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

[tooextracool]

I do, personally - but no matter.
Wharf, with a First-Class average of less than 20, is better than Ealham, with a First-Class average of 33? Not to mention Ealham's domestic-OD average of nearly 26, and Wharf's of 15. (I'd go into their ODI records, too, but that's not really pointful given Wharf's played 4 innings)
Sorry, that's ridiculous.
Wharf can clearly bat a little bit - Ealham by domestic terms is an all-rounder, by ODI terms he's a bowler (good one at that) who can bat a bit.
I think Ealham is a very useful man to have coming-in at nine, personally.

except that i dont care how much ealham scores indomestic cricket,intl cricket has clearly showed him to be very mediocre. of course wharf hasnt really gotten the chance to do much better, but regardless he isnt even in the side.

 

[Richard]

He first came to my attention playing at 3! He was MOTM in the 2002 B & H Cup Final.

I would guess he's played at 3 at least a dozen times for Warwicks in List As.

Interesting, I could have sworn he'd batted four there.
Maybe I stand corrected.

How have I done that exactly? By saying he's the player in ODIs who is most likely to see a team thru to victory/a good total?!?

Well I humbly apologise to Mr Bevan & his family for my vicious, nay, libellous words!

You've effectively said he was only a finisher, when he very, very clearly much, much more than that.
He could bat anywhere you like - except opening.

 

[tooextracool]

So why's he never done it, then?
It ain't like Dominic Ostler's been a fixture in Warwicks' side (indeed he's barely played recently).

i dont get the chance to watch domestic cricket, hence i wouldnt know. but i seriously doubt that someone can fail at 3 and succeed at 4. at best you would see that if someone is good enough he would succeed in both positions, only to do better in one than the other.

 

[Richard]

except that i dont care how much ealham scores indomestic cricket,intl cricket has clearly showed him to be very mediocre. of course wharf hasnt really gotten the chance to do much better, but regardless he isnt even in the side.

If you can't make a comparison at the international level (which you can't, because Wharf hasn't batted enough) you need to judge on something else - the best option being the domestic level.
And if someone's that much better than someone else at the domestic level, they simply have to be better at the international too.

 

[Richard]

i dont get the chance to watch domestic cricket, hence i wouldnt know. but i seriously doubt that someone can fail at 3 and succeed at 4. at best you would see that if someone is good enough he would succeed in both positions, only to do better in one than the other.

It can be a bit more different than you might think.
Can certainly make a difference of 10 overs or so.
I don't really think he's great coming-in with less than 10 overs gone, but with between 10-11-12 and 25, he's certainly better than some.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You've effectively said he was only a finisher, when he very, very clearly much, much more than that.
He could bat anywhere you like - except opening.

Where?

I did nothing of the kind; I suggested he was a finisher because:

a) He could manipulate the strike very well (not implying that is all he can do, lest I be misunderstood); &

b) He was often there not out at the finish of an innings.

 

[tooextracool]

Jayasuriya? With his ER of 4.76 and his average of 36?
As death-bowlers go, he's certainly not the worst (due to the fact that he's quicker through the air than most) but nor can he be called an ODI success with his bowling.

why not? id take someone who bowls primarily in the death and yet has an ER of 4.76, and has taken 267 ODI wickets.

Vettori? With that fantastic ER of 4.31 and that brilliant average of 34.02?

yes because 4.31 is such a poor ER isnt it? you'll do anything to save face.

and just to add to that list - roger harper, dharmasena, carl hooper and chris gayle

 

[tooextracool]

It can be a bit more different than you might think.
Can certainly make a difference of 10 overs or so.
I don't really think he's great coming-in with less than 10 overs gone, but with between 10-11-12 and 25, he's certainly better than some.

and you get to that fairly often when you bat at 3.

 

[tooextracool]

Where?

I did nothing of the kind; I suggested he was a finisher because:

possibly by putting collingwood and bevan in the same sentence.

 

[BoyBrumby]

possibly by putting collingwood and bevan in the same sentence.

Having just checked what I wrote I can say, no I actually didn't.

I merely suggested Colly was our currently-in-favour ODI batter most suited to finishing an innings. Which I still stand by.

 

[Richard]

and you get to that fairly often when you bat at 3.

Far less than when you bat four.

 

[Richard]

why not? id take someone who bowls primarily in the death and yet has an ER of 4.76, and has taken 267 ODI wickets.

It's not too bad - but you can't compare to Giles because he's different in that Giles is a middle-overs bowler and you'd be insane to bowl him either in the 15 or in the last 10.

yes because 4.31 is such a poor ER isnt it? you'll do anything to save face.

