England announce Zimbabwe Squad

[superkingdave]

http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE...7-28JUL2004/LANCS_WARWICKS_NLF_27JUL2004.html

Mongia scored century, Knight went absolutely ballistic as Lancs took cheeky overthrows and a slow over rate made the final victory easy

 

[Neil Pickup]

I thought we were talking about Atherton, hence got confused by vs Lancs.

Ignore me

 

[Richard]

It doesn't matter when the rule was brought in.

It was only in 1996 that the aggressive opener ploy came into play.

No, it was only after WC96 that it became a wide-ranging ploy.
Aggressive openers have always been part of both forms of the game. However, so have defensive openers.

 

[Richard]

not like that would have made much of a difference to atherton, doubt he would have tried to hit the ball over the in field. 58 is poor regardless of the era, he was distinctly average ODI player, and i doubt he would have been selected had he been playing ATM.

I'd take him over Solanki or Vaughan anyday!
And have you stopped to think about the fact that players are influenced by the situation - ODI cricket is far more frenetic than it was by-and-large in Atherton's day. Most players mould their game to fit this - Justin Langer since his return in 2001, for instance - and Atherton was more than good enough to do the same.

 

[Richard]

no a mediocre average and a poor SR is not good enough for any player let alone an opener to be part of a side. you seem to be indicating as though atherton turned out to be a glorious ODI success when the fact is that he barely merited selection in the side.....

I'm doing nothing of the sort - merely pointing-out that Atherton was a better ODI player than many batsmen who've failed even to score runs at all.
Just because you're an opener, BTW, doesn't mean you are expected to have a higher average than someone who bats regularly at three, four or five.

because thats what it takes to be a good ODI player?

Like the First-Class game, no runs are the worst scenario of all. Slow runs are the next worse.
Score runs first - worry about the pace you're scoring them at second.

 

[marc71178]

No, it was only after WC96 that it became a wide-ranging ploy.
Aggressive openers have always been part of both forms of the game. However, so have defensive openers.

Of course they have because there are aggressive and defensive batsmen.

The aggressive opening in ODI's only became a well-used tactic after WC96 though.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd take him over Solanki or Vaughan anyday!

both of whom have more potential than atherton did in ODIs. of course since they havent lived up to it then i dont see why they shouldnt be dropped. if you picked atherton, he would have been dropped sooner or later anyways.

And have you stopped to think about the fact that players are influenced by the situation - ODI cricket is far more frenetic than it was by-and-large in Atherton's day. Most players mould their game to fit this - Justin Langer since his return in 2001, for instance - and Atherton was more than good enough to do the same.

err no, athertons SR was poor for his day too.....

 

[tooextracool]

I'm doing nothing of the sort - merely pointing-out that Atherton was a better ODI player than many batsmen who've failed even to score runs at all.

yes so now we should base our selections by comparing players to rikki clarke? you said that atherton turned out to be a good ODI player which is why someone like bell could do the same, but i just pointed out that atherton was far from a success in ODIs.

Just because you're an opener, BTW, doesn't mean you are expected to have a higher average than someone who bats regularly at three, four or five..

no you are either supposed to have a high average or a high SR(given that neither of them are extremely poor), atherton had neither.

Like the First-Class game, no runs are the worst scenario of all. Slow runs are the next worse.
Score runs first - worry about the pace you're scoring them at second.

how often do you keep going off topic? the fact is that you dont pick a player just because he turned out better than solanki!

 

[Craig]

It doesn't matter when the rule was brought in.

It was only in 1996 that the aggressive opener ploy came into play.

What about in the 1992 World Cup where New Zealand's openers when after everything and anything. And this included the late great Malcolm Marshall.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ignore me

Finally! A clear conscience!

 

[marc71178]

What about in the 1992 World Cup where New Zealand's openers when after everything and anything. And this included the late great Malcolm Marshall.

Yes they did, but did it lead to others copying it?

However after 1996 it did change tactics.

 

[wpdavid]

Yes they did, but did it (NZ in 1992) lead to others copying it?

However after 1996 it did change tactics.

It wasn't just NZ in 1992 - we promoted Botham to open in that tournament. And, IIRC, our idea of an attacking opener in 1996 was Neil Smith (!), so the idea already more widely in place than some would suggest. It would be interesting to look at all of the opening pairs in 1996, but I suspect the trend was already underway by then.

 

[wpdavid]

OK, I've done my homework now.
By 1996, Aus had promoted Mark Waugh to open with Taylor, India had promoted SRT to open with Sidhu and NZ had Astle opening with Spearman. WI had Chanderpaul & Browne. SA & Pakistan had their regular openers, AFAICS. England's experiment with Neil Smith only lasted a handful of games and they eventually had Robin Smith opening.

The interesting thing about SL is how unsuccessful Jayasuria & Kalu actually were, given how significant they are supposed to have been. If we look at their 5 games against test-playing sides, Jayasuria only succeeded twice - against India at the group stage and against England in the quarter final. Kalu was actually a complete failure. The only time he reached double figures was 26 in the group game against india.

