England 30 man squad for icc championships

[marc71178]

And as I've demonstrated, Ealham most certainly is not one of them.

How does a Test Average of 21 and an ODI average of 17.46 (compared with 32.99 in non-Tests, and 26.48 in non-ODIs) show that he isn't one of those?

 

[Craig]

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.

So that doesn't make Andy Caddick any good of a bowler because of England's policy of him bowling through his ten overs at once? Or even Shane Warne because he tends to bowl through the middle overs in his ODI career? In fact Ealham last time I checked had a better rpo then Warne? And yet Warne most certainly not a bad ODI bowler. By your logic he isn't.

So what if he never bowls at the slog overs? I would rather take a bowler with a rpo of 4.1 bowling through the middle overs and another bowler keeping it tight, then having bowlers running and going in between 5-6 an over.

 

[Swervy]

So that doesn't make Andy Caddick any good of a bowler because of England's policy of him bowling through his ten overs at once? Or even Shane Warne because he tends to bowl through the middle overs in his ODI career? In fact Ealham last time I checked had a better rpo then Warne? And yet Warne most certainly not a bad ODI bowler. By your logic he isn't.

So what if he never bowls at the slog overs? I would rather take a bowler with a rpo of 4.1 bowling through the middle overs and another bowler keeping it tight, then having bowlers running and going in between 5-6 an over.

the big difference between Warne and ealham is that warne is used as a wicket taking weapon...leggies will always tend to be that bit more expensive, because that is the nature of that skill....so you need to look beyond the RPO figure for Warne, for him his wicket taking ability is the key in ODI.

Ealham could never be used as a wicket taker, because he didnt have those kind of skills. A medium pace trundler will more often than not be used to make it tricky for the batsman to score big runs quickly, in that accuracy should limit the scoring to mainly singles (and builing up the pressure at the other end, for maybe the more penetrative bowlers to expoit and take the wickets). An Ealham type bowler will tend to be used in the middle overs, because lets face it,if the score was 200-3 after 40 and you as a batsman saw Ealham being brought on, a score of over 300 would be on the cards.

this is why looking at stats is a bit misleading...each bowler has a different role to play within each team, in that they are used in different situations etc....

 

[tooextracool]

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).

yes because blocking is so important in an ODI!of course when chopra blunts out the new ball doing the same it doesnt count at all does it?

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.

no he couldnt, ealham was an ordinary fielder and a very poor batsman....in fact he never scored a 50 in his entire career.
and of course he was far superior bowler to the rest of the englishmen who played in that time, otherwise he wouldnt have been in the side! and most of those bowlers who played during his time were so pathetic that they really didnt deserve to play county cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

So that doesn't make Andy Caddick any good of a bowler because of England's policy of him bowling through his ten overs at once? Or even Shane Warne because he tends to bowl through the middle overs in his ODI career? In fact Ealham last time I checked had a better rpo then Warne? And yet Warne most certainly not a bad ODI bowler. By your logic he isn't. .

no, ealham was one dimensional, in that he could only be used in between overs 20-40 and only to bowl 10 overs for 40 odd with barely any wickets. warne and caddick could both take wickets,the latter could also bowl in the first 15 overs.and mind you caddick had an ER of 4.01, which is better than ealhams,yet would you consider him to be one of the best ODI bowlers around?

So what if he never bowls at the slog overs? I would rather take a bowler with a rpo of 4.1 bowling through the middle overs and another bowler keeping it tight, then having bowlers running and going in between 5-6 an over.

oh what insight!
if ealham bowled in the slog overs he would probably have had an ER of around 4.7 odd, and thats definetly not good enough if all you could do at the intl level was bowl!

 

[tooextracool]

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!

as was mark ramprakash, ed smith,phil defreitas,chris lewis,matthew maynard,marcus trescothick,michael vaughan,richard dawson,devon malcolm,darren maddy, ronnie irani,ian austin,add hick and ealham too......i could name another 100.

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.

obviously you couldnt because there are very few if any at all who did get better after 35.....

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?

no it doesnt because quite frankly i dont watch domestic cricket and its pretty clear that i meant that he couldnt bat to save his life at the international level

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.?

and asi have shown earlier he is one amongst several players that failed at the intl level despite decent domestic performances.

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.

total tripe, the wickets have got flatter, and no 4.1 is pathetic for someone who bowled solely in the middle overs. there have been plenty of bowlers...oram for one who have been unfortunate enough to bowl in the death and still come out with an ER of 4.4 and yet you call them useless bowlers. if ealham had bowled in the death he would have had an ER of around 4.7+ and in the era in which he played in that was pathetic. for his performances to have been rated as 'good' he should have had an ER of under 4

 

[marc71178]

An Ealham type bowler will tend to be used in the middle overs, because lets face it,if the score was 200-3 after 40 and you as a batsman saw Ealham being brought on, a score of over 300 would be on the cards.

With any bowlers, a score of 200-3 after 40 tends to lead to a big score.

And with unpenetrative bowlers in the middle overs, the score of 200-3 is very likely.

 

[Richard]

Bell's superior to Vaughan?

