**Official** England in The West Indies

[Richard]

If you think the scorebook average is so important, can you explain why you don't hail Michael Vaughan as a fine opening batsman, given that he has a scorebook average of almost 52 as a Test opener, with most of his runs coming against Australia, India and South Africa so that it's not as though he has bloated his average by Bangling, and go on instead about his first-chance average? It looks awfully like an instance of choosing a different statistical measure because your normally-favoured one doesn't come up with the "right" answer, but maybe I'm missing some nuance in your position.

I'd take issue with what you've said there anyway, but at a much more pedantic level. I don't think it is reasonable to use actual performance as an indication of *ability*, because I think "ability" equates to concepts like "potential" and "talent", and we're all aware of people who seem to have all the talent but don't perform, and people who seem to be totally clueless but still manage to score oodles of runs or run through batting orders like a dose of salts. If you were to say "quality" rather than "ability", I'd be much more likely to agree.

Of course, there comes a time in any cricketer's career when one requires the ability to be translated into performance, By the time a player has played 50 Tests, there ought to be little difference between perceived ability and numbers in scorebooks, but it seems bananas to me to expect a novice player to realise his complete potential from the get-go.

So I tend to be much more interested in whether a junior player is making forward progress or going backwards than exactly what the career figures say. As long as a currently-disappointing average is on a generally-improving trend, the fact that it hasn't yet reached what one might call an acceptable level doesn't bother me too much.

Sorry for this misunderstanding, I meant first-chance where I wrote scorebook. Now corrected. IMO if you can't score runs by batting well you're not in the class of the level of cricket you're at.

It's a big problem for England that the generation of bowlers which shold have grown up to replace Gough, Fraser, Caddick and Malcolm didn't, and that we now pick people like Jones, Harmison and Anderson faute de mieux.

Malcolm was nowhere near as good as Fraser, Gough and Caddick. He was IMO the type of Harmison \ Jones bowler - if anything, a bit better than they are ATM. I've yet to see Harmison bowl well, Jones ditto, Malcolm undoubtedly bowled, on occasions, very well.

But since I mentioned Harmison in the previous post, I might as well proffer my view on him. I wasn't at all enthusiastic when he was first picked, and I remained unconvinced throughout the Ashes series, despite his wickets at Sydney. As far as I could see, he sprayed it everywhere, and at his pace it was quite likely that he'd pick up wickets here and there simply on the grounds that even people throwing darts randomly while blindfolded occasionally hit a treble 20. But then I saw him bowl a whole over of good/goodish balls against Zimbabwe and thought, hmmm, maybe he's not a completely useless show-pony. And then came the match at The Oval, where before and after tea on day four, he bowled a whole *spell* of mostly good balls. "Blistering Barneses!" thought I, "perhaps the bloke could become a bowler after all." And though I entirely discount the average and so forth from his Bangles Test, I was encouraged to see that he was bowling whole spells of reliable stuff rather than snatching wickets with flukes. He spent 2003 exhibiting improvement, albeit rather less than I would have liked.

So, while remaining to be convinced about him for the medium and long term, I am more favourably disposed towards his selection than some around here. His performances in the last two Tests he played were sufficiently in advance of what went before to earn him the right to a few more chances - the crucial point being that I'm not fondly hoping that he'll repeat something which he once did ages ago, but that he will carry on from where he left off and keep getting better.

A year ago, I thought he was going to be another Alan Ward, very very fast but hopelessly uncontrolled and injured on a very regular basis. But in his last two games he opened up the possibility that he might actually be a real fast bowler, and I'm at least interested: if he does more of what he had just started to do, he'll be worth keeping. He's lucky that there's no-one else around with more obvious credentials, but he's converted me from deeply sceptical to open-minded about him.

As far as Harmison's concerned, the only solution is, yet again, to wait until the end of this series. Even then, we might have another Oval \ SCG - right at the end, "he's improving".
Sometime, we might just have to drop him in the middle of a series.

 

[tooextracool]

vaughan should bowl himself to the 2 left handers!!

