Drop Vaughan, keep Strauss

[Richard]

but is it true?

It's not. It's pure speculation and, ITBT, unlikely to be true.

 

[Prince EWS]

Cook should be instructed to bat normally for 30-35 overs and assess the game from there

He'd probably have a strike rate of about 20 if he batted like he does in test cricket, really. He relies a lot on boundries as a player and he leaves the ball a lot - given the fields and lines employed in one day cricket, he'd score ridiculously slowly.

You greatly under-appreciate the changes a batsman makes to his batting when he goes from one form to the other. England's problem isn't trying to change too much - it's picking players that simply aren't good at effecting the changes required. Vaughan is a good a batsman as Cook in test cricket, and even when in superb test form, Vaughan could never translate his results to one day cricket. Now that he's been given a whole career to do something about that and failed - and only now - people have pointed to his poor domestic record and questioned his selection, where they really should have just looked at it before calling for him to be selected in the first place. The same applies for Cook really - let the guy score some runs in one day cricket domestically before thrusting him into ODI stuff.

 

[Richard]

There might be an argument for excluding Panesar from ODIs on the basis that it will affect his natural ability to flight etc but claiming that ODI exposure is likely to impede Cook's test career is nonsense of the highest order.

If anything, it will improve his game for tests as it will help broaden his stroke range whilst forcing him to improve his running between the wickets and fielding

No, it won't, it won't make him any more likely to become a better fielder - he knows full well that he needs to do that. It might, however, force him to change his style of play, which would damage his prospects in both forms of the game - exactly as it has with Panesar - because he'll know he needs to change, and that that change will adversely affect his longer-game performance, and probably not work, so people will say "play in ODIs as you would in Tests", which is not only wrong but likely to confuse the life out of someone even as smart as Cook.
[/QUOTE]]IMO, one of the biggest faults with the English ODI setup is that so many think they have to change their game to suit the format. However, when u look at how Ponting played today, it was absolutely no different to the way he plays test cricket - settled in, ran well between the wickets and expanded his game later all whilst taking barely one risk AND chasing 5 runs per over.

Cook should be instructed to bat normally for 30-35 overs and assess the game from there - taking that approach will help his career and be a vast improvement over anything that Eng is dishing up at present[/QUOTE]
You do not understand the one-day game if you think that way. If someone were to play in a one-dayer as they do in a three-, four-, etc. day game, they'd score at a snail's pace. The two games are totally different and you need to play differently to succeed. There are indeed a few things that are broadly similar, and some players are capable of adjusting. Others, however, are not - and selectors (not just England ones, actually) are far more guilty of not realising how much you need to change, and simply assuming that success in the longer game can translate to success in the shorter.

 

[Richard]

He'd probably have a strike rate of about 20 if he batted like he does in test cricket, really. He relies a lot on boundries as a player and he leaves the ball a lot - given the fields and lines employed in one day cricket, he'd score ridiculously slowly.

You greatly under-appreciate the changes a batsman makes to his batting when he goes from one form to the other. England's problem isn't trying to change too much - it's picking players that simply aren't good at effecting the changes required. Vaughan is a good a batsman as Cook in test cricket, and even when in superb test form, Vaughan could never translate his results to one day cricket. Now that he's been given a whole career to do something about that and failed - and only now - people have pointed to his poor domestic record and questioned his selection, where they really should have just looked at it before calling for him to be selected in the first place. The same applies for Cook really - let the guy score some runs in one day cricket domestically before thrusting him into ODI stuff.

GRRRRRRR, Rob you've beaten me to stuff SOOOOOOOOO often recently!!!!!!!!

You really have said almost exactly the same thing there as I did!

 

[social]

He'd probably have a strike rate of about 20 if he batted like he does in test cricket, really. He relies a lot on boundries as a player and he leaves the ball a lot - given the fields and lines employed in one day cricket, he'd score ridiculously slowly.

You greatly under-appreciate the changes a batsman makes to his batting when he goes from one form to the other. England's problem isn't trying to change too much - it's picking players that simply aren't good at effecting the changes required. Vaughan is a good a batsman as Cook in test cricket, and even when in superb test form, Vaughan could never translate his results to one day cricket. Now that he's been given a whole career to do something about that and failed - and only now - people have pointed to his poor domestic record and questioned his selection, where they really should have just looked at it before calling for him to be selected in the first place. The same applies for Cook really - let the guy score some runs in one day cricket domestically before thrusting him into ODI stuff.

Cook has played 2 odis for an average of 40 with a strike rate of 86 (plus scored 4 test hundreds at the age of 21) and you want him to "learn" the game against a bunch of z-graders on the county circuit?

Give me a break!

Thank god the Australian and Indian selectors never listened to such twaddle when discussing whether a Ponting or a Clarke or a Tendulkar should be exposed to ODIs

 

[Prince EWS]

Oh wow, two ODIs. Such convincing evidence.

