**Official** England in Namibia and Zimbabwe

[Richard]

How'd'you know? Did you watch it?

 

[tooextracool]

I'm very confident Vaughan would have emerged eventually.
And we all know what I think WR the Harmison situation, and it's best we don't go into it again.

which is all simply an assumption, whatever you want to call it, the fact is the 'hunches' actually worked on this occasion and im sure if they worked on several other occasions you would have said the same.

No, it doesn't, but I repeat: seeing-off Bracken, Williams, Lee and the like isn't especially difficult.
Anyhow, even if the plan works for the team, it's almost impossible to justify keeping a batsman with an average of 28 (as he had at the time) in the side.
Eventually, a batsman has to make runs in his own right.

lets got off the chopra thing now shall we? we've been here and then ive talked about seeing off the dillon's and the cuffy's and how easy that turned out to be.
an average of 28 might not have been particularly brilliant, but considering that he did the job that he was supposed to do, its not that bad either. of course since then hes really struggled with the bat for whatever reasons.

 

[tooextracool]

It can't - but the stats that supposedly relate accuracy (economy-rate) can, like any stat, be misleading.

which is why you need to actually watch him bowl rather than the fallacy of relying on ER.

 

[James90]

Not as good as Matthew Elliott's single in the Top End Tour. Sensational!
Has anyone seen Anderson and Jones yet? What were they thinking!!!

 

[marc71178]

Not as good as Matthew Elliott's single in the Top End Tour. Sensational!

Good point, I'd forgotten about that one!

 

[Richard]

which is all simply an assumption, whatever you want to call it, the fact is the 'hunches' actually worked on this occasion and im sure if they worked on several other occasions you would have said the same.

Yes, they did - so did using domestic records in the cases of Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe. OK? Compromised on that?

lets got off the chopra thing now shall we? we've been here and then ive talked about seeing off the dillon's and the cuffy's and how easy that turned out to be.

Shiv Sundar Das certainly hasn't been mentioned here.

an average of 28 might not have been particularly brilliant, but considering that he did the job that he was supposed to do, its not that bad either. of course since then hes really struggled with the bat for whatever reasons.

And has been dropped justifiably in your view?

 

[Richard]

which is why you need to actually watch him bowl rather than the fallacy of relying on ER.

Uh-huh.
I've never actually said that ER is an invariable guide to economy, but I have stated examples when I think it was.

 

[tooextracool]

Uh-huh.
I've never actually said that ER is an invariable guide to economy, but I have stated examples when I think it was.

so why not use watching anderson in domestic cricket as a guide to whether he is ready to play intl cricket or not?

 

[Richard]

I would - if I could watch him.
Hopefully the selectors are.
If they like what they see, I'm rather worried!
Because it means one of two things: they like mediocrity, or Anderson is bowling a hell of a lot better for Lancs than he has mostly for England.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, they did - so did using domestic records in the cases of Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe. OK? Compromised on that??

yes i know because as i've said, far far more often a player who succeeds at the intl level invariably succeeds at the domestic level(remember its not the other way around). but that doesnt mean there shouldnt be any attempts made to try and push certain 'hunches' occasionally, because as we've seen it does work, even if it is only rarely.

Shiv Sundar Das certainly hasn't been mentioned here.

im not talking about das, im talking about how the same middle order failed when they were confronted by the deadly trio of cuffy, dillon and sanford.

And has been dropped justifiably in your view?

now yes, but the fact is that he shouldnt have been dropped in the first place. things like these are what can ruin the confidence of young players. regardless if he continues to perform consistently at the domestic level, i would keep the door open for him.

 

[Richard]

yes i know because as i've said, far far more often a player who succeeds at the intl level invariably succeeds at the domestic level(remember its not the other way around). but that doesnt mean there shouldnt be any attempts made to try and push certain 'hunches' occasionally, because as we've seen it does work, even if it is only rarely.

No, there shouldn't - but the most common technique used should be the one that has proven to be the most reliable.

im not talking about das, im talking about how the same middle order failed when they were confronted by the deadly trio of cuffy, dillon and sanford.

Hmm, OK.
Coincidence as far as I'm concerned - Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman were certainly all more accomplished players by the Australia series, and also simply played better there than they did in West Indies.

now yes, but the fact is that he shouldnt have been dropped in the first place. things like these are what can ruin the confidence of young players. regardless if he continues to perform consistently at the domestic level, i would keep the door open for him.

So would I. Performing at the domestic level should always be the first consideration. Nonetheless, Gambhir has earned his chance. The acid test, of course, will come in India's next proper away series, whenever that actually is.

 

[tooextracool]

No, there shouldn't - but the most common technique used should be the one that has proven to be the most reliable.

yes i know, thats precisely what i said.

Hmm, OK.
Coincidence as far as I'm concerned - Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman were certainly all more accomplished players by the Australia series, and also simply played better there than they did in West Indies..

doubt it, it had more to do with the fact that they came in when the score was 100/2 instead of 10/2

 

[Richard]

yes i know, thats precisely what i said.

Excellent - glad we're finally agreed on that one.

doubt it, it had more to do with the fact that they came in when the score was 100/2 instead of 10/2

Let's leave that one at that then - then everyone is happy that we've managed to play-out our discussion and leave the thread primed for the start of the match tomorrow.

 

[Prince EWS]

England team:
VS Solanki, IR Bell, *MP Vaughan, AJ Strauss, KP Pietersen,
PD Collingwood, +GO Jones, AF Giles, AG Wharf, D Gough,
JM Anderson.

Zimbabwe team:
BRM Taylor, S Matsikenyeri, H Masakadza, DD Ebrahim,
MA Vermeulen, *+T Taibu, E Chigumbura, T Panyangara, P Utseya,
GM Ewing, CB Mpofu.

Very sensible Zim team. Its the one I would have picked first up.... and it actually contains 4 players classified as white... which is a shock in itself really.

*waits for pitch to be dug up*

 

[Nate]

no Hondo ? ! ?

 

[Prince EWS]

Well, he hasnt really done anything to stamp his place in the team. I think its a fair call.

 

[Pratters]

Wow Panyangara and Mfofu have bowled really well..

England 34/2 after 11.4..

 

[Prince EWS]

Richard wont be happy!
O M R W Econ
T Panyangara 6.0 1 15 2 2.50 (0nb, 0w)

 

[Magrat Garlick]

England are about to lose...unless Ashley Giles goes and takes 7-19 with Vaughan doing some bowling

 

[wpdavid]

England are about to lose...unless Ashley Giles goes and takes 7-19 with Vaughan doing some bowling

Looks like Pietersen & Jones batted well - and someone needed to. Doesn't Pietersen bowl some off-spin too?