who should be kicked out of England ODI team?

[Perm]

Vaughan, Harmison and Jones were pretty average ODI players.

 

[Richard]

I find nothing seriously wrong with this team, when there are no better replacements outside. This team has already lost Trescothick, Vaughan, Harmison and Jones among their more recent players, and filling in for all of them will be tough.

Vaughan and Harmison were hopeless anyway, and Jones there was no evidence he was anything else either.

Only Trescothick of recent losses has actually been a loss.

 

[Richard]

He didn't deliver in ODI cricket but he has a touch of class about his batting - he's the leading runscorer in county cricket this season and has played exceptionally well - and when not keeping is a fielder of very high class.

As a Sussex fan I'd be more than happy for him to give up the gloves and concentrate on his batting (we have 2 outstanding young wicketkeeper batsmen in Hodd and Brown waiting in the wings).

In the First-Class game his record is good but it's always been poor in the one-day game. And I think that's gone on long enough now to be likely to continue.

 

[Richard]

Bell and Anderson have the potential to be very good. Shah (when at six), Bopara (atm) andWright on the other hand, are no good at all and apart from Bopara I doubt they'll amount to much.

Shah's been no better higher up the order, and I've long thought Anderson has no potential to be much good at all.

 

[Arjun]

Vaughan, Harmison and Jones were pretty average ODI players.

Vaughan and Harmison were hopeless anyway, and Jones there was no evidence he was anything else either.

They were still a lot better than some players picked in their place-

• Vaughan was gone and you had anyone out of Shah, Bopara, Wright and a few more.
• Harmison was missing and you had Mahmood, Kabir Ali, Bresnan, Tremlett and Plunkett
• Jones was gone and you had the same options, and now Anderson is your premier seam bowler.

 

[Richard]

Harmison was little better if any better than any of those bowlers (most of the time - he was obviously streets ahead of them in the summers of 2004 and 2005), and Vaughan was certainly nowhere near as good as any of those batsmen, apart from Wright.

 

[aussie]

Its not stats, its called performance.

There is a certain performance level that isnt acceptable in the long run.

The point is that certain players have not performed at the highest level often. Its why England are a poor OD team.

What you are saying is exactly why England has a history of producing average teams. Mediocraty is accepted as success and one innings every blue moon is considered as showing capability.

The problem is that other nations dont have such a lax attitude. An element of consistency and high productivity is desired rather than the occasional spark.

This is not a valid argument for the England ODI side given how players are brought up in this country.

The common notion over the years that over here tests are taken more seriously than ODI's is very true even though those in higher authority try not to admit it.

When i played school cricket for MGS & club cricket as a batsman being technically correct is always stressed you try to be a Flintoff or KP you are ridiculed. Ian Bell, Alastair Cook & the upcoming Sam Northeast are some of the most talented young bastmen you are ever likely to see (not saying they are wonderkids like Lara, Tendy & Punter) but how they were & are being groomed means the shorter form of the game wouldn't suite their style of play.

Hopefully though with 20/20 around it will aid in the players becoming more innovative encourage some other kids (black people especially) who are still way more fascinated by football to want to play cricket & youth coaches to allow young players to be natural.

Fact is this is the best ODI players available ATM & great potentially to become a solid (don't expect us to be great ODI team like AUS) but its a start. Given the nonsense we have being seeing over the last 10 years or so.

If we had no-one better, it'd be all good to do such a thing. But we do. Good one-day cricketers are being ignored for these wastes of space, and have been being ignored for years.

FFS, Mark Ealham could easily have played in the 2003 and 2007 World Cups, but he was ignored in favour of Matthew Hoggard, James Kirtley, Jeremy Snape, Alex Tudor, Ian Blackwell, Gareth Batty, James Anderson, Stephen Harmison, Richard Johnson, Kabir Ali, Alex Wharf, Sajid Mahmood, Simon Jones, Jonathan Lewis, Chris Tremlett, Liam Plunkett, Tim Bresnan, Stuart Broad and Michael Yardy (yes, he was picked as a bowler). None of whom are even in the same league as him as one-day bowlers, and some of whom are about 7 or 8 leagues below.].

So all these better ODI players is just Mark Ealham? Jesus..

Look he was a decent ODI bowler back in the day but ok maybe i haven't followed his career alot in CC but i've seen him in a few domestic 20/20 matches over the years & i really can't see what has been so impressive about him in recent times.

