England 30 man squad for icc championships

[marc71178]

Try all you like to make it sound inconceivable - the fact is, you're only doing it because it's Ramprakash.

No, it is a ludicrous scenario.

Immediately a wicket falls the whole pitch and attack changes?

Pull the other one.

 

[marc71178]

Still sticking to that, I see.

Still spouting the same rubbish which flies in the face of what happens in just about every one day games that's played I see.

 

[marc71178]

And because they weren't thrashed as badly as some expected in Australia or the first 2 Test-matches, and because Pakistan played sub-par in a dead-rubber Test-match which of course is unheard of even though it rarely fails to happen, and because they have played as poorly after the England series as they did most of the time before the Australia one, all of this means they are a Test-standard side.

Did they not just draw in the West Indies as well?

Bangladesh are very much improving as a side to the position where they are beginning to become more competitive.

 

[Richard]

interesting vaughan averaged 32 against SA,35 against the WI and 36 against SL.yet when ramprakash faced worse attacks in india and averaged 31 you say that he did pretty Ok and didnt fail. amazing that.

The India attack Ramprakash failed against was certainly far better than the West Indies one earlier this year; it was also as good as the South African and Sri Lankan one, including as it did Srinath, Kumble and Harbhajan who all, like it or not, got conditions to their favour in the series.
Yes, Vaughan didn't do badly overall, but there was a century in the first, last and middle innings of the sequence. If you take it from the 2nd South Africa innings to the penultimate West Indies innings, he in fact passed 50 twice (in the same game), which is not very impressive.

 

[Richard]

He was good, because he kept the runs down very well, but to say he's one of the best we've ever had is going a bit far IMO.

Fraser is the only one I'd rate above him in the modern era (post-1992).

 

[marc71178]

In other words, if you hand-pick results, Vaughan isn't impressive.

 

[Richard]

just about as likely as some of the similar quality leg spinners have been. see qadir and kumble who are/were both largely home based spinners.

Kumble spins the ball no more than a routine fingerspinner, and I never saw Qadir bowl except the odd ball from the Gatting-Shakoor Tour in real-time, so I can't really tell how much he spun the ball.
I'd guess, though, that he didn't spin it much more than Kumble given how unimpressive his record outside the subcontinent is.

 

[Richard]

In other words, if you hand-pick results, Vaughan isn't impressive.

No, in other words there was a considerable period where he did very poorly as an opening-batsman.
These were flanked by two innings of extreme size which throw the averages out - just like you have claimed Vaughan's early part of his ODI career threw his record out (before the recent NatWest Series), and that Nehra's few good performances that weren't of especial brilliance in WC2003 give it a misleadingly good look.

 

[Richard]

no i was arguing the point about whether that innings should be considered a failure or not because richard felt that it should be excused.

No, not excused, but your attempts to claim that it wasn't without any mitigation are incorrect.

 

[Richard]

Did they not just draw in the West Indies as well?

Bangladesh are very much improving as a side to the position where they are beginning to become more competitive.

And West Indies would have won that almost certainly but for rain.
And even if they're not, quite, as bad now as they were 3 years ago they're still nowhere near Test standard and anything achieved against them should be excluded for the sake of correctness.

 

[Richard]

these were not 'slow' turning wickets....the first test wicket offered turn largely from the footholds along with uneven bounce also from the footholds. the 2nd test was definetly not a 'slow' turning wicket either because there was exceptional turn and bounce from the wicket itself.
and yes giles bowled well in the first test, better than what i and everyone else expected him to.

Not better than I expected. The minute I saw Banks turning the ball in the Lord's first-innings - off the pitch, of course, disproving any silly theories that it was only turning out of the footholds - I was almost certain that Giles would be a big threat. Similar thing in the Second Test.
Any fool could see how incredibly slow the First Test wicket was, and the Second was every bit as slow as a routine subcontinent wicket.
But Giles, like any decent fingerspinner, proved that turn is all you need - however slow and low the surface, you can still be a threat.

 

[Richard]

oh dont get me wrong here, the first test was slow, but there was barely any turn of the wicket. most of the turn came of the footholds and therefore there was also uneven bounce and the lara dismissal shows that clearly.
the 2nd test though offered turn from the pitch, but if you had been watching closely, you would have seen that there was also bounce.

