Never is a best-ODI-XI the same as a best-Test-XI, and often there are 4 or 5 changes worthwhile.
Yes, because he was the best ODI and Test bowler - he possessed accuracy and big spin, something few have ever done.Are you telling me because shane warne loops the ball hes no good for odis? Hes the best bowler of spin in aus and for many years he played both forms of the game
That's nonsense, your best short-form bowlers play ODIs and your best long-form bowlers play Tests. The requirements in the two forms of the game are different.its the same for many countries...Your best bowlers play in both forms its as simple as that..
Why do England need a spinner? If the seamers are all good enough, you don't need one. Right now, I think Blackwell has probably done sufficient to be first-in-line.you stil havent said who should be englands spinner? Hes miles ahead of any competition.
Not true, the best ODI bowlers are those that keep it tight - the best of all are those that keep it tight AND bowl wicket-taking deliveries.Your best bowlers in odis take wickets.... theyre not run savers
Dalrymple and Symonds... keeping it tight? Sorry, what?you have bowlers who keep it tight like gayle dalrymple and symonds etc but how often do they win games for their sides with economical bowling.. its all about wickets, if you pick them up in those middle overs with a spinner you're guaranteed to be on top, if you just keep it tight sooner or later the seamers come back and get targetted.
If your entire attack bowls economically, you win games, simple as. If the seamers come back after the spinners and get targetted they'll either bowl well and continue to staunch the flow of runs (eventually leading to wickets, inevitably) or they'll bowl poorly and get belted.