The England Thread

[marc71178]

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.

Right so 2 men who have scored 50s or better need to be dropped for one who's only just got 50 runs in his career?

What's your logic there or is it mere blinkered bias?

 

[Richard]

The worrying thing is, Bumble Lloyd said the exact same thing!

And Malachy isn't even a Lanky...

 

[marc71178]

He plays for Lancashire so that's enough for some people...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Loye has been OK outside of his weakness to left-armers. You still couldn't give him a game in a full-strength side, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him miss out on the 15.

 

[Richard]

He plays for Lancashire so that's enough for some people...

Evidently so, and I can't say I'd be terribly surprised in Colin's case but I really do think the likes of Bumble should know better.

 

[aussie]

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.

Maybe me suggesting that Loye is an unanswerable case to open with is a bit wrong but, the fact is he is the only opener option that England have now that Trescothick is not available that will be able to take advantage of the first 20 over & not put pressure on the middle order to do must of the aggressive batting which will make the difference between getting a 250score or a 280 to 300 plus score which is needed in the world cup.

Yes Loye hasn't gotten the big scores but he has gotten some encouraging starts, just needs to to get over this weird weakness that he has developed recently outside off-stump & he can really go well IMHO.

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.

My goodness yo, a bloke makes a century & yo call it lucky. Geez yea he was dropped but he batted well in that game & has batted pretty well recently & at this stage is England # 1 opener, since Vaughan at the top is questionable & Strauss just isn't good enough in ODI format to open.

Right so 2 men who have scored 50s or better need to be dropped for one who's only just got 50 runs in his career?

What's your logic there or is it mere blinkered bias?.

As usual you've lost me. Which two men have scored 50s or better recently? Only Strauss scored 50 the other game while Vaughan has looked rusty & Bell has gotten starts but hasn't cashed enough for a # 3.

and FFS, just because Loye is from Lancashire & i'm pushing for him means i'm biased?. Geez couldn't it be that i'm trying to reason whats the best combination for the ODI side?, full of crap yo..

 

[Richard]

Maybe me suggesting that Loye is an unanswerable case to open with is a bit wrong but, the fact is he is the only opener option that England have now that Trescothick is not available that will be able to take advantage of the first 20 over & not put pressure on the middle order to do must of the aggressive batting which will make the difference between getting a 250score or a 280 to 300 plus score which is needed in the world cup.

Why's he the only option if he's not scoring any runs? I'd say there are far better options than someone who gets a few single-figure scores and the odd 30.

Yes Loye hasn't gotten the big scores but he has gotten some encouraging starts, just needs to to get over this weird weakness that he has developed recently outside off-stump & he can really go well IMHO.

Really, everyone has a weakness outside off - especially strokeplaying batsmen. Simple fact of the matter is, Loye has several times got out to deliveries he should be smacking through the off-side field.

My goodness yo, a bloke makes a century & yo call it lucky. Geez yea he was dropped but he batted well in that game & has batted pretty well recently & at this stage is England # 1 opener, since Vaughan at the top is questionable & Strauss just isn't good enough in ODI format to open.

Err - I call it lucky because it was lucky - dropped not once, but twice, as if once wasn't enough. He is certainly not established as a ODI opener.

 

[Pup Clarke]

As usual you've lost me. Which two men have scored 50s or better recently? Only Strauss scored 50 the other game while Vaughan has looked rusty & Bell has gotten starts but hasn't cashed enough for a # 3.

Bell got a 50 against the Aussies if you remember and that's who he's refering to.

 

[Pup Clarke]

. Simple fact of the matter is, Loye has several times got out to deliveries he should be smacking through the off-side field.

You can't smack balls through the field if your feet are stuck to the pitch like glue.It's Loye's footwork (or non-footwork) which gets him into trouble outside off stump.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Why's he the only option if he's not scoring any runs? I'd say there are far better options than someone who gets a few single-figure scores and the odd 30.



Err - I call it lucky because it was lucky - dropped not once, but twice, as if once wasn't enough. He is certainly not established as a ODI opener.

He's not established but surely you must give him some credit?.

 

[Richard]

You can't smack balls through the field if your feet are stuck to the pitch like glue.It's Loye's footwork (or non-footwork) which gets him into trouble outside off stump.

