Trescothick closer to England return

[Prince EWS]

Here's a question:

How often have Trescothick, Pietersen and Flintoff played together in ODIs?

11 times - 6 of those being against Australia, funnily enough. England have won 5 of those games, lost 4, had one tie and one N/R.

England beat Bangladesh by 10 wickets
England beat Australia by 3 wickets
Australia beat England by 57 runs
England beat Bangladesh by 5 wickets
No result (England v Australia)
Match tied (England v Australia)
England beat Australia by 9 wickets
Australia by England by 7 wickets
Australia by England by 8 wickets
England beat Pakistan by 42 runs
Pakistan beat England by 7 wickets

 

[PhoenixFire]

How on earth did you find that out?

 

[Richard]

So just 9 when you knock-out formalities against Bangladesh... all bar 2 in said summer.

 

[Richard]

How on earth did you find that out?

Looked at the cards in the games in those 2 series... I'd always thought they all played all the games in the Pakistan series, but Rob has found otherwise.

 

[Prince EWS]

How on earth did you find that out?

Well, I checked on cricinfo to see the date Pietersen made his ODI debut, then StatsGuru'd Trescothick's career for matches after that date. It was a relatively small number - 31 - so I checked each of those matches manually to see which of them involved all three players. I did skip the Sri Lanka series as I distinctly remembered Flintoff missing it, mind, so that'd leave 26 manual checks.

 

[Prince EWS]

Looked at the cards in the games in those 2 series... I'd always thought they all played all the games in the Pakistan series, but Rob has found otherwise.

Pietersen missed the last 3 - he was replaced by Solanki.

 

[Richard]

Well, I checked on cricinfo to see the date Pietersen made his ODI debut, then StatsGuru'd Trescothick's career for matches after that date. It was a relatively small number - 31 - so I checked each of those matches manually to see which of them involved all three players. I did skip the Sri Lanka series as I distinctly remembered Flintoff missing it, mind, so that'd leave 26 manual checks.

I'm astonished Trescothick's played as many as 31 ODIs since June 2005.

EDIT: he's played 24, 4 of which were against Bangladesh or Ireland. Where did you get 31 from?

 

[Richard]

Pietersen missed the last 3 - he was replaced by Solanki.

Don't know how I managed to forget that, really, I'm usually good at remembering things like that...

That was hardly the most inspirational of ODI series, I suppose, and I didn't follow that tour quite as I've followed most others.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm astonished Trescothick's played as many as 31 ODIs since June 2005.

EDIT: he's played 24, 4 of which were against Bangladesh or Ireland. Where did you get 31 from?

He hasn't. He has since January 2005, though..

 

[Richard]

Hoho. I forgot about that SA series. 'Twas because Flintoff missed that, too, that the confusion comes.

Either way - the central point, I suppose, is this:

After never missing a single serious ODI (was rested for the meaningless Zimbabwe tour of 2004\05) until the end of 2005, Trescothick has played 8 and missed 26 since;

Since his emergence as a serious ODI proposition (I'd say the winter of 2001\02) Flintoff has had 3 lengthy spells on the sidelines (winter 2002\03, winter 2004\05 and summer 2006), with another now possibly in the pipeline;

Even Pietersen has missed 16 games since his debut.

 

[cover drive man]

Exactly - too bad they you blokes haven't had a fully fit team for around 15 years.

 

[Perm]

Virtually never. Very briefly in the summer of 2005 against Australia and in the next series afterwards against Pakistan. After that, one or more has always been absent.

And I've never been able to shake the feeling that having all three in the same line-up could easily disguise the inefficiencies of Strauss, Vaughan, Collingwood, Bell, Geraint Jones, or any other ineffective batsman they happened to pick.

I wouldn't call Collingwood an ineffective ODI batsman.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I wouldn't call Collingwood an ineffective ODI batsman.

That was yet another Richard's snap judgements yonks ago, so because he's obviously never wrong with his peerless FC stats analysis and his few seconds of real life footage he keeps going with it even today.

Even I would let up on Panesar if he genuinely bowled India out in the upcoming series.

 

[steds]

I wouldn't call Collingwood an ineffective ODI batsman.

Didn't call him ineffective. Inefficient was what he said. Don't have a ****ing clue what he means by that, though.

 

[gettingbetter]

That's right. I went there.

(As if it isn't implied when England and ODI are mentioned)

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd describe Collingwood has having "limitations" rather than "inefficiencies".

 

[Manee]

I'd describe Collingwood has having "limitations" rather than "inefficiencies".

He needs about 40 overs to make a good ODI innings, which is perfect considering he is number five for England .

 

[gio]

Collingwood wouldn't make the best OD line-ups in the world, but for England, he does a job.

 

[andmark]

I twill be good for England, considering his form.

 

[Richard]

That was yet another Richard's snap judgements yonks ago

No, actually, it's something I've been saying throughout Collingwood's career. I know what I'm on about too - though naturally you're never going to accept that a Durham player is less than what he seems.

The truth is, Collingwood's rarely done a great deal of note in his ODI career. He's a very, very good substandard-side-basher, and undoubtedly he's played the odd real gem of an innings (the 3 consecutive knocks at the end of the CB Series being quite magnificent and obviously the highlight of his ODI career).

However, these occasional gems and the fact that substandard sides are considered ODI-playing have tended to obscure the fact that he's not really done that much of note. He had a short good period at a similar time 4 years ago - at the end of the then VB Series - and he had a few good innings in a row in India in early 2006.

Aside from that, though, his ODI career has contained virtually nothing of note.