**Official** England in The West Indies

[marc71178]

Clearly loosing battle? Don't make me laugh!

Refusing to accept he's bowled well, and you cannot deny that.

One good performance doth not a great make...certainly your not the only one jumping to conclusions too early, which is, quite amusingly, exactly what he doesn't need right now.

Who has said anything about that?

Nobody has - and I have certainly not gone OTT about his future.

 

[marc71178]

Marc's saying he's proven he's world class

I'm 100 denying that - I have never said anything of the sort.

What I am saying is congratulations to the selectors for keeping the faith and being rewarded with a superb performance.

 

[marc71178]

since it involved so many poor shots you can't really tell how well he bowled.

In spite of the concensus on here being that he did in fact bowl well?

I wait with interist to see how well he bowls during this series, and I'm not about to jump on his back if he doesn't do well

Given your past form, that shocks me.

 

[badgerhair]

Gough, he wasn't one of the best in the world but he certainly wasn't middle of the road, a world class bowler who was getting better and better, unfortunately injuries took it out of him. There's a difference between best in the world, world class and average, Gough was world class.

He wasn't one of the best in the world but he was world class, eh? Please explain how someone can be world class without being one of the best in the world. Unless in your vocabulary, "world class" simply means "quite good".

I'm certainly looking forward to your description of other bowlers as world class. On a statistical comparison, Gough appears to be on a par with Daryl Tuffey. I'm sure that Kiwis everywhere will be interested in your opinion that Tuffey is world class. And of course Heath Streak, whose figures have always been better than Gough's, is even more world class. What that makes people like Pollock and McGrath, whose statistics are at least an order of magnitude better, I don't know, but "galactic class" seems appropriate.

You are the one who is going over the top here.

Gough was an automatic pick when fit, but he was not a world-class bowler on any regular basis. Some of his performances were indeed world class, but 7-12 is world class too, by any stretch of even the most impoverished imagination. And Caddick came up with a number of second innings performances which were world class in that very loose sense too, without being a "world class bowler".

But then you probably approved of Gough, and you don't approve of Harmison, and so you interpret the same evidence in different ways to suit your original premise.

Unconvincable though you are, perhaps you would inform us what might convince you that Harmison is actually worth a place in an England side.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

On reflection, I would also add McGarrell and Collins as possible contenders for the 2nd test

McGarrell doesn't do much to trouble the quality batsmen. IMO he's a more economical version of Nagamootoo. I'd much rather see an out of form Dave Mohammed in there. Another name which may come into consideration is that of Amit Jaggernauth, although I hope not - too inexperienced.

Regarding Collins I agree. He had a very good season and appears to have really worked on his game. After last year, I didn't expect him to be around even in regional cricket much more, but he did bowl very well this season. I guess if Sanford got a recall, surely it can't harm testing Collins out. I wouldn't do so at the QPO though. Barbados perhaps.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In spite of the concensus on here being that he did in fact bowl well?

Rik has not denied that Harmison bowled well, but his point is that he didn't bowl well enough to get 7/12 - very few do. I for one agree with him there. No doubt Harmison bowled well, but the fact is that he was bowling at fools.

 

[Tom Halsey]

How can you earn a gifted wicket?

Simple. You bowl in good areas, and starve the batsmen.

Then they have a go at a ball they shouldn't, there is your gifted but earnt wicket.

 

[Swervy]

Simple. You bowl in good areas, and starve the batsmen.

Then they have a go at a ball they shouldn't, there is your gifted but earnt wicket.

tis a good point

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Simple. You bowl in good areas, and starve the batsmen.

Then they have a go at a ball they shouldn't, there is your gifted but earnt wicket.

You can't earn a gifted wicket. You may deserve a wicket and then have one gifted, but you didn't actually earn it.

 

[Swervy]

You can't earn a gifted wicket. You may deserve a wicket and then have one gifted, but you didn't actually earn it.

but is the point not that all the earning has been done with the previous bowling.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

but is the point not that all the earning has been done with the previous bowling.

But Harmison didn't bowl very many balls that deserved wickets per se. He bowled well, yes, but not well enough to say that he earned 7 wickets for 12 runs. In fact he didn't earn 7 wickets at all. However, he would have counted himself unfortunate not have gotten a few wickets at the end of the innings because he did bowl well enough that he would get a couple of wickets, but the balls that he got to wickets with weren't balls that he earned the wickets with.

 

[badgerhair]

but is the point not that all the earning has been done with the previous bowling.

I can see that you are missing the point entirely here.

When a non-English bowler bowls well at English batsmen, the English batsmen are pressurised into making stupid shots and getting out because the bowling is good.

When an English bowler bowls well at non-English batsmen, absolutely nothing will come of it unless the non-English batsmen gift their wickets by playing stupid shots, because the bowling is by definition not good enough to trouble decent batsmen.

