aussie
Hall of Fame Member
, i deserved that. Well i shall rephrase what has impressed you that much about Killeen that makes you think he would have been a worthy candidate for ENG in recent years?.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
who should be kicked out of England ODI team?
- Thread starter Mard
- Start date
, i deserved that. Well i shall rephrase what has impressed you that much about Killeen that makes you think he would have been a worthy candidate for ENG in recent years?.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Mostly his control, which is a damn sight better than the majority of bowlers England has tried recently. And he takes wickets. Very few England bowlers have managed to partner control and wicket-taking in recent years. It's pretty straightforward.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
OMG i can't believe this is even an argument, under no circmstances could Mark Ealham be EVER considered a better batsman than Craig White.
We talking a man who scored test hundred in IND againts & Harbhajan & Kumble & whose all-round batting & bowling contribution in that 2000/01 winter was so superb looking back i don't know what ENG would have done without him. Now you are suggesting to me some little county biffer is better ODI batsman than him because of what the stats say (plus that doesn't hide that White probably batted a bit too low in the ODI team). White in case you didn't know has since retiring in 03 has been opening the batting for Yorkshire fairly well, don't think Mr.Ealham would ever be entrusted with opening duties at any time in his career.
Poor stuff son, if i was wrong to attack you unfairly just now. I guess we are even now..
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
How do Test hundreds factor into this? I'm talking about ODI cricket. And neither player ever showed up with the bat in ODI cricket. Poor form to mix genres.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Craig White did nothing with the bat at ODI level. Yes, he was a better Test batsman, by far, but the simple truth of the matter is that he wasn't a better ODI batsman. If you think he was, you're mixing-up the two game-forms.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Pretty certain he's batted up the order (maybe opener, maybe three) for Kent at some point in his career.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
He wasn't, though. He played a tiny handful of games. He had a bit of a problem with left-armers, but that was the closest thing to a recurring fault you'd have seen. Certainly played well enough that if he was younger he'd still be very much in the picture now.
No, Loye is unquestionably far better than both Prior and Mustard. And that would have shown had he got more of a ODI chance.
Not really. Read has shown his one-day excellence with the bat at domestic level for a good few seasons now. Even if he wouldn't do much at the ODI level (which I doubt myself) then he'd do better than anyone else.
Well I have seen plenty of him. FYI, I've actually seen him bowl at a batsman as good as Ricky Ponting who scored an absolutely flawless innings in exceptionally difficult conditions that day. And despite the fact Killeen did not threaten him, Ponting never looked like getting him away. And this was during a Powerplay period, to boot.
I've absolutely zero doubt that Ealham and Killeen would have been an excellent pairing for England at the start and in the middle of a ODI innings. There is no way on this Earth they would have done worse than the likes of Sajid Mahmood and Tim Bresnan (and most others) did.
Silly thing is, Anderson's performances have got worse, not better. If you take-out the games he was too young to have been playing, his record actually gets less good.
Indeed, of course he couldn't have. However, nor could Harmison (and probably Jones too). Harmison's good ODI bowling in the summers of 2004 and 2005 was simply a flash-in-the-pan. Mostly he was capable of doing nowhere near that well.
That's due to commentators' ignorance, not Killeen's lack of performance.
It is. But it could be far better if nonsense like Anderson was excluded.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Anyway let's try to work-out... who out of the squad for this NZ series is likely to be in the picture for the next series this summer, against South Africa.
Ambrose - who knows. Woeful opening series, but he's far from the first to have such a thing, and I'd be a bit disappointed if he was dropped so quickly. I hope he's given the SA series, then I'll make-up my mind.
Anderson - I presume so. Remains woeful as a ODI bowler. In his last 58 (out of 77 in total) ODIs against ODI-standard teams he now has an economy-rate of 5.22-an-over and an average of 34.52. And this flatters him, too, he's actually been even worse than this. I make it 12 good spells out of this 58. Hopefully it won't take too much more of this nonsense before people start to realise he's exceptionally unlikely to make a good ODI bowler, as he mostly bowls poorly, and when he bowls poorly he neither bowls wicket-taking balls nor bowls economically. Occasionally he bowls well, and when he does he both bowls wicket-taking deliveries and bowls economically. But this is far too few and far between, and the sooner he gets dropped (hopefully not to return) the better for England.
