**Official** England in The West Indies

[Rik]

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

Having watched Gough for a long time, in most countries in varying conditions I'd pretty easily say his figures don't show his worth. Certainly his intelligence and willingness to experiment in Sri Lanka in which he averaged in the low 20s in the Tests, showed his class. Just as it is stupid to ignore statistics, it's also stupid to use them to explain everything. Certainly he was a much better bowler than his average suggests and I don't think it's coincidence that Steve Waugh was going on for years about how he would love to have Gough in his side.

 

[marc71178]

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

Not praise, but I guess it's as close as we'll get (unless he does something similar in the next match, which I think highly unlikely)

 

[Rik]

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.

Liam answer this better than I could ever hope to.

But anyway, I think the keeper and the fielders deserve most of the credit for this win, they actually held on to all but one of the catches, and there were 8!

 

[Rik]

Not praise, but I guess it's as close as we'll get (unless he does something similar in the next match, which I think highly unlikely)

Where in:

"Originally posted by marc71178
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Certainly as it happened he never once did."

is praise mentioned?

 

[badgerhair]

Having watched Gough for a long time, in most countries in varying conditions I'd pretty easily say his figures don't show his worth. Certainly his intelligence and willingness to experiment in Sri Lanka in which he averaged in the low 20s in the Tests, showed his class. Just as it is stupid to ignore statistics, it's also stupid to use them to explain everything. Certainly he was a much better bowler than his average suggests and I don't think it's coincidence that Steve Waugh was going on for years about how he would love to have Gough in his side.

Oh yes. "Arguments why Gough is world class" numbers 4, 7, 12 and 14. There are about another nineteen points to make in favour of the contention that Gough was world class, as it goes. At least, I think it's nineteen - I don't think I managed to get to 25 on the many occasions on which I have advanced the case for his immediate beatification. Just get me talking about my own patented statistic, the Power Index, and how it shows why England won against South Africa in 1998 and that Gough is in the top echelon of England bowlers, if you really need an insomnia cure.

But in the end, the bloke I started raving about when I saw him get 11-fer against Somerset at Taunton in 1992 didn't quite reach outer space. He soared pretty high, and I'll certainly never forget day three (or day two, for that matter) of SCG 1995 or day two of Lord's 2000, but his contemporaries were Walsh and Ambrose, Donald and Pollock, Wasim and Waqar, McDermott and then McGrath, and of those he only really approached the standard of McDermott. (I didn't mention Gillespie, but I have a big downer on him anyway, so it's not fair.)

Sure, most teams would have like to have him, but most would have had him playing the sort of part where he could only get nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role rather than Best Actor. That's not world class - that's very good Test player class. (You may begin to get the hint that I am pretty grudging about world class and all-time great accolades, while being rather more forgiving about what constitutes "Test class" than some people I might be arguing with.)


A year ago, I'd have bet heavily against Harmison's having the mental wherewithal to deal with the aftermath of a freak bowling performance. Now I'm not so sure. The buzz of rumour filtering back from the Caribbean has been full of how everyone has noticed a big change in Harmison after his weeks of training with Newcastle Utd and how he's realised how much hard work there is in being a professional sportsman. There's obviously a danger that he will either think he's King of the World and become silly or collapse under the weight of expectation. He might go on and become the next Curtly Ambrose, and I don't suppose there'd be too many who'd be unhappy if he did - at least in England. But surely the possibility is open that he will go on to become a good Test player who can't carry the entire attack on his own but plays a vital part in it. In his last five innings, he has been the pick of England's bowlers, for what that's worth, though it's still quite a good little streak.

Before Sabina, I'd moved from sceptic to open-minded. After it, I now definitely favour keeping him in the side until I can see three bowlers who are better, and I have a feeling that will be some time coming.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Rik]

Fair enough Mike, if you don't believe in World Class players who arn't the World's Best but are still International Class then I can't make you. Your view, my view.

 

[Craig]

Well done to Steve Harmison, a guy who I've defended from the increasingly indefensible Rik on many occasions (quote his stats at me all you want; I still rate him. Remember, Steve Waugh took almost 30 Tests to score his first Test ton and one could say he's succeeded somewhat). Here's to hoping that this leads to many more successes for England because a sport in which the country who invented it is poor (or not 'one of the best') can't be good for the sport overall.

