• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

98/99 Feast or Famine?

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You seem to be ignoring the pool of quality that England seems to be lacking. The spinners were selected for obvious reasons and the bowlers, especially post 2005 have been picked to fill a void.
That's true, but Plunkett and Mahmood should not have been the bowlers picked to fill that void. They're both roundly awful, not even county-standard players. There are countless hundreds - all of whom could conceivably have failed also, yes - who should have been ahead of them.

Dawson and Batty being picked made no sense. Dawson was selected when he should have been behind 3 or 4 others at least, and as a third spinner in a party of 16, always surplus to requirements. Batty was picked ahead of Croft, which was insane.
I think you are really nit-picking with Harmison, Kabir, Prior and Read, so other than Ormond and McGrath, and possibly one or two more, the list doesn't warrant as much criticism as you dish out.
Nah, Prior was a mistake, full-stop. They either a) didn't know his keeping was as poor as it turned-out to be or b) knew it and picked him anyway. Whichever of these it was, it's a shocking mistake.

Harmison and Kabir you can make a case for, Kabir especially, but Read was 20 years old and had barely played half a season when he was picked. Absolute madness.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Of them, I'd only put Afzaal, Ormond, Dawson, Kabir, Blackwell down as truly appalling, the sort that could have walked straight out of the nineties. There are fewer and fewer being selected though.

The others you will contest, but they'd have looked like superstars compared to some of that nineties lot. At least now the players selected appear to have some merit, then get found out; rather than no merit and then being found out. Also bearing in mind that's 7 years' worth of players.
Sorry, didn't see above post...
People seem to mistake the madness of the 1980s for the 1990s. England selection in the 1990s was a picture of stability and good sense compared to that of the 1980s, especially later on. There's been no less selectorial mistakes in the last 8 years than there was in the previous 10.

Let's have a look at those who debuted in the 1990s, and compare them to the list of awfuls in the 2000s...

