Vaughan to score an ODI ton before his 100th ODI?

[Richard]

Last time I checked, it's lower than your arbitrary 4.5 figure that pays no attention to conditions over the years.

4.5 is very mediocre.
It's only once you're bowling at the death regularly that you can be forgiven for going near that.

 

[Richard]

yes hence if hes good enough, hed be more than capable of scoring at 3. once he proves himself he can get the position he wants. thats the way the game of cricket works doesnt it? you're given a position which you're relatively comfortable in, once you start to make a name for yourself you tend to get the chance to choose the positions you want.
and personally i dont think hes going to have too many problems against facing the new ball.

I think if he was then he'd have been given the chance more often.
If he gets the chance to bat three we'll see, I think if he has to open against decent sides he'll probably fail.
Currently, if he's going to play, I'd prefer him to bat four.

 

[Richard]

because clearly you have to be over 60mph for a batsmen to not be able to smash you all around the park.

It's an approximation - it's one hell of a lot harder if you're bowling in the region of 60mph than 50 - you can tell that quite clearly by Dharmarsena and the old Kumble (before he started flighting it more and became more effective in Tests and less in ODIs).

i doubt it, i would personally much rather have giles come in when england are in trouble than have ealham.

Given Giles' fantastic ODI average that has shown little sign of improving the way the Test one has?

uh huh, and please go ahead and tell me how spinner friendly NZ has been and how hooper has an ER of 4.17 there.
and i can assure you a 4.50 ER against SA isnt exactly poor either.
and if you looked at bowlers such as mushtaq ahmed who has an equally poor record in australia, india and england, and then categorically deny that mushtaq was anything other than a good bowler. even saqlain mushtaq has a poor record in india,england and even in pakistan!

Don't know how but I've got the figures wrong.
Yeah, Hooper is an exception - his ODI record, in general, is better than almost all fingerspinners.

yes clearly if you bowl below 60 mph you have no chance of succeeding, because the batsman suddenly get bamboozled by that extra pace and have no chance against a 60 mph bowler

I say it again - it's an approximation.

 

[Richard]

no he doesnt by a pace bowlers standard, but by a spinners standard its still very good. and he provides more variety to the attack than ealham does.

What's so important about variety?
Surely it's better to be a seamer and go at 4.1-an-over than a spinner and go at 4.3?

 

[Richard]

Read has done nothing in ODIs or Test with the bat, he is a useless batsmen compared to Jones and Collingwood. The guy averages 21 with a highest score of 30* and S/R 71. Whereas Collingwood averages 32 with a S/R of 73 and a hundred and 7 50s. Also Jones has a far superior record and ability with the bat in Test and ODIs (Ave 29, SR 91 and 2 50s). Can't really see Read coming back into the England team and in front of these two any time soon.

And if you get rid of the games against the substandard sides you'll get a better picture:
Collingwood average 27, Jones 17.
Read's is quite clearly much better than Jones in the one-day form of the game, and you can tell that by his domestic-OD average.
Forget Test-matches, they're not relevant - so don't use Read's shortcomings in that form for something that it doesn't count towards.
And Collingwood is equally clearly a massively overrated batsman.

As we all know Giles isn't the greatest bowler in the world, but he is by far the best spinner England have. When picking any team u need balance and balance side need spin bowling options. Vaughan and KP aren't good enough spinners to be considered as options. So until England find a better spinner then he is their best option. Elaham might be bowling well in county cricket but England already have two medium pace all round option in Collingwood and Flintoff, there no need for another one. As a bowler he could be a option but England are better off looking for a long term replacement of Gough, rather then a short term fix.

Flintoff, a "medium-pace" option? Laughable.
There is need for another one - Collingwood is not a serious bowling option, he's nowhere near good enough for his bowling to be considered.
Why do you need a spin-bowling option? You need the bowlers who're going to do the best job, full-stop. Nothing else.

 

[chaminda_00]

What's so important about variety?
Surely it's better to be a seamer and go at 4.1-an-over than a spinner and go at 4.3?

having five quicks will allow good batting line ups to get too confortable and make it easier to score runs. You need variety aganist good batting line ups to get them out and to keep runs down. Without variety u can't change the course of matches if your bowling attack is one paced. The exception to the rule is the Windies side of the 70s and 80s as they generally had 4 good quicks to turn to. Unless England have 4 world class quicks then Giles will always be a better option.

