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

[Richard]

in the same way that every finger spinner who hasnt succeeded has been either inaccurate or incapable of bowling it flat you mean?

If a fingerspinner is inaccurate he probably won't get picked ITFP.
If they're incapable of either bowling quick and flat, or bowling a Doosra, they almost certainly won't be a success.

 

[Richard]

yes and you've said that 4.25 is nothing exceptional, hence warne was an average ODI bowler.

He wasn't fantastic, no - but his ER didn't change over the period where run-scoring becoming faster was supposedly a has-to-happen - hence his case plays a part in disproving that.

 

[Richard]

so whats your point? if it werent for the disjointed wrist he wouldnt have been anywhere near as good as he is. in the same way that saqlain and harbhajan wouldnt have been as successful without the doosra.

No, he wouldn't have - what's your point?
He has it, and he's been successful - that's all that matters. He conforms to no rule, because he's not a fingerspinner.

and as we've already said before wrist spinners dont turn the ball considerably on any surface, except murali of course since he has the disjointed wrist that gives him an advantage over everyone else.

As you've already said - and as has been disproven quite clearly, by watching MacGill, Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed and various others bowl on a normal pitch.
Not to mention by an analysis of revolution put on the ball by those 4.

everything is incredibly difficult to bowl, you only pick the bowlers who are good. what kind of rubbish statement is this? as though ive said we should pick finger spinners who arent good.

Wristspin is much the hardest of the styles to bowl to the requistite accuracy, any fool knows that.

and who the hell are you to say that giles isnt going to be a successful finger spinner? given how incredibly inaccurate you've been about several players in the past.

Such as?
Martyn?
And don't even start on Katich, because you won't find one case where I predicted he'd fail.

 

[Richard]

yes against thoe fantastic teams like zimbabwe and when the game was pretty much done with anyways.

And against some up-to-standard sides in the first-innings.

then why is it above 4 then?
Err - because he had to bowl at the death sometimes, genius.

certainly explains how hooper has such brilliant ERs in australia and NZ doesnt it?

Nope, the "hardly ever" explains that.

yes and when you put him on a seamers paradise where everyone else gets 3/20 odd, he still comes out with 1/41. id much rather have someone who is capable of picking up wickets when the conditions suits him as well as being accurate when the conditions dont. not one dimensional bowlers like ealham.

You put Ealham on a seamer's paradise he'll almost certainly go for less than 3-an-over, and quite possibly take 2 wickets too. You clearly haven't watched him bowl much if you don't think he can swing and seam the ball.

as proven by vettori and hooper.

Who are anomalies, and Vettori who I'm still waiting to be conformed to type.

 

[Richard]

yes and by the count gough bowled absolutely abysmmaly too.

Except, of course, for the fact that Gough bowled at the death.
And find me a place, please, where I said Gough bowled especially well. He didn't, otherwise he'd have gone for 4-4.5-an-over.

 

[Richard]

no it doesnt, but its happens often enough. certainly if players are more than prepared to charge a 70 mph bowler they wouldnt have problems charging a 60 mph bowler even more often.

No, they won't - so let's see these occasions when batsmen charged the like of Bryan Strang and Gavin Larsen with the wicketkeeper standing-up. It hardly ever happens - because the batsmen know they're in deep trouble in the very possible event they miss it.
With 60mph spinners, it still happens, but it's not anywhere near as effective as charging 50mph spinners.

or in other words - bowling it flat.

No, bowling it quicker.
Bowling it flat helps, of course, but it's better to bowl with a little flight at 60mph than flat as possible at 50.

but given that he cant bowl, bat or field he was given never brought near the english test side again.

Can't bowl or bat in Tests I'll give you. Can't field? Look again.

gee i wonder why? maybe ITS BECAUSE HE STILL CANT BAT????

Or maybe it's because his bowling wasn't anywhere near effective enough?

as shown by the recent ODI in SA.

And of course Ealham never scored any important runs against South Africa in South Africa, did he?
One innings proves little, Ealham played a few too, he's got to do it more than once.

i'll give you that finger spinners need to be more intelligent when they do bowl as opposed to a pace bowler. but certainly no one would insinuate that finger spinners shouldnt be picked for ODIs.

I'd insinuate that this intelligence amounts to bowling quicker (and ideally flatter) than the norm, or of course bowling a Doosra which isn't something too many can do.

certainly explains why his first class batting average is 43. einstein couldnt have been more proud of you.

