*Official* England in Sri Lanka

[marc71178]

Because Butcher's first-chance average in the period in question is still very impressive.

In other words it's irrelevant because it doens't suit your purpose, I get the picture.

If you take Vaughan's first-chance average when opening (and exclude excuses-for-Tests against Bangladesh) it's still, I imagine, a bit better than that in the middle-order, but nowhere near as pronounced as the scorebook difference.

There you go again, chopping out games which you don't want to be included.

He played those games, therefore they count towards his career.

If it's such an obvious switch, how come nobody else has ever suggested swapping them? Could it be because it would be one of the most stupid things they could do?

 

[Richard]

Nope - indeed if Vaughan's failures continue for much longer I suspect we will find those with influence suggesting it.
What is it about using generalisations to your advantage, eh? Test-matches against Bangladesh are not equal to Test-matches against anyone else, no-one will say otherwise. Just because they come under the name "Test-match" does not mean they have to be included in discussions relating to proper Test-matches.
Sometimes realism and pragmatism is beyond us all, evidently

 

[marc71178]

Nope - indeed if Vaughan's failures continue for much longer I suspect we will find those with influence suggesting it.

What failures are these that you talk of?

Since he came back from Australia, he is still averaging 36.90.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And also recorded the best innings by an Englishman of the whole winter.

 

[Tom Halsey]

For the whole of 2003, he averages over 40.

 

[Rik]

Why?

Jones is not good enough to make the team as a specialist batsman!

As my "hey I'm back" post, I'll ask you why you think that and where's your proof? The guy averages more than any of the England top 6 in FC cricket taking career averages into account...without an oppertunity to show weather he can re-create this form in Test Cricket, how can you claim he's not good enough?

 

[Rik]

I was reading this book I was given for Christmas, the Gordon's Gin Wicketkeepers of the World by Godfrey Evans who, may I add, has the worst haircut/beard I have ever seen. In the section devoted to bowlers he had kept to, he noted that a leggie called took Doug Wright 108 wickets at 39.11, the highest average of any bowler with 100 wickets in the world at that time (Post WW2). Carl Hooper took the record a year or 2 ago when he reached 100 wickets after his return to International Cricket, 114 at 49.42 his final tally. I'm pretty sure Ashley Giles is set to break Wright's record, which I think still stands if you count English spinners, as he currently has 83 at 40.02

Sad isn't it

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, I used to be one of Giles's harshest critics, but his new action appears to be working. Of course I could be proved completely wrong, and it's just that he's in Sri Lanka.

 

[Rik]

No, I used to be one of Giles's harshest critics, but his new action appears to be working. Of course I could be proved completely wrong, and it's just that he's in Sri Lanka.

Well unless something amazing happens I doubt he will get that average below 40, let alone reach 100 Test Wickets in the summer. Typically dead pitches and English Conditions will put paid to that. Despite being a rock for the 1st and 2nd Tests in Sri Lanka, that display in the 3rd Test showed exactly what happens when players used to playing spin go after you, and Giles just doesn't have the variation to survive. I think his success was mainly due to the conditions, and when the Sri Lankan batsmen had a good idea what he would do, they took him apart. Thanks to 1-159, 17 wickets at around 20 in 2 Tests went up to 18 at 29.94 in 3...

Giles' winter has gleened him 19 wickets in 5 Tests at 34.26, in spinning conditions, with 2 Tests against Bangladesh who he managed to take 1 wicket against in those 2 Tests for 112 runs.

As I said, very sad

 

[marc71178]

The guy averages more than any of the England top 6 in FC cricket taking career averages into account

Based on the fact he's only played one whole season...

Also he batted at 7 for his county, which doesn't suggest specialist bat in Tests to me...

 

[marc71178]

Godfrey Evans who, may I add, has the worst haircut/beard I have ever seen.

Leave Godder's facial hair alone!!!

 

[Rik]

Based on the fact he's only played one whole season...

Also he batted at 7 for his county, which doesn't suggest specialist bat in Tests to me...

Averaged 44, there goes your arguement...

He's an unknown quantity, which means you can't say he's not good enough or not.

 

[Rik]

Leave Godder's facial hair alone!!!

It's 'orrible!

 

[Craig]

You use the agruement Marc about Gerient Jones, so does that mean Rikki Clarke shouldnt be in the England team as a batsman as he hasnt even had one full proper season?

In that I mean he has played quite abit of second XI cricket. Correct me if need be.

 

[marc71178]

You use the agruement Marc about Gerient Jones, so does that mean Rikki Clarke shouldnt be in the England team as a batsman as he hasnt even had one full proper season?

He's actually had a couple of years first team experience, but it's a bit of an unfair question since I've never ever wanted him anywhere near an England team!

 

[Craig]

Well he has played his fair share of second team cricket in the last two years. He hasnt played a full season in the first team AFAIK.

In that I mean to play 85-100% of all games.

 

[marc71178]

Full season or not, he's still played a big part in 2 seasons now though, and is certainly more experienced at FC level than Jones.

 

[Richard]

What failures are these that you talk of?

Since he came back from Australia, he is still averaging 36.90.

Yes, that's still perfectly acceptible.
It contains just 2 centuries and one half, that is the point.
Anyway, even if he hasn't failed as bad as everyone seems to think, he's not quoting that average and even if he did no-one would take any notice. Believe me, the impression is that Vaughan has failed badly recently, though most take the mislead view that it's since the captaincy, not since the end of The Ashes.

 

[marc71178]

Believe me, the impression is that Vaughan has failed badly recently

Not amongst those that matter it isn't.

No matter what the scores he's got, he's still looked to be in good touch.

 

[Richard]

Yes, he will always look in good touch. When have you ever seen him look out of nick since the New Zealand Tests?
Perhaps he feels too good for his own good. Perhaps that's why he seems to think he can play strokes he can't and get away with them? And perhaps all the let-offs in 2002 lulled him into a false sense of security?