Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39

Thread: Do England Take ODI's Seriously?

  1. #16
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    65,366
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
    It's odd. We obviously do take them seriously, but our team seems to be somehow less than the sum of its parts.

    Not to make excuses, but we are without 3 nailed-on first choice players (Tres, Gilo & Harmy) plus our captain & a bowler who gets better with every ODI he misses (Si Jones).

    I'd personally have an XI of

    Trescothick
    Strauss
    Vaughan*
    Pietersen
    Flintoff
    Collingwood
    Read+
    Giles
    S Jones
    Harmison
    Anderson

    Geraint comes off far too infrequently to justify his place, Prior can't field much less keep so I think Read's bustling unorthodoxy may just be the ticket. The tail may be slightly too long too, but really how many have our supposedly more able lower order batters contributed?
    Missing Vaughan is a blessing for the ODIs, and its not even a blessing in disguise. Everyone knows it.

    Anyway to claim they don't take it seriously is stupid. Because as Faaip said, Australia have fielded teams with newcomers who they obviously just want to have a look at as well in recent times, yet they happen to just win their games whereas England don't.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  2. #17
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    24,003
    India tried out Raina, Dhoni, Kaif, Yuvraj, Powar, Sreesanth etc in ODIs before Tests. So we don't take ODIs seriously either.
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  3. #18
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    47,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Missing Vaughan is a blessing for the ODIs, and its not even a blessing in disguise. Everyone knows it.

    Anyway to claim they don't take it seriously is stupid. Because as Faaip said, Australia have fielded teams with newcomers who they obviously just want to have a look at as well in recent times, yet they happen to just win their games whereas England don't.
    You would've thought so, wouldn't you? The trouble is none of his alleged replacements has scored a run. Prior got a couple of starts in Pakistan (and again yesterday) but hasn't even made a 50 yet. Shah clearly has ability (I don't know if one should talk of potential at 27), but has failed twice so far. I'd give him one more & then get Solanki back in. Unfortunately doing that means we have to play either him, KP or Colly @ 3 which seems at least a place too high for any of them.

    Other options aren't exactly queuing up either. I suppose Bell & Cook are the next cabs off the rank but both are accumulators rather than shot-players. After them it's anyone's guess. Possibly Dalrymple might be worth a look or even Jonathan Trott, if he's served his qualification period yet.

    I think there's a strong case to bring Vaughan back, captain or not. He's a limited OD player, I think anyone would say that but is worthy of his place due to the utter paucity of viable alternatives.
    Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "Ben Stokes, that most unlikely saint, worked the second of the two miracles he needs for his canonisation." - The Guardian's Andy Bell on the England all-rounder's Headingley ton

  4. #19
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Anyway to claim they don't take it seriously is stupid. Because as Faaip said, Australia have fielded teams with newcomers who they obviously just want to have a look at as well in recent times, yet they happen to just win their games whereas England don't.
    India tried out Raina, Dhoni, Kaif, Yuvraj, Powar, Sreesanth etc in ODIs before Tests. So we don't take ODIs seriously either.
    It's not a case of not taking them seriously.

    It's a case of taking Tests as the priority, and the ODIs as the ones which are "nice to win", but victories in ODIs are usually forgotten about in a week's time.
    Manchester United FC: 20 Times

    R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008


  5. #20
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    65,366
    Yes but Australia do that and win anyway. That's kind of the point people are trying to make.

    And if England apparently prioritised them more, what are these improvements that could be made which would suddenly make England a better ODI unit? Stuff like having Geraint Jones in your team isn't evidence of England not prioritising, its the selectors having no clue.
    Last edited by Jono; 01-04-2006 at 01:42 AM.

  6. #21
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Yes but Australia do that and win anyway. That's kind of the point people are trying to make.
    Well, they tied with us in the NatWest series in the summer, then won the NatWest Challenge 2-1, so they were far from convincing.

    Then, while they won the VB series, again they weren't exactly dominant, and got beaten a few times, some of them convincingly.

    Then they lost 3-2 to SA.

    I'd be pretty interested to see Australia's overall record in ODIs is since the start of the NatWest series. It may be slightly in their favour, but I wouldn't have thought by much.

  7. #22
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey
    Well, they tied with us in the NatWest series in the summer, then won the NatWest Challenge 2-1, so they were far from convincing.