Rik and Richard will be delighted to explain the finer points of the argument, but that's the basic gist.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Swervy]

I can see that you are missing the point entirely here.

When a non-English bowler bowls well at English batsmen, the English batsmen are pressurised into making stupid shots and getting out because the bowling is good.

When an English bowler bowls well at non-English batsmen, absolutely nothing will come of it unless the non-English batsmen gift their wickets by playing stupid shots, because the bowling is by definition not good enough to trouble decent batsmen.

Rik and Richard will be delighted to explain the finer points of the argument, but that's the basic gist.

Cheers,

Mike

yes..well..hehehehe..i miss many of the points posted by some people on this forum...I just dont know why there is a certain section of the English cricket following (as opposed to English cricket followers,if you see what I mean ) just completely write off England efforts as a cricket team.This team have done so well when you consider how bad things have been for the period of say 1984 to 1999...and quite rightly not that long ago were considered the third best team in the world.

Along comes Harmison,someone who is easy to write off (people on here have intimated that the selectors dont know what they are doing selecting him etc, because his first class record isnt red hot)...and yeah he has struggled a bit, but he has come on so much since the Ashes tour..and now he gets some success its because the teams he has played against are no good....well, I just dont understand the mentality...so many English people are just looking for the failure, because it gives them more joy than success...its a good job England didnt win the ashes or the World Cup, coz what would people have to moan about then.

Enjoy the moment people, yesterday you saw a little bit of cricketing history.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Don't be ridiculous.

There is merit to building up pressure and taking wickets as such, but you haven't earned the wicket per se. You may deserve one for your efforts, but you haven't technically earnt a wicket with a short ball outside offstump dragged into middle stump.

 

[Swervy]

Don't be ridiculous.

There is merit to building up pressure and taking wickets as such, but you haven't earned the wicket per se. You may deserve one for your efforts, but you haven't technically earnt a wicket with a short ball outside offstump dragged into middle stump.

well obviously it depends but i would say if you for example bowl 10 balls in a place where the batsman has stuggled to do anything, in that it may have cramped him up or whatever...then you bowl a 'loose' one wide of the off stump and the batsman slashes at it and is caught in the slips...that bowler has earned the wicket with those previous ten balls...the pressure built up on the batsman then when he sees the safety valve, he goes for it too hard..bang he is out...the wicket taking ball didnt do the hard work...the others ones did.

 

[Langeveldt]

Enjoy the moment people, yesterday you saw a little bit of cricketing history.

And yet absolutely nobody here is talking about it... And those that are are arguing about Harmison....

It just gets curioser and curioser... What if England win 4-0? Calling for Trescothicks head on a platter?

 

[marc71178]

Rik has not denied that Harmison bowled well

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Certainly as it happened he never once did.

 

[marc71178]

What if England win 4-0? Calling for Trescothicks head on a platter?

Nah, but I'd sack Vaughan and replace him with Kadeer Ali, and give Rikki Clarke the new ball

 

[badgerhair]

And yet absolutely nobody here is talking about it... And those that are are arguing about Harmison....

It just gets curioser and curioser... What if England win 4-0? Calling for Trescothicks head on a platter?

If he continues to stand at the crease and never moves his feet, and gets himself out slashing to third slip innings after innings, then I shall probably suggest that it's about time Strauss got a go, whether or not we win 4-0. In fact, particularly if we win 4-0.

The thing is, though, that we ought only just to have got started on the dissection of this Test. It wasn't supposed to end like that, and certainly not then.

And it's hard to know what to make of it because the wrong people are in the cast. When Gough and Caddick did it in 2000, we could all rejoice because it was a couple of well-known England players finally coming good - and really sticking it to the West Indies. For those of us whose early cricket-watching lives were dominated by the sight of English batsmen processing back to the pavilion after another abject display against the WI quicks, it was something really special.

But the bloke who's done most of the damage this time is barely out of his cricketing nappies, and a lot of us thought he was a pretty ugly baby, too, and took an instant dislike to him. Even those that didn't can scarcely believe the turnround.

And West Indies still have Brian Lara. If we're going to talk about statistically freakish performances, there's a little matter of 375 to talk about (though I believe he was gifted quite a lot of the runs by lacklustre fielding and insipid bowling, so we can't regard that as any indication of anything). And when WI were bowled out for 51 by Australia five years ago, his response in the next two games was truly terrifying.

As on day three at Lord's in 2000, the English crowd is waiting with bated breath for the next act in the play. In this particular one, we've won Act I, and could reach the interval in a position of complete safety, some people are beginning to cross their fingers and hope that a 36-year drought is going to break, and some are even hugging themselves because they're sure it is.

But there is still far too much cricket left in the series to jump for joy over winning the first skirmish.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Rik]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Certainly as it happened he never once did.

He didn't bowl badly. Enough for you or are you going to claim I didn't say this either?