Of course his First-Class bowling record, 332 wickets at 22.02, couldn't have played the slightest part either, could it?

vijay bharadwaj averages 42 in first class cricket. his bowling average in first class cricket is 34, his list A ER is 4.50. he was never picked for his bowling abilities, he was always considered to be a batsman who could bowl a bit. of course after his first series on complete turners(Easily the most turning ODI wickets ive ever seen, he convinced a lot of people that he was a good enough bowler, even though he wasnt).
same with russell arnold, averages over 40 in first class cricket with the bat, 37 in list A. ER of 4.57. you certainly havent been following much cricket have you? i cant believe anyone would think that they were more than part timers.

To use your analogy with Ealham: "I couldn't give a damn what Russel Arnold averages in First-Class or List-A-OD" - what matters is his shockingly poor Test-match average of 28.01, and the fact that his ODI-record is only that good in one two-year period, and after that it's terrible as well.
Russel Arnold would no way have played the amount of ODI-cricket he has if he couldn't bowl at all.
WR Bharadwaj, yep, clearly I've been mistaken - knock him off the list.

possibly because they were both rubbish bowlers ITFP?

Yep - they're rubbish because they bowl it too slowly, even though both are actually pretty accurate and, as I say, wouldn't know the meaning of flight if it smacked them in the face.

 

[Richard]

again i wont claim something i know nothing about, but surely you cant just say that hes incapable of batting in a position, simply because someone from warks said so.

I'm not saying anything quite that strong, simply that if he thought so and enough people agreed he could bat there he'd have made the position his own by now.

 

[Richard]

rubbish, no one can just magically bowl well for a period of 5 years? its more than conclusive. by that count, by equality we should assume that had ealham played longer his ER would have gone up and beyond 4.5, and shown him to be a rubbish bowler.

It might have done.
Equally, if Vettori's does you'll have to concede that I was right to wait for it to do so.

there is no rule ITFP. and who are you to say that giles wont be an exception to this 'rule'?

He might be, I've never said he won't, and as long as his record goes on the way it is presently he will be.
But I don't, personally, think it's very likely.

you've got more than 5 anyways.

There are indeed.
Still not very many, though, is it? If I'd said 8 there wouldn't be.

 

[tooextracool]

It might have done.
Equally, if Vettori's does you'll have to concede that I was right to wait for it to do so.

no if it does i'll conclude that hes past his prime. fact is 5 years is a long enough time for even the silliest of fools to judge whether someone is good or not, and vettori clearly is. given that you've said that ealham is a fairly good bowler based on 5 years of his career, you must also admit that so is vettori.

He might be, I've never said he won't, and as long as his record goes on the way it is presently he will be.
But I don't, personally, think it's very likely.

so enough with your ideas that he should be dropped from the side.

There are indeed.
Still not very many, though, is it? If I'd said 8 there wouldn't be.

point being? yes spinners arent as successful as pace bowlers, but when you get someone who seems likely to be successful, by all means put him in the side. and im pretty sure that they were more than 8, you just chose to find excused to eliminate them.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm not saying anything quite that strong, simply that if he thought so and enough people agreed he could bat there he'd have made the position his own by now.

why do you care about these people, when you know more than them anyways? AFAIC i know more about bell than he does himself, hence he should be batting at 3.
deja vu?

 

[tooextracool]

No, they won't - so let's see these occasions when batsmen charged the like of Bryan Strang and Gavin Larsen with the wicketkeeper standing-up. It hardly ever happens - because the batsmen know they're in deep trouble in the very possible event they miss it.

what would be the point, youd only dismiss them as anomalies? anything that proves you wrong is basically an anomaly.

With 60mph spinners, it still happens, but it's not anywhere near as effective as charging 50mph spinners.

doubt it, and i can assure you that any 50 mph bowler is more than capable of bowling it at 60, so its not something that requires a great amount of skill

No, bowling it quicker.
Bowling it flat helps, of course, but it's better to bowl with a little flight at 60mph than flat as possible at 50.

no AFAIC if you bowl it flat at 50 you can still be successful.

Can't bowl or bat in Tests I'll give you. Can't field? Look again..

ive looked enough times, hes too slow in the field to do anything.

Or maybe it's because his bowling wasn't anywhere near effective enough?

if he was a good enough test batsman hed make it in as a batsman who could bowl a bit. unfortunately since hes rubbish in both he simply goes down as one of the biggest disgraces to have been picked to play for england.

And of course Ealham never scored any important runs against South Africa in South Africa, did he?
One innings proves little, Ealham played a few too, he's got to do it more than once.

yes with his fabulous top score of 29 in SA.
ashley giles has only just started to become a fairly handy batsmen, as he goes on he will continue to play valuable innings.

