I think it's the other way round.dubai194 said:why do england play fewer ODIS then other teams? i think that is one of the main reasons their struggling in oneday games these days
They should've toured West Indies!Perm said:Duncan Fletcher beleives that test's are more important than ODI's and I would agree with him, but with the World Cup coming up I think it would've been better for England if they played a more varied opposition rather than 5 ODI's against Pakistan and Sri Lanka, 7 against India etc. They should have 3 game series and then occasionally on a big tour it should be a 5 game series.
We drew there. Then we lost at home. Then we lost the CT final. We can't beat them either. We can't beat anyone.Turbinator said:They should've toured West Indies!
East devon U11s looking for a pre season warm-up game by any chance?Neil Pickup said:We drew there. Then we lost at home. Then we lost the CT final. We can't beat them either. We can't beat anyone.
You've got to hand it over to the Australians. People go on about how the BCCI is interested in milking ODI cricket for money, but look at CA. On an average, India host two 5 match ODI series per year against 2 visiting nations. CA on the other hand, force one of the touring teams to wait it out while a second plays their test series in Australia, and then participate in their tri series. Not only do Australia get their quota of 10-11 ODIs for the home season, but they also get the other two teams to play out a further 4 ODIs annually over there. Its a wonder the other nations put up with it.Lillian Thomson said:The overkill of One-Day cricket is purely to make money. The World Series in Australia where three teams played each other 4 or 5 times just to illiminate one team is a complete nonsense, but it makes money.
We have our pre-season plans sorted.open365 said:East devon U11s looking for a pre season warm-up game by any chance?
You are being pretty harsh on Test cricket, I still think the majority of Australian fans would rather see their team win the Ashes or the Border-Gavaskar Trophy rather than the World Cup. One reason they put the World Cup on "equal footing" with the Ashes and Border-Gavaskar Trophy is that teams are becoming more competitive in ODI's, in 2007 there are a number of teams who could win it. But in the Ashes Australia's dominance has made the contest less exciting and perhaps less important in the eyes of some. If you asked the Australian cricketers right now what they would rather do, regain the Ashes or win the World Cup I am sure that the majority, if not all of them would prefer to regain the urn.Steulen said:This whole 'Test cricket is the real cricket' argument is so outdated it's not funny anymore.
Let's face it, to all the other teams. ODI cricket is as least as important, if not more important, as Test cricket. Even Australia puts the ODI world cup on an equal footing with the Ashes or the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.
It's only England which continues to ignore ODI cricket, and it shows in their results.
Lol, fair 2 line rant. Enjoyed that.tooextracool said:Im sick and tired of people overrating pietersen. The guy can barely buy a run in either form of the game, yet not only is he put down as a certainity but hes also worshipped as though hes amongst the top 5 players in the world.
except if anyone of those catches had been taken at the oval, Pietersen would have been dropped not long after, England would never have won the Ashes and the selection of Pietersen over Thorpe would be considered a disaster(much like it should be). When your whole career revolves around 1 innings that involved 3 dropped chances, things arent really going very well for you to be honest.andmark said:Its probably because of the ashes