Whatsup with the Windies / England!?

[Richard]

you'd need to watch the games to know that which neither of us have done

Yes, I know you'd need to watch them to know, which is why I'm not saying it's likely or unlikely - I'm just saying it's a possibility.

and 6 out of 30 odd games is a completely different story from 6 out of 6 A games.

It is, but the point is it could simply be coincidence, however unlikely.

 

[Richard]

firstly we were referring to ODIs, so thats not valid.
secondly there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that hinds would be a better middle order player is there? its not like he showed any success with it in the few chances that he got.
why is it impossible to believe that he is rubbish? when someone else usually fails you dont try him out in every other position to see if he might be successful in any one of those. if hes a better middle order player then let him succeed with that in list A or FC cricket first, then maybe he deserves another chance.

Didn't realise you were talking about one-dayers.
I still think it's possible he'd be better there in ODIs than at three or opening, but yes - try it in domestic cricket first, obviously.

 

[vic_orthdox]

So he was working every day, every week for 2 months?
I find that difficult to believe.

If it's anything like the Australian version, they do train really hard during the time they're on the show - at least 5 days a week, probably six (not including the program night). Probably consumes less time than having a full time job though...

 

[Richard]

and if hes inaccurate hes probably far more likely to stray down legside. i cant believe anyone would expect dale steyn to expose any sort of weakness with any sort of consistency.

I'd expect him to expose it if it was as simple as bowling full. I'd not expect him to expose it if it involved bowling a tight line.

Nel dismissed him at Supersport Park. and i think you've just answered your own question.

Nel dismissed Trescothick? Run-out and b Ntini. I remember Nel dismissing Strauss, was quite spectacular with lightning striking all around.
Of course I fully intended to provide an answer to my own question - it'd be very interesting to see if Trescothick would've scored a single half-century in the series had Nel been fit for every Test, but I still think Strauss would've scored some runs, though obviously not the number he ended-up doing.

once again you fail to look at cause and effect strategy. i personally doubt that any of those teams managed to bowl ball after ball in the right slots, probably because they had no idea that it was his weakness.

And I very much doubt any of Rana, Pathan, Sreesanth or Sami were very capable of doing it either. None of them are very accurate. Strauss has IMO simply played less well against them than he did against the like of Martin, Tuffey, Oram, Edwards, Best, Lawson, Collymore, Steyn, Lee and Tait.

Do you honestly think that strauss has the eye, power or technique to manage to play stroke after stroke and get away with it? if you are then you're incredibly deluded. What made gary Kirsten the player he was despite having clear technical flaws, a not so special eye or any sort of power was that he was prepared to block and block and block and wait for the players to bowl to his strengths. SImilarly just because Gayle(who is useless in tests anyways), Sehwag, Langer, Hayden etc all either have solid techniques enough to carry it out, or in sehwags case they have an incredible eye.

I think Strauss' defensive technique is fine, I see little wrong with his eye (I see little wrong with the eyes of most professional batsmen, frankly) and the fact that he's not very powerful doesn't really mean he can't hit wide deliveries off the face rather than edge of the bat.

how much more time? the poor form has carried on from the summer of 2003. hes had only a few good games in 3 years. its all fine and good to be failing when you're team is winning(like hussain was for a period), but its definetly not tolerable if you keep doing for years and years and when the side is losing as a result.

As I say - I fould little wrong with Vaughan's form in 2004, in 2003 and 2003\04 I blame it on opening the batting, where I thought throughout 2002 that he was being rated as doing an infinately better job than he was. I just wonder what would've happened had Jayasuriya caught one of those 2 simple slip-catches off Zoysa at Lord's in 2002? I won't deny that I've felt worried whenever he's been at the crease early on (for early on read the first hour at least) since about 2004, but his poor form has still only cost 1 series - even then he played just 1 game as a middle-order batsman.
If we lose at home to Pakistan this summer because of his poor form, I'll probably lose patience and start calling for his head, but not once did I lose faith in Hussain's batting prowess in 2000, and his 1996-1999 and 2001-2004 record I think justifies that.

Harmison and Flintoff have always to some extent justified their selection in the side. Both may have been extremely inconsistent, but they were still logical selections. Vaughan is clearly in the side only because of his captaincy.