Michael Vaughan - clear class batsman, has gone on to become England captain.
Gavin Hamilton - exceptionally unfortunate not to get more than 1 Test, nothing wrong with his selection at all.
Chris Adams - not a Test-class player, but many, many worse have played for Tests (Afzaal and McGrath for instance)
Darren Maddy - never completely convinced as a county batsman, should never have played a Test.
Edward Giddins - basically picked on 1 good season.
Chris Read - picked at 20 years old after half a season, madness.
Aftab Habib - very unfortunate not to get more than 3 Test innings.
Warren Hegg - fair enough to be a backup wicketkeeper, but should never have played a Test as first-choice (and he played 2).
Alex Tudor - fine bowler, career wrecked by injuries.
Andrew Flintoff - picked hopelessly early, regardless of what he's turned-out to be. Rubbish for at least 3 years after his initial selection.
Ashley Giles - fair enough selection.
Steve James - basically read Habib, but he got 4 rather than 3.
Ben Hollioake - basically read Flintoff, sadly he never got the chance to show what he might have been. :(
Adam Hollioake - barely a ODI-class player, basically picked for Tests on ODI form, never a great idea.
Mike Smith - ridiculous that he only played 1 Test. Absolutely mad.
Dean Headley - fine bowler, career ruined by injury.
Mark Butcher - fine batsman, though he took quite some time to get going.
Chris Silverwood - perfectly justified selection, hopelessly disappointing Test bowler.
Robert Croft - right-arm version of Giles, though you even the simplistic fools who called Giles a "defensive" bowler couldn't do that to him.
Simon Brown - honestly don't know enough about him to form judgement, was coming to the end of his career when I started following domestic cricket.
Mark Ealham - probably not someone who was ever going to amount to much as a Test player, but many worse all-rounders or supposed all-rounders (whatever discipline they favour) have played for England (Blackwell, Schofield, Batty, Plunkett, Bopara for instance).
Min Patel - not quite sure why he was picked instead of Tufnell, Tufnell was probably on one of his usual indiscretions.
Alan Mullally - almost a left-arm version of Silverwood.
Ronnie Irani - almost a bat-strong version of Ealham. Gets so much unfair flak, there've been dozens worse to play for England.
Alan Wells - shouldn't have played when he did, should have been playing at a time he was preferring to take the rand.
Mike Watkinson - odd selection indeed. Epitome of bits-and-pieces player.
Nick Knight - fine domestic batsman, one fatal technical flaw that stopped him being Test-class. Had to be picked for that to be found-out; unquestionably deserved his selection.
Jason Gallian - not sure why he was picked TBH.
Dominic Cork - fine, fine bowler.
Peter Martin - good bowler, many worse have played (if Mahmood can ever lace his boots he'll have done well) but probably not Test-class.
Joseph Benjamin - odd selection indeed, no-one ever thought he was going to be Test-class. Why on Earth did he play ahead of his opening partner Martin Bicknell? Surely Bicknell must've been injured.
John Crawley - right-handed version of Knight.
Darren Gough - fine, fine bowler. But for injuries would probably have been even better.
Craig White - such a shame he didn't have more of an international career.
Stephen Rhodes - never had a clue why he usurped Jack Russell TBH.
Martin Bicknell - fine bowler, should have played many more times. Plunkett will never be fit to lace his boots.
Graham Thorpe - probably England's best batsman until recently.
Martin McCague - awful selection, not quite the Plunkett of his day but more the Hoggard circa-2000-2003\04.
Mark Lathwell - has always baffled me that he played Test-cricket.
Mark Ilott - decent bowler, deserved a go, pretty much another Peter Martin.
Peter Such - decent fingerspinner, if he could bat a bit the likes of Watkinson would never have played.
Andy Caddick - very fine bowler.
Richard Blakey - read Rhodes.
Paul Taylor - read Simon Brown. Even bowled with the same arm.
Neil Mallender - classic horses-for-courses Headingley pick, and this time it worked too.
Tim Munton - read Ilott and Martin.
Ian Salisbury - read Mullally and Silverwood, except he's a spinner rather than a seamer.
Dermot Reeve - odd selection indeed.
Hugh Morris - good batsman, deserved a go, didn't take his chance and didn't get that many.
Richard Illingworth - slightly lesser version of Tufnell, but much better temperamentally.
Stephen Watkin - another of those Headingley legends, but should have played more really.
Mark Ramprakash - batsman's version of Silverwood, Mullally, Salisbury.
Graeme Hick - hugely complex case, but the selectorial error came much later on.
Philip Tufnell - decent fingerspinner, but far too volatile to be successful at Tests really. Had to be picked sometimes though.
Neil Williams - just 1 Test, would probably have been better for all if it was 0.
John Morris - bit of a Hugh Morris, but didn't do his chances any good with off-field antics of course.
Chris Lewis - decent all-rounder but not Test-class. Many worse have been tried however.
Alec Stewart - very fine batsman, and later wicketkeeper-batsman.
Nasser Hussain - very fine batsman.

So really, I don't think there's much significant difference between 1990-1999\2000 and 2000-2007\08 TBH. Someone could probably tot-up the totals, though, to make some form of objective comparison. :)
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Famine

Windies to bring back S Ragoonath IMO.

Gilchrist Ntini Lee Vaughan Mohammed Yousuf quality performers.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Interesting stuff there, particularly sad to hear about Niroshan (CBA spelling his surname :wacko:), who I thought looked quite good on the odd occasion I saw him. Never knew where Suresh Perera had disappeared to either. Ruchira only ever appeared to be a chucker once out of the 7 or 8 times I saw him - you reckon he chucks all the time?

Interesting too to hear about de Saram. One of the worst batsmen I'd ever seen until recently, would be interesting to see how much difference there was should he return to international level.
Ruchira Perara is a born chucker, and a dick head too. Those two qualities in combination means he cannot get in to international cricket. When he gets close to 130k his action beraks up in to a pitch than a delivery.

