Most unlikely Test cricketers

[Barney Rubble]

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.

Just for the sake of defending a local hero - Blackie's FC batting average at grounds other than Taunton is 33.09. Not brilliant, but capable.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Marcus Trescothick was a bit of a random selection at the time, a good hunch though

Good call - both by you, and by Fletcher.

 

[Richard]

Just for the sake of defending a local hero - Blackie's FC batting average at grounds other than Taunton is 33.09. Not brilliant, but capable.

And how much of that is in the last year (and 2001, for that matter)?
What's his non-Taunton average before 2001, and in 2002, 2003 and 2004?
I just don't understand why people take Blackwell's batting seriously, more seriously than routine tailenders.

 

[Richard]

Good call - both by you, and by Fletcher.

Wouldn't have been if West Indies could catch, and if Steve Bucknor and Ian Robinson could give plumb lbws.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Err, eh? Udal played 1 game, Blackwell 5 - until the final game Blackwell was far from impressive.
Blackwell didn't even play Tests in Pakistan, so he couldn't outbowl Udal. If he'd played, I presume he'd have done every bit as poorly as Udal did, because sure as no fingerspinner was ever going to be averaging under 30, or even under 40, on those pitches.

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.
There are certainly no more than 2 better spinners in England than Udal (and 1 of those, Croft, has retired and had an awful 2005 anyway).

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.

Blackwell did outbowl Udal; yes I am quite aware ODs & Tests are different formats, but Blackwell bowled with control & actually turned the ball, something Udal hardly did in 3 tests.

Udal's selection was awful because in cricketing terms he's a pensioner, before the squad was announced I advocated Swann as our 2nd spinner. He may've bowled just as badly as Udal, but he has a far better chance of a long term career with England than a (then) 36 year old.

 

[steds]

Richard, you choose to defend Udal yet vilify Blackwell. You're a hypocrite. Both are equally useless in my eyes, but at least accept that Blackwell has bowled decently in the ODIs this winter.


..Oh, and LET GO OF THE TRESCOTHICK THING ALREADY! "If"s count for nothing. Fact is, he has scored the runs and forged a successful test career.

 

[luckyeddie]

Richard, you choose to defend Udal yet vilify Blackwell. You're a hypocrite. Both are equally useless in my eyes, but at least accept that Blackwell has bowled decently in the ODIs this winter.


..Oh, and LET GO OF THE TRESCOTHICK THING ALREADY! "If"s count for nothing. Fact is, he has scored the runs and forged a successful test career.

I doubt he will let go of that
if you hit him three times with a bat.
Richard is an odd bird
verging on the absurd -
a bit of a tee double you at.

 

[Richard]

Blackwell did outbowl Udal; yes I am quite aware ODs & Tests are different formats, but Blackwell bowled with control & actually turned the ball, something Udal hardly did in 3 tests.

That's a totally ridiculous comparison. Apart from the total difference of format, the surfaces were different - you can't compare bowlers who're bowling on different types of surface. Yes, Blackwell did turn it at Rawalpindi - but so did Udal.
It's stupid to say "X turned it on this pitch, but Y didn't turn it on that one, so X must be a bigger spinner".
I can categorically assure you, had Blackwell played in a Test, he'd have obtained every bit as little turn as Udal did and been caned every bit as badly.

Udal's selection was awful because in cricketing terms he's a pensioner, before the squad was announced I advocated Swann as our 2nd spinner. He may've bowled just as badly as Udal, but he has a far better chance of a long term career with England than a (then) 36 year old.

Udal didn't bowl badly - it just wasn't possible to take decent figures on those pitches.
Surely it'd have done more harm for someone who's a long-term prospect to have the Pakistan tour that Udal did?
Getting figures like Udal's in Pakistan might've meant the end of Swann's career.

 

[Richard]

Richard, you choose to defend Udal yet vilify Blackwell. You're a hypocrite. Both are equally useless in my eyes, but at least accept that Blackwell has bowled decently in the ODIs this winter.

Err, he has. When did I say he hasn't?
People have, however, compared him to Udal, and that's quite stupid, because their circumstances have been unspeakably different.

..Oh, and LET GO OF THE TRESCOTHICK THING ALREADY! "If"s count for nothing. Fact is, he has scored the runs and forged a successful test career.

No, he hasn't. He's been lucky, and is nowhere near as good a Test player as most believe as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

I doubt he will let go of that
if you hit him three times with a bat.
Richard is an odd bird
verging on the absurd -
a bit of a tee double you at.

