*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

[Richard]

No, I don't want Flintoff opening. However, that's because I want him at five or six.

 

[Furball]

Given Shah's Twenty20 prominence, would opening with Shah and giving him license be the worst idea in the world?

 

[Richard]

Worse ideas have been had, undoubtedly. I don't see Shah as a ODI opener working at all though.

 

[wpdavid]

I wonder how long it will be before KP has a go at the top of the order.

 

[Richard]

I hope infinite. I'm perfectly happy with him at four, though three does me fine as it alleviates what-ifs. Two (or one) however - I really don't want to see.

 

[GIMH]

Bumble was citing the case for KP to open earlier on

 

[Furball]

Bumble is an idiot though.

Botham was going on about players like Napier who have been doing well who should be in the frame.

Napier's only achievement was slogging his way to 150 odd in a televised game. He's hopeless.

 

[GIMH]

If it's on TV it counts double tbh

 

[Richard]

It counts double to the wrong-headed perception of the players. It doesn't count double (or anything more than any other game) to their actual chances of performing.

Graham Napier is one of the worst all-rounders I've ever seen have a long county career. Hopelessly wayward bowler and slogger who any remotely decent bowler will sort-out 10 times out of 10. A poor man's Ian Blackwell. At least Blackwell is a half-decent bowler.

 

[GIMH]

It counts double to the wrong-headed perception of the players. It doesn't count double (or anything more than any other game) to their actual chances of performing.

Graham Napier is one of the worst all-rounders I've ever seen have a long county career. Hopelessly wayward bowler and slogger who any remotely decent bowler will sort-out 10 times out of 10. A poor man's Ian Blackwell. At least Blackwell is a half-decent bowler.

 

[Richard]

Botham was going on about players like Napier who have been doing well who should be in the frame.

What's particularly annoying about that is that those mentioned (Mascarenhas and Napier) were described as "good domestic performers". Well, no, Mascarenhas was very poor last season, conceded 4.7-an-over or something. And Napier, well, he's been poor all career, and had one notable game in Twenty20, not one-day cricket.

 

[Richard]

'Cho mean by thaa?

 

[GIMH]

Well obv I was only joking about the games counting double, yet you corrected me

 

[Richard]

I guessed you might be joking, I just used your joke to point-out the poorness of the fact that what you said actually does apply, if to varying extents with various parties.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Very shrewd selection to pick an inadequate wicketkeeper for his batting and then shove him in at number 8 or 9.

 

[four_or_six]

What's particularly annoying about that is that those mentioned (Mascarenhas and Napier) were described as "good domestic performers". Well, no, Mascarenhas was very poor last season, conceded 4.7-an-over or something. And Napier, well, he's been poor all career, and had one notable game in Twenty20, not one-day cricket.

Napier's a bowler who can long-handle it, that T20 innings actually makes people think more about his batting. He has a very decent List A bowling record, especially considering his home ground is a postage stamp.

Last season's Pro40 he averaged 22 (ER 4.4) with his team getting promoted, FP trophy 25 (ER 5.1) with his team getting to the final, and T20 18 (ER 7.1) with his team getting to the semis.

His batting is just a bonus, having him give it a whack and if he comes off it's awesome.

Not that I'm advocating him for selection, just I don't think he's anywhere near poor.

 

[Richard]

Napier is and always has been a bowler who routinely gets smashed (home or away) and gets bucketloads of wickets. Rarely does he actually bowl well, just gets gifted wickets.

If anyone is expecting him to be an England version of Brett Lee, I can assure them they're likely to be very, very disappointed. Mind, he (and AP Davies, and a few others including Ravinder Bopara) does have a better chance than Sajid Mahmood or Liam Plunkett did. They get smashed and can't even take wickets in county one-day cricket.

 

[aussie]

Don't imagine they'd lose much by that. Hodge would almost certainly do as good a job as Clarke. However, Hodge would be exceedingly unlikely to play in WC2011. So it'd not really be the same at all..

It certainly is the same. Given that you are claiming just because Trott has been averaging higher in domestic cricket than Shah means that if picked would definately be a better player than Shah.

When in fact, doing well in English domestic OD competition isn't the best way to pick players & also Trott has a few technical & disciplinary problems.

Well Shah and Collingwood have both translated for years their throughly mediocre domestic records to international level.

Shah has not been mediorce since he came back in the ODI set-up back in 07.

