Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 145

Thread: Dire Times Ahead For England

  1. #61
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    Originally posted by marc71178
    Flintoff's non-Test average (over about 5 times as many games) is 38.73, whereas Jones has played 1 season for about 41-42.
    Was up around 60 for the whole season, unfortuantly he had a few poor games in the run in that dropped it below the 50 mark for the first time in his life, remember Marc he played a few games the season before.

    But yeah ended up around 46 in the end.... But was by far and away the leading WK in the country, more runs, higher avg, most catches, most stummpings etc etc - And all his batting was done from a lower position than most other WK's
    Last edited by Rich2001; 23-12-2003 at 03:26 PM.

  2. #62
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,985
    Career Average : 42.85

    Average in 2003 : 44.77

    Needs more than 1 season IMO.


    As for the Ealham, Walker, etc.

    If he's good enough for number 6 in Tests, he ought to be ahead of one who would never go in above 8 in all seriousness for England, or one that won't ever play for them.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  3. #63
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    Originally posted by marc71178
    As for the Ealham, Walker, etc.

    If he's good enough for number 6 in Tests, he ought to be ahead of one who would never go in above 8 in all seriousness for England, or one that won't ever play for them.
    That's a fair point but you select players on form in County Cricket not how (or would) play for England, at the end of the day had you or anyone even heard of the guy before last season... let alone he would be making his debut for a England XI in the Winter! And as a result where would you have placed him in the order when everyone else is established and so consistant?

    At the end of the day you have a point in that when he was in his fine form they could well have promoted him up the order a bit, but why change a winning forumla? It was the bowling that let us down and as a result we have signed alot of bowlers this winter that should solve that, I honesty feel you wont fine a much better attack next summer.

    * Saggers (Well need I go on)
    * Khan (Devloping nicely, very handy bat too)
    * Sami (Maidstone v Notts 15 W-Haul)
    * Sheriyar (Not a great season, but variation and a good stock bowler)
    * Stiff (England Under 19 star, 12 counties after him - Got to be half decent right?)
    * Cusden (stupidly good 2nd XI season last year, earnt promotion)
    * Joseph (Same here, very very good but WI birth means he can't play for the 1st until he doesn't class as a overseas)
    * Symo (never had a bad season yet, performs even better at county level than for Aussie, can't complain having a International as a 5th bowler!)
    * Dennington (Named as the New Ealham, not convinced yet but hasn't done bad espically in the One Dayer's)
    * Walker (You may laugh but the guy is a wicket-taker, I think the opp just think it;s easy scoring and just get themselves out, not complaining though )
    * Treadwell (devloping very well, academy 3/4 years and a good batsman)
    * Farely (Not to bad, showed promising signs last season)
    * Patel (Fantastic spinner on his day, hopfully a season out with a injury has lost him any of his magic)
    * Trott (Had a good season last year, only injury put pay to it in the end)

    Lets just hope the batting holds now :rolleyes:

    *Oh what was the subject again please*
    Last edited by Rich2001; 23-12-2003 at 05:36 PM.

  4. #64
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,127
    I still thing Michael Vaughan under-bowls himself. I think he quite a good spinner (well he's not the worst!) and should look to bowl himself 5-10 overs a innings, perhaps 15 overs if need be.

    He is certainly a better spinner then Richard Dawson.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.


  5. #65
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,797
    Originally posted by Rich2001
    * Joseph (Same here, very very good but WI birth means he can't play for the 1st until he doesn't class as a overseas)
    What Joseph is that? What's his full name?
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."

    The...er...Twitter[/SIZE][/CENTER]

  6. #66
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
    What Joseph is that? What's his full name?
    'Robbie' Joseph - I think he goes by that but his actual name is Robert I blieve.

  7. #67
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by Rich2001
    * Stiff (England Under 19 star, 12 counties after him - Got to be half decent right?)
    I can see the headlines now:

    "Youngster to Stiffen up English Attack"

    It's a crying shame
    "Age is just a stupid number"

    20...that's a rather big number :(:(:(

  8. #68
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by marc71178
    Of course he won't, but if Ealham had stayed at Kent, I expect he would've done.
    :duh: See, anyone can get confused where Notts are concerned? Not just Neil.
    If Ealhie had stayed at Kent, I'd be amazed if he was still batting ahead of Jones next season.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  9. #69
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by marc71178
    Talk about contradicting yourself!!!!!!
    I've already responded to that...
    Originally posted by Richard
    IMO Vaughan is a better middle-order player than he is opener.
    He's easily up-to-standard as a county opener, even at Headingley, but I still think he's better at three or four.

  10. #70
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by Craig
    I still thing Michael Vaughan under-bowls himself. I think he quite a good spinner (well he's not the worst!) and should look to bowl himself 5-10 overs a innings, perhaps 15 overs if need be.

    He is certainly a better spinner then Richard Dawson.
    IMO they're about equal; the Tendulkar\Agarkar balls were televised on national television and perhaps they have raised expectations of Vaughan, but Dawson is just as capable of bowling them; a ball delivered to Stephen Peters at New Road at the tail-end of last season was almost an identical delivery to those of Vaughan mentioned above.
    Almost any fingerspinner can bowl those balls given something to make the ball turn. The reason Vaughan is a better option as a fingerspinner than Dawson or anyone else is simply because of the fact that he is a batsman.

