His overall record there isn't great though, his bowling average is over 35 there, 6 worse than anywhere else though of course that's not the whole story, it's a world X1 though and if such a team was in Australia the first 2 bowlers are McGrath and Warne!
English cricket thread
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Take out a genuine allrounder like Flintoff for Ian fecking Bell? Are you having a laugh?
I've got 5 bowlers. Fred was a proper bowler. And Stokes will be doing the donkey work too. Swann effectively ties up one end too.
The interesting question is who would be a theoretical 3rd seamer if you had to pick one. Struggling to pin one down after Broad and Anderson. Harmison? Hoggard?
Ian Bell was a great player for England down the order very classy, I always rated him
Him or Hoggard. Whichever was faster. Pace matters.
Never rated him. Always seemed to get cheap runs and went missing when the going got tough. Doesn't have the x factor to be in my team.
You all seen the size of chris tremlett these days (opening of this vid)?
Harmison had a superb spell around 2003-2005. Unfortunately he kind of tailed off around the 2005 Ashes but he still had a few nice moments smashing Ponting in the face on Day 1 of the first test and THAT slower ball to Clarke at Edgbaston. Flintoff/Harmison 90mph aggro after a Broad/Anderson new ball spell sounds nice.
Given how embarrassingly awful england have been over there before and since, it really does stand out as a miracle.
Bazball's biggest achievement will be if it can make england compete down under.
Quite agree with you about Ian Bell. Hugely talented batsman and as you say full of class.
Broad's average at 27 is a shade higher than you would want from a great player.
Historically yeah but for England it makes him stand out, there’s not an awful lot of players who have more than 100 test wickets for England since 2000 and most who do are around 29/30 for an average.
Paul Collingwood MBE for the 2005 Ashes 5th test alone is a glaring omission.
Who would you drop though
I would go Strauss and Bell over Trescothick and Trott, but it’s a coin flip.
That was a joke! He played one test that series scored 17 runs and got an MBE (the rest of his career merited it though).
I think @Samid 's team is pretty complete myself. I'd maybe think about bringing in Moeen in but you can't drop Flintoff, and you already have Swann. So it's a pretty complete team.
He’s class - but he did get hit for 24 off his next 7 balls I think.
Feel the same about Ando - talked of as an all time great but his avg is a tad too high
Bell doesn't get anywhere near there, especially at 3. I'd have Vaughan and Trott over Bell.
Lots of overrating of Ian Bell.
That was special from Chris Jordan 
Class. Don't think I've ever watched a 100 game,.not sure of the need when we have t20 but that was funThat was special from Chris Jordan
Agreed, my overall recollection of Bell was him making runs in good positions, didn't often make hard runs. Could be wrong though.
That was true for long periods, but he did have a fantastic few years in the England dominant period of 2008-12. Addressed it slightly.
Whilst he wouldn't make my team you're wrong
Bell's record is pretty goodWell I'm either pissed or you Google God and you will see a picture of Ian Bell in the 2013 Ashes.
Common the Brave great win, especially when Jordan hobbled off, thought that was us done.
I'm going for the Google God option. Sounds like you're having a good night though
Jones
I'm not actually sure I am wrong. I took a quick look at cricinfo for his 22 centuries and what the score was when he came in. Of the 22 only 4 you could say England were in a sticky situation with 22/2, 28/3, 39/2, 83/3. The majority are from positions of varying levels of comfort including 75/1, 213/2, 219/4, 192/4, 403/4, 288/4, 305/4, 321/4, 297/4, 226/5. There were 6 where he came in 3 down with between 100 and 150 on the board, but in three of those England were in a strong position having twice bowled the oppostion out cheaply first (104 and 184) and once they had a 100 run lead from the first innings.Whilst he wouldn't make my team you're wrong
Whilst of course some of this will be related, if conditions are easy its more likely someone will score a century and also that batsmen before will have got good scores. I also think Bell was a decent batsman. But I'm not sure its that controversial to say that Bell isn't someone you would look towards when the chips are down in the same way that Root, Trott, Stokes etc. are.
What’s everyone’s thoughts on the hundred? I went to a few games live in its inaugural year but it’s a bit gimmicky and style over substance for me now.
His average was awful for his first few seasons, but for the past 8 or so years his average was incredible. And 8 years is longer than most great bowlers' careers at test level. I think McGrath is a somewhat comparable player, and whilst McGrath had better consistency throughout the entire span of his career (and better average as a result), I think at absolute peak 2-3 years Jimmy's returns were better.
It's comparable to Tendulkar who has a great test average of 53, but on paper that doesn't appear to be 'greatest test batsmen of all time', which he was (aside from Bradman but hard to compare going that far back). But given he played test cricket from 16 to 40 that's inevitable. Discounting his scores as a teenager and in his late 30s his average is much higher, and rightly puts him way in front of the likes of Williamson, Smith, Labuschange, Kallis, Lara etc who have similiar averages on paper but didn't have a 24 year test career.
If you take out all the scheduling issues it’s caused and just focus on the product itself, I don’t mind it. I can overlook the graphics and stupid commentary if it means watching more cricket. Although I wouldn’t go out of my way to watch it, I don’t with things like the blast either.
I’m sure there’s people with access to a lot more data than just the viewing and attendance figures, which will be able to judge the reach its having. If it’s not working in that sense then they’ll have to scrap it.
I think the women’s Hundred is very valuable and double headers are a great way to get younger kids and families into the game. The men’s Hundred however is basically the T20 blast in terms of quality with zero atmosphere, which makes it a bit difficult to watch on TV to be honest.
Fun to attend live, nice to put on in the background when you're doing other stuff and then pay attention to the end.
I have no interest in it at all, though haven't really tried to engage with it much. T20 can be exciting but I don't feel the need for an even shorter version of it, and they're essentially the same in terms of the type of cricket played.
Well so far the weather hasn't helped...
Somewhat fair, but Anderson has leaned into home conditions more than say Mcgrath.
True on the whole, and why I'd say McGrath edges it over Jimmy over their careers, but I think Jimmys last few tours between 2018 and 2022 (including Australia, India, SA, Pakistan) he averaged under 20 and an economy rate of like 1.3 or something insane, in conditions not overly favourable to swing. I think those were his peak years really, probably age 36-39 or whatever he was at the time. I think those years he was even better than peak McGrath, but McGrath was comfortably much better for the earlier part of their careers.