England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Richard]

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?

Maybe they did... and maybe they were mistaken, and maybe they didn't find many who fitted the bill in any case...?

 

[Richard]

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?

I don't think many who actually examined the situation would dispute he had shown the abiliy before this season.
Can't remember what his average was and can't be bothered to go and work it out, but I'd guess it was in the region of 35-6.
They'd much prefer go on his poor performances in the First-Class game, which ironically have taken an upturn just when his one-day performances have taken the downturn.

 

[Richard]

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.

And you'd probably be every bit as wrong about all of them as you are about these 11:
Mark Ramprakash from 1998 onwards was a success at international level.
Ed Smith has played a sum total of 5 Test-innings. Brilliant judgement on the fact that he's unquestionably not up to it on that.
DeFreitas and Lewis both got picked because their moderately good bowling records were inflated by the fact that they could bat a bit at county level. At international level they were bowlers and not much more and their county records showed clearly that they weren't really quite good enough.
Maynard's chances were always limited and he most certainly wasn't given the chances his talent merited, similar to his county colleague Steve James.
To call Dawson, Malcolm and Maddy county successes is ludicrous.
Irani was another who was picked without really having much of a county record. His bowling and batting averages were just about acceptible for an all-rounder at one level - with the step up, inevitably things will get harder and his Test record is just about what his county record suggests it should be.
Ian Austin was a moderate success in his ODI career and didn't play Tests. Even his few ODIs came far too late.

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

Well just to disprove the "if any at all" part: Stephen Waugh, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Alec Stewart, Graham Gooch (as emphatically as anyone). A few relatively recent examples. There are many, many more down the years.

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

Well you'd expect someone who couldn't bat to save their life to average about 5 or 6... not 17.

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

No, you're one of a number of people who have tried to show that and have failed miserably to those who actually take note of the facts.

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

So how come so few bowlers who have bowled from 1992 onwards have done so then?
If you actually looked at the facts you'd see Ealham did have to bowl at the death sometimes, and had he not had to do so his ER would almost certainly have been under 4-an-over.
4.1-an-over is not pathetic in any era post-1992, it's very good.
Oh, and even though the wickets have got flatter that's not made accurate bowling any easier to score off. That's why Ealham's figures have got better, not worse, over his career, and it's why the same is true of the like of McGrath, Pollock, Vaas and Muralitharan.

 

[Swervy]

Well just to disprove the "if any at all" part: Stephen Waugh, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Alec Stewart, Graham Gooch (as emphatically as anyone). A few relatively recent examples. There are many, many more down the years.

.

?????...only Gooch in that list

 

[Richard]

So you reckon Ambrose, Walsh, Stephen Waugh and Stewart all got worse from 35 onward.
Gooch is exceptional in that his improvement was spectacular and almost without parallell (Hobbs is the onnly one to match the late-blooming), not in that he was the only one to improve.

 

[Waughney]

Gooch is exceptional in that his improvement was spectacular and almost without parallell (Hobbs is the onnly one to match the late-blooming)

Clarrie Grimmett springs to mind

 

[Swervy]

So you reckon Ambrose, Walsh, Stephen Waugh and Stewart all got worse from 35 onward.
Gooch is exceptional in that his improvement was spectacular and almost without parallell (Hobbs is the onnly one to match the late-blooming), not in that he was the only one to improve.

i didnt say 'got worse', i would say they didnt get better...which is what this is all about isnt it..or am i missing the point.

The one I might give you is Walsh who I think got better as he got older..he was very inconsistant in his youth (anyone remember that last over vs England in WC87) and he learnt to do more with the ball as he got older.His stats reflect this...after age 35, he averaged 21.61 with the ball, took 180 wickets in 39 matches,and 9 times took 5 in an innings, once took 10 for the match.

The others though......

I dont think Ambrose did get better after the age of 35, although his figures are impressive...18 matches,68 wickets at 20.11, but only twice did he get 5 in the innings and he never got 10 for the match.Ambrose relied on accuracy later on,but the penetration had all but gone (when compared to what he was like in the later 80's and early 90's,when I would say for a time, he was the best bowler in the world)...I am sure those who saw Ambrose back then will agree with me that he wasnt quite up there later on.

Steve Waugh...certainly impressive after 35...ave 53.20...2554 in 56inning,with 10 hundreds,8 fifties...and this compares favourably to his all time figures...but then again, we didnt see the best of WAugh for about 5 years after his debut.His peak time was between about 27/28 and 35/36...a period when his test average soared. So he did well after 35...but he had peaked before then.

Stewart...well i think everyone feels that he wasnt quite the batsman later on as he was earlier....his average after 35 was a decent 37.19, but this dragged his average down from in the 40's. His ability to start was a problem...in his career of 235 innings, he made 14 ducks....11 of those were when he was over 35 years old (in his last 101 innings).He deffo got worse.

 

[tooextracool]

Being able to block is better than not being able to and there are plenty, hence, who are worse than Mullally.

no id rather have someone who was averaged 10 runs per match despite not being able to block than someone who could and only scored 5 runs aka mullally. there are ver few players ATM if any at all that average lower than 5 i can assure you.

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.

chopra was asked by the management to blunt out the new ball, which was what he did and successfully too. as far as mullally is concerned in an ODI it really doesnt matter how many ball you bat because a 0 of 1 ball is just about as useless as a 0 off 10 balls.

Keep saying it: "Ealham was an ordinary fielder and a very poor batsman" - you might actually have some effect on it one day!

ealham was an ordinary fielder at 32....one can only imagine what he'll be like at 38!

