The England Thread

[albo97056]

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

Thank you, lots of people running to support rich here lol

 

[marc71178]

But wait people, because Richard does have a point.

Take the "great" ODI bowler Prosper Utseya - his Test figures are 12-0-55-0, and he's a specialist bowler!

His FC figures of 44 wickets @ 50.7 are conclusive proof that someone can be brilliant in one form and rubbish in the other.

 

[Richard]

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

Whatever the hell you mean by that.

 

[Richard]

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

How on Earth can you possibly talk about IVA and Tendulkar in the same sentance? The ODI-game they played was different (as you're so fond of telling me when bowlers are the subject, which I'm fully well aware of) and their cases are non-comparable. Incidentally, though, in Richards' time, ODIs were more similar to Tests than they are now.

And Tendulkar certainly isn't the best ODI batsman of the modern era, Bevan is. And he wasn't even good enough to have a decent Test career, never mind be the best Test batsman of his age.

How, incidentally, does the fact that Tendulkar was good in both forms matter? Where, exactly, did I say that "no-one can possibly be good at both forms of the game"?

 

[Richard]

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.

Err, that'd be because sides burn wickets in pursuit of victory.

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.

No, plenty of players are good at one form and not the other. Yes, the very best tend to be able to play both (though not all - Vaughan was for a time a hell of a Test player and has always been rubbish in ODIs; Slater was one of the best Test openers of the modern era and was every bit as poor as Vaughan), but there are more than enough examples of players who were good at ODIs but not Tests (Knight, Hick, Fairbrother, Read, Ealham, Mullally) and it works the other way, too (Atherton, Hussain, Cork, Butcher, Vaughan, Strauss, Key, Jones in the days when he could bat in Tests, Hoggard, Shah, Cook to date...)
England's best 3 ODI batsmen of the modern era (Knight, Hick, Fairbrother) were not good enough for Test-cricket; on many occasions, plenty of changes are neccessary.

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?

What's now got to do with anything? Yes, those 3 happen to be good at both forms, but Michael Bevan certainly wasn't, and he's the best ODI batsman of the modern era. Nor, indeed, do ICC Rankings mean a thing, they're nought but form-guides.

 

[Richard]

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.

Well, Australia haven't been the worst...
M Waugh (middle-order Test player, ODI opener)
Gilchrist (likewise, and for quite a while was ODI keeper while not in the Test side)
Ponting (Test and ODI role same)
Lehmann (barely got a look in in Tests for ages, but was a redoutable ODI player)
S Waugh (nowhere near as good in ODIs as Tests and wouldn't have played anywhere near the amount he did but for his Test talents)
Bevan (best modern ODI player, not good enough in Tests)
Symonds (never been up to much in Tests)
Warne (good at both games, but being an all-time great Test bowler that's hardly surprising)
Lee (nowhere near Test class for most of his career, but a hell of a good ODI record)
Fleming (played no more than a handful of Tests, but was a fantastic ODI performer)
McGrath (see Warne)
So all-in-all, I'd say they make a mockery of the suggestion that ODI and Test sides should be near enough the same.

India weren't bad either...
Ganguly (see Australian openers)
Tendulkar (see Australian openers)
Azhar (see Ponting)
Jadeja (never much of a Test player)
X (never had a settled number-five around that time)
Mongia (first-choice wicketkeeper in both sides for ages)
Robin Singh (he was such a fantastic Test player, wasn't he?)
Agarkar (fastest to 50 ODI wickets, 3rd fastest to 100, never looked remotely Test class)
Kumble (good in ODIs everywhere, good in Tests only at home)
Srinath (never realised his potential in either form)
X (again, all sorts of players were tried)

You see, Tests and ODIs are really rather different, and picking a Test side in a ODI is usually a route to disaster.

 

[wpdavid]

Well, Australia haven't been the worst...
M Waugh (middle-order Test player, ODI opener)
Gilchrist (likewise, and for quite a while was ODI keeper while not in the Test side)
Ponting (Test and ODI role same)
Lehmann (barely got a look in in Tests for ages, but was a redoutable ODI player)
S Waugh (nowhere near as good in ODIs as Tests and wouldn't have played anywhere near the amount he did but for his Test talents)
Bevan (best modern ODI player, not good enough in Tests)
Symonds (never been up to much in Tests)
Warne (good at both games, but being an all-time great Test bowler that's hardly surprising)
Lee (nowhere near Test class for most of his career, but a hell of a good ODI record)
Fleming (played no more than a handful of Tests, but was a fantastic ODI performer)
McGrath (see Warne)
So all-in-all, I'd say they make a mockery of the suggestion that ODI and Test sides should be near enough the same.

You see, Tests and ODIs are really rather different, and picking a Test side in a ODI is usually a route to disaster.

Lehmann was a perfectly good test player when he got his chance. Symonds may well do likewise now - it's too early to say. Fleming was a perfectly decent test player - just unlucky to have to compete with McG, Gillespie & co. Lee is deemed good enough to play tests, even though he's better in onedayers. Yes, MWaugh & Gilchrist bat in different positions in the oenday game, but they're good enough to be test regulars, and that's my point. In fact, Aus are a perfect example of a side where at least 8 of their first choice oneday 11 have generally been quite capable of playing test cricket too.