  11. #71
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by marc71178
    So of his 12 matches so far, he's had impressive spells or innings in 7 of them - terrible.
    And these 3 spells of impressive figures still lower his average against decent batting-line-ups to 43. Fantastic.
    A question for you; Harmison is likely to go to West Indies. The pitches in West Indies are more than likely to be graveyards for bowlers like Harmison. The batting (Gayle, Hinds if he bats three, Ganga possibly, Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Jacobs) is likely to be strong. If Harmison plays all 4 Tests and takes 5 wickets for 450, what will your response be? Only hypothetical as of yet, but in my view the likely outcome. So what would you say if it came to pass? Would you excuse it because the wickets offered nothing to his style of bowling?
    So it's my imagination that he was far ahead of the rest of our seamers in SL then?
    No, it's not your imagination that he was better than the rest of the seamers in Sri Lanka - it is that he was far ahead, but he was the best of a bad bunch.
    Now, while you think this says something about ability, I don't. Just because your peers are poor, it doesn't make you any better.

  12. #72
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
    I was referring to Michael Clarke.

    The intention was to show that that's the same attitude of many Aussie supporters which is getting frowned upon by many non-Aussies (English).

    Clarke is accepted by many as a good enough batsman to play in Tests and seems to be considered a Test success already. He's yet to play one...
    And I say exactly that. I wouldn't call myself a Michael Clarke detractor, because his one-day and ODI records are very impressive indeed, but I most certainly hold the view that until he plays a Test we can't say certainly that he's Test class.
    If I seem to be taking it for granted that Jones is a Test-class batsman I apologise. I have always been one to say that one season doesn't mean you're the business. However, I simply think that Jones is a better option than Read, who has suceeded for a season then failed for one. Jones has succeeded for a season. I know who'd be in the driving seat if I were David Graveney.

  13. #73
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by PY
    That statement about Steve Harmison makes me think you didn't see that spell of bowling. He took those wickets BUT he also had several ripping deliveries (ie rising cutting off the seam on off-stump) that didn't take wickets.

    Those balls deserved wickets but didn't get them. Surely you can't begrudge him the one's he did get? Think the key is that it all evens itself out when it comes to bowling, not so sure i does with batting but hell, they've scored the runs.
    If a bowler had a wicket for every time he made a batsman play-and-miss with a decent ball, most decent seamers would average about 10 and the exceptional ones about 6 or 7.
    The skill in bowling comes not in getting play-and-misses, but following a spate of play-and-misses by eventually bowling one that takes the edge. That is what I have said countless times about Flintoff and Harmison.
    It is impossible to say for certain either way whether it all evens itself out with bowling. It is fairly safe to say, and I've said it many times, that most batsmen have more good luck than bad in a career and some have more than others, but with bowling there are so many play-and-misses you'd have to keep a diary while watching a match. There are few observers good enough to do that. I'd get bored stiff.
    I will continue to point-out that bad or nothing-special balls took wickets if they do so and continue to judge on the balls that took the wickets, not their predecessors or successors.

  14. #74
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by marc71178
    Key, Walker - come off it!!!!!!!

    And you think he would make the England team purely as a batsman when he came in after them AND Ealham last season?
    Yes, I do - because wherever he came in, he scored the runs.
    And as Rich has pointed-out, if Kent had an unsettled line-up and he was scoring at nearly 60 for the first 2\3s of the season, he'd have been at four, possibly three. However, they don't - they have a line-up of settled batsmen who have been scoring runs, for Kent (and Kent aren't obliged to judge on Test-matches), with consistency in the last 3 years. You can't just say to a batsman "this guy's averaging 60 to your 45 - sorry, you're all moving down a place". Sorry, Fulton, Key, Smith, Symonds and Walker have been there for longer. If you ask me, Jones could be better than the lot of them, regardless of what order John Invararity chooses for them. But until he plays another season, we won't know for sure, as Liam has been at pains to point-out.

  15. #75
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Originally posted by Richard
    Itís a popular belief and in some cases itís totally untrue. Most batsmen have slightly more good luck than bad over a career; some (like Trescothick) have much more good luck. Even in The Ashes and the first 4 South Africa Tests, he was still getting luck, just fortunately it wasnít resulting in undeserved big scores.
    As for Vaughan, I can give you an exact breakdown if you like:
    115 v SL, Lords: dropped on 28 and 33 by Jayasuriya at second-slip.
    100 v Ind, Lordís: dropped by Ratra on 50, caught-behind on 77 and given not-out, lbw on 89 and given not-out, should have been caught on 97 by any other fielder than Ganguly.
    197 v Ind, Trent Bridge: dropped by Patel on 19.
    Even in a 55 against India at Headingley, he still managed to get dropped twice in 2 balls, before giving yet another chance shortly after and it being taken.
    177 v Aus, Adelaide Oval: caught at cover on 19, given not-out by a gutless third-Umpire.
    As I say, Vaughan himself, to his credit, admitted to his luck, so to deny it is rather silly.
    He had lots of luck in a short period of time; other than that, there hasnít been much. He played 3 good innings in that time, too, at The Oval (195), MCG (146?) and SCG (187). However, since the start of the 2003 season his luck has dried-up. He has made 2 centuries (Edgbaston v SA; Kandy v SL) and a half-century (Kandy v SL) but his average, excluding the Bangladesh games, is poor.
    IMO he would do far better, with his style of play, in the middle-order.
    You are contradicting yourself. In a thread a while ago (I cannot be bothered to get a quote) you stated that all batsman have about the same amount of luck, and the main point was that all batsman hit the stumps about 1 in 10 times from inside edges. Now you are saying that some batsmen are more lucky than others.
    Manchester United FC: 20 Times

    R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •