The England Thread

[tooextracool]

And his series record in 2002\03 was so brilliant?

He was poor for most of the VB Series and had 1 good innings and 2 poor ones in the WC.

Id take an average of 48 in the VB series over any of the rubbish that hes pulled off recently. Further he scored a century as well during that period, which is more than hes managed in the last 5 years. In the world cup im willing to ignore his performance against India given the conditions. 66 vs pakistan was still a fine performance.

And in 2001, 2001\02 and 2002 he had just 1 good performance too, that in Zimbabwe.

Simple truth of the matter is, Collingwood has never been that good at ODIs at any point in his career and he probably owes getting such a long go to Bangladesh being classed a ODI-team.

He did, however, have a run of reasonable scores starting in the middle of the India tour and going on until the 2nd innings of the Champions Trophy.

a reasonable run which lasted really for the India series but you decide to extend all the way till the CT? because the fact is that Collingwood was rubbish for all the summer if you were to separate it from his performances in India.
As far as Collingwood pre 2002 is concerned, considering for the large part he came in during the last few overs of the innings its not surprising at all that his averages dont add up, i mean he was batting 7 or 8 in the natwest series in 02.

 

[tooextracool]

They do, but the point I was making is that Trescothick wasn't going through any said in mid-season 2006, he'd temporarily gotten over his problems.

I cant see how someone who failed for pretty much all of the summer bar 1-2 innings and then takes himself out of the game again can be said to be 'over his mental problems'.

If that 1 wicket lasts an hour it can make a hell of a difference. And that's what you're picking your openers hoping they'll do - at least. You can't then pick your middle-order on the presumption that your openers will fail.

Except the reality is that it more than often doesnt, especially when you bring in a debutant like Butcher. Like i said, if they wanted to give him a rest, why not give him longer and bat him at 6? Its not like they had a settled number 6 at the time with Mark Ramprakash and co wandering around.

And when they swapped him with Butcher he discarded the gloves.

In which case they should have brought Hick to play at 3 then.

 

[tooextracool]

The only time England were at their worst in the 1990s was against Pakistan in 1996.

Well, actually in 1992\93 and 1993, too, but I don't know how closely you were watching then...

I started watching in 1992, too, and have no memories at all of the subcontinent disaster in 92\93 and only very limited memories of the 1993 capitulation.

Err 99 against NZ or SA? Or do you honestly think we were amongst the better teams back then?
I was watching the tour to India in 93 as well and was still supporting Hick and England at the time as well. Cant say we were too much better.

 

[UncleTheOne]

Id like to see Chapple and/or Mascarenhas added to the side as well.

How he hasn't yet been capped at ODI level for England is quite astonishing. Especially when compared to some of the seamers that have been picked. His county team mate James Bruce looked good in one dayers last year as well.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Out of the three Mahmood,Tremlett and Plunkett.Plunkett looks quite decent and will be worth perservering with and he seems more accurate then last year.The ball he bowled to Gilchrist was a peach first up.Lewis,Anderson,Plunkett,Flintoff and Panesar would be my bowling attck in the caribbean or maybe Dalrymple for one of the seamers.Probably either Lewis or Plunkett.

But as the commentators said in the post-match analysis, it was more of a fluke than anything else. Even Plunkett looked surprised. The commentators noted:

"If he knew what he was doing with that first ball, he wouldn't have bowled 2 wides in the over after it."

A bit of a harsh analysis, but the point is still strong.

 

[aussie]

well as i mentioned in the C&B series thread i think England based on some timely encouraging performances of some players have gotten a bit of a life-line in the WC squad. So the likely 15 at this stage would have to be:

Joyce
Vaughan
Bell
KP
Collingwood
Freddie
Dalrymple
Nixon
Plunkett
Lewis
Anderson

Loye
Strauss
Mahmood
Panesar

Really wanted to start Loye, but i am hoping that Vaughan will recover in time & i personally would want to have him in my team.

I don't want Nixon in the side, would rather Read but for some reason the selectors etc dont seem the rate the bloke. But generally in the best interest of the ODI side neither are the best option, Pothas is but its obviously no chance in him being picked.

As was mentioned earlier Chapple & Mascarenhas deserve to be in the current squad, they could have really added something different to the side.

 

[DCC_legend]

well as i mentioned in the C&B series thread i think England based on some timely encouraging performances of some players have gotten a bit of a life-line in the WC squad. So the likely 15 at this stage would have to be:

Joyce
Vaughan
Bell
KP
Collingwood
Freddie
Dalrymple
Nixon
Plunkett
Lewis
Anderson

Loye
Strauss
Mahmood
Panesar

Really wanted to start Loye, but i am hoping that Vaughan will recover in time & i personally would want to have him in my team.

I don't want Nixon in the side, would rather Read but for some reason the selectors etc dont seem the rate the bloke. But generally in the best interest of the ODI side neither are the best option, Pothas is but its obviously no chance in him being picked.

As was mentioned earlier Chapple & Mascarenhas deserve to be in the current squad, they could have really added something different to the side.

Read is good behind the stumps, but his batting in the ashes was pretty awful. Nixon isnt much better but he has hit a few runs.

 

[Richard]

Id take an average of 48 in the VB series over any of the rubbish that hes pulled off recently. Further he scored a century as well during that period, which is more than hes managed in the last 5 years. In the world cup im willing to ignore his performance against India given the conditions. 66 vs pakistan was still a fine performance.

Well even if you ignore that because he got a good ball it's still 1 good, 1 poor.

As for the VB Series, yes, he got a century against his name but it was one of the worst you'll ever see, and would not have happened had he been caught off that sitter on 11. So for the first 5 innings of said series he was poor then did better in the last 3 games, and then extended that sequence to the first game of the WC.

a reasonable run which lasted really for the India series but you decide to extend all the way till the CT? because the fact is that Collingwood was rubbish for all the summer if you were to separate it from his performances in India.

