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

[superkingdave]

He's the cricket director for ISM (international sports managment) who's clients include Vaughan, Flintoff, Trescothick and Murali.

Their philosophy is to only represent the most marketable cricketers, unfortunately this is contradicted by Rikki Clarke's appearance on their books

 

[BoyBrumby]

BEVAN!!!!!!
That is one of the things that infuriates me the most!!!!
Michael Bevan categorically is not a specialist at "finishing" - he is a quite magnificent one-day player who is capable of being a "starter" (as you'd see if you'd watched him bat at three for Yorks, NSW and Sussex) and a "middler" with equal brilliance!!!!!!!

67 not outs in 197 ODI innings seems to suggest otherwise. & he played the vast majority of his ODIs at 4, 5 or 6.

Was it all he could do? No, of course not. But a decent "finisher" is invaluable. I think SA would've killed for one in the 2nd ODI.

No, I'm not saying the dissimilarity is comparable.
I'm saying to say Gough and Flintoff are alike bowlers, just because they're right-armers and tend to bowl over-the-wicket, is folly.

I think if you look at what I said earlier:

With the exception of Harmy & Flintoff (who are genuinely quick)

you'll see I didn't suggest that. Gough, Hoggard & Kabir Ali are more akin in terms of height & pace. They are all different bowlers, of course, but they have more in common than Gough does with Ashley Giles.

 

[Gangster]

Yes, and on what basis does he say this?

On the basis that his cricketing is of poor quality.

 

[marc71178]

In my view it's very easy to score off a fingerspinner in a one-day game unless the pitch is turning

Yet when Giles doesn't concede great amounts, you put it down to him "always escaping a massive hammering"

Impossible that he's actually better than you think isn't it?

 

[marc71178]

On the basis that his cricketing is of poor quality.

Oh really?

So he's never done anything in Cricket then has he?

 

[Richard]

He's the cricket director for ISM (international sports managment) who's clients include Vaughan, Flintoff, Trescothick and Murali.

Their philosophy is to only represent the most marketable cricketers, unfortunately this is contradicted by Rikki Clarke's appearance on their books

Knew it was something to do with some cricketers' Agency.
Got it confused with due to Alec Stewart's non-executive role with David Thompson's company, whose name I can't remember.
Only know about it because of that "Call My Agent" article in Wisden 2004.

 

[Richard]

Yet when Giles doesn't concede great amounts, you put it down to him "always escaping a massive hammering"

Impossible that he's actually better than you think isn't it?

No, it's impossible that he's better than every other fingerspinner ever to play the one-day game in the modern era.
Interesting that you still feel Giles should be praised for economical bowling when he almost never takes many wickets (against the decent teams, that is).

 

[Richard]

67 not outs in 197 ODI innings seems to suggest otherwise. & he played the vast majority of his ODIs at 4, 5 or 6.

Was it all he could do? No, of course not. But a decent "finisher" is invaluable. I think SA would've killed for one in the 2nd ODI.

So? So he played mostly in ODIs as a number-six?
If you bat four and five, you're certainly not playing as a "finisher"; and just because you've got a load of not-outs doesn't suggest anything other than that you're good at batting to the end of the innings. What matters is where you've come in, not where you've finished.

I think if you look at what I said earlier, you'll see I didn't suggest that. Gough, Hoggard & Kabir Ali are more akin in terms of height & pace. They are all different bowlers, of course, but they have more in common than Gough does with Ashley Giles.

And I repeat: why does that matter? All that matters is accuracy and the ability to stop the batsman coming down the pitch.
I'd say they're always more likely to come down to the fingerspinner than the seamer-with-the-'keeper-back.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Richard being extraordinarily dull in one of my threads again, all I can say in response to #47 is Utseya. Argument over, Richard loses *again*...

 

[Richard]

Makes assumption he is right, insists that this is enough to dismiss something he doesn't like... etc.

 

[tooextracool]

People seem to have forgotten that just over 6 months ago Vaughan was opening and people were blaming his failings on opening, and saying once he was put at three the problems'd be sorted-out.
Funny how often these things are both-way syndrome.
IMO you simply can't justify Trescothick not opening the batting, nor Bell opening - how often has he ever opened (except for England-u19s)?
Yes, having wickets in hand is important, but Trescothick is one of the few assets for this current England ODI side, quite clearly the best batsman by a country mile (though Pietersen is coming-up very fast indeed) and he has to open, because he's capable of playing lots of different types of innings.
Personally I'd like currently to see something like:
Trescothick
AN Other (Strauss, I suppose)
?
Bell - possibly?
Pietersen
Flintoff
Read
Ealham
AN Other
Gough
Hoggard - maybe?
Never rated any of Prior, Simon Jones, Wharf, Mahmood, Geraint Jones, Kabir Ali, Key, Troughton, McGrath, Clarke, Harmison, Anderson, Batty, Blackwell, Snape, Kirtley, Shah, Collingwood, Vaughan, Solanki or Giles.
Never used to rate Hoggard, but he's worth another go - Bell and Strauss I'm not totally convinced about; Richard Johnson I'm struggling to work-out how 11 bowlers have been selected ahead of him (3.56-an-over at 21.72 - even if that is a little flattering it's hard to justify his exclusion). But England have had real problems for a long time now in ODIs.

im not even going to bother with this one- hoggard, ealham please. why not just bring back angus fraser and allan mullally?