Saram looks very good these days. He is a very good improviser and a superlative player of spin playing in the moment.
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
You have to look through the perspectives of other people Rich. As bad as Mahmood and Plunkett maybe, the only other options were international cricketers passed there used by date and County bullies - both who would of been as reliable as the aforementioned 2, so an eye on the future was kept.

And them being not fit CC bowlers is a terrible hyperbole.

As for the spinners, I never really thought there was much between spinner #1 and spinner #4 whether that be Batty, Dawson etc, all would of been as useless as each other.

The English WK saga is always good to watch. I really have no qualms with Prior being selected - you can't have an Ashes 06/07 and go back to something that has arleady been tried (although, I wouldn't mind Read being there). He got the runs in CC and his keeping was acceptable enough, not to be a liability if selected, quite possibly a 'c' for your hypothetical selectors.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You have to look through the perspectives of other people Rich. As bad as Mahmood and Plunkett maybe, the only other options were international cricketers passed there used by date and County bullies - both who would of been as reliable as the aforementioned 2, so an eye on the future was kept.

And them being not fit CC bowlers is a terrible hyperbole.
It really, really isn't. As I (and a number of others) have said several times, there have always been 4 or 5 (at least) better seam-bowlers at Lancashire than Mahmood, and Plunkett has never had any great success for Durham even at the times he's been a regular in the team.

The "county bullies" term is one of the most stupid ever propagated. You don't know if someone is going to be a "domestic cricket bully" until they play internationals - many of the people who should have been picked ahead of Plunkett et al weren't even given a try.

Successful domestic bowler >>> unsuccessful domestic bowler. It's as simple as that. If you don't perform at the domestic level, there's next to no chance you're going to perform at the international. There were bowlers around, a large number of them, there have been throughout the last 3 years, who have been clearly far superior to Plunkett and Mahmood. Under NO circumstances should Plunkett and Mahmood EVER have played Tests ahead of these bowlers.
As for the spinners, I never really thought there was much between spinner #1 and spinner #4 whether that be Batty, Dawson etc, all would of been as useless as each other.
I did, and I'm afraid you're doing a gross injustice to the likes of first Such and Tufnell, then Croft and Giles, if you seriously think they were no better than the likes of Dawson and Batty. Dawson and Batty weren't even good enough to exploit turning surfaces against international batsmen (and Dawson barely even is at the domestic level). None of Such, Tufnell, Croft or Giles were bowlers capable of doing anything other than exploiting a turning pitch (and nor is MSP). But they were most certainly not useless. Dawson and Batty were.
The English WK saga is always good to watch. I really have no qualms with Prior being selected - you can't have an Ashes 06/07 and go back to something that has arleady been tried (although, I wouldn't mind Read being there). He got the runs in CC and his keeping was acceptable enough, not to be a liability if selected, quite possibly a 'c' for your hypothetical selectors.
Don't think Prior's wicketkeeping was acceptible at all myself. And have always had my doubts about his batting, though his performance in Sri Lanka was good.

I always said Foster should be ahead of him, and I've always believed Ambrose to be far superior in talent with bat and gloves. Sadly, it wasn't until last season that he started to put the numbers on the board.
 

Chubb

International Regular
Mark Lathwell - has always baffled me that he played Test-cricket.
At the time he was selected he was the most promising young batsman in England. Anyone who saw him play back then will tell you he was exceptionally talented, but he was firstly picked far too soon and secondly did not have the temprement for international cricket. He hated big crowds, disliked all the press attention he got and had a negative outlook on the whole international experience. In Atherton's autobiography he says he told Lathwell that the crowd was on his side. Lathwell's reply was "but when I get out they won't be". Lathwell ended up forgetting how to enjoy cricket, and he retired very young, and became a postman in his home village of Braunton in Devon, captaining their first eleven in the DCL. I believe he still does.