I'd insinuate that this intelligence amounts to bowling quicker (and ideally flatter) than the norm, or of course bowling a Doosra which isn't something too many can do..

its not just about bowling flatter, its about having to vary what you bowl and what length you bowl. you could quite easily toss a few balls up in certain situations to get the batman to come down the track and then bowl one flat and wide/ quick to get him stumped.

Of course his First-Class bowling record, 332 wickets at 22.02, couldn't have played the slightest part either, could it?.

"Samaraweera has always been picked for ODIs for his bowling - he even got into the Test-side primarily as a bowler."
he was picked in ODIs for his batting and bowling, not for his bowling alone.

To use your analogy with Ealham: "I couldn't give a damn what Russel Arnold averages in First-Class or List-A-OD" - what matters is his shockingly poor Test-match average of 28.01, and the fact that his ODI-record is only that good in one two-year period, and after that it's terrible as well.
Russel Arnold would no way have played the amount of ODI-cricket he has if he couldn't bowl at all.

you seriously have reading problems. where in the blue hell did i say that arnold was anywhere near a good plyaer with ball or bat in ODI cricket?
my point is that the selectors picked him based on his batting abilities, since his batting record in domestic cricket is fairly good. his bowling was a plus but as his record shows he was nothing but a part timer. hence to use a part timer in your list of finger spinners who were not good enough is inane. well done in taking the time to bring out his ODI batting averages though, as though i care.

Yep - they're rubbish because they bowl it too slowly, even though both are actually pretty accurate and, as I say, wouldn't know the meaning of flight if it smacked them in the face.

no because it doesnt take too much skill to be able to bowl it quicker. they were simply incapable of anything at the international level, be it flight ,drift variety, intelligence or anything else.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, they have - but there have been more bowlers who've been capable of keeping their ERs closer to those of those examples I gave.
Currently there aren't.

except that you cant prove that they are capable unless they actually did. i can quite easily say that had they played now their ER would have increased.

 

[tooextracool]

If a fingerspinner is inaccurate he probably won't get picked ITFP.
If they're incapable of either bowling quick and flat, or bowling a Doosra, they almost certainly won't be a success.

how can any bowler be incapable of bowling at 60mph?
even you and i can bowl at 60 mph.

 

[tooextracool]

He wasn't fantastic, no - but his ER didn't change over the period where run-scoring becoming faster was supposedly a has-to-happen - hence his case plays a part in disproving that.

pre 2001: 4.16
post 2001: 4.39


whats the excuse this time?

 

[tooextracool]

No, he wouldn't have - what's your point?
He has it, and he's been successful - that's all that matters. He conforms to no rule, because he's not a fingerspinner.

its the same point that you have with fingerspinners who have the doosra. they have it so what? they are still successful fingerspinners.

As you've already said - and as has been disproven quite clearly, by watching MacGill, Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed and various others bowl on a normal pitch.
Not to mention by an analysis of revolution put on the ball by those 4.

and as has been seen neither of the 3 turn the ball considerably more than a normal finger spinner.

Wristspin is much the hardest of the styles to bowl to the requistite accuracy, any fool knows that.

which is not the point im arguing, read my post again.

Such as?
Martyn?
And don't even start on Katich, because you won't find one case where I predicted he'd fail.

no you just called him a poor player of spin.
not to mention of course the time you called roshan mahanama a great player or that russell arnold and bharadwaj were picked primarily as spinners or when you called geoff allott an all time great based in both forms of the game based on a single world cup.

 

[tooextracool]

And against some up-to-standard sides in the first-innings.

yes once in a blue moon

Err - because he had to bowl at the death sometimes, genius.

and bowling in the death for 1 out of every 15 games doesnt change a record much.

Nope, the "hardly ever" explains that.

vettoris record in NZ, aus, SA and eng are 4.32,4.38, 3.98 and 3.54 respectively.

You put Ealham on a seamer's paradise he'll almost certainly go for less than 3-an-over, and quite possibly take 2 wickets too. You clearly haven't watched him bowl much if you don't think he can swing and seam the ball.

rubbish, ealham in his entire career took more than 2 wickets in all of 3 games. like it or not he was the most one dimensional bowler possible, he would always return figures of 1/41 odd irrespective of the wicket.
most finger spinners pick up plenty of wickets when they come across a slowish wicket and they bowl extremely tight. in seamer friendly conditions, i dont think id want 1/40 odd.

