who should be kicked out of England ODI team?

[Prince EWS]

But i don't see how Trott could have done a better job than what Shah has done since he adopted that role @ #6 in the order for the past year now.

He's played a couple of decent innings down their since his recall, yes. He's also had some horrible runs of form there though, which seem to be quickly forgotten for whatever reason. In the winter he played ten innings and failed nine times. He produced 193 runs @ 21.44 in the entire 2007/08, averaged under 20 in the five match series against New Zealand on some of the flattest pitches you'll see and he looked absolutely horrid whilst doing so. Yes he played well at home this summer but he really shouldn't have been there to begin with and one series has really done nothing to suggest he's a better option than someone who averages over 40 domestically, especially since he still only averages 30 odd in his supposedly awesome period. Obviously you can't drop Shah now that's scored two consecutive half centuries but I have little doubt you'll be stuck with him for a little while longer before sending him packing in a season or two along with his sub-30 ODI average.

Demands?. No son..

What an excellent retort. Straight contradictions are always fun, eh son?

Ahead of KP?

KP should bat #4 where he's more comfortable.

Trott should be battling out with Bopara & Afzaal for the number 4 spot where the later two should be ahead of him ATM.

I could cop Afzaal but in reality both should be playing. Bopara has done well domestically in the last few seasons but he's still not in Trott's league AFAIC.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

son

son

son

son

That's a lot of sons.

 

[open365]

It's nothing less than completely absurd that England have continued to ignore a batsman averaging 41 in Domestic ODI cricket when we have been close to the worse ODI team in recent years.

I really don't see where the argument against that it, Bopara/Shah/Wright/Random terrible batsman have not done anything over the past two years to warrant their inclusion ahead of Trott's. Bopara is going to be a prolonged member of the side after his 200, but that's understandable, however he was no where near as good a OD player as Trott when he was first picked.

 

[Julian87]

I will probably get shot down for this and this suggestion doesn't mean I rate him as a class batsman any more than a dirty slogger. But I think Flintoff would do a better job at the top of the order than Mustard/Wright/Ambrose et al.

I obviously don't know the depth of English cricket very well and what batsmen deserve a shot in one day cricket, but once he is fit, I think it'd be the best way to keep Ambrose and Mascarenhas in the team when he is back.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

Luke Wright?????????

 

[Richard]

I will probably get shot down for this and this suggestion doesn't mean I rate him as a class batsman any more than a dirty slogger. But I think Flintoff would do a better job at the top of the order than Mustard/Wright/Ambrose et al.

I obviously don't know the depth of English cricket very well and what batsmen deserve a shot in one day cricket, but once he is fit, I think it'd be the best way to keep Ambrose and Mascarenhas in the team when he is back.

Don't really think he'd do a better job at all TBH. There's virtually no-one in England who has the ability to open the innings and score quickly in England at the moment. Closest thing is James Benning.

 

[sledger]

Ambrose and Luke Wright both have got to go, that much is clear. But for a lack of decent alternatives Cook shouldn't be in the team either.

 

[open365]

I will probably get shot down for this and this suggestion doesn't mean I rate him as a class batsman any more than a dirty slogger. But I think Flintoff would do a better job at the top of the order than Mustard/Wright/Ambrose et al.

I obviously don't know the depth of English cricket very well and what batsmen deserve a shot in one day cricket, but once he is fit, I think it'd be the best way to keep Ambrose and Mascarenhas in the team when he is back.

Flintoff batting after playing cricket for a while and being vaguely in form would undoubtedly perform better than Wright/Mustard/Prior/et.all in my mind, AINEC.

 

[slowfinger]

TBH I don't know why you guys doubt Shah at all.

 

[Richard]

'Cos 'ee's given us quite a bit of reason to, TBH.

 

[tooextracool]

Flintoff batting after playing cricket for a while and being vaguely in form would undoubtedly perform better than Wright/Mustard/Prior/et.all in my mind, AINEC.

