who should be kicked out of England ODI team?

[FBU]

Afzaal
Pietersen
Flintoff
Mascarenhas
Ealham
Swann
Sidebottom
Killeen

 

[Arjun]

Harmison was little better if any better than any of those bowlers (most of the time - he was obviously streets ahead of them in the summers of 2004 and 2005), and Vaughan was certainly nowhere near as good as any of those batsmen, apart from Wright.

Harmison looked remotely convincing when he was bulldozing the West Indians and Kiwis in 2004, while none of those replacements have ever looked convincing- not even Anderson and Broad. Vaughan, we'd agree, is a class player, but has struggled in ODI's- that's something we observe in several classy Test batsmen. Those so-called ODI specialists, however, were dire, and far short of international quality.

 

[Flem274*]

Only played 1/5 of the games of Spearman, but James Marshall is shocking.

Only played none of the games compared to Marshalls too many, but I'm shocking.

Beat that!

 

[zaremba]

Bopara

Massive Gap

Shah
Bell

England's three top scorers today!

 

[wpdavid]

England's three top scorers today!

Aye. The scapegoating of Bopara by some baffles me, tbh.

 

[Langeveldt]

Aye. The scapegoating of Bopara by some baffles me, tbh.

Willing to eat my words at some time as I did with Harmison when he took 7-12.. But Bopara strikes me as a player I just know is going to be a flunk they they go on persisting with for ages and ages and ages.. Just doing enough to scrape by, really annoys me.. Batted well yday though

 

[zaremba]

I think that your scepticism about Bopara is probably fair enough at this stage. The jury is very much out in relation to him. However he has been identified as someone with talent and with a good attitude. We'll have to wait and see. One good thing about the current England set-up is that players tend to get more of a fair run in the team than they used to.

 

[Richard]

Willing to eat my words at some time as I did with Harmison when he took 7-12..

I wasn't. And lo-and-behold, I was right - he wasn't that good after all.

Don't eat your words too soon.

 

[Richard]

Harmison looked remotely convincing when he was bulldozing the West Indians and Kiwis in 2004, while none of those replacements have ever looked convincing- not even Anderson and Broad. Vaughan, we'd agree, is a class player, but has struggled in ODI's- that's something we observe in several classy Test batsmen. Those so-called ODI specialists, however, were dire, and far short of international quality.

Broad has done about as much since the start of 2007/08 that Harmison did in the summers of 2004 and 2005 in ODIs.

The reason the ODI specialists were poor, BTW, is not because they were ODI specialists, but because they were poor. Had good OD players been picked, rather than poor ones, things would probably have been different.

Had Usman Afzaal played instead of Vikram Solanki, Owais Shah, Jamie Troughton and the like, things would've had a much better chance. As they are actually the opposite to OD specialists - they're far better batsmen in the longer form of the game.

 

[Richard]

Richard - living in 1975.

No. In 1975 (and indeed for the next 15 years or so), under 4-an-over was a must for a front-line ODI bowler. Anyone conceding 4.6-an-over would not even be considered a bowler. Read thy history, Bennett.

In the 1990s and 2000s, good economy-rates are somewhere between 4 and 4.5-an-over. Under 4-an-over is now the exclusive preserve of the very, very best.

Yeah.

4.6 an over is only a total score of 230, which is quite low in today's game.

You know why that is? Because currently there aren't that many bowlers who are good enough to keep totals lower.

 

[Prince EWS]

Broad has done about as much since the start of 2007/08 that Harmison did in the summers of 2004 and 2005 in ODIs.

The reason the ODI specialists were poor, BTW, is not because they were ODI specialists, but because they were poor. Had good OD players been picked, rather than poor ones, things would probably have been different.

Had Usman Afzaal played instead of Vikram Solanki, Owais Shah, Jamie Troughton and the like, things would've had a much better chance. As they are actually the opposite to OD specialists - they're far better batsmen in the longer form of the game.

I'd say it was pretty marginal with Solanki. He certainly isn't far better in the longer game, if at all.

 

[Richard]

He was for most of his career. Mostly he was averaging 36-37 in First-Class cricket, and the mid-late-20s in OD stuff. Big, big difference.

 

[Prince EWS]

He was for most of his career. Mostly he was averaging 36-37 in First-Class cricket, and the mid-late-20s in OD stuff. Big, big difference.