He was definately a poor selection because he should have had two-three years in the CC before even being considered. But he had the natural ability to be a superb batsman.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Atherton actually said "good luck, the crowd are rooting for you". Lathwell's actual reply was "they won't be in a minute when I'm on my way back to the dressing-room". :p Know that Atherton autobio pretty well, myself.

TBH, yeah, I know he had huge wraps on him and undoubtedly he could play. Perhaps not the fact he played in itself was surprising. But his was a poor selection, though, undoubtedly - classic example of over-hastiness. What exactly was wrong with the Gooch-Atherton opening partnership? If Gooch had been retiring it'd have been fair enough, to an extent.

I've often wondered what would have happened had he been given another year or so - perhaps even picked instead of Nick Knight in 1995 - but also I doubt the result would have been any different, for the second reason you mentioned. Temperament will out, no matter what anyone tries to do to help.
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
I'm still unconvinced about your attack of Mahmood and co. Have you ever considered the type of bowler who they were replacing? These two guys were the 'perfect' option to replace Jones and you must admit, at times, you have seen what they can do. If not, is there another bowler who you would put in their place? I know I've asked before, but you did mention too many ex-international players who just seem as though they wouldn't cut it at international level now.

Such, Tuffers, Giles...all finger-spinners and it was a waste of time even selecting them :ph34r: . But on a serious note, those you mentioned were easily better than Batty and co, but even with me saying that, I was never impressed with Such or Tufnell and as much as I like Giles, he really wasn't a wicket taking bowler. Batty and co were seen as being more likely to take wickets and that is where the justification in their selection lies.

Overall, I think the selection policy for England amongst probably all other countries is a bit iffy - maybe not so much for South Africa. India, Pakistan, Sril Lanka, New Zelanad to an extent all have poor domestic scenes, but for some reason, I get the impression that percentage wise, they don't use as many players as England have. While in Australia, of late, we have had two batsmen who have debuted with scoring 10 000 and 8000 domestic runs respectively - I'd like to know who from the current English team has scored the most runs before their international debut.

With the bowlers, which everyone is keeping an eye on as this is perceived to be the weak spot in Australia's future team, it is interesting to note that Johnson has only played 27 FC games and Tait 45, for me, that seems a bit early and not enough match practice, would you know what the average games played for an English bowler is?

The excess of players for England is even more odd as they don't have a tradition of picking 'youngsters' like the Asian bloc does.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I'm still unconvinced about your attack of Mahmood and co. Have you ever considered the type of bowler who they were replacing? These two guys were the 'perfect' option to replace Jones and you must admit, at times, you have seen what they can do. If not, is there another bowler who you would put in their place? I know I've asked before, but you did mention too many ex-international players who just seem as though they wouldn't cut it at international level now.
Yeah, nothing.

As has been stated many many times on here by a large number of people for a very long time, Mahmood wasn't a definate for his County and at no time has he shown he can take wickets at any senior level.

Its bad enough when average County pros get cycled in and out of the team, but even worse when a player that isn't even that standard gets selected and has virtually zero body of work.
 

