Katich call up

[PY]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Lehmann was there, and was attacked also, let's remember. I'm not sure he'd be right to play for a while, yet.

Yeah, I read in a report he was understandably upset and emotional when he met his family again.

Not the mindset for cricket. Give him time and I'm sure he'll come back strong.

 

[Richard]

Shall we think back to who else has actually bowled well in ODIs over the last year or so? Struggling? So am I.

Shall we look at the rest of the ODI bowling rankings:

1 Murali 911
2 Pollock 909
3 Vaas 836
4 McGrath 824
5 Ntini 799
6 Flintoff 774
7 Gillespie 765
8 Lee 765

All fairly useful... now lets go lower

9 Oram
10 Zaheer
11 Gough
12 Harbhajan
13 Anderson
14 Bond
15 Streak
16 Tuffey
17 Gayle
18 Harvey
19 Sami
20 Dillon
21 Shoaib
22 Agarkar
23 Collymore
24 Vettori
25 Bichel
26 Hogg
27 Shoaib Malik
28 Nehra
29 Drakes
30 Williams
31 Kumble
32 Razzaq
33 Kallis
34 Styris
35 Bracken
36 Giles
37 Mills
38 Dharmasena
39 Saqlain
40 Rafique
41 Shabbir
42 Harris
43 Chandana
44 Adams
45 Blignaut
46 GW Flower
47 Bojé
48 Symonds
49 Hall
50 Jayasuriya

When you remember it's current in ODIs... 9th is fair. There are few below that have been more impressive.

True.
A commentary on the state of bowling Worldwide if there ever was one.

 

[Richard]

Banks? IMO Banks is a batting allrounder, regardless of what the WICB wants to portray him as.

Certain parrallels to Ewing...:rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

I agree. His reputation as a death bowler was never there for me, and tonight he prooved it. Even when I saw him at the WACA a few weeks ago, he was pummled in his last few (Ged will know who by). I mean, I guess he's not that bad, but he's not that good either. In other words, once Watson's bowling again, I reckon he's gotta be out for good.

And yes, back to topic: Katich's shot was a shocker.

Agree on both counts.
Harvey's rating as such a good death-bowler is shockingly wrong. He's dreadful at any stage, and yet he's somehow managed to average about 23 since WC2003.
Not to say he's not a good domestic bowler and batsman, but international standard? No way.

 

[Richard]

What I mean is that both common & guenuine are generally of equal ability with both bat & ball , however a guenuine allrounder is of high enough quality to make the side with either disipline , even if he was unable to perform the other.

While a common allrounder would not make the side for either disipline alone , but gets in due to efficiency in both.

I understand what you're saying - but I'd just say "good all-rounder" and "brilliant all-rounder".
I mean, how many players, all-time, would have got into the team as specialists in either discipline.
Brilliant as Sobers unquestionably was, his bowling record is still somewhat disappointing.
I guess Miller has the best combination from the 1930-2004 lot (remembering it's difficult to compare before that).
I don't think basic sliding scales should be complicated with quanta.

 

[Richard]

Yet there's more that are successes in both forms.

Yes, of course there are, but still the ratio is even enough to mean that ability in one doesn't automatically prove ability in the other.
I would say it would be about 3:1; for every 3 players who are good in both forms, there is 1 who's good in one code only.
Slater and Vaughan are classic examples, but only because they're so good at First-Class cricket that they've been selected for Tests, and people have assumed that they must be good enough for ODIs, and been proved wrong.
There are hundreds of specialist game-form players, but for some reason people always mix-up one-day specialists with substandard all-rounders.

 

[Richard]

Then you get a Riccardo Powell who can't bat in 4D cricket.

I agree with what you're saying wholeheartedly, but this is not a good example - Powell simply can't bat at the top level, for $hit.

 

[Richard]

Um not 6 actually. He also bowled well in the Pakistan v NZ 'A' Tour.

Richard, look at that list. Who from outside the Top 10 in your opinion has done better than Oram in form in the past 6 months. Gough? pfffft...

And "A"-tours don't count towards PWC.:rolleyes:
Gough has certainly performed far better than Oram recently. His last ODI tournament produced economy of less than 3.7-an-over, a good average, and domestic season figures almost identical.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And has also missed plenty of matches lately before and after that series, hence why he's outside the top 10.

 

[Richard]

Not disputing that, simply that Gough hadn't done better than Oram in the last 10 months.

 

[Mingster]

And "A"-tours don't count towards PWC.:rolleyes:
Gough has certainly performed far better than Oram recently. His last ODI tournament produced economy of less than 3.7-an-over, a good average, and domestic season figures almost identical.

Um I was trying to say the NZ 'A' tour to Pakistan two months ago when we sent an 'A' team. Obviously your reluctance to not take notice of NZ Cricket but still comment is ridiculous.

ANd by the way, domestic season figures don't count either.

 

[marc71178]

Harvey's rating as such a good death-bowler is shockingly wrong. He's dreadful at any stage, and yet he's somehow managed to average about 23 since WC2003.

So like Lee and his 21 average, this recent run is also just luck then?

I wish other countries had such lucky bowlers....

 

[marc71178]

Slater and Vaughan are classic examples, but only because they're so good at First-Class cricket that they've been selected for Tests, and people have assumed that they must be good enough for ODIs, and been proved wrong.

Yet Vaughan seems to be doing consistently quite well for someone that is "not good enough"

 

[Rik]

Yet Vaughan seems to be doing consistently quite well for someone that is "not good enough"

Should read "consistantly very average"

He's averaged 30 since his 1st 6 ODIs, which of course don't need to be counted just like Richard has to count Ramps opening...

 

[Dingo]

Drop Martyn, recall Lehmann, find a spot for Kasper, all good...

 

[raw]

theres a whole heap of problems in that middle order, probably because Martyn can't make any runs, but is Lehmann really the answer, dunno...another problem is Bevan just doesn't look good at all now, he's hitting and missing by at least 1/2 a metre all the time....not sure what to make of Katich, he looked uncomfortable, do you drop Martyn and give Katich another chance?

 

[Mister Wright]

theres a whole heap of problems in that middle order, probably because Martyn can't make any runs, but is Lehmann really the answer, dunno...another problem is Bevan just doesn't look good at all now, he's hitting and missing by at least 1/2 a metre all the time....not sure what to make of Katich, he looked uncomfortable, do you drop Martyn and give Katich another chance?

No.

 

[Linda]

No.

Good answer.

 

[raw]

don't get me wrong, I'm a big Marto fan, but he's not playing that well at the moment (not that he's alone)...I know he's had bad luck but eventually as number 4 bastman you've got to step up and show the world what you've got to offer every so often otherwise people forget...Gilchrist has, Hayden has, Ponting's been there abouts...apart from the near 50 against Zimbabwe he's looked vunerable against India.

 

[Mister Wright]

don't get me wrong, I'm a big Marto fan, but he's not playing that well at the moment (not that he's alone)...I know he's had bad luck but eventually as number 4 bastman you've got to step up and show the world what you've got to offer every so often otherwise people forget...Gilchrist has, Hayden has, Ponting's been there abouts...apart from the near 50 against Zimbabwe he's looked vunerable against India.

Yes, but you wouldn't replace him with Katich. I'd give Marto the rest of the series, he deserves that. If he doesn't improve, maybe then it is time to think of a replacement. He hasn't been batting any worse than Bevan, yet no-one is calling for Bevan's head.