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

[Richard]

pre 2000: 4.04
post 2000: 4.49

Which had nothing to do with the fact he was injured quite often, of course, and played disjointedly in ODIs in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

didnt play beyond 2000.

pre 2000: 3.83
post 2000: 4.13

How disgraceful an ER 4.13 is.

didnt play after 2000.

didnt play after 2000.

henry williams who only had 1 good series in his career against a rubbish england side and zimbabwe.

Really? That Zimbabwean side was about the strongest they ever produced, and England certainly weren't bad - that series, indeed, was one where both regularly matched a very fine South African side.

didnt play beyond 2000

What a fine date 2000 is, eh? So many bowlers retiring after WC99.
What a coincidence that the scores started to go up around then (I first noticed it at Karachi, myselt - when a previously fantastic bowler, Gough, started a spell where he bowled appallingly).

what the hell are you talking about? where have i said that the bowlers now are better than the bowlers of the 90s?

You haven't, you'd said that they're not one hell of a lot worse - and they are.
As demonstrated by the massive increase in scoring-rates.

 

[Richard]

no because you have to have variety and you need intelligence.

Yes, you do - but all bowlers need intelligence.

 

[Richard]

from what? his ER went up,just like almost every one elses post 2000.

Which had nothing to do, of course, with his inury problems either?
He was still capable of bowling equally well as he bowled before, even if at times he got punished more for bowling poorly.

 

[Richard]

and saqlain and harbhajan spin the ball with their fingers, nothing else is of the slightest significance. and neither of them have a disfigured elbow or any other sort of advantage that a normal bowler doesnt have.

No, they can just bowl a delivery no-one else can.

he turns it more than a wrist spinner too, and that is precisely what the problem is.

No, he doesn't, he just turns in in an amount in a direction more than a normal wristspinner.

you should put this as your signature, because really it explains pretty much everything that you are about. basically if people agree with you they are right, no matter how much more they've watched, when they dont they are wrong. so basically you pick and choose when you want to use other peoples opinions and when you dont. just like you pick and choose what stat of a player proves you right, and ignore every other one that proves you wrong.

No, I just form my opinions on what I believe right and not on what I believe wrong.

no i havent, ive simply used what you;ve said against you, and you've twisted and turnt it around so that havent been made to look like a fool, even though every member already knows that you are.

No, most members actually respect me (seem to respect you, too, of course).
You've just tried to make it look like I've said things I haven't - and funnily enough, I know what I've said better than you.

yes you are right, i should have said, you are wrong as always.

No, not as always either.

yes and well done with the explanation about him being picked for his bowling abilities. bravo sherlock. now of course you are going to claim that it was all luck, even though that is besides the point.

No, it wasn't, he actually batted well on the rare occasions I saw him. How, though, I'll never know.
Doesn't change the fact that he was rubbish far, far more often and would not have been retained but for his bowling.

ROFLMAO. i admit, that is the best joke you've ever pulled, probably without even knowing it too. people relying upon mahanama was just about as likely as england relying on rikki clarke. this comment is typical of you richard, to make a bold statement about something that you know absolutely nothing about. wouldnt be surprised if it was that idiot hoitink who said it either, probably in sarcasm.

No, it wasn't, he was 9 years old at the time. And I don't think most on the board would call him an idiot, either - especially as he's a Staff Member.
It was, IIRR, someone commenting on Kalu in a match-programme for the Emirates Trophy 1998, and his opening the batting.
Funny how Mahanama was so unreliable he managed to partake in the stand that smashed by some way the highest ever in Test-cricket. No, he wasn't a particularly fantastic player, but he could play good innings and must have played 213 ODIs for some reason.

 

[Richard]

zimbabwe were not upto standard after 2000, its a fact. and in the times before 2000 they were still one of worst ODI sides for the most of it. hence ealham had several chances to bowl in dead rubber death situations.

They were bottom of the tree, yes - but they were still good enough, especially in 1999 and 2000, to give many of the top teams a run for their money and certainly for anyone to count their performances among ODIs.

nope because bowling in the 40th and 42nd over is nowhere near as difficult as bowling beyond 45. and more often than not he only bowled the 40 and 42nd over because the death overs hadnt started yet, he was almost always taken off whenever the slogging began.