He wasn't "rubbish" - he averaged 31.57. Not good when separated from the India tour, certainly, but not appalling either. In all innings bar the first he reached double-figures. And if you add the first 2 innings in the CT he averaged 35.12.

As far as Collingwood pre 2002 is concerned, considering for the large part he came in during the last few overs of the innings its not surprising at all that his averages dont add up, i mean he was batting 7 or 8 in the natwest series in 02.

He still had more than enough opportunity to bat with plenty of overs left, and only once managed to do so - at Cuttack in 2001\02. OK, NWS02 doesn't mean much (just 1 of 3 failures was anything but a hit-out-or-get-out situation) but only if he'd done well before that would you have a case - and he hadn't.

 

[Richard]

I cant see how someone who failed for pretty much all of the summer bar 1-2 innings and then takes himself out of the game again can be said to be 'over his mental problems'.

It's not all about how he played the game - his psychologists were evidently satisfied he was in a fit state otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in playing. As far as I'm concerned linking the two like it's certain isn't wise either - it's not like Tresco's never had poor runs before, he was rubbish almost the whole of the 2002\03-2003\04 period other than that Oval double-ton.

And in any case - were you prepared to say in July after that SL ODI series that he'd suffer a relapse? I didn't hear anyone suggesting such a thing at the time.

Except the reality is that it more than often doesnt, especially when you bring in a debutant like Butcher. Like i said, if they wanted to give him a rest, why not give him longer and bat him at 6? Its not like they had a settled number 6 at the time with Mark Ramprakash and co wandering around.

I don't know - personally I'd have had him at four, behind Hussain, given that three was always Hussain's best position. IMO Stewart was always wasted at six and seven. In any case, he only got down there via ad-lib - because someone else kept coming in and someone else kept getting shifted around. Had Vaughan not been injured in 2000, 2000\01 and again in 2001 it's perfectly conceivable that he'd have remained at five between then and the end of his career.

In which case they should have brought Hick to play at 3 then.

Maybe they should...

 

[Richard]

Err 99 against NZ or SA? Or do you honestly think we were amongst the better teams back then?

If we'd fielded first in the Second and Third Tests against NZ in 1999 we could quite possibly have won that series 4-0. It was nowhere near as bad as some people have suggested.

As for SA 1999\2000, we were 2nd-best but we were hardly as woeful as we were in 1992\93, 1993 and the 2nd half of 1996.

 

[Richard]

But as the commentators said in the post-match analysis, it was more of a fluke than anything else. Even Plunkett looked surprised. The commentators noted:

"If he knew what he was doing with that first ball, he wouldn't have bowled 2 wides in the over after it."

A bit of a harsh analysis, but the point is still strong.

Well that genuinely was the first time Plunkett has ever managed to both take wickets and bowl an economical spell in his entire ODI career...

 

[Richard]

Read is good behind the stumps, but his batting in the ashes was pretty awful. Nixon isnt much better but he has hit a few runs.

His batting in ODIs over his career hasn't been the worst, though.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Read is good behind the stumps, but his batting in the ashes was pretty awful. Nixon isnt much better but he has hit a few runs.

Are you serious? Read had about as much success in the Ashes as Nixon has had in the CB series. Aside from the fact that Test and ODI are different formats.

 

[Prince EWS]

No chance.

Has never happened and never will.

It's always:
1. Trescothick
2. Vaughan

I've already had this argument with you in the past - about how nobody thinks or cares about the order of opening batsmen, and how it isn't relevant to selection which is what I was discussing.

 

[Richard]

And as I said - is it really so difficult to notice an order of openers which never changes?

 

[Prince EWS]

And as I said - is it really so difficult to notice an order of openers which never changes?

It wouldn't be at all difficult if I actually cared. Annoyingly for you though, I don't.

As far as selection goes, it is completely irrelevant. You aren't going to choose one player over another because he prefers to bat at #2 than #1 or vise-versa, and considering my post was about selection, the order I listed the openers in was of no concequence.

 

[Richard]

Annoyingly for me, you don't care.

Annoyingly for you, evidently, I will post correcting the order of a pair of openers if someone gets it wrong.

And if we both just chill-out and don't take the matter seriously, no-one will get annoyed over something that really doesn't matter too much.

 

[aussie]

England's opening partnership

This is a bit of a dilemma that IMO people haven't really realised or aren't paying much attention to.

Its fairly obvious that most sides will be looking to take advantage of the 20 over passage on those small grounds in the caribbean & the only opener in the set-up capable of doing it IMO once he gets his overall game in order is is Mal Loye.

ATM Joyce should be the # 1 opener and he is play really has been reminding me of Knight & England can't afford to have someone like Vaughan or Strauss as his partner since England will really struggle to get off to good starts, thats why Loye at this stage must open IMO. Once he does 2 of Vaughan/Strauss/Bell will have to be dropped, it won't be Vaughan so unfortunately Bell & Strauss will have to sit down.


Also get Nixon out of the squad, one good innings when all was virtually lost, pick Read who has actually done something in ODI's in the past.

 

[Richard]

Really, how has Loye presented an unanswerable case to open? He's mostly been hit-one-decent-shot-then-get-out, and has made 2 nice 30s. I don't see that just because he's a strokeplayer he must play.

As for Joyce, he's no Knight, so far all he's done is score one 67 and one incredibly lucky century. I'm still very far from convinced about him as an opener.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I'd rather have a batting lineup that is much more likely to ensure that England puts a decent if not spectacular total on the board, KP and Flintoff might turn it into something spectacular anyway if the platform is there. Half of the time England don't even manage to bat out the full 50 overs anyway.