 

[Richard]

Nope, not true.
Bogstandard fingerspinners (who don't have a Doosra and bowl in the early 50s or below) are never going to be effective in ODIs except on turning pitches because even if they're accurate enough the batsman can use their feet easily and turn would-be good balls into bad ones.
Against seamers it's a hell of a lot harder to use the feet (indeed if the wicketkeeper's standing-up it's near enough suicide to do so) so almost invariably a seamer is a better bowler in one-day cricket.
If the spinner is turning the ball or the ball is "sticking" in the pitch, obviously, it's a different matter, but not too many ODI pitches do that at present, do they?
The ideal attack in a ODI on a normal pitch is five accurate seamers, or throw in an accurate wristspinner in the unlikely event that one's available.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nope, not true.
Bogstandard fingerspinners (who don't have a Doosra and bowl in the early 50s or below) are never going to be effective in ODIs except on turning pitches because even if they're accurate enough the batsman can use their feet easily and turn would-be good balls into bad ones.
Against seamers it's a hell of a lot harder to use the feet (indeed if the wicketkeeper's standing-up it's near enough suicide to do so) so almost invariably a seamer is a better bowler in one-day cricket.
If the spinner is turning the ball or the ball is "sticking" in the pitch, obviously, it's a different matter, but not too many ODI pitches do that at present, do they?
The ideal attack in a ODI on a normal pitch is five accurate seamers, or throw in an accurate wristspinner in the unlikely event that one's available.

Now Richard, to be fair your opinion on this is different to almost every coach & captain in world cricket.

I honestly can't think of one who would advoacate an all-seam attack; certainly not on the grounds that you have given.

 

[Richard]

Look, name me 5 successful orthodox fingerspinners who've gone for an acceptible number of runs in the modern ODI era and not played regularly on fingerspin-friendly pitches?
The only ones who've had success have either been playing regularly on helpful pitches, been much quicker through the air than convention, or bowled the Doosra.
Some, of course, have had the benefit of two of the three.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Look, name me 5 successful orthodox fingerspinners who've gone for an acceptible number of runs in the modern ODI era and not played regularly on fingerspin-friendly pitches?
The only ones who've had success have either been playing regularly on helpful pitches, been much quicker through the air than convention, or bowled the Doosra.
Some, of course, have had the benefit of two of the three.

Well that wasn't really the point I was arguing.

Leg-spinners, Chinamen bowlers, doosra-bowling offies & left-arm seamers all offer an alternative from the fast/med right hand hegemony too.

& for anyone to attempt an answer (which is hard enough, as you've clearly weighted the dice, I assume "playing regularly on helpful pitches" excludes all sub-continent bowlers) you really need to clarify your criteria a bit:

a) What is "an acceptible number of runs"?;
b) What constitutes "the modern ODI era"?; &
c) What is "quicker through the air than convention"?

 

[Richard]

Well that wasn't really the point I was arguing.

Leg-spinners, Chinamen bowlers, doosra-bowling offies & left-arm seamers all offer an alternative from the fast/med right hand hegemony too.

But they all have to be accurate enough - wayward any of them is worse than "the fast/med right hand hegemony".
If you're accurate enough it doesn't matter what style you bowl; if you're not it doesn't, again - you're not good enough.
If you turn the ball enough or bowl a Doosra, you can bowl in the early 50mphs and below and bowl economically; if you're not, you can't.

& for anyone to attempt an answer (which is hard enough, as you've clearly weighted the dice, I assume "playing regularly on helpful pitches" excludes all sub-continent bowlers) you really need to clarify your criteria a bit:

a) What is "an acceptible number of runs"?;
b) What constitutes "the modern ODI era"?; &
c) What is "quicker through the air than convention"?

I've not "weighted the dice" at all - I've given you a type of bowler who I've noticed has almost never been effective and, upon you challenging that, I've tried to make you see what I've seen.
a) Less than 4-an-over, really - 4.2 is OK and 4.3 is - just - acceptible. Given that the time to bowl almost all spinners is the 15-40-over period and it doesn't make much sense to bowl them anywhere else.
b) Around about the 1992 period, really - it's not possible to give an exact threshold, but anything around the time of WC92 was the end of the era, and from then onwards 4-an-over is the threshold.
c) Almost all spinners bowl in the 50-1-2mph sort of bracket (some even slower). If you're bowling at 58-9-60mph, you're much quicker through the air than normal.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ok then:

Tim May (post 92 economy rate 4.19)
Phil Tufnell (post 92 ER 4.06)
Carl Hooper (post 92 ER 4.30)
Robert Croft (post 92 ER 4.24)
Daniel Vettori (post 92 ER 4.30)

 

[tooextracool]

I think if he was then he'd have been given the chance more often.
If he gets the chance to bat three we'll see, I think if he has to open against decent sides he'll probably fail.
Currently, if he's going to play, I'd prefer him to bat four.

if anything i think he'll be better of at 3, because he has more time to play himself in and is less likely to come in after 30 overs or so.

