England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How silly of me. I forgot how to play cricket for a moment there.

 

[Prince EWS]

I am usually the first to say that Kirtley should be in the side, but his one day record this season is really bad!

His overall record isnt that bad, because he had a good average and a good trike rate, despite having an economy over 4.5, but his record this season is rediculous.

But in saying that, he should still probably be in the top 30, just nowhere near the 14.

 

[Craig]

ROFLMAO.

You've excelled yourself here.

But why don't you rate them then?

 

[marc71178]

Because they're not by any stretch of the imagination top class bowlers.

Useful county pros maybe.

 

[Richard]

Waqar Younis
Shoaib Akhtar

Waqar's econony-rate climbed steeply for the last 2 years or so of his ODI career, before that it was acceptible; Shoaib has always been inconsistent but when bowling at his best he has always been economical. He tends to be either wayward and unpenetrative or accurate and deadly.
For instance in the period from the Sharjah Cup to Super Challenge II (2002) and from his post-World Cup recall to the New Zealand tour (2003 and 2004). In the interim periods he's tended to be very, very bad.
I hoped before the India tour that he might manage to put together a long run of consistency, and you never know, if he has a decent Asia Cup the India games might just be a blip.

 

[Richard]

Oh I agree, that overall record is appalling.

The economy-rate is, while not quite applling, very poor.
And as has been demonstrated, you're probably not going to get away with being expensive in ODIs by getting wickets the way Kirtley has done in domestic games. Hence Kirtley's very high ODI average.

 

[Richard]

ROFLMAO.

You've excelled yourself here.

...

Because they're not by any stretch of the imagination top class bowlers.

Useful county pros maybe.

So, how is it then that Ealham's ODI record is, by 0.01-an-over, better than his domestic record?
Could it be that the best players at a lower level are also likely to be the best at the next level up?
Mascarenhas and Martin-Jenkins have better bowling records than any other Englishmen who are available for ODIs, bar Ealham and Mullally. Sadly, like Ealham, their batting ability has in fact worked against them rather than in their favour as they can then be branded "bits-and-pieces" players because they're not especially brilliant First-Class bowlers.

 

[marc71178]

The economy-rate is, while not quite applling, very poor.

No, it is not.

By your stupidly tight demands it is, but by most people's minds it is perfectly acceptable.

 

[marc71178]

So, how is it then that Ealham's ODI record is, by 0.01-an-over, better than his domestic record?
Could it be that the best players at a lower level are also likely to be the best at the next level up?

Hmm, that kind of falls down when you look at the more successful memebers of the England side, and their county records.

 

[Richard]

No, it is not.

By your stupidly tight demands it is, but by most people's minds it is perfectly acceptable.

Most people's apologist-for-mediocrity minds.

 

[Langeveldt]

Most people's apologist-for-mediocrity minds.

Haha... could do with you running the country...

 

[Richard]

Hmm, that kind of falls down when you look at the more successful memebers of the England side, and their county records.

Like...
Just how many successful ODI players are there that are currently looking like in the frame for selection?
Trescothick - all right, his ODI average is higher than his domestic OD one, but by less than 1 at the moment.
Gough - superb domestic record (less than 4-an-over), pretty good ODI record.
Anderson - by some standards. By those standards he has been equally successful at domestic level, ie he's taken wickets at both levels.
Strauss - who has played a sum total of... not enough games to be labelled a "success", just "a success so far".
Flintoff - his domestic batting record is slightly less good than his ODI one, but not by a significant amount either. His bowling domestically is even better than internationally.
And that's basically it.
The less recent ODI successes have included:
Nick Knight - surprisingly meagre domestic record, but not bad by any stretch.
Graeme Hick - excellent domestic record, even better than ODI record.
Ealham - domestic and international one-day records almost identical.
Mullally - again, surprisingly domestic record a little worse than international, but not significant and the main thing is, domestically and internationally the record is excellent.
Neil Fairbrother - a genius at all levels of the game.
Andy Caddick - this woeful first 2\3s of a season has turned what was an outstanding domestic record into just a very, very good one. Again, a success at both levels.
Graham Thorpe - domestic record better than international, success at both levels.
But as you can see, the success stories of recent years have been few and far between! And all of them have had success at the domestic level first.
As I have shown time and again, in fact.

 

[Richard]

Haha... could do with you running the country...

High standards rarely hurt anyone!
Though I confess I wouldn't know probably 1\100th of the stuff you need to to run the country.

 

[Langeveldt]

High standards rarely hurt anyone!
Though I confess I wouldn't know probably 1\100th of the stuff you need to to run the country.

What like how to bomb poor places...

Sorry thats very cynical and OT

 

[Richard]

Well you'd think it was simple to do that but we'd probably be surprised...

 

[marc71178]

Most people's apologist-for-mediocrity minds.

For crying out loud.

The One Day Game is so tilted towards batsmen that 300 is a regular score, even against reasonable attacks.

That is 75 runs more than what you have decided is an arbitrary cut-off for good or bad.

4.5 an over is about as harsh as saying to a batsman that any average below 50 isn't good enough.

 

[Craig]

So you think bowlers should just run in and not worry about being accurate?

 

[Adamc]

So you think bowlers should just run in and not worry about being accurate?

??? How did you infer that from his post?

 

[Nate]

For crying out loud.

The One Day Game is so tilted towards batsmen that 300 is a regular score, even against reasonable attacks.

That is 75 runs more than what you have decided is an arbitrary cut-off for good or bad.

4.5 an over is about as harsh as saying to a batsman that any average below 50 isn't good enough.

i reckon... how dumb is it?? make it more bowler friendly, maybe even have no fielding restrictions?

 

[marc71178]

So you think bowlers should just run in and not worry about being accurate?

I have never said anything along those lines.

Of course they need to aim for accuracy, but the odd wider ball is not a cardinal sin, and may often induce a wicket.