Harmison would IMO certainly have been dropped in 2003\04 if he'd not taken that 4\33, and might well not have started the summer if he'd taken, say, 3\156 in the final 3 innings of The Ashes instead of 6\156. Certainly he'd probably not have started it anyway if Caddick had been fit.
Even so, I still see that neither he nor his legions of fans could have had many complaints had he been dropped at any point before Sabina Park 2004.
As for Flintoff - I got utterly sick and tired of such a waste of space being picked long before 2003, and was frankly rather surprised when he scored all those runs in that SA series.
I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that, had say Trescothick been captain, Vaughan would probably still be in the side (when fit) now, because that's just the way selection is at the moment. Who would ever have believed someone who said "England will make 1 change all series" after Lord's last summer?
Even Gareth Batty is STILL in the picture, for crying out loud! What does that tell us?
I'd also be willing to bet that Harmison might well have been dropped by now under some previous selection regimes. It's only the matey-culture that's kept him in there IMO. Won't last too much longer providing the current failure-rate continues, though.

 

[Richard]

If it's anything like the Australian version, they do train really hard during the time they're on the show - at least 5 days a week, probably six (not including the program night). Probably consumes less time than having a full time job though...

Certainly consumes less time than being away for a full month without any break at all, seems to me...

 

[marc71178]

So he was working every day, every week for 2 months?
I find that difficult to believe.

Of course you do, because you like Gough and refuse to see what he did as anything bad at all.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd expect him to expose it if it was as simple as bowling full. I'd not expect him to expose it if it involved bowling a tight line.

you cant carry any plan out if you dont have even a semblance of accuracy.

Nel dismissed Trescothick? Run-out and b Ntini. I remember Nel dismissing Strauss, was quite spectacular with lightning striking all around.
Of course I fully intended to provide an answer to my own question - it'd be very interesting to see if Trescothick would've scored a single half-century in the series had Nel been fit for every Test, but I still think Strauss would've scored some runs, though obviously not the number he ended-up doing.

i was referring to strauss actually.
and if nel were to bowl with the right fields and in the right spots strauss would have struggled to score a single 50 all series.

And I very much doubt any of Rana, Pathan, Sreesanth or Sami were very capable of doing it either. None of them are very accurate. Strauss has IMO simply played less well against them than he did against the like of Martin, Tuffey, Oram, Edwards, Best, Lawson, Collymore, Steyn, Lee and Tait.

sreesanth has been accurate enough. naved ul hasan certainly did a decent job with accuracy in that series. akthar did so too.Pathan may not be the best bowler but he can hardly be blamed for his accuracy. Fact is the latter list didnt have a fixed plan, hence they bowled at random, whereas the former actually tried pitching it up as often as possible and blocking out his best scoring areas.

I think Strauss' defensive technique is fine,

playing with a crooked bat is hardly 'fine', not only does it not come down straight, but its also generally crooked at the point of impact. not surprising really that he edges as many balls as he does really.

I see little wrong with his eye (I see little wrong with the eyes of most professional batsmen, frankly)

some players clearly have better eyes than others. strauss' eye may not be poor but its not particularly brilliant, as is evident from most of his shots.

and the fact that he's not very powerful doesn't really mean he can't hit wide deliveries off the face rather than edge of the bat.

thats not the point. if he were to hit wide deliveries(seriously though trying to hit a swinging ball that would probably have been called a wide had he missed it is down to stupidity than power or technique) that were there to be hit then yes nothing wrong with it. hitting balls that are clearly not there to be hit,especially when you arent set is poor batting. and the reason why balls hit the edge of his bat as opposed to the face is because of his miserable crooked batted technique.

As I say - I fould little wrong with Vaughan's form in 2004, in 2003 and 2003\04 I blame it on opening the batting, where I thought throughout 2002 that he was being rated as doing an infinately better job than he was. I just wonder what would've happened had Jayasuriya caught one of those 2 simple slip-catches off Zoysa at Lord's in 2002? I won't deny that I've felt worried whenever he's been at the crease early on (for early on read the first hour at least) since about 2004, but his poor form has still only cost 1 series - even then he played just 1 game as a middle-order batsman.
If we lose at home to Pakistan this summer because of his poor form, I'll probably lose patience and start calling for his head, but not once did I lose faith in Hussain's batting prowess in 2000, and his 1996-1999 and 2001-2004 record I think justifies that.

Hussain didnt go through a 3 year bad patch like vaughan has. and whether or not you think hes a better player at 4 or not, fact is that his record at 4 is only worse than at the top, and hence all of his failures at the top can only be counted as part of his overall failure.