You say he could have easily played in the last 2 WC's well i have my doubts. Going into the 03 WC ENG potentially could have had one of our best ODI XI's this decade if Gough wasn't injured & Thorpe didn't have family woes in:

Trescothick
Knight
Hussain
Thorpe
Stewart
Collingwood
Flintoff
White
Giles
Gough
Caddick

Don't see how Ealham could have made that side better or even have made a better impact than what Anderson made (although i admit he was selected too soon back then). But he probably could have made the final 15.

In 2007 nah, Mascarenhas who should have been picked since 05 would have been a better shout than Ealham. Similar type bowlers with Mascarenhas the far more efffective batsman.

 

[aussie]

Both convinced me long ago that they're very, very poor batsmen. Long before they played international cricket.

Um ever heard of picking on potentially? Doesn't always work out but it does happen you know. If it were a law that all cricketers should have a fantastic start domestically before selected MANY players may not have played international cricket.

Plus just because the don't convince you means they won't amound to anything good. Even you reckoned Lee wouldn't amount to anything as a test match bowler..

 

[Langeveldt]

Bopara

Massive Gap

Shah
Bell

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ricardo Powell is even worse, but apart from him I struggle to think of anyone as bad.

Matt Horne.

 

[zaremba]

The thing about Bell is that, along with Flash Kev, he's the most talented batsman available to England. His record in ODI cricket is decent and they will do all they can to accommodate him. At the moment they view him as an opener, who can open the innings alongside a hitter (presently Luke Wright). He's also a very good fielder. If it was up to me, there's no way I'd drop him.

Shah is a decent batsman but batting at 6 isn't the easiest place to build a great record (Michael Bevan he ain't).

Bopara has a lot of talent and has had an outstanding season with the bat. His attitude is rated highly. He's not got the runs in recent England games however so his place is by no means secure.

Ambrose is in a similar boat.

Luckily for Bopara and Ambrose, the days of chopping and changing are behind us - they will both be given a decent run before one or the other is dropped in favour of Matt Prior.

 

[GGG]

Ricardo Powell is even worse, but apart from him I struggle to think of anyone as bad.

Only played half the games as Powell, but Craig Spearman's ODI record is shocking.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Only played half the games as Powell, but Craig Spearman's ODI record is shocking.

Only played 1/5 of the games of Spearman, but James Marshall is shocking.

 

[Richard]

Fact is this is the best ODI players available ATM & great potentially to become a solid (don't expect us to be great ODI team like AUS) but its a start. Given the nonsense we have being seeing over the last 10 years or so.

That's been being said throughout the last 8 years. It's no more true now than it ever was. And no, many of the players currently being selected aren't the best available.

So all these better ODI players is just Mark Ealham? Jesus..

Look he was a decent ODI bowler back in the day but ok maybe i haven't followed his career alot in CC but i've seen him in a few domestic 20/20 matches over the years & i really can't see what has been so impressive about him in recent times.

Twenty20 is meaningless. It's utterly irrelevant to bowlers like Ealham, they're the worst you could wish for in Twenty20. Ealham is and always has been an excellent bowler in the one-day game, and he's been as impressive as ever since being dropped from England's ODI team as he was when he was in it, if not more so.

You say he could have easily played in the last 2 WC's well i have my doubts. Going into the 03 WC ENG potentially could have had one of our best ODI XI's this decade if Gough wasn't injured & Thorpe didn't have family woes in:

Trescothick
Knight
Hussain
Thorpe
Stewart
Collingwood
Flintoff
White
Giles
Gough
Caddick

Don't see how Ealham could have made that side better or even have made a better impact than what Anderson made (although i admit he was selected too soon back then). But he probably could have made the final 15.

Ealham was a considerably better bowler than both White and Giles, and was no worse with the bat than either. Whether he'd have been picked ahead of either is doubtful, but he was a better bowler and would have improved the side.

In 2007 nah, Mascarenhas who should have been picked since 05 would have been a better shout than Ealham. Similar type bowlers with Mascarenhas the far more efffective batsman.

Mascarenhas was actually poor in 2005 and 2006 and had no case for selection in either season. The first time he had an irrefutable case was 2007, and finally he got picked. However, he isn't and never has been as good a bowler in the one-day game as Ealham. Even now.

 

[aussie]

That's been being said throughout the last 8 years. It's no more true now than it ever was.

Really outside the winter of 2000, 2002 i really don't remember when a ENG ODI side had more potential than this. I am even discouting our Natwest winning side of 03 & the side that ran AUS close in 05 or that got to the CT Final in 04 since you will agree those were just sides that adapted well to home conditions.

