*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

[Richard]

Time for this thread to pop-up again...

Also, how about Jade Dernbach as a possible ODi candidate soon? Check his numbers from last year in List A cricket, they're impressive, and it's only his economy of just over 6 that slightly lets him down. Leading wicket-taker in List A's last season, certainly has potential.

We've seen bowlers picked to try to take wickets, rather than bowl economically, in ODIs a good few times before.

Admittedly, Dernbach (along with the likes of AP Davies and Graham Napier) might be a better bet to do this than the likes of Plunkett and Bresnan, who can't even take wickets (never mind bowl economically) in county one-day cricket.

However, picking bowlers for ODIs with the aim of taking wickets rather than bowling economically just about always ends in dismal failure. Expensive county bowlers - whether they take wickets or not - just don't tend to take ODI wickets. And obviously they go around the park.

England will never get anywhere in ODIs until they seriously re-evaluate what they look for in a bowler. The figures of those who've played in the last 7-and-a-half years don't look pretty. Flintoff has been quite excellent; Sidebottom and Mascarenhas remain somewhere in the picture and remain promising. Lewis was possibly unfortunate to be picked late, at a time he had less than a year of use in him (there was no sense continuing to play him after the 2006/07 winter). However, the only others who've not gone around the park or have picked-up wickets regularly in that time (Yardy, Udal, Blackwell, Johnson, Giles, Wharf) have been very obvious beneficiaries of being in the right place at the right time.

While countless others have played a bit (occasionally a lot) and gone the distance:

JWM Dalrymple 	2006-2007 25 21 45.69 [B]4.64[/B]
SP Jones	2005-2005 5  4  51.66 [B]4.69[/B]
C White		2002-2003 12 12 32.21 [B]4.69[/B]
MS Panesar	2007-2007 22 22 47.83 [B]4.70[/B]
JN Snape	2002-2002 5  5  43.60 [B]4.99[/B]
SJ Harmison	2002-2008 49 48 32.46 [B]5.13[/B]
JM Anderson	2002-2008 86 85 32.84 [B]5.19[/B]
GJ Batty	2002-2006 5  5  74.33 [B]5.52[/B]
CT Tremlett	2005-2008 7  7  72.20 [B]5.59[/B]
BC Hollioake	2002-2002 3  3  84.00 [B]5.60[/B]
MJ Hoggard	2002-2006 21 21 52.00 [B]5.82[/B]
R Clarke	2003-2006 15 10 45.00 [B]5.92[/B]
LE Plunkett	2005-2007 25 25 33.31 [B]5.94[/B]
SR Patel	2008-2008 10 8  29.70 [B]5.97[/B]
AGR Loudon	2006-2006 1  1  ----- [B]6.00[/B]
Kabir Ali	2005-2006 13 13 34.10 [B]6.08[/B]
RJ Kirtley	2002-2004 7  7  88.50 [B]6.10[/B]
SI Mahmood	2004-2007 21 20 41.95 [B]6.28[/B]
AJ Tudor	2002-2002 3  3  34.00 [B]6.42[/B]
TT Bresnan	2006-2006 4  4  84.50 [B]6.76[/B]
DG Cork		2002-2002 1  1  ----- [B]8.18[/B]

GP Swann	2007-2008 14 14 27.05 [B]4.72[/B]
AR Caddick	2002-2003 16 16 27.70 [B]4.76[/B]
RC Irani	2002-2003 19 19 52.00 [B]4.79[/B]
D Gough		2002-2006 54 54 31.70 [B]4.80[/B]
SCJ Broad	2006-2008 41 41 27.91 [B]4.97[/B]

MP Vaughan	2002-2007 61  23 37.78 [B]4.95[/B]
LJ Wright	2007-2008 15  8  51.33 [B]5.13[/B]
PD Collingwood	2002-2008 129 96 41.66 [B]5.16[/B]
RS Bopara	2007-2008 28  10 61.33 [B]5.54[/B]
KP Pietersen	2005-2008 73  12 34.60 [B]5.61[/B]
ME Trescothick	2002-2006 83  9  87.00 [B]5.61[/B]
VS Solanki	2003-2006 31  7  105.0 [B]5.67[/B]
OA Shah		2002-2008 44  5  42.00 [B]6.63[/B]
IR Bell		2005-2008 69  4  40.00 [B]6.66[/B]

Obviously, part-timers, at the bottom, aren't expected to do a bowler's job.