I agree with that. Flintoff has thus far been very ordinary in ODI cricket as far as batting is concerned. There is no 2 ways about it. Which is why the logic of him coming in at 5 or 6 seems to be somewhat ludicrous given that hes never been suited to the role of 'slogging' despite what most people think. All of his best innings in ODIs have involved him coming in very early in the innings as a result of a top order collapse and scoring runs. I do not see why it would be a bad idea to have him bat at the top when as we all know he prefers to play pace rather than spin when he comes in, would more or less relish the 20 over field restrictions and I have suggested so in the past as well.

 

[tooextracool]

It's nothing less than completely absurd that England have continued to ignore a batsman averaging 41 in Domestic ODI cricket when we have been close to the worse ODI team in recent years.

I really don't see where the argument against that it, Bopara/Shah/Wright/Random terrible batsman have not done anything over the past two years to warrant their inclusion ahead of Trott's. Bopara is going to be a prolonged member of the side after his 200, but that's understandable, however he was no where near as good a OD player as Trott when he was first picked.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt Trott only eligible to play for England last season?

 

[Prince EWS]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt Trott only eligible to play for England last season?

I actually thought it was a tad earlier, but is it really relevant? The entire side has restructed itself at least twice since he became available and he's been ignored both times.

 

[tooextracool]

In the winter he played ten innings and failed nine times. He produced 193 runs @ 21.44 in the entire 2007/08, averaged under 20 in the five match series against New Zealand on some of the flattest pitches you'll see and he looked absolutely horrid whilst doing so.

Lets just go through the winter series again. In SL, he did just as poorly as everyone else in the England batting card. Collingwood averaged 17 for the series, Pietersen averaged 28(boosted largely by a * and was arguably the worst batsman on the tour), Bell averaged 14 with only 1 50+ score while Cook who was the pick of the batsmen averaged a whole 31 with also 1 50+ score. Essentially both of Cook and Shah had 1 significant score in the series and not much else. Given the seamer friendly conditions for most of the series, it isnt exactly surprising either. Consider: Jayasuriya averaged 18, Jayawardhene also averaged 18, Sangakkara averaged 30 odd with 1 50+ score and LP Silva was surprisingly the pick of the players in the whole series averaging 36. Owais Shah did ok in the series IMO.

Now in NZ, he was not out in one inning, run out in another and was out dismissed twice at stages in the inning when he was required to accelerate. I dont know about you, but firstly, its plainly obvious that Shah is batting out of position. He would be better served at 4 or 5 than he would at 6. Now, having watched Shah on a few seamer friendly wickets thus far, I fear for his test career as I am uncertain about his ability to play good quality seam bowling and thus far at ODI cricket he has looked all at sea on seamer friendly wickets. However, I dont see how he has done any worse than...well every other england odi batsman in the last year. If Shah deserves to be dropped then why not Pietersen for averaging just above 30 in those 10 games (for that matter Pietersen has been rubbish since the last world cup)? Why not drop Ian Bell for averaging 21.5 for those 10 games? Heck these are our top order batsman, and they have been batting like a bunch of tailenders while Shah is being made scapegoat for batting out of position with very little opportunity and doing as poorly as everyone else.

 

[Prince EWS]

If Shah deserves to be dropped then why not Pietersen for averaging just above 30 in those 10 games (for that matter Pietersen has been rubbish since the last world cup)? Why not drop Ian Bell for averaging 21.5 for those 10 games?

Credit in the bank, quite obviously.

Now in NZ, he was not out in one inning, run out in another and was out dismissed twice at stages in the inning when he was required to accelerate. I dont know about you, but firstly, its plainly obvious that Shah is batting out of position. He would be better served at 4 or 5 than he would at 6.

I agree, but that brings his previous record under scrutiny. Aussie's entire argument was that Shah at 6 should be treated as a separate case to Shah at 4 and that he was more fit for the role down the order than someone like Trott.

You can't have it both ways. If he's out of position, he's failed in his true position for years and years and should be well and truly discarded by now. If you want his efforts at #6 to be considered separately then he had a shocking tour of NZ and a poor winter overall.

 

[tooextracool]

I actually thought it was a tad earlier, but is it really relevant? The entire side has restructed itself at least twice since he became available and he's been ignored both times.