 

[tooextracool]

Lehmann was a perfectly good test player when he got his chance. Symonds may well do likewise now - it's too early to say. Fleming was a perfectly decent test player - just unlucky to have to compete with McG, Gillespie & co. Lee is deemed good enough to play tests, even though he's better in onedayers. Yes, MWaugh & Gilchrist bat in different positions in the oenday game, but they're good enough to be test regulars, and that's my point. In fact, Aus are a perfect example of a side where at least 8 of their first choice oneday 11 have generally been quite capable of playing test cricket too.

I always find arguments on this topic to be quite fascinating. Im presuming though that despite all the talk about Australia and India that we are still referring to the England ODI crisis. If we look back at the history of English ODI cricket, do you not find it to be deeply moving that our best ODI side in recent memory in terms of performance was at the 1992 world cup? Yet with all the talk of having your best test players play ODI cricket, and 8 out of 11 and what not, the side that played in the final of that world cup included all of Graeme Hick, Neil Fairbrother, Chris Lewis, Derek Pringle, Phil Defreitas and Dermot Reeve. Out of those 6 only 1 could claim to have had test match success for any sort of consistent period in Hick while the rest were all ODI specialists. That in itself should disprove your 8 out of 11 theory.
But if that tidbit didnt tweak a muscle in your body then lets go back to the last time we won a tri series in ODI cricket with 2 other teams that werent zimbabwe or bangladesh, all the way back to 97 in Sharjah. From memory that side had 3 test match regulars,( 4 if you want to be generous and count Hick who was for whatever stupid reasons never allowed to play regularly) in Thorpe, Headley and Stewart.
Look the point im trying to make is that you dont have to be einstein to figure out that for whatever reasons, England have continually produced players that are good in one form and very poor in the other. Our best ODI players ever- Knight, Hick, Ealham, Mullally, Fairbrother and a few others were all players that never succeeded in test match cricket. It might not be the same for other countries, but IMO the English domestic system has to blame for the fact that English FC cricketers are clearly nowhere near good enough when it comes to producing players that can nudge and nurdle, innovate, run well between the wickets or can save a few runs in the field. The players that did fantastically well in those 2 tournaments werent exactly supremely talented, nor did they manage to play consistently well for England but the bottom line was that they all were electric in the field, they were all brilliant runners between the wickets, they were all extremely disciplined and most importantly when they were at the crease you couldnt be sure whether they were going to hit you over fine leg or between gullies and when they bowled they constantly mixed it up with slower balls and off cutters. For those who watched the rather embarassing display of England trying to bat in 20-20 cricket the other day, didnt you want to break the tv sets when you saw Paul Nixon and some of the other clowns trying to reverse sweep? Or for that matter Flintoff bowling today and starting off with 11 wides?
Yes you cant win with just ODI specialists, but by and large you need the right combination of the two. When theres someone like a Nick Knight, you dont pick Aj Strauss because hes better in test cricket. Someone like Robin Smith who arguably would have been one of the best ODI cricketers ever had he been allowed to play longer only played 71 ODIs despite averaging 39 simply because he wasnt good enough in tests. Instead they picked Michael Atherton and Nasser Hussain.

 

[tooextracool]

Jones in the days when he could bat in Tests

indeed for all of that one series. Jones was always going to found out from the start when you saw that he had the worst shot selection in living history.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

i thought his captaincy today was streets ahead of anything Flintoff could at any point of his life. Moved the field around brilliantly and switched ends when he realised that Flintoff was struggling. But theres only so much you can do when your players are incapable of bowling straight. Even Jon Lewis was horrendiously wayward today, and the less said about the England batting the better.The 2005 summer against Australia was nothing more than a miracle as ive said before. One must remember that only a few months before that they were thrashed 5-1 against SA with Vaughan as captain.

 

[tooextracool]

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...

Unless you are Shane Warne or Muralitharan, spinners dont win games for you. Therefore nor will Panesar. He might keep it tight, but thats all that he is capable off. Fact is that your pace bowlers need to take wickets if you want to win games. And Anderson(Who btw has completely lost his natural outswinger since hes switched actions), Jon Lewis and Flintoff arent going to be taking truckloads of wickets for England anytime soon.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

You need a combination of the 2. Taking 3/60 from 10 overs looks great in your average, but its done very little to win a game for your country. Therefore you need bowlers that can bowl 10-40-1 as well.

 

[Richard]

Lehmann was a perfectly good test player when he got his chance. Symonds may well do likewise now - it's too early to say. Fleming was a perfectly decent test player - just unlucky to have to compete with McG, Gillespie & co. Lee is deemed good enough to play tests, even though he's better in onedayers. Yes, MWaugh & Gilchrist bat in different positions in the oenday game, but they're good enough to be test regulars, and that's my point. In fact, Aus are a perfect example of a side where at least 8 of their first choice oneday 11 have generally been quite capable of playing test cricket too.

