Major England ODI Overhaul Needed

[Scaly piscine]

He's still never really been a one day bowler although he's never really had the chance at international level. IMO he should have to prove himself at county level before he gets in the ODI team.

No he shouldn't have to prove himself at county level. He didn't prove himself at county level before playing Tests and he doesn't need to do it for ODIs. He's clearly a better bet than Plunkett, Broad, Mahmood, Panesar and so on.

 

[open365]

He's still never really been a one day bowler although he's never really had the chance at international level. IMO he should have to prove himself at county level before he gets in the ODI team.

With Scaly on here, with other countries it would be different, but with the state of England's bowling attack right now anyone with true class like Jones has should be in the side, even if he's not an ODI bowler he's still a better bowler than most of the pace attack.

 

[Richard]

why do you think a quite net session will make so much of a difference. As such i will be quite surprised if i hear that he hasnt had more than a dozen quiet net sessions in recent times.
Like i said saying that he should get a good net is redundant, because he should be getting that anyways. The point is that he should be released immediately to play county cricket in England.

I don't dispute that for a second (as a batsman - no way should he be bowling).

But I cannot help feel that if he continues to play as he has recently all that'll happen is a load of cheap dismissals.

 

[Richard]

On Simon Jones, did anyone watch him bowl for Glamorgan against Somerset? Scorecards reveal 3/56 from 10 which isnt really quite so bad for someone returning from injury.

Domestic cricket has never really been a decent indication of Jones' prowess, really.

 

[ozone]

No he shouldn't have to prove himself at county level. He didn't prove himself at county level before playing Tests and he doesn't need to do it for ODIs. He's clearly a better bet than Plunkett, Broad, Mahmood, Panesar and so on.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant that he should have to prove that he is fully fit and not going to collapse before he is rushed back into our ODI team. I would happily have him instead of Plunkett to strengthen our bowling IF he is fit. What I was saying is that he currently has a poor OD record and is not going to solve all of our bowling issues.

 

[ozone]

I don't dispute that for a second (as a batsman - no way should he be bowling).

But I cannot help feel that if he continues to play as he has recently all that'll happen is a load of cheap dismissals.

IMO he should get some time in the middle. His confidence can't get much lower than it currently is and Nets can only do so much. As was said on commentary in the WI game, he frequently gets out caught to shots praised in the Nets but which are actually just chips down to Long-On in game situations.

 

[Richard]

But you can't get time in the middle if you get out, that's the point.

 

[Pup Clarke]

But you can't get time in the middle if you get out

Stating the blating obvious.

 

[Richard]

Well... yes. But it struck me as neccessary.

 

[ozone]

But you can't get time in the middle if you get out, that's the point.

Obviously, but he's not going to get back into form in the nets.

 

[open365]

But you can't get time in the middle if you get out, that's the point.

So he makes damn sure he doesn't get out then.

If he plays well in a net it's not going to alter his confidence level much because the problem of scoring runs in the middle is still there.

Get him some game time, it's the only way.

 

[NUFAN]

The main thing that England should change is stop playing 45 over matches. I mean seriously what's the point? Is the extra 40 minutes better spent having a pint of Carling then playing cricket?

Players can't handle the 50 over matches so well as they are used to only bowling 9 overs, they don't mind getting out earlier, and get fatigued earlier. It's no wonder the English struggle to bat more then 45 overs sometimes.

 

[Richard]

Obviously, but he's not going to get back into form in the nets.

He's also not going to get back into form in the pavilion, which is where he'll be spending most of his time if he goes out and bats like he has been of late.

 

[Richard]

So he makes damn sure he doesn't get out then.

If he plays well in a net it's not going to alter his confidence level much because the problem of scoring runs in the middle is still there.

Get him some game time, it's the only way.

It is the only way, but if only it were so simple as "making damn sure he doesn't get out" then I'm sure he'd have been doing that for the last 12 months.

 

[Richard]

The main thing that England should change is stop playing 45 over matches. I mean seriously what's the point? Is the extra 40 minutes better spent having a pint of Carling then playing cricket?

Players can't handle the 50 over matches so well as they are used to only bowling 9 overs, they don't mind getting out earlier, and get fatigued earlier. It's no wonder the English struggle to bat more then 45 overs sometimes.

That's pretty simplistic. Not only have 45-overs games not been played for 2 years (it's 40 overs this year, as it was last) but there's no real difference between 45 and 50 overs so far as the individual is concerned. The former is generally thought to be more crowd-friendly, however.

 

[NUFAN]

That's pretty simplistic. Not only have 45-overs games not been played for 2 years (it's 40 overs this year, as it was last) but there's no real difference between 45 and 50 overs so far as the individual is concerned. The former is generally thought to be more crowd-friendly, however.

How can you say that? 40 overs makes it even worse, 3 pints of beer.

Players are playing 20 per cent less cricket per match, you go about things in a different manner because it's basically a different game. As the Thai's say: Same Same, But Different..

 

[Richard]

40 overs does indeed make a bit more of a difference, that wasn't my argument. I don't really like 40-over cricket, especially now we've got the Twenty20 Cup and there's substantial evidence that many players are treating it more like an extended Twenty20 game and less like a one-dayer. Even before Twenty20 it was still not ideal (they played 40 overs between 1969 and 1998), either.

45 overs, on the other hand, is little different on an individual basis. You can say "it's 10 overs less" - well, not really, it's 1 over less for every bowler which is virtually nothing in the context of a 10\9-over spell, and it's 5 overs less batting for a batsman, which again isn't really that much when you're only going from 50 to 45 overs. That's still not to say that 50 overs would probably be preferable - but equally I don't think playing 45 overs does any real harm. Good players will still prosper.

And you're vastly overdoing the beer\lager point, TBH.

 

[NUFAN]

40 overs does indeed make a bit more of a difference, that wasn't my argument. I don't really like 40-over cricket, especially now we've got the Twenty20 Cup and there's substantial evidence that many players are treating it more like an extended Twenty20 game and less like a one-dayer. Even before Twenty20 it was still not ideal (they played 40 overs between 1969 and 1998), either.

45 overs, on the other hand, is little different on an individual basis. You can say "it's 10 overs less" - well, not really, it's 1 over less for every bowler which is virtually nothing in the context of a 10\9-over spell, and it's 5 overs less batting for a batsman, which again isn't really that much when you're only going from 50 to 45 overs. That's still not to say that 50 overs would probably be preferable - but equally I don't think playing 45 overs does any real harm. Good players will still prosper.

And you're vastly overdoing the beer\lager point, TBH.

So you agree.

 

[Richard]

I agree that 50 overs > 45, but not that playing 45 overs makes us completely incapable of producing one-day cricketers of calibre.

 

[NUFAN]

I agree that 50 overs > 45, but not that playing 45 overs makes us completely incapable of producing one-day cricketers of calibre.

No definately not completely incapable, I was just putting out an idea to the thread title "major England ODI overhaul needed". Most people I guess are talking about players, I just think by playing 50 overs in domestic cricket can help the English team in the long run.