Collingwood hasn't been the most flamboyant ODI player yes, but he has done enough over the years to show he is one of England better ODI players. (This postion on Colly of yours has even gone over to his test match performances)

Your continuous lack of acknowledgement of this is again you just displaying your stubborn idelogy towards an aspect of this sport.

Obviously you can never be sure a good domestic player will become a good international player but they always have more of a chance than a mediocre domestic (and international) player.

Not with England at all...

Collingwood has always been someone who needs to bat for lots of overs.

Ok, and your point?

I don't believe Bopara can do what Collingwood has; I believe he can do better. I don't want another Collingwood, he's a thoroughly average player.

Haha, typical..

Run-scoring.

Yes Bopara cleary has clealy shown the ability to be a good finisher @ 6 & a one of the sides better players of spin in the middle overs.

Err, no, I haven't.

Haha let me help you:

No, not as usual at all, I've acknowledged everything good Shah has done. I just haven't tried to pretend he's done good stuff which in reality he hasn't.

You have contradicted yourself because you have NEVER ACKNOWLEGED ANYTHING GOOD SHAH HAS DONE, since he came back into the ODI side in 07, you have been busy ridiculing everything he has done while calling for Afzaal & Trott to be picked. So for you to suggest you have even acknowleged Shah's recent feats, then end by saying in reality he hasn't done anything in the ODI side is crazy.

You aint you fooling me yo, we have these arguments on the ODI side all the time & you stubbornly keep stating your dried up points & position..

 

[Richard]

It certainly is the same. Given that you are claiming just because Trott has been averaging higher in domestic cricket than Shah means that if picked would definately be a better player than Shah.

Being better than Shah doesn't mean he'd tear the circuit up - he could merely fail less badly than Shah. But it's quite possible Hodge would do better than Clarke, of course it is. So there's no difference.

When in fact, doing well in English domestic OD competition isn't the best way to pick players

Yes it is. There is no better way. It's not a foolproof way, but then nothing is. There is no better way to pick players for ODIs than based on domestic-OD performance.

Shah has not been mediorce since he came back in the ODI set-up back in 07.

He has, he did next to nothing apart from have a semi-decent series against West Indies in 2007 and started poorly in 2008 as well.

Collingwood hasn't been the most flamboyant ODI player yes, but he has done enough over the years to show he is one of England better ODI players. (This postion on Colly of yours has even gone over to his test match performances)

Collingwood is a very average ODI player, whose short bursts of excellent scoring (and ability to score heavily against wrongly-ODI-classified substandard teams) disguise his very common poor performances. That he's been one of England's better recent ODI batsmen merely demonstrates how poor things have been recently.

Not with England at all...

With anyone and everyone. As long as the rules are the same in international and domestic cricket, this will always be the case. No-one who can do better than someone else at a lower level is remotely likely to do worse at a higher. There is no logical reason why this would happen.

Ok, and your point?

That the requirements Collingwood and Bopara have to be successful are similar.

Yes Bopara cleary has clealy shown the ability to be a good finisher @ 6 & a one of the sides better players of spin in the middle overs.

Nor has Shah, so therefore Bopara offers more.

Haha let me help you:

You have contradicted yourself because you have NEVER ACKNOWLEGED ANYTHING GOOD SHAH HAS DONE, since he came back into the ODI side in 07, you have been busy ridiculing everything he has done while calling for Afzaal & Trott to be picked. So for you to suggest you have even acknowleged Shah's recent feats, then end by saying in reality he hasn't done anything in the ODI side is crazy.

I haven't acknowledged anything good Shah has done until recently because he hasn't done much good until recently, not because I refuse to acknowledge him doing something good should he do so, so there's no contradiction, you just wrongly perceive him to have done good things he hasn't done.

However, as I said in the tour thread, his last 10 innings have actually been pretty damn good, but that dates back to midway through the NZ series in 2008, not his recall in 2007. Nor do I expect this to continue, as if it were to do so it'd have happened before now. I expect Shah to revert to poor performance again soon.

 

[Furball]

Collingwood hasn't been the most flamboyant ODI player yes, but he has done enough over the years to show he is one of England better ODI players. (This postion on Colly of yours has even gone over to his test match performances)

That Collingwood can be regarded as one of England's better ODI performers merely highlights how little talent has come through the English system, because the facts are that Collingwood is a spectacularly average player. Good batsmen don't average 30 against the top sides.

He has a career average of 34, which is average as it is, and even this average is grossly inflated by minnow bashing of epic proportions.