England 30 man squad for icc championships

[tooextracool]

Mark Ealham, Alan Mullally

ahh yes a couple of has beens, both of whom were very poor batsmen at the intl level as well as ordinary fielders. are you building up for the 2007 wc?

 

[Craig]

Well Ealham or Mullaly weren't picked for their batting ability.

So I don't see the relevance in it?

 

[marc71178]

Erm, I think you'll find Ealham's selection was in part owing to his batting ability.

 

[tooextracool]

Well Ealham or Mullaly weren't picked for their batting ability.

So I don't see the relevance in it?

as richard said,ealham was picked as a bowler who could bat a bit.
mullally was just the worst no 11 that you'll ever see....and his fielding was even worse. single skilled players dont work in ODI cricket anymore.

 

[chris.hinton]

Solanki has to be pick now

A Super Knock on a seaming pitch

 

[marc71178]

No, he doesn't.

His constant failures at ODI count for a lot more than one knock.

 

[Richard]

For crying out loud.

The One Day Game is so tilted towards batsmen that 300 is a regular score, even against reasonable attacks.

That is 75 runs more than what you have decided is an arbitrary cut-off for good or bad.

4.5 an over is about as harsh as saying to a batsman that any average below 50 isn't good enough.

The one-day game is not tilted towards batsmen, it is simply that bowlers coming into ODI cricket have not been good enough recently.
300 is a regular score because the bowling is so bad.
If we accept this, it'll just get worse and worse. If we encourage people to be disappointed with poor economy-rates, there's a much better chance of the situation improving.

 

[Richard]

I have never said anything along those lines.

Of course they need to aim for accuracy, but the odd wider ball is not a cardinal sin, and may often induce a wicket.

And far, far more often it will induce a delighted thwack through the covers to the fence, relieving scoreboard pressure and lessening the chances of a stroke being played to a ball that is genuinely not there to score off.

 

[Richard]

ahh yes a couple of has beens, both of whom were very poor batsmen at the intl level as well as ordinary fielders. are you building up for the 2007 wc?

Of course, two has-beens - as demonstrated by the fact that both have improved on their career records this season. The minute you see the term "has-been" you can gurantee straw-clutching in the extreme.
Yes, I'm planning to build for the 2007 World Cup. Both will likely still be playing then, especially if they think they're in with a chance of participation.
Ealham was not a "very poor" batsman, he just wasn't good enough with the bat to play as a specialist. And, to be frank, who gives a f**king toss if neither of them knew what end of a bat was which - they're both more than good enough with the ball to merit selection.

 

[Richard]

Erm, I think you'll find Ealham's selection was in part owing to his batting ability.

And that was poor selection. It's not Ealham's fault if they ignore the fact that his bowling is far better than most other supposed specialists and instead concentrate on the fact that they made a mistake when judging his batting ability.

 

[Richard]

as richard said,ealham was picked as a bowler who could bat a bit.
mullally was just the worst no 11 that you'll ever see....and his fielding was even worse. single skilled players dont work in ODI cricket anymore.

Let me assure you, you will see plenty of worse batsmen than Alan Mullally. And no insignificant amount of worse fielders either.
And of course, single-skilled players don't work in ODIs any more, that's why there are none of them around any more, and that's why these players who get in because they can bat a bit, bowl a bit and field brilliantly are such phenominal successes nowadays.

 

[Craig]

I have never said anything along those lines.

Of course they need to aim for accuracy, but the odd wider ball is not a cardinal sin, and may often induce a wicket.

I get the impression you don't give as much importance to rpo's as say Richard.

I don't see one reason why a bowler can't be accurate and take wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

Of course, two has-beens - as demonstrated by the fact that both have improved on their career records this season.

yes like graeme hick? oh yes success at the county level demands selection doesnt it?

Yes, I'm planning to build for the 2007 World Cup. Both will likely still be playing then, especially if they think they're in with a chance of participation..

umm no......both are 35, you think that they are built with extra life batteries and can last till 38? you do realise that players get worse when they get older dont you?

Ealham was not a "very poor" batsman, he just wasn't good enough with the bat to play as a specialist.

rubbish he couldnt bat to save his life.......

And, to be frank, who gives a f**king toss if neither of them knew what end of a bat was which - they're both more than good enough with the ball to merit selection.

they were good enough to merit selction, now they are just a bunch of county pros who in those seaming conditions in england along with some of the poor quality cricket tend to excel. ealham mind you was barely good enough to get into the ODI side....he couldnt bowl in the death and spent most of his time bowling in the middle overs which explains his relatively low E/R.

 

[tooextracool]

Let me assure you, you will see plenty of worse batsmen than Alan Mullally. And no insignificant amount of worse fielders either.

not at the intl level(outside of b'desh,zimbabwe etc)

And of course, single-skilled players don't work in ODIs any more, that's why there are none of them around any more, and that's why these players who get in because they can bat a bit, bowl a bit and field brilliantly are such phenominal successes nowadays.

oh yes and where did i suggest that players bits and pieces players were running wild?i would have someone who was a genuine batsman or bowler and either a quality fielder or can bowl/bat a bit.

 

[Craig]

umm no......both are 35, you think that they are built with extra life batteries and can last till 38? you do realise that players get worse when they get older dont you?

On most occasions players skills start to wane when they get older and so forth, but there have been occasions when players have continued to preform when they get older (Steve Waugh, Jack Hobbs, Garry Sobers spring to mind).

 

[tooextracool]

On most occasions players skills start to wane when they get older and so forth, but there have been occasions when players have continued to preform when they get older (Steve Waugh, Jack Hobbs, Garry Sobers spring to mind).

steve waugh definetly got worse towards the end of his career,he was dropped from the ODI squad in 2002. the other 2 arent ODI cricketers and fitness didnt really play as much of a role when they played as it does now.

 

[marc71178]

The one-day game is not tilted towards batsmen, it is simply that bowlers coming into ODI cricket have not been good enough recently.
300 is a regular score because the bowling is so bad.

No, the game is becoming increasingly in favour of batsmen.

Every change makes runs more likely.

 

[Swervy]

And far, far more often it will induce a delighted thwack through the covers to the fence, relieving scoreboard pressure and lessening the chances of a stroke being played to a ball that is genuinely not there to score off.

i thought top players didnt experience that kind of pressure Richard

 

[Langeveldt]

Solanki has to be pick now

A Super Knock on a seaming pitch

If Solanki played for Warwickshire and had an identical record would you pick him??

Actually there is no need to answer that one!

 

[marc71178]

He'd have been looking for another county if he were with Warwickshire Rich!

Although his bowling might be his redemption.

One things for sure, he'd get more practise at it if (heaven forbid) he were in the Warwickshire squad