Why is Englands one day team so different to the test team?

[Tim]

Yeah it could be that England juggled their lineup like that to suit 30 overs.
Although sometimes when your chasing a low-ish score you need some cool heads in the lineup rather than a couple of guys who might fire or get out in quick succession.

As for Styris, I think at times he's under utilised as a bowler. He seems to have a golden arm & take wickets at crucial periods. Apparently he's not a bad spin bowler & there could come a time very soon that Bracewell gives him the go ahead to try spin in a match.

If Styris can successfully convert himself to a spinner then that would balance the team even more.

 

[marc71178]

Collingwood, Blackwell, Flintoff & Clarke come nowhere near that & I don't think they ever will. Cairns & Oram (& I guess add in Styris) are a good combination if they keep up their recent form

Sorry, but if you're putting the Kiwis in that bracket, you cannot fail to put Flintoff in there - his record in ODI's is one of the best around at present, and he could easily go on to be an all-time great.

 

[badgerhair]

I'm guessing because they wanted to keep Hoggard fresh for the tests in a months time.

Collingwood is in the side as a batsman. he averages just under 35 in ODIs, and occasionally turns his arm over, but his role is as a batsman. He also brings a lot to the fielding. Clarke is a batting allrounder, although he has done quite well, in terms of wickets, when he'sm bowled. Flintoff should have really come in at 5, with collingwood at 4. I got the feeling that Blackwell only played yesterday as it was a 30 over game, so they needed some powerful hitters, other than just flintoff.

On Clarke, he' still young, and has been unlucky in getting out in his past innings. He's played some promising knocks and could be a decent little finisher along with collingwood.

Hoggard and Kirtley are just about equally useless in one-day cricket, although Kirtley does chuck and it can be hoped that he will attract the attention of umpires and referees, thus diverting attention from the general crapness of the rest of the side. Basically, as far as one-day cricket goes I regard Hoggard and Kirtley as identical - and their two-year figures (an arbitrary cutoff but one which is more likely to be of use in current selection dilemmas than career figures) appear to back me up on that, with their economy rates being 5.77 (MJH) v 5.76 (RJK), and they've both taken six wickets at around 60.

Hoggard's had enough difficulty getting his line and length disciplined enough to be useful in Tests when the ball isn't doing banana impressions, so getting him to louse it all up by trying to learn to bowl usefully in one-day nonsense seems dim in the extreme.

I generally approve of the idea of Blackwell in the side, if he's sorted out his attitiude and fitness problems. His off-spin is respectable enough for one-day nonsense and he is a powerful hitter. On yesterday's track, it probably made more sense (in overall game plan terms, anyway) to use medium pace than his spin - and it's for that reason that having people like Clarke able to be a proper fifth bowler if the need arises is sound team construction.

Like a lot of people on this board, I hae me doots about yon Clarke. But I find him a hell of a lot more convincing than McGrath, who appears to be the alternative. And the management appear determined to stick with him as they did with Flintoff and Harmison, the previous occupants of the "why is this idiot in the side?" spot, so there's not too much point in whining about him. And he doesn't have much other opportunity to learn about bowling: Surrey's side is stuffed with bowlers and they're hardly going to spend their time training Clarke for England's benefit when they've got trophies to try and win.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Flintoff is not a #4 for starters, Collingwood is ok at #5 but Blackwell & Clarke still have plenty of work to do to cement their spots IMO. Strauss too has only played a handful of ODI's and he has far too much responsibility coming in at 3 knowing that he's got 4 all-rounders and a keeper/batsman to come.
All of whom apart from Flintoff are non-established ODI players.

Flintoff is batting at 5 usually, not sure why he went at 4, probably for quick runs, but it didn't work on this occasion. However if you look at his record since he went to number 5 you certainly wouldn't say he's out of place there.

Oh, and have you just said that Collingwood isn't establisher, or were you talking about Strauss, Blackwell and Clarke?

 

[marc71178]

If Styris can successfully convert himself to a spinner then that would balance the team even more.

Would it lead to the removal of Vettori?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Basically, the whole all-rounder middle-order issue comes down to who would be a better selection as a specialist batsman than Blackwell [who also is selected as a spin option, meaning no Giles] and Clarke (given that Collingwood is picked in Tests as a specialist bat).

Barring Pietersen, I can't see another batsman to surpass Clarke by a large distance.

 

[Langeveldt]

Barring Pietersen, I can't see another batsman to surpass Clarke by a large distance.

Do you mean based on ability, or the selectorial whims of the ECB?

 

[Tim]

Marc, you failed to paste the rest of that paragraph where I said both Cairns & Oram were still not anything near that South African trio of 4 or 5 years ago either.

as a combination of 4 that english middle order isn't...but granted Flintoff by himself is good.

 

[PY]

Seemed to me, that England needed an experienced specialist batsman in that middle order to see them through like Chanderpaul did, which wasn't going to happen as specialism finished at 3 really. (I know Flintoff is good but not that good).

 

[Neil Pickup]

Do you mean based on ability, or the selectorial whims of the ECB?

Based on ability. Go on, name some.

 

[a massive zebra]

Ben Smith, David Sales, Matt Prior, Ed Smith, Andrew Strauss.

 

[badgerhair]

Seemed to me, that England needed an experienced specialist batsman in that middle order to see them through like Chanderpaul did, which wasn't going to happen as specialism finished at 3 really. (I know Flintoff is good but not that good).

England's *need* for this batsman to see them through isn't entirely obvious to me. Granted, if England had played better, they would have won more easily, but since England did win, can someone please explain what they *needed* which they didn't have?

