Vaughan quits as ODI captain

[GIMH]

He's only 22 (he's a year older than me) but he's actually been around a fair while now. OK, you don't expect people to be tearing it up at the age of 16 (even though James Harris did not so long ago) which was how old Bresnan was when he made his debut (and I saw that game). But, well... if he was going to do something notable I'd expect him to have done it by now, really. I might be wrong, but I just can't see anything changing in his case.

Yeah, the team I'd pick now would be completely different to the one I'd have picked in February. It's a bit tricky at the moment, though, as I've not been able to keep as close an eye on the domestic scene as I usually do at the start of this season. I must catch-up before I name a team - I don't want to pick someone without knowing about his season's record of 5.31-an-over at 73.

Isn't that Saj's ODi record?

 

[Pup Clarke]

If Bresnan isn't good enough, who the heck is? Andy Caddick?

He's better than Bresnan that's for sure.

 

[gio]

He's better than Bresnan that's for sure.

Ha, I'm not even denying it. Always liked Andy Caddick, always remember that performance against the WI in 2000.

 

[Richard]

Well... sadly (and I'll say it again - haven't followed much this season so he could be 3.51-an-over at 21 and back to his best for all I know) Caddick's OD form has been utterly woeful since 2004. Not much better than Bresnan's.

Why that should be, though, I'm really not sure. But it's completely ruined his career record, which is a crying shame.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I know this is off topic but could someone please tell me how to sig quotes?. It's really bugging me that I don't know how.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bare in mind I'm only going by match reports here - I've seen that Bresnan has been pretty economical and performed very well in good bowling attack at Yorkshire. He's regularly picked up wickets and out performed team mates such as Jason Gillespie, Darren Gough et all.

James Anderson has not played well for England since 2003, and has not done much better for Lancashire. Do you really see James Anderson as being the man to lead England to OD success?

On Anderson:

Well, he's not the ideal bowler by any means - given his injury problems and his apparent inconsistencies. However, to say he hasn't performed for England since 2003 is a gross oversight - he's done so several times in one day cricket and is very under-rated as a one day bowler. His test efforts have been dissapointing, but he has actually been treated a bit harshly in ODI cricket (after being picked initially before he was ready - both physically and as a bowler in general). His inconsistencies are often spoken of, however I think they are an effect of his injury problems - he's in and out of the side so often, that even when he is in form, he then loses his rhythm due to missing a game or so. Obviously, this remains a problem as there is nothing to suggest thus far that he won't continue to get injured with regularity, however he has definitely still done enough to suggest he should be persisted with in the ODI setup - especially if the next best options are Bresnan and Onions!

On Bresnan:

Picking players in good form sounds like a good idea in theory, but is it really? Unless the plan is to rush players in for three games and then rush them out again, I don't see the logic in picking someone just because they've done well in the short-term past. It can really have adverse effects both long and short term - for one, good form from poor players often doesn't translate to the international level, depending on the reasons the players are poor. Something a lot of people overlook though, is the cyclical nature of form itself. Most things in cricket are somewhat cyclical, but form in sports is by definition - it actually refers to the cyclical ups and downs of a player's performances. Picking someone at the top of their merely because it is so can have adverse effects long term, even if the form translates itself. Lets say Brensan, supposedly in good form, translates his form to England colours and does well for a series or two because of it. Well, like all form, his will balance out and his low points will come to the fore, and he'll get hammered - yet the selectors will still live in hope after seeing his first few games, only to persist with him for two years before realising he isn't very good and then cast him aside as "inconsistent." For this reason, I say the fact that Bresnan is in good form is actually a reason not to pick him - "good form" suggests that he's at a cyclical peak and that his performances recently have been anomalitic. Given he averages over 39 with the ball in List A cricket at an economy rate of over 5, his mean performances obviously aren't very good - in fact they are shocking - so why pick him?

And, even stepping aside from that, how good is his form? I had a look on cricinfo to see if his one day bowling had improved, and it hadn't, really. In fact, it has been ridiculously dire this season - he's actually in bad form. He's averaging 63 with an economy rate of 6.58. It'd be just as moronic to select him now as it was when he was selected originally - if not moreso!

 

[Prince EWS]

James Anderson has performed well for England on several occassions in one day cricket since 2003, actually, and is a highly under-rated one day bowler. He's a bit inconsistent yes, but that has IMO been mainly a result of his injuries which have seen him go in and out of the side with such regularity.

He's not the perfect bowler by any means, but he's certainly done enough to command his place in the England ODI side for the time being - especially if the best alternatives are Bresnan and Onions.

