**Official** England in Namibia and Zimbabwe

[Pratters]

Oh.
What a shame England are more worried about preparing for something they could sleep for a month before and still walk through than helping the development of the game at levels below themselves.

It would help the development if 12 Namibian players get the 'experience' of playing vs England rather than 11 .

Seriously, the whole idea was to give exposure to the Namibians and match practise to the English. Both purposes are solved like this.

I hate degrading of international records due to these matches any way. They should be there but shouldnt count in the stats.

 

[marc71178]

What two games for England (in both forms) and has bowled only in one of them?

Yes, but did he impress in that one?

 

[marc71178]

And Butcher, and Hussain, and Stewart, and Thorpe, and Atherton, and Knight, and Hick (in one-dayers), and countless other successful England players.

Depends on what you call a success - none of those mentioned got top averages, yet the ones that did were Test failures...

 

[marc71178]

Yes, of course, he who can't understand the importance of bowling economically wouldn't understand that Gough actually bowled perfectly acceptibly.

When you're the strike bowler you need to take wickets.

Gough is consistently failing to do that.

Economy rate is not the be all and end all - you have to take wickets as well.

 

[Richard]

Balls. The game was all about match practice, nowt more.

Match? It wasn't a match. It was a 12-a-side game.
Maybe it resembled a match, but it wasn't one.

 

[Richard]

It would help the development if 12 Namibian players get the 'experience' of playing vs England rather than 11 .

Seriously, the whole idea was to give exposure to the Namibians and match practise to the English. Both purposes are solved like this.

I hate degrading of international records due to these matches any way. They should be there but shouldnt count in the stats.

Of course it was best that they weren't ODIs. But they should have both been List-A Limited-Overs games - the first wasn't.
It is far better that the Namibians play cricket of a standard and a status - 12-a-side games are totally meaningless because they have no status - they are not proper games of cricket.

 

[Richard]

When you're the strike bowler you need to take wickets.

Gough is consistently failing to do that.

Economy rate is not the be all and end all - you have to take wickets as well.

No, you do not - most people acknowledge that in a one-day side you need bowlers who can bowl economically. Most say as well as wicket-takers, but the fact is, if you have bowlers who can bowl economically at any time you don't need to take wickets.
Gough might have used to have been a strike-bowler but he's not one any more. Well, rather he hasn't been of late. Strike-bowlers are not the most important thing in ODIs, and certianly it is not the case that every bowler needs to take wickets.

 

[Richard]

Depends on what you call a success - none of those mentioned got top averages, yet the ones that did were Test failures...

They succeeded (averaged what almost anyone would consider pretty impressive - well, except the generalising idiots like that Scaly piscine in the "who is more mediocre..." thread) in the domestic game, and also, by-and-large, were successes in the international game.
So what if the biggest success in the domestic First-Class game (Hick) was a big failure? Nonetheless, most people who have success in the domesic game go on to have success in the international.

 

[tooextracool]

And Butcher, and Hussain, and Stewart, and Thorpe, and Atherton, and Knight, and Hick (in one-dayers), and countless other successful England players.

how many times does it have to be said? almost every player that succeeds at the international level will have succeeded in domestic cricket, its obvious to expect someone who succeeds at a higher will succeed at the lower level too. the point is that someone who succeeds at the domestic level doesnt necessarily have to succeed at the intl level and that has been proven 10000000 times.

 

[marc71178]

Of course it was best that they weren't ODIs. But they should have both been List-A Limited-Overs games - the first wasn't.
It is far better that the Namibians play cricket of a standard and a status - 12-a-side games are totally meaningless because they have no status - they are not proper games of cricket.

So it would've been better for them to have no game at all then?

That was the only reason the game took place, because the conditions were far from suitable.

 

[marc71178]

No, you do not - most people acknowledge that in a one-day side you need bowlers who can bowl economically. Most say as well as wicket-takers, but the fact is, if you have bowlers who can bowl economically at any time you don't need to take wickets.

Utter codswallop.

If you don't get wickets then the batting side will make hay.

Gough is continually not getting wickets (whilst conceding more and more runs), and I bet if it were Harmison getting those figures, you'd be demanding he's dropped.

