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

[Richard]

5 more then?

Shaun Udal: 10 matches post 01/01/92, Economy Rate 3.90
Dipak Patel: 28 matches, ER 3.88
Matthew Hart: 13 matches, ER 3.91
Pat Symcox: 80 matches, ER 4.15
Ray Price: 26 matches, ER 4.14

Udal, Hart and Price haven't played enough games.
Symcox I'll give you as another exception. Patel, too - he's actually played 51 games AFAICT, not 28.

 

[Richard]

No, it's because the whole game is far more batter friendly.

All the rule changes favour batsmen.

All the pitch conditions favour batsmen.

And no-one and nothing can stop accurate bowlers bowling economically, as I've shown and as you've ignored.
The rule-changes have had little or no effect since about 1992, the only change in the last 5 or 6 years has been the degeneration in the standard of bowling - and possibly the attitude.

 

[marc71178]

And no-one and nothing can stop accurate bowlers bowling economically, as I've shown and as you've ignored.

Because it has been proven wrong.

I believe Afridi hit McGrath a couple of times in the VB - are you going to now say McGrath isn't an accurate bowler?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Udal, Hart and Price haven't played enough games.
Symcox I'll give you as another exception. Patel, too - he's actually played 51 games AFAICT, not 28.

The point is made tho, I trust?

Orthodox finger spinners can be effective in ODIs, even when judged under the narrow criteria set by yourself.

 

[Richard]

Because it has been proven wrong.

I believe Afridi hit McGrath a couple of times in the VB - are you going to now say McGrath isn't an accurate bowler?

I'm going to say that was a rare time when McGrath was bowling inaccurately - he didn't get the thing in the blockhole (unsurpising, really - he's much better suited to the start than the end).
If you look at McGrath throughout that series you'll see that, once again, he showed that the game hasn't changed at all and he's every bit as good at bowling economically as he used to be (if not better).

 

[Richard]

The point is made tho, I trust?

Orthodox finger spinners can be effective in ODIs, even when judged under the narrow criteria set by yourself.

They can be - but I never said they couldn't: read here:-

So how many fingerspinners have been tried and been found wanting, then? I'll name a few, just to give the picture that the successes have been very much anomalies: Gareth Batty, Ian Blackwell, Jeremy Snape, Paul Wiseman, Murali Kartik, Vijay Bharadwaj, Nilesh Kulkarni, Sunil Joshi, Nathan Hauritz (who wouldn't know what flight was if it punched him on the nose), Omari Banks, Ryan Hurley (who is in the same boat as Hauritz), Nehemiah Perry, Neil McGarrell, Thilan Samaraweera, Russel Arnold, Jayasuriya, Nico Boje, Robin Peterson, Dirk Viljoen... not to mention the numerous part-timers. So yes, I think I'm entitled to ignore the odd poor one!

You have found a few in a 13-year period; I've found rather more in a mere 7-year one.
Given that my group is considerably larger than yours, you'll see that I might, just, have a point that orthodox fingerspinners who bowl in the early 50s or lower and don't play on turners regularly aren't actually often very good ODI bowlers.

 

[BoyBrumby]

They can be - but I never said they couldn't
You have found a few in a 13-year period; I've found rather more in a mere 7-year one.
Given that my group is considerably larger than yours, you'll see that I might, just, have a point that orthodox fingerspinners who bowl in the early 50s or lower and don't play on turners regularly aren't actually often very good ODI bowlers.

Again, to be fair, that wasn't the point I was arguing against. You said:

The ideal attack in a ODI on a normal pitch is five accurate seamers

The reason being that finger spinners weren't effective. I suggest they can be; you quoting a dozen who aren't is neither here nor there! How many seamers have been tried & failed in the same period? Their failure doesn't lessen the effectiveness of seamers who are of international OD standard.

 

[Richard]

Hmm... let's just say I'll never be in favour of the selection of a fingerspinner for an ODI; I'll always take a seamer first.
And leave it at that, ideally.

 

[tooextracool]

Vettori I'm still waiting, I'm quite sure his economy-rate will rise very soon, and I've been sure of it for some time.

thats got to be the stupidest excuse ive ever heard. you'd think that after 145 ODIs someones ODI record would show conclusively whether or not hes a poor bowler. its about as stupid as if i said, im quite sure that mcgraths ER will rise very soon.
and if you're so certain that it will rise then how do you explain the fact that his ER since the start of 2000 has actually fallen, and that he has an ER of 4.13 over the last 5 years?

Croft's record is excellent and it's pure folly that he didn't play more ODIs than he did.
Hooper I've already done.

further evidence that offies who bowl at less than 60 mph are ineffective. unless you care to explain how croft bowled at more than 60 mph?

