*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

[Uppercut]

Getting dropped then scoring a hundred>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting dropped then getting out next ball. Is the point.

 

[Richard]

I realise that. The point I always make, though is that, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, the difference between a drop and a take = 0.

 

[analyst]

I have no idea why Allistair Cook is not given a proper run in the ODI team, he is only 22/23 and is the only specialist opener England presently have. Perfect for ODI's, why they need Prior and Bell's careers ruined, I don't know. Bopara seems perfect for up the order, but up the order, does not mean opener, I would have thought it meant playing in the middle, but considering there are no places what with Collingwood relying on his century last year as a key perfomance for England, clearly England are headed the right way.

 

[tooextracool]

He is not selected because he does not have the variety of strokes that would enable to score at or near a run a ball. He might very well go on to average 40 in ODI cricket but there is little point in doing so at a SR of less than 70.

 

[analyst]

Ganguly's strike rate is in the early 70's and it worked for Dravid. I think a test cricketer can play ODI cricket and Cook is not a strokeless wonder, he does have a fair bit about him. He just needs some endorsement from his captain as all young players do in their first few years of international cricket, its easy to forget he only started 3 years ago with about 20 odd ODI's to his name.

 

[Uppercut]

I realise that. The point I always make, though is that, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, the difference between a drop and a take = 0.

You certainly go too far where drops are concerned though. As though no runs scored after the drop prove anything. A one-day century against Australia is a fantastic achievement, it just would have been a bit better without the drop. A player who isn't any good will not score 120 runs against the best attack in the world and only give one chance.

 

[Richard]

I think a test cricketer can play ODI cricket

Regardless of the cases of Ganguly, Dravid, Cook or anyone else, this is an ill-informed statement. Test and ODI cricket are vastly different games and ability to play one doesn't = ability to play the other.

Many players can play both; equally, plenty can play one form and not the other.

In the case of Cook, he has been given a decent go - he played most of England's ODIs in 2007 and 2007/08, before being cut from the side as Bell was illogically moved to open in 2008. In this time he made 1 century and was out cheaply a lot of times. Cook is clearly not, yet, up to ODI standard. He's not yet 24, however, and has plenty of time left to become such a thing. Playing ODIs when not yet up to it does him no good nor England.

BTW it'd be difficult for any selector to ruin Prior's career as he doesn't have the ability to have a career which is ruinable.

 

[Richard]

You certainly go too far where drops are concerned though. As though no runs scored after the drop prove anything. A one-day century against Australia is a fantastic achievement, it just would have been a bit better without the drop. A player who isn't any good will not score 120 runs against the best attack in the world and only give one chance.

The play after the drop was good, no doubts about that. But it's not like he did anything he'd not done before. He gave an early chance in all his innings' as an opening batsman. Most of them were taken; this was not.

 

[analyst]

So I take it you subscribe to the theory of having anyone under the sun going for a hit? Sort of like a Geoffrey Boycott idea, why not let Fred do it? Or we could let the real openers in the country do it, an Alistair Cook/Robert Key/Jefferson/Denly, who ever. Someone who is given a chance to cement their place. I think demmanding one regular opener is hardly criminal.

I also do not agree that Cook will slow England down, I think the loss of wickets England frequently struggle with maintaining slows them down, Send Cook and another aggresive player and I think England will be fine.

I like Cook and Denly, have been at this theory for a while now.

 

[Richard]

So I take it you subscribe to the theory of having anyone under the sun going for a hit?

No, I certainly don't. I hate to see utterly useless batsmen like Luke Wright, Philip Mustard etc. being picked for ODIs just because "he's a big hitter". However, the reality is there's basically no-one currently.

Sort of like a Geoffrey Boycott idea, why not let Fred do it? Or we could let the real openers in the country do it, an Alistair Cook/Robert Key/Jefferson/Denly, who ever. Someone who is given a chance to cement their place. I think demmanding one regular opener is hardly criminal.

I also do not agree that Cook will slow England down, I think the loss of wickets England frequently struggle with maintaining slows them down, Send Cook and another aggresive player and I think England will be fine.

