England bowling

[Richard]

I've always hated that way of looking at things. So what if Grame Hick average 40 between 1996 and 1999. He was still a mediocre test match batsman. If an average of 40-45 is your peak, then you'll be lucky to have a career average over 35.

Butcher is another who keeps reminding us about his 40 average over the past year or two. So what?

If the good period is the most recent part of the career it's valid. If it's 3 years in the middle of a 9-year career (like Hick) it's of course a useless peak.
However, the most recent action is the most relevant, and Butcher's Test average since 2001 is closer to 50 than 40. Hussain's average in the same period is just under 45. This is more than enough to earn the right to keep a Test place.

 

[Richard]

Absolutely agree. Some merchant on here is always banging on about how Ramprakash has such a wonderful average if you dont count some innings and subtract a few more because he was a bit poorly at the time. The bottom line is he and his ilk don't cut the mustard when the fur is flying (mixed metaphor alert). He has a good first chance average though so in theory that makes him better than some jammy chancer like Gilchrist or Hayden according to some pretty desperate voices.

I have never mentioned first-chance averages in relation to Ramprakash.
And yet again; desperadoism is disliking luck inflating an average? Fine, if you want to think that, think it.
Ramprakash has a good average if you take the most recent period only, and count out innings in which he was batting totally out of position.
How does something that happened 6 years and more ago matter (ie Ramprakash's failings as a Test batsman)?

 

[Richard]

The problem with the England side is that no one is given an extended go to prove themselves. Having your place secure in the team gives you confidence and allows you to relax and play your best cricket. Even with injuries there is too much chopping and changing. As evidenced with the Australian side there is an extablished pecking order (although Bracken seems to have leapfrogged Williams through good one day performances)

With Mark Waugh gone every Australian batsman in the most recent sides has had a truncated first spell in the side, then been recalled after a differing length absence.
You earn your place by performing. If you don't perform, your fans can't be expect you to be retained. If you perform, you can rightly feel aggrieved to be left-out.

 

[Richard]

Regarding Vaughan's batting:
You'll probably not be surprised to learn that the main reason Vaughan scored all the Test-runs he did from May 2002 to early January 2003 was luck:
115 v SL, Lord's: as we all know, dropped twice by Jayasuriya in 10 minutes (28 and 33)
100 v Ind, Lord's: dropped by Ratra on 50, given not-out when caught by Ratra on 70-odd.
197 v Ind, Trent Bridge: dropped by Patel on 19.
177 v Aus, Adelaide Oval: caught at cover by Langer on 19.
Three good innings: 195 v Ind The Oval; 140-odd v Aus, MCG; 188 v Aus SCG.
Since May 2003 the luck has dried-up. Excluding innings against the popgun Bangladeshi attack he has had 13 innings since May 2003, and scored over 50 once, 156. In that period he hasn't had any real luck.
Captaincy has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's just an excuse.

 

[raju]

Regarding Vaughan's batting:
You'll probably not be surprised to learn that the main reason Vaughan scored all the Test-runs he did from May 2002 to early January 2003 was luck:

You have found the solution to scoring runs; just pick lucky players or even non-cricketers who are on a bit of a roll at the track. Maybe Ramprakash should start carrying a rabbits foot around with him and then the 100s would surely flow.

 

[luckyeddie]

Regarding Vaughan's batting:
You'll probably not be surprised to learn that the main reason Vaughan scored all the Test-runs he did from May 2002 to early January 2003 was luck:

And here's me thinking that it was all about the ability to put things out of his mind (like a catch being dropped).

Next, you'll be telling us that Ramprakash was never dropped.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

desperadoism

What??

 

[luckyeddie]

Anyway, back on topic

Will Steve Harmison ever play for England again?

How much can be read into this article

which appeared on Cricinfo today?

Now, my first thought is that it's a load of bull - no side would cut off their nose to spite their face.
My second thought is that, perhaps, it's just a kick up the backside for the player.
My third is that it's a load of bull again. Note that it carries the byline 'Wisden Cricinfo Staff' in other words, no-one has the guts to own up to writing the story.
My fourth is that the only reason that no-one is credited with the 'story' is that it allows for the old 'plausible deniability' when it is debunked and Harmison is selected for the West Indies tour.
My fifth is that it is true - and that Cricinfo have actually got a good investigative journalist on their staff, instead of them just regurgitating the usual banal nonsense they are spoon-fed by the powers that be.