    Then, while they won the VB series, again they weren't exactly dominant, and got beaten a few times, some of them convincingly.

    Then they lost 3-2 to SA.

    I'd be pretty interested to see Australia's overall record in ODIs is since the start of the NatWest series. It may be slightly in their favour, but I wouldn't have thought by much.
    I'd still take Australia's one-day team over England's 100 times out of 100.
    Actually, 99 out of 100 if one of those were being played at the Wanderers with Gibbs at the crease chasing a big total and Mick Lewis running in.

  8. #23
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    And if England apparently prioritised them more, what are these improvements that could be made which would suddenly make England a better ODI unit? Stuff like having Geraint Jones in your team isn't evidence of England not prioritising, its the selectors having no clue.
    Get players like Prior out.

    My point is that our recent Test debutants who've come in and done well right away all got tested in ODIs first, to check they were the real deal. Not many of our Test players are thrown straight into Test cricket unless it is absolutely necessary (like recently, due to injuries).

  9. #24
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    25
    and.................they lost to bangladesh.hahahahahahahah

  10. #25
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by adharcric
    I'd still take Australia's one-day team over England's 100 times out of 100.
    Actually, 99 out of 100 if one of those were being played at the Wanderers with Gibbs at the crease chasing a big total and Mick Lewis running in.
    Of course, not denying that.

    But they've hardly been commanding have they?

  11. #26
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,982
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
    Other options aren't exactly queuing up either. I suppose Bell & Cook are the next cabs off the rank but both are accumulators rather than shot-players.
    I'd rather an accumulator who can bat through the innings than a shot-player who gets carried away and dismissed stupidly.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  12. #27
    State Vice-Captain Armadillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Literate Essex- yes, it does exist!
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey
    It's not a case of not taking them seriously.

    It's a case of taking Tests as the priority, and the ODIs as the ones which are "nice to win", but victories in ODIs are usually forgotten about in a week's time.
    See, now you're going back on your argument. At first you claimed that England don't take ODIs seriously because of the players that they field in the side, now you're claiming that they infact do take them seriously, but not as seriously as tests. Well we all know that countries don't take ODIs as serious as tests, and I even mentioned it in the first post of this thread.
    Member of LSU (bowl part time pies)

    RIP Fardin

  13. #28
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Armadillo
    See, now you're going back on your argument. At first you claimed that England don't take ODIs seriously because of the players that they field in the side, now you're claiming that they infact do take them seriously, but not as seriously as tests. Well we all know that countries don't take ODIs as serious as tests, and I even mentioned it in the first post of this thread.
    I said in our MSN convo that ODIs are "nice to win", so I don't see how I'm going back.

  14. #29
    State Vice-Captain Armadillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Literate Essex- yes, it does exist!
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey
    I said in our MSN convo that ODIs are "nice to win", so I don't see how I'm going back.
    Because your initial argument was to say that England don't care about ODI's, however after seeing the reactions of others, you have switched to saying, they do care, but they do not have the significance of tests. Well done Einstein! Ofcourse they don't.

  15. #30
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Armadillo
    Because your initial argument was to say that England don't care about ODI's, however after seeing the reactions of others, you have switched to saying, they do care, but they do not have the significance of tests. Well done Einstein! Ofcourse they don't.
    Time to dig up the log of the convo...

    Originally, I said that England won't be too bothered about losing a few ODIs in India (edit: should say that this part of the argument was with Danish).

    You then said that ODIs are important, and I said yes, but compared to Tests they're not, and all these huge ODI series are pointless (VB, NatWest, the current 7 match one etc) and I hope Flintoff is rested from one of these long series before long, to prevent burn-out.
    Last edited by Tom Halsey; 01-04-2006 at 03:54 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Gilchrist should retire from ODIs...
    By Mister Wright in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 27-01-2006, 05:19 PM
  2. odis package stream buy now for mere $20
    By hyounis786 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29-03-2005, 06:41 PM
  3. Test matches vs ODIs
    By cricnewbye in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 28-01-2005, 07:15 AM
  4. test matches vs ODIs
    By cricnewbye in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26-01-2005, 06:54 AM
  5. Tests vs. ODI's
    By Loony BoB in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 14-04-2004, 02:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •