*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

[Richard]

His left arm spin is certainly useful, and I reckon if he has a prolonged ODI career that he'll take a decent number of wickets at an average of between 35 and 40. He's not a frontline spinner though, and shouldn't be getting picked as such.

If his average is between 35 and 40 and his economy-rate up at the 5.2-5.3 mark... well, I don't really want him bowling much for England TBH. Give me Paul Collingwood or Ian Bell over that any day.

Patel's strength is not economy in the one-day game, it's wicket-taking. If he can't take lots of wickets, his bowling should play little part in his selection and\or retention. And right now him being picked as a batsman is ridiculous, same way it was with Bopara for much of his career.

 

[aussie]

I'd say there's a very strong case Trott is better than both (it's pretty well beyond question that he's better than Shah).

Eh?

and Bopara might one day be better than Collingwood.

Yes, but right now he isn't so suggest he should be a certaintly ahead of ahead of Collingwood is nonsense.

and is certainly no worse than Shah now.

Yo useless comparison son, since the role Bopara could succeed in the ODI side is way different to the role/roles Shas has been doing since he came back in the ODI side.

But as usual i expect you to not acknowledge anything good Shah has done..

 

[Richard]

Eh?

Compare their one-day averages. Yes, that's right, the batsman who consistently averages more is the better one. Trott has barely stopped scoring one-day runs since coming to this country. None of Shah, Bopara or Collingwood match his consistency or weight of scoring. That makes Trott better.

Yes, but right now he isn't so suggest he should be a certaintly ahead of ahead of Collingwood is nonsense.

Maybe not right now but it's quite conceivable that it will be before too long, and this isn't about the team I'd select tomorrow but next summer, possibly. Tomorrow, Collingwood would obviously be in the team.

Yo useless comparison son, since the role Bopara could succeed in the ODI side is way different to the role/roles Shas has been doing since he came back in the ODI side.

Bopara offers more than Shah does.

But as usual i expect you to not acknowledge anything good Shah has done..

No, not as usual at all, I've acknowledged everything good Shah has done. I just haven't tried to pretend he's done good stuff which in reality he hasn't.

 

[aussie]

Compare their one-day averages. Yes, that's right, the batsman who consistently averages more is the better one.

. Based on this logic Brad Hodge should definately be in the Australian test team ahead of Michael Clarke then.

Trott has barely stopped scoring one-day runs since coming to this country. None of Shah, Bopara or Collingwood match his consistency or weight of scoring. That makes Trott better.

Fact is even though Trott maybe avergaing higher than Shah & Collingwood especially have done the buisness on the international stage. What makes you so sure that Trott is guaranteed to translate his county form on the international stage?

Maybe not right now but it's quite conceivable that it will be before too long, and this isn't about the team I'd select tomorrow but next summer, possibly. Tomorrow, Collingwood would obviously be in the team.

Even if its next summer or even if he may become a better ODI batsman than Colly one day. The success Bopara will likely have has an England player is batting in the top 4, Collingwood has a totally different role.

So to have a predicted ODI team, trying to suggest Bopara can suddenly do what Collingwood has been doing for England is foolish & just rears up another one of your stubborn beliefs that you have tirelessly illustrated on this site.

Bopara offers more than Shah does.

, IN WHAT?

No, not as usual at all, I've acknowledged everything good Shah has done. I just haven't tried to pretend he's done good stuff which in reality he hasn't.

Haha, you do realise you have just TOTALLY contradicted yourself, Richard you is trouble yo..

 

[Richard]

. Based on this logic Brad Hodge should definately be in the Australian test team ahead of Michael Clarke then.

Don't imagine they'd lose much by that. Hodge would almost certainly do as good a job as Clarke. However, Hodge would be exceedingly unlikely to play in WC2011. So it'd not really be the same at all.

Fact is even though Trott maybe avergaing higher than Shah & Collingwood especially have done the buisness on the international stage. What makes you so sure that Trott is guaranteed to translate his county form on the international stage?

Well Shah and Collingwood have both translated for years their throughly mediocre domestic records to international level. Obviously you can never be sure a good domestic player will become a good international player but they always have more of a chance than a mediocre domestic (and international) player.

Even if its next summer or even if he may become a better ODI batsman than Colly one day. The success Bopara will likely have has an England player is batting in the top 4, Collingwood has a totally different role.