Ha.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That's a totally ridiculous comparison. Apart from the total difference of format, the surfaces were different - you can't compare bowlers who're bowling on different types of surface. Yes, Blackwell did turn it at Rawalpindi - but so did Udal.
It's stupid to say "X turned it on this pitch, but Y didn't turn it on that one, so X must be a bigger spinner".
I can categorically assure you, had Blackwell played in a Test, he'd have obtained every bit as little turn as Udal did and been caned every bit as badly.

Udal didn't bowl badly - it just wasn't possible to take decent figures on those pitches.
Surely it'd have done more harm for someone who's a long-term prospect to have the Pakistan tour that Udal did?
Getting figures like Udal's in Pakistan might've meant the end of Swann's career.

No you can't, no-one can. What was is & what wasn't won't be. Don't be ridiculous.

& of course Udal bowled badly. On pitch where a part-time finger-spinner picked up 3-58 he disappeared for 92 runs off only 18 overs. He was such a liability Vaughan didn't trust him to bowl so he had to keep rotating the seamers.

As for not selecting a player because they might do badly, well that's the most wrong-headed thinking ever.

 

[Richard]

No you can't, no-one can. What was is & what wasn't won't be. Don't be ridiculous.

I can assure you to the degree that you can assure me that the sky is blue.
Nothing in life is certain, but some things are pretty close.

& of course Udal bowled badly. On pitch where a part-time finger-spinner picked up 3-58 he disappeared for 92 runs off only 18 overs. He was such a liability Vaughan didn't trust him to bowl so he had to keep rotating the seamers.

Of course the pitch was the same at those times?
Pretty much everyone commented on how the pitch on the first afternoon was drying. Once it had dried, it offered nothing. In any case, figures don't mean anything. Malik could have got the figures without remotely turning a ball. Note - I'm not saying that happened, he did turn it.
Udal didn't bowl badly. Nor did he bowl badly in the First and Second Tests. The pitches just almost never (except on the first afternoon at Lahore) offered anything to spin.

As for not selecting a player because they might do badly, well that's the most wrong-headed thinking ever.

Err, isn't the idea of selecting a player that you think he might do well?
I'd say it's pretty terrible selection to pick a player if you think he'll do badly.
And if you think someone'll do badly... wouldn't it be better pick someone else?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I can assure you to the degree that you can assure me that the sky is blue.
Nothing in life is certain, but some things are pretty close.

Of course the pitch was the same at those times?
Pretty much everyone commented on how the pitch on the first afternoon was drying. Once it had dried, it offered nothing. In any case, figures don't mean anything. Malik could have got the figures without remotely turning a ball. Note - I'm not saying that happened, he did turn it.
Udal didn't bowl badly. Nor did he bowl badly in the First and Second Tests. The pitches just almost never (except on the first afternoon at Lahore) offered anything to spin.

Err, isn't the idea of selecting a player that you think he might do well?
I'd say it's pretty terrible selection to pick a player if you think he'll do badly.
And if you think someone'll do badly... wouldn't it be better pick someone else?

Cobblers.

& Udal did bowl badly, a spinner shouldn't need to turn the ball massively to be economical at least; Udal wasn't even that. He was a liability. He leaked runs so Vaughan had no choice but to keep rotating the seamers. I think if not for his knee he'd have probably bowled himself.

& of course the idea is to select players you believe will do well, in your previous post tho you'd seemed to be advocating not selecting a player with longer term propects because he might do as badly as someone who is older. Which is no reason at all.

 

[Richard]

Cobblers.

No, it's not.
There are some things in cricket that you can be almost completely sure of. One is that fingerspinners don't turn the ball other than on friendly surfaces.
Another is that Pakistan are highly unlikely to have played differently because the player was called Ian rather than Shaun.

& Udal did bowl badly, a spinner shouldn't need to turn the ball massively to be economical at least; Udal wasn't even that. He was a liability. He leaked runs so Vaughan had no choice but to keep rotating the seamers. I think if not for his knee he'd have probably bowled himself.

Of course spinners need to turn the ball to bowl economically. If the ball isn't turning any batsman worth his salt (even Mohammad Yousuf) can just stroll down the pitch and tonk it.
I repeat - to criticise a fingerspinner for not getting good figures on those pitches is crazy.

& of course the idea is to select players you believe will do well, in your previous post tho you'd seemed to be advocating not selecting a player with longer term propects because he might do as badly as someone who is older. Which is no reason at all.

