who should be kicked out of England ODI team?

[aussie]

He wasn't, though. He played a tiny handful of games. He had a bit of a problem with left-armers, but that was the closest thing to a recurring fault you'd have seen. Certainly played well enough that if he was younger he'd still be very much in the picture now.

When he was younger?. Loye would have been considered for ENG post 03 after Knight retired. I am not totally sure how long Loye was opening in OD cricket for Lancashire but i remember calling for him since the Ashes summer after seeing him bat very well in that role that season & i couldn't believe why ENG was overlooking him & trust me a man who has seen a lot of Loye close up being a LCC club memeber an all that the technique that you saw on TV in the C&B as always been Loye.

So based on that i reckon his career would have been fairly hit & miss. Missed with a few superb attacking innnings & many low scores, thus frustrating audiences & the selectors & would have been dropped by now.

No, Loye is unquestionably far better than both Prior and Mustard. And that would have shown had he got more of a ODI chance.

I don't doubt that but the "Job" that you said he would have done given he isn't the greatest of players is the same Prior & Mustard could do currently & what Bell does now. Only problem with that now is that their isn't the presence of Trescothick to control things thus compensating for the mediocrity of the trio so now ENG ODI top-order has a big whole ATM.

I wouldn't be expecting to many wonderful starts in the near future & KP may have to prepare to be coming in pretty early from now on.

Not really. Read has shown his one-day excellence with the bat at domestic level for a good few seasons now. Even if he wouldn't do much at the ODI level (which I doubt myself) then he'd do better than anyone else.

I don't care what he did @ domestic OD level, we both saw enough of Read on the international stage he is a piss por bat yo. Yes he was & still probably is the best ODI keeper option but should not be allowed to bat higher than #8. Even his tree famous innings vs SA in 99, WI in 04 & one vs PAK in 06 where he smashed Akhtar at the end came from batting @ 8..

Well I have seen plenty of him. FYI, I've actually seen him bowl at a batsman as good as Ricky Ponting who scored an absolutely flawless innings in exceptionally difficult conditions that day. And despite the fact Killeen did not threaten him, Ponting never looked like getting him away. And this was during a Powerplay period, to boot.

I've absolutely zero doubt that Ealham and Killeen would have been an excellent pairing for England at the start and in the middle of a ODI innings. There is no way on this Earth they would have done worse than the likes of Sajid Mahmood and Tim Bresnan (and most others) did.

Strong statement son, i guess we will never know for sure about Killeen. Although i reckon Ealham could have been decent but wouldn't have lasted long as i said.

 

[aussie]

Well they obviously weren't as he never repaid the faith and actually did anything of note with the bat.

Yes that all, but thats more to do with what the stats say than White's ability with the willow in ODI cricket. Unless you say him bat in ODI's post let say the ODI series in PAK in 2000 when his batting really improved this will be futile argument.

 

[aussie]

Well, firstly... why not?

Why? Because that's his career from 2003/04 onwards. In the summer of 2003 he was the ultimate golden-arm bowler - he bowled well a few times, but badly as often. And he got wickets whether he bowled well or poorly.

He'd also had a semi-decent start to his career in the winter of 2002/03, with two sensational performances (the 10-12-1 at Adelaide and the 10-29-4 at Newlands) added to the odd pretty good one.

But since 2003/04 he's been almost roundly woeful. And this now comprises most of his career. The events of 2003 (added to the fact that nonsense teams like Holland and Bangladesh are considered ODI-worthy) cannot keep him in the side forever IMO.

Ha, another stats round up. Look your dislike for Anderson is well documented, but you might confuse some others who may not have followed Anderson closely but not me.

Look Anderson has been an extremely frustrating bowler, but what you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that he was picked wayyyyy before his time. Its the kind of selection one only see's with the West Indies over the last 10 years or so. So he has basically been learning his craft at the highest level but the potential is there for allllllllllll to see. Especially in ODI cricket where when he has got it right he has proven to be our most lethal exponent of the new ball. Cut Jimmy some slack will ya mate...

