James Anderson

[shortpitched713]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

Probably. It didn't help his cause that after he got injured in Aus we won the CW tourny with Plunkett & Mahmood opening the bowling, but since Plunkett's been deemed surplus to requirements, it's hard to see why Lewis isn't playing.

I haven't really kept up as much with England as I have some other teams this World Cup, but it completely baffles me that when England feel that they have an extra seamer that they would drop Plunkett instead of Mahmood. Personally, I feel that all three of the players mentioned should play as well as Anderson for reasons that others have mentioned before.

[FBU]

Originally Posted by Richard

This is one-day stuff we're talking about - it's economy-rate, not wickets-per-match, that matter the most.

For England? Mark Ealham, Robin Martin-Jenkins, Dmitri Mascarenhas, to name a few.

It wasn't a case of taking wickets to get into the final - it was a case of scoring runs. In said victories (all of 2 of them) our totals were 292 and 270 (those chiefly responsible were Joyce and Collingwood, both thanks to a dropped catch). This was what set-up the victories, not Plunkett getting gifted a few wickets with rubbish deliveries.

Broad's available right now - he's just currently not good enough.

I am talking about opening bowlers and those three are all rounders or would you open the bowling with them? Mark Ealham had his chance in international cricket and I think Collingwood has taken his place.

I suppose we are all different but for me it's about wickets in ODIs.

Joyce and Collingwood might have got the runs but if Plunkett didn't take the wickets Australia would have also got the runs.

I wouldn't say Broad is not good enough, he outshone Kirtley in Bangladesh. He just needs another season in county cricket.

[FBU]

Originally Posted by Richard

I just think Flintoff should have taken the new-ball with Gough at Lord's\Edgbaston and Kirtley\Bicknell in the other 2 (easy to forget he didn't take it at Headingley as those 2 did).

I remember that Surrey-Lancs game you speak of - didn't watch it, but would have been hard-pressed to miss the massive discrepancy in totals. But just to think that someone looked the deal based on that 1 game, however sensational it was, was premature. My thoughts on Anderson at the start of that summer, when virtually everyone was going wild with excitement (near enough exactly the same thing as they did with Harmison a year later and Jones 18 months later) were of caution. And after the events of the SA series, I happen to think I was right to be cautious.

I also genuinely believe that had Gough made his comeback 2 Tests later than he did he might quite possibly still be in the side today. It's a real shame he felt he was gone because of 2 bad games on flat pitches.

I did mention that options at the start of that SA series were somewhat limited due to the large amount of injuries. But handing a 20-year-old rookie the lead role in the attack based on one World Cup game and one early-season game (which is essentially all it was) was plain madness.

Well I agree with that. He should have had a couple of years in the ODI team first. After those Tests against SA he played in the Nat West Series with SA/Zim (only bowling at Zim in one game and getting 1 wicket) and was the leading wicket taker ahead of Gough and Johnson and Flintoff. He was also the leading England wicket taker in the 2003 World Cup and the VB series. I think he took 41 ODI wickets in 2003. Only Murali and Ntini took more. If he has a clear run in the ODI side and doesn't get dropped or pick up an injury he can do the same again.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FBU

I am talking about opening bowlers and those three are all rounders or would you open the bowling with them? Mark Ealham had his chance in international cricket and I think Collingwood has taken his place.

Ealham and Collingwood? Totally and completely different players. Collingwood is a top-order batsman, Ealham is a bowler who was also a only-occasionally-useful lower-order batsman. Ealham did indeed have his chance - and was treated distinctly shabbily, being dropped in 2001 for no good reason. Even now, he's infinately better at one-day bowling than most in England have ever been and quite possibly will ever be.

I suppose we are all different but for me it's about wickets in ODIs.

If you restrict run-flow wickets will come (not that it really matters if they don't - the overs are limited). The same cannot be said the other way around.

Joyce and Collingwood might have got the runs but if Plunkett didn't take the wickets Australia would have also got the runs.

Not really, the wickets came because Australia and New Zealand realised they were up against it to get the runs.

I wouldn't say Broad is not good enough, he outshone Kirtley in Bangladesh. He just needs another season in county cricket.

He needs to become better. Another season will tell whether or not he has done so.

[FBU]

I would rather have Plunkett than Ealham. I think Plunkett will take more than 67 wickets in 64 games and have a better batting average than 17.46.

[Woodster]

Originally Posted by Richard

If you restrict run-flow wickets will come (not that it really matters if they don't - the overs are limited). The same cannot be said the other way around.

Taking wickets is by far the best way to slow the run rate down.

[shortpitched713]

Originally Posted by Woodster

Taking wickets is by far the best way to slow the run rate down.

Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!! They both work off of each other!

[Tomm NCCC]

Originally Posted by Woodster

Taking wickets is by far the best way to slow the run rate down.

We need Ryan Sidebottom. Has a fantatsic economy rate, and he won't accept failure from himself, let alone the team. He does not get that many wickets, however, he had a good season in 2006

[Woodster]

Originally Posted by shortpitched713

Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!! They both work off of each other!

I was replying to a statement off someone else that suggested it doesn't work the other way round, I was merely suggesting it does!! Read the previous posts!

[steds]

Originally Posted by Richard

Mark Ealham

Yeah, and Graham Gooch could solve our thorny top 3 problem.

[steds]

Originally Posted by Tomm NCCC

We need Ryan Sidebottom.

Hahahahahaha no.

[Woodster]

Originally Posted by Tomm NCCC

We need Ryan Sidebottom. Has a fantatsic economy rate, and he won't accept failure from himself, let alone the team. He does not get that many wickets, however, he had a good season in 2006

Did not see that much of Sidebottom last season, but yes from what I did see and read he was impressive. Variety also being a left armer. However, I do still have certain reservations over his ability to succeed at the highest level.

He has gained a lot of valuable experience over the years and I may be doing him a dis-service.

[Nishant]

dont know much about sidebottom TBH....but wouldnt it be better if england just developed the set of players they have at the moment instead of trying new faces again?

At the end of the day, they are a fairly young side as it is! ( if u take into account he bowlers)

[shortpitched713]

Originally Posted by Woodster

I was replying to a statement off someone else that suggested it doesn't work the other way round, I was merely suggesting it does!! Read the previous posts!

But the fact of the matter is that it is neither just about taking wickts nor just about restricting the run rate. Both are equally important and are intrinsically tied to one another. My disgust was at both your and Richard's view.

Edit: Nevermind, you weren't the original poster of the "its about wickets" comment.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FBU

I would rather have Plunkett than Ealham. I think Plunkett will take more than 67 wickets in 64 games and have a better batting average than 17.46.

I happen to think he won't take anywhere near that number of wickets (or play that number of games), and far more importantly I expect his economy-rate to be over 1-an-over higher. In that context, averaging 4 or 5 more with the bat - which is a hell of an ask for a lower-order batsman in ODIs - isn't really too important.