You've told me often enough that if you bowl only in the middle overs you're no more than decent unless you go for less than 4-an-over.

and just to add to that list - roger harper, dharmasena, carl hooper and chris gayle

I never saw Roger Harper, and he was part of an earlier era so success can be quantified differently then.
Dharmasena is a bowler I've always liked, because he's a hell of a lot quicker than the standard fingerspinner, so makes it infinately harder to come down the pitch.
Chris Gayle? Better than most fingerspinners, but still not fantastic and mainly a death-bowler.
I'm rather surprised Hooper's record is as good as it is - and it's still not brilliant. He is a West Indian, though, and there are certainly more West Indian pitches that help spin than most places (and you might notice that I've not said they're useless on turners). Hooper's record in Zimbabwe, South Africa and England isn't flash.

 

[tooextracool]

Having just checked what I wrote I can say, no I actually didn't.

I merely suggested Colly was our currently-in-favour ODI batter most suited to finishing an innings. Which I still stand by.

ahh forget it, we both mean the same thing anyways.

 

[tooextracool]

Far less than when you bat four.

not really. its only a little less than when you bat at 4. which is why ive suggested that batting at 3 or 4 doesnt go on to make someone go from being completely useless to really good.

 

[tooextracool]

It's not too bad - but you can't compare to Giles because he's different in that Giles is a middle-overs bowler and you'd be insane to bowl him either in the 15 or in the last 10.

your point is? you said that its impossible for a spinner to succeed in ODIs, and im pointing out bowlers who have done a fairly good job.

You've told me often enough that if you bowl only in the middle overs you're no more than decent unless you go for less than 4-an-over..

and i havent suggested that giles was brilliant either have i? all ive said is that giles is good enough to make the side, at least he can bat compared to the other person who've been discussing.

I never saw Roger Harper, and he was part of an earlier era so success can be quantified differently then.
Dharmasena is a bowler I've always liked, because he's a hell of a lot quicker than the standard fingerspinner, so makes it infinately harder to come down the pitch.
Chris Gayle? Better than most fingerspinners, but still not fantastic and mainly a death-bowler.
I'm rather surprised Hooper's record is as good as it is - and it's still not brilliant. He is a West Indian, though, and there are certainly more West Indian pitches that help spin than most places (and you might notice that I've not said they're useless on turners). Hooper's record in Zimbabwe, South Africa and England isn't flash.

oh stop with the excuses. first finger spinners could succeed in ODIs, then only finger spinners with doosras can succeed and now they can only be death bowlers,
what next?
and please, trying to use hoopers poor performances against zimbabwe(of all teams) to try and prove me wrong. i guess having an ER of 4 in australia isnt good enough anymore.

 

[Tom Halsey]

and i havent suggested that giles was brilliant either have i? all ive said is that giles is good enough to make the side, at least he can bat compared to the other person who've been discussing.

As far as I can see, he was talking about Vettori. He hasn't got a brilliant ER (by what you said, and what Richard quoted) and he has a poor average.

 

[Tom Halsey]

yet it's so accurate...

Based on?

 

[Richard]

not really. its only a little less than when you bat at 4. which is why ive suggested that batting at 3 or 4 doesnt go on to make someone go from being completely useless to really good.

I'd say it makes them go from not really useful to being possibly quite useful.

 

[Richard]

your point is? you said that its impossible for a spinner to succeed in ODIs, and im pointing out bowlers who have done a fairly good job.

I've said nothing of the sort - I've said standard fingerspinners can't (ie those who bowl in the early 50mphs or slower, and who don't bowl a Doosra).

and i havent suggested that giles was brilliant either have i? all ive said is that giles is good enough to make the side, at least he can bat compared to the other person who've been discussing.

Giles and Ealham are about equal in batting ability as far as I'm concerned.

oh stop with the excuses. first finger spinners could succeed in ODIs, then only finger spinners with doosras can succeed and now they can only be death bowlers,
what next?
and please, trying to use hoopers poor performances against zimbabwe(of all teams) to try and prove me wrong. i guess having an ER of 4 in australia isnt good enough anymore.

No, it's excellent. But when compared with his poor record in the other non-spin-friendly countries (not to mention in spin-friendly India) it's not really much of an achievement.
As I've said above, it's not as black-and-white as you seem to have taken it as. No excuses at all. If you bowl 60mph or so you can succeed; if you bowl Doosras you can succeed; if you bowl in spin-friendly conditions regularly of course you can succeed.
Just because I haven't got around to mentioning it before now doesn't mean I'm making it all up as I go along.

 

[Richard]

Based on?

Based on his average of less than 24 against ODI-standard sides.