Hah - I didn't know that sent. I thought it got lost somewhere, and I got angry enough to type it out again and thensome. I think/hope my second post ended up better anyway.

 

[gio]

On Anderson:

Well, he's not the ideal bowler by any means - given his injury problems and his apparent inconsistencies. However, to say he hasn't performed for England since 2003 is a gross oversight - he's done so several times in one day cricket and is very under-rated as a one day bowler. His test efforts have been dissapointing, but he has actually been treated a bit harshly in ODI cricket (after being picked initially before he was ready - both physically and as a bowler in general). His inconsistencies are often spoken of, however I think they are an effect of his injury problems - he's in and out of the side so often, that even when he is in form, he then loses his rhythm due to missing a game or so. Obviously, this remains a problem as there is nothing to suggest thus far that he won't continue to get injured with regularity, however he has definitely still done enough to suggest he should be persisted with in the ODI setup - especially if the next best options are Bresnan and Onions!

On Bresnan:

Picking players in good form sounds like a good idea in theory, but is it really? Unless the plan is to rush players in for three games and then rush them out again, I don't see the logic in picking someone just because they've done well in the short-term past. It can really have adverse effects both long and short term - for one, good form from poor players often doesn't translate to the international level, depending on the reasons the players are poor. Something a lot of people overlook though, is the cyclical nature of form itself. Most things in cricket are somewhat cyclical, but form in sports is by definition - it actually refers to the cyclical ups and downs of a player's performances. Picking someone at the top of their merely because it is so can have adverse effects long term, even if the form translates itself. Lets say Brensan, supposedly in good form, translates his form to England colours and does well for a series or two because of it. Well, like all form, his will balance out and his low points will come to the fore, and he'll get hammered - yet the selectors will still live in hope after seeing his first few games, only to persist with him for two years before realising he isn't very good and then cast him aside as "inconsistent." For this reason, I say the fact that Bresnan is in good form is actually a reason not to pick him - "good form" suggests that he's at a cyclical peak and that his performances recently have been anomalitic. Given he averages over 39 with the ball in List A cricket at an economy rate of over 5, his mean performances obviously aren't very good - in fact they are shocking - so why pick him?

And, even stepping aside from that, how good is his form? I had a look on cricinfo to see if his one day bowling had improved, and it hadn't, really. In fact, it has been ridiculously dire this season - he's actually in bad form. He's averaging 63 with an economy rate of 6.58. It'd be just as moronic to select him now as it was when he was selected originally - if not moreso!

Yet in FC cricket, he's taken 20 wickets @ 25, including a match winning spell against Worcestershire, I think it was. Comapred to Anderson's 15 odd wickets at 30-odd. At least Bresnan's shown some form.

I'd like to just say that I'm not some sort of Tim Bresnan brown noser, I'm just trying to find alternatives to the pretty dire situation that is England's bowling attack.

 

[Prince EWS]

But Anderson's not exactly in form this season. That may have something to do with Murali 'stealing' his wickets, but what he's done is nothing compared to what Bresnan's done this season.

See, comments like this are what get me. For the record...

ODI Career
Anderson - Avg: 27.75, RPO: 4.79
Bresnan - Avg: 84.50, RPO: 6.76

List-A Career
Anderson - Avg: 26.11, RPO: 4.66
Bresnan - Avg: 39.37, RPO: 5.07

List-A matches this season
Anderson - Avg: 32.66, RPO: 4.26
Bresnan - Avg: 63.00, RPO: 6.58

Anyone who can still tell me Bresnan should be picked is really kidding themselves after that. Please.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yet in FC cricket, he's taken 20 wickets @ 25, including a match winning spell against Worcestershire, I think it was. Comapred to Anderson's 15 odd wickets at 30-odd. At least Bresnan's shown some form.

I'd like to just say that I'm not some sort of Tim Bresnan brown noser, I'm just trying to find alternatives to the pretty dire situation that is England's bowling attack.

What does first class cricket have to do with ODIs though? Furthermore, if he was in good form, which he clearly isn't, refer to my second paragraph.

 

[gio]

But Anderson has been tried time and again and has shown that he still isn't good enough. I'm not suggesting Bresnan is going to be the next McGrath, I just think he should be given another chance, as last year was a complete farce. Perhaps it is still too early for Bresnan, I didn't realise his List A performances were that bad. But he's certainly done a lot better in FC cricket this year.

 

[Prince EWS]

But Anderson has been tried time and again and has shown that he still isn't good enough.

No he hasn't though. That's a myth.

I just think he should be given another chance, as last year was a complete farce.

