No English batsmen to cross 5000 ODI runs?

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[B]Country	250+ scores[/B]

AUS	4
IND	6
PAK	4
NZL	4
WIN	6
SAF	5
SRL	7
ZIM	1
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"][SIZE="3"]ENG	0[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
BDS	0
TOTAL	37

Surely these cant be explained by number of games played.

 

[Richard]

^ 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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Richard]

Didn't count the games against Bangladesh, they're not important - have just checked and it was actually 9, 7 against Australia and the first 2 against Pakistan. Thought someone missed 1 of the 7 against Australia in 2005, but they all played the lot.

 

[GIMH]

Still ODIs though, so I was right with 12 (or would that make it 11)

 

[andyc]

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.

Certainly is ludicrous that someone like Michael Vaughan managed to play 80+ ODIs with an average under 30 and no hundreds to his name, while also being pretty average in the field. Surely there must've been better one day bats going around.

 

[Richard]

Still ODIs though, so I was right with 12 (or would that make it 11)

Well, so was I really, when I say "ODIs" I mean "serious ODIs". You can be right as well if you prefer. :stuck-up smiley:

 

[Richard]

Certainly is ludicrous that someone like Michael Vaughan managed to play 80+ ODIs with an average under 30 and no hundreds to his name, while also being pretty average in the field. Surely there must've been better one day bats going around.

There were (though not that many who I'd have confidence in having had a particularly good chance of being ODI-class - which to some extent was the problem). But even on CW there was still no shortage of support among England fans for his retention, and posts stating they were sure he'd come good. And if there was some amount of support on CW, you can only imagine what it was like in the wider context.

 

[andyc]

There were (though not that many who I'd have confidence in having had a particularly good chance of being ODI-class - which to some extent was the problem). But even on CW there was still no shortage of support among England fans for his retention, and posts stating they were sure he'd come good. And if there was some amount of support on CW, you can only imagine what it was like in the wider context.

Haha. Mohammad Sami always looked like he was about to come good too...

 

[Richard]

It's actually a bit of a pity we can't do any really meaningful comparison there, because by 2006/07 even the most ardent Vaughan-has-always-had-it-in-him-in-ODIs-I-know-it types on CW had basically given-up. Likewise I've never heard a Pakistan fan on CW advocate the selection of Mohammad Sami for Tests or ODIs, but there basically weren't any in the days when he was still being picked regularly - 2003/04-2004/05 sort of time. The Pakistan-fan population has only begun to grow since it's become fairly unequivocal how awful Sami actually is.

It'd have been interesting to see what Pakistan-fan consensus would've been had Pakistan fans abounded on CW during the guts of Sami's career.

 

[Furball]

It's actually a bit of a pity we can't do any really meaningful comparison there, because by 2006/07 even the most ardent Vaughan-has-always-had-it-in-him-in-ODIs-I-know-it types on CW had basically given-up. Likewise I've never heard a Pakistan fan on CW advocate the selection of Mohammad Sami for Tests or ODIs, but there basically weren't any in the days when he was still being picked regularly - 2003/04-2004/05 sort of time. The Pakistan-fan population has only begun to grow since it's become fairly unequivocal how awful Sami actually is.

It'd have been interesting to see what Pakistan-fan consensus would've been had Pakistan fans abounded on CW during the guts of Sami's career.

They were still going on about the possibility on Sky when the West Indies toured in 2007 - Vaughan by this point had resigned the captaincy, but UIMM had never officially retired from the format the way Harmison had in Australia - and his last Test innings of that series saw him spank around disinterested West Indies bowlers who were bowling pies for a better than a run a ball 40 odd.

I'm sure either Hussain or Botham opined during that innings that Vaughan showed he could play aggressively and should still be in the ODI side.

 

[Richard]

Wouldn't be surprised. No, Vaughan never retired from ODIs (well, not until 2009 I suppose), he did an Alec Stewart and said "I'm still available if you want me, but I won't be around for the next World Cup and thus I understand if you don't want to pick me". Only Stewart went a bit further and said "I don't think you should pick me because I think you should be looking to the next Cup, but if you want to do otherwise I'll play".

"Vaughan has shown in a Test match that he can play aggressively so he should be able to succeed in ODIs" was a common theme all career. As I said, it just shows misunderstanding of how different Tests and ODIs are.

 

[GIMH]

Matt Prior is another good example of the same - can hit it about in Tests but that doesn't automatically make him a great ODI player.