**Official** England in Namibia and Zimbabwe

[Scaly piscine]

Harmison wasn't initially crap for Durham at all, he was just erratic in terms of performances (which overall were still good). The thing with Harmison tho is that he was still bowling fast with lots of bounce and the potential there was obvious. I don't see much potential in Kabir Ali - seems fairly pedestrian, doesn't have height or particularly great control with the ball and doesn't move it all over the place both ways, so let him keep plodding away on the domestic scene until he does show something.

 

[wpdavid]

Harmison wasn't initially crap for Durham at all, he was just erratic in terms of performances (which overall were still good). The thing with Harmison tho is that he was still bowling fast with lots of bounce and the potential there was obvious. I don't see much potential in Kabir Ali - seems fairly pedestrian, doesn't have height or particularly great control with the ball and doesn't move it all over the place both ways, so let him keep plodding away on the domestic scene until he does show something.

Sorry, but Harmy's performances for Durham were poor judging by his county figures. Presumably lots of pace and oohing and ahing as the ball flew all over the place, but not nearly enough deliveries in the right place to be anything other than poor, I would imagine. He's never shown the quality at county level that, say, Anderson has shown, but he was always genuinely fast and I have no problems with that being the basis of potential. I think that pure pace is the one thing where I would take potential seriously even when there's not much end product at first.

It sounds like you've seen rather more of Kabir than I have. I can only really look at the stats, and, IIRC he has a FC bowling average of 27, which isn't bad at his age. He's 24 tomorrow, BTW. And I'm not arguing that he should be in the England squad at this point. I just wouldn't write him off. We'll probably need him against Aus, if we have our usual spate of pre-Ashes injuries.

 

[wpdavid]

I'd better offer a quick "mea culpa" before I get a serious flaming from someone. Having looked up the relevant stats, SH did actually have a couple of decent seasons when he initially appeared - it was only subsequently he became thoroughly mediocre for his county. Fair enough.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Aye, I was just pointing out that his grounds for selection of Kabir Ali was pretty weak as it was just numbers. What I saw of Kabir in that Test match filled me with absolutely no confidence whatsoever. Didn't seem to be much more than, well, bustling fast-medium with not particularly much else to commend it. Vaughany didn't like it much either, it seems, from the amount of bowling he got.

 

[indie2]

Will this be sufficient grounds for a last-minute cancellation of the tour?



Zimbabwe bans cricket journalists


The BBC and a number of national newspapers have been denied entry to Zimbabwe to cover England's forthcoming cricket tour.

.....

Brendan McClements, a spokesman for the ICC, told the BBC: "We were advised late this afternoon about the development and we are trying to get some further clarification.

"It is not immediately clear why this has happened."

Asked if the ECB would now have grounds to call off the tour, he said: "That's one of the questions that the ECB are going to ask. I don't think it's appropriate to speculate on that at this stage.

"In some ways it depends on the bilateral agreement between Zimbabwe Cricket and the ECB - which is outside the ICC."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4036335.stm

 

[Scaly piscine]

To me Kabir Ali just looked like a Kirtley but with the Asian descent, I personally think he was selected partially because of his ethnic background, just to show that those from Asian backgrounds can get selected, to encourage the younger generations and to get away from a bit of flak from the media.

As for the cricket journalist farce I highly doubt that will alter the tour in anyway, ICC only cares if there is no TV coverage.

 

[indie2]

As I understand it, England are under contract to go to Zim, and therefore have to go. But the contract would state that the matches be conducted in line with ICC standards, which include full accessiubility to the press, so effectually now England are not contracturally obligated to go. Further, the applications for visas for the journalists were made by the ECB, so again they would have grounds for pulling out.

The thing it will prove, I suppose, is how gutless both the ECB and ICC are now they have the legal as well as moral grounds to come home.

 

[superkingdave]

i dont see any reason why wharf and anderson should play ahead of jones

you dont see any reason why Anderson should play ahead of Jones? Anderson a guy who averages 24 in ODI's and 23 in List A and Jones who's bowled barely any overs in list A, taken only 4 wickets with an ER of 5.70?

I think there's plenty of reason's why Anderson should play ahead of Jones, Wharf debatable

 

[Tom Halsey]

Aye, I was just pointing out that his grounds for selection of Kabir Ali was pretty weak as it was just numbers. What I saw of Kabir in that Test match filled me with absolutely no confidence whatsoever. Didn't seem to be much more than, well, bustling fast-medium with not particularly much else to commend it. Vaughany didn't like it much either, it seems, from the amount of bowling he got.

I didn't think he was all that bad. Not brilliant, but not too bad.

 

[tooextracool]

you dont see any reason why Anderson should play ahead of Jones? Anderson a guy who averages 24 in ODI's and 23 in List A and Jones who's bowled barely any overs in list A, taken only 4 wickets with an ER of 5.70?

