Mate the deck he bowled on was turning a long, long way. He got out bowled by Clarke, who even turned them more than Haruitz. Though it's not his results I am referring to it is the fact he did not show a great deal of potential and also that one, two years down the track he is the number 3 first class spinner for his state, let alone playing test cricket. Any other first class spinner at the time could've done what he did and more and on that pitch. I am not saying he isn't a good bowler, just not the most deserving spinner of the test cap. Hence an unlikely test cricketer.andyc said:I was in China at the time so I didn't actually watch the game, but I don't see what Hauritz did wrong. I'm not trying to target you here, cause I've seen lots of people mentioning him, but he took 3/16 off 5 in the first innings, and then picked up Tendulkar and Laxman in the second, giving him a test average of 20.6. Is it just because he was expensive (ER was 3.81)?
Of those three only Udal (when selected for Pakistan, his recall for the 3rd Indian test seemed perfectly fair after Blackwell's efforts in the 2nd! ) was really outlandish, IMHO. Blackwell was selected because Udal had looked so dog-rough in Pakistan & he himself bowled pretty reasonably in the ODIs after we'd lost the test series, it just became obvious he wasn't of the required standard when he played.TT Boy said:Of recent times Ian Blackwell, Gavin Hamilton and Shaun Udal.
I don't think you're supposed to drink with that medication.....vic_orthdox said:Shane Warne.
Blackwell was quite blatantly an infinately worse selection than Udal.BoyBrumby said:Of those three only Udal (when selected for Pakistan, his recall for the 3rd Indian test seemed perfectly fair after Blackwell's efforts in the 2nd! ) was really outlandish, IMHO. Blackwell was selected because Udal had looked so dog-rough in Pakistan & he himself bowled pretty reasonably in the ODIs after we'd lost the test series, it just became obvious he wasn't of the required standard when he played.
Gavin Hamilton certainly wasn't finished by his 1999\2000 tour. He continued to be a fine player for the next 2 seasons.Hamilton, although he had an absolute mare on debut & never really recovered as a player was selected on the back of a v impressive 99 WC for yer sweaties.
Not really a solid county pro, at least not when he was selected. His career average was poor, so was his 1999 average.Jamee999 said:Darren Maddy.
Great guy, solid county pro, but come on!
Hmm... for England I'll give you...Craig said:Barring Zimbabwe and to be cruel you would say Bangladesh, but for the purpose of this thread they don't count.
Is there anybody who you saw and thought 'no way would they play Tests' but they did or should never have played.
Ive wanted to agree with you on something. You have got that spot on.Richard said:Blackwell was quite blatantly an infinately worse selection than Udal.
Equally, it should be clear to anyone with a brain that Udal is a better spinner in the four\five-day format.
Equally, it should be pretty obvious that Blackwell's batting is worthy of comparison to a decent club-level slogger. Most people could score runs at Taunton.
Is this one of those George Bush "You forgot Poland" moments?Pothas said:Richard you forgot Habib
Why? Leaving aside averages Blackwell had outbowled Udal in Pakistan & was therefore entitled to be given a go.Richard said:Blackwell was quite blatantly an infinately worse selection than Udal.
Equally, it should be clear to anyone with a brain that Udal is a better spinner in the four\five-day format.
Equally, it should be pretty obvious that Blackwell's batting is worthy of comparison to a decent club-level slogger. Most people could score runs at Taunton.
Oh, no, I certainly didn't. I quite deliberately passed him over. I feel he got a raw deal. I wasn't worried about it, because Atherton was clearly the better choice once he was fit again - but Habib deserved selection when it came his way and SHOULD have got more chances than he did. Picking Chris Adams that winter having given Habib just 3 innings in the summer was absurd.Pothas said:Richard you forgot Habib
You can safely ignore Richard's post, because it (or at least the bit you quoted) doesn't contain the phrase "Any fool knows that".BoyBrumby said:Why? Leaving aside averages Blackwell had outbowled Udal in Pakistan & was therefore entitled to be given a go.
He also has a longer career ahead of him, being nearly a decade younger. Udal was an awful pick, shown up all the more because until his selection the current regime had almost invariably put their faith in (relative) youth.
WRT their batting, I doubt anyone would say Udal has more ability.
Err, eh? Udal played 1 game, Blackwell 5 - until the final game Blackwell was far from impressive.BoyBrumby said:Why? Leaving aside averages Blackwell had outbowled Udal in Pakistan & was therefore entitled to be given a go.
Udal wasn't an awful selection - no-one could possibly have predicted how un-spin-friendly the Pakistan pitches were going to be. Udal was a good selection, most people said that at the time, and it's only with hindsight (which any fool can excercise) that people've started throwing these stupid derogatory comments his way.He also has a longer career ahead of him, being nearly a decade younger. Udal was an awful pick, shown up all the more because until his selection the current regime had almost invariably put their faith in (relative) youth.
I'd say Udal's not massively worse than Blackwell. His ODI average of 15 says it all. He can't really bat very well. IMO if he played for anyone other than Somerset he'd probably average in the low 20s in First-Class cricket.WRT their batting, I doubt anyone would say Udal has more ability.
Why does this case illustrate that?Pothas said:you really are very predictable
I first saw Sanford v India in 2002 or 2003 - bowled okay.Mr Mxyzptlk said:My contribution:
Adam Sanford. I see him now and I still can't fathom the reasoning behind his selection.
There's also Nehemiah Perry, but he proved a useful character.