Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

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, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

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


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 29th May 2007, 10:23   #121
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefy View Post
I think it is a change in peoples perceptions through clever media influence which has lead to the belief Monty has improved as a batter, as opposed to an actual genuine improvement. Whenever i watch him he still looks clueless and will be a no11 for some time to come. To me that matters little as long as he can keep improving his bowling. We also have young pace bowlers who offer alot more promise with the bat, hence alleviating the pressure on Monty to score runs i.e Mahmood, Plunkett and Broad.

I also hope Moores does not hold the same almost obsessive fetish for having bowlers who can bat as opposed who ones who can bowl that Fletcher possessed.
I think people go on about this apparent obsession of Fletcher's far more than is justified by events. His sides generally included Hoggard, a number 11 and Harmison, a number 10 and often included bowlers like Monty, Simon Jones and Jimmy Anderson, none of whom were exactly selected for their batting. What he did want was one of 4 specialist bowlers to be reasonably competent with the bat to avoid the six out, all out phenomenon. Generally Ashley Giles filled this role and Fletcher did rather foolishly get him back in as soon as he could in the Ashes. The thing is that Fletcher was right about needing a bowler to bat a bit. The disasters in the Ashes were not largely because of a lack of tail end runs but there were distressingly few runs scored after the fall of the sixth wicket.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2007, 11:20   #122
CoE
County Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
Team(s): England!
Posts: 696
If KP gets another 200 in the next match he will go to the top of the rankings I think. Although that may depend on how the Windies perform. If the subside for nothing, his runs are worth more, and of course if England win he would get more. But basically, if he gets another 200 in the next game he'll go to the top. If he can more or less maintain his ranking at around 900, then a big hundred or two would do it. He gained 45 points for his innings this week, and he is just 27 off number 1.

KP looks pretty safe in the ODIs at number 1. He's 28 points in the lead, but Ponting's best is still lower than what KP currently has. If KP performs poorly against the Windies he could fall pretty rapidly, but I can't really see it happening!
CoE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2007, 11:24   #123
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Double tons don't grow on trees. Pietersen would need to sustain his excellent test record to stay the same. He'll need to do even better to improve it.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2007, 11:25   #124
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 39,323
I think England's own ranking points may drop after this series as in the previous series against WI we won 4-0. At best we only win this 3-0.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northantsfanone View Post
Speaking to Geoff Cook today they may released Mark Wood from Durham. He rates him but the kid has had an operation and maybe one too many bowlers on the books type deal.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2007, 11:29   #125
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan11 View Post
I think England's own ranking points may drop after this series as in the previous series against WI we won 4-0. At best we only win this 3-0.
I think 3-0 is the predicted result so would leave England's position unchanged. It doesn't replace the previous result between the sides in the rankings calculation.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2007, 12:32   #126
CoE
County Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
Team(s): England!
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Double tons don't grow on trees. Pietersen would need to sustain his excellent test record to stay the same. He'll need to do even better to improve it.
Hehe, I know they don't happen very often, but I was asked what he would have to do to go top. Nonetheless, I would expect him to continue to do well against this attack, and I would be surprised if his rating fell particularly (although it did after Lords!)
CoE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2007, 12:42   #127
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
I think people go on about this apparent obsession of Fletcher's far more than is justified by events. His sides generally included Hoggard, a number 11 and Harmison, a number 10 and often included bowlers like Monty, Simon Jones and Jimmy Anderson, none of whom were exactly selected for their batting. What he did want was one of 4 specialist bowlers to be reasonably competent with the bat to avoid the six out, all out phenomenon. Generally Ashley Giles filled this role and Fletcher did rather foolishly get him back in as soon as he could in the Ashes. The thing is that Fletcher was right about needing a bowler to bat a bit. The disasters in the Ashes were not largely because of a lack of tail end runs but there were distressingly few runs scored after the fall of the sixth wicket.
Fletcher wanted Giles in to prop up the batting, but if his other favourite Geraint Jones had fulfilled one third of his "potential" with the bat there wouldn't have been quite the need for a bowler able to bat at 8.

I say this with some hesitation because if left to me I would have gone with Read who offered even less with the bat. But the point is that Fletcher was adamant that Jones was a good batsman able to hold his own at no. 7 when for most of the time he really wasn't. Hence he also needed someone to bat at 8. The difference now that Prior is in place is phenomenal, provided that he can maintain this standard of performance against stronger teams, of course.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2007, 14:36   #128
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Fletcher wanted Giles in to prop up the batting, but if his other favourite Geraint Jones had fulfilled one third of his "potential" with the bat there wouldn't have been quite the need for a bowler able to bat at 8.

I say this with some hesitation because if left to me I would have gone with Read who offered even less with the bat. But the point is that Fletcher was adamant that Jones was a good batsman able to hold his own at no. 7 when for most of the time he really wasn't. Hence he also needed someone to bat at 8. The difference now that Prior is in place is phenomenal, provided that he can maintain this standard of performance against stronger teams, of course.
Even with a batsman at 7 you still want your number 8 to be able to bat. The point is that number 8 didnt have to be (and doesnt have to be) your spinner.

All bowlers should work on their batting, the point is they shouldnt be picked for it.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2007, 22:55   #129
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
Even with a batsman at 7 you still want your number 8 to be able to bat. The point is that number 8 didnt have to be (and doesnt have to be) your spinner.

All bowlers should work on their batting, the point is they shouldnt be picked for it.
I agree with that but I also don't think it's quite that simple. For most of the latter part of the Fletcher era, two essentially non batting fast bowlers were automatic picks in Hoggard and Harmison. Sometimes Jones was too. This did leave the pressure on the selectors to balance the lower order batting. Put simply, it was judged better to keep the pace attack strong and lose on the spin than either to weaken the pace bowling for a fairly untried pace bowler who could bat a little but hadn't demonstrated Giles' merit with the bat or to just let the batting go hang. That obviously also impacted on choice of keeper although it shouldn't have done because faced with Jones v Read on the Ashes tour, given that neither of them was going to score a run, the better keeper had to be preferred.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2007, 23:03   #130
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,879
I can't believe we are still going over this. The truth is the selection of Read and Panesar over Jones and Giles wouldn't have altered the outcome one bit. With both Read and Panesar in the team we still lost by an innings and 99 runs and 10 wickets.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2007, 23:13   #131
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
I can't believe we are still going over this. The truth is the selection of Read and Panesar over Jones and Giles wouldn't have altered the outcome one bit. With both Read and Panesar in the team we still lost by an innings and 99 runs and 10 wickets.
Well people will persist in bringing the matter up.

I wish you hadn't mentioned the results with Read and Panesar in the side. I'm sure that led to about 8 pages of debate on its own.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2007, 23:17   #132
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Well people will persist in bringing the matter up.
Nobody was persisting in bringing the matter up. I was looking at reasons for the selection of bowlers who can bat and thought that the case of a batsman wicket-keeper who wasn't actually much good with the bat must have had an impact in the selection of the no. 8.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2007, 00:08   #133
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Nobody was persisting in bringing the matter up. I was looking at reasons for the selection of bowlers who can bat and thought that the case of a batsman wicket-keeper who wasn't actually much good with the bat must have had an impact in the selection of the no. 8.
It was intended as a joke against myself. I knew there was a good reason why I don't bother with them much.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2007, 19:17   #134
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
I agree with that but I also don't think it's quite that simple. For most of the latter part of the Fletcher era, two essentially non batting fast bowlers were automatic picks in Hoggard and Harmison. Sometimes Jones was too. This did leave the pressure on the selectors to balance the lower order batting. Put simply, it was judged better to keep the pace attack strong and lose on the spin than either to weaken the pace bowling for a fairly untried pace bowler who could bat a little but hadn't demonstrated Giles' merit with the bat or to just let the batting go hang. That obviously also impacted on choice of keeper although it shouldn't have done because faced with Jones v Read on the Ashes tour, given that neither of them was going to score a run, the better keeper had to be preferred.
We should ask ourselves why two fast bowlers with averages the wrong side of 30 were (and are) automatic picks.

Also why cant they work on their batting as Warne did. He couldnt bat for toffee early in his career. Why the pressure on a player of less than 10 tests when 50 test vets are allowed to not bother?
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2007, 21:52   #135
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
We should ask ourselves why two fast bowlers with averages the wrong side of 30 were (and are) automatic picks.

Also why cant they work on their batting as Warne did. He couldnt bat for toffee early in his career. Why the pressure on a player of less than 10 tests when 50 test vets are allowed to not bother?
Err, Warne was a batsman in his early club cricketing career. He was never a rabbit. His test batting average was largely in the teens although it did improve a little up to 16 and then above from about two thirds of the way through his test career. It's also entirely unfair to suggest that Hoggard at least has not worked on his batting. He has, he's just still rubbish.

You tell me why Hoggard and Harmison have largely been automatic picks. It's not actually that challenging.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2007, 21:55   #136
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 33
Posts: 18,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
You tell me why Hoggard and Harmison have largely been automatic picks. It's not actually that challenging.
Ohh, oh I know this one, let me answer it, it's...

no wait it's gone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2007, 22:17   #137
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 39,323
400 test wickets between them?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northantsfanone View Post
Speaking to Geoff Cook today they may released Mark Wood from Durham. He rates him but the kid has had an operation and maybe one too many bowlers on the books type deal.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2007, 22:27   #138
CoE
County Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
Team(s): England!
Posts: 696
It's because low 30s is now a good bowling average in tests
CoE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2007, 09:42   #139
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Err, Warne was a batsman in his early club cricketing career. He was never a rabbit. His test batting average was largely in the teens although it did improve a little up to 16 and then above from about two thirds of the way through his test career. It's also entirely unfair to suggest that Hoggard at least has not worked on his batting. He has, he's just still rubbish.

You tell me why Hoggard and Harmison have largely been automatic picks. It's not actually that challenging.
Most FC cricketers have batted high up the order for their clubs,including GBH and Hoggy. Its a red herring. In his first test he batted at 10, behind Hughes and McDermott. Only ahead of Reid. This also demonstrates that the Aussies pick bowlers for bowling ability.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2007, 09:47   #140
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Exactly.

GBH and Hoggy are automatic picks in tests because they are / were the best seamers we have.

Monty is the best spinner we have.

My point wasnt challenging why they were automatic picks while Monty wasnt (or whoever our best spinner was / is)? Asking the question about the fast bowlers provides the obvious answer, especially when compared to our spinner. It made my point.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:00.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org