I think there's plenty of reason's why Anderson should play ahead of Jones, Wharf debatable

how many times must it be said? its not the average that is important its the ER. anderson has an ER of 4.79. the only time hes ever succeeded in any game was when the conditions were seamer friendly and given that doesnt happen very often in ODis id say hes a complete waste of time. hes been extremely poor in all of the last 3 series and unless we're living one year in the past we must face facts, hes not accurate enough and hes certainly not made any sort of improvement in terms of pace or accuracy over the last year.
i dont think jones or wharf are good enough for ODI cricket ATM, but id rather have someone who hasnt already failed in ODIs to be given a chance.
and please lets not even talk about what happens in english domestic cricket, we've already seen what hick and ramprakash can do at the intl level.

 

[superkingdave]

I believe there's been many an argument on this board vis a vis economy rate and the affect wickets have on the economy rate. England have bowlers in Flintoff, Giles, Gough and to an extent Harmison who can keep it tight.

IMO there is no way you can call someone with the 10th best career strike rate in ODI cricket a failure, Other teams have no problem with fielding players of similar economy rate (Younis, Lee, Klusener) and you woudn't catch many Indian fans calling Pathan a failure, though his Economy rate is worse than Anderson's.

 

[Langeveldt]

Will this be sufficient grounds for a last-minute cancellation of the tour?

Dream on... We need our blood money remember? And apartheid doesn't matter when its in reverse..

 

[Scaly piscine]

the only time hes ever succeeded in any game was when the conditions were seamer friendly

Tosh, Anderson is a (late) swing bowler. Also his fielding for a bowler is very good - especially compared to someone like Gough and if you took this into consideration it would more than make up for their differences in economy rate.

 

[steds]

i dont see any reason why wharf and anderson should play ahead of jones

maybe because Jones isn't even English. Why should he play for England?

 

[tooextracool]

Tosh, Anderson is a (late) swing bowler.

yes well figured out....you still need the conditions to help you swing it.

Also his fielding for a bowler is very good - especially compared to someone like Gough and if you took this into consideration it would more than make up for their differences in economy rate.

i dont care what his fielding is like, hes not a good enough bowler to be playing international cricket ATM. hes gotten considerably worse over the last year and has struggled even on seamer friendly conditions in the natwest series.
as far as gough is concerned i dont think he should be in the side either.

 

[indie2]

i dont see any reason why wharf and anderson should play ahead of jones

maybe because Jones isn't even English. Why should he play for England?

I don't think much of Wharf, but steds' comment points to the answer for tooextracool. In Glamorgan's oneday squad, Wharf is always preferred to Jones. So in a way, if Jones can't even get a game *in Wales* how can you justify him getting a game for *england*

That said, Jones is by far the better prospect for the longer term, and I'd much prefer to see him get his chance. But he really needs to prove he's worth it, and if he can't get a game for Glamorgan it is hard to justify selecting him for England at the moment -- at least as a oneday bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

I believe there's been many an argument on this board vis a vis economy rate and the affect wickets have on the economy rate. England have bowlers in Flintoff, Giles, Gough and to an extent Harmison who can keep it tight.

and getting 2/55 when every one else has gone for less than 4 runs an over helps how?
his average this year has been 31 with an ER of 5.48. how long should he be retained despite bowling complete tripe on any non seamer friendly wicket?

IMO there is no way you can call someone with the 10th best career strike rate in ODI cricket a failure, Other teams have no problem with fielding players of similar economy rate (Younis, Lee, Klusener) and you woudn't catch many Indian fans calling Pathan a failure, though his Economy rate is worse than Anderson's.

look at the kind of wickets pathan plays on and compare it to what anderson plays on. even in anderson's so called brilliant world cup exploits, when one analyses his figures, you'll find that he was hammered by australia and by india at over 6 runs an over with only 1 wicket in both those games, the only times he succeeded were against namibia and under the lights against pakistan. surprising?
then of course he had a good natwest series/challenge at home on once again pitches that offered something for the bowlers bar the occasional game against pakistan.
in the WI he was by far the worst bowler in the side yet again and then in the natwest series this year he was agan poor despite having the conditions to his favour.

 

[Scaly piscine]

yes well figured out....you still need the conditions to help you swing it.

Yea, so a swing bowler would rather have seamer friendly conditions not swing bowler friendly conditions?!? I guess that would mean following your 'logic' when it gets overcast in England it becomes more seamer friendly and that's why the swing bowlers get more movement...

 

[Craig]

So did Ramprakash. And Hick. And Salisbury. And Ormond.

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

 

[PAKMAN]

maybe because Jones isn't even English. Why should he play for England?

IS HE WELSH ,IF YES THEN I THINK ITS AN NEGLAND AND WALES CRICKET BOARD