Collingwood has always been someone who needs to bat for lots of overs.

So to have a predicted ODI team, trying to suggest Bopara can suddenly do what Collingwood has been doing for England is foolish & just rears up another one of your stubborn beliefs that you have tirelessly illustrated on this site.

I don't believe Bopara can do what Collingwood has; I believe he can do better. I don't want another Collingwood, he's a thoroughly average player.

, IN WHAT?

Run-scoring.

Haha, you do realise you have just TOTALLY contradicted yourself, Richard you is trouble yo..

Err, no, I haven't.

 

[Precambrian]

Richard, BTW don't bother with that locked thread "To Richard"

 

[Richard]

Oh I've already read it. Banned idiots attempting reincarnation isn't unusual at all.

 

[Prince EWS]

Oh I've already read it. Banned idiots attempting reincarnation isn't unusual at all.

The strange thing is - the member who started that thread joined back in August. It makes me think that grapedo may just be someone we know all too well - he did an A1 job of covering it up this time if so, though.

 

[Richard]

Haha, really? Well if it was SW\BLE, he sure as changed his persona - SAfrican fan rather than Aussie, brainless idiot rather than smart dickhead.

I think he was always known to move around tho - he was in England for the 2005 Ashes, for example.

 

[four_or_six]

I reckon finally the selectors have got to a sensible looking batting line-up and order, except personally I would swap Bell back in for Cook. I hope they keep at this for a while.

 

[Richard]

Can't help but feel Shah will bat above Collingwood for the next few games in all likelihood.

 

[Furball]

The idea that Collingwood has done well in the ODI side is a complete fallacy.

He is a thoroughly average player. His already average record is boosted by some epic minnow bashing.

He averages 30 against the top 7 ODI sides.

 

[four_or_six]

Can't help but feel Shah will bat above Collingwood for the next few games in all likelihood.

I just like Shah nearer the end, with his T20 expertise, and Collingwood rotating the singles in the middle.

 

[Richard]

The idea that Collingwood has done well in the ODI side is a complete fallacy.

He is a thoroughly average player. His already average record is boosted by some epic minnow bashing.

He averages 30 against the top 7 ODI sides.

I've said this all his career. What's more, he's had long spells (20 or 30 games) of doing nothing much then 3 or 4 games of being so brilliant that a) it lingers long in the memory and b) bumps up an average from the early-mid-20s to 30.

 

[Richard]

I just like Shah nearer the end, with his T20 expertise, and Collingwood rotating the singles in the middle.

Maaaaaybe, that's arguable. However, a) Collingwood is completely out-of-nick currently; b) he's never been that good anyway; c) he's never done well at four; d) everyone is clamouring for Shah to bat higher.

So I can quite see Shah batting four (or five at worst) in the last couple of games of the ongoing series.

 

[Furball]

Shah's an interesting one.

There's an argument for moving him up the order, given the form he's in when compared to others in the side.

However, Shah is performing his role at 6 pretty well, and there's also the case to leave him alone to continue in that role.

I'm unconvinced that Shah is good enough long term to bat at 3 or 4 in ODIs.

 

[Furball]

I've said this all his career. What's more, he's had long spells (20 or 30 games) of doing nothing much then 3 or 4 games of being so brilliant that a) it lingers long in the memory and b) bumps up an average from the early-mid-20s to 30.

It says something about the failings of limited overs cricket that Collingwood's place is almost never questioned.

 

[four_or_six]

Maaaaaybe, that's arguable. However, a) Collingwood is completely out-of-nick currently; b) he's never been that good anyway; c) he's never done well at four; d) everyone is clamouring for Shah to bat higher.

So I can quite see Shah batting four (or five at worst) in the last couple of games of the ongoing series.

I'm not saying he won't, I'm saying I don't think he should.

And anyway, you can swap other players around and leave Shah at 6.

 

[Richard]

Haha, yeah, Prior opening, Bopara four, Collingwood five.

Flintoff would have to be pretty sore about Prior being ahead of him.

 

[four_or_six]

Haha, yeah, Prior opening, Bopara four, Collingwood five.

Flintoff would have to be pretty sore about Prior being ahead of him.

I more meant Bell for Collingwood, if that's Colly has to go.

But yeah, Flintoff seems to have been labelled 'not allowed to open'. Personally I think he's too scared about being labelled 'the next Shane Watson'