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

[Langeveldt]

Why, has a team who has enjoyed so much success in the Caribbean, just been chopped up and changed simply because the game is a 50 over affair?

Im seeing Chanderpaul hitting these mediocre medium pacers about, and thinking surely a quartet of Jones, Hoggard, Harmison and either Caddick/Gough/Johnson/Flintoff would stop the rot no?

Butcher, hardly a blocker has been absolutely stunning.. Him not playing ODI's is now just purely farcical....

I havent seen Graeme Thorpe, I stand corrected if he is actually playing...

Madness, thats two of the best batsmen, just discarded... What good are they watching in England
You cant tell me Rikki Clarke is a viable spot in the England team... Is he in just because they are playing in blue and not white?

 

[Swervy]

Why, has a team who has enjoyed so much success in the Caribbean, just been chopped up and changed simply because the game is a 50 over affair?

Im seeing Chanderpaul hitting these mediocre medium pacers about, and thinking surely a quartet of Jones, Hoggard, Harmison and either Caddick/Gough/Johnson/Flintoff would stop the rot no?

Butcher, hardly a blocker has been absolutely stunning.. Him not playing ODI's is now just purely farcical....

I havent seen Graeme Thorpe, I stand corrected if he is actually playing...

Madness, thats two of the best batsmen, just discarded... What good are they watching in England
You cant tell me Rikki Clarke is a viable spot in the England team... Is he in just because they are playing in blue and not white?

i do see some sense in it...they are trying to establish a constant ODI team in time for 2007...the result of these series arent that important so now is the time to get the youngsters some experience.

 

[a massive zebra]

Since when was Simon Jones good enough to get into the England one-day team? He doesn't even get into the Glamorgan one-day team. Not surprising, considering he has taken a remarkable 2 wickets for 258 in 7 one day games during his career while going at 6 an over. Simon Jones is substandard and should not be playing for England until he funds some control. He did not do all that well in the Tests in all honesty. The little success he had was largely brought about by the West Indies being put under pressure by batting collapses at the other end (Harmison in first few tests, Hoggard hat-trick) and a resulting lack of both form and confidence by the West Indies batsmen.

Agree that the selectors must have been at the Whisky when they dropped Thorpe in favour of Strauss/Solanki/Clarke. Butcher does deserve a chance after his consistent form in the last few years, although his strike rate in Tests is similar to Hussain, who was never a particularly good one-day player.

 

[Langeveldt]

I wasnt aware that Jones was so weak at the One day stuff...

You cant argue that Butcher has been full of shots in the carribean... The guy might not be a hitter, but he has the shots i think would do well in the One day setup... If he has a low SR, i think that may be due to the pre 2001 stuff...

 

[marc71178]

Re: Thorpe - I believe he retired from ODIs?

As for the attack we've got, I don't think it's *that* bad - Would've liked to see Anderson in there but can understand why he wasn't in this game - for 30 overs economy is more important than 50, so his style isn't quite as critical.

Certainly an attack led by Gough, Flintoff and Anderson is not shabby, and if Harmison can transfer his Test form then it's looking a tidy line up.

 

[gio]

Strauss looked good today, got out to a rash stroke, but top scored for England. I reckon Thorpe or Butch could play instead of, perhaps, Rikki Clarke or Ian Blackwell. But the balance of the side seems about right...

Vaughan, Strauss and Tres are the strokemakers (albeit, tres being an ugly one); Freddie and Blackwell are the big hitters, whilst Collingwood, Read and Clarke are the finishers (i.e. a bit of nurdling and big hitting). I would have put Collingwood at 4 today, instead of Flintoff. But overall i think the balance is about right, and could be challenge for '07 world cup.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think Thorpe 'got' retired from ODI's.

I see no logic whatsoever in either
a) having a totally different team for ODI's as opposed to tests
or
b) building now with 2007 in mind.

The whole idea of picking ODI 'specialists' or even players who are relatively inexperienced at the longer version of the game (e.g. Clarke) is totally flawed IMO.

Learn how to play cricket, then learn how to apply yourself to the shorter version of the game.

I'm old - that explains why I keep agreeing with the likes of Boycott, Lloyd and Botham. Just ignore me.

 

[badgerhair]

I think Thorpe 'got' retired from ODI's.

I see no logic whatsoever in either
a) having a totally different team for ODI's as opposed to tests
or
b) building now with 2007 in mind.

The whole idea of picking ODI 'specialists' or even players who are relatively inexperienced at the longer version of the game (e.g. Clarke) is totally flawed IMO.

The theory of building with 2007 in mind is that the teams which did best at the 2003 World Cup were those which had been together longest. And that there is no point in bringing in new people for the short term.

Thorpe has no desire at all to play one-dayers. Not playing one-dayers gives him time with his kids, which is more important. Hussain has also retired from one-day cricket. That leaves Butcher, and they don't want to pick him. So they have to pick three more players. They pick Strauss, everybody's tip as the replacement for Trescothick in the Test team, Collingwood and Clarke, who have already both played Test matches.

