Steve Harmison pulls out of Zimbabwe tour

[tooextracool]

No, I never even included Akhtar or Shabbir, I rate both as very fine bowlers who perform well far more often than they perform poorly.).

which is the problem in the first place!!you selectively picked the bowlers that you wanted and compared their stats.

a group consisting of akhtar,shabbir,tuffey,oram,vettori,gillespie,lee, macgill is far better than a group consisting of blignaut,streak,friend price, mortaza and the rest.

Oram, on the other hand, simply started his Test-career on two of the most seam-friendly wickets you'll ever see and since then has been very, very poor.Tuffey, meanwhile, has almost always been outstanding on seamers and very, very poor on non-seamers (with about one exception to each - The Second Test in India and his debut Test against Australia).

yes i know, but that doesnt make them anywhere near comparable to zimbabwe and b'desh bowlers who are useless on all kinds of wickets(bar streak and maybe price)

 

[tooextracool]

The least recent of those I was thinking of was 4 years ago. Can you think of many instances of drops and misfields recently?.

so well done in bringing that up....ive said all along that hes a liability now, not that he was one 4 years ago. and no i dont remember too many drops and misfields lately but it does not get away from the fact that hes too slow on the field to get to them in the first place.

It makes him pretty poor - not a liability, there are very few of those around any more.

and pretty poor is a liability IMO. he cant bat, hes poor in the field and hes not bowling brilliantly, gee why is he in the side?

And he'd have been very consistent (1 bad game in about 11) had he got good figures in the final.

oh really? even using your methods thats b/s
in 2004....
2/22(6) vs WI - good performance
0/45(9) vs WI - poor performance
1/67(8.1) vs WI - poor by any counts
1/45(10) vs WI - using your methods, not good enough
0/33(9) vs NZ - ok performance
0/30(6) vs WI - poor performance
1/23(8.1)vs WI - ok performance
0/37(9) vs NZ - ok performance
1/48(10) vs WI - poor performance
1/29(7.1) vs ind - poor by accounts given that he went for over 4 runs an over on a seamer friendly wicket and didnt take many wickets, you would say otherwise....i'll give it in your favour anyways.
4/50(10)vs ind - poor by your methods
2/41(10) vs ind - ok performance
1/19(6) vs SL - good performance
3/48(7) vs aus - poor performance
0/58(10) vs WI - pathetic performance

so given that i can count, i see that there are 8 poor performances 3 good performances and 5 ok performances.....and you call that consistent?

 

[tooextracool]

Except he is - except in the last 2 games
He's not - he's been bowling poorly for 2 games, and he's been not-especially-brilliant in a few others. He's been good plenty of times, too.
Yes - but he hasn't gone for significantly over 4-an-over at all, he's only done that on 2 occasions of late, plus one where he had to come back after 6-2-11-1 and sacrifice himself in a hopeless cause.

and ive shown you that he has in the previous post.

What, in West Indies? Where almost every England bowler has been expensive on the last 2 tours..

yes the same england bowlers who bowled better than him in the natwest series, yet you wont compare them then....of course you will in the WI.

 

[Richard]

Erm, how?

Seeing a team struggle to score at 4 an over gives them more confidence than if the team scores at 5.5?

No, if their bowlers are flogged for 5.5-an-over in conditions that are clearly demonstrated as helpful by the fact that those same bowlers are picking-up wickets.
Especially given that seam-friendly pitches tend to get better as more overs are bowled on them.

 

[Richard]

except that i was being sarcastic, you were just continuing to argue something and then decided not to.

Eh? That doesn't make much sense.
Believe me, I was deliberately taking stuff in a context it was clear you did not want it taken in, to annoy you - much as you had tried to do with the comments about Brearley's leadership skills.

 

[Richard]

which is the problem in the first place!!you selectively picked the bowlers that you wanted and compared their stats.

a group consisting of akhtar,shabbir,tuffey,oram,vettori,gillespie,lee, macgill is far better than a group consisting of blignaut,streak,friend price, mortaza and the rest.