The other thing I would like to have explained to me is how it is guaranteed that this putative experienced specialist batsman middle order whose job is to see the side through would not have got out in exactly as stupid a fashion as the relatively experienced (43 international one-day matches) specialist batsman in the middle order whose job it is to see the side through actually did.

The bloke everybody seems to want to magic up from nowhere is already in the side. He's called Paul Collingwood, and he played a bad shot.

There isn't anyone available to play in England's middle order who has substantially more experience: clamouring for Butcher just means you're bringing in another new face who has never played a one-day international.

There's nothing wrong with the make-up of the England ODI side except that most of the players haven't yet drilled their way into the public consciousness, which is hardly surprising given that no-one ever pays any attention to the one-day side for more than about eight minutes after the end of a a game.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Langeveldt]

Based on ability. Go on, name some.

Regardless of age, standing in the England pecking order, here are some better batsmen than rikki clarke...

Richard Montgomerie
Jim Troughton
Ian Bell
Vikram Solanki
Graham Hick
Ian Ward
Mark Butcher
Adam Hollioake
Tim Ambrose
Matthew Fleming
Rob Key
Dave Fulton
Matthew Walker
Trevor Ward
David Sales
Mark Wagh
John Crawley
Mark Ramprakash
Rob Turner
Paul Nixon
Mark Ealham
Paul Weekes
Ian Sutcliffe
Matthew Maynard
Tim Hancock
Matt Windows
Mark Alleyne
Jon Batty
Alistair Brown
Mark Chilton
Michael Powell
Michael Powell (glam)
Nasser Hussain
Ronnie Irani
Owais Shah
Will Jefferson


Okay there may be a couple of exceptions for whatever reason.. but there are a few guys there..

 

[Neil Pickup]

And now I'll go through them all and point out why they aren't playing ODIs

Richard Montgomerie - too old
Jim Troughton - I assume you missed last year's NatWest Series
Ian Bell - Needs a big year
Vikram Solanki - I assume this is a joke. He scares me
Graham Hick - Is Ramps here, too?
Ian Ward - Big success for England, he was
Mark Butcher - isn't gonna play ODIs - there's enough threads on it
Adam Hollioake - retired from International cricket
Tim Ambrose - not better than Clarke
Matthew Fleming - retired
Rob Key - er, no.
Dave Fulton - he's had his season
Matthew Walker - not better
Trevor Ward - serious?!
David Sales - one year wonder
Mark Wagh - see Bell
John Crawley - no chance matey
Mark Ramprakash -
Rob Turner - yes, OK, Richard, how about Carl Gazzard?
Paul Nixon - I said batsman
Mark Ealham - get out of it
Paul Weekes - off the basis of what, exactly?
Ian Sutcliffe - you been raiding your mate's stash again?
Matthew Maynard - name me the last decent Welsh cricketer, also old
Tim Hancock - the run machine (!)
Matt Windows - see Hancock
Mark Alleyne - retired, and I said batsman
Jon Batty - see Nixon
Alistair Brown - slogs too much
Mark Chilton - I told you, batsman
Michael Powell - after his last stunning three seasons
Michael Powell (glam) - based on?
Nasser Hussain - retired
Ronnie Irani - remind me of his Ashes
Owais Shah - of the wonderful ODI career
Will Jefferson - based on the start of last season and how much since

Heck, I'm starting to sound like a Rikki fan.

 

[Langeveldt]

And now I'll go through them all and point out why they aren't playing ODIs.

You told me to name better batsmen not ones close to ODI contention...

 

[badgerhair]

You don't necessarily have to be a Warks fan to think that Wagh, Bell and Troughton could all turn out better than Clarke, but there's no actual evidence for it - any more than there's evidence in Rikki's favour.

I'm very much in favour of the present policy of giving players plenty of chances to show their mettle before consigning them to the outer darkness, apparently forever. It's certainly better than a game here, two game there, and really not knowing anything very much about them after three years of sporadic appearances.

Currently Clarke and Collingwood are being given the chance to make the grade. Here's an idea: let's sit back and watch rather than spend our time complaining about their existence.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Langeveldt]

You don't necessarily have to be a Warks fan to think that Wagh, Bell and Troughton could all turn out better than Clarke, but there's no actual evidence for it - any more than there's evidence in Rikki's favour.

I'm very much in favour of the present policy of giving players plenty of chances to show their mettle before consigning them to the outer darkness, apparently forever. It's certainly better than a game here, two game there, and really not knowing anything very much about them after three years of sporadic appearances.

Currently Clarke and Collingwood are being given the chance to make the grade. Here's an idea: let's sit back and watch rather than spend our time complaining about their existence.

Cheers,

Mike

But most of us here knew he was mediocre before he even set foot in the England team.. So why does he need ODI caps just to prove it to us??

 

[marc71178]

Marc, you failed to paste the rest of that paragraph where I said both Cairns & Oram were still not anything near that South African trio of 4 or 5 years ago either.

Sorry, I misinterpreted the post - thought they were as individuals being compared with the South Africans, not as a unit.

 

[marc71178]

Ben Smith, David Sales, Matt Prior, Ed Smith, Andrew Strauss.

Right - is this supposed to be a list of players who should replace Rikki?

I would take him ahead of any of those 5 for an ODI.

 

[marc71178]

Regardless of age, standing in the England pecking order, here are some better batsmen than rikki clarke...

The list is snipped, but I thought I disliked him.

Evidentally not as much as you do though.

Some of those names suggest you've just bought Playfair and are listing people who don't have a little NQ by their name.