England 30 man squad for icc championships

[marc71178]

And the fact is no-one can make a rule that stops bowlers bowling accurately, and no-one, no matter how desperately they may try, can make a rule that makes accurate bowling easier to score off.

Artificial fields make any bowling easier to score off, hence run rates are going up.

 

[marc71178]

I'm sure Neil showed me that graph somewhere. And I said that I thought it was one of the most false things I've ever seen.

Discounting your various balderdash theories that is...

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Vaughan's average when batting down the order in ODIs is still comfortably under 30. Vaughan has never been much of a one-day player. The thing is, Ramprakash from 1998 onwards was a genuine success in Test-cricket except when forced to open. It's totally different for Vaughan, anyway, because as I said it's been through his whole career - with Ramprakash everyone always got the feeling it was only a matter of time because of his outstanding First-Class record.
I'm sure Neil showed me that graph somewhere. And I said that I thought it was one of the most false things I've ever seen. Hardly any Test-match successes have had poor county records, and not many county successes have had poor Test-match records (out of those who've been given a fair chance, ie not just 4 or 5 innings).

OK, I can't be bothered to take the effort of looking up every single Test batsman since 1980 who's played more than 20 Tests or something, just to prove or disprove that statement about Test-match successes with poor county records. However, what happened to the point about Bell feeling pressure about being put at three, batting ahead of the more experienced Vaughan?

 

[V Reddy]

IMO if Bell's put at three, he's likely to feel "OK, now all the pressure's on me to build an innings...what will if I fail?" . Fair point, if Strauss and Vaughan both fall early, the same applies, but most likely at least one of them will hang in there with Tresco. I don't think it's good selection policy to put a young guy in at three, simply because it's the position normally reserved for the best, most experienced batsman in the team. Trouble is, of course, that England doesn't have very good ODI batsman apart from Trescothick and Flintoff, and both of those are being rock solid with the role they have in the team at the moment.

Yes, I know you're going to say: "Well, why should Vaughan be the best batsman? He's awful at ODIs" - but since you can apply the principle of getting better since 1998 to Ramprakash, batting in the middle order instead of as an opener, why doesn't the same apply to Vaughan batting higher up the order? He's had moderate success at three in ODI cricket. Not set the world alight, but he's had some good innings there, and not only against poor bowling.

Pressure is part and parcel of the game. You can also put it this way that he will play freely if he is batting at the top b'coz he knows there are more batsman to come. As Sidhu said
"If if's and but's were pots and pans, there would have been no tinkers"

My reasoning for Vaughan batting at 4 is i have seen him play well at that position in onedayers in India and NZ. IMO, he is dodgy against the new ball. In the middle order, he won't have to face it and also he is the best player of spin in the English side and so can rotate the strike well in the middle overs (where England most often struggle at) . It also gives a look of solidity to the middle order with him and Flintoff batting at 4 and 5 respectively with Collingwood to follow.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, it does, and it was no surprise when Graeme Hick translated his commanding domestic one-day form to the ODI arena..

so why didnt he translate his record to the test arena as well then?or do good domestic performances only translate into good ODI performances?

Do they now? Or do people just find it harder and harder to accept that someone that old can possibly be that good? There are countless examples of players who have not got worse, indeed some have even got better and better, with age.
Any half-decent player will still be pretty good in his late 30s. It would take a fool indeed not to realise that.

what rubbish, lets see you name those countless players that got better after 35, for ever 50 egs that you name i could name 500 egs to the contrary.

Yes, he can. As demonstrated by the volume of runs he's scored in his career.
How stupid have you got to be to say that someone who can score First-Class 150s "can't bat to save his life"?.

and doesnt that prove you wrong about players translating their performances to the intl level?if ealham was such a good domestic batsman then why was he such a pathetic intl batsman?

Those seaming conditions that anyone who actually watches will realise have been nowhere near as prevolant in the last 3 years as outdated stereotypes would have belief are far harder to bowl in than you might realise. And Ealham and Mullally are bowling better this season than ever.
Ealham was, and very probably still is, more than good enough to make the England ODI side, and who gives a s**t if he couldn't bowl at the end of the innings that well? It takes some skill to bowl Yorker after Yorker when you're a natural good-length bowler. These sort of bowlers are best used when they've got the best chance of bowling well. Someone who can go for less than for 4-an-over in the middle of the innings, which Ealham and Mullally did many, many times, has done a very good job and has put their team in a very strong position.

no ealham played in an era in which the average score was around 225, and going at 4.1 odd isnt really all that great especially if you never bowl in the slog overs.

 

[tooextracool]

Believe me, you will see plenty of worse batsmen and fielders than Alan Mullally, at the authentic international level. You clearly haven't seen much of him.

yes there are so many current players who average less than 5 runs an innings. and i have watched plenty of him, rather than just having read a bunch of articles about the game that you seem to do

"Bowl a bit" tends to describe someone who will regularly go for 5.5-an-over and provide no use whatsoever to any decent team. Being able to bowl for 5.5-an-over doesn't mean you're any more use than a batsman of the same average. "Bat a bit" tends to describe someone who might occasionally make a vital contribution but mostly will do sod-all and is less worthy of consideration than someone with a better bowling record.
And all too often, as in Ealham's case, we see failure with the trait they have been mistaken to be OK at taking the gloss off success with their proper trait.

no if you are to merit a place in the side based on one skill then you must be brilliant at it.....ealham wasnt brilliant at all....he was an average bowler that couldnt bat or field.

 

[Richard]

Which therefore declares that just about every batsman in the history of Cricket is poor, as they've all gotten out to a poor shot induced by pressure building up at one time or other.