The point I was making is that the two teams were almost completely different. Yes, Lehmann was good enough to be playing Tests but for most of his ODI career he wasn't. I severely doubt the same will be true of Symonds.

Personnel being the same isn't relevant if they're playing completely different roles (and opening is utterly different to batting in the middle in both forms).

 

[Richard]

indeed for all of that one series. Jones was always going to found out from the start when you saw that he had the worst shot selection in living history.

He was still passable enough here, while not being anywhere near good enough to justify a place.

He wasn't as utterly woeful as he has been in his last 12 games. It's only then that he's been as utterly dreadful as he always has in ODIs.

 

[Richard]

Our best ODI players ever- Knight, Hick, Ealham, Mullally, Fairbrother and a few others were all players that never succeeded in test match cricket.

So you're prepared to acknowledge Ealham as one of the better ODI bowlers England have had in the modern era now...?

Someone like Robin Smith who arguably would have been one of the best ODI cricketers ever had he been allowed to play longer only played 71 ODIs despite averaging 39 simply because he wasnt good enough in tests. Instead they picked Michael Atherton and Nasser Hussain.

Robin Smith was certainly Test-class for a time, even if he went downhill.

 

[Richard]

One must remember that only a few months before that they were thrashed 5-1 against SA with Vaughan as captain.

Well, it was actually 4-1 but it would've been 6-1 but for that brainstorm in the 2nd game and the thunderstorm in the 6th.

 

[albo97056]

Err, that'd be because sides burn wickets in pursuit of victory.

No, plenty of players are good at one form and not the other. Yes, the very best tend to be able to play both (though not all - Vaughan was for a time a hell of a Test player and has always been rubbish in ODIs; Slater was one of the best Test openers of the modern era and was every bit as poor as Vaughan), but there are more than enough examples of players who were good at ODIs but not Tests (Knight, Hick, Fairbrother, Read, Ealham, Mullally) and it works the other way, too (Atherton, Hussain, Cork, Butcher, Vaughan, Strauss, Key, Jones in the days when he could bat in Tests, Hoggard, Shah, Cook to date...)
England's best 3 ODI batsmen of the modern era (Knight, Hick, Fairbrother) were not good enough for Test-cricket; on many occasions, plenty of changes are neccessary.

I dont think talking about how "successful" the england odi and test sides have been neccessarily proves your point lol. Infact if anything it shows how rubbish it is to pick a different odi side! What competitions have england won in odis? zip

What's now got to do with anything? Yes, those 3 happen to be good at both forms, but Michael Bevan certainly wasn't, and he's the best ODI batsman of the modern era. Nor, indeed, do ICC Rankings mean a thing, they're nought but form-guides.

What's now got to do with anything? Yes, those 1 happen to be good at odis only, but theres about a zillion who are good at both.
You cant take my three examples and contradict me with 1! and then call my argument less persuasive lol. Bevan was one exception, though i think if he were playing in any other test nation he would have made both teams, he certainly wasnt all that bad in tests, just never quite made it, sort of on the fringes like symonds in tests.

 

[albo97056]

You need a combination of the 2. Taking 3/60 from 10 overs looks great in your average, but its done very little to win a game for your country. Therefore you need bowlers that can bowl 10-40-1 as well.

Id much rather have a bowler take 3/ 60 than 0/40. Look at todays odi, dalrymple and panesar both bowled economically, then the seamers come back and get put away (albeit the game was over by then) but if panesar and dalrmple had taken a few wickets each it would have been a different game...

 

[albo97056]

Unless you are Shane Warne or Muralitharan, spinners dont win games for you. Therefore nor will Panesar. He might keep it tight, but thats all that he is capable off. Fact is that your pace bowlers need to take wickets if you want to win games. And Anderson(Who btw has completely lost his natural outswinger since hes switched actions), Jon Lewis and Flintoff arent going to be taking truckloads of wickets for England anytime soon.

The point of the arguement was whether one should have an attackibng or defensive spinner in the odi side. Obviously spinners dont often roll over sides in odis but a few wickets in the middle overs mean everything.. new batters come in to face the seamers afterwards and dont score as quickly..

 

[wpdavid]

The point I was making is that the two teams were almost completely different. Yes, Lehmann was good enough to be playing Tests but for most of his ODI career he wasn't. I severely doubt the same will be true of Symonds.

Personnel being the same isn't relevant if they're playing completely different roles (and opening is utterly different to batting in the middle in both forms).

Hmmmm I think it is, although I take your point about different roles needing different skills. My point is that Aus still thought MW & Gilly were a better bet than whoever was making runs at the top of the order in the Aus domestic oneday competitions. Now OK, that's not a difficult call when you're dealing with world class guys like them, but I think the principle still holds true. If only becuae it's been true for avery consistently good oneday side, whatever TEC may try to kid us to the contrary.

As for Lehmann, I think you're changing the rules a bit here. The fact is that he wasn't out of the test side because he wasn't good enough for test cricket: it was simply that others were better. Going back to your original point, it was nothing to do with him being suited to one form of the game and not the other.

Anyway, where have you been lately?