Harmison would IMO certainly have been dropped in 2003\04 if he'd not taken that 4\33, and might well not have started the summer if he'd taken, say, 3\156 in the final 3 innings of The Ashes instead of 6\156. Certainly he'd probably not have started it anyway if Caddick had been fit.

ifs and buts dont change a single thing. if bradman decided to go into tennis instead of playing cricket garfield sobers would be the best batsman ever.

Even so, I still see that neither he nor his legions of fans could have had many complaints had he been dropped at any point before Sabina Park 2004.
As for Flintoff - I got utterly sick and tired of such a waste of space being picked long before 2003, and was frankly rather surprised when he scored all those runs in that SA series.
I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that, had say Trescothick been captain, Vaughan would probably still be in the side (when fit) now, because that's just the way selection is at the moment. Who would ever have believed someone who said "England will make 1 change all series" after Lord's last summer?
Even Gareth Batty is STILL in the picture, for crying out loud! What does that tell us?
I'd also be willing to bet that Harmison might well have been dropped by now under some previous selection regimes. It's only the matey-culture that's kept him in there IMO. Won't last too much longer providing the current failure-rate continues, though.

i can hardly be bothered to look at English selection blunders over the last few years. both flintoff and harmison may have come close to being dropped, but as you yourself have said theres always been some sort of performance to justify their selection.Vaughan ATM does not justify his selection,and id much rather he scored runs in domestic cricket first and then get picked again.

 

[Richard]

Of course you do, because you like Gough and refuse to see what he did as anything bad at all.

Rubbish, what he did doesn't affect my (nor should it affect anyone else's) judgement of his cricketing skills.
But I don't see that he's committed a crime that other people haven't.

 

[Richard]

you cant carry any plan out if you dont have even a semblance of accuracy.

Even if the plan is to bowl Long-Hops outside off, combined with Half-Volleys on the leg?

i was referring to strauss actually.
and if nel were to bowl with the right fields and in the right spots strauss would have struggled to score a single 50 all series.

I find that very unlikely, frankly.

sreesanth has been accurate enough. naved ul hasan certainly did a decent job with accuracy in that series. akthar did so too.Pathan may not be the best bowler but he can hardly be blamed for his accuracy. Fact is the latter list didnt have a fixed plan, hence they bowled at random, whereas the former actually tried pitching it up as often as possible and blocking out his best scoring areas.

They did? Was this confirmed? Rana dismissed him both times with short balls - one that crept along the ground and which no left-hander, ever, would have kept out, and the other with a ball Strauss played over the top of and bottom-edged onto his stumps.

playing with a crooked bat is hardly 'fine', not only does it not come down straight, but its also generally crooked at the point of impact. not surprising really that he edges as many balls as he does really.

And I don't see that he's playing with a crooked bat spectacularly often.

some players clearly have better eyes than others. strauss' eye may not be poor but its not particularly brilliant, as is evident from most of his shots.

You seriously think you can reach the top level of cricket without a brilliant eye?

thats not the point. if he were to hit wide deliveries(seriously though trying to hit a swinging ball that would probably have been called a wide had he missed it is down to stupidity than power or technique) that were there to be hit then yes nothing wrong with it. hitting balls that are clearly not there to be hit,especially when you arent set is poor batting. and the reason why balls hit the edge of his bat as opposed to the face is because of his miserable crooked batted technique.

Partly, yes, but partly also because of lack of foot-movement.

Hussain didnt go through a 3 year bad patch like vaughan has. and whether or not you think hes a better player at 4 or not, fact is that his record at 4 is only worse than at the top, and hence all of his failures at the top can only be counted as part of his overall failure.

His record at the top, as I've said many times, is massively exaggerated by let-offs. Yes, it's still IIRR a bit better than at four, but records can be deceiving. People undeniably bowled better at him (as well as caught better) in 2003 and 2003\04 than 20002 and 2002\03.

ifs and buts dont change a single thing. if bradman decided to go into tennis instead of playing cricket garfield sobers would be the best batsman ever.

Really? I'd say George Headley would, and so would many who saw them both in close proximity.
In any case - there are possibilities and implausibilities. The fact that this is the most continuity-minded England selection-panel ever is not really up for discussion.

i can hardly be bothered to look at English selection blunders over the last few years. both flintoff and harmison may have come close to being dropped, but as you yourself have said theres always been some sort of performance to justify their selection.Vaughan ATM does not justify his selection,and id much rather he scored runs in domestic cricket first and then get picked again.

Possibly I would too. Vaughan would certainly do best to play domestic-First-Class cricket instead of ODIs.
In any case - best scenario or not - you and me know that's very unlikely.