Ashes - memories

[Richard]

err harmison has in a much shorter period already done far more than ramprakash did in his entire career, yet you've been backing ramprakash as though he was actually a test class batter from 97 onwards.

No, I've said he wasn't as bad as some people think.
Most people are under the misguided notion that Ramprakash was rubbish throughout his career, when in fact he was utterly useless 1991-1996 and pretty decent, while not good enough to hold down a place, from the moment he scored that vital 48 in the second-innings at The Oval.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I've said he wasn't as bad as some people think.
Most people are under the misguided notion that Ramprakash was rubbish throughout his career, when in fact he was utterly useless 1991-1996 and pretty decent, while not good enough to hold down a place, from the moment he scored that vital 48 in the second-innings at The Oval.

so despite putting in less good performances in his career than harmison, he deserves his place in the test side from 97 onwards while harmison doesnt. what a joke.

 

[Richard]

there are a couple i can think off.
1) you dont like players who havent been successful in domestic cricket, and no matter how successful they are in test match cricket they cant be anything at all unless they've performed in domestic cricket
2) you dont like bowlers who rely on pace and bounce(& seam), rather than swing and cutters, which explains your penchant for vaas, and hatred for harmison.

No, I don't rate bowlers who don't bowl wicket-taking deliveries. I don't "like" or "dislike" them.
I have, meanwhile, acknowledged the few players who have become international standard without domestic success. Have you ever heard me trash Gower, Richards, Hamish Marshall, etc.? No.
Fact is, though, players who succeed in internationals without succeeding domestically are exceptionally rare, and most players who get picked for internationals without domestic success I talk down. And, almost invariably, I'm right. If I'm wrong, such as in Marshall's case, I say so.

 

[Richard]

so despite putting in less good performances in his career than harmison, he deserves his place in the test side from 97 onwards while harmison doesnt. what a joke.

Now, then - let's see...
Where in "the blue hell" have I ever said Harmison should be dropped since WI 2003\04?
There is no case for dropping him - there is, however, case for not considering him anywhere near as good as most people have done.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I don't rate bowlers who don't bowl wicket-taking deliveries. I don't "like" or "dislike" them..

and bowlers who you dont like happen to be bowlers who you dont rate.

I have, meanwhile, acknowledged the few players who have become international standard without domestic success. Have you ever heard me trash Gower, Richards, Hamish Marshall, etc.? No..

gower averages 40 in domestic cricket, richards averages 50. and id be extremely surprised if you went after marshall the moment he has a poor run of form.

 

[tooextracool]

Now, then - let's see...
Where in "the blue hell" have I ever said Harmison should be dropped since WI 2003\04?
There is no case for dropping him - there is, however, case for not considering him anywhere near as good as most people have done.

err you just said that harmison is not test class......

 

[Richard]

And I said he shouldn't be being picked where?
You don't have to be Test-class to justify a place in a Test-match side - you just have to have got good recent figures.

 

[Richard]

and bowlers who you dont like happen to be bowlers who you dont rate.

Try "like" doesn't come into it - "rate" is the only thing.

gower averages 40 in domestic cricket, richards averages 50. and id be extremely surprised if you went after marshall the moment he has a poor run of form.

Gower averaged 36 in domestic-only cricket (in case you didn't realise his First-Class record includes Tests), Richards I made a mistake, his First-Class average is almost as good as his Test one.
Anyhow, there are other players who have had Test-match success without domestic success, they're just rare.
And: news-flash, Marshall has already had a form-slump.
There are players who have international success without domestic success - but they're rare.
As you've acknowledged.

 

[archie mac]

You've got to be joking. Chappell and Dyson were both run out by 3 feet and not given. Gower, Lamb and Botham all got at least 3 bad decisions. There were five proven mistakes in one innings. Even the crowd booed when Gower was given out caught of his thigh pad having barely offered a shot at it. In one Test England were 180ish ahead with 3 wickets left and Miller, Willis and Cowans were all given out wrongly. David Hookes (R.I.P) was given out to a ball that spun 2 feet past the edge of his bat. Geoff Miller was given not out to the thickest edge you will ever see and then given out next ball LBW to one that would not have hit another two sets of stumps. Eddie Hemmings having made 95 as night watchman was out caught having missed the ball by the proverbial mile.
It was totally endless catalogue of errors innings after innings and England suffered more than Australia, but I'm not claiming that the umpiring was biased or that the best team didn't win. It was just pitifully poor umpiring. If the umpires have any defence in that series it was the orchestrating appealling which was instigated by Chappell, Lillee and Marsh and then copied by England that made their job even more difficult than it already was.

