The England Thread

[albo97056]

honestly, hell lot more bowlers better than Mahmood in English country cricket?


I reckon Mahmood is one of the best young talents to have come up in recent times from England.

LEWIS

 

[Richard]

the best spinner in any country should play both forms of cricket

No, the best long-form spinner should play Tests and the best one-day spinnner should play ODIs. The requistites for success in said formats are almost polar opposites.

IMO the worst thing that can happen to Panesar now is to play ODIs - even if he does have some success in them, which is certainly not bonafide.

 

[Richard]

Good call there. Not sure about Plunkett, but Mahmood could be very, very good. He has the pace, and the bounce, and just lacks accuracy. He can swing it and seam it, and can be very nasty and awkward to face.

Unfortunately, you can have all the other skills you want, if you lack accuracy you'll never get anywhere, especially in ODIs.

I'm personally very skeptical about whether Mahmood will ever have it, and absolutely certainly doesn't right now.

 

[Richard]

Infact, i bet hoggards one day record is better than mahmoods and hes been called a no hoper in the od game!

That'd be because despite being given almost as many chances as Solanki he's come-up short every time.

The best thing that can happen to Hoggard is being left completely for Tests, and I've thought it's a bonafide certainty twice now, and still there are those calling for his ODI recall.

 

[Richard]

honestly, hell lot more bowlers better than Mahmood in English country cricket?


I reckon Mahmood is one of the best young talents to have come up in recent times from England.

When competing for that role with the likes of Liam Plunkett, Kabir Ali, Tim Bresnan, etc. etc. that's not hard.

 

[Richard]

well at this stage i guess its unlikely that my wish for Mascarenhas & more importantly Pothas to make the world cup squad is unlikely. But with Trescothick definately out, Mr.Vaughan is needed now, even though his record his poor, just to see him in the top-order would be assuring.

Having those who average 26 is routinely assuring to you?

 

[GIMH]

It's assuring to have a Captain in the side who has actually won a live ODI tbh. Strauss hasn't (unless the Ireland game counts), Flintoff hasn't, Trescothick is unlikely to efature. It's easy to forget that we put up a good fight against Aus 18 months ago in ODI with Vaughan at the helm because of all the crap we've watched since, but we did, I'm not suggesting we will do in the WC, but I'd rather have Vaughan in the side, even if I knew he was going to score a duck.

 

[Richard]

How much of it really had to do with Vaughan at the helm, though?

Did it not simply have to do with Harmison, incredibly, bowling pretty decently, and with Pietersen playing a couple of fantastic knocks?

And, even more incredibly than the case of Harmison, Vaughan actually batting OK and Collingwood bowling well?

Plus, of course, Trescothick playing that one innings.

 

[GIMH]

Well, don't you think you can correlate such performances with good captaincy?

And Vaughan definitely did look a better ODI batsman as time went on

 

[Richard]

He's looked OK - nothing more - in his last 2 series (vs SA and Aus). That doesn't cancel-out 50-odd matches of mediocrity.

And no, I don't really think said happenings had much to do with Vaughan's captaincy. Do you?

I can't see how Harmison actually bowling OK, for example, had anything to do with the captain - history suggests it's just coincidence, and happens pretty much regardless of any circumstances.

 

[GIMH]

I don't know is my honest answer - some Captains get more out of their players than others though.

I can see why Aussie would be assured by Vaughan in the side, but to be honest, I doubt Bradman would get this ODI side of ours to have a half-decent WC

 

[Richard]

I don't know is my honest answer - some Captains get more out of their players than others though.

Oh, quite, but those particular two (Harmison and Pietersen) don't seem to me to be two who're affected in the slightest by who may or may not be captain.

 

[albo97056]

No, the best long-form spinner should play Tests and the best one-day spinnner should play ODIs. The requistites for success in said formats are almost polar opposites.

IMO the worst thing that can happen to Panesar now is to play ODIs - even if he does have some success in them, which is certainly not bonafide.

The requisite is to take wickets, and whos most likely to take wickets in odis? Dalrymple? i think not... Monty does a great job of keeping it tight in tests aswell, so why cant he do it in odis? If you're one of the best bowlers in the team it matters little what type of game it is, thats been proven time and time again...