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.

lets say ealham bowled 2 overs in the death every game.....
so his first 8 overs would generally go for 32 at 4 runs an over. assuming his last 2 overs go for 16 in the death he would end up with 48 runs from his 10 overs at 4.8 and that is significantly worse than his overall career ER. gough and mulllally were definetly better than the rest because they bowled at the death and still came out with brilliant ERs. caddick and fraser were decent because they bowled in the first 15 overs too. ealham was just plain ordinary.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

yet surprisingly he rarely if ever did!

 

[tooextracool]

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.

no he was an average bowler in the middle overs and quite frankly anyone then and even now can do the same job that he did and yet bowl in the death, as well as field!

 

[tooextracool]

And you'd probably be every bit as wrong about all of them as you are about these 11:
Mark Ramprakash from 1998 onwards was a success at international level..

of course he was....
with averages of
1999 22.14
2000 13.57
2001 36.69
2002 15.40

oh wait even chopra averaged more than him!

Ed Smith has played a sum total of 5 Test-innings. Brilliant judgement on the fact that he's unquestionably not up to it on that.

why not?the fact that he only played 5 innings shows you that he was a failure....why would any selector in his right mind give a player with no potential more than 5 innings?

DeFreitas and Lewis both got picked because their moderately good bowling records were inflated by the fact that they could bat a bit at county level. At international level they were bowlers and not much more and their county records showed clearly that they weren't really quite good enough.

no the point is that they both had significantly lower batting averages and significantly higher bowling averages in intl cricket. if domestic performances are translated to the intl level then shouldnt they be just about as successful at the intl level as they were in domestic cricket?

Maynard's chances were always limited and he most certainly wasn't given the chances his talent merited, similar to his county colleague Steve James..

as i said earlier, why would any selector in their right mind continue to give useless players more chances?they were clearly not upto it at the intl level despite successful count records

To call Dawson, Malcolm and Maddy county successes is ludicrous...Irani was another who was picked without really having much of a county record. His bowling and batting averages were just about acceptible for an all-rounder at one level - with the step up, inevitably things will get harder and his Test record is just about what his county record suggests it should be.

no they werent successes but yet they averages significantly better in domestic cricket than in test cricket

Well just to disprove the "if any at all" part: Stephen Waugh, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Alec Stewart, Graham Gooch (as emphatically as anyone). A few relatively recent examples. There are many, many more down the years.

look at it in context....im talking about ODIs....you want to pick ealham in ODI dont you?
gooch
1991 30.50
1992 30.71
1993 16.88
1994 27.33
1995 1.00
career avg 37

ambrose
1997 30.79 4.03
1998 32.67 4.26
1999 34.53 3.56
career 24.13 3.48(ive left 2000 out because he didnt play enough)

walsh
1998 54.00 5.40
1999 21.72 3.06
2000 75.00 5.77
career 30.48 3.48

stewart
1999 18.25
2000 61.44(har largely to do with playing against zimbabwe and b'desh with a few not outs)
2001 18.78
2002 36.25
2003 28.70
career avg 32

Well you'd expect someone who couldn't bat to save their life to average about 5 or 6... not 17..

no id expect someone who could bat for his life to be capable enough of scoring a 50.....

So how come so few bowlers who have bowled from 1992 onwards have done so then?
If you actually looked at the facts you'd see Ealham did have to bowl at the death sometimes, and had he not had to do so his ER would almost certainly have been under 4-an-over.

rubbish he never did...except against zimbabwe and in other useless scenarios

4.1-an-over is not pathetic in any era post-1992, it's very good..

no its not good for someone as 1 dimensional as ealham....he couldnt bowl in the death,he couldnt take wickets and he couldnt field. and as i showed you earlier if he had bowled in the death that E/R would be around 4.7-4.8 which by any standard is appalling

Oh, and even though the wickets have got flatter that's not made accurate bowling any easier to score off. That's why Ealham's figures have got better, not worse, over his career, and it's why the same is true of the like of McGrath, Pollock, Vaas and Muralitharan.

some of them got better, the rest improved their stats against the minnows and on seaming tracks.

 

[V Reddy]

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.

Well the 3-4 emails i sent urging him to bat at 4 has worked

 

[V Reddy]

of course he was....
with averages of
1999 22.14
2000 13.57
2001 36.69
2002 15.40

oh wait even chopra averaged more than him!

He meant Ramprakash batting in the middle order

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Well the 3-4 emails i sent urging him to bat at 4 has worked

We were arguing about ODIs, weren't we, Reddy?

 

[tooextracool]

He meant Ramprakash batting in the middle order

he never said anything of the sort......regardless:

vs NZ in 99 he averaged 25
vs aus in 01 he averaged 39(decent but still not upto the standard at the domestic level and even then he only had one score of more than 40 in that series)
vs india in 01 he averaged 31
vs NZ in 02 he averaged 15

where is the case that someone who played as bad as this for 4 yrs should be retained in the side?

 

[Richard]

Clarrie Grimmett springs to mind

Yes, true, I forgot about him.
98 wickets after his 40th birthday.

 

[Richard]

yet surprisingly he rarely if ever did!

I have just told you when Ealham usually bowled in ODIs and what is your response:
"No, he didn't".
Sorry, but you're wrong! Ealham bowled regularly at times other than when you assumed he did.

 

[V Reddy]

We were arguing about ODIs, weren't we, Reddy?

We were on this thread but in that Q&A i meant in both forms of the game. I even said he looks dodgy against new ball which applies to both forms of the game

 

[Magrat Garlick]

New ball swings differently in ODIs than Tests, though? Certainly does stranger things, anyway...

 

[tooextracool]

I have just told you when Ealham usually bowled in ODIs and what is your response:
"No, he didn't".
Sorry, but you're wrong! Ealham bowled regularly at times other than when you assumed he did.

no he never bowled in the death and i very rarely did he bowl in the 15 overs either.