You've got four, and as I say I'm still waiting for Vettori's record to change and I'm absolutely positive it will.

throw in saqlain and harbhajan,and you've got yourself 6.

 

[tooextracool]

Well - we shall see.
I still find it a little odd if it's so obvious that he's not batted three for Warwks more.

so what now? if someone stupid in warks decided that bell shouldnt bat at 3 we should all assume that hes incapable of it?

 

[tooextracool]

Kumble is less effective because he flights the ball far, far more generously nowadays than he used to pre-injury.
Of course bowling flat is important but even so bowling flat at 50mph will still give the batsman ample chance to give the charge effectively.

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.

Because Ealham played close to as many Test-innings as Giles has, didn't he?

no he didnt, but he was rendered completely useless after the few that he did play.

Giles was every bit as rubbish as Ealham was early in Tests.

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.

So how many fingerspinners have been tried and been found wanting, then? I'll name a few, just to give the picture that the successes have been very much anomalies: Gareth Batty, Ian Blackwell, Jeremy Snape, Paul Wiseman, Murali Kartik, Vijay Bharadwaj, Nilesh Kulkarni, Sunil Joshi, Nathan Hauritz (who wouldn't know what flight was if it punched him on the nose), Omari Banks, Ryan Hurley (who is in the same boat as Hauritz), Nehemiah Perry, Neil McGarrell, Thilan Samaraweera, Russel Arnold, Jayasuriya, Nico Boje, Robin Peterson, Dirk Viljoen... not to mention the numerous part-timers. So yes, I think I'm entitled to ignore the odd poor one!.

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.
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.

So why, then, have Dharmasena, the old Kumble and Utseya had considerable success bowling quicker than bowlers who turn it equally little? Because they bowl it flat, yes, but also because they're quicker through the air than the convention.

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.

 

[tooextracool]

So given that hardly any ODI pitches outside the subcontinent and certain West Indies grounds help fingerspinners to bowl economically, it's fairly safe, then, to say that Ealham-type bowlers are the best bet most of the time.

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.

 

[tooextracool]

Murali is a wristspinner, he counts..

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 doosra

The others are Warne and Mushtaq Ahmed.

wow you have so many!

So, where have you got the idea that I think wristspinners are the way to go, then?

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've stated so many times that most of the time wristspinners are pointless in Tests and ODIs because it's incredibly difficult to bowl wristspin accurately enough, only very few ever do.
If you do, you're like golddust but most people can't.
To have a good wristspinner, one up to Test or ODI standard, is exceptionally rare.

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.

 

[tooextracool]

And if Giles goes on to have a 150-match ODI-career and continue to be as economical as he has been I'll freely admit that I was wrong, in this case, to do so. Because no rule is without exceptions - Giles could be one. But I think Kemp showed today just why he's unlikely to be one.

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?

 

[tooextracool]

It's become run-weighty because of poorer bowling, something you can tell quite clearly when you look at how successful McGrath, Warne, Murali, Vaas, Pollock etc. have continued to be throughout these changes. Pollock earlier today demonstrated that perfectly - stupidly short boundaries, incredibly flat pitch, yet he still got 10-35-1.
If the thresholds have changed, it's because people are willing to accept mediocrity the way they once weren't.

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?

 

[tooextracool]

Udal, Hart and Price haven't played enough games.
Symcox I'll give you as another exception. Patel, too - he's actually played 51 games AFAICT, not 28.

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.

 

[tooextracool]

And no-one and nothing can stop accurate bowlers bowling economically, as I've shown and as you've ignored.
The rule-changes have had little or no effect since about 1992, the only change in the last 5 or 6 years has been the degeneration in the standard of bowling - and possibly the attitude.

they're all clearly anomalies.

 

[Richard]

thats got to be the stupidest excuse ive ever heard. you'd think that after 145 ODIs someones ODI record would show conclusively whether or not hes a poor bowler. its about as stupid as if i said, im quite sure that mcgraths ER will rise very soon.
and if you're so certain that it will rise then how do you explain the fact that his ER since the start of 2000 has actually fallen, and that he has an ER of 4.13 over the last 5 years?

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.

further evidence that offies who bowl at less than 60 mph are ineffective. unless you care to explain how croft bowled at more than 60 mph?

He didn't, as I've said, he's an exception to the rule.

throw in saqlain and harbhajan,and you've got yourself 6.

Saqlain and Harbhajan who are different whom I've never said are anything but very good ODI bowlers.

 

[Richard]

so what now? if someone stupid in warks decided that bell shouldnt bat at 3 we should all assume that hes incapable of it?

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.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

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.