Katich call up

[Richard]

Agreed. Perhaps Bevan's finishing days are finished. He's been on a slight downward slide for a little while now.

Bevan's ODI average has dropped from 57 to 54 in the last 2 years.
A little worrying, but still not yet a major concern. A characterstic series averaging 150 should sort that out - and on past precedent, there's one around the corner.

 

[age_master]

I've seen some straw-clutchers who make big comments in hope in my time, but this a_m really takes the biscuit...
I've seen Harvey bowl more times than any Australian professional, that do you? His slower-back-handers and low Full-Tosses might cut the mustard brilliantly at domestic level but that doesn't make him international class.

he is by far good enough to play at the top level, the way you take about him you sound like you really haven't seen him much, particularly at international level, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

as his record suggests - 79 wicket @ 30 RPO 4.71, outstanding considering he is always bowling in the latter overs

 

[Mingster]

One-offs happen but Harvey being smashed all over the park is certainly not one of them.
Look at his career record. Then get rid of Bangladesh games and look at it again.

And yes I have done that.

His career record:

65m, 79w, 30.14, 4.72, BB 4-16. Very good for someone who bowls at the death.

His career record minus Bangladesh results (2 games):

63m, 74w, 31.68, 4.77. Pretty much the same.

Again I do not know what the hell you are on, so would you check your reasearch before posting things like that. :rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

I am perfectly aware he has only played 2 games against Bangladesh.
If you wish to view an average difference of over 1 and an econ. difference of 0.05 "pretty much the same" then, well, I can only say I sincerely disagree.
However, not as much as I disagree with the notion that an economy-rate of 4.77-an-over, especially combined with an average of 31.68, is good.
That is very, very poor, death-bowler or not.
A good bowler in one-day cricket simply cannot go for more than 4.5-an-over throughout a career.
Apologism for mediocrity.

 

[Richard]

he is by far good enough to play at the top level, the way you take about him you sound like you really haven't seen him much, particularly at international level, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

as his record suggests - 79 wicket @ 30 RPO 4.71, outstanding considering he is always bowling in the latter overs

As I've already said, it's not even good, let alone outstanding - it's very, very poor.
I've seen him bowl many times for Gloucs and plenty in ODIs - he's pretty good in English domestic cricket (and clearly in Australian too) but he clearly isn't good enough for the step up.

 

[PY]

an econ. difference of 0.05 "pretty much the same" then, well, I can only say I sincerely disagree.

That equates to a difference of 0.5 runs for his 10 over spell. :rolleyes:

 

[Gaijin-san]

I've seen him bowl many times for Gloucs and plenty in ODIs - he's pretty good in English domestic cricket (and clearly in Australian too) but he clearly isn't good enough for the step up.

He's Australia's Mark Ramprakash.

 

[Richard]

There are indeed interesting parallels.
Harvey's record since WC2003 is still accpetible enough to keep him in the side, but I still think the average will keep going up from now on.
Sri Lanka next.

 

[Richard]

That equates to a difference of 0.5 runs for his 10 over spell. :rolleyes:

You can't quantify it that small.
Career records and innings spells don't work to the same formula and you know it.

 

[marc71178]

Career records and innings spells don't work to the same formula and you know it.

No they don't, they are calculated by dividing runs conceded by overs bowled.

 

[marc71178]

A good bowler in one-day cricket simply cannot go for more than 4.5-an-over throughout a career.
Apologism for mediocrity.

What twaddle.

Run rates in ODI's are constantly increasing as the game is becoming more and more batsman friendly.

If I were offered a death bowler who went at 4.7 or so over his career, I'd take him for sure.

 

[PY]

You can't quantify it that small.
Career records and innings spells don't work to the same formula and you know it.

But in this case, the 'spells' you refer to, were they not just the 2 games against Bangladesh?

The fact is that games against Bangladesh equates to 3.1% of the game he has played.

So 96.9% of his games were against other teams who has got that record against. His average against those is 31.7.

I'm not arguing that those are good figures because IMO they aren't BUT you cannot (for him anyway) say that those figures are vastly affected by playing Bangladesh.

 

[Richard]

All right, all right, the career figures aren't massively affected, though I still say an increase of 1 in the average isn't to be overlooked.
The main thing his Bangladesh games have done is inflate the average from WC2003 onwards. Just take a look at that. Career-wise they just make a bad record that little bit better.

 

[Richard]

What twaddle.

Run rates in ODI's are constantly increasing as the game is becoming more and more batsman friendly.

If I were offered a death bowler who went at 4.7 or so over his career, I'd take him for sure.

Yes, and why are they increasing?
Because bowlers aren't as good ATM as they were 10 years and 3 years ago. Nothing whatsoever to do with becoming more batsmen-friendly - the last major changes were about 10 years ago. The most recent change has been to make a bad delivery a good chance of a dot-ball (the one-Bouncer-an-over thing).
If you asked Wasim whether he'd take 4.7-an-over through his career do you really think he'd do so? Because I don't. Wasim's record was outstanding throughout his career and didn't worsen as his peers retired.

 

[Richard]

No they don't, they are calculated by dividing runs conceded by overs bowled.

Yes, and a shorter period does make a difference, like it or not.
A spell of 50 off 10 overs is disappointing but not the end of The World; a career economy-rate of 5-an-over is abysmal. Yes, and that does mean Agarkar's record is abysmal.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and that does mean Agarkar's record is abysmal.

If it weren't for the fact that the game of cricket is not solely about preventing runs.

Another method of slowing run rates is by taking wickets, and with just shy of 200 of them in ODIs at an average of 27 and a half, Agarkar must be gutted at being called abysmal.

 

[SquidAU]

I think Agarkar has improved alot since India last toured here in 99/00...well, his batting in the tests improved somewhat.....but his bowling is much better!

 

[Mingster]

Richard, who do you rate as one of the best death bowlers in the current game then?

 

[Richard]

If it weren't for the fact that the game of cricket is not solely about preventing runs.

Another method of slowing run rates is by taking wickets, and with just shy of 200 of them in ODIs at an average of 27 and a half, Agarkar must be gutted at being called abysmal.

You're not going to slow the run-rate by taking wickets - you might cause lower totals (the name of the game).
There's no doubt Agarkar has kept his place for as long as he has because he's always taken just enough wickets to "compensate", in the mind of the selectors, for his extreme expensiveness.
Agarkar would doubtless be the first to admit he is disappointed in his record.

 

[Richard]

Richard, who do you rate as one of the best death bowlers in the current game then?

There aren't anywhere near as many as there used to be.
Collymore and Gayle demonstrated how not-especially-difficult it is on Sunday.
Jayasuriya is probably the best when he bowls well. Wasim was fantastic in his playing days. Gayle himself I have seen do a very good job. Kallis has been good of times, even if less so recently.
Once a delivery is pitched in the blockhole it's near enough impossible to hit to the boundary, let alone over it.