• 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.

Teams that will do well at World Cup 2007

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
FaaipDeOiad said:
We're talking about ODIs here. Facing the new ball in 90% of matches means 4 or 5 of swing and 20 overs with the field up. You certainly don't need a particularly good technique against pace bowling to succeed as an ODI opener - look at Chris Gayle for instance.

Anyway, I don't really see how it's even close between these players, but as Jono said if you think Trescothick is as good as Symonds just because he faces the new ball, then surely that argument would mean that every half-decent opener is better than a great middle order batsman.
Facing the new ball also generally means facing the best bowlers (against Aus, WI, SA, NZ, Pak at least) and having to bat for a longer period of time in addition to facing those few overs of swing. The benefit Symonds has is that he genuinely comes in against the backup bowling attack on a surface that has properly flattened out, without the prospect of batting for as long as Trescothick does.

There's a reason why middle order batsmen in ODIs tend to average more than openers.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Jono said:
Player?

Bowls, and is one of the best fielders in the world. On top of that he's absolutely devastating with the bat at times, and since the WC has been brilliant.

He's the better player alright.

Its closer if you count just batting, but even so, I reckon most teams would rather Symonds than Trescothick. Even if he doesn't face the new ball. Otherwise you could use that argument for every good but not great opener against great middle order batsmen.
And I reckon that Trescothick is one of the best ODI openers in the world and it's not a position that just anyone can succeed in.

Symonds only averages marginally more than Trescothick and scores centuries at a far less frequent rate. Granted, Symonds doesn't get as much time to bat, but it's really my whole point as to why you can't categorically call Symonds better than Trescothick.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
There's a reason why middle order batsmen in ODIs tend to average more than openers.
They don't, though. As TEC pointed out, almost all of the top averaging batsmen in ODIs right now bat in the top 4.

Hussey doesn't, Pietersen usually bats in the top 4 these days but has done well at 5, then there's Sarwan, Dhoni, Tendulkar, Clarke, Kallis, Dippenaar, Ponting, Yousuf, Lara, Martyn, Hayden, Gayle, Inzamam, Dravid, Smith and Symonds. That's all the players who currently average 38.63 or more, though Symonds recent average of 45 cuts a fair few of them out.

Of those, all bar Dhoni and Clarke have most of their success (and spend most of their time) batting in the top 4. Yousuf and Inzamam are borderline cases. If anything, good quality ODI batsmen who bat lower in the order usually average significantly less, as they have to throw their wickets away to up the run rate. Witness the likes of Razzaq here. You can only maintain a good average in the lower order by being not out regularly. There's certianly no evidence at all that batting in the top order in ODIs is harder in terms of average, it simply requires a different skillset and different batsmen have success there. You have to deal with opening bowlers and the new ball, but you can hit boundaries at will and don't need to face spin for the first 15-20 overs of your innings. The reason Hussey bats at 7 isn't because he's crap and must be protected from the new ball, it's because he has a unique ability to find gaps in the late overs, something Symonds also possesses that he wouldn't need if he was opening.

Regardless, even if you think Symonds and Trescothick are equivalent batsmen, surely Symonds bowling, fielding and scoring rate rate put him ahead.
 
Last edited:

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
marc71178 said:
No, we haven't.

We're ranked so badly for a clear reason, we're a poor side.
I consider England's batting lineup good enough to avoid the side being labelled poor with the likes of Pietersen, Trescothick and Flintoff to name a few, it's just the bowling that's stopping you from regularly beating the top few teams in the world.

But having said that I do believe NZ are the better ODI team at the moment. I'm glad we're only playing against you in ODIs this summer. Tests would be truly embarrassing.
 

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
Scaly piscine said:
So that explains why Australia keep beating you then, even with weakened sides - think it is now 2 wins out of the last 18 against them now for you lot and one of those wins involved one of the worst Australian sides for a decade or so (the other was a dead rubber).

Then add in NZ's inability to raise their game whenever it means something, such as in a World Cup. They've no realistic chance of winning the World Cup and no realistic chance of beating a high strength Australia when they're up for it.
Still gotta laugh at this. You really can't stand NZ can you? Why keep pointing at our record v Australia as some sort of indication that we're a poor ODI side? People have subsequently shown that England's record is no better, that NZ can almost never field a full strength side either, and that England haven't won anything in the one day game.

Pretty much every team has a lousy record against Australia in recent times. If you must focus on NZ's record, how about that we just beat the number 2 and 3 teams in the world, and that the last time we met England, we gave them a shellacking?

We're not odds-on to win the World Cup or anything, but we are a better ODI side than England atm, full strength or not.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
As opposed to how many good years from Lewis? Righto.
the same? hence theres no convincing argument that Mills is better. if anything it is Lewis with the better record ATM.
 

Top