 

[Richard]

Thank god you weren't a selector then. Yes White didn't do much with the bat in ODI's but how does that change the fact that it is fairly obvious that he was a better batsman than Ealham. The selectors where always in the rights the to pick White on the back of his test performances over Ealham, surely this should not be debated..

Well, yeah, it should actually. White was obviously a better Test batsman than Ealham - nothing more. He was not, in the slightest, obviously a better ODI batsman. There is nothing that will ever, ever show this, in any way shape or form.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, me too. I'd prefer Ambrose up the order. Not opening if possible - four would honestly be my preferred choice in the current climate - but I also don't see anyone who'd bat better at seven than him.

Although its probably too early to judge Ambrose doesn't look capable enough an ODI batsman. Should not have been picked in the first place Mustard really should have been given a run vs the kiwis.

England's keeping woes would have been eased temporarily if they had just picked Pothas last summer. Now we are stuck with the selectors playing musical chairs with the keepers, very irritating ATM.

 

[Richard]

When he was younger?. Loye would have been considered for ENG post 03 after Knight retired. I am not totally sure how long Loye was opening in OD cricket for Lancashire but i remember calling for him since the Ashes summer after seeing him bat very well in that role that season & i couldn't believe why ENG was overlooking him & trust me a man who has seen a lot of Loye close up being a LCC club memeber an all that the technique that you saw on TV in the C&B as always been Loye.

Absolutely certainly, Loye was opening for Lancs in 2003 - pretty sure that was the first time. Might even have been 2002 that he finished at Northants.

I'm sure his technique was no different to what he displaying in the CBS - the point is, I don't think that would neccessarily have resulted in him being...

So based on that i reckon his career would have been fairly hit & miss. Missed with a few superb attacking innnings & many low scores, thus frustrating audiences & the selectors & would have been dropped by now.

more miss and less hit. However, we'll never know. And it doesn't really matter too much as he didn't play when he should have done and there's not really all that much to gain by arguing over what might have been.

I don't doubt that but the "Job" that you said he would have done given he isn't the greatest of players is the same Prior & Mustard could do currently & what Bell does now.

Loye could have done far better than Prior or Mustard ever did or ever will do.

I don't care what he did @ domestic OD level, we both saw enough of Read on the international stage he is a piss por bat yo. Yes he was & still probably is the best ODI keeper option but should not be allowed to bat higher than #8. Even his tree famous innings vs SA in 99, WI in 04 & one vs PAK in 06 where he smashed Akhtar at the end came from batting @ 8..

We didn't, actually, as far as I'm concerned. Read didn't really get all that many chances at ODI level, compared to far lesser batsmen like Jones, Prior and even Mustard. Heck, even Nixon, who could be argued to be almost as good as Read.

 

[aussie]

He's never played an ODI. He was selected in the squad and it was all but set in stone he'd bat #3 - but he failed in two Twenty20 International games in the lead in to the series whilst Shah succeeded and that was the end of him. Absolutely ridiculous stuff.

Regardless Shah is a better batsman than Trott. Trott scoring runs in our domestic OD competition shouldn't be an automatic guide that he would be a good ODI player given the standard of bowling that he has to face.

I've seen a lot of him & given his technique where he likes to more across his crease a lot working most things on the leg-side & not the best player of spin (a bad thing especially given he is pushing for a middle-order place) don't think he would make a consistent enough player.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes that all, but thats more to do with what the stats say than White's ability with the willow in ODI cricket. Unless you say him bat in ODI's post let say the ODI series in PAK in 2000 when his batting really improved this will be futile argument.

His potential ability is only relevant while he's still playing - when you're selecting him and expecting more of him than he's shown previously. His career is over so what you're saying is irrelevant - he achieved what he did, not what he could have/should have in your eyes, and that was very, very little despite an extended run.

 

[Richard]

Ha, another stats round up. Look your dislike for Anderson is well documented, but you might confuse some others who may not have followed Anderson closely but not me.