Swann and to a lesser extent Broad remains promising despite their poor economy-rates; Irani did a decent-ish job for a while; and Gough and Caddick had been excellent bowlers for a while before this time, and at times during it showed glimpses of their former glories while leaving it in no doubt at others that they were no longer that force then.

The rest should never, ever have played. Simple as. Their county figures left no-one who knows how to judge a one-day bowler in any doubt that they were not up to it.

 

[aussie]

It's not about having an attacking\defensive game, plenty of (well, more than a few) Test-class strokeplayers have failed to be any good at domestic or international OD cricket. Cook is never likely to be someone who scores terribly quickly in Tests, but it's far from impossible that he could adapt his game to work the ball around in ODIs. I don't want him to do this at the expense of his Test game, but I've seen players manage such a thing before.

If Cook is to accomplish this role though. He would need a Trescothick to partner him. But given England opening position remains our biggest problem, having Cook opening is a no no...

 

[aussie]

Which means that if the ball does move most sides will be 20-2 quite often. No amount of "advancing of the game" will change the fact that the bowler controls it if he's got a ball that moves. Against a good opening bowler, opening batsmen need to have a decent technique to combat the bowling and need to settle for less than they otherwise would at the start of the innings.

How many conditions & bowlers are likely to explotiong swinging condtions & the new ball to the fullnest these days??. Not much.

Plus if you want to fast forward to the 2011 WC, that will be non-existant, so again unless England find a comanding opener to exploit the power-plays. Cook should not be near the ODI side.

 

[Flem274*]

Cook
Strauss
KP
Trott
Collingwood
Flintoff
Read
Napier
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom

12th: Anderson

 

[Richard]

Slight problem with ICLs, apparently poor attitudes, plain not-being-good-enoughs, and openers batting the other way around to what they're listed.

Other than that, not too bad.

 

[Richard]

How many conditions & bowlers are likely to explotiong swinging condtions & the new ball to the fullnest these days??. Not much.

Plus if you want to fast forward to the 2011 WC, that will be non-existant

Not neccessarily, and not neccessarily. The ball can and does swing in the subcontinent. Whether there'll be many good bowlers on view is another question.

Nonetheless, you can't magic players out of thin-air. If a decent if slow start is the best you can hope for, then it's the best you can hope for. I'd prefer Cook to Luke Wright or someone along those lines. Any day.

 

[King Pietersen]

Trott
Bopara
Shah
Pietersen *
Collingwood
Flintoff
Mascheranhas
Foster +
Swann
Broad
Anderson

That's the ODi team I'd like to see. Won't ever happen though, as the selectors seem to be intent on ignoring Jonathan Trott, despite the fact his List A average is only surpassed by 2 players in English Cricket history. Foster also won't get a go, despite being the best lower order keeper in England, as the selectors seem to like Matt Prior too much, even though he's proven very little in the ODi arena.

 

[Richard]

I can't say I'm too keen on Foster as a one-day batsman. Good level-headed player in the longer game, but in the shorter game he just doesn't really possess the ability to work the decent balls around or smash the less-than-first-rate ones to and over the boundary.

The best one-day batsman who can keep wicket - Chris Read - appears to still be unavailable by all accounts, and one has to doubt severely if he'll ever play for England again even if his ICL involvement is now finished.

All told, I think Tim Ambrose deserved more than 4 innings' to show his ODI worth. After Read, he's probably the second-best one-day batsman of the competent wicketkeepers in the country.

