• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Vaughan to score an ODI ton before his 100th ODI?

Which will Vaughan get first?


  • Total voters
    58

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
because of what exactly? most players dont have too many problems charging bowlers who bowl at 70 mph, let alone 60. you have to be kidding me if you think players somehow get scared to charge down the pitch when someone is bowling at 60.
So you see batsmen charging bowlers who bowl at 70 seam-up with the wicketkeeper standing-up? Yes, happens all the time, doesn't it?
They don't "get scared" to charge at 60mph at all, it's just fairly obvious that it's a hell of a lot harder, because once you go too early the bowler can see you coming and change the length, and your small point where you can go when the bowler can't see you coming gets smaller still; the ball also hits it's spot much sooner so you can't get as far as if it's bowled at 50.
no he didnt, but he was rendered completely useless after the few that he did play.
And that wouldn't have mattered if he had bowled well, like Giles.
point being? giles was, you guessed it an anomaly, most players who are useless at the start of their career end up being useless till the end. ealham hasnt changed.
And you know that, of course, given that Ealham hasn't played Test-cricket for... 7 years.
It's pretty unlikely that he's improved, I'll give you that, but I still maintain that Giles is every bit as likely to score runs in ODIs as Ealham.
please why not count the number of pace bowlers who were completely useless in ODIs too, and we'll see if you can even manage to count them.
Doubt it, there have been far too many.
Almost all of whom simply haven't been accurate enough.
All these fingerspinners are fine with accuracy, they're just easy to attack because of the style they bowl.
and the fact that you have to include part timers like russel arnold, vijay bharadwaj(and thats despite the fact that he averaged 19 with the ball in ODIs!), samaraweera etc only confirms that you are really desperate.
Samaraweera has always been picked for ODIs for his bowling - he even got into the Test-side primarily as a bowler. If Bharadwaj is a part-timer it's the first I've heard of it. And if Arnold's a part-timer I'd like to know why he's in the side, because he certainly isn't a specialist-batsman.
why then have bowlers like vettori, croft, patel had success too?
no the point is they bowled it flatter, and you have to bowl it flat to be economical not bowl at over 60.
Croft was never an especially flat bowler, never saw Patel, and Vettori whenever I see him (which is not that often) tends to vary it quite a bit.
Equally just by bowling it flat and accurately you aren't going to be that good if you're still bowling slowly (as Hauritz and Hurley demonstrate).
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
BoyBrumby said:
Doubt it. He was pretty young to be consulted on something like that. I imagine he was chuffed to be picked anywhere!

When he first became a regular for Warwicks Powell (then captain) & Knight were the established openers for ODs & they used Pollock or Brown at 3 in a pinch-hitter-type role. Guess 4 was the natural slot for him to fill into.
Powell, an opener? Like to see how many times Powell opened in ODers.
In recent years they've insisted on playing Carter as a slogger, but before that it was usually Knight and Wagh opening.
Anyway, that's beside the point - last 2 years at least he was always going to have some say in where he batted, given that Ostler has hardly played. If he really, really wanted to bat three I'm sure he'd have got the chance and if he was successful enough he'd have made it his own.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
well done in completely missing the point of my post. i'll explain it one more time for you. good spinners are supposed to bowl economically in most conditions, not just the ones that suit them, but they are required to take wickets when the conditions suit them( slowish wickets or in vettori's case, ones that offered plenty of bounce). ealham on the other hand was never a wicket taker on any wicket. he would simply bowl his 1/41 odd from overs 20-40 every game.
Or rather, as I've told you, sometimes have to bowl at the end and almost invariably in the 10-20 period.
If he'd have got the chance to bowl 20-40 every game his ER'd be about 3.7.
Fingerspinners will hardly ever bowl economically unless the pitch helps them; bowlers like Ealham will almost always bowl economically regardless of the pitch (as long as you bowl them at the right time).
So hence the only point of picking fingerspinners is in Sri Lanka, where they've had success with 5 spinners or so of times.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
and since the only reason hes been as good as he is, was because of a disjointed elbow its quite clear that he cant be categorized as an ordinary wrist spinner. and dont even bother backing this up, considering you've already said that saqlain and harbhajan dont count as orthodox finger spinners because they bowl the doosra8-)
Nothing to do with the disfigured elbow, it's all because of the double-jointed wrist.
No, he's not an ordinary wristspinner, but he's a wristspinner, he'll turn the ball on any surface, and that's all that matters.
And I'd like to see why Saqlain and Harbhajan are the same as fingerspinners that don't bowl the Doosra.
wow you have so many!
Nope, hardly any - because as I've said wristspin is an incredibly difficult thing to bowl, hardly anyone will ever be any good at it.
because you've said stuff like you would pick 4 pace bowlers and the odd wrist spinner and would never consider picking a finger spinner, especially with the way you've dismissed giles.
I'd pick a wristspinner in the incredibly unlikely event that there was one good enough - for the most part I'd not want one near a ODI team.
so you're suggesting that teams shouldnt even go into an ODI with a spinner at all. yes what a brilliant selector you would make.
So, how many of the most successful ODI sides have had a fingerspinner? We've been fortunate that there have been quite a few exceptional ODI spinners of late - Mushtaq, Saqlain, Warne, Murali, Harbhajan, Kumble, Dharmasena. Unless you've got one of them, it's better not to bother.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
yes i mean how disgraceful was giles today?
so disgraceful that he infact was the most economical bowler in the entire side and the 2nd most economical bowler of the game.
anymore mysteries for you to unravel sherlock?
So brilliantly economical was he that he managed to go for more than 5-an-over!
Especially on a ground that size it was pure folly to play a spinner.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
uh-huh, and while you're at the job of making a complete fool of yourself, what exactly is warne's ER in ODIs again?
4.25-an-over - something that's remained pretty constant through his career.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
and if you had a million successful finger spinners you'd still claim that they were anomalies.
how about we change the game a little bit, from now on i say that pace bowlers are completely useless in ODIs and the ones that actually do well are anomalies?
then i could name examples such as rikki clarke, chris cairns, naved ul hasan, hoggard etc and say that there have been way too many bowlers who have been failures in ODIs.
Whose failures have been down to lack of accuracy; anyone with any sense can tell that any bowler who lacks accuracy cannot be a success in ODIs.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
they're all clearly anomalies.
I hope so, I hope this period is simply an anomaly in the general pattern that bowling standards are high and scoring-rates range between 4 and 5-an-over.
But we won't know that until 2010 or so.
 