 

[Richard]

Cook has played 2 odis for an average of 40 with a strike rate of 86 (plus scored 4 test hundreds at the age of 21) and you want him to "learn" the game against a bunch of z-graders on the county circuit?

Give me a break!

Yes, because believe it or not playing THE ONE-DAY GAME (at whatever level) teaches you more about THE ONE-DAY GAME than the THREE\FOUR\FIVE-DAY GAME will ever do.

Thank god the Australian and Indian selectors never listened to such twaddle when discussing whether a Ponting or a Clarke or a Tendulkar should be exposed to ODIs

Err, all 3 played ODIs before Tests...

 

[Prince EWS]

GRRRRRRR, Rob you've beaten me to stuff SOOOOOOOOO often recently!!!!!!!!

You really have said almost exactly the same thing there as I did!

Usually on the exact same topic, too.

How anyone could possibly think the answer to England's batting problems in ODIs would be to ignore List A records and pick on test performances is beyond me. That's exactly what they've done to come up with the team they have! Cook's non-selection pleasantly surprised me actually - it contradicts the rest of the dire ODI selection policy. The same logic that says Cook should be picked also says that Vaughan should average at least 35 in ODIs and be a locked-in selection himself.

 

[social]

Oh wow, two ODIs. Such convincing evidence.

So he's succeeded already at the top level yet shouldnt be selected again until he succeeds at a lower level?

 

[Prince EWS]

So he's succeeded already at the top level yet shouldnt be selected again until he succeeds at a lower level?

He shouldn't have been selected in the first place. Granted, it makes little sense to select someone and then drop them after performing well, but it's still the right move IMO.

He has played two games, which is hardly anything to judge by. Several games in domestic cricket, however...

 

[social]

Yes, because believe it or not playing THE ONE-DAY GAME (at whatever level) teaches you more about THE ONE-DAY GAME than the THREE\FOUR\FIVE-DAY GAME will ever do.

Err, all 3 played ODIs before Tests...

Firstly, should Cook succeed at county level in one day games, the respone should be a resounding "so effing what, he's a class above them anyway"

Secondly, precisely and it did their test careers zero harm by doing so.

 

[social]

He shouldn't have been selected in the first place. Granted, it makes little sense to select someone and then drop them after performing well, but it's still the right move IMO.

He has played two games, which is hardly anything to judge by. Several games in domestic cricket, however...

..... proves nothing more than we already know - he's international quality unlike the Loye's of this world

 

[Prince EWS]

Firstly, should Cook succeed at county level in one day games, the respone should be a resounding "so effing what, he's a class above them anyway"

Secondly, precisely and it did their test careers zero harm by doing so.

If he's a class above them, why does he do so poorly against them??

 

[Prince EWS]

..... proves nothing more than we already know - he's international quality unlike the Loye's of this world

Well so is Michael Vaughan. Surely the Vaughan case should teach people something.

 

[Richard]

..... proves nothing more than we already know - he's international quality unlike the Loye's of this world

No, he's Test quality. The current evidence suggests he's unlikely to currently be ODI quality.

 

[Richard]

Firstly, should Cook succeed at county level in one day games, the respone should be a resounding "so effing what, he's a class above them anyway"

So the fact that he hasn't succeeded suggests the response should be...?

Secondly, precisely and it did their test careers zero harm by doing so.

But they bear no significance to the Cook case, because Cook is the opposite way around. And even so, just because it did no harm in Case F54 doesn't mean it has to be the same in Case N195.

 

[social]

Well so is Michael Vaughan. Surely the Vaughan case should teach people something.

Urm, the case as to whether Vaughan is international quality in any form of the game is well and truly open to debate.

He's a walking wicket in ODIs, what makes anyone certain that he wont be in tests? It's not as though he's getting out slogging, it's simply that his technique has gone to the dogs and has been that way (aside from an innings or two) for a few years now.

 

[social]

Anyway, what would u suggest?

Let him score 14 or 24 or 34 test centuries before he's given another go?

The facts are that Eng is hardly overburdened with batting talent and, in Cook, you have a young man that has succeeded in every situation that he's been placed to date.

His confidence will never be higher.

It's hard to imagine the competition ever being worse.

 

[Prince EWS]

He's a walking wicket in ODIs, what makes anyone certain that he wont be in tests?

.....

Vaughan has always been rubbish in ODIs - even when his test form was excellent.

You can theorise that'll be rubbish in tests from now on, but even if you're correct, it doesn't explain the fact that his ODI performances were dire even during the time that he was scoring heaps of runs in test cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyway, what would u suggest?

Let him score 14 or 24 or 34 test centuries before he's given another go?

The facts are that Eng is hardly overburdened with batting talent and, in Cook, you have a young man that has succeeded in every situation that he's been placed to date.

His confidence will never be higher.

It's hard to imagine the competition ever being worse.

I suggest letting him prove that he is a good one day batsman first. If he scores 200 test centuries in that time - or even if that time never comes - then so be it. If he continues to fail against county attacks in one day cricket, that should really tell you something...