Bell - I guess so. It'll be interesting to see whether he opens or bats three next time however. So far averages 33 against ODI-standard teams as an opener (compared to 36 at three - not a particularly large difference) and I guess it depends more on what they want to try with Wright than Bell himself. Personally I've still got many question-marks over his ODI play whichever of the two positions he's in.
Bopara - presumably will get another go, and still just about has enough credit to merit it.
Broad - obviously.
Cook - not sure. Batted once this series and didn't do disastrously. I hope so, really, TBH.
Collingwood - obviously, once his ban finishes.
Mascarenhas - he damn well better had do.
Pietersen - obviously.
Shah - of course. 3 good innings out of 5 this series. Still don't see him becoming a ODI-standard batsman myself, but there's no arguing he was pretty much undoubtedly England's best batsman this series.
Sidebottom - presume so, and still hope he might become a ODI-standard bowler.
Strauss - God I hope not, only called-up as cover.
Swann - obviously. Still going very promisingly indeed, and I still hope England have one cog in a good bowling-attack here.
Tremlett - I presume so, and I still don't see him being a ODI-standard bowler.
Wright - interesting. I reckon if he were to get left-out, people would say "harsh". And after all, in 4 innings at six\seven in ODIs he's so far scored (at a SR of 131.52) 50, 24, 47, 6. I'd prefer see it shown conclusively that he's not up to it there either before he gets kicked-out, as otherwise he might remain in the picture. And nothing could be more problematic for England. Obviously nowhere near good enough as an opener, averaging 16.60.
Ambrose - who knows. Woeful opening series, but he's far from the first to have such a thing, and I'd be a bit disappointed if he was dropped so quickly. I hope he's given the SA series, then I'll make-up my mind.
Anderson - I presume so. Remains woeful as a ODI bowler. In his last 58 (out of 77 in total) ODIs against ODI-standard teams he now has an economy-rate of 5.22-an-over and an average of 34.52. And this flatters him, too, he's actually been even worse than this. I make it 12 good spells out of this 58. Hopefully it won't take too much more of this nonsense before people start to realise he's exceptionally unlikely to make a good ODI bowler, as he mostly bowls poorly, and when he bowls poorly he neither bowls wicket-taking balls nor bowls economically. Occasionally he bowls well, and when he does he both bowls wicket-taking deliveries and bowls economically. But this is far too few and far between, and the sooner he gets dropped (hopefully not to return) the better for England.
Bell - I guess so. It'll be interesting to see whether he opens or bats three next time however. So far averages 33 against ODI-standard teams as an opener (compared to 36 at three - not a particularly large difference) and I guess it depends more on what they want to try with Wright than Bell himself. Personally I've still got many question-marks over his ODI play whichever of the two positions he's in.
Bopara - presumably will get another go, and still just about has enough credit to merit it.
Broad - obviously.
Cook - not sure. Batted once this series and didn't do disastrously. I hope so, really, TBH.
Collingwood - obviously, once his ban finishes.
Mascarenhas - he damn well better had do.
Pietersen - obviously.
Shah - of course. 3 good innings out of 5 this series. Still don't see him becoming a ODI-standard batsman myself, but there's no arguing he was pretty much undoubtedly England's best batsman this series.
Sidebottom - presume so, and still hope he might become a ODI-standard bowler.
Strauss - God I hope not, only called-up as cover.
Swann - obviously. Still going very promisingly indeed, and I still hope England have one cog in a good bowling-attack here.
Tremlett - I presume so, and I still don't see him being a ODI-standard bowler.
Wright - interesting. I reckon if he were to get left-out, people would say "harsh". And after all, in 4 innings at six\seven in ODIs he's so far scored (at a SR of 131.52) 50, 24, 47, 6. I'd prefer see it shown conclusively that he's not up to it there either before he gets kicked-out, as otherwise he might remain in the picture. And nothing could be more problematic for England. Obviously nowhere near good enough as an opener, averaging 16.60.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, firstly... why not?
