England ODI Team

[kendall]

The structure for the england one day international side is quite frankly a joke, to open with jones whilst leaving strauss at 4 is quite simpley ludicrous. trying to open with jones is just a blatant attempt to copy australia and gilchrist and it is failing due to the fact that jones does not possess enough talent to perform the role effectively. although jones best shots the cut and the pull are most effective with the fiedling restrictions in place in the first 15 overs, but that is quite simply irrelevant and is a waste of a batsman.

i feel the best possible england is,

1. Trescothick
2. Strauss
3. Vaughn
4. Flintoff
5. Pietersen
6. Solanki? (nobody suitable)
7. Mascherenas
8. Read (wk)
9. Giles
10. Gough (replacement must be foud within 2 years, if anderson matures?)
11. Harmison

jones is a waste of a batsman in ODI's, and although vaughn is not at his best with the bat, he can add balance to the team and is a great captain to the side. There is no need for collingwood as he is a bit part player who is also a waste of a wicket as he cannot score high scores and his bowling is terrible. he is just a very mediocre player that ads nothing to the side. the number 6 in the batting line up is a problem position, but there is nobody suitable who can play that role well, ian bell is not good suitable to bat that lower down the order and would be wasted, if read is a failure then yes jones should be put back in the side and elevated to number 7.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Is your anti-Collingwood vitriole based on anything substantial or is it just because he's ginger?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Why not have Collingwood in the number 6 spot? He's a better ODI batsman than Solanki by far, and his fielding is an asset as well.

I don't know anything about Mascherenas so I can't comment there. What about Simon Jones?

 

[kendall]

Is your anti-Collingwood vitriole based on anything substantial or is it just because he's ginger?

he adds nothing to the team, he is not good enough at batting or bowling, and adds very little to the side, although in fairness he is an excellent fairness, but that is not enough to get him a place in the side.

 

[kendall]

Why not have Collingwood in the number 6 spot? He's a better ODI batsman than Solanki by far, and his fielding is an asset as well.

I don't know anything about Mascherenas so I can't comment there. What about Simon Jones?

smon jones could be a possibility as a replacement for gough, but he cannot bat so mascherenas gets the nod eahead of him.

 

[Scaly piscine]

he adds nothing to the team, he is not good enough at batting or bowling, and adds very little to the side, although in fairness he is an excellent fairness, but that is not enough to get him a place in the side.

He's a decent batsman (don't need another brutal clubbing batsman when we have Pietersen, Flintoff and G Jones there), his bowling was never intended to be more than backup (although he's added variations and is now fairly useful) and his fielding saves plenty of runs and earns the odd wicket. I think he adds plenty to the side and adds to the overall balance.

 

[Arjun]

Frontline XI:

• Trescothick- Attack the new ball, but also take more singles
• Strauss- Run, run hard, run harder between wickets, and hit the odd boundary
• Vaughan- Find the gaps and play for boundaries, but also look for singles
• Pietersen- no change
• Collingwood- run hard, try to build a long partnership
• Flintoff- enough said
• Ali- get the ball to swing, move off the pitch (do whatever worked in the last series) and play straight shots, and look for singles
• Giles- bowl wicket-to-wicket, rotate the strike and build a partnership (may swap with Ali)
• Read- don't miss those chances- pounce on them real fast and throw the bat at what comes
• Gough- do the usual
• Harmison- bowl fast, but don't break too many speed records- just put that pace to good use

Reserves:

• Simon Jones
• Bell
• Solanki

Whoever plays, the batting side must take more singles.

I don't know anything about Mascherenas so I can't comment there.

He's a seam bowler who averges over 20 with the bat with a lot of 50's in both forms of the game, and has a century in FC. Haven't seen much of him, even when they showed replays domestic matches in England. He was Player of the Year for Hampshire last year. Interesting suggestion.

What about Simon Jones?

Maybe as a reserve. Wasn't too bad in Zimbabwe.

 

[kendall]

He's a decent batsman (don't need another brutal clubbing batsman when we have Pietersen, Flintoff and G Jones there), his bowling was never intended to be more than backup (although he's added variations and is now fairly useful) and his fielding saves plenty of runs and earns the odd wicket. I think he adds plenty to the side and adds to the overall balance.

i agree there is no need for another clubbing batsman, but he isnt good enough to be in the side for his batting in any way, and another thing G jones would be sacked and replaced with read so he would not be tehre either, and another thing on top of that we already have 5 bowlers, treso and vaughn would provide backup, none other would be needed.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He's a decent batsman (don't need another brutal clubbing batsman when we have Pietersen, Flintoff and G Jones there), his bowling was never intended to be more than backup (although he's added variations and is now fairly useful) and his fielding saves plenty of runs and earns the odd wicket. I think he adds plenty to the side and adds to the overall balance.

