*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

[Jarquis]

So ATM Trott should be a squad player keeping the likes of Colly/Shah/Morgan on their toes - but not a definite starter. But as i mentioned above, he could be an option to open with Strauss ahead of Denly in a non-Flintoff ODI XI.

Should open ahead of Denly anyway if we're going to have Prior at 7.

 

[Jarquis]

Strauss
Davies
Trott
KP
Colly
Flintoff
Morgan
Broad
Swann
Somebody
Anderson

Not sure who should be at 10 in that 4th seamer slot, currently you're looking at Sidebottom, Onions or Bresnan. If it's the latter of the 3 that's insane batting depth.

 

[GIMH]

Swann the best (well, no, least bad) England bowler this year by a country mile - wonder if he's now finally established in the side?

He obviously is. Only missed those games against Australia because they wanted to try Rashid, i.e experimentation. He was told that he'd be back in later in the series.

 

[aussie]

Should open ahead of Denly anyway if we're going to have Prior at 7.

Denly is a more natural opener of course & i like what i've seen of him. Trott has only this season (i think) being opening domestically & although he has some decent performances there, given the poor standard of bowling he would have faced. I'm not sure if its a clear guide that would tell us he would be a free-scoring opener capable of taken full advantage of the power-play overs - since Trott is more of an accumilator of runs - rather than a basher.

 

[aussie]

I'd eventually like to see this XI:

Andrew Strauss *
Craig Kieswetter +
Kevin Pietersen
Jonathan Trott
Paul Collingwood
Eoin Morgan
Luke Wright
Andrew Flintoff
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
James Anderson

The only problem is getting 10 overs from Wright, Collingwood, Trott and Pietersen. Not the most reliable way to bowl 10 overs, although I think it could work. Sidebottom's looked pretty terrible in One Day cricket recently, and Onions shouldn't be in the squad. I'm not happy with Bresnan in the side either, would rather see Wright play.

Mascarenhas over Wright all day, especially if Flintoff is fit & batting @ 7.

 

[aussie]

You selected a side that had Shah as a guaranteed pick but Trott not - therefore you're picking Shah over Trott, so yes, you did say that.

. Only marc boy..

So based on this logic, Australia picking Watson to open in tests over Hughes definately makes Watson better than Hughes right?

Doesn't matter if you keep saying it or not, it doesn't make it any more worthwhile a selection.

Once Flintoff isn't playing it makes more sense to let Prior bat @ 7 for the sake of balance instead of opening with one of Kieswetter or Davies.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not talking about Australia, I'm talking about you - Trott is a competitor for the middle order with Shah, so you picking Shah so must be saying you think he's better.

As for Prior, he's NOT GOOD ENOUGH, so screw balance and pick the better option - it's not rocket science.

 

[Jarquis]

Denly is a more natural opener of course & i like what i've seen of him. Trott has only this season (i think) being opening domestically & although he has some decent performances there, given the poor standard of bowling he would have faced. I'm not sure if its a clear guide that would tell us he would be a free-scoring opener capable of taken full advantage of the power-play overs - since Trott is more of an accumilator of runs - rather than a basher.

If Trott does better than Denly opening domestically, then how can you possibly say that Denly will fare better at International level.
Oh and are you seriously calling Denly a basher?

 

[aussie]

I'm not talking about Australia, I'm talking about you - Trott is a competitor for the middle order with Shah, so you picking Shah so must be saying you think he's better..

No it does not mean that, nor does it mean i think Shah is better than Trott. As i've said before i see no reason Shah should dropped RIGHT NOW given his performances over the past two years (regardless of his running issues). Why would you drop him after how well he played in the CT?. Trott for now should be back-up keeping all of Shah/Colly/Morgan/Denly on their toes.

The comparison with AUS picking Watson over Hughes, proves that picking a player over another does not always mean he is better. But rather team balance, so dont bring that BS to me.

As for Prior, he's NOT GOOD ENOUGH, so screw balance and pick the better option - it's not rocket science.

When neither Kiewsetter or Davies have not batted @ 7 in domestically, no way.

Prior as i've said before for the majority of his ODI career has batted out his position with ENG looking to find a replacement of Trescothick. Now he should be given a chance to bat in ODIs where he bats in tests, before being discarded.

 

[aussie]

If Trott does better than Denly opening domestically, then how can you possibly say that Denly will fare better at International level.

Because domestic OD performances in ENG does not generally equate to ODI success. So you shouldn't look at is as "Oh Trott has done well opening for Warwickshire, he must be a good option to open in ODI cricket". Trott has only opened as i said this season, Denly has being doing so all career. So for now Denly definately should be given more a chance to see whats up.

Plus now that i'm checking the list A records this year. Denly did slightly better than Trott.

Oh and are you seriously calling Denly a basher?

