Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39

Thread: Do England Take ODI's Seriously?

  1. #1
    State Vice-Captain Armadillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Literate Essex- yes, it does exist!
    Posts
    1,092

    Do England Take ODI's Seriously?

    Halsey and I were just having an argument about this on MSN. IMO they do, they are a professional unit that gives full effort to international cricket against competitive teams.

    We also argued over whether Flintoff should be rested for ODI's, due to his back problems. Halsey mentioned resting him for the VB series late this year. To me this is utter rubbish. Flintoff, easily England's best ODI player, rested, AGAINST AUSTRALIA!!
    England would be rolled over without much fuss.

    It should be noted that it is almost universally agreed, that ODI's are not as important as tests and comparisons between the two are irrelevant.

    Comments?
    Member of LSU (bowl part time pies)

    RIP Fardin

  2. #2
    State 12th Man Autobahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    716
    If flintoff is rested for anything it will be the Champions Trophy, and anyway is the VB series going to shorter because it's near the World Cup?

    And England do take ODI's seriously it's just we suck at them.

  3. #3
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    I'm cnyical so yes, judging from results, it seems as if they couldn't care less about ODIs away from home.

  4. #4
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Armadillo
    We also argued over whether Flintoff should be rested for ODI's, due to his back problems. Halsey mentioned resting him for the VB series late this year. To me this is utter rubbish. Flintoff, easily England's best ODI player, rested, AGAINST AUSTRALIA!!
    England would be rolled over without much fuss.
    I'd rather nhe wasn't rested in the VB series, but I do think it is a possibility.

    I'd rather it was the NatWest series or somrthing this year, because we've got Sri Lanka and Pakistan, so it's not important in the greater scheme of things.

    I do want him rested at some point whatever happens, to prevent burn-out.

    As for the rest of it, I see it that England use ODIs as a "breeding ground for future Test players".
    MSN - tomhalsey123@hotmail.com

    Manchester United FC: 20 Times

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


  5. #5
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,851
    Quote Originally Posted by open365
    I'm cnyical so yes, judging from results, it seems as if they couldn't care less about ODIs away from home.

    Well, thats like saying India don't take tests seriously judging from their results away from home. Or that New Zealand doesn't take cricket seriously.

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    England obviously take ODIs seriously. They have some very good ODI players, and it's perfectly obvious if you watch the games that they play them to win.

    You could argue that the administrators of the game don't see ODI success outside of the World Cup as a major goal compared to tests, but that's not the same as saying England don't take the whole format of the game seriously.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  7. #7
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,349
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    You could argue that the administrators of the game don't see ODI success outside of the World Cup as a major goal compared to tests, but that's not the same as saying England don't take the whole format of the game seriously.
    Obviously ODI wins are nice, but Tests are taken far more seriously than ODIs.

    A lot of our recent Test debutants were tried out in ODIs before they were in Tests, because the selectors wanted to just have a look at them (for example Strauss and Pietersen).
    Last edited by Tom Halsey; 31-03-2006 at 12:12 PM.

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey
    Obviously ODI wins are nice, but Tests are taken far more seriously than ODIs.

    A lot of our recent Test debutants were tried out in ODIs before they were in Tests, because the selectors wanted to just have a look at them (for example Strauss and Pietersen).
    That's true of Australia as well though. Look at Mitchell Johnson, Stuart Clark, Cameron White, Brett Dorey, Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey, and so on. All those guys were major considerations for test spots before they got picked in ODIs, and all of them except for White and Clarke are much better in the longer form. They got picked in ODIs to try them out.

    You wouldn't say Australia don't care about ODIs though.

  9. #9
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,349
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    That's true of Australia as well though. Look at Mitchell Johnson, Stuart Clark, Cameron White, Brett Dorey, Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey, and so on. All those guys were major considerations for test spots before they got picked in ODIs, and all of them except for White and Clarke are much better in the longer form. They got picked in ODIs to try them out.

    You wouldn't say Australia don't care about ODIs though.
    I haven't said England 'don't care'.

    Australia clearly take Tests more importantly than ODIs, and so do England. However that doesn't mean they 'don't care' as such, because obviously winning is nice.

    An example - England's tour to SA 2004/5. We won the Tests, got a royal caining in the ODIs. Yet England fans (and I'm sure the team and management) were happy with the tour, because we won the Tests.

  10. #10
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,212
    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?
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "as much a news event as an actual footballer, a worthy stop-start centre forward, but an all-time hyper-galactico when it comes to doing funny things with cars and hats, a player whose signing proves once again that the Premier League is still undoubtedly the best in the world when it comes to doing things with cars and hats."
    - Barney Ronay on Mario Balotelli

  11. #11
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey
    I haven't said England 'don't care'.

    Australia clearly take Tests more importantly than ODIs, and so do England. However that doesn't mean they 'don't care' as such, because obviously winning is nice.

    An example - England's tour to SA 2004/5. We won the Tests, got a royal caining in the ODIs. Yet England fans (and I'm sure the team and management) were happy with the tour, because we won the Tests.

    Yeah, with the possible exception of India, all countries see it in a similar light (i.e Tests over ODI). Even India, I believe, would see Tests over ODI, with the exception of the WC, which takes precedence over all other games (including test series against australia, pakistan, engand, etc).

  12. #12
    International Debutant Pedro Delgado's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Derby, England.
    Posts
    2,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Autobahn
    And England do take ODI's seriously it's just we suck at them.
    In a nutshell

    When the lads put on the three lions they do their best whatever format.

    I do enjoy the odd ODI but it gets a little dreary when there's 7 stuck on the end of a series etc, all a bit "after the Lord Mayors show".

    I'd take England to go out of the WC at the group stage, if the guarantee was a drawn Ashes series down under to be honest.
    Member of the Rosalie Birch Appreciation Society (RBAS)
    Member of CVAAS - go Joe

    You're a ghost la la la la la la la la laaa
    You're a ghost la la la la la la la la laaa
    I'm the church and I've come
    To claim you with my iron drum
    la la la la la la la la la la


    The wolves are running..

  13. #13
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,735
    The problem with England is that we don't have enough good ODI players.

    Of the entire squad, I could make a case for 2 making a combined side with the Indian side...
    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.

  14. #14
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    The problem with England is that we don't have enough good ODI players.

    Of the entire squad, I could make a case for 2 making a combined side with the Indian side...
    KP & Freddie?

  15. #15
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    The problem with England is that we don't have enough good ODI players.

    Of the entire squad, I could make a case for 2 making a combined side with the Indian side...
    Right now, sure, but at full strength you can mark down Trescothick and one or two of the pace bowlers.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •