wicket.

4.32 may not be a lot if the averages are 48.47 vs 52.79, but in this case it's not far short of 15% difference!

 

[tooextracool]

Murali most certainly IS a genuine wrist spinner - but to be fair I can see another reason for leaving him out - his action is very suspicious.

the thing with murali is that his action is different from everyone elses, he turns the ball in the opposite direction to the orthodox wrist spinner and if the icc has anything to with it, we will never see anyone with a remotely similar action again in international cricket.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Which IMO can only be good for the game.

 

[Richard]

He did virtually nothing wrong except not going on with his starts. And if your opener gets starts every innings then that always sets you up. Chopra was the ideal partner wit Sehwag, but he's going to have to miss out. It may be down to the fact that Ganguly is worried about missing his place if Yuvraj isn't an opener!!

So you really think Chopra is a better player than Ganguly?
And how can you possibly claim that
a) Chopra did nothing wrong except not going on with starts when he was out for single-figures in 1\3 of his Test-innings?
b) Getting starts all the time is all right even if you don't go on with them?
The fact is, Chopra's achievements have seen him average 28 and whatever Sehwag's done, that's not good enough.

 

[Richard]

Because, as if by magic the Kiwi bowlers (who are incidentally awful in your view, so how did they even manage one good ball) decided that there was no need to bowl any more decent balls as they'd got the linchpin of the side out.

Also the Wicket was replaced by a flat one that made batting a dream, also as if by magic?

Try all you like to make it sound inconceivable - the fact is, you're only doing it because it's Ramprakash.

 

[Richard]

More cherry picking - the Zimbabwe series is equally unworthy, so why include that one either?

Bangladesh are a Test playing side (and at that point they were in the middle of improvement that saw them very close to beating Pakistan, or would that not have counted as a Bangladesh win in your eyes either?) - therefore that was a Test Series.

And because they weren't thrashed as badly as some expected in Australia or the first 2 Test-matches, and because Pakistan played sub-par in a dead-rubber Test-match which of course is unheard of even though it rarely fails to happen, and because they have played as poorly after the England series as they did most of the time before the Australia one, all of this means they are a Test-standard side.
AFAIAC that series wasn't worthy of the title Test-cricket but because players you like did well in it you've got to try and make it look like it was.
And no, neither was the Zimbabwe series, but we saw in the next 5 innings against South Africa that Harmison was still woeful, so it didn't matter. But Harmison escaped the Sri Lanka tour so we didn't have anything like the South Africa series to prove the worthlessness of the Bangladesh one.

 

[Richard]

Yet, he falls below your 35 threshold now after 127 innings - a full 112 than you say is necessary to show ability?

For most of the time before 2001 he was sub-par, with the exception of 1998 and the first innings of 1998\99.
Since 2001 he's averaged 42 and that's what I base my judgement on, given that there was a very obvious transformation then.

 

[Richard]

Fallacy.

Wickets are a very important part of the game - they slow the scoring rate, and stop the other team from building partnerships and having the chance to go all out for runs at the end.

Still sticking to that, I see.
Wickets don't slow the scoring-rate - accuracy does.
If you take a wicket and continue to spray it around it won't slow the rate at all.
And if you dismiss a blocker and bring in a strokeplayer it's far more likely to up the rate than slow it.
Yes, it lessens the chances of accelleration in the last 10, can result in fewer overs being faced, and makes a lower total likely, but it doesn't in itself slow the scoring-rate.

 

[Richard]

no almost everyone believes that chopra has potential, therefore i believe that he should be given as many chances as das and ramesh did.

In spite of the fact that Das and Ramesh both earnt their chances by cashing-in on the weak attacks they faced, whereas Chopra hasn't, he's just had Sehwag to do it for him.

 

[Richard]

where have i blamed him for 1 innings? if you could indeed read i have clearly stated that he has failed miserably in his last 2 series and failed in most series of his last 4 years.

And you're wrong on both counts...

 

[Richard]

saqlain mushtaq to an extent and vettori might have if it wasnt for his injury. but bar warne(murali isnt a genuine wrist spinner) there hasnt been any other wrist spinner who has indeed been successful everywhere in the world.

And perhaps that's because there have been as few good big-turning wristspinners in the last 30 years as there have been in the game's history.
Barnes, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, Abdul Qadir, Warne, Murali. Anil Kumble is a wristspinner but he doesn't spin it any more than a fingerspinner.
So you can see that there are no bowlers except Warne and Murali that you would expect to show that wristspinners can bowl on any surface.
Some other bowlers (like MacGill) have tried to bowl wristspin but aren't very good at it, and instead of being effective on any surface, are not effective on any surface.

 

[Richard]

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

Come on Hals, you must have noticed by now that tooextracool regularly says things were different to how they were.
Some things (like that Ealham did bowl in the first 15 overs most of the time) can be shown beyond all question, with things like the pace of wickets, we who are correct must simply reside in our knowledge.

 

[Richard]

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......

That's because they are.
Sadly for you, there aren't many wristspinners to prove what you're trying to prove (the few that there are disprove it, in fact) and there are plenty of fingerspinners to prove what I know (and the cases do).