Your Retrospect Rest of World ODI Squad

[Barney Rubble]

People usually forget that Trescothick has always scored some runs against Aus in ODIs because his Test record against them was so poor in 2001 and 2002\03.

I'm still surprised he didn't notch up a ton this summer in the Ashes - every time I saw him play he looked a different man from the guy who was all at sea in the last two series, like this time he actually believed he could get runs against Australia. The benefits of playing in the Fletcher-Vaughan era, I guess.

 

[Richard]

Well that defeats the purpose of this thread, considering it's a "retrospect" thread, as if we knew what was going to happen with the players etc.

Well... that's the evolution-of-discussion again.
Someone mentioned what they'd have picked before.
And even with hindsight... I'd still say the strongest team is the strongest team and, as I did also mention, I'd still pick Kallis, Lara and Dravid if another series started tomorrow.

 

[Richard]

I'm still surprised he didn't notch up a ton this summer in the Ashes - every time I saw him play he looked a different man from the guy who was all at sea in the last two series, like this time he actually believed he could get runs against Australia. The benefits of playing in the Fletcher-Vaughan era, I guess.

IMO the only difference was the absence of the real Gillespie. He didn't play any better, it was just a different attack to the one he faced in 2001 and 2002\03.
And even then he still needed copious amounts of luck to even get a half-century.

 

[shaka]

Vettori was consistant in tying down the Australian batting score, its too bad that the quicks were unable to continue his efforts. Hence the reason Dan should be in the team

 

[Richard]

As it was Vettori was better than the quicks.
But as I say - I don't find he bowled particularly well in the First game.

 

[Loony BoB]

As it was Vettori was better than the quicks.
But as I say - I don't find he bowled particularly well in the First game.

Vettori has a phenomonal (excuse my spelling if that's wrong) record against Australia. It's said that Aussie simply don't like batting against him. Take a look at his economy rate against them in the past year of ODI's for a good showing of how careful they are with good ol' Danny (who, it could be said, is just as underrated by the public as Tresco - but the same can be said of most New Zealanders). He's played nine ODI's against them in the past year. Economy rate over 3.7 in just one of those games, bowling 10 overs in every game.... 31, 36, 33, 31, 31, 37, 33, 54, 34. And when he went for 54 runs, I'm quite sure he was still the most economical of all the bowlers who played. He had the best stats (sometimes equalled with Murali) in EVERY aspect against Australia during the ODI series. I consider Vettori to be one of the most underrated players in the game, which was emphasised before he bowled in the first ODI, when he was labelled "the extra bowler" in the team - and that same commentator was all too quick to heap praise on how wonderful his recent record is after he'd bowled. Grr.

 

[Richard]

It's obvious that Australia aren't great shakes against him in ODIs... what I want to know is, why?
I mean, the other teams haven't had quite such big difficulties.

 

[Loony BoB]

Everyone plays their best against one team or another. Vettori happens to play his best against Aussie. Having said that, he doesn't do that badly against other teams. His economy rate against any team for the past year is 3.74 over 18 matches. Although the other games were against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Digging back two years, his eco rate goes up to 4.17, his economy rate being worst against Pakistan (5.34), although all eight of those games were played on seaming wickets in NZ and Pakistan. He's best against Australia, the Windies and Sri Lanka, I think.

EDIT: Yeah, as far as I can see, in the past two years only Pakistan have been effective against him. All other teams haven't hit him for more than 4.62 an over in a series (4.62 being England, who also have seaming wickets).

 

[Richard]

In other words the only credible ODIs he's played in the last year have been against Australia.
It makes no sense that Vettori should bowl better against Australia than anyone else - what's more likely is that some batsmen tend to play him better than Australia's routine bunch do.
I can't honestly say I've seen a massive amount of Vettori bowling in ODIs but when I have seen him I've never been overtly impressed, and have marvelled that his record is even as good as it is.

 

[Loony BoB]

Until I saw Hawkeye, I used to say the same about McGrath. I mean, I knew he was brilliant, but watching him, all he ever did was bowl the ball. With people like Vettori and McGrath, it's all about deception. I guess Vettori has deceived you quite effectively. Knowing where to bowl to each batsman, knowing what fields to set for them, changing your pace, using slightly different balls... anything can work if you do it right. McGrath doesn't need to be as fast as Lee or Bond just like Vettori doesn't need to turn it like Murali or Warne.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I have the same thought of Vettori. It doesn't look like anything until you can actually see the change of pace, or the 'bowling plan' or something of the sorts. Vettori, like Vaas, isn't a "spectacular" bowler in my opinion and looking at his bowling and not knowing who he was, I'd think he was very ordinary if I didn't take the time to find out what he's doing. Of course, you have to rely on other players or the commentators to actually let you know that.