 

[Richard]

both of whom have more potential than atherton did in ODIs. of course since they havent lived up to it then i dont see why they shouldnt be dropped. if you picked atherton, he would have been dropped sooner or later anyways.

Err, well, he was dropped, wasn't he?

err no, athertons SR was poor for his day too.....

Yes, it was, but I'm pretty confident that he'd have scored at about 70 had his career have started in, say, 1995 (which would mean he would be at about the height of his powers now).

 

[Richard]

yes so now we should base our selections by comparing players to rikki clarke? you said that atherton turned out to be a good ODI player which is why someone like bell could do the same, but i just pointed out that atherton was far from a success in ODIs.

I never said he turned-out good, I just said there have been many, many worse than him.
And I've also said that I think Bell isn't quite the same as Atherton, and that's why I think he could be a pretty good one-day player.

no you are either supposed to have a high average or a high SR(given that neither of them are extremely poor), atherton had neither.

And 35 is a much higher average than most people who have played ODIs. It's not exceptional, no, and I've never claimed it was (which is probably why Atherton played just one ODI from 1997 onwards), but I have claimed it is better than what you have dismissed it as - extremely poor.

how often do you keep going off topic? the fact is that you dont pick a player just because he turned out better than solanki!

And I'm not just talking about Solanki, I'm talking about the many, many players who turned-out like him - occasionally scored quick runs, mostly scored no runs.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, well, he was dropped, wasn't he?

yes he was, at a time when england were one of the worst ODI teams in intl cricket.

Yes, it was, but I'm pretty confident that he'd have scored at about 70 had his career have started in, say, 1995 (which would mean he would be at about the height of his powers now).

and im pretty confident he wouldnt have, atherton just wasnt good enough to play ODI cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

I never said he turned-out good, I just said there have been many, many worse than him.
And I've also said that I think Bell isn't quite the same as Atherton, and that's why I think he could be a pretty good one-day player.

and if atherton didnt turn out so good then why use him as an example to show that bell will succeed.....atherton didnt prove anybody wrong, he did exactly what was expected of him.

And 35 is a much higher average than most people who have played ODIs. It's not exceptional, no, and I've never claimed it was (which is probably why Atherton played just one ODI from 1997 onwards), but I have claimed it is better than what you have dismissed it as - extremely poor..

no i said that it was extremely poor with the SR.....

And I'm not just talking about Solanki, I'm talking about the many, many players who turned-out like him - occasionally scored quick runs, mostly scored no runs.

yes and if they didnt then they didnt deserve to be in the side. of course someone who averages 33-34 with a SR in the 90s like sehwag or jaysuriya are definetly good enough to be playing consistently.

 

[Richard]

yes he was, at a time when england were one of the worst ODI teams in intl cricket.

And they dropped him in an attempt to improve... an attempt that, despite about 50 false-dawns, has yet to show any real evidence of bearing fruit...

and im pretty confident he wouldnt have, atherton just wasnt good enough to play ODI cricket.

Atherton played several ODI innings that would have been good in any era, and I believe the type of cricketer he was, an adapdible one, he'd have made himself a better ODI player had he played in an era where it was more important.
Remember, even up to about 2001 the thought of even the possibility of compromising your strength in Test-matches in order to improve in ODIs was, for an Englishman, about the most heinous crime in cricket.

 

[Richard]

and if atherton didnt turn out so good then why use him as an example to show that bell will succeed.....atherton didnt prove anybody wrong, he did exactly what was expected of him.

I didn't - I said Bell is like Atherton in some ways, and because of that people might suspect that he would turn-out to be a similar one-day player to Atherton - and IMO he could be better.

no i said that it was extremely poor with the SR.....

Except that IMO it's not extremely poor - it's just not especially good.

yes and if they didnt then they didnt deserve to be in the side. of course someone who averages 33-34 with a SR in the 90s like sehwag or jaysuriya are definetly good enough to be playing consistently.

Sehwag's average at the top of the order until recently was above 40, and combined with his strike-rate made him a phenomenon. Perhaps it was inevitable that he was drop-off the way he has in the last couple of series...
Equally, if you've got some players like Sehwag, Jayasuriya, Gilchrist you need players like Atherton - ideally striking at 68 rather than 58.

 

[tooextracool]

And they dropped him in an attempt to improve... an attempt that, despite about 50 false-dawns, has yet to show any real evidence of bearing fruit....

of course atherton wouldnt have made much of a difference anyways.

Atherton played several ODI innings that would have been good in any era, and I believe the type of cricketer he was, an adapdible one, he'd have made himself a better ODI player had he played in an era where it was more important.
Remember, even up to about 2001 the thought of even the possibility of compromising your strength in Test-matches in order to improve in ODIs was, for an Englishman, about the most heinous crime in cricket.

yes he played a few, but on the whole those were few and far between and his overall SR and average show that. atherton while not being a miserable failure was a failure nonetheless. everyone knew he could bat in ODI cricket but they knew that he couldnt do it aggressively enough.