And because the most prominent wicket at Lord's - Lara's - was out of the rough, you might be able to get away with saying there was no turn off the pitch.
There was. Lots.
From the first-day in fact. Banks turned it on the first day and anyone with any sense could make a pretty good guess that Giles would be a big factor.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Not better than I expected. The minute I saw Banks turning the ball in the Lord's first-innings - off the pitch, of course, disproving any silly theories that it was only turning out of the footholds - I was almost certain that Giles would be a big threat. Similar thing in the Second Test.
Any fool could see how incredibly slow the First Test wicket was, and the Second was every bit as slow as a routine subcontinent wicket.
But Giles, like any decent fingerspinner, proved that turn is all you need - however slow and low the surface, you can still be a threat.

well said. Giles has always done well when the balls turned. Just never put any match winning world class spells in....till now. The Old Trafford wicket wont suit him as much i dont think, its gonna be faster for the bowlers and will probably turn off the pitch more than others but with all this rain thats been about it shouldnt be TOO dry unless the weather suddenly stays hot and dry from now till then, so dont expect the big dusty footholes of the first 2 tests. Although there is talk of playing 2 spinners for the test so who knows how its playing. It certainly helps that most the WI top order are left handers too.

 

[Richard]

no my point was that on flattish wickets and against a good batting lineup he generally tends to be economical without taking wickets. his record is pretty good because he is very dangerous if the wicket or the conditions offer something,as we saw in england last year.

As we saw in the one match in which he played where conditions suited him, yes...
Only at Trent Bridge did he find the unevenness and seam that he needs, and as anyone could guess, he was devestating.

 

[Richard]

Still spouting the same rubbish which flies in the face of what happens in just about every one day games that's played I see.

In your interpretation.
Not in mine.
You cannot prove it is fact that wickets in themselves slow the rate.

 

[Richard]

No, it is a ludicrous scenario.

Immediately a wicket falls the whole pitch and attack changes?

Pull the other one.

It is ludicrous only because you do not wish a Ramprakash failure to have any mitigation.
If you actually watched the ball-by-ball footage, you'd see it.
Sadly I doubt you have any.

 

[Richard]

so when vettori took those wickets in perth and saqlain took that 6fer in hobart they were not dangerous then?

Oh, yes, they were dangerous - well, Vettori was, but that was no surprise to me, given how much the pitch was turning.
Don't know how much that Bellerive wicket was turning - and just because you might say "it wasn't" doesn't mean I'll believe it wasn't. Maybe Andre, Kyle or someone who might remember could tell us?

 

[Richard]

have i said its not handy?ive clearly stated that if batsmen apply themselves they wont have too many problems because its not lethal as turn+bounce is.however if anyone gets wickets on these pitches then it is the spinners because the pace bowlers have nothing to work with. if you are a good enough player of spin bowling then you shouldnt have any problems against slow turn.

How stupid is this - of course turn is more dangerous when accompanied with high bounce - all sideways-movement is. Seam and good bounce is much harder than seam and low bounce.
But seam, turn or swing with low bounce is still dangerous if you can exploit it. Some bowlers can.

 

[Richard]

well said. Giles has always done well when the balls turned. Just never put any match winning world class spells in....till now. The Old Trafford wicket wont suit him as much i dont think, its gonna be faster for the bowlers and will probably turn off the pitch more than others but with all this rain thats been about it shouldnt be TOO dry unless the weather suddenly stays hot and dry from now till then, so dont expect the big dusty footholes of the first 2 tests. Although there is talk of playing 2 spinners for the test so who knows how its playing. It certainly helps that most the WI top order are left handers too.

Weird how we've heard wildly differing reports - Giles saying "if we get a quick wicket this lot could pay", then we hear that Batty could get yet-another opportunity.
I wouldn't quite say Giles hasn't ever put-in match-winning spells - he played a huge part in the triumph in Karachi. He finished-off the eventual rout in Columbo 3 games later, too.
I'd love to have seen him level the series in Ahmedabad the following winter, too, but sadly not to be.
But certainly most of his best performances haven't come in victories.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Yeah i mean 5-6 wicket spells which good spin bowlers can regularly get. I guess Giles is consistant so thats a plus point. From watching 3-4 one day games from old trafford this season that its turned alot and the likes of Hooper / Keedy and Mongia regularly bowler together in the middle of the innings. But obviously the TEST pitch should be alot better. I think england would love a big turner with nice dusty footholes again, but it would be nice to have just ONE pitch this series where its just lots of pace and bounce for the links of Harmison / Jones / Flintoff to have some fun on. The Oval should give us this if Old Trafford doesnt. But we wont be able to beat the likes of Australia next year by Giles outbowling Warne.