Look Anderson has been an extremely frustrating bowler, but what you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that he was picked wayyyyy before his time. Its the kind of selection one only see's with the West Indies over the last 10 years or so. So he has basically been learning his craft at the highest level but the potential is there for allllllllllll to see. Especially in ODI cricket where when he has got it right he has proven to be our most lethal exponent of the new ball. Cut Jimmy some slack will ya mate...

As I mentioned previously - Anderson's premature selection actually worked to his advantage, not disadvantage. In his first winter he put-in two sensational performances (10-12-1 at Adelaide, 10-29-4 at Newlands) and in his first summer he had one of the most golden golden-arms you'll ever see.

As I've also said, since 2003/04, Anderson's performances have been woeful. His average is 35, his economy-rate 5.2-an-over, and this flatters him. In the 58 games against ODI-standard teams he's played in that time, I'd say he's bowled well in 12 of them. This is not good enough.

I've never, ever believed Anderson had anywhere near as much potential as some have always thought. I've always thought the bad outnumbered the good. His accuracy has always been poor on the large majority of occasions, regardless of what's been done with his action, and this hasn't changed in 5 years now. I've always wondered whether it would, and I now think it less likely than ever.

 

[Richard]

Regardless Shah is a better batsman than Trott. Trott scoring runs in our domestic OD competition shouldn't be an automatic guide that he would be a good ODI player given the standard of bowling that he has to face.

If Trott can score off this oft-poor bowling and Shah can't score to anywhere near Trott's level, that tends to suggest to me that Trott > Shah at one-day batting.

I've seen a lot of him & given his technique where he likes to more across his crease a lot working most things on the leg-side & not the best player of spin (a bad thing especially given he is pushing for a middle-order place) don't think he would make a consistent enough player.

Whereas Shah's inability to work accurate bowling around has always made him a very poor ODI batsman.

 

[Prince EWS]

Regardless Shah is a better batsman than Trott.

In one day cricket? No, not by a long shot.

Trott scoring runs in our domestic OD competition shouldn't be an automatic guide that he would be a good ODI player given the standard of bowling that he has to face.

It's more than Shah has done, though. Expecting him (Shah) to perform better in international cricket than he has in domestic cricket is ridiculous. He's improved his one day batting in the last few seasons but he still doesn't hold a candle to Trott.

given his technique where he likes to more across his crease a lot working most things on the leg-side

Sounds like Ponting.

Really, given the players England have selected and the successes of the team in general, Trott having never played an ODI despite his record is ridiculous. You can make such judgements based on technique and essential guesswork if you have several players pushing for selection, but you don't - you've had absolute crap in the team several times (including now, really) and you've not been at all successful. He demands selection regardless of what you think of how he plays.

a bad thing especially given he is pushing for a middle-order place

He should be batting #3.

don't think he would make a consistent enough player.

Maybe not, but England are hardly in a position to ignore his record at the moment. He's certainly much more likely be make a consistent player than Owais Shah or Luke Wright.

 

[aussie]

His potential ability is only relevant while he's still playing - when you're selecting him and expecting more of him than he's shown previously. His career is over so what you're saying is irrelevant - he achieved what he did, not what he could have/should have in your eyes, and that was very, very little despite an extended run.

Well you had to catch the start of the argument where myself & Richard are debating in the potentially best ENG ODI side this decade which never materialised due to Gough's injury & Thorpe's family woes of the 2002 to WC 03 period in:

Trescothick
Knight
Hussain
Thorpe
Stewart
Collingwood
Flintoff
White
Giles
Gough
Caddick

That Ealham would have been better choice than White at the time, a notion i totally disagree with, although thinking again i reckon him & Giles could have been rotated depending on conditions given that Irani was picked around that time a player Ealham was better than with the ball at least.

 

[aussie]

If Trott can score off this oft-poor bowling and Shah can't score to anywhere near Trott's level, that tends to suggest to me that Trott > Shah at one-day batting.

Not at all. What Shah has done since his recall @ # 6 since last season tells me that Shah has settled into a role very well @ the highest level. Even though Trott may have the best OD domestic record i reckon currently doesn't make him a better player than Shah or Bopara.

