Do England Take ODI's Seriously?

[Armadillo]

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?

[Autobahn]

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.

[open365]

I'm cnyical so yes, judging from results, it seems as if they couldn't care less about ODIs away from home.

[Tom Halsey]

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".

[silentstriker]

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.

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

[Tom Halsey]

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).

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

[Tom Halsey]

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.

[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?

[silentstriker]

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).

[Pedro Delgado]

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.

[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...

[adharcric]

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?

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.