Prior, of course, is not only an inept wicketkeeper (albeit that's slightly less of a problem in the shorter game than the longer one) but also a very poor one-day batsman. I've been hoping that his ODI days are over, well... all his ODI career really. So that I hope the West Indies tour will be his last in the ODI shirt isn't surprising.

One thing's for sure, it's deeply frustrating to see him picked to bat at seven or eight, as that comes-off as an attempt to disguise the selectors' shortcomings in totally misjudging his ability at the top of the order. If he was given a full run at the top of the order, his failings would be irrefutably laid bare for all and he could be dropped. Instead, the issue is fudged.

And BTW, England are always going to be severely handicapped as long as James Anderson is in the ODI team. He's just never, ever been up to it.

 

[King Pietersen]

Steven Davies > Chris Read and Tim Ambrose. Has a better List A record than both of them, and from what I've seen is a very capable keeper. Maybe he could be given a go, seeing as he's already in the squad?

Also, not sure about James Anderson not being upto ODi cricket. I think he's been very unlucky as far as taking wickets is concerned in recent times. He struggled in New Zealand and looked out of form and was rightly spanked, but he did well at home but just couldn't seem to pick up the wickets he deserved. His 2008 record wasn't good by any means, but in 2007 he did very well, taking 39 wickets at 29. He's starting to look a far more mature bowler, seems to have some real control now, and the fact he can swing the ball both ways at pace could be a very effective weapon in ODi cricket.

Anderson also performs very well at home in England. In the 34 games he's played in England, he's taken 51 wickets at 25.47 with an economy rate of under 5 plus a strike rate of 31. Those are very good numbers, and the fact he's getting more consistent with his line and length will mean that he should be able to find some level of consistency. I'm a big fan of James Anderson, he's got all the attributes to be a very good fast bowler. He operates at a very handy pace, swings the ball both ways, is capable of bowling with hostility and now has control. The reason he's been inconsistent in the past is because he's been training his muscles to work in rhythm with his action, which is vital as he doesn't look where he's bowling, and he's done that now, so should become a far more effective weapon in ODi cricket.

I think my bowling attack in the XI I posted has very good balance. You've got one of the best new ball bowlers in ODi cricket in Broad, the swing and pace of Anderson, the control of economy from Dimi, the fantastic death bowling, pace and control from Flintoff and then the very useful off-spin of Graeme Swann. Then you've also got part-time options from Bopara, Collingwood and Trott. Could be a very useful bowling attack.

 

[Prince EWS]

The thing with Ambrose was the fact that he wasn't suited to either batting in the top 3 or finishing the innings. The way he bats suggests essentially pigeon-holed him as a number 5 or 6 and those are two positions pretty adequately filled in the team at the moment. What the current side needs is either a wicket keeper who can open the batting or a wicket keeper who can finish off an innings; Ambrose isn't the best fit for those roles.

There really isn't anyone who you could slip in to the role and feel comfortabe in the fact that even if he isn't up to it, he deserves his selection and an extended run to find out. Regardless of who gets picked it's going to be somewhat of a "punt". Davies to open up is probably as good an option as any.

 

[King Pietersen]

How about Phil Mustard batting down the order to finish off the innings? He and Dimi Mascheranhas would really be able to up the run-rate at the end of the innings, both sharing the Albie Morkel-esque role when the batting powerplay comes into play. I thought he did ok in his spell in the side as well, he finally seemed to find his feet, hitting a blistering 83 and was then dropped. I think he could do a good job down the order.

 

[Prince EWS]

How about Phil Mustard batting down the order to finish off the innings? He and Dimi Mascheranhas would really be able to up the run-rate at the end of the innings, both sharing the Albie Morkel-esque role when the batting powerplay comes into play. I thought he did ok in his spell in the side as well, he finally seemed to find his feet, hitting a blistering 83 and was then dropped. I think he could do a good job down the order.

