who should be kicked out of England ODI team?

[tooextracool]

Shah certainly shouldn't be dropped now after scoring two consecutive half centuries - not at all. That'd be even more ridiculous than recalling him for the 15th time.

I just thought his original selection was wrong and I don't have any faith in him at all to continue his recent form. As I said, you'll be stuck with him for another couple of series before he's sent packing with his sub-30 average.

That may of course be the case, especiallly if he is made to bat out of position, although recent evidence suggests he is getting better at his role at number 6. Personally I would like to see something like:

Cook (not sure if he is good enough but his most recent record merits selection)
Flintoff
Trott
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Read
Swann
Mascarenhas
Broad
Sidebottom

 

[tooextracool]

Bell and Cook have both scored plenty of runs for Warwickshire and Essex at domestic level, have shone glimpses of their potential at ODI level and through their Test exploits we can establish that they are classy batsmen. Again, faith needs to be placed in them. After every series we hear a chorus of cries from English fans about who should be dropped, who needs to be picked and why their team aren't winning. I reckon a little bit more confidence for Bell and Cook, who are both confidence players, is all that is needed. Give them a decent run and then analyse their performances. Keep in mind that if you do drop them, players who have no experience at ODI level will probably replace them and they may not be successful straight away.

Bell has been given not just a decent run but an extended run. His place has barely been questioned for over 2 years now. There is a limit to the amount of patience once can have with regards to potential and Bell at this point appears that all of Bell's limitless potential will remain unfulfilled in both forms of the game.

 

[aussie]

But it just does. Shah, even since his 2007 recall, has been poor;.

This is the kind of irritating standpoint that many have towards the ENG ODI team. As i keep saying we don't have the depth as Australia, South Africa, India.

Shah comes in & is doing a solid job if not fantastic job @ # 6 & because he hasn't been Bevan like (and the fact the you dislike him) you want him dropped. Look give me a break..

Bopara has mostly been poor all career;.

Eh?. Again stop reading into what they do @ domestic level. If Bopara has looked poor in his short stint in the international set-up then i must begin to look down on your views on the game.

Trott has done better than both at domestic level and hasn't had the chance at international.

I agree due to circumstances i.e an injury after the 20/20 VS WI last he probably would have gotten a run last summer but no guarantees. Regardless that doesn't change the fact i don't see how better of a job he would have done than Shah in the # 6 role.

As it stands he should be considered & has to battle out with Bopara & Afzaal for a middle-order spot simple.

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

Depending on what roles they are assigned to it varies.

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.

Well what are these faults that remain then?. You seriously are going to tell me you haven't been encouraged by what Shah has done over the past year and just maybe he could make that position his own?. Look give it up yo, just admit you don't like Shah so we can call it George eh..

 

[aussie]

He's played a couple of decent innings down their since his recall, yes. He's also had some horrible runs of form there though, which seem to be quickly forgotten for whatever reason. In the winter he played ten innings and failed nine times. He produced 193 runs @ 21.44 in the entire 2007/08, averaged under 20 in the five match series against New Zealand on some of the flattest pitches you'll see and he looked absolutely horrid whilst doing so. Yes he played well at home this summer but he really shouldn't have been there to begin with and one series has really done nothing to suggest he's a better option than someone who averages over 40 domestically, especially since he still only averages 30 odd in his supposedly awesome period. Obviously you can't drop Shah now that's scored two consecutive half centuries but I have little doubt you'll be stuck with him for a little while longer before sending him packing in a season or two along with his sub-30 ODI average.

Ha, you have gotten so caught up with this argument son that you are sounding like a true English fan here..

What an excellent retort. Straight contradictions are always fun, eh son?.

Well we've been arguing in circles anyway..

KP should bat #4 where he's more comfortable.

More comfortable? For who him or the selectors/fans?. It can't be him because i remember him saying after his hundred in Durham that he was thinking about batting @ 3 for a while & its a role he really wants to take up.

But regardless if its 4 or 3 he is batting it doesn't make much of a difference.

I could cop Afzaal but in reality both should be playing. Bopara has done well domestically in the last few seasons but he's still not in Trott's league AFAIC.

How much of Trott have you seen bat though?. Don't get me wrong though i rate him but i sense along people are overhyping a bit too much now.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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

Then why not have him in the team?

