**Official** England in Namibia and Zimbabwe

[Richard]

4th ODI -- it makes sense to rest Giles and Solanki, but why bring back Gough over Anderson? That's crazy, Anderson needs the practice, Gough isn't even going to SAf...

Unless they've brought him in for his final England appearence ever....

Looks to me like Gough had a rather better series than Anderson.

 

[Langeveldt]

Looks to me like Gough had a rather better series than Anderson.

Anderson has made himself look like a chav of highest proportions... Hooray for popular culture..

 

[marc71178]

You really don't understand much about the one-day game, do you?
Can you really not see that his extraordinary ability not to take wickets doesn't matter in the slightest because there aren't many better bowlers around ATM?

I know that if a side has wickets in hand then they will score big in the last few overs, a fact quite frequently being displayed by the England side in the last few months.

Utseya now has a grand total of 2 ODI wickets in 14 ODI's - so regardless of his economy he has not done a good job for the team (since as the best bowler he needs to take wickets or the side will continue to be hammered)

Today he came on and England were 5 down - yet he didn't pick up a wicket, no he was just pushed around for 3 or 4 an over as England were allowed to rebuild and then go on the offensive.

 

[marc71178]

And maybe - just maybe - it doesn't matter as long as he's still doing acceptibly.

How on earth were his efforts in the second game acceptable?

How is 7 wides in 6 overs acceptable?

It isn't anywhere near acceptable, as the rest of the side are showing the sort of figures that bowlers should be attaining, and he isn't getting them.

 

[indie2]

Looks to me like Gough had a rather better series than Anderson.

Of course, totally agreed. But that doesn't change the fact that it would make more sense to play Anderson in effectively a no-lose match hoping he'd find some form for the future, whereas frankly Gough doesn't need that.

 

[superkingdave]

It's only Zimbabwe.
He scored 120* against a certain side in a QF not so long ago I might remind you.
The former are only slightly stronger than the latter - which is saying something!

I must assume you are taking the p*ss with that comment, the latter would almost certainly destroy the former.

PS it was 116* aswell

 

[LongHopCassidy]

How is it enough?

1 viewing of a player tells us next to nothing about them.

Forgive me for being judgemental, but bowling 7 individual wides in an over (as Panyangara has done) should mean a couple more seasons in the domestic comp.

One look has told me next to plenty.

 

[Richard]

How on earth were his efforts in the second game acceptable?

How is 7 wides in 6 overs acceptable?

It isn't anywhere near acceptable, as the rest of the side are showing the sort of figures that bowlers should be attaining, and he isn't getting them.

Of course we've never seen bowlers struggle to control the new white-ball and bowl lots of wides in an opening-spell before, have we?
He got the best average of the series here (albeit a totally meaningless series) and had an ecomony-rate below 4-an-over.

 

[Richard]

I must assume you are taking the p*ss with that comment, the latter would almost certainly destroy the former.

PS it was 116* aswell

True.
But why would the latter destroy the former?
I was taking the p*ss, yes, but I genuinely believe Lancs v Zimbabwe wouldn't be that uneven a contest ATM. So scoring 116* or 90* against either isn't much of an achievement.

 

[Richard]

I know that if a side has wickets in hand then they will score big in the last few overs, a fact quite frequently being displayed by the England side in the last few months.

Utseya now has a grand total of 2 ODI wickets in 14 ODI's - so regardless of his economy he has not done a good job for the team (since as the best bowler he needs to take wickets or the side will continue to be hammered)

Today he came on and England were 5 down - yet he didn't pick up a wicket, no he was just pushed around for 3 or 4 an over as England were allowed to rebuild and then go on the offensive.

There is no such thing as "will" in cricket.
It is not, therefore, the case that a side will score lots in the last 10 overs if they've got 6 or 7 (or more) wickets in hand. They will if the bowling is poor, yes (and with Zimbabwe you can pretty safely say it will be), but if the bowling is in the right place and thoughtful, and the field-placing sensible, you can restrict a side to 6-an-over at the most.
In Zimbabwe's case, they would do better to have someone like Utseya bowling in the middle overs, conceding just 3.5-an-over or so, resulting in a total of 270 or so rather than 310ish. Given that the rest are going to get belted whenever they bowl, because they're not good enough to contain.

 

[Richard]

Well, now this series is out of the way, we can assess these sorts of comments:

I still say Zimbabwe will play Gough & Wharf without too much bother and will probably play Giles fairly well as Zim are usually not too bad against spinners.

And how rather stupid they were indeed made to look.
No, no trouble with Gough (3.91-an-over, average of 13.14) or Wharf (3.53-an-over, average of 15.14). Played Giles brilliantly (3.4-an-over, average of 18.40).
Some people really did have a slightly inflated opinion of this Zimbabwe side! They are good for nothing, including making your prejudices against fast-medium bowlers look good. Ironic, then, that the same one had so many snide comments to make about how poor the same nation were in the days when they might have been able to help him out.
Every England player to play really had to get good figures. Strauss sure can count himself unlucky! Good job for Collingwood that he already had a 80* against them, his average is still 55.86 against Bangladesh, Namibia and Zimbabwe. (Shame his average against the rest is only 27.66).

 

[The Baconator]

on the lancs v zimbabwe arguement, if its lancashire with several players on international duty, i can see richard's point but zimbabwe wouldn't have a chance with their full strengh side IMO

 

[superkingdave]

Chilton
Loye
Law
Hodge
Flintoff/Sutcliffe
Chapple
Hegg
Cork
Hogg
Anderson/Mahmood
Murali/Keedy

Think they safely take an easy win against Zimbabwe's current side. Considering only Taibu would get anywhere near the Lancashire side.

 

[Richard]

Utseya is a far better bowler than any of the Lancs (except Murali, obviously).
I'd also be pretty sure that Taibu is better than Hegg.
But I did say I was taking the p*ss when I suggested that Lancs weren't much better than Zimbabwe.

 

[superkingdave]

Utseya a better bowler than Flintoff?!?!?!?!

 

[Scaly piscine]

Utseya a better bowler than Flintoff?!?!?!?!

Hmm is the guy that reckons Harmison's 7-12 (2 edged deliveries went for 4) was bowled without a single good ball at it again?

Utseya in tests 12 overs, 0 wickets, 55 runs
Utseya in ODIs 93.5 overs, 2 wickets, 362 runs (181 average)
Utseya in First Class 446 overs, 27 wickets, 1515 runs (56.11 average)
Utseya in List A Limited Overs 201.1 overs, 12 wickets, 773 runs (64.41 average)

Just a shame those are bowling averages or he'd be a really good player...

 

[Richard]

Conveniently ignoring, of course, the most important part of ODI-bowling which is economy-rate.

 

[Richard]

Utseya a better bowler than Flintoff?!?!?!?!

Well he's certainly a better bowler than Sutcliffe - who I don't think anyone would deny is a more likely presence than Flintoff...
I was talking as if Flintoff was not in the side - and how many National League games has Flintoff played since 2001, remind me...?

 

[Richard]

Hmm is the guy that reckons Harmison's 7-12 (2 edged deliveries went for 4) was bowled without a single good ball at it again?

Hmm, how many bad balls didn't go for four, I wonder?

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, he is like Hick but with less skill..

who was capable of scoring on any wicket in both tests and ODIs. unfortuantely he didnt do that often enough in tests.