Yes, almost everyone has got out to poor shots induced by just about everything that can induce them if they've had a long enough career.
You guessed it, though - just because they happen to have done it a few times, doesn't make them poor batsmen!

 

[Richard]

Artificial fields make any bowling easier to score off, hence run rates are going up.

Artificial fields were introduced at a specific, exact time (can't actually remember when it was but it was certainly well before 1996) and if these were the main contribution you'd expect a sudden, discrete increase at that time.
Not the gradual increase we have seen, as good bowlers have been lost and more and more substandard ones have been introduced.

 

[Richard]

Discounting your various balderdash theories that is...

Like...?
The chance-score theorems that almost everyone except you accepts has some merit, for instance?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, almost everyone has got out to poor shots induced by just about everything that can induce them if they've had a long enough career.
You guessed it, though - just because they happen to have done it a few times, doesn't make them poor batsmen!

Yet you keep saying good batsmen don't get out by being tied down and playing a shot in frustration.

Conttradicting yourself again then are you?

 

[Richard]

yes there are so many current players who average less than 5 runs an innings. and i have watched plenty of him, rather than just having read a bunch of articles about the game that you seem to do

So you have watched Mullally bat, then? Then how on Earth can you not tell that there are many, many non-batsmen more useless at blocking than him?
He'll never score many runs, but he's almost as good as Hoggard at blocking, for very similar reasons (ie Duncan Fletcher's encouragement and tutelage).

no if you are to merit a place in the side based on one skill then you must be brilliant at it.....ealham wasnt brilliant at all....he was an average bowler that couldnt bat or field.

Clearly you have again relied on stereotypical generalisations to form this conclusion. Ealham most certainly could field, even if he didn't look like he was supposed to be able to. And he could also bat, as I've stated. And his bowling record is far, far superior to most Englishmen who have played in any stage of his career.

 

[marc71178]

Like...?
The chance-score theorems that almost everyone except you accepts has some merit, for instance?

If there were a way of standardising it, then it would have but seeing as it is impossible to standardise it (and also impossible to maintain for all First Class Cricket, let aloine all Cricket), then it is a pipe dream.

And for examples of theorems I refer you to One Day Economy Rates, Wickets not slowing the run rate, Good batsmen don't get out through frustration...

 

[marc71178]

Ealham most certainly could field, even if he didn't look like he was supposed to be able to. And he could also bat, as I've stated.

A lot of players have been able to bat in domestic cricket, but not in Internationals.

Ealham is just one of them (ie not good enough for the real thing)

 

[Richard]

so why didnt he translate his record to the test arena as well then?or do good domestic performances only translate into good ODI performances?

Because - yes, you guessed it - he was an exception to the rule that good First-Class performance = good Test performance! And these exceptions don't prove a thing!

what rubbish, lets see you name those countless players that got better after 35, for ever 50 egs that you name i could name 500 egs to the contrary.

I really can't be bothered to cherry-pick, there are countless. And there aren't many who got clearly worse, because not that many have played that long. If you're so keen, name a few who got so much worse as they got older.

and doesnt that prove you wrong about players translating their performances to the intl level?if ealham was such a good domestic batsman then why was he such a pathetic intl batsman?

Two things here:
1, does this mean you have just admitted you were wrong to say he couldn't bat to save his life, which is what I set-out to show by stating that he had scored First-Class 150s?
2, if he was someone who didn't translate good county performances into good international performances in comparable circumstances, he would be an anomaly - as it is, his normal domestic batting-position is totally incomparable to his normal international one. His performances in ODIs weren't dreadful for someone of his domestic average when mostly batting in throw-wicket circumstances.

no ealham played in an era in which the average score was around 225, and going at 4.1 odd isnt really all that great especially if you never bowl in the slog overs.

And why was the average score something like 225? Yes! Because in those days there were PLENTY OF good bowlers like Ealham who could stop batsmen running riot!, rather than the handful around at the moment. 4.1-an-over is excellent in any period of the game from 1992 onward.

 

[Richard]

Yet you keep saying good batsmen don't get out by being tied down and playing a shot in frustration.

Conttradicting yourself again then are you?

Fine, then, just to stop your attempts to manufacture contradictions I'll phrase it properly - good batsmen don't get out in First-Class-cricket very often to shots resulting from slow scoring-rates creating pressure in their minds.

 

[Richard]

If there were a way of standardising it, then it would have but seeing as it is impossible to standardise it (and also impossible to maintain for all First Class Cricket, let aloine all Cricket), then it is a pipe dream.

And for examples of theorems I refer you to One Day Economy Rates, Wickets not slowing the run rate, Good batsmen don't get out through frustration...

And these are all ridiculous theorems - because you say they are! Because they disprove stuff you want to believe is true.

 

[Richard]

A lot of players have been able to bat in domestic cricket, but not in Internationals.

Ealham is just one of them (ie not good enough for the real thing)

Go on, then, name them - if you choose to I'll simply name 9 or 10 examples to the contrary.
And as I've demonstrated, Ealham most certainly is not one of them.

 

[Richard]

However, what happened to the point about Bell feeling pressure about being put at three, batting ahead of the more experienced Vaughan?

If Bell is good enough he won't feel under any pressure batting ahead of someone he's superior in ability to, that's what I suppose my thoughts are.
IMO if Bell is good enough he's one of a small bunch and he needs to be given the best chance possible.

 

[marc71178]

And these are all ridiculous theorems - because you say they are! Because they disprove stuff you want to believe is true.

Because the whole forum except you clearly agree on something, so either we're all wrong (and thus the rest of the cricketing world are) or you are...

 

[marc71178]

If Bell is good enough he won't feel under any pressure batting ahead of someone he's superior in ability to

Bell's superior to Vaughan?

OK....