 

[tooextracool]

It's an approximation - it's one hell of a lot harder if you're bowling in the region of 60mph than 50 - you can tell that quite clearly by Dharmarsena and the old Kumble (before he started flighting it more and became more effective in Tests and less in ODIs).

no the point is that as an ODI bowler, you should not flight it but bowl it flatter, bowling marginally quicker doesnt change anything. and the reason why kumble has become less effective is because of he doesnt bowl 'the rocket ball' anymore, which was extremely quick and if accurate was never easy to get to.

Given Giles' fantastic ODI average that has shown little sign of improving the way the Test one has?

at least hes shown potential to bat as can be seen from his test performances. ealham has never looked like being anything other than rubbish in ODIs or tests.

Don't know how but I've got the figures wrong.
Yeah, Hooper is an exception - his ODI record, in general, is better than almost all fingerspinners.

yes possibly because hes a good one?
its no surprise that as usual you go on with the ignoring the good finger spinners as anomalies and simply look at the poor ones.

I say it again - it's an approximation.

even though its not even close to being true? the fact is that flighting the ball often in ODIs is never going to help, although you'd do quite a good job if you tossed the odd one up, but nowhere have i ever heard of needing to bowl at least 60 mph to be successful. im sure giles is more than capable of bowling it flat.

 

[tooextracool]

What's so important about variety?
Surely it's better to be a seamer and go at 4.1-an-over than a spinner and go at 4.3?

no its not, because a spinners job is to be economical in conditions that dont help him, and then turn wicket taking when they do. ealhams job has never been to take wickets, because hes a medium pacer, not a pace bowler, and his job is solely to be accurate.

 

[tooextracool]

Look, name me 5 successful orthodox fingerspinners who've gone for an acceptible number of runs in the modern ODI era and not played regularly on fingerspin-friendly pitches?
The only ones who've had success have either been playing regularly on helpful pitches, been much quicker through the air than convention, or bowled the Doosra.
Some, of course, have had the benefit of two of the three.

now that someone has already gone on to name 5 finger spinners who've gone on to do that,please sherlock name me 5 leg spinners in the modern era who've managed to do the same?
and as desperate as you will be when you look it up, murali doesnt count, because he isnt a conventional wrist spinner.

 

[tooextracool]

Except in more recent times he hasn't been failing so much.

I do believe about 1 in 5 of his ODI innings are half centuries - that's hardly that bad.

no its not bad its awful, especially considering that hes never gone on to convert them into 100s.

 

[Gangster]

Doesn't make him 'not very good in general' (which is what the original comment was) overall though. Especially as a Test batsman.

Aimed at Richard.

Well I was the one who originally said it, so allow me to defend it. Vaughan is a good test player with a good 44.20 average. But since we're discussing ODIs, let's note his amazing average of 28.24 at the appalling strike rate of 68.72. So he goes out and averages 28 off 42 balls. Ridiculous! If he wasn't captain, there's no way he would be in the team. And it doesn't seem as if his ODI captaincy is good enough to merit the position either. I'd say England would be much better off letting Vaughan be the Test captain and naming someone like Flintoff, Trescothick or even Gough as ODI captain.

 

[Jono]

Except in more recent times he hasn't been failing so much.

I do believe about 1 in 5 of his ODI innings are half centuries - that's hardly that bad.

I agree with everyone else that its awful, but what even personifies it further is that he bats up the order. He is expected to get big scores and often carry your bat when you bat from 1-4. He's failed at that.

 

[Richard]

Ok then:

Tim May (post 92 economy rate 4.19)
Phil Tufnell (post 92 ER 4.06)
Carl Hooper (post 92 ER 4.30)
Robert Croft (post 92 ER 4.24)
Daniel Vettori (post 92 ER 4.30)

Tufnell who played the sum-total of 5 ODIs in the respective period. No coincidence, either, that of his mere 20 ODIs overall half of them were against the weak New Zealanders and Zimbabweans; against Australia, India and The West Indies his economy-rate is much higher.
Vettori I'm still waiting, I'm quite sure his economy-rate will rise very soon, and I've been sure of it for some time.
Croft's record is excellent and it's pure folly that he didn't play more ODIs than he did.
Hooper I've already done.
Even May only played 33 ODIs in the period, and while that's enough to say he was a good bowler (never saw him bowl myself, and still haven't) it's not exactly like he was as much of a fixture as plenty have been.
Maybe I should have added that they had to have played a reasonable amount.
You've got four, and as I say I'm still waiting for Vettori's record to change and I'm absolutely positive it will.