*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

[Furball]

There was a piece a while ago on cricinfo which raised an interesting point about domestic limited overs cricket in England - that the balance between bat and ball in England is far more equal than in the rest of the world.

That theory might go some way to explaining England's ineptness at the top of the order in ODIs.

 

[Richard]

It should however mean England produce a good few bowlers with good economy-rates, and\or bowling-averages.

But it doesn't. There's precious few Killeens and Mascarenhases with good ERs, or Napiers and AP Davieses with low averages.

And the few who do get produced are ignored in favour of the likes of Tim Bresnan, Liam Plunkett etc. who've done neither thing.

 

[four_or_six]

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.

Bowlers get smashed in limited overs cricket, that's life. And I don't think his career economy rate is too bad.

I'm not claiming he's Glenn McGrath, I'm claiming he's not a poor player.

 

[Richard]

Bowlers get smashed in limited overs cricket, that's life. And I don't think his career economy rate is too bad.

It is, it's dreadful. Last I looked it was 5-an-over or close to. That's one of the worst you'll ever see for a bowler who's played more than a handful of games.

Good bowlers don't get smashed (often), you see. Only poor ones. Obviously everyone takes a pounding from time to time, but for good bowlers it's rare.

 

[four_or_six]

It is, it's dreadful. Last I looked it was 5-an-over or close to. That's one of the worst you'll ever see for a bowler who's played more than a handful of games.

Good bowlers don't get smashed (often), you see. Only poor ones. Obviously everyone takes a pounding from time to time, but for good bowlers it's rare.

Well if Mascarenhas has an ER of 4.3 and that's at the good end, and Napier has an ER of 5.0 and that's at the bad end, that doesn't seem for like there's much leeway.

 

[Uppercut]

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

Then bat so defensively during an ODI that the extra batting in the lineup is irrelevant.

 

[Richard]

Well if Mascarenhas has an ER of 4.3 and that's at the good end, and Napier has an ER of 5.0 and that's at the bad end, that doesn't seem for like there's much leeway.

Mascarenhas excluding 2005, 2006 and 2008 has an economy-rate of about 4-an-over, IIRR. And if I'm picking Mascarenhas, I'm hoping he's going to bowl as he's bowled for the majority of his career. If I think he's going to bowl as he did in 2005, 2006 or 2008, I'm not going to give him the remotest consideration, any more than I'm going to give Napier.

Napier has always been, in my view, very fortunate with the number of OD wickets he's got. I don't expect him to repeat this in ODIs, though I'll say it again, he's got a better chance of doing so than Liam Plunkett or Tim Bresnan did.

 

[Rant0r]

what's happened to ed joyce ? made a hundred against australia in australia then was discarded a bit prematurely i felt following a couple of low scores, looked like an uncomplicated opening bat

 

[Uppercut]

what's happened to ed joyce ? made a hundred against australia in australia then was discarded a bit prematurely i felt following a couple of low scores, looked like an uncomplicated opening bat

He's not an opener. Don't know what they were thinking tbh.

 

[Rant0r]

made a hundred as an opener, which the current 'openers' don't seem to be able to do, not saying he's the answer, but at the moment, you could do a lot worse

 

[Richard]

Joyce only made that century because Shaun Tait dropped a sitter at third-man. Had that catch been taken, as it should've been, his average as an opener would be just out of single-figures.

Joyce in ODIs should never have opened and should have played in the middle-order a lot more. Sadly, he's just changed county, is now 30 years old and is pretty unlikely to play ODIs again.

And he's damn unfortunate he's likely to never get a crack at Tests either.

 

[Woodster]

Joyce only made that century because Shaun Tait dropped a sitter at third-man. Had that catch been taken, as it should've been, his average as an opener would be just out of single-figures.

That catch wasn't taken, so the rest is irrelevant.

 

[Rant0r]

That catch wasn't taken, so the rest is irrelevant.

yeah i have to agree, dropped catches don't go in the scorebook, that also discredits what was an excellent innings.

30 is still young in cricket, and the options are pretty average, although i see he did have a poor year last year, he could end up at the next world cup back for ireland (4 years between gigs for players moving countries isnt it ?)

 

[Richard]

That catch wasn't taken, so the rest is irrelevant.

It's not, though. Joyce every single time he has opened in ODIs has given an early chance. As long as that continues, he is never going to make a good ODI opener.

 

[Richard]

yeah i have to agree, dropped catches don't go in the scorebook, that also discredits what was an excellent innings.

Exactly, and the scorebook isn't the only thing that matters, else no-one would watch cricket. To say "he had runs against his name so he played well" is just illogical.

Joyce only made those runs because Tait dropped him. In other innings, he's also given an early chance, and apart from that innings they have been taken.

That century was far from an excellent innings. And it and the rest of his innings' as an opener point to the fact that Joyce was never a good option as a ODI opener.

 

[Rant0r]

i have to disagree with you, sorry, i did watch the entire innings, but that's life

i think his time is over sadly

 

[Woodster]

Luck inevitably plays a big part in every players career in every sport. He had a bit of luck that day, which doesn't detract in any way from the fact he set up England's victory in that game, had he not batted like he did, England would more than likely have lost.

 

[Rant0r]

think he got all the cricket genes in that family

 

[aussie]

Luck inevitably plays a big part in every players career in every sport. He had a bit of luck that day, which doesn't detract in any way from the fact he set up England's victory in that game, had he not batted like he did, England would more than likely have lost.

Now now my fellow Lancastrian don't get yourself caught up with arguing with Richard on his stubborn ideologies, he won't budge..

 

[Richard]

Luck inevitably plays a big part in every players career in every sport. He had a bit of luck that day, which doesn't detract in any way from the fact he set up England's victory in that game, had he not batted like he did, England would more than likely have lost.

But also undeniable is that had Tait caught like he should have, Joyce would not have played that innings and, in all likelihood, England would have lost.

I'm aware luck plays a large part plenty often enough. What I'm generally keen to do is to assess a player's performance independent from whatever luck they've received, because then you get the best impression of their skill.