Who are anomalies, and Vettori who I'm still waiting to be conformed to type.

and since you've already made up your mind about him, you'll never be conformed. and how many times do i have to tell you, the anomalies are the GOOD finger spinners, hence you have to always be looking for a good finger spinner in the side, not just have a pre conceived notion about not picking them at all.

 

[tooextracool]

Except, of course, for the fact that Gough bowled at the death.
And find me a place, please, where I said Gough bowled especially well. He didn't, otherwise he'd have gone for 4-4.5-an-over.

so gough bowled poorly in that game then? you really are a joker.
so since gough bowled poorly in 4 out of 6 games in that series(the 2 good ones coming on seamer friendly wickets anyways) shouldnt he be dropped from the side?

 

[Richard]

no if it does i'll conclude that hes past his prime. fact is 5 years is a long enough time for even the silliest of fools to judge whether someone is good or not, and vettori clearly is. given that you've said that ealham is a fairly good bowler based on 5 years of his career, you must also admit that so is vettori.

No, I mustn't, because even in 2001, 2002 sort of time Vettori's record wasn't really that good.
If you'll conclude that Vettori is past his prime at 26 (unless his back is obviously deteriorating) meanwhile, you'll do something rather foolish - hardly any spinner reaches his peak in his mid-20s.

so enough with your ideas that he should be dropped from the side.

Have you actually heard me suggesting that he should be dropped immediately?
No.

point being? yes spinners arent as successful as pace bowlers, but when you get someone who seems likely to be successful, by all means put him in the side. and im pretty sure that they were more than 8, you just chose to find excused to eliminate them.

8, like 5, was simply a random number.
The fact is it's incredibly difficult to bowl conventional fingerspin at normal spin speed successfully in ODIs and if anyone does it's something of a surprise.

 

[Richard]

why do you care about these people, when you know more than them anyways? AFAIC i know more about bell than he does himself, hence he should be batting at 3.
deja vu?

No, neither I nor you have watched enough of Bell's batting to know more about it than him or anyone else who's watched a lot of him batting.
Whereas in the case of Flintoff's bowling I've watched him about as much as anyone, so I have the authority to say I know as well as anyone.

 

[Richard]

what would be the point, youd only dismiss them as anomalies? anything that proves you wrong is basically an anomaly.

Or rather if I deduce something to be an anomaly it won't prove anything to me, so therefore I'll form an opinion on that.

doubt it, and i can assure you that any 50 mph bowler is more than capable of bowling it at 60, so its not something that requires a great amount of skill

Yes, they can - but unless they do it, it's no use, is it?

ive looked enough times, hes too slow in the field to do anything.

Really? So despite all these people acknowledging him as a good fielder (he's not lightening, no, but he's certainly not too slow) you still don't think he is?

if he was a good enough test batsman hed make it in as a batsman who could bowl a bit. unfortunately since hes rubbish in both he simply goes down as one of the biggest disgraces to have been picked to play for england.

You really do know how to exaggerate, don't you.

yes with his fabulous top score of 29 in SA.
ashley giles has only just started to become a fairly handy batsmen, as he goes on he will continue to play valuable innings.

We'll see.

its not just about bowling flatter, its about having to vary what you bowl and what length you bowl. you could quite easily toss a few balls up in certain situations to get the batman to come down the track and then bowl one flat and wide/ quick to get him stumped.

Yes, you could, and all of that helps.

"Samaraweera has always been picked for ODIs for his bowling - he even got into the Test-side primarily as a bowler."
he was picked in ODIs for his batting and bowling, not for his bowling alone.

He was picked more as a bowler, he was a bowler-who-bats-a-bit.

you seriously have reading problems. where in the blue hell did i say that arnold was anywhere near a good plyaer with ball or bat in ODI cricket?
my point is that the selectors picked him based on his batting abilities, since his batting record in domestic cricket is fairly good. his bowling was a plus but as his record shows he was nothing but a part timer. hence to use a part timer in your list of finger spinners who were not good enough is inane. well done in taking the time to bring out his ODI batting averages though, as though i care.

And the record of various other bowlers could make it look as though they're part-timers too - unless their batting was (incorrectly) perceived to be good like in Arnold's case.
Arnold is a very accurate bowler, whether he's a good batsman or not, and yet he's extremely ineffectual in ODIs - because he bowls too slowly and batsmen can use their feet to attack him.

no because it doesnt take too much skill to be able to bowl it quicker. they were simply incapable of anything at the international level, be it flight ,drift variety, intelligence or anything else.

Yet if they'd bowled it quicker I'm fairly confident both would have been successful. Even if it's not difficult to do, they haven't done it, and hence they've both been rubbish.