Why d'you think that was? Perhaps because it's best for everyone if he doesn't bowl then? Nonetheless, you might want to look at how often those overs cost quite a few runs, far more than he'd been going for previously.

the game vs australia at bristol was dead rubber, australia always looked like winning it.
vs zim lord, dead rubber.
vs wi trent bridge, there wasnt any death overs because it was on a seamer friendly wicket
vs zim oval, zimbabwe always had the game after over 40- again dead rubber
vs zim queens, no death overs because it was about the most seamer friendly wicket you'll see
vs zimbabwe queens, england were in control of that game all along.
vs zim trent bridge - dead rubber.

clearly more than 1 game

Do you even know what a dead rubber is? It's a game where the outcome has no outcome on the series.

and 10-35-1 doesnt do anyone an favours when the conditions are seamer friendly.

It's still a decent spell.

yes he did, the 10-40-1. almost identical in all conditions.

Rubbish, his performances (like any bowler, in fact) fluctuated all the time. Sometimes he was good, sometimes bad.

or the ones that you like to pick- parttimers.

Obviously - but part-timers almost always get hammered.

where the hell did you get that from?

Look at Vettori's record in ODIs against Australia.

nope you dont as a seamer you can be a complete dumba** with no variation and still maintain accuracy and pick up wickets. andrew caddick will tell you all about that.

Caddick had no variation? Yes.
Caddick was a dumbaess? No.

 

[marc71178]

How disgraceful an ER 4.13 is.

Ignoring the point about run rates increasing, not surprising that you'd do that.

 

[Richard]

Given that I mean increasing from acceptible to unacceptible, ignoring nothing.
No coincidence, either, that the bowlers who've got worse have been nearing the ends of their careers - those still in the middle of their careers (McGrath, Pollock, Murali) haven't suffered such an increase.

 

[tooextracool]

No, you're the stupid one if you think straw-polls can change fact.

you yourself have used that as an argument against me.

If they're good enough it won't take that long to learn..

how can they learn if you dont give them the chance to do so, with all your rubbish about not bowling over 60 mph

No, Hussain wasn't as good as in 1999 or before, but he was still darn good.

yes but he had shown a decline in fielding standards. ealham was never at any point of his career comparable to hussain, and its extremely likely thats hes gotten worse just like hussain.

As you'd know, of course, Hick and Knight are still as good as they used to be, too;.

knight was never particularly brilliant, hick of course was amazing, and even he has lost a few yards of pace.

Herschelle Gibbs, at nearly 32, is still one of if not the best fielder in THE WORLD;

because 32 is so very comparable to 36 isnt it?
and gibbs most certainly is not the best fielder in the world, symonds is was and will forever be better than him, as would dwayne smith.

Jonty Rhodes at 33 was very much the same; there are many others.

what the hell have you been watching? only a fool would that jonty rhodes fielding was just as good as it was during 92-98, when he was so far ahead of remarkable it was insane. after that he was still one of the best fielders around, but certainly no one would question the fact that he had shown a decline since earler on in his career.

Good fielders - which Ealham was, he was more than just decent - don't become poor ones because of age.

rubbish, ealham was never a good fielder, he may have had a reliable pair of hands, but he was most certainly not the quickest in the field and he certainly wasnt capable of diving around either.

There have been plenty and plenty of bigger disgraces - Ealham was simply a nothing-special, of which there have also been many.

to classify ealham as nothing special, would be a compliment to him,unless you are talking about ODI cricket, in which case you are absolutely right.

And if he comes in with 10 overs or more left (not OOTQ at all given recent performances) then it'll mean there's been no improvement, and that one innings didn't really say much.
If, on the other hand, he does well we can say he's improved his ODI batting.

perhaps so, we shall see

No, you don't - but you do retain him if he does as shockingly poorly as Arnold mostly did in Tests and ODIs.

yes arnold shockingly poor by averaging around 45 after half of his career, and still ending up with a career avg of over 35. yes, brilliant sherlock.
and how many times do i have to say it, im talking about why he was picked, he was picked based on his batting at the domestic level, because you cant be picked based on batting at the intl level when you've never played a game.

And on the many occasions where he wasn't averaging over 45?

what?
russell arnold was averaging over 40 after 104 games, which is quite a long period indeed.
stop trying to wittle your way out of this one, even as stupid as you are, you know that you are wrong.

He was accurate, as you'd remember.

i do remember, and i do remember him not being accurate too, and considering all the wrong facts you've been putting in about his batting career, im hell as sure not going to believe a word about what you say about his bowling career.

Dharmasena, indeed, still is and has inexplicably been ignored more often than not for the last 4 years.
As for Utseya - well, we'll see how the rest of his career unfolds - I'm confident his career has started well enough that it'll go on something like how it's started

im confident he will end up being a mediocre player, and it will happen time and time again, and then you would hang on to the one series when he had any sort of success and claim that he was a brilliant bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

Well let's hope he just God-damn bats there next season, then maybe we might get a better idea.

of course for you to dismiss him as being useless in one position simply because hes never batted in that position, is outright ludicrous.

