No English batsmen to cross 5000 ODI runs?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

South Africa pasted Australia 4-1 in consecutive series.

Thought it was 4-1 and 3-2 TBH, but no matter. Yes, they did - nonetheless South Africa currently are not a particularly strong ODI side and precious little can be garnered from victory in a three-match ODI series anyway - one of the reasons I hate the things so much.

Victory in Australia came against the side that won the World Cup 3 months later (granted, England were absolutely dire at the start of the CB series).

England's results vs Australia in the CB Series:
3 rank thrashings
1 dead-game victory
1 really credible victory
1 victory where they got conditions which could barely have been more favourable to them if God had intervened.

Apart from the fact that that's a 3-3 scoreline, I'd say Australia comfortably had the better of England in 2006/07.

Victory in Sri Lanka against a side who were runners up in the World Cup.

Was a side which barely even resembled that side. Apart from the fact that many Lankans performed miles better in the Cup than they did in the England series, there were absences.

Interesting definition of "quality sides."

Yup, sure is.

[SJS]

This is an amazing bit of information. I would have never thought this was the case. Yes England do not play too many odis but Greenidge got his 5100 odd runs in 128 games, Smith has 5600 odd in149, Hayden (6100+), Dhoni (5400+) and Jones (6000+) played between 160 and 164 games.

Stewart played 170 for England and Collingwood has already played 174 !

Even in batting averages (which ignores fewer games) they have just Pietersen (at number 10) in the top 25 around the world - Qualification 30 innings minimum

[Richard]

England batsmen have almost never excelled at ODIs. It's very probably no coincidence that the man who looks near-certain to go down as England's best learned his cricket elsewhere.

In modern times the only ones who approach him are Knight, Hick and Fairbrother, and even Hick to some extent learned his cricket overseas, though I'm not sure that was an advantage in his case.

In the days when England were a serious ODI power it was bowling, not batting, that gave them their potency, and even after they ceased to be aught but a joke in World Cups they often still had a good few excellent-quality bowlers.

[SaeedAnwar]

^ Knight, Hick and Fairbrother, and Hick could have done so much with their careers, i am not sure why were they in and out of the team, why were england selectors so unfair to these guys? look at Fairbrother for example, he played from the 1986-87 season to the 1999 world cup, yet he only made just over 2000 runs, his average was always good around 40

[DaRick]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

South Africa pasted Australia 4-1 in consecutive series.

1-4 and 2-3, as Richard pointed out.

That AUS side wasn't a particularly good ODI outfit, compared to what came before or after. Sure, it was ODI class, but Watson was missing, we had an opener promoted based on T20 hype , Dave Hussey was batting like a tailender most of the time, Ben Hilfenhaus was not an ODI-class bowler (bowled too many no-balls) and Johnson was in horrible form. We can also add to that a spearhead who conceeded over 5 runs an over in all ODI cricket. Oh, did I forget to mention that we played spin so poorly that we made someone like van der Merwe (who England belted around) look good?

SA also played better cricket against us than they did against England. That's not to say that England hasn't improved as an ODI side. Clearly, the fact that they can beat SA at home says something. But they weren't even able to come close to us in England or during the Champions Trophy, so I doubt that SA would've done anything against our side had they come across it during that time period.

Victory in Australia came against the side that won the World Cup 3 months later (granted, England were absolutely dire at the start of the CB series).

England played better cricket at the end of that series; Australia played the kind of cricket that would indicate that they were in dire need of a rest (and the CH trophy performances proved it).

[jeevan]

Trescothick is another one who'd have had an easy shout at 5000 ODI runs. Still it does not seem a particularly exclusive club, either to get 5000 runs or rack up 200 ODI appearances (the other table with no English presence, this one doesn't even require the player to be good in absolute terms).

Darren Gough's 235 ODI wickets means someone's flying the flag in the bowling table, at least.

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by Richard

England batsmen have almost never excelled at ODIs. It's very probably no coincidence that the man who looks near-certain to go down as England's best learned his cricket elsewhere.

In modern times the only ones who approach him are Knight, Hick and Fairbrother, and even Hick to some extent learned his cricket overseas, though I'm not sure that was an advantage in his case.

In the days when England were a serious ODI power it was bowling, not batting, that gave them their potency, and even after they ceased to be aught but a joke in World Cups they often still had a good few excellent-quality bowlers.

Surely Trescothick and robin smith were worth a shout. I believe trescothick is one of the very good ODI openers. During the last decade, only time ENG looked good in batting is when they have tres,KP,colli,Flintoff at the same time probably around 6 months. Even then other two batters are pretty weak and are at the top of the order.

[morgieb]

England never played regular ODI's up until about 2000 (which since they've sucked), so that's why no Poms have reached 5000 ODI runs.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by geraintismyhero

thanks for informing me about that. It ensures that when colly achieves this milestone i can start a thread about it. Possibly comparing him to bradman.

fyp.