 

[Richard]

how do u know that grimett and o reilly are equal in ability to murali??just because u read some fat cricket book that says bill reilly was great or just because don bradman said so??bradman also said that he batted a lot like tendulkar when there is clearly no resemblance between the 2 batting styles. im not a big murali fan but im quite sure that murali turns the ball much more than anybody to ever play cricket and i might add that playing spinners in the sub continent is different from playing them in australia and england.

I've done more than read of Bill O'Reilly - I've seen footage, extensive footage, of him bowl. And even though wickets offered help to spin far more often, he undoubtedly posed a huge threat on any wicket.
Playing spinners in the subcontinent is totally different to Australia and England nowadays, in the 1930s it was generally considerably harder than in Australia, England and anywhere than it is anywhere now, the subcontinent included.

with all the media around in those days nobody had a clue whether the lbw decisions and catches that might have hit the ground first, which the umpires gave out were right or wrong. i repeat fielding in those days were far worse from what they are now and nowadays if u saw somebody miss a diving double hand catch in the slips u would say that it was a chance missed and he doesnt deserve those runs...but in those days im sure fielders in the slips werent as athletic or agile as there are today and wouldnt have even attempted a diving catch. to put it plainly everybody has luck...if u say that a player doesnt deserve to have such a high avg then so do ALL the players in the history of the game coz they have all had chance!!

As far as I can tell, there were let-offs far less in the more reticent days than now. Everybody has had luck - in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s, and 70s and 80s too, people generally had less.
I am always, meanwhile, realistic about what I call a chance. What what was and wasn't fingertipped might change; what should have been taken and what shouldn't doesn't.

Vaughan bowls yet another no-ball! It really does beggar belief.

 

[Richard]

vaughan should bowl himself to the 2 left handers!!

Won't get anywhere if he keeps bowling no-balls. :rolleyes:
This wicket isn't turning anywhere near enough for Vaughan to offer a threat, anyway.

 

[Richard]

change of ends for Giles
47.1 Giles to Hinds, FOUR, sweeps this away

big difference wasnt it?

That particular ball was an action-replay of his 1st ball in his 1st spell.
Giles isn't going to offer a threat to competant batsmen on this wicket, mark my words.

 

[badgerhair]

You wouldn't believe how easy it is to get old reports of ancient games. Sometimes only possible to get 1 or 2, but it's amazing how many you can get. I'd say I've got more than enough. You don't need any single reference-books (eg my Dad's Wisden History Of Cricket by Vic Marks), though obviously they do have a part to play. Just try it (if you've the time), you'll be amazed how easy it is.
And I'd also say I've studied the important fact - why were there less reports of let-offs in those days? - to the neccesary extent too. I can't really name any referances for that, just my own judgement on writing styles, attempting to make use of my English A-level course.

I'm not entirely convinced by this. Not the bit about finding contemporary reports of old matches: I agree that's relatively simple if you've a mind and the energy to do it.

What I think I'd question is that reporters used the same standards for judging let-offs that we do today.

Today, we have endless slo-mo replays and Hawkeyes and stuff so it is relatively simple to say for definite that someone was let off or should not have been given out lbw. Without that technology available, it was generally accepted that the umpires were usually right, and mention was made of decisions in reports only when they were egregiously bad or close but crucial. Compared to the number of appeals and general discussions following replays we have today, disputed decisions were a rarity, really.

Fielding standards were lower, and I think there was a tendency not to categorise things as a chance unless the bloke actually dropped it rather than failed to make a fairly ordinary (by today's standards) leap to a ball a few feet away.

My basic point is that I think that spectators and commentators expected less of fielders in the old days, and were far more likely to defer to an experienced umpire's judgement calls as they had no access to technology which would allow them to challenge it.

That said, examining Bradman's figures, for instance, involves analysing a lot of matches played in the 1930s when pitches varied between shirtfronts and billiard tables and batsmen were never encouraged to take risks, so pottering along slowly and carefully to a hundred attracted very little criticism - whereas a batsman who now has the temerity to take more than a day to get a ton is accused of being desperately slow and of killing the game.