 

[tooextracool]

And Allott's career was massively shorter than Vettori's..

which proves nothing, while 5 years of consistent success proves a lot, which is all ive been trying to say. if vettori had one good series on a bunch of spinner friendly wickets, and failed in every other series in a career as short as allotts, you would claim that hes completely useless.

No, I've said that those of success have been tiny compared to the failures - including those who you label part-timers.

yes and the failures that you've picked have largely been part timers, no surprise either.
and please, go ahead and tell me how large those successful fast bowlers have been compared to the number of failures.

No, they can't - but given that ERs for seamers tend to be lower than for fingerspinners seamers are generally the better option.

no they are not, because time and time ive said it, seamers can bowl as well as they can, but they will never do as well as a spinner can on a slow turning wicket. and they will most certainly not pick up anywhere near as many wickets as a spinner can.

 

[tooextracool]

Which had nothing to do with the fact he was injured quite often, of course, and played disjointedly in ODIs in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

was it me who brought up the example? NO. you used it as evidence that bowlers pre 2000 and post tend to maintain their ER's

How disgraceful an ER 4.13 is.

you really do have problems reading dont you? 4.13 is significantly higher than 3.83, which shows precisely what my point is, that in general pitches have gotten flatter and bowlers ER's have risen. from whereever you got the point that akram was useless post 2000 i'll never know.

Really? That Zimbabwean side was about the strongest they ever produced, and England certainly weren't bad - that series, indeed, was one where both regularly matched a very fine South African side.

which automatically makes them the best sides in the world doesnt it?
say whatever you want, england, zimbabwe and the WI were competing for the bottom 3 places in the world, at the time.

What a fine date 2000 is, eh? So many bowlers retiring after WC99.
What a coincidence that the scores started to go up around then (I first noticed it at Karachi, myselt - when a previously fantastic bowler, Gough, started a spell where he bowled appallingly).

whatever, if you can pick and choose whatever you like, so can i, fact is that since you are too blind to see that wickets have gotten much flatter since 2000, ive shown you convincincing evidence of why that is, and thats looking at players who had better ER's before 2000.

You haven't, you'd said that they're not one hell of a lot worse - and they are.
As demonstrated by the massive increase in scoring-rates.

the massive increase in scoring rates has largely to do with the pitches, and to a small extent due to worser bowlers. but to claim that bowlers whove actually maintained fairly good ERs for the standard today are useless, and use bowlers pre 2000 who were nowhere near the same league(like ealham) to suggest that ERs havent risen is simply inane.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, you do - but all bowlers need intelligence.

correction all spinners need intelligence. because all a pace bowler needs in ODIs is to be accurate(something that you yourself have said) which requires no real intelligence at all.

 

[tooextracool]

Which had nothing to do, of course, with his inury problems either?

even though the injury actually happened in 98

He was still capable of bowling equally well as he bowled before, even if at times he got punished more for bowling poorly.

so the significant rise in his ER is all magical then?

 

[tooextracool]

No, they can just bowl a delivery no-one else can..

and murali can bowl a delivery no one else can. who else can bowl with a wrist spinners action and get it to turn the other way without bowling a googly?

No, he doesn't, he just turns in in an amount in a direction more than a normal wristspinner..

so now you claim that murali doesnt turn it more than any other spinner, lets see if you pal hotink agrees about this too.

No, I just form my opinions on what I believe right and not on what I believe wrong..

yes which basically means, that you will only consider peoples opinions when they agree with you, and not when they dont, not surprising of course, and then you expect to use that as evidence that im wrong. pure genius that.

No, most members actually respect me (seem to respect you, too, of course).
You've just tried to make it look like I've said things I haven't - and funnily enough, I know what I've said better than you..

yes you do, but since you wont admit to what you've actually said, you've tried to twist your way out to save face. the string is only so long, go ahead and keep pulling, you'll reach the end eventually.

No, not as always either..

even though you've already been proven wrong on god knows how many occasions?

No, it wasn't, he actually batted well on the rare occasions I saw him. How, though, I'll never know.

yet hes clearly rubbish, because you dont like him. come of it, if someone is scoring runs you cant say that hes useless.

Doesn't change the fact that he was rubbish far, far more often and would not have been retained but for his bowling..

so rubbish was he that hes still averaging over 35, and was averaging over 40 for 104 games. well done sherlock, add that to your resume.

No, it wasn't, he was 9 years old at the time. And I don't think most on the board would call him an idiot, either - especially as he's a Staff Member.

wow like i care.
makes it more likely that hes wrong, because staff members opinions count nowhere near as experts opinions do.