eglezdzdiyd

School Boy/Girl Captain
Of the aussies, i noticed a number of fast bowlers.
adam dale was already 30 odd and never that great at first class level. Good odi bowler though, tbf.
wilson was another aging seemer who got a gig knowing it wa limited.
muller was an abwsolute joke selection, and that's coming from an avid qld fan.
obviously lee was the next in linea dn just happened to do well, although really, his early career was lacklustre. I think alot of people neglect that period where kasper, mcgrath and gillespie kept lee out for a year or so.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm still unconvinced about your attack of Mahmood and co. Have you ever considered the type of bowler who they were replacing? These two guys were the 'perfect' option to replace Jones and you must admit, at times, you have seen what they can do. If not, is there another bowler who you would put in their place? I know I've asked before, but you did mention too many ex-international players who just seem as though they wouldn't cut it at international level now.
Even if the likes of Cork and Caddick would be unlikely to cut it at Test level, they'd almost certainly do a better job than Mahmood. Seriously, I just cannot fathom why anyone selected him and why anyone supported the selection. There's often too much fascination with "he bowls like Jones", well, not really, no, he does one or two things that Jones can do. You pick your best bowlers available, not bowlers who seem to be minutely like-for-like to someone else.
Such, Tuffers, Giles...all finger-spinners and it was a waste of time even selecting them :ph34r: . But on a serious note, those you mentioned were easily better than Batty and co, but even with me saying that, I was never impressed with Such or Tufnell and as much as I like Giles, he really wasn't a wicket taking bowler. Batty and co were seen as being more likely to take wickets and that is where the justification in their selection lies.
Giles was a wicket-taking bowler, many times, on turning pitches. Batty and Dawson, despite playing on several, never were. Giles was so much better than both it's untrue. Such and Tufnell were not that much worse than Giles, IMO - who knows, if Tufnell had had a better temperament he might even have been a bit better.

The problem with English is that there's been way, way, way, way too many times when a fingerspinner has been picked on a non-turning pitch, and that is a waste of time. Giles, Such, whoever - none of them were ever going to do anything on a non-turning surface.
 

DaRick

State Vice-Captain
I wanted to have a look at Test debuts for 1998 and 1999 as these are players coming up to 10 years as Test cricketers and should be in their prime.

Now I dont know if it is too different to other periods (as I havent looked) but what struck me was that there was a lot of ordinary cricketers with a few very good ones standing out.

There appears to be little depth in the quality after the initial 'star players'.

Is this potential 'lost generation' of decent-good Test roles players that should be in their prime right now a reason for the supposed current lack of Test quality?
Since I haven't been following international cricket long enough (4 years, actually) to be familiar with all of these guys, I have, due to my desire for more knowledge about the things in life I take an interest in, become somewhat acquainted with some of these fellows, who finished up their international careers before my time, as they may have played against Australia (who I do support) during a certain time period.

For the record, some of these guys do stand out as being Test-class cricketers, at the very least (i.e - Tillakaratne Dilshan), although there are others who I know were thoroughly mediocre when they played Tests (Scott Muller) and some who didn't live up to their potential (Ajit Agarkar). So here are my individual thoughts on the players I'm acquainted with:

