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 > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26th June 2008, 17:50   #21
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
Exactly, he is performing surprisingly well in an important role in the team as far as I'm concerned. I don't completely disagree with GBG and England definitely have to tweak a few things, but Swann isn't top of the list. The make-up of the team will definitely shift when Flintoff returns

Bell
Prior/Mustard
Pietersen
Colly
Shah
Patel
Wright
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson

GBG, I guess that's the kind of team you'd would like to see with 5 seamers and a couple of part-time spin options, and I have no real problem with it. Possibly Swann or Monty to come in on bunsens, at the expense of Wright. My main problem is saying that he hasn't done well in the role he has been given
That looks a pretty decent line-up. 4 genuine wicket-taking bowlers, plenty of options for the 5th bowler. Its bats pretty deep, it has potential for big-hitting at the top of the order and at the bottom. I think the only criticism you could really have of it is maybe on the fielding front, with possibly a few players you need to hide (Sideshow, Shah, Patel and to a lesser extent Broad) but I've seen worse fielding teams.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2008, 18:02   #22
Stick the Hitman LEEEEE ON
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,661
Does anyone on this thread support the team that Swann left to play for Notts
Stick the Hitman LEEEEE ON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2008, 18:37   #23
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Yes, but Ed Giddins takes his test wickets at 20 a piece and Anthony McGrath averages 40 with the bat and 14 with the ball in test cricket and I wouldn't want either of those near my test side either. Michael Yardy is another one with a better ODI economy rate who I wouldn't pick either.

Swann has had one good game in which he took 4 wickets against the Sri Lankan lower order/tail. Otherwise he has taken 4 wicket in 10 games.
Throwing away the chance of a series victory just re-inforces my impression that he isn't what England need.


Anyone got any views on Samit Patel?
But Swann hasnt been playing Zimbabwe has he?

I know you dont like him but its 8 in 10 isnt it?
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2008, 18:45   #24
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
But Swann hasnt been playing Zimbabwe has he?

I know you dont like him but its 8 in 10 isnt it?
You are indeed right. I gave the figure for maidens instead. Oops.

I think the Kiwis = New Zimbabwe, but I'm sure I could come up with other examples of players' figures flattering their performance.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2008, 19:34   #25
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
You are indeed right. I gave the figure for maidens instead. Oops.

I think the Kiwis = New Zimbabwe, but I'm sure I could come up with other examples of players' figures flattering their performance.
Hardly in ODI cricket, even if the batting is a little sketchy.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2008, 19:41   #26
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Hardly in ODI cricket, even if the batting is a little sketchy.
Zimbabwe were a half decent one-day outfit. They were reliant on a couple of stars and a lot of bits of pieces cricketers who scrapped for everything and were generally excellent fielders.

I think it is a fair comparison.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2008, 20:07   #27
Gilo's Doosra
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, Lincs
Team(s): Notts, England
Age: 26
Posts: 3,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Yes, but Ed Giddins takes his test wickets at 20 a piece and Anthony McGrath averages 40 with the bat and 14 with the ball in test cricket and I wouldn't want either of those near my test side either. Michael Yardy is another one with a better ODI economy rate who I wouldn't pick either.

Swann has had one good game in which he took 4 wickets against the Sri Lankan lower order/tail. Otherwise he has taken 4 wicket in 10 games.
Throwing away the chance of a series victory just re-inforces my impression that he isn't what England need.


Anyone got any views on Samit Patel?
Good talent but to be honest needs to lose a chunk of weight before he makes the step up. Played a ridiculously good innings up at Durham in the FPT quarter, better than any of these slogs on Sky by Wright or Napier...

Swann has done fine for England.
Gilo's Doosra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2008, 20:11   #28
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Zimbabwe were a half decent one-day outfit. They were reliant on a couple of stars and a lot of bits of pieces cricketers who scrapped for everything and were generally excellent fielders.

I think it is a fair comparison.
Oh, I see. Fair enough comparison on those terms, I agree. I thought we were talking about Anthony McGrath and Ed Giddings' test stats though and Zim's test side then was certainly vastly worse than the current Kiwi ODI outfit.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2008, 20:53   #29
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,719
Ride that hobby horse GBG, ride that hobby horse! This thread really is an extended rant, isn't it?

I think post #10 gives us a pretty clear indication about the overall quality of analysis we can expect on this particular subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
As for Swann, he was already in my bad books for the worse fielding display I've ever witnessed (I'm including park cricket) out in Sri Lanka and has done little to change my opinion of him. Choking last night certainly didn't help.
Swann is a pretty poor fielder overall and he certainly choked last night but since he returned to the ODI team at the expense of Monty he has bowled really well. He's not a world beater by any stretch of the imagination but his figures stack up pretty well. He's doing a decent job in my view.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 02:40   #30
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
Ride that hobby horse GBG, ride that hobby horse! This thread really is an extended rant, isn't it?

I think post #10 gives us a pretty clear indication about the overall quality of analysis we can expect on this particular subject.



Swann is a pretty poor fielder overall and he certainly choked last night but since he returned to the ODI team at the expense of Monty he has bowled really well. He's not a world beater by any stretch of the imagination but his figures stack up pretty well. He's doing a decent job in my view.
Its not supposed to be a rant, I'm asking whether Samit Patel is a legitimate contender for the ODI side, but people keep taking it off topic.