It was, IIRR, someone commenting on Kalu in a match-programme for the Emirates Trophy 1998, and his opening the batting..

oh yes, some mysterious person who even you dont know off, why does that not surprise me? possible mahanama himself, saying it with sarcasm.
and if its ranjit fernando then it doesnt make things better.

Funny how Mahanama was so unreliable he managed to partake in the stand that smashed by some way the highest ever in Test-cricket. No, he wasn't a particularly fantastic player, but he could play good innings and must have played 213 ODIs for some reason.

WOW, he scored 200 on what can easily be considered the flatttest wicket in the history of the game. not one team was dismissed in any innings, give him a medal.
and 213 matches, you really dont get tired of making an a** of yourself do you?
given how poor SL were pre 96, they would certainly have taken a player of the likes of mahanama at any point in time, just like zimbabwe would have, but just because he happened to play 213 games for a side that was so clearly not ODI or test class, it automatically makes him half decent let alone great doesnt it?

 

[tooextracool]

They were bottom of the tree, yes - but they were still good enough, especially in 1999 and 2000, to give many of the top teams a run for their money and certainly for anyone to count their performances among ODIs.

yes but as ive said one million times, its just like looking at performances against WI in test match cricket now. you can count it yes, but it doesnt suggest particular brilliance.

Why d'you think that was? Perhaps because it's best for everyone if he doesn't bowl then? .

yes largely because he was mediocre in those overs.

Nonetheless, you might want to look at how often those overs cost quite a few runs, far more than he'd been going for previously.

yes he was hammered in the pre- death overs, can you imagine what would have happened had he bowled regularly in the death overs?

Do you even know what a dead rubber is? It's a game where the outcome has no outcome on the series.

yes i do know what it is, dead rubber is when no matter how badly ealham screwed up, england were still going to win/lose the game. regardless, call it whatever you want, it doesnt change the fact that most of those situations in which he bowled didnt have any consequence on the game.

It's still a decent spell.

but if thats all he can do, its not good enough.

Rubbish, his performances (like any bowler, in fact) fluctuated all the time. Sometimes he was good, sometimes bad.

and on the whole he usually had performances of 10-40-1. fact is he very rarely had performances that were 3 or 4 wicket hauls.

Obviously - but part-timers almost always get hammered.

and therefore their relation to genuine finger spinners is absolutely 0.

Look at Vettori's record in ODIs against Australia.

OMG you really need to do something about that IQ. i was referring to the "And you reckon Saqlain wasn't an intelligent bowler?"

Caddick had no variation? Yes.
Caddick was a dumbaess? No.

nor was he particularly intelligent. which is precisely my point.

 

[Richard]

you yourself have used that as an argument against me.

Really? All I can think of is in the Katich case, where I most certainly was not trying to say "was Katich poor against spin in 2003\04?", simply "was he poor before that?"

how can they learn if you dont give them the chance to do so, with all your rubbish about not bowling over 60 mph

They can learn by someone telling them to do it, not by being picked before they even know that they need to.

yes but he had shown a decline in fielding standards. ealham was never at any point of his career comparable to hussain, and its extremely likely thats hes gotten worse just like hussain.

He's not as good, no, but he's still not poor enough to be dismissed from a side for it.

knight was never particularly brilliant, hick of course was amazing, and even he has lost a few yards of pace.

Knight was never brilliant? Clearly you haven't seen some of the catches he's taken and stops he's made. Yes, he dropped one or two in his last few ODI series, but he was and still is very good. Hick, too - and yes, they've both lost a bit of pace, but they're both still good.

because 32 is so very comparable to 36 isnt it?

It's 4 years - not an enormous amount. Especially given that humans tend to start losing athleticism in their late-20s\early-30s.

and gibbs most certainly is not the best fielder in the world, symonds is was and will forever be better than him, as would dwayne smith.

I'd not say there's any difference between Smith and Gibbs. As for Symonds, yes, apart from Symonds.

what the hell have you been watching? only a fool would that jonty rhodes fielding was just as good as it was during 92-98, when he was so far ahead of remarkable it was insane. after that he was still one of the best fielders around, but certainly no one would question the fact that he had shown a decline since earler on in his career.

He had - but not an incredible decline - so little that he was still better than everyone else.

rubbish, ealham was never a good fielder, he may have had a reliable pair of hands, but he was most certainly not the quickest in the field and he certainly wasnt capable of diving around either.

He wasn't lightning, but he wasn't slow. And he did dive to stop things, even if not as regularly as the brilliant fielders and the risk-takers.

to classify ealham as nothing special, would be a compliment to him,unless you are talking about ODI cricket, in which case you are absolutely right.

