Spearman interested in playing for England

[Tim]

I agree...I think it's going to be like the NZ Rugby Union & Pacific Island players in a few years if they're not careful.
I don't think it's on for the ECB to throw money at talented overseas players so that they stay & gain an English passport.

I doubt Spearman will ever play for England..but the fact that he's come out in the media & suggested it may interest the English selectors more than before.

 

[marc71178]

I don't think it's on for the ECB to throw money at talented overseas players so that they stay & gain an English passport.

I don't think it's anything to do with the ECB at all.

It is Gloucestershire.

 

[marc71178]

Spearman has not looked that great in the twenty/twenty games, in one game I think he made 2* , lasting the whole game (5 overs each through rain), luckily his partner got them home easily.

To be fair to him, he only got to face 4 of the balls in the innings!

 

[Langeveldt]

Afraid so..

Spearman's ODI average of 18 sure beats the hell out of Rikki (batsman who bowls a bit) Clarke.. Get him in.. It's better than nothing (Clarke)...

 

[marc71178]

Don't knock Rikki - he tries his hardest!!!

 

[Langeveldt]

Don't knock Rikki - he tries his hardest!!!

So do I.. Doesnt mean I deserve to play international cricket...

 

[tooextracool]

do you play for surrey?

 

[Langeveldt]

do you play for surrey?

Yeah.. I open the bowling, I used to play for leicestershire, and I eat far too many pies!!

 

[Richard]

Spearman has not looked that great in the twenty/twenty games, in one game I think he made 2* , lasting the whole game (5 overs each through rain), luckily his partner got them home easily.

To be frank, I couldn't give a flying f**k if someone doesn't score a single run in Twenty20 Cup matches, if they do the job in one-day and First-Class cricket then you consider them for international matches.
Twenty20 means absolutely nothing as far as international selection is concerned.

 

[Langeveldt]

To be frank, I couldn't give a flying f**k if someone doesn't score a single run in Twenty20 Cup matches, if they do the job in one-day and First-Class cricket then you consider them for international matches.
Twenty20 means absolutely nothing as far as international selection is concerned.

Id be interested in them for the ODI scene if they performed well in Twenty20.. Because they are essentially similar skills in Twenty20, just more extreme... And quite often the equations in the run chases are similar...
Absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the first class game/test matches though...

 

[Richard]

Yes, I do suggest that.

If you were relying on statistics only, you wouldn't wouldn't have Warne in the Top 10 bowlers in the world because his bowling average is only around 25.

I suggest you actually watch him play before you give off an opinion of him.

I have watched him play, plenty of times, the most recent being Saturday.
I suggest you drop that card, it's frayed and transparent, and isn't doing you any good.
Warne certainly would be in the top 10 bowlers of the present day based on stats because there are so many poor bowlers. Maybe he wouldn't be in the top 10 but that just shows the ludicrousies of selecting eclectic XIs of any kind based purely on stats, because the things have such different contexts down the years.

 

[Richard]

Id be interested in them for the ODI scene if they performed well in Twenty20.. Because they are essentially similar skills in Twenty20, just more extreme... And quite often the equations in the run chases are similar...
Absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the first class game/test matches though...

The one-day game has no bearing on First-Class cricket, either. The two game-forms are different and success in one doesn't denote ability in the other.
I don't think 20 and 45\50 over cricket are comparable, personally. There are a few skills neccessary for both, but for the most part they are vastly different.

 

[marc71178]

I suggest you drop that card, it's frayed and transparent, and isn't doing you any good.

Say hello to Mr Kettle, Mr Pot.

What's that you say, you think he's Black?

 

[Langeveldt]

The one-day game has no bearing on First-Class cricket, either. The two game-forms are different and success in one doesn't denote ability in the other.
I don't think 20 and 45\50 over cricket are comparable, personally. There are a few skills neccessary for both, but for the most part they are vastly different.

I will agree to disagree with you on that one...

I reckon they are nearly all the same skills (slower balls, death bowling, quick singles, improvisation), but they are more concentrated and widely used...

Name me a skill that is vastly(!) different in Twenty20 than 45/50 over cricket and I will be impressed

 

[Richard]

Say hello to Mr Kettle, Mr Pot.

What's that you say, you think he's Black?

So which useless slagging-off tags have I repeatedly and invalidly attempted to use, then?
You have attempted to use countless ones against me, let me assure you, most obviously "you decide whether you like players and then look for evidence to back it up".

 

[Richard]

I will agree to disagree with you on that one...

I reckon they are nearly all the same skills (slower balls, death bowling, quick singles, improvisation), but they are more concentrated and widely used...

Name me a skill that is vastly(!) different in Twenty20 than 45/50 over cricket and I will be impressed

Line and length bowling is neccessary for at least 40 overs in one-day cricket; it's neccessary for an absolute maximum of 10 in 20-over games.
Proper cricket shots, and the ability to play them consistently, are neccessary in one-day cricket; whatever commentators try to suggest, the biggest neccessity in 20-over cricket is the slog to cow. The most common shot you'll see is the swing across the line.
Singles are a last-ditch option for most of the time in a 20-over game; in the one-day game they are a triumph for all but the last 5 or 6 overs.
There's no vastly different skills required for any form of cricket, but the execution is so different it's untrue.
The best one-day bowlers would never make the best 20-over bowlers.
It takes the knowledge of how to use a ball of lots of different conditions for a one-day game; a ball will not change much in 20 overs.

 

[Langeveldt]

Line and length bowling is neccessary for at least 40 overs in one-day cricket; it's neccessary for an absolute maximum of 10 in 20-over games.
Proper cricket shots, and the ability to play them consistently, are neccessary in one-day cricket; whatever commentators try to suggest, the biggest neccessity in 20-over cricket is the slog to cow. The most common shot you'll see is the swing across the line.
Singles are a last-ditch option for most of the time in a 20-over game; in the one-day game they are a triumph for all but the last 5 or 6 overs.
There's no vastly different skills required for any form of cricket, but the execution is so different it's untrue.
The best one-day bowlers would never make the best 20-over bowlers.
It takes the knowledge of how to use a ball of lots of different conditions for a one-day game; a ball will not change much in 20 overs.

I take it you are not a fan of the Twenty20 circus Rich?

 

[Richard]

Well it's great to see all those massive crowds around the country, and it's even good fun to watch on TV every now and then...
The alarming part is that people (mainly those damned impetuous Sky Sports commentators) honestly do seem to think it means something in terms of international game-forms. It doesn't. Not a thing.

 

[marc71178]

So which useless slagging-off tags have I repeatedly and invalidly attempted to use, then?

Take your pick, you've got enough of them...

Perhaps the ones where in the space of a few points, you've stated both sides of an argument will suffice...

 

[Richard]

Let's see a few examples then?