I like Cook and Denly, have been at this theory for a while now.

Denly has yet to show any real notable one-day batting skill. Much more promising at the longer format, though he's been disappointing there to date as well.

And please, please don't let William Jefferson ever play for England.

As for "another aggressive player" - there are no aggressive batsmen who have not already established themselves in the middle\lower-order of the ODI side and who are not proven rubbish county players.

 

[analyst]

The 20/20 competitions in India helped a lot of players in India and Australia gain international caps and deservedly so, as they proved their worth. Key and Denly were the best domestic 20/20 partnership all last year.

 

[Richard]

You'll forgive me, but my philosophy of ODI selection involves giving zero consideration to Twenty20 of any kind and any selection which does such a thing is poor.

 

[Uppercut]

You'll forgive me, but my philosophy of ODI selection involves giving zero consideration to Twenty20 of any kind and any selection which does such a thing is poor.

You're wrong.

 

[analyst]

Misbah Ul Haq for Pakistan, Gautam Gambhir for India, I am talking about shifting 20/20 perfomance to 50 over cricket not test cricket itself. Ofcourse they all had a fair bit of talent and most of the English players do have this talent, all 20 over cricket does is allows batsmen to be more expressive with their shots than they normally are because they are forced to do so.

If you fail to see my point and are so cynical about the whole thing, who is the right choice to open for England ?

 

[Rant0r]

He is not selected because he does not have the variety of strokes that would enable to score at or near a run a ball. He might very well go on to average 40 in ODI cricket but there is little point in doing so at a SR of less than 70.

do i need to quote hussey's career at the same age ?

 

[tooextracool]

do i need to quote hussey's career at the same age ?

Hussey hadnt played international cricket at this point, so its utterly irrelevant. Look if Cook is good enough, then he should go on to prove it at the domestic level first not at the international level. At this moment in time, I dont think hes capable of scoring at a run a ball because he doesnt have the variety in his strokeplay or the ability to go over the top. IMO no player in ODI cricket is ever going to amount to anything if he cant go over the top. As a batsman there are only really three skills involved in ODI cricket - temperament, placement and the ability to hit over the top.

 

[Prince EWS]

do i need to quote hussey's career at the same age ?

And how many ODIs did Hussey play back then? How successful would he have been?

Cook may well be quite a good ODI player when he's Hussey's age, but he's not one now.

 

[Rant0r]

Hussey hadnt played international cricket at this point, so its utterly irrelevant. Look if Cook is good enough, then he should go on to prove it at the domestic level first not at the international level. At this moment in time, I dont think hes capable of scoring at a run a ball because he doesnt have the variety in his strokeplay or the ability to go over the top. IMO no player in ODI cricket is ever going to amount to anything if he cant go over the top. As a batsman there are only really three skills involved in ODI cricket - temperament, placement and the ability to hit over the top.

it is completely relevant, my point being that players evolve and there's no reason why cook shouldn't be able to expand his strokeplay over time like a hussey.

Hussey at his age didn't have the variety of strokeplay either and couldn't get into the domestic one day team.

weather he does that in the team or out of the team is also irrelevant.

i also did't say when it would happen, but there's no harm in trying it now either

 

[tooextracool]

it is completely relevant, my point being that players evolve and there's no reason why cook shouldn't be able to expand his strokeplay over time like a hussey.

Hussey at his age didn't have the variety of strokeplay either and couldn't get into the domestic one day team.

weather he does that in the team or out of the team is also irrelevant.

i also did't say when it would happen, but there's no harm in trying it now either

Hussey wasnt thrown into the Australian setup, he was made to nurture his game at the domestic or List A level first before he played at the international level. Similarly Cook needs to do the same. Theres little point in putting faith in a player simply because he might actually turn into something useful by 2015.

 

[Rant0r]

Hussey wasnt thrown into the Australian setup, he was made to nurture his game at the domestic or List A level first before he played at the international level. Similarly Cook needs to do the same. Theres little point in putting faith in a player simply because he might actually turn into something useful by 2015.

well he was thrown into the test team young and he's got about 10 hundreds so far