No, I'd be being underwhelming.

yes arnold shockingly poor by averaging around 45 after half of his career, and still ending up with a career avg of over 35. yes, brilliant sherlock.
and how many times do i have to say it, im talking about why he was picked, he was picked based on his batting at the domestic level, because you cant be picked based on batting at the intl level when you've never played a game.

He was picked INITIALLY, yes, of course he was - but given that he's only had one good 3-year period in his entire ODI career, his bowling has played a part in his being RETAINED.

what?
russell arnold was averaging over 40 after 104 games, which is quite a long period indeed.
stop trying to wittle your way out of this one, even as stupid as you are, you know that you are wrong.

No, I don't - I know he was averaging under 24 after 11 games in 2 years; he then had a breakthrough and averaged nearly 56 for the next year and 37 games; since then he's averaged 29.34 from 80 matches. If you think he'd have played anything close to those 80 matches if he couldn't bowl at all you're the stupid one.

i do remember, and i do remember him not being accurate too, and considering all the wrong facts you've been putting in about his batting career, im hell as sure not going to believe a word about what you say about his bowling career.

Good, good - maybe you'd better call on your massive archive you've watched, then?
Despite the fact that, above, I've clearly shown his batting career, as I had before.

im confident he will end up being a mediocre player, and it will happen time and time again, and then you would hang on to the one series when he had any sort of success and claim that he was a brilliant bowler.

Well he's already had 3 good series, and 10 good games out of 14.

 

[Richard]

of course for you to dismiss him as being useless in one position simply because hes never batted in that position, is outright ludicrous.

Which is why I've not done that, and instead I've said there must be some reason he's never done it.

 

[Richard]

which proves nothing, while 5 years of consistent success proves a lot, which is all ive been trying to say. if vettori had one good series on a bunch of spinner friendly wickets, and failed in every other series in a career as short as allotts, you would claim that hes completely useless.

Not if he only played 3 series before that, I wouldn't.

yes and the failures that you've picked have largely been part timers, no surprise either.
and please, go ahead and tell me how large those successful fast bowlers have been compared to the number of failures.

Who knows - because wayward seamers get picked mistakenly all the time.

no they are not, because time and time ive said it, seamers can bowl as well as they can, but they will never do as well as a spinner can on a slow turning wicket. and they will most certainly not pick up anywhere near as many wickets as a spinner can.

So you pick spinners on slow and turning wickets.
And not on others.

 

[Richard]

was it me who brought up the example? NO. you used it as evidence that bowlers pre 2000 and post tend to maintain their ER's

you really do have problems reading dont you? 4.13 is significantly higher than 3.83, which shows precisely what my point is, that in general pitches have gotten flatter and bowlers ER's have risen. from whereever you got the point that akram was useless post 2000 i'll never know.

I haven't - I just said that though Akram wasn't quite as good post-2000 as pre-2000 he was still very good bearing in mind he usually bowled at the death.
And Donald, when he was actually fit, did maintain his ER - but he was often injured in the later stages of his career.

which automatically makes them the best sides in the world doesnt it?
say whatever you want, england, zimbabwe and the WI were competing for the bottom 3 places in the world, at the time.

Which simply says how strong ODI cricket was at the time.

whatever, if you can pick and choose whatever you like, so can i, fact is that since you are too blind to see that wickets have gotten much flatter since 2000, ive shown you convincincing evidence of why that is, and thats looking at players who had better ER's before 2000.

Of course there have been far more flat wickets since 2000, but that doesn't mean bowlers have gotten any more wayward. Indeed, Pollock, McGrath and Murali have maintained their ERs.
The thing is, wayward bowlers have become more common and they've been punished more effectively. Where once they were going for 5-an-over, they're now going for 6s and 7s.

the massive increase in scoring rates has largely to do with the pitches, and to a small extent due to worser bowlers. but to claim that bowlers whove actually maintained fairly good ERs for the standard today are useless, and use bowlers pre 2000 who were nowhere near the same league(like ealham) to suggest that ERs havent risen is simply inane.

So who are these bowlers I've claimed are useless (Vettori, maybe?) because they've got fairly good ERs by today's standards?

 

[Richard]

correction all spinners need intelligence. because all a pace bowler needs in ODIs is to be accurate(something that you yourself have said) which requires no real intelligence at all.

No, it just requires skill.
You're still going to be charged at as a pace-bowler unless you're in the 70-80 bracket and the wicketkeeper can stand-up, so you still need to anticipate that and do all you can to counter it if the batsmen give you a chance.