***Official*** English Domestic Season 2008

[Richard]

How's Riki playing? I like th'eld lad.

Why?

Anything to do with his similarity in forename to Rikki?

 

[steds]

Nah. Just one of those things.

 

[Manee]

Interesting what would happen if Napier charged to the crease, 'tis more of a brisk jog.

 

[steds]

"Gun Northamptonshire batting lineup."

OMG NasserHussainIsMyHero!

Interesting.

 

[Jamee999]

Nasser's words, not mine.

 

[aussie]

This is precisely the sort of attitude that's caused so many problems for England's ODI team in recent years.

This might possibly be the first really good OD innings Denly has played in his career. Proves precisely nothing until he can do it plenty times more.

Well i did say ``once he keeps playing like this" didn't I?

Of course though if he were selected after one season or a few innings it wouldn't be the worst decision given that i keep saying in selecting players capable of doing well @ ODI level in most cases it isn't based on who averages 40+ or who as a ER of under 4.50 it based on potential given the standard of our domestic ODI structure.

I am fairly sure Trescothick was picked by Fletcher based on one innings. Not suggesting i'm expecting it to happen twice but i watched Denley entire innings luckily (given i hardly end up watching local games just cheked SP 1 and saw him batting) & he looks to have all the raw ingredients to be good ODI opener. As i said just hopes he builds on that innings.

 

[aussie]

Flintoff should not be batting ahead of Ambrose AFAIC. Regardless of what his form is like.

hmm why so may i ask?

 

[Richard]

Nasser's words, not mine.

Robert Key spoke of "a few gun innings" or something along those lines earlier this year in some Sky interview or other.

 

[Prince EWS]

hmm why so may i ask?

I believe Ambrose to be the superior batsman in the longer format. Flintoff should be made aware that he's being selected primarily as a bowler, too; I think he might focus a little too much on his batting if he's picked in a batsman's position.

 

[aussie]

Because the 2 of them offer more to the side than any other bowler in England when they are fit. The fact that they are accidents waiting to happen doesnt mean they dont deserve to play for England until that accident does happen.



Its not about their bodies. Jones has always been supremely fit and was easily one of the best fielders in the side when he played. The problem is that in Flintoff's case his bowling involves putting heavy stress on his ankle and while he may pass fitness tests and what not, he could at any point in time injure it again. Like Atherton did for most of his career, Flintoff will have to play through the pain barrier and play with drugs for the majority of his career. Jones has pretty much every possible injury and one has to consider that his knee (either one) is subject to serious injury even with the slightest damage. Again both will pass fitness tests but theres no telling what slight incident can put them out of the game.

All true, but the balance of the side that you are suggesitng i.e batting Ambrose @ 6 just so we can compensate for these guys seems a bit too much for me.

 

[Richard]

Of course though if he were selected after one season or a few innings it wouldn't be the worst decision given that i keep saying in selecting players capable of doing well @ ODI level in most cases it isn't based on who averages 40+ or who as a ER of under 4.50 it based on potential given the standard of our domestic ODI structure.

Whatever the standard, as I say, it changes nothing that the better at domestic level, the better the odds are of being good at international.

I am fairly sure Trescothick was picked by Fletcher based on one innings.

That's the rumour - fortunately, though, Trescothick had actually had long-term performance behind him. Picking someone on 1 innings is never anything short of foolhardy - that means basically if someone is in the right place at the right time, they're in the side.

 

[aussie]

I believe Ambrose to be the superior batsman in the longer format. Flintoff should be made aware that he's being selected primarily as a bowler, too; I think he might focus a little too much on his batting if he's picked in a batsman's position.

hmm well fair enough i guess, but this where i feel people have under-rated Flintoff batting so much that the reasoning now he is incapable of handling any consistent type quality bowling whether it be spin or pace. Which i feel is a bit unfair given that in IND 06 Flintoff showed that he could curb his natural aggressive instinct & play as a proper batsman, its just the with the consistent injury woes he hasn't been able to build on that.

 

[aussie]

Whatever the standard, as I say, it changes nothing that the better at domestic level, the better the odds are of being good at international.

Well explain to me how all these Indian openers over the last 10 years such as Gandhi, Ramesh, Das, Jaffer have all scored tons of runs at domestic level @ yet when the come on the international stage they get worked out?

That's the rumour - fortunately, though, Trescothick had actually had long-term performance behind him. Picking someone on 1 innings is never anything short of foolhardy - that means basically if someone is in the right place at the right time, they're in the side.

All true but and i would never back the idea, but a lot of teams who don't have to solid domestic structure of AUS, SA & ENG (only for the test cricket) pick players based on talent or one good innings. They either take to international cricket like a duck to water i.e Vettori & Tresocthick, show early magic then go through a phase of struggling to work themselves fully in international cricket i.e Edwards, Anderson or just fade away i.e Kambli.

