The England Thread

[stafford_1990]

there are no good young players to call up to replace them though! thats what riles me the most. from the twenty20, pro40 and the 50 over matches in county cricket are just not producing good young talent apart from stuart broad. people like darren maddy are shining through and yes they are good players but how much longer will they be around? same with mal loye, i think he could be a good move for the powerplays in ODIs but hes not going to be around much longer so theres not much use, because we cant build a squad up if people kep retiring. nixon i hope will be a late retirement because i think his attitude with the bat in similar situations to yesterday and behind the stumps are very important for a poor england team. geriant and chris read couldnt sledge if their lives depended on it! basically we need proper talent coming up to the ODI team and not mediocre players like plunkett and mahmood.

if tresco ever returns that can only be good and how much do i wish that andrew symonds had accepted that he was born in birmingham, making him ENGLISH! that would have been spin and middle order options sorted

 

[Richard]

TBH, I was never keen and still am not on the idea of Darren Maddy in the ODI side, he's rarely done much of note in the 40, 45 and 50-over games (and Twenty20 is a different matter). Loye was worth a go, but I can't say I'm terribly surprised he did not-much of note when he got his chance, nor do I have any real qualms about his non-selection for the WC.

Yes, the return of Trescothick is something that's badly needed in ODIs - and hopefully someone else to open with him. Who? Anyone's guess. But please, not Strauss or Vaughan. Heck, even Ian Bell would presently be a better bet, though I'd not be at all surprised if he were a failure too.

I can't see there being any future in picking Nixon, though, TBH. He's done himself proud now IMO - but there's no sense wasting any time planning for WC2011 - the last 4 years shows emphatically that we need all the time we can get.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I can't see there being any future in picking Nixon, though, TBH. He's done himself proud now IMO - but there's no sense wasting any time planning for WC2011 - the last 4 years shows emphatically that we need all the time we can get.

True. But we need to get a settled side that starts winning asap. If that means keeping Nixon for a year or so then so be it. You cant always plan for the future, you have to look at the present and win the current games you play. Its not just about World Cups.

 

[Richard]

So you'd be happy to win a few ODIs in 2008 if it meant we were crap again in WC2011?

I sure wouldn't.

And I doubt you now take too much comfort in our ODI successes of the summer of 2003, TBH.

 

[stafford_1990]

well judging by the current young 'talent' meaning plunkett, mahmood, etc were not going to stand a chance in the 2011 WC anyway

looking at young players in english cricket at the moment i can only see a couple of bright sparks whereas you look at australia and you see many quality young players who could carry on the australian domination (e.g. shaun tait who will be a future world number 1 bowler)

england have no one who could possibly take over from players like collingwood, flintoff or pietersen. this counts in the test arena as well, it just seems that there are no youngsters who can carry on at the highest level. i mean who could england find who can bowl like hoggard can in tests? or who could they find that could just win a test match or an ODI like collingwood, flintoff or pietersen? there is simply nobody who could step up to the mark.

of course australia have lost shane warne and glenn mc grath so that is an automatic loss of quality, because even australia can't conjure up 2 bowlers of that quality but they have much better replacements than what england would have in the same situation. australia have lost justin langer, a top quality batsman but he can be replaced by phil jaques, another player of high quality. australia have also just lost damien martyn, another top quality player, but all they had to do was move clarke and hussey up one in the order and put a quality player like symonds/watson/hodge in at no 6. say if england were to lose andrew strauss or kevin pietersen before the west indies arrive in the summer, who would we have to replace him? ed joyce? hes just not good enough!

why do australia seem to have answers to every question in their squad, a top quality replacement for every loss? is it luck that they have another batch of top quality players or are the australians just a lot smarter than england in their state cricket system?

 

[Richard]

TBH, that's a bit of a blurring of ODIs and Tests. Say we were to lose Pietersen and Strauss next summer - no problem, Cook moves up to open with Trescothick, Shah and Joyce come into the middle-order. We've got a few decent batsmen, though clearly the bowling is pretty threadbare at present.

As far as the longer game goes, we need not despair quite so badly as in the shorter.

And I'm pretty confident Tom Smith of Lancs will be a pretty damn good bowler, possibly pretty soon, and at least in the shorter game.