 

[aussie]

That may of course be the case, especiallly if he is made to bat out of position, although recent evidence suggests he is getting better at his role at number 6. Personally I would like to see something like:

Cook (not sure if he is good enough but his most recent record merits selection)
Flintoff
Trott
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Read
Swann
Mascarenhas
Broad
Sidebottom

Yea i like it (although Trott would still very much be in competition with Bopara & Afzaal), especially the Idea of Freddie at the top its worth a shot given the current situation we have at the top of the order.

 

[pietersenrocks]

That may of course be the case, especiallly if he is made to bat out of position, although recent evidence suggests he is getting better at his role at number 6. Personally I would like to see something like:

Cook (not sure if he is good enough but his most recent record merits selection)
Flintoff
Trott
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Read
Swann
Mascarenhas
Broad
Sidebottom

I don't think Freddie will be good for opening, as he'll take more pressure on his batting than he should. And, I think if we want to try another opener it should be Denly. And, the idea of Read coming back to the side isnt right. I think both Prior & Mustard did really well and should have cared on. Atleast Mustard shouldnt have been dropped from One-Dayers. On The one hand, we say "Ambrose is picked in shorter forms because we want consistency"..and we've different captains in different forms. And, it really looks that Wright isnt gunna shine at International Level for some more time. And, Mustard needs to be called back to open the innings.

 

[pietersenrocks]

Yea i like it (although Trott would still very much be in competition with Bopara & Afzaal), especially the Idea of Freddie at the top its worth a shot given the current situation with we have at the top of the order.

When Prior & Mustard were doing good at the top, why do we need to push Freddie?

I know Mustard's record isnt good, but he did what the team wanted.

 

[aussie]

Then why not have him in the team?

Ha, my bad that was richards lawless comment that i forgot to quote over. I edited so i'm open for debate.

 

[aussie]

The problem is that Shah did indeed fail in his position for years and years. That we do know. However, one must also consider that since the 2006 season he has set the world alight in list A cricket for Middlesex. Even though when he did get his chance last summer, I was amongst all of those who said 'not again'. However, since then i think hes done enough at 6 to warrant a place in the side as well as get a promotion up the order, certainly more than Bopara ever did. So i do think we should take his stint since last summer with a different tinge of green and I do find all those shouts for his place to be unwarranted before, during or after his last ODI series.

Word out son, i was beginning to wonder if all this Shah hate wasn't going to let up sheesh..

 

[aussie]

I just thought his original selection was wrong.

No, him & Trott were selected together vs WI. Your argument is that Trott should have been selected for IND instead of Shah. Trott was injured, Shah has doon pretty well in his new role which potentially could turn out to be a blessing for the side since the side lacked a finisher.

and I don't have any faith in him at all to continue his recent form.

Well my friend just because you don't have faith in him to continue his recent form means he won't.

As I said, you'll be stuck with him for another couple of series before he's sent packing with his sub-30 average.

Ha, i fear you may eat these words down the line yo..

 

[aussie]

When Prior & Mustard were doing good at the top, why do we need to push Freddie?

Well as TEC rightly said Flintoff although you would think would easily suit the role of finishing an innings with massive hitting etc he hasn't done it consistently enough, the only times i can remember off my head ATM was his 84 vs PAK in 2000, 64 vs IND in the 03 WC & 70 odd vs NZ when ENG somehow won in AUS the other day.

I do believe he can do it though, but given we ENG have a serious problem at the top of the order & Fred obviously liking to taking on quicks with the restriction i have no prob with that experiment.

I know Mustard's record isnt good, but he did what the team wanted.

All true, Mustard definately should have played vs NZ, poor decision from the selectors. He probably should be picked given that Read i believe can't play for ENG again given that he played in that ICL thingy..

 

[Richard]

Because Flintoff has such a fantastic record at 6? Seriously the idea that Flintoff is such a fantastic slogger and so adept at closing an innings is rather beyond me at this point. He has done brilliantly in said role in all of 0 innings in his entire career and there is no aspect in his game that suggests he would be useful in such a role. If one is to bat Flintoff anywhere below 5, you might as well bat him at 8 because its a real waste of a position that should instead go to a more competent player. I wouldnt even mind Ambrose at 6 (given thats closer to where he bats in List A cricket) than Flintoff.