I knew Harmie had it in him and I don't care what anyone says; to bowl out a team including Lara, Chanders, Gayle and Sarwan, you need to bowl exceptionally well. Anyone who denies that or tries in vain to portray it as 'luck' has NO IDEA what it's like to bowl to batsmen of any quality.

Err Steve Waugh took 26 Tests :P

And you can throw in Shane Warne, Matt Hayden as well...

 

[Tim]

The 4 players reported to be involved in the after match celebrations (if you can call them that!?) are:

Sarwan, Gayle, Best & Sanford.

 

[tooextracool]

lol u hafta wonder what sanford was doing partying in the stands...celebrating the end of his international career perhaps?

for those harmi doubters who say that all his wicket balls were nothing special....i agree....but u must face facts that the west indian batsmen arent good enough to knick the balls that were quality.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

u must face facts that the west indian batsmen arent good enough to knick the balls that were quality.

That is certainly not a fact. All of these batsman, bar Hinds, have Test centuries to their names. Gayle has two against South Africa and Sarwan's three have come against South Africa and Australia (the one against Aus whilst chasing 418). Chanderpaul has scored runs around the world and got two centuries against Aus last year and one against South Africa. Lara, well we know what he can do.

The West Indian batting lineup is still IMO better than the England batting lineup.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The 4 players reported to be involved in the after match celebrations (if you can call them that!?) are:

Sarwan, Gayle, Best & Sanford.

Sad shame that the VC should be seen there.

This is also pretty sad...
Edwards OUT

 

[tooextracool]

That is certainly not a fact. All of these batsman, bar Hinds, have Test centuries to their names. Gayle has two against South Africa and Sarwan's three have come against South Africa and Australia (the one against Aus whilst chasing 418). Chanderpaul has scored runs around the world and got two centuries against Aus last year and one against South Africa. Lara, well we know what he can do.

The West Indian batting lineup is still IMO better than the England batting lineup.

this is a joke right? west indian batting lineup is better than the engliah batting line up??dude u seem to be stuck in the 80s...viv richards is awesome isnt he?
im sure ur gonna back ur argument with the magical figure of 47??
i repeat this again...gayle is never gonna be test class...if u wanna be even a decent test player u need to move ur feet instead of just slogging everything out of the park, sure he scored a 100 against SA but when the ball doesnt swing then his poor footwork looks amazing. unless ur name is sehwag(and u have as much luck as he does) ur not gonna get anywhere by standing in a place and flaying at the ball believe me.
to think u are actually comparing chanderpaul,gayle,hinds,lara,sarwan and smith to vaughan,butcher,hussain,thorpe and flintoff is ludicrous. bar lara any batsman from that english 5 is better than any of those WI batsmen including chanderpaul who is nothing more than a decent player. IMO even collingwood who is on the bench is a better player than gayle,hinds and sarwan.

 

[Rik]

this is a joke right? west indian batting lineup is better than the engliah batting line up??dude u seem to be stuck in the 80s...viv richards is awesome isnt he?
im sure ur gonna back ur argument with the magical figure of 47??
i repeat this again...gayle is never gonna be test class...if u wanna be even a decent test player u need to move ur feet instead of just slogging everything out of the park, sure he scored a 100 against SA but when the ball doesnt swing then his poor footwork looks amazing. unless ur name is sehwag(and u have as much luck as he does) ur not gonna get anywhere by standing in a place and flaying at the ball believe me.
to think u are actually comparing chanderpaul,gayle,hinds,lara,sarwan and smith to vaughan,butcher,hussain,thorpe and flintoff is ludicrous. bar lara any batsman from that english 5 is better than any of those WI batsmen including chanderpaul who is nothing more than a decent player. IMO even collingwood who is on the bench is a better player than gayle,hinds and sarwan.

I think you are forgetting that good players can get low scores from poor shots and/or unlucky decisions. Certainly I don't know why you put Flintoff in there, 26 is hardly an average to be proud of. Chanderpaul has a better record than Trescothick, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe and, yes, even Flintoff, despite the 1st test failure, not bad for a player who's technique is most often described as "crabby." And then you choose to say that anyone from from Vaughan down to Flintoff is better than Lara, who until this Test was the world's number 1 batsman again...think before you post. The West Indian batsmen threw it away but if you look at their records you'll see they are quality players and certainly a match for England if they play to their potential. And it wasn't England's batting that won the game for them, remember only Hussain and Butcher passed 50? The West Indies batting won England the game.