[GIMH]

You're right, that comparison would flatter Bradman

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Richard

England batsmen have almost never excelled at ODIs. It's very probably no coincidence that the man who looks near-certain to go down as England's best learned his cricket elsewhere.

In modern times the only ones who approach him are Knight, Hick and Fairbrother, and even Hick to some extent learned his cricket overseas, though I'm not sure that was an advantage in his case.

In the days when England were a serious ODI power it was bowling, not batting, that gave them their potency, and even after they ceased to be aught but a joke in World Cups they often still had a good few excellent-quality bowlers.

You know Richard I have thought of that. The fact that English, inspite of having introduced the limited overs game to the world officially, have not shown, in their batting over the century, the flair one associates with the shorter version but I suspect the malaise runs deeper. Its not as if the English batsmen are doing better at playing longer innings in the longer version of the game.

Here is an interesting stat.

Twenty years ago, Graham Gooch scored a triple century against India. Since then 37 scores of 250 or more have been scored around the world in probably the most prolific batting era of the last 140 years. Here is the country wise breakup of these.

Country	250+ scores

AUS	4
IND	6
PAK	4
NZL	4
WIN	6
SAF	5
SRL	7
ZIM	1
ENG	0
BDS	0
TOTAL	37

Surely these cant be explained by number of games played.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by SaeedAnwar

^ Knight, Hick and Fairbrother, and Hick could have done so much with their careers, i am not sure why were they in and out of the team, why were england selectors so unfair to these guys? look at Fairbrother for example, he played from the 1986-87 season to the 1999 world cup, yet he only made just over 2000 runs, his average was always good around 40

Fairbrother played from 1991 to 1995/96, in reality - he had brief stints, an "apprenticeship" in 1986/87-1987/88 and then a glorious second coming in 1998/99-1999 which was initiated completely by accident. Hick too had a "apprenticeship" stint in 1991 and 1991/92, then a successful stint 1992-1996, then another one 1998-2000 (he did play in between, but not very much and not as a first-choice).

The reason the likes of Hick and Fairbrother and even, very briefly, Knight (he was left-out in 2000/01) have gone in and out of the side is that England selectors and those of their generation who make-up commentary and media teams, more than those anywhere else (and it certainly is a global problem), struggle badly when it comes to distinguishing between the two forms of the game. Too much emphasis is placed on Tests when ODIs are under consideration - thus the ludicrous assertion by someone, can't remember who, in the 2002/03 World Cup that Vaughan was a better batsman than Knight midway through a ODI (the two were batting together at the time).

If England selectors were better at distinguishing between the game-forms, England would have a better team and their relatively few good ODI players would have more fulfilled careers. If you think the list of batsmen who've been treated unfairly is long, don't even start looking at the bowlers.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by jeevan

Trescothick is another one who'd have had an easy shout at 5000 ODI runs. Still it does not seem a particularly exclusive club, either to get 5000 runs or rack up 200 ODI appearances (the other table with no English presence, this one doesn't even require the player to be good in absolute terms).

Darren Gough's 235 ODI wickets means someone's flying the flag in the bowling table, at least.

Even Trescothick and Gough could've played far more than they did but for their own difficulties (Gough's being physical and Trescothick's mental).

[Richard]

Originally Posted by L Trumper

Surely Trescothick and robin smith were worth a shout. I believe trescothick is one of the very good ODI openers. During the last decade, only time ENG looked good in batting is when they have tres,KP,colli,Flintoff at the same time probably around 6 months. Even then other two batters are pretty weak and are at the top of the order.

Trescothick, Pietersen and Flintoff appeared together in a sum-total of, IIRR, 7 ODIs. If they'd played together more, England might have had a better side.

Robin Smith, well, he's an interesting one - he really comes from an earlier time, played a good few ODIs in the 1980s and though he was still a damn good ODI player in the early-1990s he still started at the time when ODIs were not what we'd recognise them as now.

Trescothick, well, I've tended to put him just below the likes of Knight, Hick and Fairbrother but he is indeed one of the very few examples of an England ODI batsman who could be said to have excelled at the format.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Richard

Trescothick, Pietersen and Flintoff appeared together in a sum-total of, IIRR, 7 ODIs. If they'd played together more, England might have had a better side.

Robin Smith, well, he's an interesting one - he really comes from an earlier time, played a good few ODIs in the 1980s and though he was still a damn good ODI player in the early-1990s he still started at the time when ODIs were not what we'd recognise them as now.

Trescothick, well, I've tended to put him just below the likes of Knight, Hick and Fairbrother but he is indeed one of the very few examples of an England ODI batsman who could be said to have excelled at the format.

Isn't it 12? 5 V pakistan as well?