OK....

Yes, all evidence points to that being the case in the one-day game.

 

[Richard]

With any bowlers, a score of 200-3 after 40 tends to lead to a big score.

And with unpenetrative bowlers in the middle overs, the score of 200-3 is very likely.

With unpenetrative, wayward bowlers on it's very likely.
With unpenetrative, accurate bowlers on it's almost out of the question.

 

[Richard]

How does a Test Average of 21 and an ODI average of 17.46 (compared with 32.99 in non-Tests, and 26.48 in non-ODIs) show that he isn't one of those?

Because largely the situations he's found himself in in ODIs have largely differed from those he's found himself in in domestic one-day games.
And because a sum total of 10 Test dismissals doesn't really say that much about the ability of a lower-order batsman the way it would start to with a top-order player.

 

[Richard]

yes because blocking is so important in an ODI!of course when chopra blunts out the new ball doing the same it doesnt count at all does it?

Being able to block is better than not being able to and there are plenty, hence, who are worse than Mullally.
And of course it's not the same when Chopra blunts out the new-ball doing the same, because blunting the new-ball wasn't particularly important in Chopra's career thus far, and because Mullally has never been asked to block-out the new-ball, just to hang-on while someone else tries to score a few.

no he couldnt, ealham was an ordinary fielder and a very poor batsman....in fact he never scored a 50 in his entire career.
and of course he was far superior bowler to the rest of the englishmen who played in that time, otherwise he wouldnt have been in the side! and most of those bowlers who played during his time were so pathetic that they really didnt deserve to play county cricket.

Keep saying it: "Ealham was an ordinary fielder and a very poor batsman" - you might actually have some effect on it one day!
Fraser, Caddick, Gough, Mullally and Ealham are far better than any bowler who has played for England in ODIs since. One or two of the bowlers who've been picked for Engand recently (eg Mahmood, Sidebottom) truly haven't been worthy of places in their best county XI.

 

[marc71178]

With unpenetrative, wayward bowlers on it's very likely.
With unpenetrative, accurate bowlers on it's almost out of the question.

Rubbish.

It's only 5 an over for 40 overs, and if the bowlers aren't looking like taking wickets, that is not a big ask at all, no matter how accurate the bowling is.

 

[Richard]

no, ealham was one dimensional, in that he could only be used in between overs 20-40 and only to bowl 10 overs for 40 odd with barely any wickets. warne and caddick could both take wickets,the latter could also bowl in the first 15 overs.and mind you caddick had an ER of 4.01, which is better than ealhams,yet would you consider him to be one of the best ODI bowlers around?

Ealham is more than capable of opening the bowling, and certainly he hardly ever came on after the 12th-13th over sort of time in his ODI career.
Yes, Caddick is far better than most ODI bowlers of the present time.

 

[marc71178]

Because largely the situations he's found himself in in ODIs have largely differed from those he's found himself in in domestic one-day games.
And because a sum total of 10 Test dismissals doesn't really say that much about the ability of a lower-order batsman the way it would start to with a top-order player.

Anomalies then?

In the case of One Days, why pick him if he's not suited to face that situation?

And in the case of Tests, thank God the selectors don't apply that sort of logic.

 

[Richard]

Rubbish.

It's only 5 an over for 40 overs, and if the bowlers aren't looking like taking wickets, that is not a big ask at all, no matter how accurate the bowling is.

It is, a massive ask, because as has been shown time and again, try to score off accurate 55mph-plus-bowling and you'll usually pay for it sooner rather than later.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, all evidence points to that being the case in the one-day game.

Except for the obvious of course (being the how, not how many)

Vaughan has shown the composure and mental strength to play Internationally, Bell has not been tested yet, but even as a Warwickshire fan, there's no way I'd want him coming in at 3 for England, let alone ahead of Vaughan in a middle order.

 

[Richard]

Anomalies then?

In the case of One Days, why pick him if he's not suited to face that situation?

And in the case of Tests, thank God the selectors don't apply that sort of logic.

In neither does it matter - in Tests he proved not up to standard with the ball.
In the case of ODIs, why pick him? Because he's a damn good bowler. If he doesn't score as many runs because there are more good batsmen than for his county, so be it.

 

[Richard]

Except for the obvious of course (being the how, not how many)

Vaughan has shown the composure and mental strength to play Internationally, Bell has not been tested yet, but even as a Warwickshire fan, there's no way I'd want him coming in at 3 for England, let alone ahead of Vaughan in a middle order.

Vaughan has shown the composure and mental strength to play Test-cricket - he has not shown the ability to play one-day cricket at either international or domestic level.
Bell has at least shown that ability (even if not this season) and hence I don't give a damn whether Vaughan has been a success in Test-matches or not.

 

[marc71178]

If Ealham was so good, then why discard him?

Maybe the selectors watched the game and decided that they'd rather someone who was more likely to take wickets, even if they concede a few more runs?

 

[marc71178]

Bell has at least shown that ability (even if not this season)

If he's really shown the ability, then why has he not been picked?

Especially when you consider what the selectors have shown their view on him to be in the past?