England and One Day Cricket?

[tooextracool]

5 bowlers makes the batting far too weak. Flintoff at 6 and the keeper at 7 means that a couple of quick wickets puts pressure on a long tail. Also how can the top order play with freedom when their is a weak tail that could collapse if they get out.

Many of the batsmen around the world who bowl a number of overs are not natural bowlers but guys who have been created to do a job. Tresco, KP, Bell and Vaughan should all be forced to work on their bowling.

Only need to be able to put the ball one side of the wicket and allow the skipper to set a field to the bowling, whilst the strike bowlers can work on taking wickets.

It is essential for success for your specialist batsmen to be able to help out with the 5th bowling option whilst keeping a strong batting lineup.

well given the options that you had on your side, there was only 1 bowler(collingwood) who has bowled even a fair bit in ODIs. a strong batting is only useful when you also have a capable bowling attack, and if one bowler were to have a bad day with that side, i shudder to think how collingwood, tresco and Pietersen would managed to cover up 15 or so overs of the game.
Also do you really believe that Collingwood at 7 would be that useful? IMO he would just be wasted in that position. im a firm believer of the philosophy that if 7 batsman cant do the job, then the 8th isnt going to fare too much better. Further presuming the 5th bowler is Ashley Giles/ Ian Blackwell, that would definetly add to the batting strength.

 

[Goughy]

.
Also do you really believe that Collingwood at 7 would be that useful?.

Yes, very. An extra partnership either to rebuild after a collapse or boost a total towards the end. Also a player who can rotate the strike well and shephard the tail.

im a firm believer of the philosophy that if 7 batsman cant do the job, then the 8th isnt going to fare too much better. Further presuming the 5th bowler is Ashley Giles/ Ian Blackwell, that would definetly add to the batting strength.

Obviously we disagree and despite hearing what you say many times over the years I still do not see the logic. ODIs are about batting and it gives you 1 extra partnership between established batsmen and that can make a huge difference. 2 batsmen at the crease rather than a batter and a bowler can be the difference between a big score and being bowled out.

 

[marc71178]

i dont know what his motivation was behind retiring when he did

Simply because he didn't think (or perhaps want to) that he'd go onto the next world cup.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, very. An extra partnership either to rebuild after a collapse or boost a total towards the end. Also a player who can rotate the strike well and shephard the tail.

Read has shown that hes more than capable of doing that. it maybe just my opinion, but i think Collingwood is a better player than having to bat at number 7.

Obviously we disagree and despite hearing what you say many times over the years I still do not see the logic. ODIs are about batting and it gives you 1 extra partnership between established batsmen and that can make a huge difference. 2 batsmen at the crease rather than a batter and a bowler can be the difference between a big score and being bowled out.

thats all well and good, but as i said earlier, 15 overs from collingwood and trescothick may well be the game right there too. you cannot, i repeat cannot put complete faith in an attack comprising off gough,anderson and tremlett all for obvious reasons. yes it would be useful to bat all the way down to number 8, it would also be useful to have someone who can tweak it(incase you get a slow wicket) and it would also be useful to be able to back up your 4 frontline fast bowlers with bowlers who are more than bits and pieces. Its amazing how many games can be lost before you even get a chance to bat, much like the 3rd ODI in India.

 

[tooextracool]

Simply because he didn't think (or perhaps want to) that he'd go onto the next world cup.

theres a big difference between the 'think' and 'want to' though...

 

[Richard]

well for me the best OD team may be:

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughan/Bell/Shah/Joyce
KP
Freddie
Collingwood
Jones/Read
Blackwell/Giles
Harmison
Jones
Anderson

Vaughan/Bell/Shah/Joyce - the skipper wont be dropped just like that but his recent knee injury may make him rethink playing ODI's since we may never see the best of him again & due to the fact that his OD career has bee poor for such a good player. Thus i think Bell/Shah should be given a chance in the crucial #3 spot.

Jones/Read - Jones overall has been poor but he has showed on a few occassions he can contribute well at 7, plus we all know how Fletcher thinks so i think he will be persisted with. Read on the other hand in his OD career has shown he can be a real dangerous lower order hitter, while as we all know his glovework is the best in the land. Its a close call with these two, its a matter of who England prefer i guess.

Blackwell/Giles - I am a huge Blackwell fan, he has done well since his return with the ball, but with the bat he has been awfull. I dont want to totally write him off because i strongly believe if he can translate ANY of his county batting form to OD cricket he would give England a bit more strenght in the lower oder for sure. If not well Gilo has to be picked.

But even at full-strenght England OD side doesn't seem as strong as the test side.

Is there really any reason why Giles and Blackwell, should their bowling continue to be as remarkably successful as it has been of late, should not play in the same side.

 

[Richard]

I must confess that early last summer I was caught up in the euphoria of England belting Australia a time or two

England belted Australia just once last summer.
Australia, on the other hand, belted England 3 times.

 

[Richard]

Richard,

I see lots of players you would not pick.

Could you find XI you could endorse? Bearing in mind there has to be a team what would yours be?

I've said several times, there are few good ODI cricketers around at present, but the nearest I could get would be...
Trescothick
?
Afzaal
Pietersen
Flintoff
?
Read
Ealham
?
Gough
?

 

[Richard]

Why should Prior be no where near the side?

He's a better FC batsman than Jones, and i don't either are anything to write home about keeping wise, so why should Prior be dis-counted? He's the younger player, and the more capable batsman.

He's not - Prior's batting is useless. Just like Blackwell, an glorified slogger - only not quite as successful as Blackwell, because Blackwell plays at a pea-sized ground and Prior at a reasonable-sized one.
There's little difference between Jones and Prior's domestic-First-Class averages, any in any case - First-Class records are hardly relevant when we're talking about ODIs. And both Jones and Prior have very poor List-A-one-day averages - which is what counts.

