Gough slams England's selection favouritism

[Richard]

Well you're effectively seeking to play down the achievement of Waugh's 120no on the basis that he was dropped.

That was (as far as I recall) the only chance he gave in that innings.

The fact which your advocacy of the "first chance average" does not seem to me to acknowledge is that in cricket you do get let-offs from time to time, and how you react to those is a vitally important aspect of a batsman's skill. It's one of the principal attributes for which Herbert Sutcliffe, for whom I know you rightly have a lot of respect, was renowned. A batsman - indeed any cricketer, and any sportsman - needs to be able to capitalise on his opponent's mistakes.

For this reason, it's largely academic to me whether Waugh scored those 120 runs before or after his let-off by Gibbs. The fact is, he scored them, and scored them when the chips were down. His performance was no less creditable than that of someone who scored 120 runs, and then gave a chance (which was taken by the fielder) at the end of his innings.

Well, as far as I'm concerned it was credible as much as someone who scored two innings' of 50 and 60-odd. Because that's what Gibbs gave him the chance to do, and that's what he did.

 

[Richard]

A big, surprising, startling, and imho unsustainable claim. Broad's in the top 5 ranked ODI bowlers in the world (unless I'm much mistaken, which is of course possible) and has played 40 ODIs. Is Killeen really in that sort of class? Does he even in truth stake any kind of claim to a place in the ODI team?

So long as Anderson and Harmison (and I dread to think who else) remain in the frame, he certainly does. I think Killeen could do a superb job, as could Mascarenhas, when the slog is not on, when the ground is not a dinnerplate-sized one, and when the pitch is not a rank road. Such a combination of circumstances isn't unusual (and any bowler will struggle when all three circumstances are combined, as we saw in the opening ODI of this series).

Broad's being ranked 5th or whatever it is is an indication of the follies of the rankings (as well as the relative paucity of good ODI bowlers currently), the poorness of Sri Lanka's batting in 2007/08, and no more. Broad had a fairly impressive 2008 summer in ODIs, and that's just about all he's done so far in his career. He's blown hot-and-cold with great regularity, as I say - but when he's been good he's been sufficiently good that, if overall average is the only thing you look at, he looks quite excellent.

 

[zaremba]

Well, as far as I'm concerned it was credible as much as someone who scored two innings' of 50 and 60-odd. Because that's what Gibbs gave him the chance to do, and that's what he did.

Or, to be more accurate, two innings of 50 and 70 not out. Particularly in this hypothetical world where every batsman gets out to every chance they give, those are very good scores. And both of those innings were compiled when it really mattered.

 

[Richard]

I'm pretty sure he was dropped on 56, in which case it was 56 and 64*.

Nonetheless, I'd not suggest that either performance wasn't excellent and crucial. It just annoys me when people talk as if that innings was one of the best ever seen in ODIs, because, well, it wasn't. But for the drop, the second part (which was the really good part) wouldn't have been able to be played and the game would've been lost.

All of the very best innings in terms of those that've taken a game through to victory have been chanceless, IMO.