Strike-bowlers are not the most important thing in ODIs, and certianly it is not the case that every bowler needs to take wickets.

Every bowler has to be capable of taking at least 1 wicket a match - sides do not win games without taking wickets.

A strike bowler is a key part of any side.

 

[marc71178]

They succeeded (averaged what almost anyone would consider pretty impressive - well, except the generalising idiots like that Scaly piscine in the "who is more mediocre..." thread) in the domestic game, and also, by-and-large, were successes in the international game.
So what if the biggest success in the domestic First-Class game (Hick) was a big failure? Nonetheless, most people who have success in the domesic game go on to have success in the international.

Hence the top 6 in the last Playfair I got for FC averages includes Hick, Ramprakash, Knight, Brown and 2 others who's name escape me (and I have to go to work in a minute so can't check) but were also pretty poor or non-existant at International level.

Similarly the bowlers are topped by workhorse county bowlers who've never done it in Tests and never will.

 

[tooextracool]

No, you do not - most people acknowledge that in a one-day side you need bowlers who can bowl economically. Most say as well as wicket-takers, but the fact is, if you have bowlers who can bowl economically at any time you don't need to take wickets.
Gough might have used to have been a strike-bowler but he's not one any more. Well, rather he hasn't been of late. Strike-bowlers are not the most important thing in ODIs, and certianly it is not the case that every bowler needs to take wickets.

no but if the only job they do is to be economical then it is expected of them to not be the least economical bowler(or close to it) in the side too.....going at 4 runs an over when everyone else goes at 3 and not taking any wickets is not acceptable.
im sorry but if you specialise in something, arent you supposed to be the best or somewhere near it at doing that?

 

[Pratters]

"We have sympathy with the people here but the ECB is in business ... our trade is cricket and the revenue part of our trade is international cricket."

ECB chairman David Morgan

What ********. Business has some thing called ethics. And sport isnt business. Its enjoying, whatever money is made, used for further development of the game.

David Morgan should be sacked right there for making that statement. As should the ICC chiefs who are also making sport into business. And even if it were business, you dont lse moral ground to make money.

 

[Neil Pickup]

How can you blame Morgan for being forced into this plan by the way the ICC works? If we don't tour, we're set to be fined by an obscenely huge amount. Lose this, grass roots cricket gets hit harder than one of my full tosses would be by Freddy.

It's the way it is.

 

[Pratters]

How can you blame Morgan for being forced into this plan by the way the ICC works? If we don't tour, we're set to be fined by an obscenely huge amount. Lose this, grass roots cricket gets hit harder than one of my full tosses would be by Freddy.

It's the way it is.

Yes Morgan is forced into this and I am not blamng him for this. I totally blame the ICC for it. The ECB cant take a stand alone against the ICC.

But Morgan was stupid to give statements like 'its business'. If he cant say the ECB is helpess, which he really cant, he should just shut up and not talk stupidly with the media.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I don't see what's stupid about it, it's the cold, hard, disturbing truth.

 

[Scaly piscine]

They succeeded (averaged what almost anyone would consider pretty impressive - well, except the generalising idiots like that Scaly piscine in the "who is more mediocre..." thread) in the domestic game, and also, by-and-large, were successes in the international game.
So what if the biggest success in the domestic First-Class game (Hick) was a big failure? Nonetheless, most people who have success in the domesic game go on to have success in the international.

Nice to see somebody can get away with ironic personal insults (and mentions a thread where I didn't generalise whatsoever, only vague on the definition of mediocre and said exactly who it related to). As for calling someone who has As in Physics and Further Maths and a B in Maths at A-level an idiot, I guess you must be doing some pretty clever rocket science or brain surgery then.

(btw don't bother replying you're on the ignore list, only marc quoted the above quote otherwise I'd have missed it)

Thread Content: 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.

 

[Pratters]

I don't see what's stupid about it, it's the cold, hard, disturbing truth.

Its truth that cricket is business and you forget all ethics for it?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Its truth that cricket is business and you forget all ethics for it?

It's the way the ICC are running it today.