Eclipse

International Debutant
Scoring rate's are only going to continue to go up, they will level out at some point but for the time being they are steadly going up..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And it can't go on forever... nor can the appalling standard of bowling... hopefully, anyway...
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
I hope so, I hope this period is simply an anomaly in the general pattern that bowling standards are high and scoring-rates range between 4 and 5-an-over.
But we won't know that until 2010 or so.
no im saying that all the examples that you quote are all clearly anomalies, given that most bowlers have gone for more runs before and after the period in question.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Whose failures have been down to lack of accuracy; anyone with any sense can tell that any bowler who lacks accuracy cannot be a success in ODIs.
in the same way that every finger spinner who hasnt succeeded has been either inaccurate or incapable of bowling it flat you mean?
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Nothing to do with the disfigured elbow, it's all because of the double-jointed wrist.
No, he's not an ordinary wristspinner, but he's a wristspinner, he'll turn the ball on any surface, and that's all that matters..
And I'd like to see why Saqlain and Harbhajan are the same as fingerspinners that don't bowl the Doosra.
so whats your point? if it werent for the disjointed wrist he wouldnt have been anywhere near as good as he is. in the same way that saqlain and harbhajan wouldnt have been as successful without the doosra. and as we've already said before wrist spinners dont turn the ball considerably on any surface, except murali of course since he has the disjointed wrist that gives him an advantage over everyone else.

Richard said:
Nope, hardly any - because as I've said wristspin is an incredibly difficult thing to bowl, hardly anyone will ever be any good at it
I'd pick a wristspinner in the incredibly unlikely event that there was one good enough - for the most part I'd not want one near a ODI team.
.
everything is incredibly difficult to bowl, you only pick the bowlers who are good. what kind of rubbish statement is this? as though ive said we should pick finger spinners who arent good.

Richard said:
So, how many of the most successful ODI sides have had a fingerspinner? We've been fortunate that there have been quite a few exceptional ODI spinners of late - Mushtaq, Saqlain, Warne, Murali, Harbhajan, Kumble, Dharmasena. Unless you've got one of them, it's better not to bother.
and who the hell are you to say that giles isnt going to be a successful finger spinner? given how incredibly inaccurate you've been about several players in the past.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Or rather, as I've told you, sometimes have to bowl at the end and almost invariably in the 10-20 period.
yes against thoe fantastic teams like zimbabwe and when the game was pretty much done with anyways.

Richard said:
If he'd have got the chance to bowl 20-40 every game his ER'd be about 3.7.
then why is it above 4 then?

Richard said:
Fingerspinners will hardly ever bowl economically unless the pitch helps them;
certainly explains how hooper has such brilliant ERs in australia and NZ doesnt it?