And I think that's going to be the key to understanding the variations in these stats over time: styles of play are very different now, with batsmen taking many more risks than they used to, and therefore being much more likely to offer chances. But if that's the case, then the inter-era comparison are going to be hopelessly off-beam: could a 1930s plodder deal with the way Test cricket is played today? How would a 21st century dasher cope with the sedate pace of pre-WW2 cricket?

Cheers,

Mike

 

[tooextracool]

As far as I can tell, there were let-offs far less in the more reticent days than now. Everybody has had luck - in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s, and 70s and 80s too, people generally had less.
I am always, meanwhile, realistic about what I call a chance. What what was and wasn't fingertipped might change; what should have been taken and what shouldn't doesn't.

u fail to consider my previous point....to make opinions of what happened before u were born is just ludicrous. i repeat how do u know that they had less luck?or that umpires always gave the right decision or the fact that people attempted catches that they do today.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Some comments...

Sarwan. LBWs happen though, he's still in form.

I think Jones looks to have a good action and wasn't as bad as I've heard. He seems to have some talent.

Harmison - I hate his action (not sure why) but he did bowl well.

Giles was shocking... especially for a fingerspinner.

The England over rate has been very very poor.

I warned the world about Devon Smith. Not too bad is he...

Ryan Hinds looks to have good temperament.

 

[Swervy]

You wouldn't believe how easy it is to get old reports of ancient games. Sometimes only possible to get 1 or 2, but it's amazing how many you can get. I'd say I've got more than enough. You don't need any single reference-books (eg my Dad's Wisden History Of Cricket by Vic Marks), though obviously they do have a part to play. Just try it (if you've the time), you'll be amazed how easy it is.
And I'd also say I've studied the important fact - why were there less reports of let-offs in those days? - to the neccesary extent too. I can't really name any referances for that, just my own judgement on writing styles, attempting to make use of my English A-level course.

mmmm...A-level English.......doesnt really convince me that your interpretation of these reports is that water tight to be honest.

I think we live in a time where the media is going to latch onto a players mistake a hell of a lot more than they did back then...especially as there was no slow motion replay etc back in the 30's,40's etc.

Unless you have the figures,your theory that batsman offer more chances now(which they may well do due to the more aggressive style of play these days)....or more importantly that players do not take the chances as well these days just doesnt hold that much water without leaking all over the place.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Anyone counted the number of rabbits in this game? AFAIK Best doesn't bat at all and is down at eight. Personally, I make it Harmison, Best, Collymore, Edwards, Sanford and, in all essence, Hoggard and Jones.
Maybe if I'd seen more of Sanford I'd rate him equal to Hoggard but Jones is really just a slogger, believe me.

I wouldn't call Best a rabbit. He scored 20* on debut against Australia and avges 12odd in FC cricket.

That said, he's not a number 8 by any stretch.

 

[chris.hinton]

Despite the fact Giles has been tossing it up?

yeah ok :rolleyes:

 

[Neil Pickup]

The England over rate has been very very poor.

West Indian criticises other country for poor over rate.

Now I've read everything..

 

[PY]

Jones didn't appear that bad in batting in his small amount of Tests.

 

[Swervy]

the vital wicket taken...phew for England

 

[Swervy]

Cracking figures for Giles...7 overs 1 for 46.....gotta do better

 

[Langeveldt]

Harmison - I hate his action (not sure why)

Because he has the third worst action in world cricket???

Paul Adams being number one, Tino Best number two....

Its like watching Curtley Ambrose minus the coordination....

 

[PY]

Whose day do you think this is? England for half then WI for half I guess.

Need another couple of wickets I reckon so we only have rabbits to bowl out tomorrow. 8D

 

[Swervy]

Whose day do you think this is? England for half then WI for half I guess.

Need another couple of wickets I reckon so we only have rabbits to bowl out tomorrow. 8D

289/7...i would say at the moment England have the edge

 

[PY]

Gotta luv it.

Best lamps Gile-o out of the ground and the crowd lapping it up.

 

[Langeveldt]

Gotta luv it.

Best lamps Gile-o out of the ground and the crowd lapping it up.

hehehe Tino Best