 

[Richard]

and only
Pietersen
Strauss
Wharf
with a significantly better ODI av than List A.

And Strauss' ODI record is nowhere near as good as it looks on face-value - remove Bangladesh games and his ODI average is comparable to his List-A one.
Wharf, I'm pretty confident, would have seen a significant rise in average had he played more.

For all that this is my XI
Trescothick
Knight
Afzaal
Pieterson
Joyce
Flintoff
Collingwood
Read
Gough
Tremlett
Anderson

Also in the squad- Blackwell, G. Jones, Ali, Strauss and Sales (always liked him)

Criticise me for Knight if you want but I was tempted to find a place for Hick (but maybe he is just a fraction too old). At the end of the day (anyone doing a cliche watch?), youth means nothing if you cant play.

Sadly, Knight has retired from ODIs (IMO prematurely, given his form in the last 2 seasons); and Hick, it seems, has lost something. It's a shame, because he was a fantastic player for a long, long time - but since 2003 his List-A-OD average is well under 30. Like I say - a shame, because he, too, was dropped prematurely from ODIs, but I can't see him making a return.

 

[Richard]

There are many saying that the ODI side should be significantly different from the Test side. If that's the case, you may have some of the top batsmen and bowlers in the Test side and a one-day side with Vikram Solanki, Kabir Ali, Ian Blackwell, James Anderson, Matthew Prior and Rikki Clarket to make up the numbers. We see that team playing ODI's these days. And getting whipped. Or you could go back to the days of the Adam Hollioake era, when you had eight bowlers and nine batsmen, with only three of each really making it count. Would you choose that? The Test team, however unfit for one-dayers it looks to many, is still a lot better than a separate ODI side that may be picked, but a few adjustments should be made. It's better to have your opening bowler, one of the best Test bowlers around, bowling a little differently, rather than have him replaced by some lucky pie-thrower just because these are ODI's.

All well and good, except for 1 thing... Hoggard has been given more ODI chances than anyone I can remember - and every time he's come-up short. I wondered, whether this time, things might just be different because he certainly bowled better in the India Tests than he's ever done before.
On the evidence of Cochin, though, he's still useless in ODIs. And surely the time has come, now, to say "never again".

 

[marc71178]

I've said several times, there are few good ODI cricketers around at present, but the nearest I could get would be...
Trescothick
?
Afzaal
Pietersen
Flintoff
?
Read
Ealham
?
Gough
?

Gough is bad enough, but Ealham and Afzaal?

Please share whatever it is you're smoking...

 

[Swervy]

Please share whatever it is you're smoking...

no..please dont, we dont all want to be chatting rubbish, we only need one forum clown to amuse us all

 

[open365]

He's not - Prior's batting is useless. Just like Blackwell, an glorified slogger - only not quite as successful as Blackwell, because Blackwell plays at a pea-sized ground and Prior at a reasonable-sized one.
There's little difference between Jones and Prior's domestic-First-Class averages, any in any case - First-Class records are hardly relevant when we're talking about ODIs. And both Jones and Prior have very poor List-A-one-day averages - which is what counts.

Prior is not useless.

His average in FC domestic cricket shows he is the more capable batsman of the two, he averaged 44 in domestic one day cricket last year,the best of any Englishman, He is a better batsman than Jones, i don't see how anyone could argue with that.

 

[Pothas]

I've said several times, there are few good ODI cricketers around at present, but the nearest I could get would be...
Trescothick
?
Afzaal
Pietersen
Flintoff
?
Read
Ealham
?
Gough
?

I dont see why Anderson isnt good enogh to be ODI bowler, he has done prettty well in India. Simon Jones has only played 8 ODI's and although they have not been sucessfull so far i think he is worth another go.

 

[Richard]

Gough is bad enough, but Ealham and Afzaal?

Says he who champions Vaughan, Harmison and Collingwood...

Please share whatever it is you're smoking...

Not possible. I smoke nothing.

 

[Richard]

Prior is not useless.

His average in FC domestic cricket shows he is the more capable batsman of the two, he averaged 44 in domestic one day cricket last year,the best of any Englishman, He is a better batsman than Jones, i don't see how anyone could argue with that.

Err, because Jones has actually done even better than that? In 2003, Jones averaged nearly 60 for most of the season in the domestic-First-Class game.
I don't really see how anyone could possibly think Prior is a better batsman than Jones, however many stupid strokes Jones has played in his Test career.
Nor do I really care about Prior having 1 good season in one-dayers. He's surely done sufficiently crap in ODIs to show that that was a one-off.

 

[Richard]

I dont see why Anderson isnt good enogh to be ODI bowler, he has done prettty well in India. Simon Jones has only played 8 ODI's and although they have not been sucessfull so far i think he is worth another go.

Jones has played just 5 ODIs (bowling just 33 overs) against ODI-standard sides. Indeed, he's only played against 1 ODI-standard side.
Of course Jones will play more, but with his poor List-A-OD record I'll only believe he could possibly cut the mustard if I see it.

 

[open365]

Err, because Jones has actually done even better than that? In 2003, Jones averaged nearly 60 for most of the season in the domestic-First-Class game.
I don't really see how anyone could possibly think Prior is a better batsman than Jones, however many stupid strokes Jones has played in his Test career.
Nor do I really care about Prior having 1 good season in one-dayers. He's surely done sufficiently crap in ODIs to show that that was a one-off.

And Jones' ODI record is amazing isn't it?

 

[Richard]

And Prior's is...?
Clearly, both are completely rubbish at the one-day game - Prior, however, is possibly even worse than Jones, and that's saying something.