who should be kicked out of England ODI team?

[Perm]

Indeed, KP and Broad.

Umm... Swann and Sidebottom?

Ian Bell too. Sure he may not be pushing on with the scores he's getting, but he isn't short of runs. While it may be frustrating for English fans that he isn't realising his potential the fact of the matter remains that he doesn't deserve to be dropped due to a lack of runs, and it's not like there is anybody banging on the door either. The guy has done pretty well in the top 3 and it wouldn't make much sense dropping him IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

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

Who would bowl at the death besides Flintoff? Whichever one of your four bowlers you subjected to it would get absolutely smashed in that role.

 

[NZTailender]

Collingwood (best option of a bad bunch)

3rd best batsmen of the entire side you've posted there itbt. Speaks volume about England.

 

[Perm]

3rd best batsmen of the entire side you've posted there itbt. Speaks volume about England.

Mal Loye and Usman Afzaal never got many opportunities to play ODI cricket. If they had played as many matches as Collingwood then Richard's statement could possibly be justified. As it is, I take it he is comparing Afzaal and Loye to the rest based on their List A acheivements.

 

[Goughy]

All this talk about certain players.

Out of interest how many English qualified batsmen average over 40 in List A cricket?

I have a rough idea and its a short list and there is at least 1 player that has never played an ODI.

****ing stupid to pick guys with late 20s-early 30s av and ignore those with 40+

 

[Flem274*]

What surprises me is the praise Wright was getting on the radio commentary the other day. I mean, Bopara has serious potential, as does Shah, but Wright? Oh dear.

I do think that the England ODI side will be in contention come 2011 though. They do have some very good players.

 

[Goughy]

What surprises me is the praise Wright was getting on the radio commentary the other day. I mean, Bopara has serious potential, as does Shah, but Wright? Oh dear.

I do think that the England ODI side will be in contention come 2011 though. They do have some very good players.

Shah is virtually 30 with 50 ODIs under his belt. He is hardly a candidate to be labled potential

 

[Perm]

I assume we're talking about averaging 40+ in domestic cricket as opposed to all List A games? Below is a list of England's current batting line-up and how much each player averages for their county/counties.

Ian Bell - 34.40
Luke Wright - 19.00
Kevin Pietersen - 43.00
Ravi Bopara - 41.04
Paul Collingwood - 30.61
Owais Shah - 34.24
Tim Ambrose - 30.17

Recent others of note

Alistair Cook - 38.57
Ed Joyce - 35.19
Mal Loye - 34.83
Marcus Trescothick - 34.84
Vikram Solanki - 32.90
Chris Read - 30.60
Michael Vaughan - 29.40
Andrew Strauss - 29.11
Phil Mustard - 28.21
Matthew Prior - 26.92
Paul Nixon - 26.82
Geraint Jones - 23.40
Michael Yardy - 21.62

 

[Goughy]

I assume we're talking about averaging 40+ in domestic cricket as opposed to all List A games? Below is a list of England's current batting line-up and how much each player averages for their county/counties.

I was talking all List A as tour games and 'A' team games count and a bad ODI record would also hurt it. However that is a good list.

Trott is missed out though. Averages 41.29 for Warwickshire and 40.23 for his career

 

[_Ed_]

Chris Read - 30.60
Phil Mustard - 28.21
Matthew Prior - 26.92

Interesting, wonder why so many are advocating Prior for the ODI side.

 

[Richard]

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.

Of course it isn't. Bat technology and smaller grounds won't turn poor batsmen into good ones, or accurate bowlers into inaccurate ones, but it does mean wayward bowlers tend to get punished more effectively. Where once a poor spell would be conceding 48 off 10, they now more often end-up going for 61 off 10 (or equivalently fewer overs).

Flatter pitches, of course, make a difference to anything, but even so, we see bad bowling punished relatively easily on less pancake-like surfaces, and good bowling can still be economical on it with a following wind.

Good bowlers, in spite of all the factors running against them, maintain the ability to concede 4.2-an-over or thereabouts, and truly magnificent ones less than 4-an-over. Despite all the run-rate increases, Glenn McGrath, Shaun Pollock and Muttiah Muralitharan's performances have not been dented. Not at all.

The overwhelming reason for the increase in scoring in ODIs in recent times is bad bowling being punished far worse than previously. Good bowling has mostly retained the ability to bowl economically. This combined with the fact there have been far more poor bowlers than usual in recent times has meant ODI totals have gone up. But if this is reversed, there's no reason to suspect they won't come down again.

I also think it'll be a fair while before Twenty20 has an effect on the one-day game. It's only 2-3 years or so since the game became something played all around the cricketing World.

 

[Richard]

Who would bowl at the death besides Flintoff? Whichever one of your four bowlers you subjected to it would get absolutely smashed in that role.

Yep. If someone could find me a bowler who'd do a better job, and not get smashed at the earlier on, I'd have 'em in there like a whip.

Unfortunately, though, there has been a sum-total of 1 good death-bowler in England in recent years, Flintoff.