As I said, I meant to go through Flintoff's "good" period (read 2002 to the 2006/07 CB Series) as a ODI batsman, but still haven't got around to it. You're right, I don't need to look to say this, that he's never been all that good coming-in late in the innings with, say, 9 overs left.

However, I certainly don't believe him capable of opening. He might just be worth another try at three (a third one), but that'd be it.

 

[Richard]

That may of course be the case, especiallly if he is made to bat out of position, although recent evidence suggests he is getting better at his role at number 6. Personally I would like to see something like:

Cook (not sure if he is good enough but his most recent record merits selection)
Flintoff
Trott
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Read
Swann
Mascarenhas
Broad
Sidebottom

I'd like Read to play too and everyone knows it, but he won't, because he's played in the ICL, and is thus ineligable (unless the BCCI say otherwise). Sadly, we've now got to look elsewhere.

 

[Richard]

This is the kind of irritating standpoint that many have towards the ENG ODI team. As i keep saying we don't have the depth as Australia, South Africa, India.

Shah comes in & is doing a solid job if not fantastic job @ # 6 & because he hasn't been Bevan like (and the fact the you dislike him) you want him dropped. Look give me a break..

Shah has done nothing of the sort IMO. And no, I don't "dislike" him. We have better players than Shah who are being ignored, and that is why I don't think Shah should last long.

Eh?. Again stop reading into what they do @ domestic level. If Bopara has looked poor in his short stint in the international set-up then i must begin to look down on your views on the game.

Dear oh dear. Well I assure you, he has, and I really can't make it much clearer than that.

At four\three he's still done little of note, and at six he's played a whole 2 good innings out of a large number of opportunities - both of which came in exceptional circumstances, where rather than requiring shots to be played, a severe rebuilding was required.

I agree due to circumstances i.e an injury after the 20/20 VS WI last he probably would have gotten a run last summer but no guarantees. Regardless that doesn't change the fact i don't see how better of a job he would have done than Shah in the # 6 role.

As it stands he should be considered & has to battle out with Bopara & Afzaal for a middle-order spot simple.

If Shah can do what little he's done in that role, Trott certainly could have. Trott should be so far ahead of Bopara it's untrue, he's done so much more to merit it. But still, he is not.

Depending on what roles they are assigned to it varies.

Not really. Trott may indeed be poor at batting lower down, but that's irrelevant - Shah is poor there too, and Bopara certainly is.

Well what are these faults that remain then?. You seriously are going to tell me you haven't been encouraged by what Shah has done over the past year and just maybe he could make that position his own?. Look give it up yo, just admit you don't like Shah so we can call it George eh..

I don't do "not liking" players. I either rate them or I don't. Shah remains poor at working accurate bowling around, and usually gets out instead. Yes, he's smashed some rubbish death-bowling around on a couple of occasions, and played the odd occasional decent mid-innings innings, but that's it.

 

[Richard]

And, I think if we want to try another opener it should be Denly.

Nah. Denly's done nothing of note in one-day cricket so far, and has struggled in the longer game too of late. Picking him now for international cricket, never mind ODIs, would be about the most potentially disastrous thing you could do with him right now.

 

[open365]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt Trott only eligible to play for England last season?

I didn't realise that acctualy, that makes his exclusion slightly less bad, but like EWS said the ODI side gets altered constantly there have definitely been oppurtunities for the selectors to pick him.

When Prior & Mustard were doing good at the top, why do we need to push Freddie?

I know Mustard's record isnt good, but he did what the team wanted.

Prior and Mustard just aren't good enough to open the innings, not only are their records both poor, but they just haven't got a good enough technique to make it at international level, the same goes for Wright as well.

However, I certainly don't believe him capable of opening. He might just be worth another try at three (a third one), but that'd be it.

Do you really think he'd do a worse job than Mustard/Prior/Wright though?

 

[Richard]

No, I don't. But I don't want to settle for utter crapness, and just because he might do a better job than those wastes of space, I don't feel it's reason to try him as an opener.

There are others who I believe would do better. And I also believe that to use Flintoff as an opener would be to waste his ability to bat lower down, when there aren't all that many people who can do that.

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah, I wouldn't want Fred opening at all. Complete waste afaics.
And 3 would be even worse, unless the openers had put on at least 50.

 

[Debris]

England's problem is very easily summed up. Complete lack of quality at the top of the order. Their problems will continue until they can find a decent ODI opener.

There are other problems there but the lack of a good opener is a killer.