Swann = mediocrity = bits and pieces cricket, but if you lot are happy with that so be it. I'd far rather England looked to be competitive on the world stage and tried to ensemble a team capable of winning, or at least contesting, the world cup. Swann isn't going to offer match-winning performances with bat or ball, and will cost games in the field. Patel at least has the potential to win games with the bat, possibly even with the ball.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 02:46   #31
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 810 Wagner 118 TCurran 15 SCurran 0
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,403
He might get on to a Lions tour with Bresnan.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 14:17   #32
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Swann = mediocrity = bits and pieces cricket, but if you lot are happy with that so be it.
As per my post above I know he isn't a world beater, but he's a bit more than a bits and peices cricketer.

In his short career to date he's got a better bowling average (29.50 v 32.18) and strike rate (39.50 v 46.10) than the number 1 ranked ODI bowler Daniel Vettori, although his economy rate is worse (4.48 v 4.18). His batting average is better too (15.50 v 14.95). If he can maintain that level of "mediocrity" then yes, I'd be very happy indeed.

There are of course no stats by which we can compare them when it comes to fielding but DV is hardly Colin Bland is he!?
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 14:52   #33
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
As per my post above I know he isn't a world beater, but he's a bit more than a bits and peices cricketer.

In his short career to date he's got a better bowling average (29.50 v 32.18) and strike rate (39.50 v 46.10) than the number 1 ranked ODI bowler Daniel Vettori, although his economy rate is worse (4.48 v 4.18). His batting average is better too (15.50 v 14.95). If he can maintain that level of "mediocrity" then yes, I'd be very happy indeed.

There are of course no stats by which we can compare them when it comes to fielding but DV is hardly Colin Bland is he!?
Are you seriously telling me you'd rather have Swann than Vettori in your team?
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 15:09   #34
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Are you seriously telling me you'd rather have Swann than Vettori in your team?
Quite how you could glean that from my posts on this matter is beyond me. You're not really paying attention, are you?
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 16:24   #35
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
Quite how you could glean that from my posts on this matter is beyond me. You're not really paying attention, are you?
Grannie is a lawyer. He's adept at the dark arts of misdirection.

Seriously, I can see the point about Swann here and I don't think he's a world beater either but it would be absurdly harsh and even self defeating to be dropping a guy who's made a good fist of his ODI recall and as Psy says, has really rather decent stats. If selection is a meritocracy then you don't go picking a bloke for a run of games and then dropping him because you don't like the look of his fielding and think he gets milked too much when the figures really don't support that argument. Yes, you have to use judgement as well as stats in selection but you can't just ignore the stats entirely as inconvenient when they disprove your prejudices, except when it comes to Jon Lewis, of course.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 17:13   #36
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
Quite how you could glean that from my posts on this matter is beyond me. You're not really paying attention, are you?
True, I'm not really paying attention, but if you accept that Vettori is a better player than Swann, you have to accept that Swann's stats don't tell the full story.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 17:15   #37
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
True, I'm not really paying attention, but if you accept that Vettori is a better player than Swann, you have to accept that Swann's stats don't tell the full story.
I think almost everyone would accept that stats don't tell the full story but they only rarely tell a whole tissue of lies and never over a decent run of time.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 17:15   #38
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Grannie is a lawyer. He's adept at the dark arts of misdirection.

Seriously, I can see the point about Swann here and I don't think he's a world beater either but it would be absurdly harsh and even self defeating to be dropping a guy who's made a good fist of his ODI recall and as Psy says, has really rather decent stats. If selection is a meritocracy then you don't go picking a bloke for a run of games and then dropping him because you don't like the look of his fielding and think he gets milked too much when the figures really don't support that argument. Yes, you have to use judgement as well as stats in selection but you can't just ignore the stats entirely as inconvenient when they disprove your prejudices, except when it comes to Jon Lewis, of course.
I think it is self-defeating to pick a player you don't think is very good just because he got some good stats in a couple of his games and his overall record isn't terrible.

Team selection should be on the basis of the team to win the next game, not the last game.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 17:17   #39
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 27,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
I think almost everyone would accept that stats don't tell the full story but they only rarely tell a whole tissue of lies and never over a decent run of time.
OK, but Swann hasn't (fortunately, IMHO) played sufficiently often for it to be considered a big enough sample size. I'd also point out that his captains haven't trusted him to bowl his full quota of overs on a number of occasions. A damning indictment for a supposed specialist bowler.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2008, 17:21   #40
A Newbie
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Grannie is a lawyer. He's adept at the dark arts of misdirection.

Seriously, I can see the point about Swann here and I don't think he's a world beater either but it would be absurdly harsh and even self defeating to be dropping a guy who's made a good fist of his ODI recall and as Psy says, has really rather decent stats. If selection is a meritocracy then you don't go picking a bloke for a run of games and then dropping him because you don't like the look of his fielding and think he gets milked too much when the figures really don't support that argument. Yes, you have to use judgement as well as stats in selection but you can't just ignore the stats entirely as inconvenient when they disprove your prejudices, except when it comes to Jon Lewis, of course.
I knew there was a Gloucestershire bias, the very anthema of a fair and balancedTM poster such as my good self
A Newbie 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 12:58.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org