• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Whatsup with the Windies / England!?

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
aussie said:
the rest are debatable but you got to be joking about Collingwood..
Nope, Collingwood has still done very, very little in the way of influencing matches against ODI-standard teams.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
So he's taken 3 wickets a number of times then. That's a level of success, so whether or not he has the talent to be effective, he is effective in that regard.
What is debatable is whether he has the talent to do it consistently - many people have the talent to do it a few times.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
Dean said:
anyone would kill to have Paul Collingwood in their team...
His fielding, yes. His batting is growing in effectiveness, which has pleasantly surprised me, so yes again. He also keeps some handy marmite up his sleeve.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
steds said:
Simon Jones is injured. I agree with Kabir Ali. Ealham's 36, ffs. Let him be put out to graze in peace. Wharf: :laugh:
What the hell has being 36 got to do with anything? Have you even seen him bowl? He has an action that will cause age to have little effect.
 

Dean

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I would rather have Gough (or Greame Smith bowling for England) than Harmison. He had one good summer for England against the WI (these days not a big achievement), and when he came to South Africa he was overshadowed by Hoggard, and has failed to come back since... Honestly, how much did he contribute in the Ashes, and this home sickness story is pathetic. He's supposed to be professional. Comming to SA end of 2004 he was the number one ranked test bowler, now he's batteling to keep his place in the top 20!!!
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The question should be "why is he so ensconced in the side"?
Since New Zealand 2004, Harmison's Tests read thus...
42-150-2; 19-93-1; 37-135-2 and 2.4-3-3; 31-121-9; 39-142-1; 47-153-5; 45-137-1; 26.5-89-0; 33-138-2; 39-97-8 (mostly tailenders); 28.3-110-2; 32-114-2; 39-141-4; 22.4-87-1; 36.1-89-6; 43.4-143-5; 43-154-1; 44.2-123-3.
Many occasions he's got wickets towards the end of the innings, and in one such occasion it's so polarised I've felt compelled to split it.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Nope, Collingwood has still done very, very little in the way of influencing matches against ODI-standard teams.
why keep refering to the past?, since the Natwest series last year Collingwood has been doing pretty well in ODI & is improving all the time.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Dean said:
Okay, so I read my earlier Post (Attention All South Africans), and the question was posed "why isn't England playing good one day cricket?".

Sure, they have a wonderful line up
No, they don't.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Nah, that was only a shortish thing.
Still copped more than his share of rubbish about not caring enough about playing for England.
Turning them down to appear on reality TV and you complain that he cops some stick for it?

Not just that, but lieing about it all.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Dean said:
Okay, so I read my earlier Post (Attention All South Africans), and the question was posed "why isn't England playing good one day cricket?".

Sure, they have a wonderful line up, I'm a massive Strauss fan (even though he avereges close to hundred against my team), good strikers in Petersien and Flintoff, wonderful bowlers in Jones and Hoggard (I don't rate Harmison, sorry!:unsure: )

Then we have the West Indies, who in all fairness, are pretty useless at the moment, but with a batting line up which includes Lara, Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan, why is it that they are consistantly beaten and bowled out for low scores, sure, they don't have the best bowling attack, but even if they did they would have nothing to bowl to!

So, why are England succeeding in Tests and not in ODI (even when full strength), and why are the Windies batteling so much in both forms- Lara isn't going to last forever, and then what lies ahead for the Windies!?

It doesn't make sense!?
the problem with the majority of people(including the England selectors) is that they fail to realise that tests and ODIs are completely different. I've always maintained that as a batsman there are 2 qualities(either one) that make you successful in ODIs- being able to hit the ball in the air and being able to nudge,nurdle and what not to pick up quick singles. Players like Vaughan, Strauss etc are clearly incapable of doing that in ODIs, while having Geraint in the side despite the fact that there is clearly a far better batsman and keeper is bordering on lunacy.
as far as the WI is concerned, lara isnt play ODI cricket at the moment, while Gayle is really hit and miss and can never be relied upon. Personally I'd rather see a Chanderpaul/ Gayle opening partnership than anything else not only because the 2 provide a decent contrast in styles but also because Chanderpaul has always looked good at the top. But 3 good ODI players dont make a team, and WI need more quality players if they want to achieve some success in next years world cup
 

tooextracool

International Coach
aussie said:
with england they have the talented players to definately be a top ODI team, just haven't produced the results. All they need is some consistency & i think they will be able to do that sooner rather than later.

