Your Retrospect Rest of World ODI Squad

[Armadillo]

My Pick:

1.Trescothick
2.SRT
3.Inzamam
4.Dravid
5.Chandrapaul
6.Pietersen
7.Flintoff
8. Bond
9.Vass
10.Harmison
11.Murali

Dravid can be WK, Inzamam would be Captain.

You can't pick Dravid as wicket keeper, its clear he doesn't want the job and he's no good anyway. With guys like Dhoni and Akmal coming through, there's no reason to either.

 

[krishneelz]

1.Tresko
2.Tendulkar
3.Fleming (c)
4.Pieterson
5.Lara
6.Dhoni (wk)
7.Flintoff
8.Pathan
9.Pollock
10.Vettori
11.Akthar

 

[sirjeremy11]

A current sort of form XI... (sort of based on ICC rankings but taking into account balance of sides)

Tendulkar
Dippenaar
Sangakarra
Dravid
Yousuf
Yuvraj
Flintoff
Pathan
Vettori
Vaas
Bond

12th man - Dhoni

That is a good damn team.

 

[tooextracool]

Except that the bar is lower in ODIs than in Tests.
More England batsmen, too, had success in Tests than in ODIs.

how much lower is it then? should averaging 26 against australia, as tresco did in the vb series, be considered a success?

 

[Richard]

No, it shouldn't, but nonetheless it was better than most managed.
Batting wasn't always easy that series.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it shouldn't, but nonetheless it was better than most managed.
Batting wasn't always easy that series.

oh come off it, considering how poor the other ODI batsmen were the comparison is rather irrelevant. fact is nick knight the only half decent ODI batsman from england at the time averaged over 50 at the end of the series and even collingwood scored a fair few runs against australia. even craig white in the few games he played looked more competent. tresco failed period.

 

[Richard]

Yes, Trescothick was poor in that series, there's no two ways about that.
Collingwood and White weren't, of course, facing the new-ball.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, Trescothick was poor in that series, there's no two ways about that.
Collingwood and White weren't, of course, facing the new-ball.

if you arent capable of facing the new ball in ODIs, then you shouldnt be playing ODI cricket. one could also argue that unlike trescothick, collingwood and white didnt get the opportunity to take advantage of the 15 over regulations.

 

[Richard]

One could.
Fact is, though, Trescothick had the harder job and you know it.
Collingwood, especially, would probably struggle more in the first 15 because he's not generally that good at hitting the ball when there's time to go, he's more of one who knocks the ball into gaps.
Trescothick was poor, but so was Stewart for the most part.

 

[tooextracool]

One could.
Fact is, though, Trescothick had the harder job and you know it.
Collingwood, especially, would probably struggle more in the first 15 because he's not generally that good at hitting the ball when there's time to go, he's more of one who knocks the ball into gaps.
Trescothick was poor, but so was Stewart for the most part.

yes because collingwood is actually a middle order player, tresco is not. need i remind you that nick knight the other opener averaged twice as much as tresco did in that series?
fact is if you are an opener in ODIs to consider yourself a success you have to be averaging at least over 35 in a series. tresco failed miserably, and by and large hes been a miserable failure against australia in ODIs.

 

[sirjeremy11]

if you arent capable of facing the new ball in ODIs, then you shouldnt be playing ODI cricket

Or maybe, you just shouldn't open...

 

[tooextracool]

Or maybe, you just shouldn't open...

fine let me correct that then, if you are a specialist opener and you have an excuse such as having to play the new ball for your failures, then you shouldnt be playing ODI cricket.

 

[Richard]

yes because collingwood is actually a middle order player, tresco is not. need i remind you that nick knight the other opener averaged twice as much as tresco did in that series?
fact is if you are an opener in ODIs to consider yourself a success you have to be averaging at least over 35 in a series. tresco failed miserably, and by and large hes been a miserable failure against australia in ODIs.

Fine, that is what you think.
I think he has been far from a success, but not a complete failure.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Fine, that is what you think.
I think he has been far from a success, but not a complete failure.

I think it would be unfair to call Trescothick a failure at all. Yes, the odd series he may have failed, but stats don't lie. If you think that Gilchrist and Astle are failures, then do not read on, otherwise check this...

M Runs Avg 100 50

Trescothick 114 3923 36.66 10 20
Astle 208 6685 35.18 15 39
Gilchrist 234 7985 36.46 14 43

All have fairly similar avgs, and proportionally similar 100,s and 50's. Plus Gilchrist never had to face Lee, McGrath etc...

The problem with these three guys is that they all go hard at the ball, and they all have to face the new ball. So of course they are going to have failures, but you would not leave them out of their international teams (unless you were "experimenting" - yawn).

 

[Richard]

tec was referring to against Australia. Specifically VBS 2002\03, where Trescothick started well then fell away very badly (as did Knight - Knight, being a better player, had a more sensational start).
Indeed, it's interesting to note that since the West Indies tour in 2004, Trescothick's form has by-and-large been extremely poor in ODIs and not what we've come to expect from him.

 

[tooextracool]

Fine, that is what you think.
I think he has been far from a success, but not a complete failure.

well his average in that series is below his overall average against australia. whether hes been a failure against australia overall or not is not really relevant, the point is that he was a failure in the vb series of 02/03

 

[Richard]

Yes, he was, which was hardly a surprise.