(no chance of No 5)

 

[Craig]

Bowlers who have played Test-cricket for England in the last 24 months:
Richard Dawson - worst Test selection I've ever seen. Not even in Yorkshire's best First-Class XI.
Stephen Harmison - debated to death, no point reiterating any arguments. Injuries: calf has caused untold trouble in the last 5 months (missed 5 Tests due to it).
Simon Jones - First-Class record anything but impressive, called-up anyway, took 5 wickets at over 32, bowled too much on debut and injured side (missed a theoretical 3 Tests) then we all know about that horrific injury that could so easily have been prevented by someone telling him how to slide on Australian outfields (missed a theoretical 19 Tests)
Andrew Flintoff - bowled into the ground by both captains of his side, since he started bowling decent spells. This despite never looking like taking many wickets. Tests missed through injury: 9.
Ashley Giles - anyone who allowed themselves to see the real picture would see that he's a good bowler in conditions like those in which he recenty took 8 for 132 and useless anywhere else. Hasn't had injury problems for the last 12 months, but missed 4 Tests with a broken wrist and before that achillies-tendon caused 5 Tests to be missed in just over 5 months.
Martin Bicknell - earned his selection about 50 times over, did well in his last innings and then got left-out again because there were so many younger options. Accuracy not what it was, but still deadly with a swinging and seaming ball.
James Kirtley - after finally being given his chance, took wickets at less than 20 and then... yes, you guessed it, missed a Test through injury and lost his place.
James Anderson - picked too soon, selection almost inevitably backfired, then missed 3 Tests due to unrelated injuries.
Kabir Ali - took 5 wickets at less than 28 in his only Test, then got dropped because there are so many options.
Richard Johnson - got an easy ride in his first 2 Tests, but took full toll. Suffered huge injury problems all his career, didn't do quite so well in First Sri Lanka Test.
Matthew Hoggard - never been consistent in his Test-career. Bowled OK on a few occasions, such as in first-innings of First New Zealand Test and Bangladesh series. Injured for most of last summer.
Gareth Batty - looked distinctly ordinary in Bangladesh, managed to get 5 poor strokes in The First Sri Lanka Test and as a result his wickets came at only just over 30 - hardly impressive in just about the best spinners' conditions you can realistically conjure-up. Of course, because he's "young" (26) like Dawson people are hugely reluctant to criticise him, but any lack of criticism is silly as IMO he is just hugely out of his depth at international level. Also somewhat over-committed - celebrating every wicket as if it were a ticket to World control.
Alex Tudor - bowled well on 2 or 3 occasions in his Test-career, was terrible in recent Tests and last FC season. Undoubtedly can bowl well in seaming conditions, but accuracy has always left something to be desired and has never been very effective in non-seaming conditions. Had huge injury problems up to 2002, seemed to have shaken them off and then they returned last year.
Darren Gough - had a longer career than any of the above, proven a little more consistent but had just started to become a little inconsistent again, and having always been injured lots was struck-down once and for all and his Test-career was finished.
Andy Caddick - another with a long career but has had just one consistent period (New Zealand series 1999 to halfway through Second Pakistan Test 2001). In 1993-1998 period very inconsistent and similarly so after 2001. Has recently suffered huge problems with back injuries and it will be tough for him to get his place back.
Dominic Cork - just 3 really good spells in his Test career, 1995-6, early-season 1998 and 2000. Has always had problems with consistency in an inexplicable inability to swing the ball sometimes. Not always used very well 2 summers ago and didn't bowl last season as he can. Test-career, sadly, probably over.
Craig White - had a very good period 2000-2001, then... yes, struck down by injury. Never been quite the 90mph merchant since then, but was still clearly a good bowler. Then hit by injury again, Test-career probably over.
Please forgive me if I've missed any, and don't hesitate to name them.

Yeah no Kent fan will be happy and nor would Martin Saggers as he has also played.

He will probbaly play only one or two Tests. Oh and you forgot James Ormond (a English versison of Inzy?).

 

[mavric41]

Heartless, gutless and useless.

Aren't they the qualities English selectors look for?

 

[luckyeddie]

Aren't they the qualities English selectors look for?

Probably - so if the Harmison 'article' in Cricinfo is to be believed, he'll be a shoe-in

 

[Richard]

Yeah no Kent fan will be happy and nor would Martin Saggers as he has also played.

He will probbaly play only one or two Tests. Oh and you forgot James Ormond (a English versison of Inzy?).

True - work-out Saggers for yourselves.

 

[Richard]

And here's me thinking that it was all about the ability to put things out of his mind (like a catch being dropped).

Next, you'll be telling us that Ramprakash was never dropped.

No-one is never dropped but I can't think of any significant let-offs in Ramprakash's time of scoring.
And if you forget a catch, fine, but it doesn't mean you deserve any credit for it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Regarding Vaughan's batting:
You'll probably not be surprised to learn that the main reason Vaughan scored all the Test-runs he did from May 2002 to early January 2003 was luck:
115 v SL, Lord's: as we all know, dropped twice by Jayasuriya in 10 minutes (28 and 33)
100 v Ind, Lord's: dropped by Ratra on 50, given not-out when caught by Ratra on 70-odd.
197 v Ind, Trent Bridge: dropped by Patel on 19.
177 v Aus, Adelaide Oval: caught at cover by Langer on 19.
Three good innings: 195 v Ind The Oval; 140-odd v Aus, MCG; 188 v Aus SCG.
Since May 2003 the luck has dried-up. Excluding innings against the popgun Bangladeshi attack he has had 13 innings since May 2003, and scored over 50 once, 156. In that period he hasn't had any real luck.
Captaincy has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's just an excuse.

So, according to you, Steve Waughs 120 against SA was luck because Gibbs dropped a sitter? Most people give at least 1 chance in a big innings