Windies also have some shot gun in their side like Gayle, Sarwan, Dwayne Smith etc, enough talent to a capable ODI side i think since they seem to struggle in tests since their batsmen are aggressive. Looking at the WC & seeing what they have in their ranks if the Windies field this side at home they could be a force:

Gayle
Hinds
Sarwan
Lara
Chanderpaul
Ramdin
Bravo
Smith
Bradshaw
Collins
Edwards
When will people give up on wavell? Odds are that if you have been useless for 6 years in a row you will continue to remain useless for the rest of your career.
as far as Edwards is concerned, do you actually believe that he has the accuracy to be even remotely threatening in any form of the game? personally corey collymore and merwyn dillon are far better options.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Err, what?
Collingwood was poor in 2005 and scarecly any better in Pakistan.
whether or not collingwood has been brilliant in ODIs recently, how many better options exist in domestic cricket? Further i'd take collingwood over Strauss and vaughan in any form of the game please.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Turning them down to appear on reality TV and you complain that he cops some stick for it?

Not just that, but lieing about it all.
Was he asked "are you appearing on SCD?" and replied "no"?
I didn't hear about that.
What, precisely, is wrong with appearing on reality TV? Have you ever heard of "planning for a career after your current one"?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
the problem with the majority of people(including the England selectors) is that they fail to realise that tests and ODIs are completely different. I've always maintained that as a batsman there are 2 qualities(either one) that make you successful in ODIs- being able to hit the ball in the air and being able to nudge,nurdle and what not to pick up quick singles. Players like Vaughan, Strauss etc are clearly incapable of doing that in ODIs, while having Geraint in the side despite the fact that there is clearly a far better batsman and keeper is bordering on lunacy.
And guess who's just been called-up... yes, it's two more First-Class specialists (Shah and Solanki) both of whom have been tried and failed in ODIs before...
(Oh, that proven basket-case Batty has been picked, too, and that proven wayward Sajid Mahmood too)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
whether or not collingwood has been brilliant in ODIs recently, how many better options exist in domestic cricket? Further i'd take collingwood over Strauss and vaughan in any form of the game please.
I'll grant you that Collingwood is a better ODI batsman than Vaughan and Strauss (plus can occasionally bowl OK) but I really don't see that having 2 good Tests (both on very flat pitches) qualifies him to be ranked above Strauss and Vaughan in the Test arena, however useless both have been recently.
As for better options for ODIs... only 1 batsman who obviously should be playing ODIs and isn't, Usman Afzaal. England only have 4 batsmen who are likely to do much of a job in ODIs who are currently available - that's the sad truth.
I haven't ever actually said "Collingwood should be dropped" anywhere, because I rarely say things like that. It's the truth that there's no-one who should obviously be in the side ahead of him. I do, though, maintain that we're unlikely to win much while he's in the side.
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
Well the problem is richboy is that we've always been poor in ODI's for along time, and when the fletcher came in his main aim was to improve the test side firstly and worry about the one day team later, and so that's why our one day sucesses are few and far between, i mean our last victory in a one-day series overseas was in 1997 with a team basically assembled from county all-rounders.

You just got to settle for the fact that it will be least a couple of years before we can start getting consistent in ODI's
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Good a coach as Duncan Fletcher is, he can't turn poor players into good ones. At the current time, we've got a collection of players who are very good at batting and bowling in the limitless-over game, with a quite fantastic coach at the helm.
But the simple fact of the matter is - there aren't enough good limited-overs players around at the current time (haven't been since 1992, never mind 1997), and no coach can do much about that.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
tooextracool said:
When will people give up on wavell? Odds are that if you have been useless for 6 years in a row you will continue to remain useless for the rest of your career.
There's a lot of merit to Wavell Hinds in the middle order. You have an odd concept of useless.
tooextracool said:
as far as Edwards is concerned, do you actually believe that he has the accuracy to be even remotely threatening in any form of the game? personally corey collymore and merwyn dillon are far better options.
Less ignorance please. At least watch the kid bowl in recent times before spouting your opinions. In New Zealand he has been quite superb for the most part.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
There's a lot of merit to Wavell Hinds in the middle order. You have an odd concept of useless.
Wavell Hinds should never have been made to open for so long.
One of the worst circumstances-made-it-that-way things to last so long. Had Hinds ever opened before SCG 2000\01?
Less ignorance please. At least watch the kid bowl in recent times before spouting your opinions. In New Zealand he has been quite superb for the most part.
Will he sustain it?
Takes more than 1 tour to turn a career, I've said that many times, and been proven right many times.
 

Top