Really, Bresnan probably shouldn't even be in the Yorkshire one day team. It would make as much sense to give me a chance. A least there's no evidence that I'm completely dire at this point in time. Bresnan has an awful record and has had an awful one-day season.

 

[gio]

What does first class cricket have to do with ODIs though? Furthermore, if he was in good form, which he clearly isn't, refer to my second paragraph.

Your second paragraph is pretty sound in theory, but when thinking of real situations, I don't believe it necessarily rings true. If players go in with good form, and perform well, they will clearly gain confidence. If someone goes in with bad form, chances are he will get spanked around the park, and lose any spirit he once had. We don't want to fall back into the trap of picking players out of form, like England did so much throughout the 90s.

 

[wpdavid]

TBH, I wasn't completely sold on him, especially in the shorter game. He demonstrated, in the WC, an absolutely astonishingly calmness and sensibility. But he doesn't immediately strike me as a ODI-standard player at the current time. And his domestic record is hardly outstanding to back that up. However, in the longer game he's enjoying a great stint at the moment and I think he'd do well to continue that as long as possible.

Liam (Pup Clarke) has answered my question and this is probably the most appropriate time to say... you've uploaded an avatar!!!!!! This is certainly the first time I've ever seen you with one... is this perminant?

It certainly is the first time I've had one and, as GIMH says, it's all his fault. It'll probably stay there a while, at least during the current Fabsfest that's happening on these boards. After that, maybe I'll put one of the kids there. Who knows?

 

[Prince EWS]

Your second paragraph is pretty sound in theory, but when thinking of real situations, I don't believe it necessarily rings true. If players go in with good form, and perform well, they will clearly gain confidence. If someone goes in with bad form, chances are he will get spanked around the park, and lose any spirit he once had. We don't want to fall back into the trap of picking players out of form, like England did so much throughout the 90s.

Obviously picking out-of-form players isn't the ideal situation either. However, there is really nothing more detrimental to the team in a long-term sense than picking a poor player in good form - form is cyclical, bad form will arise, and he'll get an extended run based on the hope of good form returning, when the truth of the matter is, they aren't very good over the course of their form cycle.

 

[gio]

No he hasn't though. That's a myth.

He's been very inconsistent for England. That's not a myth. One match he'll bowl well take a few wickets @ <4.5 rpo, next he'll bowl 6 overs for 60. He needs to find consistency - too often is he called up to a struggling England squad and struggled, when he could be finding his feet in the County game. I really think England have spoiled Anderson. He showed such promise at the last world cup, but England have treated him poorly time and again since then and he's suffered as a result. We need move on for time being, and letting him have a full season of county cricket, with no internation call ups complicating things, might be the best thing for him.

 

[gio]

Obviously picking out-of-form players isn't the ideal situation either. However, there is really nothing more detrimental to the team in a long-term sense than picking a poor player in good form - form is cyclical, bad form will arise, and he'll get an extended run based on the hope of good form returning, when the truth of the matter is, they aren't very good over the course of their form cycle.

You've already admitted yourself you think Bresnan could have a future. Give him a chance, if he doesn't cut it, leave him alone for a few years. A call up may be the thing makes him, as you say, 'click' and become a real quality bowler.

 

[Richard]

Obviously picking out-of-form players isn't the ideal situation either. However, there is really nothing more detrimental to the team in a long-term sense than picking a poor player in good form - form is cyclical, bad form will arise, and he'll get an extended run based on the hope of good form returning, when the truth of the matter is, they aren't very good over the course of their form cycle.

Basically - picking a player who's in-form but not a proven long-term performer is a very bad idea.

But picking a good player out of form is a terrible idea, too.

 

[Prince EWS]

You've already admitted yourself you think Bresnan could have a future. Give him a chance, if he doesn't cut it, leave him alone for a few years. A call up may be the thing makes him, as you say, 'click' and become a real quality bowler.

He could have a future. He most certainly does not have a present though.

 

[Prince EWS]

He's been very inconsistent for England. That's not a myth. One match he'll bowl well take a few wickets @ <4.5 rpo, next he'll bowl 6 overs for 60. He needs to find consistency - too often is he called up to a struggling England squad and struggled, when he could be finding his feet in the County game. I really think England have spoiled Anderson. He showed such promise at the last world cup, but England have treated him poorly time and again since then and he's suffered as a result. We need move on for time being, and letting him have a full season of county cricket, with no internation call ups complicating things, might be the best thing for him.

Do you really think Bresnan and Onions will find the consistency you're looking for though? Anderson isn't the most consistent player in the world, however good performances come along much more often in one day cricket from him than they do from Bresnan and Onions.