Why? Because that's his career from 2003/04 onwards. In the summer of 2003 he was the ultimate golden-arm bowler - he bowled well a few times, but badly as often. And he got wickets whether he bowled well or poorly.
He'd also had a semi-decent start to his career in the winter of 2002/03, with two sensational performances (the 10-12-1 at Adelaide and the 10-29-4 at Newlands) added to the odd pretty good one.
But since 2003/04 he's been almost roundly woeful. And this now comprises most of his career. The events of 2003 (added to the fact that nonsense teams like Holland and Bangladesh are considered ODI-worthy) cannot keep him in the side forever IMO.
Why? Because that's his career from 2003/04 onwards. In the summer of 2003 he was the ultimate golden-arm bowler - he bowled well a few times, but badly as often. And he got wickets whether he bowled well or poorly.
He'd also had a semi-decent start to his career in the winter of 2002/03, with two sensational performances (the 10-12-1 at Adelaide and the 10-29-4 at Newlands) added to the odd pretty good one.
But since 2003/04 he's been almost roundly woeful. And this now comprises most of his career. The events of 2003 (added to the fact that nonsense teams like Holland and Bangladesh are considered ODI-worthy) cannot keep him in the side forever IMO.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Couldn't argue much with your analysis, apart from preferring to look at Anderson's performances over the last 2 years rather than 5. Anyway, where does it leave us? Once Colly's ban is finished, the definites/probables are:
Bell
KP
Bopara
Collingwood
Shah
Swann
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
There's some lucky chaps in that list. Bell needs to produce so much more than pretty sub50's, likewise Bopara. KP needs to produce more than one non-failure in a series, although obv he's fireproof right now. Shah needs to continue his success ratio of 3 in 5, compared to what we've seen previously. Sidebottom can't afford to average 75 again, and Anderson needs to improve his consistency.
The leaves us in need of a keeper & an opener. Or a keeper/opener plus an allrounder.
I know you'd differ, but I'd reinstate Mustard alongside Bell and play Flintoff at 7 if he's fit. If Fred's still hors-de-combat, then play Wright at 7.
It's still not great, and I don't see us winning more than 1 in 5 against SA, but it's probably the logical selection.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Flintoff should obviously come back provided he doesn't manage some other injury sometime this season.
Sadly, that means he'll probably replace Wright and Wright will then have the Mustard effect of despite the fact he's obviously rubbish and does nothing at domestic level, people think there was something in one or two performances that meant he deserved to stay in the side, so he'll be first picked next time instead of someone who might actually deserve it.
Sadly, that means he'll probably replace Wright and Wright will then have the Mustard effect of despite the fact he's obviously rubbish and does nothing at domestic level, people think there was something in one or two performances that meant he deserved to stay in the side, so he'll be first picked next time instead of someone who might actually deserve it.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Although Moores probably still fancies Wright at the top of the order, with Ambrose or another wk at 7.
I'm increasingly of the view that Cook shouldn't play in these games though. Not only because I don't think he's great in them - he could hardly be any worse than Wright - but I just want him to concentrate on averaging 50+ in tests at about 50 runs per 100 balls.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, five's too high. Six should be juuuuuuuust fine in the shorter game.
Pietersen three I'd imagine will now be stuck with until the end of his career; I'd guess Collingwood will bat five; and hopefully Bopara might be dropped for Afzaal at four.
Nonetheless, right now I'd imagine it'd be
3 Pietersen
4 Shah
5 Collingwood
6 Flintoff
7 Ambrose
myself TBH.
Pietersen three I'd imagine will now be stuck with until the end of his career; I'd guess Collingwood will bat five; and hopefully Bopara might be dropped for Afzaal at four.
Nonetheless, right now I'd imagine it'd be
3 Pietersen
4 Shah
5 Collingwood
6 Flintoff
7 Ambrose
myself TBH.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I seriously think Ambrose would do better opening than batting #7 - he's just so unsuited to the position. Not that I actually think he should open, mind: merely that if he has to bat #7 he probably shouldn't play at all.