Well the only reason i mentioned that is because the quoted poster mentioned the selection of Trott over Bopara. Bopara made his debut in the Commonwealth Bank Series and I was not certain as to whether Trott was even eligible to play for England then.
As far as the selection is concerned, I have had as much of a gripe with the England selectors as you do at the moment. Unfortunately, even with Graveney no longer the head of selectors there are still an innumerable number of blunders made on a day to day basis by the English selection committee and I highly doubt that is likely to change anytime in the near future.

 

[tooextracool]

Credit in the bank, quite obviously .

In Pietersen's case perhaps. Although even he has got to run out of credit at some point because there is only so much patience anyone can have and a substandard 1.5 years is a real stretch.
Bell on the other hand has done absolutely nothing in his whole career to demand selection. His performances against India last summer proved to be a false dawn and hes crashed back to earth soon after.

I agree, but that brings his previous record under scrutiny. Aussie's entire argument was that Shah at 6 should be treated as a separate case to Shah at 4 and that he was more fit for the role down the order than someone like Trott.

You can't have it both ways. If he's out of position, he's failed in his true position for years and years and should be well and truly discarded by now. If you want his efforts at #6 to be considered separately then he had a shocking tour of NZ and a poor winter overall.

The problem is that Shah did indeed fail in his position for years and years. That we do know. However, one must also consider that since the 2006 season he has set the world alight in list A cricket for Middlesex. Even though when he did get his chance last summer, I was amongst all of those who said 'not again'. However, since then i think hes done enough at 6 to warrant a place in the side as well as get a promotion up the order, certainly more than Bopara ever did. So i do think we should take his stint since last summer with a different tinge of green and I do find all those shouts for his place to be unwarranted before, during or after his last ODI series.

 

[Prince EWS]

In Pietersen's case perhaps. Although even he has got to run out of credit at some point because there is only so much patience anyone can have and a substandard 1.5 years is a real stretch.
Bell on the other hand has done absolutely nothing in his whole career to demand selection. His performances against India last summer proved to be a false dawn and hes crashed back to earth soon after.





The problem is that Shah did indeed fail in his position for years and years. That we do know. However, one must also consider that since the 2006 season he has set the world alight in list A cricket for Middlesex. Even though when he did get his chance last summer, I was amongst all of those who said 'not again'. However, since then i think hes done enough at 6 to warrant a place in the side as well as get a promotion up the order, certainly more than Bopara ever did. So i do think we should take his stint since last summer with a different tinge of green and I do find all those shouts for his place to be unwarranted before, during or after his last ODI series.

Shah certainly shouldn't be dropped now after scoring two consecutive half centuries - not at all. That'd be even more ridiculous than recalling him for the 15th time.

I just thought his original selection was wrong and I don't have any faith in him at all to continue his recent form. As I said, you'll be stuck with him for another couple of series before he's sent packing with his sub-30 average.

 

[tooextracool]

Look Anderson has been an extremely frustrating bowler, but what you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that he was picked wayyyyy before his time. Its the kind of selection one only see's with the West Indies over the last 10 years or so. So he has basically been learning his craft at the highest level but the potential is there for allllllllllll to see. Especially in ODI cricket where when he has got it right he has proven to be our most lethal exponent of the new ball. Cut Jimmy some slack will ya mate...

I do not see how Anderson is a better bowler now than he was in 2002/03. His outswingers in fact swing less than they used to and he is still infuriatingly inaccurate.

 

[tooextracool]

Nah, five's too high. Six should be juuuuuuuust fine in the shorter game.

Because Flintoff has such a fantastic record at 6? Seriously the idea that Flintoff is such a fantastic slogger and so adept at closing an innings is rather beyond me at this point. He has done brilliantly in said role in all of 0 innings in his entire career and there is no aspect in his game that suggests he would be useful in such a role. If one is to bat Flintoff anywhere below 5, you might as well bat him at 8 because its a real waste of a position that should instead go to a more competent player. I wouldnt even mind Ambrose at 6 (given thats closer to where he bats in List A cricket) than Flintoff.