 

[stafford_1990]

fair point on shah, i think he's a quality batsman and should be given more of a chance. i suppose for the moment theres also rob key who we could call on.

were seriously going to struggle in ODIs soon though. TBF i could see a rapidly improving side like bangladesh being pretty close to us soon. if we were a top side then we would have destroyed canada/kenya/ireland when we played them. no offence to ireland but despite being in the super 8s they can't deny that they're still no where near being a top ODI team and teams like england, west indies, pakistan should really beat them with no trouble. england are still yet to score 300 in this tournament despite playing several of the minnows which is dissapointing. it doesn't matter that we have the no1 ranked batsman in the world in one dayers. KP and collingwood (our best players atm by a country mile) can't always win it for us as displayed yesterday. we desperately need a good bowling attack and TBF if i were fletcher i would be on the verge of calling hoggard up to the ODI squad just so we have at least one good bowler on the team, nevermind his batting. and we also desperately need a consistant opening partnership, like hayden/gilchrist, tharanga/jayasuriya or smith/de villears, who all have the capabilitys of doing just that.

 

[Richard]

Haha, we suck at ODIs and have done for the last 6 years - we can't really get much worse now!

And I'm still hoping that eventually we might get better again...

 

[Prince EWS]

fair point on shah, i think he's a quality batsman and should be given more of a chance. i suppose for the moment theres also rob key who we could call on.

were seriously going to struggle in ODIs soon though. TBF i could see a rapidly improving side like bangladesh being pretty close to us soon. if we were a top side then we would have destroyed canada/kenya/ireland when we played them. no offence to ireland but despite being in the super 8s they can't deny that they're still no where near being a top ODI team and teams like england, west indies, pakistan should really beat them with no trouble. england are still yet to score 300 in this tournament despite playing several of the minnows which is dissapointing. it doesn't matter that we have the no1 ranked batsman in the world in one dayers. KP and collingwood (our best players atm by a country mile) can't always win it for us as displayed yesterday. we desperately need a good bowling attack and TBF if i were fletcher i would be on the verge of calling hoggard up to the ODI squad just so we have at least one good bowler on the team, nevermind his batting. and we also desperately need a consistant opening partnership, like hayden/gilchrist, tharanga/jayasuriya or smith/de villears, who all have the capabilitys of doing just that.

Since when was Hoggard at good bowler in one day games, may I ask? Anderson and Lewis are infinitely better. Not to mention Flintoff.

 

[stafford_1990]

lewis and anderson are good as is flintoff. but looking at the canada match we didn't even manage to bowl them out! we bowled a whole lot better against sri lanka but like richard says mahmood bowled well at his standards but still conceded 50 runs off 9 overs. with hoggard you have experience maybe not so much at 50 over level but he is a top quality bowler who can bowl much more economically than that and take more wickets than mahmood. even if it is for a short while hoggard can provide experience and help the bowling attack to bowl properly. hoggard averages 36 in ODIs so hes not that bad.

anderson is good to open the bowling with his swing, but he can't bowl at the death. only flintoff seems able to do this for england.

a stroke of luck in my opinion would be if simon jones ever became fit again. i think at the moment england could use simon jones for the middle overs and for reverse swing at the death, a little like malinga does for sri lanka but for sure i think we need an experienced bowler who knows what they're doing because players like mahmood and plunkett just cannot hack it.

 

[Prince EWS]

lewis and anderson are good as is flintoff. but looking at the canada match we didn't even manage to bowl them out! we bowled a whole lot better against sri lanka but like richard says mahmood bowled well at his standards but still conceded 50 runs off 9 overs. with hoggard you have experience maybe not so much at 50 over level but he is a top quality bowler who can bowl much more economically than that and take more wickets than mahmood. even if it is for a short while hoggard can provide experience and help the bowling attack to bowl properly. hoggard averages 36 in ODIs so hes not that bad.

anderson is good to open the bowling with his swing, but he can't bowl at the death. only flintoff seems able to do this for england.

a stroke of luck in my opinion would be if simon jones ever became fit again. i think at the moment england could use simon jones for the middle overs and for reverse swing at the death, a little like malinga does for sri lanka but for sure i think we need an experienced bowler who knows what they're doing because players like mahmood and plunkett just cannot hack it.

Whether or not he's better than Mahmood is a totally different debate to saying "calling hoggard up to the ODI squad just so we have at least one good bowler" - because it's quite obvious in my mind that Anderson, Lewis and Flintoff are good one day bowlers - or at least better than Hoggard! Panesar isn't exactly horrible, either.

So yes, Hoggard is better than Mahmood. But Tim Bresnan is a better bowler than Kevin Pietersen as well, and he's still quite obviously not a good ODI-level bowler. Hoggard may be better than Mahmood, but he is not better than Anderson, Lewis or Flintoff...