 

[Richard]

And yet it's not just about knowing where to bowl, it is about knowing what pace to bowl - especially as a spinner, because if you bowl too slowly good batsmen will use their feet effectively to you if you don't turn it much.
As a seamer obviously it's different because using feet is much harder.
Thing is, though, Vaas is spectacuar if you look carefully - when he bowls well he can do all sorts of tricks with the ball, and he's good at landing it on a dinner-plate.

 

[Loony BoB]

Hence the part where I said 'changing your pace'

EDIT: Yeah, I'm a big fan of Vaas. I'm a big fan of a lot of underrated players, really... don't know if it's a sympathy thing or just the fact that I'm a Kiwi and therefore have grown to support underdogs a lot, and also Kiwis often are underrated as it is. I'm not a big fan of players being rated on how they were 5-10 years ago, though. I'm more of a form fan than a class fan.

 

[Richard]

Fair 'nuff - certainly can't say I've ever noticed Vettori doing so especially effectively - but as I say, I haven't really seen that much of him.

 

[Barney Rubble]

IMO the only difference was the absence of the real Gillespie. He didn't play any better, it was just a different attack to the one he faced in 2001 and 2002\03.
And even then he still needed copious amounts of luck to even get a half-century.

Silly me - there I was thinking you actually rated an England player.

 

[Loony BoB]

On another note, were you aware that Kallis averages just 27.25 in with no centuries (four fifties) in his past year (17 ODIs)? I still don't think he should have been included in the ODI side at all. Amazing test player, but he's struggled in ODIs for a while now.

 

[Richard]

Silly me - there I was thinking you actually rated an England player.

Strauss (Tests)? Pietersen? Flintoff? Bell (Tests)? G. Jones (Tests)? Trescothick (ODIs)? S. Jones (Tests)? Giles (on turners)?
Not to mention countless others that aren't in the current teams.

 

[Richard]

On another note, were you aware that Kallis averages just 27.25 in with no centuries (four fifties) in his past year (17 ODIs)? I still don't think he should have been included in the ODI side at all. Amazing test player, but he's struggled in ODIs for a while now.

No, I wasn't aware of that.
In which case I'd certainly revise the idea that I'd have him in the ROW side - much prefer Inzamam-Ul-Haq.

 

[thierry henry]

Vettori quite clearly has the wood on the Aussies. Why, I don't know. I don't think he turned a ball all series.

As far as I'm concerned the great Aussie batting line-up of recent years has been uniformly incredible against pace bowling (unless it swings!), and, by comparison, mediocre against spin.

The unfortunate result is that a few spinners have earnt a reputation by "rising to the occasion against the great Australia team", and a number of good pacemen have had their reps partially ruined by failing against Australia, when in general it has come down to the preferences of the batsmen, not the quality of the bowling.

Just an opinion.

 

[Jono]

On another note, were you aware that Kallis averages just 27.25 in with no centuries (four fifties) in his past year (17 ODIs)? I still don't think he should have been included in the ODI side at all. Amazing test player, but he's struggled in ODIs for a while now.

Is Kallis' recent record in ODIs actually that bad?

I always thought that either Kallis or Dravid should have been in the team, but not both. I would have had Inzy in there replacing one of tem. My ODI World XI with Sachin unavailable due to injury would be:

Chris Gayle
Kumar Sangakkara (wk)
Inzamam Ul Haq
Brian Lara
Rahul Dravid
Kevin Pietersen
Andrew Flintoff
Shaun Pollock
Daniel Vettori
Shane Bond
Muralitharan
Super-Sub: Abdul Razzaq

I think the argument regarding 'roles in the team' and how there were too many middle order players selected as a reason for the losses was flawed as there were always early wickets anyway. Dravid coming in at 6 or 7 or whatever he did didn't effect how many overs he faced. Same goes for Flintoff. They were just outplayed, and couldn't bat like a cohesive unit. This was most obvious in match 2 when they had it in the bag and threw it away with poor running, and a poor decision as to who was to come in next with the powerplay on (Should have been Flintoff or Lara rather than Kallis).

 

[vic_orthdox]

This was most obvious in match 2 when they had it in the bag and threw it away with poor running, and a poor decision as to who was to come in next with the powerplay on (Should have been Flintoff or Lara rather than Kallis).

While they were doing a great job in chasing, to say that you had the game "in the bag" when chasing 320+ is a bit over the top. That's why scores such as that are so hard to chase, you have to be going full tilt for so long, and as a result there is a lot more pressure on the batting side which leads to silly mistakes like the run-outs.