And no, many of the players currently being selected aren't the best available.

Well please tell me which players on the circuit right now can improve the current team?

Twenty20 is meaningless. It's utterly irrelevant to bowlers like Ealham, they're the worst you could wish for in Twenty20. Ealham is and always has been an excellent bowler in the one-day game, and he's been as impressive as ever since being dropped from England's ODI team as he was when he was in it, if not more so.

I'd say i'll take your word for it. But i can't..

Ealham was a considerably better bowler than both White and Giles, and was no worse with the bat than either. Whether he'd have been picked ahead of either is doubtful, but he was a better bowler and would have improved the side.

Ealham could have probably been a more dependable bowler than White (comparing him to Gilo a spinner is irrelevant) but he wasn't a better bat please. With the bat he was fairly average. He certainly would not have been a better pick back in 2002 if all had gone well.

Mascarenhas was actually poor in 2005 and 2006 and had no case for selection in either season. The first time he had an irrefutable case was 2007, and finally he got picked. However, he isn't and never has been as good a bowler in the one-day game as Ealham. Even now.

Did you watch him on Sky anytime Hampshire were playing or did you just run to cricinfo for & post this?. Can you seriously tell me Mascarenhas should not have been in the side probably not since 06 especially when the likes of Yardy, Bresnan, Loudon, Dalrymple were all picked ahead of him as all-rounders?.

 

[Richard]

Really outside the winter of 2000, 2002 i really don't remember when a ENG ODI side had more potential than this. I am even discouting our Natwest winning side of 03 & the side that ran AUS close in 05 or that got to the CT Final in 04 since you will agree those were just sides that adapted well to home conditions.

As I said - you vastly overrate the potential of several of these players currently involved IMO. There's Pietersen, there's Flintoff to come back, there's maybe Mascarenhas, Sidebottom and Swann, and none of these are people who've convinced me yet, just those I have hopes for. And that's about it. There's still plenty of players involved who I think little or nothing of.

Well please tell me which players on the circuit right now can improve the current team?

I've said it many times - Usman Afzaal. Neil Killeen too - infinitely better than the Andersons, Tremletts and anyone else who'd be likely to be picked should those two be axed. Possibly one or two others who've skipped my mind too.

I'd say i'll take your word for it. But i can't..

He has. Just take a simple look at his performances, he's barely had a bad season. He's even gone not-too-disastrously in the Pro40 crap.

Ealham could have probably been a more dependable bowler than White (comparing him to Gilo a spinner is irrelevant) but he wasn't a better bat please. With the bat he was fairly average.

Ealham was no worse with the bat than White - both were simply very poor with the bat. So was Giles. And why on Earth is it irrelevant to compare him to Giles just because Giles was a spinner? They were both bowlers, and the job of a bowler is the same whether you're a spinner or seamer. Ealham is a far better one-day bowler than Giles or White ever were.

He certainly would not have been a better pick back in 2002 if all had gone well.

Yes, he would.

Did you watch him on Sky anytime Hampshire were playing or did you just run to cricinfo for & post this?. Can you seriously tell me Mascarenhas should not have been in the side probably not since 06 especially when the likes of Yardy, Bresnan, Loudon, Dalrymple were all picked ahead of him as all-rounders?.

Mascarenhas' performances were abysmal in 2005 and 2006. You DO NOT pick players who are conceding 4.6s and 5.3s an-over. BTW, you need CricketArchive, not CricInfo, to find that out. Yes, Yardy, Bresnan, Dalrymple and Loudon were all utterly useless too, but so would Mascarenhas have been had he been picked that year.

 

[steds]

You DO NOT pick players who are conceding 4.6s an-over.

Richard - living in 1975.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ealham could have probably been a more dependable bowler than White (comparing him to Gilo a spinner is irrelevant) but he wasn't a better bat please. With the bat he was fairly average. He certainly would not have been a better pick back in 2002 if all had gone well.

Remind me what Craig White ever did with the bat in international cricket. White was a poor ODI batsman and Ealham was marginally less poor.

 

[Perm]

Richard - living in 1975.

Yeah.

4.6 an over is only a total score of 230, which is quite low in today's game.

 

[Leslie1]

To quote Drama from Entourage with different name:

Stuart BrOOOOOOOOOAD!!! (Viking Quest)

It's been a great series for discovering youngsters. And lets face it, the players, aside from KP, are not anywhere near in class the likes of South Africans or even Indians, let alone Australia.