 

[Richard]

And Hoggard's had 1000001 chances in ODIs and IMO you can't just keep going back to him. Fair enough, drop Mahmood when neccessary, but pick instead someone yet to play (at least much) like Broad or, heck, even Tremlett.

 

[stafford_1990]

fair enough

problem is jon lewis isn't being played and mahmood is.

lewis could have played earlier in the tournament but plunkett was played. understandably lewis has flown home to see to his pregnant wife, but even when he was out there in the caribbean he wasn't used, so its no use saying lewis is so much better if he isn't being played. i think fletcher thinks too much of plunkett and mahmood. they're there to be back up and lewis should definately be used over them. i suppose the only thing to worry about with lewis that we didn't properly worry about with the other 2 is that lewis can't bat as well as plunkett and mahmood. TBF neither of those can really bat that well apart from the odd occasions (plunketts 50 in pakistan). i understand fletcher wants 3 dimensional players but truly what would you rather have, a successful bowler who can take key wickets but cant score too many runs or a mediocre bowler who gets hit all around the ground and only scores a few runs at no 9?

 

[Richard]

Because "they're wicket-takers".

And it should be noted - Duncan Fletcher is certainly not the sole propogator of this sort of nonsense. Most high-powered pundits and journos feel the exact same way. Lewis is just too "English" a bowler, too "defensive", too "conditions-reliant", too... well, too reprisentative of what virtually everyone is desparate for England to not be like. Or, at least, not fit the stereotype of.

Trouble is, in Mahmood, Plunkett et al anyone who seriously thinks they're wicket-takers is wildly delusional.

 

[Prince EWS]

fair enough

problem is jon lewis isn't being played and mahmood is.

lewis could have played earlier in the tournament but plunkett was played. understandably lewis has flown home to see to his pregnant wife, but even when he was out there in the caribbean he wasn't used, so its no use saying lewis is so much better if he isn't being played. i think fletcher thinks too much of plunkett and mahmood. they're there to be back up and lewis should definately be used over them. i suppose the only thing to worry about with lewis that we didn't properly worry about with the other 2 is that lewis can't bat as well as plunkett and mahmood. TBF neither of those can really bat that well apart from the odd occasions (plunketts 50 in pakistan). i understand fletcher wants 3 dimensional players but truly what would you rather have, a successful bowler who can take key wickets but cant score too many runs or a mediocre bowler who gets hit all around the ground and only scores a few runs at no 9?

Really, I don't see Lewis's batting being significantly less useful than Mahmood's at all. Both are pretty much in the #9/10 mould. I can see Plunkett going as far "bowling allrounder" status later in his career, but to pick Mahmood over anyone based on batting would be ridiculous.

I think Fletcher has just decided that Mahmood is a better one day bowler than Lewis. Which is so ridiculous that I can see why you're trying to justify it with batting!

 

[Richard]

It's not just Fletcher, though. There are so many people over here in high-ranking places who patronise Lewis for being "typical English seamer" etc. and whenever he gets picked you just sense that most people are thinking "pah, this won't last long". And it doesn't - even when it should do...

 

[Prince EWS]

It's not just Fletcher, though. There are so many people over here in high-ranking places who patronise Lewis for being "typical English seamer" etc. and whenever he gets picked you just sense that most people are thinking "pah, this won't last long". And it doesn't - even when it should do...

The stereotype of the "typical English seamer" is quickly changing from the guy who bowls medium pace that swings in helpful conditions to the guy who's under 25, played bugger all list A cricket and performed poorly in it who bowls at a good pace but sprays the ball everywhere, though.

Are the selectors just waiting for this stereotype to completely change over so they can then pick an over-the-hill 45-year-old Lewis and then say "I told you so" when he gets hammered?

 

[Goughy]

One of the percieved issues with Lewis is that his inclusion reduces team flexability as he is useless with the old ball and there is no choice but to bowl him through early.

They have a point, but I rather have a bowler who is good for a period of the game than someone who is poor throughout

 

[stafford_1990]

yeah you're right i suppose

what i thought was funny was how the commentators justified mahmoods simply terrible delivery that got sangakkara out as completely intentional. you could see clearly from how the ball left the hand that he had ****ed it up. im sorry but he is a poor bowler, a poor batsman, he struggles to get in the lancashire first team so he should NOT be playing simple as.

 

[stafford_1990]

and whats everyones opinion on stuart broad for england?