> >I hope he (Mark Ealham) gets
> >picked for the one dayers, at least, but I'd like to see him back on the
> >test side. Can't see where he went wrong in the Ashes tour. (In 'Ashes
> >Summer', Hussain comments that the Ozzies privately expressed surprise
> >and relief when he was dropped)
> AAARRGH!!! NO!!
> For crying out loud NO!
> The Aussies were *joking*! Mark Ealham, fine county player that he is,
> is *not* a test player. He might get twenty odd runs, but he is no more
> an test-class all rounder than Derek Pringle was. Pringle was a good
> player too, but not up to it at the highest level.
> Sorry, but it really upsets me when people want Ealham in the test team.
> Dibbly dobbly bowling be damned! That's why we lose test matches.
Give me the gun, Chris (soothingly said).
Now I see your point, but on the other hand, how many times did you bite
the cushion when England reached the beginning of the long tail in the WI?
How many were there in the middle/lower order who you knew could go out
there and hold their ground when we were in trouble? (eg, Thorpe's loony
run out of Hussain - total collapse). I'm not saying Ealham is the saviour
we're looking for, as was said about (ugh) Hollioake, just that he didn't
do much wrong when he was on the test side, playing in English conditions -
as has been mentioned. And, hey, there wasn't much dibbly dobbly about 3
for 20 (if I remember rightly) on Sat.
> There IS an argument against all-rounders, that's true, as England have
> striven to find a replacement for Botham. The all-rounder's position
> is a pivotal one, and only a truly class player, a la Beefy can fill
> it properly. All of the recent candidates (Lewis, Pringle, Irani,
> Ealham, Hollioake) and many many more, have been either proficient in
> either batting OR bowling or neither. You can fudge it a bit, and have
> two all-rounders like Ealham and Lewis, say, and get perhaps 40 runs
> per innings and 4 wickets, but you tend to weaken your bowling with
> the result that we need to make a big score with two poor batsmen when
> we need one good one.
See your point, but I don't think Ealham's a poor batsman. You could argue
that a flashy batsman who can hit 207 but is likely as not to be out early
lbw because he can't work out which way to face at the crease needs to be
backed up by someone with a bit more fortitude. Regretfully, I don't think
Ealham will be picked for the test side - I think they'll go with a long
tail - so I'm preparing a pile of cushions to chew through.
> Sorry about the rant, but this is a touchy area with me.
You can get cream for that.
> But I'm a professional. I'll rise above it.
Great. Can I have the gun now?