Except that no bowling-attack has ever consisted of the first group - Chopra in each of his matches faced an attack including one good bowler (at most) and several other bowlers who are every bit as poor as each other - exactly the same as Das did.

yes i know, but that doesnt make them anywhere near comparable to zimbabwe and b'desh bowlers who are useless on all kinds of wickets(bar streak and maybe price)

Believe me, if Blignaut and Ervine had the pitches Oram and Tuffey bowled on against India they'd look pretty useful!

 

[Richard]

so well done in bringing that up....ive said all along that hes a liability now, not that he was one 4 years ago. and no i dont remember too many drops and misfields lately but it does not get away from the fact that hes too slow on the field to get to them in the first place.

He's not the quickest - he's not the slowest, either, I might add - but that does not make his fielding sufficiently poor for it to count against him.

and pretty poor is a liability IMO. he cant bat, hes poor in the field and hes not bowling brilliantly, gee why is he in the side?

That funny little thing called potential again - the selectors believe he can do better with the ball than he's recently demonstrated.
And he can bat better than some, let me assure you - and field as well as some, too.

oh really? even using your methods thats b/s
in 2004....
2/22(6) vs WI - good performance
0/45(9) vs WI - poor performance
1/67(8.1) vs WI - poor by any counts
1/45(10) vs WI - using your methods, not good enough
0/33(9) vs NZ - ok performance
0/30(6) vs WI - poor performance
1/23(8.1)vs WI - ok performance
0/37(9) vs NZ - ok performance
1/48(10) vs WI - poor performance
1/29(7.1) vs ind - poor by accounts given that he went for over 4 runs an over on a seamer friendly wicket and didnt take many wickets, you would say otherwise....i'll give it in your favour anyways.
4/50(10)vs ind - poor by your methods
2/41(10) vs ind - ok performance
1/19(6) vs SL - good performance
3/48(7) vs aus - poor performance
0/58(10) vs WI - pathetic performance

so given that i can count, i see that there are 8 poor performances 3 good performances and 5 ok performances.....and you call that consistent?

And I'd say you're being very, very harsh on the good performances!
As I say, I don't really see that the West Indies series counts for too much - this summer it's been 4 good, 3 OK, 3 poor and one which started very good and ended very poor (unneccesarily - 6-11-1 turning into 10-48-1).

 

[Richard]

and ive shown you that he has in the previous post.

IMO you've shown a poor interpretation of his figures' meaning.

yes the same england bowlers who bowled better than him in the natwest series, yet you wont compare them then....of course you will in the WI.

If everyone is poor then it's not really fair to blame someone overtly for being so.
If one is OK and one or two others are pretty good, it's not fair to heap apathy on the OK one.

 

[Mister Wright]

Cricket is a team game, in a bowling attack you need a mix of bowlers that can keep the runs down and others who can take wickets, but might be a little more expensive. Using that formula, a team (on average) should aim to bowl a team out for 230-240 (give or take a few) any team should have good enough batsman to chase that total down.

 

[Richard]

Very true (of course, the ideal scenerio is that you have 5 who do both ). Trouble is, the bowlers who are in the side to bowl economically so often get castigated if they have 5 good games and a single bad one.

 

[Mister Wright]

Very true (of course, the ideal scenerio is that you have 5 who do both ). Trouble is, the bowlers who are in the side to bowl economically so often get castigated if they have 5 good games and a single bad one.

That's the game of cricket my friend, and one of those unfortunate things that happens. If the game wasn' so affected by the media I think the selectors would have their way and keep that player because they realise their valuble input in the team, but the media will push for 'their' player who is taking wickets in domestic cricket. See: Adam Dale.

 

[Richard]

I normally don't post just to say "I agree" but that last one I don't think I could have put it better if I tried 1000 times.