Fazl-e-Akbar: I only remember him playing one Test (Pakistan.vs.India 2004) and he managed to make no impression on me as a seamer - he was part of a massive, Rahul Dravid-led carve-up which saw India score 600. I do remember him scoring a brief, loft-laden 25, though.
Mohammad Yousuf: Became a run-machine of sorts, although in his pre-Islam days, he was most certainly a talented but wasteful artist, as prone to lazy dismissals as he was to breathtaking shots (I won't forget him hitting Shane Warne over his head frequently during that Melbourne knock in 2004).
Shahid Afridi: I've always rated him. To be honest, I don't know why he hasn't played more Test matches. His bowling has variety (plus an excellent quicker ball), his fielding isn't bad (in fact, it's wonderful by Pakistani standards) and his batting is always entertaining (albeit frequently wasteful and self-serving).
Wajahatullah Wasti: Was he not caught spectacularly by Mark Waugh during the 1999 World Cup final? That aside, I know little about the man.
Paul Wiseman: An underacheiving off-spinner. From what I saw of him (in Adelaide 2004), he is reasonably accurate and is not afraid to flight the ball.
Matthew Bell: A mediocre opener, from what I've heard. Recently scored runs against Bangladesh, but that often shouldn't count for anything.
Ridley Jacobs: A decent wicketkeeper-batsman.
Daren Ganga: A mediocre test opener with a decent technique, but who is more often than not dismissed too early (his scores in single figures are too numerous).
Reon King: Saw him tour Australia in 2005. Made no impression on me.
Pedro Collins: A left-arm quick, who could, the last time I saw him, get the ball to swing prodigiously both ways (in Adelaide!) Should probably have played more than he actually did (particularly ODI's).
Nehemiah Perry: A middling off-spinner with the odd bout of incisiveness, as I understand it.
Corey Collymore: A quality quick who could bowl with sustained control and discipline, unlike the current West Indian attack. I don't know why he hasn't been selected more - maybe his lack of pace is a sore point (or his laughable batting).
Ricardo Powell: A batsman who could turn it on in the one-dayers - although whether this makes him suited to Test matches is rather questionable. May well have been better off not playing a Test match. Then again, it's not as if West Indian cricket has substantial batting depth...
Stuart MacGill: A quality leg-spinner who has obviously been unfortunate not to play more. He does have his faults (lack of control and variation) and many of his wickets have either been gifted or have come against poor players of spin (notably England). However, in his defence, he could have also played more one-dayers without me complaining. After all, his fielding is no more useless than that of many subcontinential fielders and his ability to make runs appears to have increased over the years.
Gavin Robertson: An off-spinner picked despite struggling to retain his NSW spot? Strange. I remember watching highlights of him bowling during the 1994/95 season and I must admit that he made no impression on me, but his performances on the 1998 tour of India still could have been a lot worse.
Paul Wilson: A seamer who was picked to play against India in 1998 because of a lengthy injury list, before ironically getting injured himself. Apparently, all he did was bowl a leg-stump line to VVS Laxman (!). He was quite aggressive, though, according to Adam Gilchrist.
Adam Dale: A metronomical one-day seamer who presumably only got picked for tests because of injury lists (I know that occured upon his Bangalore debut in 1998).
Darren Lehmann: A very good batsman, especially against spin. I'd be stuffed as to why he wasn't given more opportunities.
Colin Miller: A decent medium-pacer/off-spinner who bloomed very late...so late, presumably, that his Test career was inexplicably terminated.
Adam Gilchrist: If he didn't invent the role of the wicketkeeper-batsman, he certainly set the standards for one through the roof (more the batting part than the wicketkeeping part, although he remained a mostly solid keeper when I was watching him). In the ODI's, he carried on from the tradition of Sanath Jayasuriya, smashing the ball into the point fence hard and early. Despite his batting declining badly through my years of watching him, he'll still be missed.
Scott Muller: He picked up wickets...but he also bowled terribly, as even he admitted, with most, if not all of his wickets, seeming to be gifted. He was unfortunate to be part of that "can't bowl, can't throw" carve-up. Still, why was he even selected?
Brett Lee: An interesting case. Initially, he had a very good Test career, before getting injured circa 2000. He came back late-2001 and often served no other purpose than to go for plenty for runs. This continued (for the most part), until I finally lost patience after his performance during the 2005 Ashes. Luckily, he steadily improved after that (with a few lapses), until belatedly becoming world-class. He has always been an excellent ODI bowler and is a decent lower-order batsman.
