*Official* England in Sri Lanka

[Magrat Garlick]

Salisbury was a fantastic bowler who was never given the extended run he deserved for the national side. And like Ramprakash he seems to attract the jealous snipers. Their impressive international record speaks for itself. :frog:

I guess facts are futile.

Just to refresh your memory, Ramprakash had a batting average of 27 at both Test and ODI level.

Salisbury did have a bowling average of 35 in ODIs, but 5 wickets in 4 games is hardly anything to judge anybody on. In his 15 tests, his average was at a modest 77 at a strike rate of 125.

If that's impressive, Nathan Bracken is a better bowler than Muttiah Muralitharan.

I don't count the county records because a) county cricket is meaningless and b) you said international.

Ian David Kenneth Salisbury

Mark Ravin Ramprakash

What's been the trouble with England, IMO, is that many English supporters believes them to be near the top of the world but they aren't - rather like their football team. Thus, when their players do not perform, the fans jump to the conclusion that there must be somebody better out there, because England must have players that can be world-beaters somewhere. But they don't. England have to pick 11 players, even if this means that they have to pick players like Giles and Harmison who are among the best 11 in England but sadly not anywhere near top of the world. They can't just drop Giles and pick somebody else - cos they don't have other spinners who can perform (and whoever says Gareth Batty or Robert Croft will suffer the ignore cannon). And they need a spinner because an all-seam attack is pointless, as can be shown by the series in Sri Lanka. Although, of course, this is different on non-spinning pitches (Headingley), the effect of batsmen having to adjust to different kinds of bowling can't be underestimated. They can't drop Harmison and pick somebody else - cos there, in the selectors' mind, doesn't seem to be anyone who has the talent to do better.

 

[marc71178]

When he was fit he was picked.

Anderson happens to be seriously less experianced so a comparison is out of the question here.

Keep going Rik, one day you'll be right in this aspect.

What has experience got to do with who is being called for selection?

Experienced or not, and I don't think you can call Harmison experienced by a long chalk.

No matter which way people look at it, Harmison has had a very good year, and if he can sort his head out, could lead the attack for a long time.

 

[Rik]

Keep going Rik, one day you'll be right in this aspect.

What has experience got to do with who is being called for selection?

Experienced or not, and I don't think you can call Harmison experienced by a long chalk.

No matter which way people look at it, Harmison has had a very good year, and if he can sort his head out, could lead the attack for a long time.

And keep peddling the "Harmison is a good bowler" bit Marc and maybe the stats might actually prove you right instead of showing him as a weak teams bully who can't crack it against decent teams.

Now back on topic with the Experiance Arguement:

Steve Harmison: 12 Tests, 75 FC Matches excluding Tests.

James Anderson: 8 Tests, 17 FC Matches excluding Tests.

Somehow I think I had a point :rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

And keep peddling the "Harmison is a good bowler" bit Marc and maybe the stats might actually prove you right instead of showing him as a weak teams bully who can't crack it against decent teams.

Funny that - of his Tests so far, he's had 1 vs India, 3 vs Australia, 2 vs Zimbabwe, 5 vs SA and 1 vs Bangladesh.

So, considering only 3 of his games have been against weak teams, he must have bowled very well in those 3 to have an average under 30 with 9 games against strong teams who will clearly smack him around.

That also doesn't answer how he has got figures that are a lot better than his fellow bowlers over the career - whichever way you look at that, it shows him to be the last in line for the drop.

Now back on topic with the Experiance Arguement:

Steve Harmison: 12 Tests, 75 FC Matches excluding Tests.

James Anderson: 8 Tests, 17 FC Matches excluding Tests.

Somehow I think I had a point :rolleyes:

Yes, he's played a lot of CC, but CC means nothing (experience in CC hasn't made anyone else who's played recently a better bowler for England.

At the end of the day, Anderson is performing considerably worse than Harmison, and experience or not, how it be justified that people want to pick someone who takes fewer wickets at a much greater cost?

 

[Rik]

Funny that - of his Tests so far, he's had 1 vs India, 3 vs Australia, 2 vs Zimbabwe, 5 vs SA and 1 vs Bangladesh.

So, considering only 3 of his games have been against weak teams, he must have bowled very well in those 3 to have an average under 30 with 9 games against strong teams who will clearly smack him around.

That also doesn't answer how he has got figures that are a lot better than his fellow bowlers over the career - whichever way you look at that, it shows him to be the last in line for the drop.

Same usual answer and as usual, explains my point exactly. Marc I've answered this so many times and so many times you've ignored it. Now, maybe just for Christmas, please stop with the automated answer and think up a new one? Nothing personal, just I think either you could not reply if you know it's going to be the typical boring arguement where you ignore all evidence, or at least make it entertaining...

Yes, he's played a lot of CC, but CC means nothing (experience in CC hasn't made anyone else who's played recently a better bowler for England.