Well Mustard's the opposite to Ambrose in that he's the type of batsman that England need from their wicket keeping option but simply isn't very good. He's been playing county cricket since 2000 and he's only averaged 25 or more in a List A season once. It was after that season that was rushed into the England team and looked dire for the mostpart with a couple of half-decent innings on small grounds mixed in. The status quo of averaging 20 odd resumed last season though and if he was only barely passable in ODIs when he was in the form of his life, he's going to be well short of standard the rest of the time.

 

[Richard]

Steven Davies > Chris Read and Tim Ambrose. Has a better List A record than both of them, and from what I've seen is a very capable keeper. Maybe he could be given a go, seeing as he's already in the squad?

How about Phil Mustard batting down the order to finish off the innings? He and Dimi Mascheranhas would really be able to up the run-rate at the end of the innings, both sharing the Albie Morkel-esque role when the batting powerplay comes into play. I thought he did ok in his spell in the side as well, he finally seemed to find his feet, hitting a blistering 83 and was then dropped. I think he could do a good job down the order.

Mustard has done nothing of note down the order in OD cricket for Durham and next to nothing of note at the top of the order. His only claim to fame was his good 2007 season. No-one should ever be picked on one good season, especially when they've been absolutely diabolical before that.

Of all those to be picked, Mustard should've been one of the last. Hopefully they realised what a rank error it was to pick him, and that was the real reason he was left-out in 2008, with the line about wanting the same wicketkeeper in Tests and ODIs just a smokescreen.

As for Davies, he's only ever suggested at one-day batting skill last season. Before then his OD record was woeful. So picking him now would be another one-season selection. Which, given Davies (unlike Mustard) actually appears to have some potential, would be doubly deplorable.

I also don't like Davies opening the batting for Worcs. Would much prefer him at four, or three if needbe.

 

[Richard]

Also, not sure about James Anderson not being upto ODi cricket. I think he's been very unlucky as far as taking wickets is concerned in recent times. He struggled in New Zealand and looked out of form and was rightly spanked, but he did well at home but just couldn't seem to pick up the wickets he deserved. His 2008 record wasn't good by any means, but in 2007 he did very well, taking 39 wickets at 29. He's starting to look a far more mature bowler, seems to have some real control now, and the fact he can swing the ball both ways at pace could be a very effective weapon in ODi cricket.

Anderson also performs very well at home in England. In the 34 games he's played in England, he's taken 51 wickets at 25.47 with an economy rate of under 5 plus a strike rate of 31. Those are very good numbers, and the fact he's getting more consistent with his line and length will mean that he should be able to find some level of consistency. I'm a big fan of James Anderson, he's got all the attributes to be a very good fast bowler. He operates at a very handy pace, swings the ball both ways, is capable of bowling with hostility and now has control. The reason he's been inconsistent in the past is because he's been training his muscles to work in rhythm with his action, which is vital as he doesn't look where he's bowling, and he's done that now, so should become a far more effective weapon in ODi cricket.

I think my bowling attack in the XI I posted has very good balance. You've got one of the best new ball bowlers in ODi cricket in Broad, the swing and pace of Anderson, the control of economy from Dimi, the fantastic death bowling, pace and control from Flintoff and then the very useful off-spin of Graeme Swann. Then you've also got part-time options from Bopara, Collingwood and Trott. Could be a very useful bowling attack.

I'd back such part-time overs to get smashed far, far more games than not. I always want five front-line bowlers, bowling 10 overs each, in a ODI side, and when you've got a genuine all-rounder like Flintoff you can actually afford to do that.

As for Anderson, the truth is he's only ever bowled particularly well in the odd ODI here and there: Adelaide and Newlands 2002/03; Jamshedpur 2005/06; Bellerive and 'Gabba 2006/07; both games at Lord's and the one at The Rose Bowl in 2007; and the first of the two games at The Premadasa in 2007/08.