Yes, exactly. That was more or less what I meant.

 

[Richard]

He's not established but surely you must give him some credit?.

I give him credit for playing one decent knock, that 66(?) against NZ, but aside from that he's been a dismal failure as an opener, which is really hardly surprising.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I give him credit for playing one decent knock, that 66(?) against NZ, but aside from that he's been a dismal failure as an opener, which is really hardly surprising.

So a 100 doesn't count as a decent knock?.Bizarre!!!!.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Eh,when you bat at number 8 in the order it's not easy to play good innings.Especailly if your meant to push on the accelarater or bat with the tail.It's a very hard position to prosper.Chris Read for opener?

 

[Richard]

So a 100 doesn't count as a decent knock?.Bizarre!!!!.

It wasn't a very good innings, no.

 

[Pup Clarke]

It wasn't a very good innings, no.

Surely to get to 100 not matter how much luck you have has to be at least a decent innings?.Joyce played very well in patches and deserved his luck.

 

[Richard]

No, not at all. Anyone can play well "in patches", at any time. I don't really care how many runs are in the book, what matters to me is how many runs a batsman's earnt by scoring them without giving away his wicket. Joyce scored 107 runs for 3 times out, which is not really very good.

 

[Pup Clarke]

No, not at all. Anyone can play well "in patches", at any time. I don't really care how many runs are in the book, what matters to me is how many runs a batsman's earnt by scoring them without giving away his wicket. Joyce scored 107 runs for 3 times out, which is not really very good.

Let me ask you this question.Would you say prefer a batsmen like Bell who gets to 30 with lovely,pleasant strokeplay and not give a chance of getting out where as someone like Joyce who reaches a century with luck along the way?.Really how often do you see a batsmen get a century without giving away at least one chance to the fielding side?.very rarely IMO.You seem really to have it in for Joyce and also seem quite harsh about his century which you should appreciate as no other England batsmen has scored a century.If for eg Bell got a hundred without giving a chance to the fielders would that ultimately more crucial than Joyce's.You don't appreciate gritty and tough centuries like Joyce did with luck involved do you.For godness sake all I want you so say is he played pretty well even with luck on his side.Ultimately it doesn't matter whether he was "3 times out" because he wasn't and you've got to accept that.

I hope I got my point across.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Maybe me suggesting that Loye is an unanswerable case to open with is a bit wrong but, the fact is he is the only opener option that England have now that Trescothick is not available that will be able to take advantage of the first 20 over & not put pressure on the middle order to do must of the aggressive batting which will make the difference between getting a 250score or a 280 to 300 plus score which is needed in the world cup.

Rubbish. If Loye does 'well' it's the difference between getting 260 and 265-270. When he does nothing again *if* we avoid getting bowled out we might get 250.

 

[Richard]

Let me ask you this question.Would you say prefer a batsmen like Bell who gets to 30 with lovely,pleasant strokeplay and not give a chance of getting out where as someone like Joyce who reaches a century with luck along the way?.Really how often do you see a batsmen get a century without giving away at least one chance to the fielding side?.very rarely IMO.You seem really to have it in for Joyce and also seem quite harsh about his century which you should appreciate as no other England batsmen has scored a century.If for eg Bell got a hundred without giving a chance to the fielders would that ultimately more crucial than Joyce's.You don't appreciate gritty and tough centuries like Joyce did with luck involved do you.For godness sake all I want you so say is he played pretty well even with luck on his side.Ultimately it doesn't matter whether he was "3 times out" because he wasn't and you've got to accept that.

I hope I got my point across.

I "seem to have it in" for a lot of people according to you...

You see plenty of perfectly good innings where batsmen make runs without let-offs - otherwise a faultless catching display (which occurs often enough) would always result in a low score.

I don't appreciate anything where let-offs were involved, because it's not been accumulated through the batsman's own skill, just the ineptitude of the fielders. Of course it's nowhere near the equal of an innings which has been played without let-offs.

As for who would I prefer - I'd prefer someone that's going to make 30s than someone who's going to give a chance in single-figures - because 90%+ of the time that chance will be taken. You can't just presume that someone's always going to get let-offs, because mostly they don't. Usually, if you give a chance, you're out. And I want batsmen that are going to score runs, not those that are going to get out cheaply.