Agreed. He's a perfectly decent ODI batsman who turns the strike over nicely, and I don't know why he should be dropped. I'm not a fan of bits-and-pieces players either, but when he is more than capable in one department (batting), his bowling and fielding are just support. I mean, Symonds isn't much of a bowler either, but his batting and fielding alone justify his place. And I don't think for a second that Solanki would be better at number 6 than Collingwood just because he makes "big scores". At number 6 you don't have to make big scores, 30 at a run a ball is a very nice innings.

 

[kendall]

Agreed. He's a perfectly decent ODI batsman who turns the strike over nicely, and I don't know why he should be dropped. I'm not a fan of bits-and-pieces players either, but when he is more than capable in one department (batting), his bowling and fielding are just support. I mean, Symonds isn't much of a bowler either, but his batting and fielding alone justify his place. And I don't think for a second that Solanki would be better at number 6 than Collingwood just because he makes "big scores". At number 6 you don't have to make big scores, 30 at a run a ball is a very nice innings.

yes i agree, but he simply isnt good enough for that roles, he fails, and with the 5 other bowlers suggeste dthere would be no other need of rhis bowling, a much better player could be brought in to stroke the ball around after the blitz from pietersen and freddie, bell would be better but he also would be wasted. thorpe would have been good but he is retired, a player similar to this is what is needed

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

yes i agree, but he simply isnt good enough for that roles, he fails, and with the 5 other bowlers suggeste dthere would be no other need of rhis bowling, a much better player could be brought in to stroke the ball around after the blitz from pietersen and freddie, bell would be better but he also would be wasted. thorpe would have been good but he is retired, a player similar to this is what is needed

Fine, but surely if there's no good replacement for him he's a good selection then. Hobbs would be better than Trescothick too, but you take what you've got.

 

[kendall]

Fine, but surely if there's no good replacement for him he's a good selection then. Hobbs would be better than Trescothick too, but you take what you've got.

solanki is a far more talented batsman than colingwood

 

[Neil Pickup]

solanki is a far more talented batsman than colingwood

Depends what you class as talent. If you're defining it as the ability to get yourself out in a whole manner of incredible ways, then yes, Vikram takes it.

 

[kendall]

Depends what you class as talent. If you're defining it as the ability to get yourself out in a whole manner of incredible ways, then yes, Vikram takes it.

but solanki has shown that he can play very well and can be very impreesive,

what about owais shah as a suggested, or michael powel ?

 

[Neil Pickup]

but solanki has shown that he can play very well and can be very impreesive,

what about owais shah as a suggested, or michael powel ?

What's Collingwood ever done wrong?

 

[kendall]

what has he ever done right?

 

[Arjun]

How many other options are there for the middle order? And whom would you consider as a reserve all-rounder?

 

[kendall]

How many other options are there for the middle order? And whom would you consider as a reserve all-rounder?

DO NOT NEED ANOTHER ALLROUNDER WE KEEP SAYING!
flintoff and mascherenas will do the allrounder role, number 6 should be a decent batsman who is better than collingwood who can play a nice innings or scrap if the need be.

 

[Arjun]

DO NOT NEED ANOTHER ALLROUNDER WE KEEP SAYING!
flintoff and mascherenas will do the allrounder role, number 6 should be a decent batsman who is better than collingwood who can play a nice innings or scrap if the need be.

Do not need? Everyone knows how powerful an England ODI side is without Flintoff. Besides, with a second all-rounder, you can play a wicketkeeper who can keep, rather than a bits-and-pieces man with big gloves.

 

[kendall]

Do not need? Everyone knows how powerful an England ODI side is without Flintoff. Besides, with a second all-rounder, you can play a wicketkeeper who can keep, rather than a bits-and-pieces man with big gloves.

ahem flintoff and mascherenas are allrounders, you have no need for 3 of them !!! esspecially if they arent real ones like collingwood, the team without collingwood would have 5 proper bowlers anyway, with treso and vaughn to back them up if needed, its simple as that.