At the end of the day, Anderson is performing considerably worse than Harmison, and experience or not, how it be justified that people want to pick someone who takes fewer wickets at a much greater cost?

Yes Marc experiance makes a bowler better in certain situations. Not even you can argue that Anderson's innexperiance counts for nothing when his record is taken into account. When you look at his poor performances they are blatently obvious. He has not performed in alien conditions, and in conditions when the ball has not been swinging. This is due to him only playing 17 FC matches. A more experianced bowler would use his experiance, but since Anderson doesn't have it, he can't use it can he? :rolleyes:

 

[Rik]

I don't count the county records because a) county cricket is meaningless

By that recconing, every domestic competition is meaningless so why don't we just get rid of them all?

I'm sick and tired of people slagging off the CC, if it's so crap then why does anyone bother with it? I know the reason and it's a variation on the phrase "it's crap"

 

[Craig]

Craig's Stat Fact: Sri Lanka v England at Colombo (SSC)

Any thing I missed or any errors or any feedback with it please let me know. Anything wrong will be amended.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Another record for Jayawardene is that he became the highest overall run scorer in all Tests with 877 runs at 58.46. Marcus Trescothick is second with 769 runs at 48.06.

You should change that to... "in all Tests between England and Sri Lanka" or "between the two teams".

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sri Lanka's one nil victory is Sri Lanka's first series win against England, not counting 1 Test series between the two nations.

Explain.

Sri Lanka's win equalled the overall individual Test wins in Sri Lanka between the two countries.

Explain.

 

[Craig]

Explain.

Explain.

1, I dont need to. IMO its pretty much explains it self. But I will do it. I dont count one match series as proper Test series (Like in the ICC rankings) as it is the first time Sri Lanka have a 3 Test series in Sri Lanka.

2, Perhaps that wasnt clear. I was basically saying that Sri Lanka's win gave them 3 wins apiece in Sri Lanka.

And you dont have to give me any corrections as I know.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And you dont have to give me any corrections as I know.

Never intended to. Was just pointing out some things which may be a bit ambiguous in the mind of the reader.

 

[marc71178]

Same usual answer and as usual, explains my point exactly.

What point - he is clearly getting wickets cheaper than the other bowlers when he plays (and yo cannot judge him in games when he doesn't play)

And how do you explain his "weak team bully" when he's played 3 out of 12 against weak teams, and the other 9 against probably the best 3 batting line ups in World Cricket, yet his average is under 30.

Now unless your point is that he isn't as bad as you and others have been claiming, I don't see what those figures prove?

 

[Rik]

What point - he is clearly getting wickets cheaper than the other bowlers when he plays (and yo cannot judge him in games when he doesn't play)

And how do you explain his "weak team bully" when he's played 3 out of 12 against weak teams, and the other 9 against probably the best 3 batting line ups in World Cricket, yet his average is under 30.

Now unless your point is that he isn't as bad as you and others have been claiming, I don't see what those figures prove?

To point it out again, I view Harmison as a weak-team bully since he averages 11 against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who have hopeless batting lineups, and 43 against India, Australia, South Africa...

 

[luckyeddie]

To point it out again, I view Harmison as a weak-team bully since he averages 11 against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who have hopeless batting lineups, and 43 against India, Australia, South Africa...

Is there any English bowler you DO rate? Personally, I don't - but I don't think that Harmison is much worse than anyone else but better than most.

Come on - give us something positive to go on rather than mind-numbing negativity - something constructive at least.

The euphoria which greeted the arrival of the likes of Anderson onto the scene struck me as if it were akin to a drowning man clutching at straws. I can remember the same with Hoggard, Cork, Caddick - IMO, the only top(ish)-notch bowler we have produced in 10 years is Gough.

 

[Tom Halsey]

the only top(ish)-notch bowler we have produced in 10 years is Gough.

Fraser? 56 wickets in '98 at 19.8, or something

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Fraser? 56 wickets in '98 at 19.8, or something

Indeed. 177 wickets @ 27.32 with 17x5w, 2x10w. BB- 8/53, SR-61.4

Not bad.

 

[luckyeddie]

Agreed re Fraser - my mistake. Memory not what it was. Attention span even.... get off my lawn, you flaming kids.

2 consistent performers. Next best? About 10 candidates for joint third (and White isn't one of them). Probably Daffy at a push, with jug-ears, Corky and precious little else.

 

[Richard]

Please tell me you wrote that as a laugh.

No, I was deadly serious.
Read the quote from Neil.
If I had written it as a laugh, it wouldn't apply.

 

[Richard]

Salisbury is one of the worst bowlers to ever play for England, although Batty is running him close in this series.

So he took a few wickets in County Cricket - that means absolutely nothing.

You'd love to think it does, I'm sure.
Salisbury is fifty times the bowler Harmison or Giles are.

 

[Richard]

Apart from his extremely good bowling.

No, apart from the fact that his as-per-usual extremely poor bowling has, unusually, got good figures.