Don't get me wrong i thought very highly of Trott up to last season but i have learned from what happened with Loye, so i have become tentative when pushing for Trott to be picked in the ENG side given his technique. He should definately be in the selectors thinking but not a definite squad player by any means. Since i reckon you would also agree your boy Afzaal should be ahead of him.

Whereas Shah's inability to work accurate bowling around has always made him a very poor ODI batsman.

Ha, not since he was recalled last year at least. Again what he did before then is irrelevant given he was in & out of the time & didn't know his role.

 

[Perm]

Opening is opening, though, whether you're one or two.

. Oh the irony.

 

[Prince EWS]

. Oh the irony.

Damn yoooooouuuuuu!!!

I had bookmarked that quote for later use.

 

[GIMH]

TBF, Rich simply gets irritated by players being listed in the wrong order, I have never seen him suggest that it affects performance

 

[Prince EWS]

TBF, Rich simply gets irritated by players being listed in the wrong order, I have never seen him suggest that it affects performance

Haha yeah, but it was a funny quote nonetheless.

 

[aussie]

In one day cricket? No, not by a long shot.

In domestic OD cricket yes his record is very good but again its misleading when judging potential ODI candidates given the average bowling attacks around.

But i don't see how Trott could have done a better job than what Shah has done since he adopted that role @ #6 in the order for the past year now.

It's more than Shah has done, though. Expecting him (Shah) to perform better in international cricket than he has in domestic cricket is ridiculous. He's improved his one day batting in the last few seasons but he still doesn't hold a candle to Trott.

Well what i just told you should cover why Shah should be expected to do better in his adopted role.

Sounds like Ponting.

Really, given the players England have selected and the successes of the team in general, Trott having never played an ODI despite his record is ridiculous. You can make such judgements based on technique and essential guesswork if you have several players pushing for selection, but you don't - you've had absolute crap in the team several times (including now, really) and you've not been at all successful. He demands selection regardless of what you think of how he plays.

Demands?. No son..

He should be batting #3.

Ahead of KP?. Trott should be battling out with Bopara & Afzaal for the number 4 spot where the later two should be ahead of him ATM.

Maybe not, but England are hardly in a position to ignore his record at the moment. He's certainly much more likely be make a consistent player than Owais Shah or Luke Wright.

He would have a different role to play than Shah & Wright & regardless of his domestic form for reasons i am tired repeating he is being the position he would be batting in as two candidates ahead of him right now.

 

[Richard]

. Oh the irony.

Damn yoooooouuuuuu!!!

I had bookmarked that quote for later use.

TBF, Rich simply gets irritated by players being
listed in the wrong order, I have never seen him suggest that it affects performance

Indeed. Not really ironic. Can see how it's vaguely funny to someone who's not me, though.

 

[Richard]

Not at all. What Shah has done since his recall @ # 6 since last season tells me that Shah has settled into a role very well @ the highest level. Even though Trott may have the best OD domestic record i reckon currently doesn't make him a better player than Shah or Bopara.

But it just does. Shah, even since his 2007 recall, has been poor; Bopara has mostly been poor all career; Trott has done better than both at domestic level and hasn't had the chance at international.

Trott > Shah and Bopara at one-day batting at this current time and nothing but nothing will change my mind on that.

Don't get me wrong i thought very highly of Trott up to last season but i have learned from what happened with Loye, so i have become tentative when pushing for Trott to be picked in the ENG side given his technique. He should definately be in the selectors thinking but not a definite squad player by any means. Since i reckon you would also agree your boy Afzaal should be ahead of him.

Afzaal ahead of Trott? Very close call. Honestly, I don't think I'd like to say one was a better one-day batsman than the other.

Afzaal has been banging on the door for longer, but part of that is because he's had the chance to. Trott has only been playing in England since, what, 2003? 2002?

Ha, not since he was recalled last year at least. Again what he did before then is irrelevant given he was in & out of the time & didn't know his role.

It's not, though. Nowhere near so much has changed as you claim, IMO. Shah is still a poor one-day batsman and the same problems are evident as always were. I still see little chance of him becoming a ODI-class batsman.