If they have to replace the three middle order batsmen, two of them because they are most definitely unavailable and the third because they don't see him as part of the future, which three other batsmen should they have picked but the ones who are the obvious next cabs off the rank for the Test side in the continued absence of Pietersen?

Otherwise, we are crying tears over the omission of Giles, are we? And disappointed that Raed still remains in the side despite having been supplanted by Jones in the Test side?

There is clearly a legitimate point to be made about Butcher, but I fail to see what the brouhaha is about the rest of the changes made.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[a massive zebra]

The whole idea of picking ODI 'specialists' or even players who are relatively inexperienced at the longer version of the game (e.g. Clarke) is totally flawed IMO.

Learn how to play cricket, then learn how to apply yourself to the shorter version of the game.

I'm old - that explains why I keep agreeing with the likes of Boycott, Lloyd and Botham. Just ignore me.

Your point is valid in theory, because if you are a good player you should be able to adapt to one day cricket, and as players like Tendulkar, Lara, Richards and Greenidge have shown, this is often true. But don't forget that sometimes one day specialists work. Knight and Fairbrother were two of England's best ever one-day batsmen but they failed dismally in the longer version of the game. Furthermore, the man with probably the best record of all one-day international batsmen, Michael Bevan, was found out in Tests.

On the bowling front, surely different skills are need in Tests and One-day. In Tests need to be penetrative if the opposition are going to be dismissed cheaply, while keeping the runs down is more important in One-Day games. Consequently, aggressive pace bowlers might be less valuable in ODIs because they substitute accuracy for pace, and therefore go for runs.

 

[luckyeddie]

Otherwise, we are crying tears over the omission of Giles, are we? And disappointed that Raed still remains in the side despite having been supplanted by Jones in the Test side?

There is clearly a legitimate point to be made about Butcher, but I fail to see what the brouhaha is about the rest of the changes made.

Cheers,

Mike

Heaven forbid on either of your points re Giles and Read. Where on earth do you get such strange ideas?

I just don't like the idea of having 4 'all-rounders' in the side going in 4-7 - it adds just one thing - fragility.

 

[badgerhair]

But if you're going to call Collingwood an all-rounder, you are then presumably objecting to having all-rounders opening the batting as well. Trescothick bowled more overs than Collingwood did today. Collingwood is a batsman who can turn his arm over, not an all-rounder. And that's what he will be when he replaces Graham Thorpe in the Test side too.

It is also my understanding that England see Clarke as primarily a batsman, but that they welcome his bowling as something else which it is useful to have around.

So although you want to see Collingwood and Clarke as all-rounders, England are playing them as batsmen who can bowl a bit (and in one case might well be able to bowl quite well, which happens to be a bonus). But they are the next candidates (apart from KP) for the specialist *batting* positions in the England side.

It seems to me that your unease at "all-rounders" (in the loose sense which one-day cricket seems to promote) amounts to being annoyed with batsmen because they happen to be slightly better than net bowlers or even aspire to be quite good ones.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Tim]

I think NZ are just lucky enough to play 2 all-rounders. I think to play 4 all-rounders, they'd have to be world class because otherwise it makes your middle order look fairly vunerable.

Up until the South African series I thought that playing 2 all-rounders was a bad move by NZ, but Cairns has at least regained form with the bat & Oram continues to progress well with both bat & ball. I don't think we could get away with anymore all-rounders batting between 4 & 8 though.

There is a good reason for playing 4 all-rounders because it gives you plenty of options, but as I said if they're not really good then it can easily backfire.

 

[Tim]

Certainly 4 or 5 years ago when Klusener was at his peak & South Africa had Kallis, Pollock & a few others batting & bowling, that was a prime example of how well a team stacked of all-rounders can work for you providing of course that they're quality players.

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 but again I don't think they'll ever get to the level of the South African trio because Cairns is pretty much at the end of his career now.

I'd agree with LE. I'd put money on it that Thorpe would still be a good ODI player & perhaps the right player to mix with Collingwood, Flintoff & i'd pick Blackwell basically because he varies the attack with his spin.

 

[Tim]

Im prepared to eat humble pie if this backfires in June but I can't see the current make-up of the English side beating NZ in ODI's.

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.

NZ went through the same phase I might add, but recently I think they got the right balance for once.

I presume if all goes to plan NZ will have:

Fleming, Astle, Marshall, Styris, McMillan, Cairns, Oram, McCullum, Vettori, Bond & Tuffey.

Now Marshall or McMillan are the likely candidates to be left out for poor form so Papps would come in at opener & Astle would drop to #3.
Personally i'd consider leaving McMillan out, playing Papps at opener & dropping Marshall to #5 with Astle at #3.

If England beat that side with their current team in the Windies then it'll be a mighty achievement. If they bring in Thorpe & maybe another good batsman then i'll definately reconsider what i've just said.

 

[luckyeddie]

But if you're going to call Collingwood an all-rounder, you are then presumably objecting to having all-rounders opening the batting as well. Trescothick bowled more overs than Collingwood did today. Collingwood is a batsman who can turn his arm over, not an all-rounder. And that's what he will be when he replaces Graham Thorpe in the Test side too.

