the middle allround order

[Tom Partis]

agh, my bad, shows how much i know. just wanted to be in on the conversation...

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Teatime FatCat

He worked best in tandem with Edmonds though - anyone know which had the better record?

Tests
John Emburey 147 wickets at 38.40. Strike Rate 104.70. Economy 2.20
Phil Edmonds 125 wickets at 34.18. Strike Rate 96.2 Economy 2.13

ODIs
John Emburey 76 wickets at 30.86. Strike Rate 45.00. Economy 4.10
Phil Edmonds 26 wickets at 37.11. Strike Rate 59.00 Economy 3.77

Take what you will from those figures. I always liked Philippe-Henri better than Embers as a player, but the slow left armer rubbed a lot of selectorial noses up the wrong way.

Funny thing about Middlesex players.

[dezz]

hoggard? have you seen hoggard trying to bowl odi cricket? he has no brain or imagination what you ever. it's the easiest bowling to smack ever! he's only been reasonably succesful in test cricket because you don't smack the bowlers in that form of the game. hoggards been tryed and failed woefully. never again shall he be picked for odi cricket

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by dezz

hoggard? have you seen hoggard trying to bowl odi cricket?

Dezz,

I dont give a tinker's cuss about ODI cricket. Though I would agree, as a swing bowler myself (15 years older and little more than half the pace) that Hoggard appears to lack the armoury for the concise form of the game.

Interestingly his ODI strike rate of 36 is currently a fair bit better than his Test SR of 60, it's a shame his economy rate is way off the scale.

But every ODI can be completely unlike the previous one, and they are no real guide to form...over a seven match series if one team is significantly better than the other it will show to the tune of say 5-2 or better, and the matches will be gripping for a good deal less than half of the allotted overs.
This current Eng v WI series will obviously be close, so 4-3 either way.
But some ordinary players will make some telling contributions, and as a cricket purist I can't ever see any good in that.

[Victor Frankenstein]

ah well, i always thought hoggard bowled quite well with the white ball, specifically when opening the bowling or being an early first change. He is a bit one dimensional but then so are all the other england bowlers most of the time. Still feel he's a better prospect than johnson.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

ah well, i always thought hoggard bowled quite well with the white ball, specifically when opening the bowling or being an early first change. He is a bit one dimensional but then so are all the other england bowlers most of the time. Still feel he's a better prospect than johnson.

He's a better prospect than Johnson a) because he's younger and b) because he's not injury prone.

I think Johnson would have been very successful with a solid pair of triple jumpers knees. Sadly his appear to belong to a gardener.

[dezz]

johnson is too valuable to ignore when fit, you have to snap him up as quickley as possible for as many tests as possible. He is just brilliant- it's like if Gillespie had bad knees, you'd still want to play him if wnd when he's fit wouldn't you-

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by dezz

johnson is too valuable to ignore when fit, you have to snap him up as quickley as possible for as many tests as possible. He is just brilliant- it's like if Gillespie had bad knees, you'd still want to play him if wnd when he's fit wouldn't you-

Dezz, please don't get me wrong. I'm a big Johnson fan. I like his free hitting with the bat, and I like the way he appeared to make the ball talk on his debut.

I understand all the pitfalls of dodgy knees - mine first gave way after I tore my right quadruceps in 1994 aged 32.
For about five years I couldn't climb the stairs at work on summer Monday mornings...now I just trundle to the wicket with a chest on action, the ball swings prodigiously (mostly in) and my knees usually last pretty well until early September, whereupon the winter starts and I get seven months rest.

Many commentators spoke about Johnson as the sort of bowler you had to watch, because something is always going to happen. Nobody ever says that about Hoggard.

So Johnson is more watchable. For cricket "watchable" is important.

I'll take "watchable" every time.

[dezz]

yes, absolutely watchable. cricket is generally perceived as a boring game so lets not make it any more boring by bowling hoggard all day all night through broken glass and and ploughing his way through the mines while jones and harmison are getting ********** down the pub. johnson may be **********, mcgrath, achtar, broken, destroyed, of and on the field but at least it's interesting like anderson. people say you never know whats going to happen with some batsman (jayasuria) well it should be the same for bowlers. thereby a bit more balanced all round

[high_on_linseed]

Vaughan shouldnt be in the one-day team. At test level, hes class. In ODIs hes been a crashing failure.
Trescothick is a fine one-day player and would make a ecent one-day skipper.

Harmison is too inconsistent in spells, to really make it in ODIs. Basically, he will continue to go for 6 an over. Maybe get a few three or four fors here and there, but will not be indulged the field placing hes rightfully been indulged recently in test cricket, and this will be rare. And why run the risk of injury, when he is our prized test asset.

Forget Gough hes physically past it:

This team would stand a chance:

Trescothick (captain)
Strauss
Collingwood
Thorpe
Flintoff
Shah
Read
Blackwell
Johnson
Hoggard
Anderson

12: Sidebottom or John Lewis