 

[tooextracool]

Get rid of his games against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe et al - gets a bit worse.
And worse to come, too - he's always seemed to escape a massive hammering that would raise it to the 4.5-4.6-an-over sort of mark.
He's a fingerspinner - he can't be very effective for that long.

and yet you call for the selection of saqlain mushtaq.......

 

[tooextracool]

If you're going to play Bell he can't bat in the top 3 IMO, he's not done that in his entire career - let alone open.

and thats despite the fact that he doenst look like the sort of player who is capable of playing the big shots earlier on in the innings and takes a while to get set.....

He's 35 - and he's the sort of player for whom age and fitness is not a major issue, he's never been lightning in the field but equally he's always been pretty darn good.
I've felt ever since I thought about the matter that he's amongst the best 2 or 3 ODI bowlers in the country and nothing has changed over the 7 years since.

even though ive in the past showed that they've been several better - caddick,gough, mullally and fraser.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, and on what basis does he say this?

possibly because hes been nothing but a failure in his ODI career thus far?

 

[tooextracool]

Thorpe, Fairbrother....Bevan, of course....

err no, bevan was extremely extremely capable of scoring runs in the middle overs, possibly better than any other player. its only because certain people thought he was solely a finisher and made him bat at no 6 and 7 that we didnt get to show how much more valuable he could have been.

& I might take Read over Geriant (his unorthodox style is ideal for the last few over, but as an attacking shot maker, not a nurdler), but not over Collingwood.

you might take read over geraint? lets hear you explain to me what read did wrong with the bat or gloves that he deserved to be dropped? and what jones has done with bat or gloves that he deserves to continue to get selected?

 

[tooextracool]

67 not outs in 197 ODI innings seems to suggest otherwise.

and is it impossible for him to bat from the middle overs till the end? thats like saying that someone who bats through an innings is solely a finisher. and i know that he didnt do that for all of those 67 not outs, most of them had to do with the stupidity of the aussie selectors(again), when they decided to bat him at no 6 instead of 4 despite his good record there.

& he played the vast majority of his ODIs at 4, 5 or 6..

batting at 4 certainly doesnt have anything to do with finishing an inning, batting at 5 is possibly a 50-50 split between finishing and batting through the middle. certainly no one would say that lara is only a finisher because he bats at 4.

 

[BoyBrumby]

err no, bevan was extremely extremely capable of scoring runs in the middle overs, possibly better than any other player. its only because certain people thought he was solely a finisher and made him bat at no 6 and 7 that we didnt get to show how much more valuable he could have been.

Christ, first Richard & now TEC! What have I done to deserve this?!

To reiterate: I did not say Bevan was solely a finisher, merely that he was very good in that role. As evidenced by his high number of not outs.

All clear now?

you might take read over geraint? lets hear you explain to me what read did wrong with the bat or gloves that he deserved to be dropped? and what jones has done with bat or gloves that he deserves to continue to get selected?

Way to miss my point there!

I do think Read is a far better bet for one-dayers than G Jones; at no point have I suggested otherwise. My use of "might" was to qualify the fact that I do not however think him a better ODI batter than Collingwood.

 

[tooextracool]

Christ, first Richard & now TEC! What have I done to deserve this?!

To reiterate: I did not say Bevan was solely a finisher, merely that he was very good in that role. As evidenced by his high number of not outs.

All clear now?.

and the point that both richard and i have made is that he was very good in every role. which is why i rate him as the best ODI player ever. to single out his finishing simply because australia chose to bat him at no 6 is rather unfair on him.

Way to miss my point there!

I do think Read is a far better bet for one-dayers than G Jones; at no point have I suggested otherwise. My use of "might" was to qualify the fact that I do not however think him a better ODI batter than Colloingwood.

the 'might' implied some doubt, even though its fairly obvious that read should still be in the ODi side.

 

[BoyBrumby]

the 'might' implied some doubt, even though its fairly obvious that read should still be in the ODi side.

So, just for clarification, do you agree with Richard that Read is a better ODI batter than Collingwood?

 

[Richard]

im not even going to bother with this one- hoggard, ealham please. why not just bring back angus fraser and allan mullally?

Because one's retired (long ago, in fact) and the other is quite clearly not the bowler he used to be.
Ealham, however, very clearly is - as anyone who saw him bowl last season would attest.