 

[marc71178]

No, if their bowlers are flogged for 5.5-an-over in conditions that are clearly demonstrated as helpful by the fact that those same bowlers are picking-up wickets.

That score doesn't say anything about the wicket though.

If the side is attacking, then wickets are likely to fall if they overdo it.

 

[marc71178]

Trouble is, the bowlers who are in the side to bowl economically so often get castigated if they have 5 good games and a single bad one.

If it were only 1 bad game in the case you're referring to you'd have a point, but it's been a pretty poor summer on wickets which when it's suited you have been superb for the bowlers (when explaining how a bowler you don't like has done so well)

 

[sportychic33]

Richard what the hell do you have against Oram? He is one of the more reliable bowlers in the NZ team, more reliable than Tuffey, Butler, Cairns. Yes, he doesn't take that many wickets but i am positive has more talent than Blignaut and Ervine.

 

[Richard]

That score doesn't say anything about the wicket though.

If the side is attacking, then wickets are likely to fall if they overdo it.

I still think it is better for batting psychology to have watched 200 for 4 then have to chase it than have watched 190ao off 35 overs.
For the pure fact that it is likely to say something about the wicket.
Yes, of course 140ao off 35 overs is best of all, and I'm sure all bowlers strive to achieve that on seaming pitches, but if I were a top-class batsman (far-fetched, I know ) I'd prefer the former score to the latter if I was in the field.

 

[Richard]

If it were only 1 bad game in the case you're referring to you'd have a point, but it's been a pretty poor summer on wickets which when it's suited you have been superb for the bowlers (when explaining how a bowler you don't like has done so well)

I am very confident that, had Sri Lanka won on D\L and had Gough got the same figures he did, there'd not be too many questions asked of him. Even more so had he been brought back earlier in the final NWS game and his last 4 overs cost maybe 18 rather than the 37 they ended-up costing.
These last 2 games emphasise my point that, while most people acknowledge that a side needs economical and wicket-taking (ideally, of course, those who can do both) bowlers, the minute an economical bowler starts being expensive for just one or two games, he gets jumped on.
IMO Gough is still of use to the England side, but he's much best just bowling his 10 straight through at the start, or maybe coming back in the 35th over or so. He's no longer anywhere near as good right at the end as he used to be.

 

[Richard]

Richard what the hell do you have against Oram? He is one of the more reliable bowlers in the NZ team, more reliable than Tuffey, Butler, Cairns. Yes, he doesn't take that many wickets but i am positive has more talent than Blignaut and Ervine.

You just wait and see how those two develop now they're with Australian sides.
I'm very confident we'll see two different players in a couple of years' time - as David has already said, I wouldn't bet against Ervine especially reprisenting Australia one day.
I reckon they'll both become about as good as Oram, with bat and ball (uncanny, actually, the similarities between the three - both right-arm fast-medium, both left-handed batsmen of the hard-hitting style).

 

[tooextracool]

Eh? That doesn't make much sense.
Believe me, I was deliberately taking stuff in a context it was clear you did not want it taken in, to annoy you - much as you had tried to do with the comments about Brearley's leadership skills.

and by annoying you might wanna try doing something other than continuing with the argument.....

 

[tooextracool]

Except that no bowling-attack has ever consisted of the first group - Chopra in each of his matches faced an attack including one good bowler (at most) and several other bowlers who are every bit as poor as each other - exactly the same as Das did.

nope chopra played 3 groups with gillespie,lee,macgill and bracken/williams/bichel, and tuffey,oram,vettori,styris and akthar,sami, saqlain and shabbir.
as far as i can see most of those groups have at least 2 good bowlers as opposed to no good bowlers that das played against b'desh and the 1 good bowler that he played against zim.

Believe me, if Blignaut and Ervine had the pitches Oram and Tuffey bowled on against India they'd look pretty useful!

im sorry what? they would have been pretty useful on the dead flat wickets that oram and tuffey bowled on in india ?