TBH, I'd probably give death-bowling duties to Afzaal from that team. He couldn't do worse than any of Lewis, Ealham, Mascarenhas or Killeen, and at least that lot would then be able to bowl as many overs as possible during the middle and start of the innings and keep it quiet then. Even if you concede 100 off the last 10 (and hopefully Flintoff could keep it below that), if you've only gone for 140 off the first 40, you've still done a damn sight better than if you concede 100 off the last 10 having conceded 200 off the first 40 (which with the Mahmoods et al in the side is the likely outcome).

And of course - if you can restrict batsmen early on, wickets will often fall, and if only 4 wickets are left coming into the 41st over, smashing even part-time spinners (provided they can aim reasonably for the blockhole) isn't neccessarily a given.

 

[Richard]

3rd best batsmen of the entire side you've posted there itbt. Speaks volume about England.

Nah, I don't think so. As alluded to, I'd have no hesitation in calling Loye and Afzaal better OD batsmen than Collingwood between 2003 and 2007, even though neither ever got a fair crack of the whip at ODI level. Trescothick and Pietersen obviously are, and TBH so for pretty much all of the 2002-2006/07 (CB Series) period was Flintoff, even if he's been woeful in recent times.

Collingwood might do some good in a backup role there, but all the rest of the top-six are superior batsmen in the one-day game as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

Interesting, wonder why so many are advocating Prior for the ODI side.

For the same reason Jesse Ryder and any number of others played ODIs for New Zealand.

A great many people can't tell the difference between First-Class and one-day cricket.

 

[Richard]

Trott is missed out though. Averages 41.29 for Warwickshire and 40.23 for his career

Can't believe I forgot him.

Remind me, someone - when did he qualify? Obviously he first got into the squad in 2007, but I can't remember whether he qualified before that.

 

[_Ed_]

For the same reason Jesse Ryder and any number of others played ODIs for New Zealand.

A great many people can't tell the difference between First-Class and one-day cricket.

Ryder performed reasonably well in ODIs though to be fair.

 

[Richard]

Aye, that he did - so did Andrew Strauss (and one or two others) when he was first picked in ODIs.

But he shouldn't have been, and his performances soon dropped-off.

Either way, the point is many people can't tell the difference between the game-forms. They pick good First-Class players who are poor in the one-day game for ODIs, and then get surprised when they fail. Ryder was the most recent Kiwi example I could think of, but I'm sure there are many others.

 

[steds]

Interesting, wonder why so many are advocating Prior for the ODI side.

Can't say I've heard too many.


I'm personally advocating him for the noose.

 

[Richard]

Can't say I've heard too many.

You evidently haven't been reading the NZ-in-Eng thread then.

No, it's not just Colin either.

 

[aussie]

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

Not really IMO we probably we have been brought right back to the current situation that we are in since its not likely even though i buy this side but its not as straightforward as you make it sound. Since that side has many question marks.

Mal Loye - well yea i was calling for his selection for ENG since the Ashes summer at least after seeing him on TV & @ Old trafford @ i thought he was easily the best ODI opening bat to partner Trescothick but seeing him in Australia although he has the ability to really up the anti in the early overs & improvise well i couldn't believe how techincally inept he was & i really don't think although a great that he would have a successful time in ODI cricket as an opener. Ali Brown who is probably the most destructive ODI bat in the country (although also exposes technically in the past) would have probably been worth a shout. Thus a partner for Tres would have still been an issue.

This to me shows that although our domestic structure is very good, really that only applies for the 4-day competition. Our domestic OD structure isn't a good breathing ground for producing quality ODI players.


Afzaal - yes i agree a player well identified by yourself that many have not looked at. Deserved a chance & now that Collingwood is banned he should get a call up now.

Read - although the best ODI keeper in the land for a while really isn't good enough to bat @ 7 in a ODI XI for me. He may have the ability to finish & innings if he has 5 or so overs to go but if the top order is blown away & he has 15+ overs to bat i don't think he can pace/anchor an innings, so its pretty much like the tail is starting from 7 in such a situation. If consistently picked his position was #8.

Ealham - now i admit i have not followed his career a lot since he last played (what was it 2000 or 2001?), but he has obviously been well noted as one of your favourite players ever so before i accuse you of being a bit biased towards him. I'll give you a chance to explain his case to me. Since what i remember of Ealham in ENG colours was a bowler who managed to surprising accurate although looking fairly mediocre while his batting never looked capable of transforming what he did in CC on the International stage.

So i really find it puzzling how @ age 35+ you reckon he really warranted place, although his county performances may have still been good?


Lewis - An interesitng player, easily on of the better OD bowlers around (although not saying much) but i'm not sure if i'd agree if he should have been a definate first team player given the type of bowler he was i.e he is definately a very realiable exponent of the new ball in helpul conditions & would have to be bowled out before the first 30 overs. But on flat decks where no swing is around he would be smashed no doubt.


Killeen - Ha, this one is interesting. Lets hear what makes him such a better candidate than Anderson or a fit Simon Jones?.

Plus the bowling attack that you have chosen outside Fred no death bowles Jesus, we might go for 100 in the last ten all the time...