ICC Cricket Rankings

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Beefy

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.

[CoE]

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!

[Fatslogger]

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.

[Aidan11]

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.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Aidan11

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.

[CoE]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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!)

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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.

[Vaughansashes2009]

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

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.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by englandsashes2009

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.

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

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.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

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.

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

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.

[Vaughansashes2009]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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?

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by englandsashes2009

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.

[Wandering Zebra]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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.

[Aidan11]

400 test wickets between them?

[CoE]

It's because low 30s is now a good bowling average in tests

[Vaughansashes2009]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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]

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.