It is also my understanding that England see Clarke as primarily a batsman, but that they welcome his bowling as something else which it is useful to have around.

So although you want to see Collingwood and Clarke as all-rounders, England are playing them as batsmen who can bowl a bit (and in one case might well be able to bowl quite well, which happens to be a bonus). But they are the next candidates (apart from KP) for the specialist *batting* positions in the England side.

It seems to me that your unease at "all-rounders" (in the loose sense which one-day cricket seems to promote) amounts to being annoyed with batsmen because they happen to be slightly better than net bowlers or even aspire to be quite good ones.

Cheers,

Mike

Qualifying all-rounders

Yesterday was (seemed to be) a bit of an oddity - it was only the 5th time Trescothick had bowled in 76 internationals, whereas it was only the 5th time Blackwell hadn't bowled. Since WC2003, Collingwood hasn't turned his arm over as often as before, but he's still bowled in something like two thirds of his odi's.

So, no, I do not have to 'object to all-rounders opening the batting' - in this case, at least, because Trescothick IS in the side primarily as a batsman.

It's just the balance of the side which looks wrong to me, although as you pointed out, Pietersen will be a shoe-in when the time comes, and if we had openers who COULD open an innings, we wouldn't have to play three of them so I could have my beloved specialist (i.e. good) batsman.

 

[Tim]

Of course, i've also forgotten Chris Harris who has suddenly re-emerged after the last 2 ODI's against South Africa. His batting was so much better, he looked as sharp in the field as i've ever seen him & he looked to be bowling quite well too.

Perhaps Chris Harris batting at #5 instead of McMillan?
If he continues his form, ideally he'd be the complete package for NZ at #5 because he's able to defend or attack when required & his fielding & bowling gives him more points.

I seriously hope the last 2 ODI's weren't a one off because he'd be excellent at #5 considering there are so many aggressive batsmen around him (Styris, Cairns, Oram & McCullum).

 

[Magrat Garlick]

The theory of building with 2007 in mind is that the teams which did best at the 2003 World Cup were those which had been together longest. And that there is no point in bringing in new people for the short term.

Thorpe has no desire at all to play one-dayers. Not playing one-dayers gives him time with his kids, which is more important. Hussain has also retired from one-day cricket. That leaves Butcher, and they don't want to pick him. So they have to pick three more players. They pick Strauss, everybody's tip as the replacement for Trescothick in the Test team, Collingwood and Clarke, who have already both played Test matches.

If they have to replace the three middle order batsmen, two of them because they are most definitely unavailable and the third because they don't see him as part of the future, which three other batsmen should they have picked but the ones who are the obvious next cabs off the rank for the Test side in the continued absence of Pietersen?

Otherwise, we are crying tears over the omission of Giles, are we? And disappointed that Raed still remains in the side despite having been supplanted by Jones in the Test side?

There is clearly a legitimate point to be made about Butcher, but I fail to see what the brouhaha is about the rest of the changes made.

Cheers,

Mike

I notice you fail to mention Hoggard at all? OK, I know the bloke has a poor ODI economy, but Kirtley's is even worse, and he can't even take wickets. They seem to have similar actions - so why is Kirtley picked over Hoggard for the ODIs?

 

[gio]

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.

 

[tooextracool]

Certainly 4 or 5 years ago when Klusener was at his peak & South Africa had Kallis, Pollock & a few others batting & bowling, that was a prime example of how well a team stacked of all-rounders can work for you providing of course that they're quality players.

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 but again I don't think they'll ever get to the level of the South African trio because Cairns is pretty much at the end of his career now.

I'd agree with LE. I'd put money on it that Thorpe would still be a good ODI player & perhaps the right player to mix with Collingwood, Flintoff & i'd pick Blackwell basically because he varies the attack with his spin.

1) collingwood is not an all rounder. he is the successor to nasser hussain's test spot.
2)if u think styis is an all rounder then ur obviously out of ur mind. hes a batsman who can bowl a bit.
3) the english management would not want to play thorpe in ODI's because thorpe himself doesnt want to play ODIs and also because when players are 34 they tend to focus on one form of the game so that they are fit and can play for a longer period. with thorpes goal being that he should be avaiable for the next ashes tour i dont think they want to take any risks and put him in the ODI squad.
4)rikki clarke is absolutely useless. i cant believe he was on the test side instead of strauss
5)yes they are one batsman short and i think pieterson would be ideal to take that spot from clarke

 

[tooextracool]

I notice you fail to mention Hoggard at all? OK, I know the bloke has a poor ODI economy, but Kirtley's is even worse, and he can't even take wickets. They seem to have similar actions - so why is Kirtley picked over Hoggard for the ODIs?

hoggard is not suited to the ODIs because he tends to pitch the ball up looking for swing. bowling like that in an ODI players from chanderpaul to dillon are going to smash him out of the park. hoggard doesnt have a good yorker and slower ball either.so how can someone like him be in the team? albeit kirtley is also innocuous,IMO anderson should start ahead of him for the next game.