 

[marc71178]

But anyway, I think the keeper and the fielders deserve most of the credit for this win, they actually held on to all but one of the catches, and there were 8!

The interview with Thorpe about the drop was funny.

The commentators were making excuses like a red backdrop of seats, and he said "Nah, it was an easy catch, it just bounced straight out of my hands"

 

[marc71178]

Fair enough Mike, if you don't believe in World Class players who arn't the World's Best but are still International Class then I can't make you. Your view, my view.

I guess it's the whole World Class distinction.

Some people view World Class as the real top echelon, top 2 or 3 players in the World.

For brief periods, I think Goughie was actually up at that level, but over his career he's not of the ilk of Curtley and Courtney...

 

[marc71178]

The 4 players reported to be involved in the after match celebrations (if you can call them that!?) are:

Sarwan, Gayle, Best & Sanford.

I for one wouldn't be that disappointed with them.

Yes they've lost in a poor performance, but if you lock them up and treat them like monks, the poor thoughts will remain with them - but cut them some slack, let them relax a little and let their hair down - we may see a much better side come Friday.

 

[marc71178]

to think u are actually comparing chanderpaul,gayle,hinds,lara,sarwan and smith to vaughan,butcher,hussain,thorpe and flintoff is ludicrous. bar lara any batsman from that english 5 is better than any of those WI batsmen including chanderpaul who is nothing more than a decent player.

If I were picking a composite top 6 from those teams:

Vaughan
Gayle
Butcher / Sarwan - only call too close IMO
Lara
Thorpe
Chanderpaul

 

[tooextracool]

I think you are forgetting that good players can get low scores from poor shots and/or unlucky decisions. Certainly I don't know why you put Flintoff in there, 26 is hardly an average to be proud of. Chanderpaul has a better record than Trescothick, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe and, yes, even Flintoff, despite the 1st test failure, not bad for a player who's technique is most often described as "crabby." And then you choose to say that anyone from from Vaughan down to Flintoff is better than Lara, who until this Test was the world's number 1 batsman again...think before you post. The West Indian batsmen threw it away but if you look at their records you'll see they are quality players and certainly a match for England if they play to their potential. And it wasn't England's batting that won the game for them, remember only Hussain and Butcher passed 50? The West Indies batting won England the game.

i think u need to read my posts properly..i said bar lara. we all know how good a player he is, best in the world IMO.

bar lara any batsman from that english 5 is better than any of those WI batsmen including chanderpaul who is nothing more than a decent player.

chanderpaul may have a higher overall avg but his avg at home is 51 while his avg abroad is 36...not much too shout about is it?not surprising considering he plays on the flattest wickets that u'll ever see at home.while thrope averages 42 away and 41 at home...more like what u should see from a quality player isnt it?
gayle on the other hand is useless...his technique is clearly something that wont get him anywhere on seaming wickets. its not surprising that he failed in both innings against when the ball was seaming a bit. gayle is nothing more than a flat track bully. so he scored 2 100s in south africa...both times when the pitch was flat. his overall average is 35 odd, he averages 51 in zim and 42 in bangladesh but his average in SL is 9 and 32 in india. its no coincidence that he scores more against the lower opposition and less against the better opposition.
ok so flintoff shouldnt be in there but thorpe,butcher,vaughan and hussain are definetly more talented than the west indian batting lineup and they definetly bat a lot better abroad then the west indians do

 

[marc71178]

gayle on the other hand is useless...his technique is clearly something that wont get him anywhere on seaming wickets. its not surprising that he failed in both innings against when the ball was seaming a bit. gayle is nothing more than a flat track bully. so he scored 2 100s in south africa...both times when the pitch was flat. his overall average is 35 odd, he averages 51 in zim and 42 in bangladesh but his average in SL is 9 and 32 in india. its no coincidence that he scores more against the lower opposition and less against the better opposition.

A lot of those criticisms that you level against Chris Gayle have been levelled at Marcus Trescothick as well...

 

[badgerhair]

WI have recalled Collins for Edwards.

Dwayne Smith is fit again, though I'd have thought that Hinds's performance merited his retention anyway.

No specialist spinner in the squad.

That should have England's batsmen quaking in their boots.

Cheers,

Mike