Gough for the sack

[marc71178]

And that determines whether a player plays international cricket again? Before Butcher in Tests... Harmison in ODIs... players can improve...

Oh no they can't.

Once Richard makes his judgment that is it for the rest of their career.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The point is in the last 10 years or so, Fleming's bat has got flowing only 4 or 5 times and one of those happened against SA led by Pollock. No, I am not saying he is a bad captain, but I thought he could have done better in that particular match. If I remember right, 12 out of 17 boundaries of Flem came off half volleys or short ones on the leg stump and it is the world's worst kept secret that the guy loves playing on the onside.

A captain can only do so much. He can advise a bowler how to bowl and expect the bowler to follow, but that bowler is an entirely different person with a mind, skills and form of his own. Any captain can set a game plan and the bowlers still may not follow it. That's cricket and that's life and that's why no team is undefeatable.

 

[sledger]

Bring back Ramprakash.

good lad!! yes bring back ramps, shame he wasnt perservered with really similarly to solanki

 

[Richard]

Australia has done as bad if not worse to better captains and South Africa only just got knocked out of the World Cup largely due to the bat of Stephen Fleming and everyone should know that that's hardly stoppable when it gets flowing.

And yet Boucher could so easily have stopped it on 54...
Yet another thing Pollock couldn't do anything about.

 

[Richard]

Oh no they can't.

Once Richard makes his judgment that is it for the rest of their career.

Wrong, that's just your assumed idea.

 

[Richard]

Based on one poor over you're blaming him?

No, based on the fact that he's bowled singularly unimpressively in all his ODIs so far and that he's never done much in List-A cricket before this National League season.

 

[marc71178]

Wrong, that's just your assumed idea.

Harmison suggests it's more than assumption.

 

[marc71178]

No, based on the fact that he's bowled singularly unimpressively in all his ODIs so far and that he's never done much in List-A cricket before this National League season.

What relevance do all previous ODI's and Domestic games have on yesterday?

 

[Richard]

The team was outplayed by the West Indies, not Pollock. The team was outplayed by New Zealand, not Pollock. The weather intervened against Sri Lanka and not all cricketers are required to know Math.

No, but they should know the difference between "to tie" score and "to win" score...
I did say that this was nowhere near enough in my estimation enough to warrant sacking a captain.

 

[Richard]

Harmison suggests it's more than assumption.

So you're making the assumption based on one case?
In which I've stated that I don't believe he hasn't improved, but that I don't believe he deserves credit for getting the number of poor strokes he has had.

 

[Richard]

What relevance do all previous ODI's and Domestic games have on yesterday?

Yesterday isn't the only relevant game.
All previous domestic games, where he's been poor season after season, do have some relevance whether you like it or not.

 

[superkingdave]

Yesterday isn't the only relevant game.
All previous domestic games, where he's been poor season after season, do have some relevance whether you like it or not.

Not when the argument is whether he was responsible for the final defeat

 

[Richard]

Not solely but he played a bigger part in it than some.

 

[marc71178]

He had 1 poor over.

I'm still trying to find out why his pre-2004 domestic bowling cost England the game yesterday, because I can't for the life of me see how it had any relevance.

 

[Craig]

The team was outplayed by the West Indies, not Pollock. The team was outplayed by New Zealand, not Pollock. The weather intervened against Sri Lanka and not all cricketers are required to know Math.

Regardless, as captain of South Africa he should have been more prepared and have the stuffsitting and waiting in front of him. You are making an excuse for his mistake why?

Pollock never seemed to be one that will make it happen rather then what for it to happen.

 

[Steulen]

Granted, I only followed the final watching the scorecard on the Net, and therefore my opinion counts for nothing, but since useless opinions have a natural habitat on web forums I'll give it anyway.

Up until his 9th over I was fairly impressed with Wharf, as he gave away very few runs even in his last spell when a Windies victory became ever more likely. It was only in his last over that he got smacked around. Compared to Gough and Harmison (who leaked at an economy of nearly 6 in a low-scoring game), Wharf certainly didn't present odd-one-out figures.

 

[wpdavid]

Granted, I only followed the final watching the scorecard on the Net, and therefore my opinion counts for nothing, but since useless opinions have a natural habitat on web forums I'll give it anyway.

Up until his 9th over I was fairly impressed with Wharf, as he gave away very few runs even in his last spell when a Windies victory became ever more likely. It was only in his last over that he got smacked around. Compared to Gough and Harmison (who leaked at an economy of nearly 6 in a low-scoring game), Wharf certainly didn't present odd-one-out figures.

Harmison leaked at 3.4 per over on Saturday, which I thought was acceptable. Gough's another matter, of course. Wharf's economy rate on Saturday looks OK and anyone can be forgiven for one game when he didn't take any wickets, but as others have said this wasn't the only game when that has happened. Allied to no wickets at all in the ICC, his tournament economy rate of 4.7 doesn't look exceptional to me.

 

[wpdavid]

I say Gough should no longer be thought of as a death bowler - he is, however, more than capable of opening up, bowling 10 overs straight through and doing a good job.
All right, his last 2 games have been poor. Wow. Anyone can have 2 bad ODIs - even Golden Boy had 2 in the NatWest Series. No-one called for his head then - oh, no, he's Steve Harmison, even though before this summer his ODI career had been a horror-story.
James Anderson has been poor in recent ODIs and Alex Wharf's selection has by and large been shown-up as the howler it is. 7 overs for 45 against the might of Zimbabwe, for Christ's sake. Now he plays a big part in losing the final.
As for the suggestion of James Kirtley playing ODIs ahead of him, that's laughable at best. Anyone remember what happened the last time Kirtley played ODIs? Or the time before that? Or anyone notice how terrible he was for most of the National League season 2004?
You might as well set Collingwood, Vaughan and Trescothick to bowl 10 than pick Kirtley again.
Gough has been easily England's best ODI bowler for the last 10 years and some people would drop him because of 2 poor games!

It's not just two games though. If you take England's 12 ODI's this summer as a whole, Gough has the worst average (38.6) and poorest economy rate (5.39) of England's bowlers apart from Collingwood and the other batsmen who turn their arm occasionally. Harmison, OTOH, produced an average of 19.9 and an economy rate of 4.02. So much for the idea that he couldn't play the oneday game.

Gough probably does have *something* to offer, but that something is much less than it was and it seems to be decreasing with every passing series. I'd rather see a line drawn on a terrific career now than send him to SA so that Smith, Gibbs & co can make him look stupid.

 

[Steulen]

My bad, I meant Gough leaked at 6 an over

Harmison took early wickets but didn't have a big impact in his second spell. That's why I mentioned him as well.

Really...need...to...wake...up [/note to self]

 

[Arjun]

Darren Gough has been England's premier one-day bowler for a long time, and is still effective, even now. He may go for a few runs, but he can strike back with a few wickets, too. Consider the match against the Australians. He got hammered at first, but struck back well in the final overs. The final overs are his main strength, and given the udner-performance of Wharf and Collingwood, his importance cannot be underestimated. He has a very good wicket-to-match ratio, one of the best these days. Not to mention an average of 26. One bad match can't make him useless so quickly.