Apart from England, that have always had the best umpires, that was pretty normal around the world, hence the push for neutral umpires. The only really bad decisions I can remember were the Hemmings one and a run out Dyson (I think) which was clearly out. I recall England doing the majority of 'silly appealing' I read an article by Richie Benaud to that effect, where he wrote that if England would have made some of those appeals at Lords they would have been laughed off the ground. (not an exact quote)

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Apart from England, that have always had the best umpires, that was pretty normal around the world, hence the push for neutral umpires. The only really bad decisions I can remember were the Hemmings one and a run out Dyson (I think) which was clearly out. I recall England doing the majority of 'silly appealing' I read an article by Richie Benaud to that effect, where he wrote that if England would have made some of those appeals at Lords they would have been laughed off the ground. (not an exact quote)

The "silly appealing" was the result of frustration at the idiotic decisions that went Australias way from day one. Often when there is a thin edge umpires would go on instinct, partly on how convincing the appeal appeared. Chappell, Lillee and Marsh took advantage of this by orchestrating appeals from the close field to make them look convincing and the umpires fell into the trap. There were many occasions when the batsman was absolutely nowhere near the ball and Marsh knew they weren't but just appealled and got the decisions time after time. There were over 50 bad decisions which can be documented if necessary, even the Wisden Almanac makes reference to the "transparently poor umpiring". In England at that time we only had highlights so the terrible decisions stood out, it's possible that during the course of the full days play the umpires turned down these orchestrated appeals and made many good decisions. It's just the way it went there are no sour grapes, in fact in the 1978-79 series when Australia were at their weakest ever(due to World Series Cricket) England benefitted greatly from the umpiring. In fact Tom Brookes was so dismayed at his own performance that he retired almost on the spot after giving Graeme Wood out to John Lever when the only appeal was a very half-hearted one from Bob Taylor.
On the subject of umpiring I recently read a book written by Gordon Greenidge in 1980 where he writes "There is no such thing as a good Australian umpire." A very risky quote from someone who was still at the peak of his career. The West Indies genuinely thought the umpires cheated in the 1975/76 series based mainly on the umpires refusal to give out Ian Chappell caught behind in the Forth Test. Greenidge thinks that one decision cost them the entire series, but as the series finished 5-1 it seems a bit unlikely.

 

[archie mac]

Viv Richards wrote he thought the Australian umpires the worst in the world, which was a big shock for me. maybe because I support the Aussies I did not notice. I watched just about every day of the 1982-83 series.

Still my greatest Cricket disappointment was leaving Melbourne on the 5th day of the boxing day Test. My father said it was all over, and he had to go back to work, (we live about 8 hours away). so as a result I missed the last day of one of the great finishes in Ashes history.

 

[tooextracool]

And I said he shouldn't be being picked where?
You don't have to be Test-class to justify a place in a Test-match side - you just have to have got good recent figures.

nope, not being test class suggests that someone isnt good enough to play test cricket, simple as that.

 

[Richard]

And not being good enough to play Test-cricket doesn't mean there's automatically an unanswerable case for not picking them.

 

[Pratters]

The England selectors, though, are unlikely to start changing personnel in the same way their predecessors did against Border's 1989 touring side. That summer England used 29 players as Border regained the Ashes.

Wow 29 English men played in a single Ashes?

Can some one detail me on this?

 

[Shane Warne]

Viv Richards wrote he thought the Australian umpires the worst in the world, which was a big shock for me. maybe because I support the Aussies I did not notice. I watched just about every day of the 1982-83 series.

Still my greatest Cricket disappointment was leaving Melbourne on the 5th day of the boxing day Test. My father said it was all over, and he had to go back to work, (we live about 8 hours away). so as a result I missed the last day of one of the great finishes in Ashes history.

Darryl Harper is the worst, so maybe he's right.

Plus Emerson and Hair are idiots too for bullying Murali.

 

[marc71178]

Wow 29 English men played in a single Ashes?

Can some one detail me on this?

6 Tests.
Injuries.
Mad selectors.
Rebel Tour.
4 captains (I think).

 

[Magrat Garlick]

6 Tests.
Injuries.
Mad selectors.
Rebel Tour.
4 captains (I think).

Nope, only one

David Gower

Only stable thing during the series, it seems!

 

[Richard]

A recent Mike Selvey article confirmed to me that, despite some of the wretchedness of the early 1990s (the "we flippin' murdered 'em" tour and the end of the NZ '99 series to the fore) that summer after it's predecessor was pretty much the lowest depths English cricket has ever sunk to.