Richard said:
bowlers like Ealham will almost always bowl economically regardless of the pitch (as long as you bowl them at the right time).
yes and when you put him on a seamers paradise where everyone else gets 3/20 odd, he still comes out with 1/41. id much rather have someone who is capable of picking up wickets when the conditions suits him as well as being accurate when the conditions dont. not one dimensional bowlers like ealham.

Richard said:
So hence the only point of picking fingerspinners is in Sri Lanka, where they've had success with 5 spinners or so of times.
as proven by vettori and hooper.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
So brilliantly economical was he that he managed to go for more than 5-an-over!
Especially on a ground that size it was pure folly to play a spinner.
yes and by the count gough bowled absolutely abysmmaly too.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
So you see batsmen charging bowlers who bowl at 70 seam-up with the wicketkeeper standing-up? Yes, happens all the time, doesn't it?
no it doesnt, but its happens often enough. certainly if players are more than prepared to charge a 70 mph bowler they wouldnt have problems charging a 60 mph bowler even more often.

Richard said:
They don't "get scared" to charge at 60mph at all, it's just fairly obvious that it's a hell of a lot harder, because once you go too early the bowler can see you coming and change the length, and your small point where you can go when the bowler can't see you coming gets smaller still; the ball also hits it's spot much sooner so you can't get as far as if it's bowled at 50.
or in other words - bowling it flat.

Richard said:
And that wouldn't have mattered if he had bowled well, like Giles.
but given that he cant bowl, bat or field he was given never brought near the english test side again.

Richard said:
And you know that, of course, given that Ealham hasn't played Test-cricket for... 7 years.
gee i wonder why? maybe ITS BECAUSE HE STILL CANT BAT????

Richard said:
It's pretty unlikely that he's improved, I'll give you that, but I still maintain that Giles is every bit as likely to score runs in ODIs as Ealham.
as shown by the recent ODI in SA.

Richard said:
Doubt it, there have been far too many.
Almost all of whom simply haven't been accurate enough.
All these fingerspinners are fine with accuracy, they're just easy to attack because of the style they bowl.
i'll give you that finger spinners need to be more intelligent when they do bowl as opposed to a pace bowler. but certainly no one would insinuate that finger spinners shouldnt be picked for ODIs.

Richard said:
Samaraweera has always been picked for ODIs for his bowling - he even got into the Test-side primarily as a bowler.
certainly explains why his first class batting average is 43. einstein couldnt have been more proud of you.

Richard said:
If Bharadwaj is a part-timer it's the first I've heard of it. And if Arnold's a part-timer I'd like to know why he's in the side, because he certainly isn't a specialist-batsman.
vijay bharadwaj averages 42 in first class cricket. his bowling average in first class cricket is 34, his list A ER is 4.50. he was never picked for his bowling abilities, he was always considered to be a batsman who could bowl a bit. of course after his first series on complete turners(Easily the most turning ODI wickets ive ever seen, he convinced a lot of people that he was a good enough bowler, even though he wasnt).
same with russell arnold, averages over 40 in first class cricket with the bat, 37 in list A. ER of 4.57. you certainly havent been following much cricket have you? i cant believe anyone would think that they were more than part timers.

Richard said:
Croft was never an especially flat bowler, never saw Patel, and Vettori whenever I see him (which is not that often) tends to vary it quite a bit.
dipak patel bowled as slowly as croft did, often trying to get loop on the ball even though he wasnt the biggest turner of it.


Richard said:
Equally just by bowling it flat and accurately you aren't going to be that good if you're still bowling slowly (as Hauritz and Hurley demonstrate).
possibly because they were both rubbish bowlers ITFP?
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
I'd say it's a pretty good thing to think.
And I'd also assume he'd have had at least some imput into the decision.
again i wont claim something i know nothing about, but surely you cant just say that hes incapable of batting in a position, simply because someone from warks said so.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Yep, I'm perfectly well aware of that.
It's gone down and now equality suggests that it's time for it to go up.
rubbish, no one can just magically bowl well for a period of 5 years? its more than conclusive. by that count, by equality we should assume that had ealham played longer his ER would have gone up and beyond 4.5, and shown him to be a rubbish bowler.

Richard said:
He didn't, as I've said, he's an exception to the rule.
there is no rule ITFP. and who are you to say that giles wont be an exception to this 'rule'?

Richard said:
Saqlain and Harbhajan who are different whom I've never said are anything but very good ODI bowlers.
you've got more than 5 anyways. with or without saqlain and harbhajan.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
no im saying that all the examples that you quote are all clearly anomalies, given that most bowlers have gone for more runs before and after the period in question.
Yes, they have - but there have been more bowlers who've been capable of keeping their ERs closer to those of those examples I gave.
Currently there aren't.
 

Top