Anderson as a ODI bowler has for a long time ridden on two things: one, the fact that substandard teams (Holland, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Ireland, Scotland) are considered worth ODI status; and two, the fact that he has (or had) something of a golden-arm (ie, a knack of being gifted wickets with rank bad deliveries). This manifested itself in the summer of 2003; in the winter of 2005/06; and again in the summer of 2007. It meant that what would without it have been poor figures turned into a poor economy-rate but a good average. Anderson's career average, 32.84 against ODI-standard teams, is very poor as it is, but a fairer reflection would be an average of 37-38. And his economoy-rate, 5.19-an-over, is simply unacceptable.

Lately it seems Anderson's golden-arm has finally faded for good (since the SL tour in 2007/08 his average has been 65.57, and his economy-rate worse than ever at 5.56-an-over). Thus, hopefully we'll soon see him out of the ODI team, as his presence has damaged it for a long time now.

Anderson's Test accuracy may be better than ever now, but his ODI bowling was never accurate enough and his perceived succes was based, as I say, on the faulty "wickets are what matters and if you're taking wickets being expensive doesn't matter". The inaccuracy (in ODIs) remains, and the wicket-taking seems finally to have stopped - which is long overdue.

As for Broad, Mascarenhas and Swann, much as all have promise, they've all got something to do. Swann of late has not lived-up to his initial promise, handicapped though he has been by the circumstances he's had to deal with; Mascarenhas' 2008 summer for Hampshire was very poor and as such he's been dropped; and Broad only really bowled that well in the NZ series in the summer of 2008. Aside from that he's mixed excellent spells (in the minority) with diabolical ones (in the majority). The average still looks good, because it's harder to get an average up than an economy-rate, but the economy-rate tells the full story.

 

[Uppercut]

Mascarenhas' 2008 summer for Hampshire was very poor and as such he's been dropped;

Wat.

Dimi in CC:
673 runs @ 30.59
43 wickets @ 23.82

Dimi in Pro40:
139 runs @ 46.33 (batting down the order of course)
6 wickets @ 43.83 (E/R circa 5)

Dimi in FPT:
115 runs @ 57.5
7 wickets @ 19.11 (E/R under 4)

Hardly exactly stinking up the joint. He had a mediocre start to the campaign, which is probably where you got the idea from, or perhaps you watched a few of his poor matches. Truth be told, on the whole he was actually a really good all-rounder for the season and from what I watched and read his captaincy wasn't bad either. I actually have no idea why he stopped featuring for England.

 

[Richard]

Obviously you can't place all that much weight on the wretched Pro40, but sadly you'd still expect better from one of the best OD bowlers in England than what he managed (which was an economy-rate of 5.47-an-over).

Quite how I missed the FP though, I'm not remotely sure. I'd thought he'd done poorly in it, but in fact he played just 3 50-over games, taking 10-26-1, 10-38-2 and 10-37-3. Then a stupid 20-over game (why TF, now we've got Twenty20, aren't List-A OD games that're reduced to 20 overs just counted as Twenty20 matches?) ruined things.

There really were a stupid number of games rained-out early last summer, and Hants were evidently worse-hit than everyone. Also did well in his England A game (8-26-2).

I'm truly baffled. The Pro40 came after the ODI series against NZ (in which he didn't play a 50-over game, just the one that was reduced to 24 overs).

Either way, he's gone really well again for Otago in the NZ one-dayers, so hopefully if he can carry that on into this season's FP (and hopefully this year there'll be something close to a full program) there's absolutely no excuse for him not to be straight back in the ODIs.

BTW, always bear in mind that to me Mascarenhas is a bowler. His batting is 100% bonus. I'm only terribly bothered about his bowling, because that's his specialist role.

 

[King Pietersen]

Broad only really bowled that well in the NZ series in the summer of 2008. Aside from that he's mixed excellent spells (in the minority) with diabolical ones (in the majority). The average still looks good, because it's harder to get an average up than an economy-rate, but the economy-rate tells the full story.

