Steve Harmison pulls out of Zimbabwe tour

[wpdavid]

I expect we'll also see Vaughan, Giles not go.

A squad?

Trescothick (c)
Solanki (by default)
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
G Jones (as a batsman)
Read (wk)
Batty
Gough (he can't afford to pull out or it's bye career)
Wharf (ditto)
Anderson
Mascarenhas
Lewis
McGrath (running out of options now)
Clarke (see McGrath)

Personally I'd rest Trescothick too and I would draw a line on Gough's career. I suppose Collingwood would then be captain. No idea who I'd take instead of Tresco - maybe Mark Wagh.

 

[marc71178]

I disagree about Vaughan, I think he will go given that he is captain, and what he said when Strauss indicated he may not go. If Vaughan pulls out, then maybe more may follow.

I don't think Vaughan can publicly pull out owing to his position, but from what Fletcher said, he's in need of a break, and might not be selected.

 

[Craig]

So this tour doubles as a chance to rest some of your number uno players and give some English cricketer who might be in form to give them a chance, and if they fail, goodbye and don't comeback, if they score runs or take wickets, then they might have an international future.

Looks like an England 'A' team to me.

Chris to come on here to say Kadeer and Kabir should be picked in 5...4...3

 

[Neil Pickup]

As I've said hundreds of times before, the tour shouldn't be happening, but it is - so we should be experimenting with it because it doesn't deserve to be treated as full International cricket - don't pick anyone who is a key player - that means Harmison, Flintoff, Trescothick, Giles, Strauss and Vaughan.

I'm assuming we will be taking 14, as is the common practice of late:

Pietersen
Bell
Solanki
Collingwood
McGrath
Clarke
Jones (do we really need two keepers for five ODIs?)
Powell
Napier
Batty
Wharf
Gough
Anderson
Mahmood/Lewis/Kabir

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Powell

Which one?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Which one?

Ricardo.

 

[marc71178]

Chris to come on here to say Kadeer and Kabir should be picked in 5...4...3

Kadeer's left Worcestershire now Craig, so he's now rubbish

 

[Richard]

Which one?

Personally I've always rated the Warwicks one higher than the Glam one!

 

[Richard]

No idea who I'd take instead of Tresco - maybe Mark Wagh.

Wagh's never been the greatest at one-day-cricket, either.

 

[Richard]

Cheating blackguards - fancy doing that.

"Harmy, can you come on to bowl at the coconut end?"

"Yes, but can you make sure he's blindfolded first?"

You've lost sight of the ball, Richard.

Well, that I've not picked-up the ball doesn't prove much.

 

[Richard]

so if someone ends up with 2/41 picking up tailenders wickets on a seamer friendly wicket, his performances should be hailed then?

Not hailed, but not castigated the way Gough has been.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well, that I've not picked-up the ball doesn't prove much.

Me too - blind as a bat

 

[Richard]

and most of them have been looked at it in context, the 2/41 came on what was a seamer friendly wicket, on which his wickets were harbhajan and kumble, neither of whom are stubborn tailenders, the 4.14 came when indias overall RR was 3.88, which means that the other bowlers made up for him and the 2.84 came on another seamer friendly wicket on which both harmison and anderson got more wickets than him, incidentally both mcgrath and tresco picked up the same number of wickets as him- 1..

Wickets don't come into it unless you're bowling expensively. An economical bowler doesn't need to take wickets.
Yes, the wickets were a bit seamer-friendly (not quite as much as you seem to be suggesting) - so? Bowling well still has to be done.

 

[Richard]

Me too - blind as a bat

Hmm, I'm not blind, my eye just isn't that good.
Being blind isn't really something to joke about.

 

[Richard]

Here we go again...

So there was so much pressure, despite more-than-acceptible scoring-rates in most cases?

Of course they didn't go in with a plan to get him, no, they just ran in and bowled as poorly as they always do. It's all luck.

And of course, no-one else has ever had Lara make a total mockery of any plan.
People have tried stuff before, it's not easy and certainly it short stuff doesn't often work against him - they were lucky that this was one of the few instances in which it did.

WIth the quality of the ball, yes maybe they did, but that is what got him out, the quality of the ball.

No, it wasn't - there have been many balls identical in quality that have been played with the utmost ease.
What got him out was the fact that he didn't pick it up.

 

[Richard]

The rules is in regard to the overall scoring rates increasing.

That is nothing to do with how to judge bowlers.

And you've repeatedly told me that because of overall scoring-rates increasing bowlers should be judged differently now than they were 10 years ago.

 

[Richard]

Except the examples which you just replied to are in the main ones where his economy rate has been far higher than the overall scoring rate (which would be lowered if you factor in byes and leg byes)

So in the context that you want to use, I ask again:

Please explain to me how an economy rate greater than the team overall rate causes the final score to be so low.

Because if somoene goes at 4.5-an-over in a 50-over total of 185, the total is lower than it would be if they'd gone for 5.5-an-over.
If someone has conceded what Gough conceded they deserve credit for helping to keep a low total low.
Even if somoene goes at 3-an-over in a 50-over total of 120, they still deserve credit for helping keep the score down.

 

[luckyeddie]

Because if somoene goes at 4.5-an-over in a 50-over total of 185, the total is lower than it would be if they'd gone for 5.5-an-over.
If someone has conceded what Gough conceded they deserve credit for helping to keep a low total low.
Even if somoene goes at 3-an-over in a 50-over total of 120, they still deserve credit for helping keep the score down.

Basically, you're saying 'It's commendable because it could have been worse'?

(serious question - not one of my normal glib observations)

 

[Richard]

Well, no, because you could say that about anything.
Even 1-36-0 could have been worse.
It's commendible because it's not much over 4-an-over, which has been the standard good-point from about 1991-2-3.

 

[marc71178]

Not hailed, but not castigated the way Gough has been.

I don't think he's been castigated, just criticised (and taking it in context, it's fair criticism)