 

[Richard]

The requisite is to take wickets

No, the requistite is to bowl economically in the one-day game, wickets are a bonus. In Tests, wickets are the most important thing with economy 2nd (but more important than wicket-taking in ODIs).

And Panesar's best way of taking wickets in Tests is to not be encouraged to think economy-only in ODIs, which SHOULD happen if he plays.

and whos most likely to take wickets in odis? Dalrymple? i think not... Monty does a great job of keeping it tight in tests aswell, so why cant he do it in odis? If you're one of the best bowlers in the team it matters little what type of game it is, thats been proven time and time again...

No, it hasn't, the opposite's been proven - many bowlers have proven up to standard in one form and not so good in the other. And that's true to a small extent for seamers, and a massive one for spinners. Who would call Kumara Dharmasena even remotely close to being a Test-class bowler? But he's one of the best ODI spinners of the modern era, because he bowls fast, flat and accurately. Equally, many people blame ODI cricket for the lack of flight and variation in many bowlers in Tests.

 

[albo97056]

No, the requistite is to bowl economically in the one-day game, wickets are a bonus. In Tests, wickets are the most important thing with economy 2nd (but more important than wicket-taking in ODIs).

And Panesar's best way of taking wickets in Tests is to not be encouraged to think economy-only in ODIs, which SHOULD happen if he plays.

No, it hasn't, the opposite's been proven - many bowlers have proven up to standard in one form and not so good in the other. And that's true to a small extent for seamers, and a massive one for spinners. Who would call Kumara Dharmasena even remotely close to being a Test-class bowler? But he's one of the best ODI spinners of the modern era, because he bowls fast, flat and accurately. Equally, many people blame ODI cricket for the lack of flight and variation in many bowlers in Tests.

I dont think theres many that would agree with you there. How often does one see the best side in tests be the best side in odis? often theres only 1 or 2 changes in the best teams. 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, its the same for many countries...Your best bowlers play in both forms its as simple as that.. you stil havent said who should be englands spinner? Hes miles ahead of any competition.

Your best bowlers in odis take wickets.... theyre not run savers, 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.

 

[Richard]

I dont think theres many that would agree with you there. How often does one see the best side in tests be the best side in odis? often theres only 1 or 2 changes in the best teams.

That's nonsense, the best players are regularly good at only 1 form of the game. The best ODI batsman ever couldn't make any mark at all in Tests.

Never is a best-ODI-XI the same as a best-Test-XI, and often there are 4 or 5 changes worthwhile.

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

Yes, because he was the best ODI and Test bowler - he possessed accuracy and big spin, something few have ever done.

its the same for many countries...Your best bowlers play in both forms its as simple as that..

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.

you stil havent said who should be englands spinner? Hes miles ahead of any competition.

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.

Your best bowlers in odis take wickets.... theyre not run savers

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.

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.

Dalrymple and Symonds... keeping it tight? Sorry, what?

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.

 

[marc71178]

That's nonsense, the best players are regularly good at only 1 form of the game. The best ODI batsman ever couldn't make any mark at all in Tests.

And of course 2 of the best batsmen of all time, Viv and Sachin - they were only good in one form weren't they?

 

[albo97056]

That's nonsense, the best players are regularly good at only 1 form of the game. The best ODI batsman ever couldn't make any mark at all in Tests.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dalrymple and Symonds... keeping it tight? Sorry, what?

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.

I think its funny how the next person who posts after you thinks youre wrong lol. On your last point, has there ever been a game where a side has won and not taken a wicket? Id put good money on there not, nor 1 or even 2 wickets besides.
If you are a good player, you should be able to adapt to both forms of the game, and most do, thats why the best sides only make a few changes between versions. Mostly for the odd slow scoring batsmen and the wayward seamer etc.
Question -- you say the best odi player couldnt make a mark in tests? Ponting 1st and 8th, Hussey 1st and 5th, pietersen 2nd and 3rd... cant make a mark in both eh?

 

[Scaly piscine]

McGrath, Warne, Murali, Bond, Pollock and so on etc. all completely rubbish in one form too...

 

[wpdavid]

McGrath, Warne, Murali, Bond, Pollock and so on etc. all completely rubbish in one form too...

Indeed. It goes further, of course. I'd be surprised if anyone could name a country who are consistently good at odi's and whose 1st choice oneday XI hasn't been massively dominate by test players - say 8 out of 11.