Major England ODI Overhaul Needed

[gunner]

owais shah really needs to be given a chance
he made 88 in his only test match was simply dropped
now that fletcher will go hopefully we will see selections on merit and not just by being in a group

and i see adil rashid being given a chance very soon too

hit 86 today and was in a big partnership with jaques rudolph

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yeah Shah is a much better batsman than some of the players that have been given many more chances than he has. He made a good 88 in difficult conditions in India, and deserves at least 5 more Tests.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yeah Shah is a much better batsman than some of the players that have been given many more chances than he has. He made a good 88 in difficult conditions in India, and deserves at least 5 more Tests.

So who are you going to drop in the Test side just to give him some matches then?

 

[PhoenixFire]

So who are you going to drop in the Test side just to give him some matches then?

Whoever doesn't perform in the middle order, in Tests. I'd hazard a guess at Collingwood or Bell if they don't perform and make 100s often enough. Sounds harsh, but I'd say they were fine at the minute. If not, at least give him a go in ODIs.

 

[open365]

Lmao.

How short are all your memories?

Owais Shah has had many chances at ODI level and failed miserably, he does not deserve another.

In tests maybe, but i'd rather see Joyce in next when someone gets dropped.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Lmao.

How short are all your memories?

Owais Shah has had many chances at ODI level and failed miserably, he does not deserve another.

I have no doubt that the Shah of 2007 is a much, much better player than the Shah 2001-2003. A hell of a lot better than Vaughan anyway.

 

[open365]

He got 3 games in 05/06 and scored 7 runs.

Let's not get Hoggard syndrome now.

 

[PhoenixFire]

He got 3 games in 05/06 and scored 7 runs.

Let's not get Hoggard syndrome now.

3 ODIs isn't a reflection of a player's abilities.

 

[ozone]

Also, bringing in Owais Shah to the ODI side isn't going to give them any new dimensions for this 'overhaul' which is needed. England have plenty of batsmen who are of this ilk and they are never going to go anywhere by just alternating between them.

Bringing in someone like Loye for the Commonwealth series was good even though it didn't come off brilliantly. At least is was a step in the right direction. Bringing in Shah for Strauss, Bell or Vaughan would be a like for like swap and would do little for progressing England forward long term.

 

[Ash_A55]

Bringing in someone like Loye for the Commonwealth series was good even though it didn't come off brilliantly. At least is was a step in the right direction.

Seconded.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Bringing in Shah for Strauss, Bell or Vaughan would be a like for like swap and would do little for progressing England forward long term.

Shah is a toally different player to Bell, Vaughan and Strauss.

 

[ozone]

Shah is a toally different player to Bell, Vaughan and Strauss.

Shah is a 'dabber'. As are Bell, Vaughan and Strauss. Its only speculation who would do a better job. They are all players who try to manouevre the ball rather than hit boundaries.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Shah is a 'dabber'. As are Bell, Vaughan and Strauss. Its only speculation who would do a better job. They are all players who try to manouevre the ball rather than hit boundaries.

Vaughan is actually a strokemaker, but he is also ****.

 

[open365]

3 ODIs isn't a reflection of a player's abilities.

Shah's has more than enough chances, just like Hoggard had more than enough chances and failed with them all.

Continuosly picked players that have failed many times before just because they're scoring runs in domestic cricket is a massive step in the wrong direction, new players need to be given a shot otherwise we're stuck in a continous cycle of chopping and changing the same not good enough players.

 

[ozone]

Shah's has more than enough chances, just like Hoggard had more than enough chances and failed with them all.

Continuosly picked players that have failed many times before just because they're scoring runs in domestic cricket is a massive step in the wrong direction, new players need to be given a shot otherwise we're stuck in a continous cycle of chopping and changing the same not good enough players.

Totally agree. Have to give new players a chance in order to establish a world class side for the next world cup. Alright, its likely for every player you find, there will be two who are complete rubbish but if we found a Gilchrist despite wasting time trying a Jones and a Read, it would be better for English cricket.

 

[Anil]

I wonder what you were watching.

Hall was consistently hitting the mid-130s and occasionally even the 140s. Not to mention the fact that he was bowling massive great inswingers at one point.

And you accuse me of failing to give credit to Vettori at The WACA in 2001\02... that was as good a spell of bowling as you could wish to see in a ODI. And good wicketkeeping to stand-up to bowlers bowling at that pace too.

gearing up for another richard vs tec?

 

[Langeveldt]

Totally agree. Have to give new players a chance in order to establish a world class side for the next world cup. Alright, its likely for every player you find, there will be two who are complete rubbish but if we found a Gilchrist despite wasting time trying a Jones and a Read, it would be better for English cricket.

As usual, England will be playing for the next world cup instead of trying to win games in the present.. Therefore blooding players too early, dropping experience un-necessarily, and going even further down the plug hole with "young" players like Mahmood who might be alright in a few years time (although hardly likely)

 

[ozone]

But England have to build for the next WC because they are in such bad shap now. They have to drop the experienced players because they're not performing. If Strauss and Vaughan were scoring 100's and then they were dropped it would be stupid but they're not so...

Also, using young bowlers is Englands only option. Alright, perhaps Gough could have gone to the WC but other than him there doesn't seem to be another obvious choice for experience. Therefore, Mahmood seems as good as anyone else and using him is definantly good for the long run as he will be gaining more and more experience.

 

[open365]

Gough didn't deserve to be at the WC at all, he was returning pretty awful figures for England when and before he got injured.

I agree with Rich, it's not about focusing on the future, we need to adress these problems our team faces now with an eye to the next game, not in four years time.

Clive Woodward, one of the best coaches in the world, said all he concentrated and planned for during his reign was the next game, there was no "Oh he's a bit young but he'll get experience" sentiments from Clive, he was about winning, winning the next game you play in, winning every game you play in.

That is the attitude that wins world cups and makes your team the best in the world.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Gough didn't deserve to be at the WC at all, he was returning pretty awful figures for England when and before he got injured.

Gough > Mahmood