Yeh, you're right, an economy rate of 4.94 in the modern game is awful isn't it, 4.85 in 2008 as a whole as well, awful. Question, do you actually check anything before you post it? Or do you just filter through your encyclopedic cricketing knowledge and hope that you stumble upon something that scarcely resembles the truth? Only bowled well in NZ?

West Indies in England: 3 Matches, 5 wickets at an average of 28 with a strike rate of 33, and an economy of 5.00
England in Sri Lanka: 5 Matches, 11 wickets at an average of 19 with a strike ratte of 24 and an economy of 4.64
England in New Zealand: 5 Matches, 8 wickets at an average of 25 with a strike rate of 25 and an economy of 5.42
New Zealand in England: 5 Matches, 7 wickets at an average of 21 with a strike rate of 35 and an economy of 3.58
South Africa in England: 5 Matches, 8 wickets at an average of 18 with a strike rate of 24 and an economy of 4.37

The only series' where he's averaged over 30 with the ball are his first series against Pakistan where he was thrown in way too early, then the 2 series against India at home and away, and away he finished with far better figures than Andrew Flintoff, and he bowled very well. Ishant Sharma's figures were only slightly better than Broads, and they're his home conditions.

I'm sure none of those stats will be valid though, as it's not numbers that make a player, it's watching the games and using your superior cricketing knowledge that wins arguments............

 

[Uppercut]

BTW, always bear in mind that to me Mascarenhas is a bowler. His batting is 100% bonus. I'm only terribly bothered about his bowling, because that's his specialist role.

Yeah, his actual numbers of runs demonstrate that. But hitting out down the order in ODIs is also a specialist role, as Albie Morkel has demonstrated in recent times. There are batsmen and then there are people who can score at a strike rate of over 200 and win you a match you should previously have lost. Mascarenhas is the latter and he can and has won matches for England with the bat. Considering the team will inevitably already have 6 or 7 batsmen, it's a bonus you can't ignore. And according to the NZers on here he's been extremely impressive with the bat for Otago recently.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeh, you're right, an economy rate of 4.94 in the modern game is awful isn't it, 4.85 in 2008 as a whole as well, awful. Question, do you actually check anything before you post it? Or do you just filter through your encyclopedic cricketing knowledge and hope that you stumble upon something that scarcely resembles the truth? Only bowled well in NZ?

West Indies in England: 3 Matches, 5 wickets at an average of 28 with a strike rate of 33.
England in Sri Lanka: 5 Matches, 11 wickets at an average of 19 with a strike ratte of 24
England in New Zealand: 5 Matches, 8 wickets at an average of 25 with a strike rate of 25
New Zealand in England: 5 Matches, 7 wickets at an average of 21 with a strike rate of 35
South Africa in England: 5 Matches, 8 wickets at an average of 18 with a strike rate of 24

The only series' where he's averaged over 30 with the ball are his first series against Pakistan where he was thrown in way too early, then the 2 series against India at home and away, and away he finished with far better figures than Andrew Flintoff, and he bowled very well. Ishant Sharma's figures were only slightly better than Broads, and they're his home conditions.

I'm sure none of those stats will be valid though, as it's not numbers that make a player, it's watching the games and using your superior cricketing knowledge that wins arguments............

Haha, the frustrations of arguing with Dicko.

I'll say that you can't realistically use S/R when measuring a one-day bowler since it's inversely associated with economy rate. A higher strike rate is often desirable if the average is the same.

 

[King Pietersen]

Lol, this is the first time I've ventured into a discussion with him, but from my short time reading these forums I've seen him involved in many a 'discussion' and using the same method of arguing every time, basically backing his arguments up with his encyclopedic cricketing memories. It's an interesting method to say the least. As a newbie outsider it comes across as incredible levels of arrogance from where I'm sitting, and I thought I'd met the most arrogant person ever at PlanetCricket forums with Ben (wfdu_Ben91 on here), but Dickers blows him completely out of the water, he'd be much loved posting like this at Planetcricket :L

Also, I've edited the post to include the economy rates also.