You "chucked a KaZo" though - you used present tense. At the current time I'd say it was very marginal indeed.

 

[Richard]

Well I do still think Solanki is quite a bit better in the longer form TBH, and I would've used the past tense, but it seems a bit silly when the careers of all are still in motion.

 

[wpdavid]

Willing to eat my words at some time as I did with Harmison when he took 7-12.. But Bopara strikes me as a player I just know is going to be a flunk they they go on persisting with for ages and ages and ages.. Just doing enough to scrape by, really annoys me.. Batted well yday though

Obv I can't say for certain that he'll be good enough, but personally I'm happy to see him given a run where he is batting now. Yes there is a valid point to be made about him being elevated too soon, especially in the SL test series, but I do think that reflects England's lack of options right now. I'll be the first to admit he wouldn't be in the frame for international cricket had he been born in Aus, India or SA. Well, maybe SA for other reasons

On the other hand, I think it's a bit harsh to say he's been persisted with for ages. 25 games is no big deal nowadays, and it's not as if he's ben a fixture and played all those games on the trot. His avergage of 27 is fair enough for a youngster who's finding his way at this level and has played most of his innings at around number 7. Clearly this summer is something of a fresh start now he's batting up the order, and we'll have a better idea after the SA games. He's improved throughout the NZ series, and I'm quite optimistic, but if I'm proved wrong, so be it. I do think he's made of different stuff to Harmison though.

 

[Arjun]

Broad has done about as much since the start of 2007/08 that Harmison did in the summers of 2004 and 2005 in ODIs.

The reason the ODI specialists were poor, BTW, is not because they were ODI specialists, but because they were poor. Had good OD players been picked, rather than poor ones, things would probably have been different.

Had Usman Afzaal played instead of Vikram Solanki, Owais Shah, Jamie Troughton and the like, things would've had a much better chance. As they are actually the opposite to OD specialists - they're far better batsmen in the longer form of the game.

Broad has had good figures in those matches in England or involving New Zealand, but there are other pieces to put together.

You mention that the ODI batsmen picked for England were no good. Can you name one genuinely good ODI batsman to play for England at that time? Or one who should have played? Afzaal's case is an interesting one, though. I doubt if he'd ever match Vaughan, as a batsman in any form of the game.

 

[Richard]

Broad has had good figures in those matches in England or involving New Zealand, but there are other pieces to put together.

Broad's done well in Sri Lanka, New Zealand and England in that time. Yeah, his figures have flattered him a little from time to time, but he's still done well in that time now for longer than Harmison ever did.

You mention that the ODI batsmen picked for England were no good. Can you name one genuinely good ODI batsman to play for England at that time? Or one who should have played? Afzaal's case is an interesting one, though. I doubt if he'd ever match Vaughan, as a batsman in any form of the game.

No, he won't ever match Vaughan's one-day hopelessness. He'll always be far better.

Aside from Afzaal, the obvious case is Mal Loye. While useless domestic pinch-hitters were used by the not-frew, the one who actually did semi-decently for his county was repeatedly ignored. He got a few chances, aged 34, and didn't do much, and there's now no point trying him again (he's been in abysmal form this year anyway). But he should have played far more 2003 to 2006.

There's also the wicketkeeping situation - many times, the best one-day wicketkeeper-batsman in the country (Chris Read) was ignored for better long-form batsmen who are lesser one-day batsmen.

Had this side played together from about 2004 onwards, we might've had a rather better situation than we did:
Trescothick
Loye
Afzaal
Pietersen
Collingwood (best option of a bad bunch)
Flintoff
Read
Ealham
Mascarenhas
Lewis
Killeen

 

[TT Boy]

Where to start?

It would make more sense bandwidth wise to make a list of who you'd retain.

Indeed, KP and Broad.

 

[Richard]

Umm... Swann and Sidebottom?

 

[Perm]

You know why that is? Because currently there aren't that many bowlers who are good enough to keep totals lower.

Not totally correct Rich, and you know that.

I know people bang on about it all the time, but there are a few more factors that have had an impact on increasing scoring rates in todays game. Bat technology, smaller grounds, flatter pitches, Twenty20 etc. All of those things have contributed to the average economy rates of bowlers increasing, as well as the strike rates of batsmen. Obviously the fact that there are some poorer bowlers in this era has something to do with it too, I'm not denying that. But you can't say that a decrease in bowling standards is the only thing that has lead to higher scores.