I'm not. Denly though domestically has shown domestically along with his solid technique he can be innovative in his shot selection. He has shown glimpses of that in the few ODIs he has played so far.

 

[Jarquis]

Because domestic OD performances in ENG does not generally equate to ODI success. So you shouldn't look at is as "Oh Trott has done well opening for Warwickshire, he must be a good option to open in ODI cricket". Trott has only opened as i said this season, Denly has being doing so all career. So for now Denly definately should be given more a chance to see whats up.

Plus now that i'm checking the list A records this year. Denly did slightly better than Trott.



I'm not. Denly though domestically has shown domestically along with his solid technique he can be innovative in his shot selection. He has shown glimpses of that in the few ODIs he has played so far.

Denly scored 16 more runs than Trott at an average 10 runs lower. I wouldn't open with Trott, I'd open with a man who averages an amount pretty much identical to Denly but strikes at more than 40 runs more per 100 balls.; Steve Davies.

 

[marc71178]

No it does not mean that, nor does it mean i think Shah is better than Trott. As i've said before i see no reason Shah should dropped RIGHT NOW given his performances over the past two years (regardless of his running issues). Why would you drop him after how well he played in the CT?.

Because unlike you I don't accept mediocre batsmen who are useless in the field and won't let 1 innings change that.

When neither Kiewsetter or Davies have not batted @ 7 in domestically, no way.

Who said anything about batting them at 7? There's an opening at the top of the order - and Davies is more than deserving of a shot at it.

Prior as i've said before for the majority of his ODI career has batted out his position with ENG looking to find a replacement of Trescothick. Now he should be given a chance to bat in ODIs where he bats in tests, before being discarded.

He's done nothing to justify the chances - yet there's someone who has. Like I say, it's not rocket science.

 

[FBU]

Swann the best (well, no, least bad) England bowler this year by a country mile - wonder if he's now finally established in the side?

He should be as he is the best we have had for a long time. The most important thing is the strike rate.

His career figures are 31 wickets at 27.87 econ 4.67 s/r 35.81

s/rs
Mendis 23.70
Murali 35.16
Hauritz 36.90
van der Merwe 38.40
Mishra 43.50
Harbhajan 46.30
Ajmal 46.33
Vettori 45.93
Botha 52.09

 

[Anna]

Denly is a more natural opener of course & i like what i've seen of him. Trott has only this season (i think) being opening domestically & although he has some decent performances there, given the poor standard of bowling he would have faced. I'm not sure if its a clear guide that would tell us he would be a free-scoring opener capable of taken full advantage of the power-play overs - since Trott is more of an accumilator of runs - rather than a basher.

Have you actually watched Trott bat this season? He is certainly capable of bashing the ball when needed.

He did open last season as well.

 

[GIMH]

Have you actually watched Trott bat this season? He is certainly capable of bashing the ball when needed.

He did open last season as well.

Yeah but don't you know that runs scored in doemstic cricket in England aren't worth anything?!!!!!!!!! [/aussie mode]

 

[Anna]

He didn't do too badly against Australia....or does that not count either?

 

[Richard]

WOW!

4 Africans @ the TOP and 1 Irish in the middle of the batting line up...

Its a pity England stopped producing players of their own!

Strauss isn't an African, and learned absolutely every bit of his cricket in England.

 

[Prince EWS]

The most important thing is the strike rate.

Richard to rage.

 

[Anna]

Strauss isn't an African, and learned absolutely every bit of his cricket in England.

Exactly.

If you're working on those principles, Andrew Symonds is a Brummie.....I could go on with other examples but I won't.

 

[Richard]

I'd eventually like to see this XI:

Andrew Strauss *
Craig Kieswetter +
Kevin Pietersen
Jonathan Trott
Paul Collingwood
Eoin Morgan
Luke Wright
Andrew Flintoff
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
James Anderson

The only problem is getting 10 overs from Wright, Collingwood, Trott and Pietersen. Not the most reliable way to bowl 10 overs, although I think it could work. Sidebottom's looked pretty terrible in One Day cricket recently, and Onions shouldn't be in the squad. I'm not happy with Bresnan in the side either, would rather see Wright play.

Eight is far too low for Flintoff. Why on Earth would you want a proven pretty decent ODI batsman like him batting below a waste of space like Luke Wright? Come to that, why on Earth does anyone with any sense think Wright has the remotest thing to offer at ODI level?

In that side I'd probably have Flintoff five, Collingwood six and Morgan seven. Collingwood is quite capable of bowling 10 overs - yes he'd usually go for plenty but should go for less than Trott, Pietersen etc.

Mascarenhas is a better OD bowler than most in this country if bowled at the right time, and Sidebottom however bad he's been recently is still better than Anderson, however touched by fortune he's been once again recently.