It's not 'dumb technicalities', it's presenting opinions as facts, which is pretty dangerous and doesn't help your argument.
Well yes. But if we come to conclusion that Alleyne was not one of quality doemstic OD players. It still highlights a problem with our domestic game, given the inept standard - we dont produce enough players capable of producing on the international stage.
Nah. Afridi although he has been a great frustration throughout his career with the bat especially. At least he has looked international quality & capable of actually doing much more.
Haa, Vaughan did not look woeful in every single ODI he played, come on. In his early days around the ODI team between 2001-2003 before he became captain, nobody really knew what was his best role was since he was batting all over the top 6.
Come on mayn. You cant seriously tell me the extra pace of Lee didn't expose him just as well just as Bracken. Yea he showed "glimpses" with some innovative shots againts Lee of what he was like at Lancashire, but overall he looked a totally different player at international level - which clearly proved the step up in level of bowling showed him up.
No way in 2002/03 should Ealham have played ahead of White in ODI cricket. Plus even though he was a better bowler than Giles - if ENG had indeed taken that team to the 03 WC - the surfaces helped the spinners - so Giles had to play.
Well i guaged that opinion of mine by following ODI team progress in all my years of watching cricket, while looking back at how things have gone downhill since WC 92. So what i guess i would ask you then is if you think that link is "highly disputable", what in your opinion is/are the reason/s for ENG being a poor ODI team for more than 15 years now?
They aren't different consideration, it is one of the key reasons why we dont produce ODI quality players like other nations. The way ENG perform in under-19 World Cups proves this pretty clear.
Yes but if you have a domestic structure where players are doing these things at a level way below that of international cricket - you won't get ODI quality players.
Brown never did all that much as a middle-order hitter really - he was much better-served at the top of the order where he could score far more runs and thus benefit the team far more. I've never remotely understood why Brown did not open for Surrey virtually all career.
I think that says more about stereotypes (which are worse in England than anywhere) than Brown TBH. Brown was a much better player in the longer game than the shorter, but the stereotype is that his manner of playing fits the one-day game better than the First-Class one - and there are some easily-spoon-fed titbits (ie, 201 in a 40-over game and 268 in a 50-over one) that could be used to back-up this faulty stereotype.
Sanath Jayasuriya is remembered as a superb ODI opener, which is just what his stats show that he is (IIRR he averages something like 35 at a strike-rate of about 90 opening in ODIs, which is phenomenal, especially over 300 games or so).
Nothing to do with the domestic game and everything to do with the fact that English cricketers generally don't learn the neccessary skills before they reach domestic level.
Afridi has looked completely inept for the vast majority of his ODI career - no-one has a hope in hell of success batting as he has pretty much throughout the last 7-8 years. Brown is quite obviously a vastly superior batsman to him. Yet he has got countless chances, because his style fits well in the Pakistani mindset; Brown's sits very uncomfortably with the English mindset, so he was never going to get much crack of the whip, and didn't.
No, I don't accept that and never have. Vaughan was simply never good enough to be a good OD batsman, he did not have the basic skills. And yes, surprise surprise, his record in domestic cricket showed that very clearly. Vaughan was always too reliant on conventional strokes along the ground, he was not an innovator nor an over-the-top hitter. I said in 2000/01 when Vaughan was first picked that he was not a ODI-standard player, I was saying it throughout his career and I was right - he wasn't.
If that had been the judgement passed on every player after their first 5-6 innings' we wouldn't have very many batsmen playing international cricket. There is no way Loye's failures of 2006/07 were conclusive ones.
I wasn't saying he was too old in 2006/07, merely that at that age it was going to be immediate success or no success. And a great many players fail to be successful immediately. Most require a second chance. Loye was too old when first selected to be ever going to get more than one.
I realise that - I said if. I said myself earlier on that the earliest he could've played was the 2003 summer. I was merely saying that had he debuted at a younger age he could've had more time at the top and could have been brought back after sorting his left-armer flaws.
I don't really care whether surfaces help the spinners, Ealham is, was and always will be still a far better OD bowler than Giles and should always have played instead of him. He was also always better than White, who was a good ODI bowler for only a year 1999/2000-2000. Ealham was also a far better OD bowler than almost all (sometimes absolutely all) in the country between 1992 and 2009, and should have been a fixture in England's team between the 1991/92 and 2007 World Cups.
Because that's the way English cricket works. There is no executive or executive board that makes decisions and tells the counties "this is the way it will be", the counties govorn themselves via means of the ECB.
Every County is bankrupt and out of business without ECB funding.
I realize that - I just think it's ludicrous.
Well if the players aren't coming into domestic cricket with the right skills, thus you have a situation like we do have with a group mediocre players playing at a average standard - you have a poor domestic competition. Theirfore it has everything to do with the domestic game.
I would have to disagree. Around 05/06 when ENG toured PAK i would say Afridi was turning the corner as batsman. Afridi has definately his talent with the bat.
The mindset & style factors are true. But at the same time, i would have to disagree that Brown deserved or could have gotten more chances in the ODI, he just looked a totally different player in ENG colours that he was for surrey
No he wasn't. Have a look back at the innings vs AUS CT 04, WI WC 07 & WI 04 last ODI. This is where he was different from Atherton & Cook, in that he had the skills & shots to be a good ODI player.
Overall this could have definately occured. But given our domestic game basically didn't have 90mph bowlers anyway. I struggle to believe even if he was picked before 2003, he would have come back stronger given that Ali Brown didn't.
Haa. Do you not remember the assistance the pitches in SA 03 had on various occassions?. Giles definately had a role to play in the WC especially in that game vs AUS @ P.E. Ealham could have had role in other games though.
I dont know anything about that, i can remember White's last ODI like yesterday he was superb in that game vs AUS @ P.E. You seriously telling me Ealham could have bowled better?. Please. White when he became international quality in 2000 was very solid in ODIs until he retired.
As i said before no way should he have been in 07 WC. Mascarenhas should have been picked instead. I'm not too ofay with ENGs ODI performances in WC 92 & 96, gut given that ENG got to the final i dont see how Ealham would have made that team better. Not sure about 1996 either. But i defiantely believe based on your past deliberations about Ealham you are strecting it, but i'm a still listen to what you have to say..
AFAIC, if the problem is with the domestic game then you'd have a case of players with outstanding prowess coming in then failing once they got to county level. But you don't. Young English cricketers just aren't taught well to play - or maybe just don't have a natural aptitude for - the one-day game.
I'd say he played exactly the same on that tour as any other time since he lost his brain in 2002.
So you can go through all the batsmen who were selected for ODIs in the late-1990s and early-2000s and honestly tell me they were better and merited a chance more than him?
Atherton and, heck, even Cook have played the odd good ODI innings. But the greater pattern shows clearly to me that none of them had the game to do it very often.
He may have done; he may not have. But there is no way his failure in the tiny chance he got proves anything about anything, except that a fair few players fail having made the step up.
I remember them well, but Ealham did not require a favourable surface - on anything other than a rank road he was basically unhittable.
White between 2000/01 and 2002/03 was not a very good ODI bowler. Go look up the figures.
Ealham couldn't have played in the 1991/92 WC, but he should've been straight in the following summer, or at worst the next one after that. Given that he consistently outperformed virtually everyone else in the country over the next 15 years, however, he should indeed have been a fixture in the team. And given that so many inferiors of his were instead picked and caned to all parts, that firms it up AFAIC.
Your earlier post seemed to suggest you were unaware of this - unfortunately that's basically the way all cricketing governing bodies work.