 

[open365]

Sucks to be a Northants fan, after the rain break the game was pretty much over given the massive change in bowling conditions.

As for Napier, he may have got wickets today but I still don't think he'll ever have it an international level, too easy to score off when the ball isn't going mental like it was tonight. Batting wise i'm not sure, his technique when hitting down the ground is sensational so I could definitely see him scoring a few in 2020s, but it may just be an insane run of form.

 

[open365]

Well explain to me how all these Indian openers over the last 10 years such as Gandhi, Ramesh, Das, Jaffer have all scored tons of runs at domestic level @ yet when the come on the international stage they get worked out?

I think there's a pretty simple answer to this; The FC pitches in India are incredibly batting friendly and the standard of bowling isn't that great.

And as for Das, I don't particulary think he under/over performed at international level, he was just never test standard despite scoring at a decent rate in FC cricket. Jaffer is another example of this, has a big average on flat tracks against mediocre bowling attacks, but can't really handle the standard of bowling/conditions at international level.

 

[tooextracool]

hmm well fair enough i guess, but this where i feel people have under-rated Flintoff batting so much that the reasoning now he is incapable of handling any consistent type quality bowling whether it be spin or pace. Which i feel is a bit unfair given that in IND 06 Flintoff showed that he could curb his natural aggressive instinct & play as a proper batsman, its just the with the consistent injury woes he hasn't been able to build on that.

Flintoff the batsman is not ready to be playing test match cricket just yet. His form has been poor for quite a while and if it werent for the fact that his bowling is currently still amongst the best in the country he wouldnt be playing for England. Currently, I have more faith in Ambrose's batting than I do in Freddie's. Therefore, Id rather have Ambrose at 6 ahead of Freddie.

 

[tooextracool]

Well explain to me how all these Indian openers over the last 10 years such as Gandhi, Ramesh, Das, Jaffer have all scored tons of runs at domestic level @ yet when the come on the international stage they get worked out?

The point though is that batsmen with poor FC records who have succeeded at International level is like an unattached egg in a minefield-its very rare. If you cant succeed at the FC level then it seems very unlikely that you would do so at the international level. The other way around, as you are referring to, is irrelevant.

 

[aussie]

Flintoff the batsman is not ready to be playing test match cricket just yet. His form has been poor for quite a while and if it werent for the fact that his bowling is currently still amongst the best in the country he wouldnt be playing for England. Currently, I have more faith in Ambrose's batting than I do in Freddie's. Therefore, Id rather have Ambrose at 6 ahead of Freddie.

All true, i probably am a bit hastly but i already have one eye on the Ashes, thus i am basing Flintoff selection along with the others as one where all are fit & firing on all cylinders.

 

[aussie]

The point though is that batsmen with poor FC records who have succeeded at International level is like an unattached egg in a minefield-its very rare.

Yes it is rare, but outside of AUS, SA & ENG all the other sides who average/poor domestic structures pick players basically on potentially & get mixed results. Thats the way it is..

Coming back to the point regarding selecting players for the ENG ODI side, just because a man is averaging 40+ or has an ER of less than 4.50 means that he would automatically be a hit in ODI's.

If you cant succeed at the FC level then it seems very unlikely that you would do so at the international level. The other way around, as you are referring to, is irrelevant.

All though its unlikely the other way can't be irrelevant since it happens all the time.

Look at the India opener theory all those guys that i mentioned have come in and failed yet you had a guy like Sehwag who had no experience opening for Delhi when IND came here in 02 yet has become Indians most dominant opener since Gavaskar (despite the many question marks that surround him.

So if Denley were to picked in the near future once he keeps batting like how he did the other day i wouldn't be againts it. But given the whole we have at the top of the order ATM & lets say he makes the role his own i would then have to hope his career takes the Trescothick or Vettori route rather than the Anderson or Edwards route.

 

[open365]

Coming back to the point regarding selecting players for the ENG ODI side, just because a man is averaging 40+ or has an ER of less than 4.50 means that he would automatically be a hit in ODI's.

So if Denley were to picked in the near future once he keeps batting like how he did the other day i wouldn't be againts it. But given the whole we have at the top of the order ATM & lets say he makes the role his own i would then have to hope his career takes the Trescothick or Vettori route rather than the Anderson or Edwards route.

I completely agree with you. However, mindlessly slogging a couple in a Twenty20 game, being able to bowl some pretty dire medium pace, and being >24 isn't any reason at all to believe a player wil suceed at international level either. Though for some reason England selectors seem to think it is.

I would be perfectly fine if England gave Trott 15 staight games in which he didn't perform and then never picked him again, I may believe he should be picked in the future and that he was just unlucky or in a bad stretch of form, but what I can't stand is players being selected for no apparent reasons over players with far better records who deserve their chance a LOT more than Luke F**** Wright.