Makhaya Ntini: A quality test bowler who became world-class before my eyes. Given what he's been through, I won't begrudge him any wickets, although he has little to fall back upon when his pace his down and his angle works against him (I've never seen him really reverse the ball, surprisingly).
David Terbrugge: Saw him bowl once in a Test match. Made no impression on me.
Boeta Dippennar: Underachieving Test batsmen who perhaps didn't impose himself enough. With that being said, though, he was a quality ODI opener, despite his slow scoring. His retirement is unfortunate.
Nantie Hayward: An express, unpredictable, underachieving quick.
Harbhajan Singh: A quality off-spinner who, at his best, can vary his length and pace. He also has a doosra and a top-spinner. With that being said, though, he is currently in danger of going down the road of the late-era Saqlain Mushtaq.
Ajit Agarkar: Good ODI bowler, terrible underachiever in Test matches. He was once likened to Kapil Dev, but his batting is more comparable to Shane Warne's (read: inconsistent), while his Test bowling, save the odd spell where he got the ball to swing sharply, has been wholly ineffective. He looked completely flat the last time I saw him in a Test match.
S Ramesh: Apparently, a decent opening batsman.
Ashish Nehra: Promising left-arm quick who was often debilitated by injury. Doubts were also raised about his mental fortitude and he was eventually usurped by Irfan Pathan, R.P Singh and friends.
DJ Gandhi: Apparently, an opener-turned-rabbit who played against Australia in 1999.
Mannava Prasad: Why was he selected? Was Nayan Mongia not playing at this time?
HH Kanitkar: I've heard stories about how poor he was (mainly from rabid Indian fans). Can anyone please clarify for me?
Ashley Giles: I've never rated him, tbh. Although he could certainly do a job on turning surfaces (his record in India and Pakistan is good), he always struck me as being too hesistant to attack, often bowling flat just outside legstump, hoping to get enough turn and bounce to trouble the right-hander in particular. His variation is questionable, too (did he even have a proper arm ball?) The fact that I tended to watch him when he was injured or unfit didn't help, although I will agree that he was a good lower-order batsman and a decent fielder.
Andrew Flintoff: Picked too early, he was, for years, nothing more than a soi-disant all-rounder who, in practice, wasn't even close (after 20 Tests, he averaged 21 with the bat and 46.5 with the ball). He did become a top-class all-rounder soon enough, even though his batting ability did, even in his prime, seem a tad over-hyped (his technique against spin didn't inspire confidence, for one thing). His stock as an all-rounder gradually fell after the 2006 tour of India.
Alex Tudor: A decent express quick who is better known for having his Test career halted by a well-aimed Brett Lee bouncer.
Warren Hegg: He was once Lancashire's keeper, right?
Chris Read: A so-so batsman and an excellent keeper who was selected far too early (at 20?! - Were the Poms that desperate?)
Ed Giddins: Better known for his extracurricular activities and his batting ineptitude than his bowling prowess, I suspect.
Michael Vaughan: Began as a top-class opener whose batting form fell away over the years, before belatedly resurging. To me, he's an inconsistent captain - sometimes good (Ashes 2005), sometimes un-inspired (Sri Lanka 2003).
Malinga Bandara: Seemed like a handy little leg-spinner, to me. That being said, I can understand why his Test appearances have been limited - he hardly generates turn, for one thing, relying a little too much on bounce.
Ruchira Perera: A left-arm seamer with a dubious action.
Avishka Gunawardene: He hasn't made much of an impression on me when I've watched him. He did always remind me of a lesser form of Sanath Jayasuriya, though.
Upul Chandana: An underrated, accurate legspinner, who could admittedly have worked on turning his legbreaks and googlies more. His performance against us in Cairns 2004 stands out, although we helped him considerably by attempting to - inappropriately - blast him out of the attack. He was a good one-day bowler, that I know.
Rangana Herath: A slow left-arm orthodox spinner who bowled well against us in Colombo 2004. From what I remember, he gave the ball some air and turned it enough on a dustbowl.
Tillakaratne Dilshan: A good Test batsman who is fairly exuberant, a gun fielder and a handy offspinner - making him valuable in ODI's, too.

Well, that is all. I've attempted to be as accurate with my opinions as possible. If there is a misunderstanding, I apologise.
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Something about that post strikes me as very much CW-veteranish. Odd, really. Welcome to the forums anyway. :)
 

DaRick

State Vice-Captain
Something about that post strikes me as very much CW-veteranish. Odd, really. Welcome to the forums anyway. :)
I suppose that's a compliment of sorts. Thank you for your welcome. By the way, I do not have a different account (I believe you should have my IP logs, which will indicate that). 8-) Goodnight, now - I'm gettin' some shuteye. :sleep:
 

Top