No, I was suggesting that if Swann had gone to Pakistan it'd have done much more long-term damage than Udal going has.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No, it's not.
There are some things in cricket that you can be almost completely sure of. One is that fingerspinners don't turn the ball other than on friendly surfaces.
Another is that Pakistan are highly unlikely to have played differently because the player was called Ian rather than Shaun.

Of course spinners need to turn the ball to bowl economically. If the ball isn't turning any batsman worth his salt (even Mohammad Yousuf) can just stroll down the pitch and tonk it.
I repeat - to criticise a fingerspinner for not getting good figures on those pitches is crazy.

No, I was suggesting that if Swann had gone to Pakistan it'd have done much more long-term damage than Udal going has.

Flight? Drift? Gayle hardly ever turns a ball & he can keep things quiet at an end. You constantly say finger-spinners can't turn the ball unless they have responsive pitches & yet orthodox spinners turn in respectable economy rates in our domestic OD comps all the time. That's a lot of spinning pitches we're producing suddenly....

& you really think Swann's (or Batty's) non-selection does less harm than their selection would? I'd suggest it speaks volumes for the confidence the selectors have in them that they preferred to turn to a 36 year-old journeyman.

 

[Richard]

Flight? Drift? Gayle hardly ever turns a ball & he can keep things quiet at an end. You constantly say finger-spinners can't turn the ball unless they have responsive pitches & yet orthodox spinners turn in respectable economy rates in our domestic OD comps all the time. That's a lot of spinning pitches we're producing suddenly....

They do?
Care to give us some examples? I can think of precisely 0.
I can't even think of any who go at less than 4.5, let alone respectible.
Flight, causing loop and drift, as I've said before, is all well and good, but are no use in themselves, they're just a compliment to turn.
Gayle only rarely bowls in Test-cricket, so I hardly see what he proves.

& you really think Swann's (or Batty's) non-selection does less harm than their selection would? I'd suggest it speaks volumes for the confidence the selectors have in them that they preferred to turn to a 36 year-old journeyman.

Someone of 1 county (Udal) is a journeyman?
I'd say anyone with any sense would turn to Udal above Batty, who should never, ever get any more chances - he's already had at least 3.
I'd also say that Swann would probably prefer Udal to get belted than for himself to get belted.
You think it'd do some good (or, more accurately, not do serious bad) to Swann to be smashed all around Pakistan as he almost certainly would have had he gone?

 

[Autobahn]

To a younger spinner just starting out like (Monty Panesar) the Pakistan tour would have been a disaster and destroyed his confidence, whereas an older spinner like Swann would have been more able to take it in his stride.

Though i personally think Udal's selelction was based on his good county form.

 

[BoyBrumby]

They do?
Care to give us some examples? I can think of precisely 0.
I can't even think of any who go at less than 4.5, let alone respectible.
Flight, causing loop and drift, as I've said before, is all well and good, but are no use in themselves, they're just a compliment to turn.
Gayle only rarely bowls in Test-cricket, so I hardly see what he proves.

Someone of 1 county (Udal) is a journeyman?
I'd say anyone with any sense would turn to Udal above Batty, who should never, ever get any more chances - he's already had at least 3.
I'd also say that Swann would probably prefer Udal to get belted than for himself to get belted.
You think it'd do some good (or, more accurately, not do serious bad) to Swann to be smashed all around Pakistan as he almost certainly would have had he gone?

Ok: Ray Price (of players who bowled over 100 overs in ODs last year only Charl Willoughby had a better economy rate), Grant Flower, Swann himself, Gilo, Jason Brown, Udal; all below 4.5 for 2005. Like I said: England, the new spinners' paradise...

& journeyman means someone who's not of the first water, a drudge or a hack, which fits Udal pretty well I'd say.

Swann may well have rather Udal got belted, but I would hope as a professional sportsman he'd back himself not to get belted. Any bowler who expects to be belted shouldn't be bowling.

 

[marc71178]

I can't even think of any who go at less than 4.5, let alone respectible.

4.5 is more than respectable.

 

[cpr]

hmm, given what i've heard from and about Swann, he's quite a confident, even i daresay ****y, personality. I'm pretty sure he wouldnt be the type of player to take a couple of batterings the wrong way.

I can understand protecting someone like Monty, given he's not got as much first class experience as you'd really want a player to have under his belt before you chuck him into a test, but Swann should now be experienced enough to be confident in himself enough to face such challenges.

Even still, on pitches that turned out not to offer anything to the spinner, it'd take shocking management to let a player beat himself up over bad performance.