***Official England in India***

[Uppercut]

The choice is between use a system like D\L or declare any match that doesn't reach its conclusion a n\r.

Don't particularly like the latter idea myself TBH.

Oh, there's no alternative, i don't agree with its implementation. I was just stressing that it's a big flaw in the format of any game, and adds to my current disenchantment with 50-over cricket.

 

[Mard]

England are a bad ODI side because they dont play that many ODIS, i mean they have talent but the talent doesn't click if you play ODI matches after such long gaps

 

[IndGunner]

England are a bad ODI side because they dont play that many ODIS, i mean they have talent but the talent doesn't click if you play ODI matches after such long gaps

By that logic Pakistan is gonna be in trouble when they play their next test match.

 

[SJS]

D & L is the fairest and the most ridiculously complicated system anywhere in any sport. No one is able to present one which scores high on both the fairness and simplicity scales hence its continuation alongwith the persistent criticism sometimes from oner side and sometimes from the other ............ depending upon who lost

 

[Sanz]

Did I say they mean nothing? Runs are runs. I said I don't know if he can score outside the subcontinent. The reason one Aussie had a 50+ average is that the Indian team bowled extremely well in mostly unhelpful conditions. I don't think anyone would deny that.

Runs are runs, I hope you really meant that otherwise I see you talk about how batsmen who score in the subcontinet are flat track bullies and the only way they would gain your respect is when they score on bouncy tracks and so on.

And your posts are quite contradictory, so when Aussie batsmen didn't score, it was because the Indian bowlers bowled well, which is quite obvious. But at the same time no credit to the batsmen for making the Aussie bowlers look Ordinary ?

 

[Evermind]

England are a bad ODI side because they dont play that many ODIS, i mean they have talent but the talent doesn't click if you play ODI matches after such long gaps

I dunno. I can't imagine players like Anderson, Prior, Shah or Bopara making it into say the Australian ODI team. I just don't think England have too many world-class ODI players.

Anderson is like England's Agarkar. He'll have a great game every ten, and bowl pies the rest of the time.

 

[gettingbetter]

I dunno. I can't imagine players like Anderson, Prior, Shah or Bopara making it into say the Australian ODI team. I just don't think England have too many world-class ODI players.

Anderson is like England's Agarkar. He'll have a great game every ten, and bowl pies the rest of the time.

I don't understand the Bopara dislike by many users on this board.

 

[sanga1337]

I dunno. I can't imagine players like Anderson, Prior, Shah or Bopara making it into say the Australian ODI team. I just don't think England have too many world-class ODI players.

Anderson is like England's Agarkar. He'll have a great game every ten, and bowl pies the rest of the time.

Don't think its the lack of stars TBH. I mean NZ manage to be a decent ODI team despite the lack of real stars in their team. They certainly don't have a player anywhere near the calibre of Pietersen and Flintoff

 

[Goughy]

I don't understand the Bopara dislike by many users on this board.

I dont dislike him as I dont know him.

I just dont think he is a particularly good cricketer.

 

[gettingbetter]

I dont dislike him as I dont know him.

I just dont think he is a particularly good cricketer.

I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. Other than stupid English selection policies, he has done pretty much nothing wrong when asked of him. He has been thrown down the order when he shouldn't of had to and has made runs, given a run at opener and at number 3 and made runs and he hasn't been given a go in his proper position.

Add to that he has had 3 good/great seasons in a row now. His selection is justified and his performances have been good enough to say that he isn't a poor player.

 

[Goughy]

I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. Other than stupid English selection policies, he has done pretty much nothing wrong when asked of him. He has been thrown down the order when he shouldn't of had to and has made runs, given a run at opener and at number 3 and made runs and he hasn't been given a go in his proper position.

Add to that he has had 3 good/great seasons in a row now. His selection is justified and his performances have been good enough to say that he isn't a poor player.

He may possibly deserve inclusion in the ODI team. Im not going to dispute this right now. However, he has played 31 games and contributed very little, has not looked very good and done the little he has done at snails pace.

I dont mind if you say you think he has potential and may turn out to be a fine player in the future. That is a judgement call and only time will tell. But to currently assess Boparas contribution for England in his 30 odd games as anything better than poor is seriously one eyed.

EDIT- A quick check and a rough formula and I have him (statistically only) the 2nd worst ODI batsman currently playing behind the run away winner, Devon Smith

 

[gettingbetter]

He may possibly deserve inclusion in the ODI team. Im not going to dispute this right now. However, he has played 31 games and contributed very little, has not looked very good and done the little he has done at snails pace.

I dont mind if you say you think he has potential and may turn out to be a fine player in the future. That is a judgement call and only time will tell. But to currently assess Boparas contribution for England in his 30 odd games as anything better than poor is seriously one eyed.

That seems a bit harsh. For his 'role' he has had to do, he has done rather well.

 

[gettingbetter]

Care to elaborate on this formula?

 

[Evermind]

Not sure about Goughy, but ALL four of Bopara's half-centuries have been in losing causes. He has hardly ever put in a match-winning performance in the 31 games he has played in. He might have talent, but he needs to translate it into the international stage.

This is similar to the problem India have: "promising" youngster who're given chance after chance and fail to convert.

And on the other side you have people like Klusner who're not playing for their country because of stupid personal issues their captain has. Can England invoke some obscure, obsolete commonwealth law and somehow get Klusner into their starting XI? They did get Pietersen!

 

[Scaly piscine]

I don't mind Bopara getting chances because at least he has potential. Shah and Prior's continued selection is just depressing tho. It reeks of settling for mediocrity. By picking players like that the best England can hope for in the future is to be above average World Cup also-rans. In which reality is it that Prior or Shah become genuine class ODI players? There isn't one.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't mind Bopara getting chances because at least he has potential. Shah and Prior's continued selection is just depressing tho. It reeks of settling for mediocrity. By picking players like that the best England can hope for in the future is to be above average World Cup also-rans. In which reality is it that Prior or Shah become genuine class ODI players? There isn't one.

I kinda agree abt Prior but is there someone bette available for England? I genuinely dont know if there are other better options because I don't follow CC that closely nowadays.


But I do think Shah can be a very good fit at #6, esp. in the subcontinent.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Not sure about Goughy, but ALL four of Bopara's half-centuries have been in losing causes.

Yeah, well, he does have ten English team-mates making it rather hard to win.

 

[Goughy]

That seems a bit harsh. For his 'role' he has had to do, he has done rather well.

Please define it as I dont have a clue what it is supposed to be.

EDIT- Actually edit my statistical ranking of Bopara. I have him 3rd worst rather than 2nd worst. I missed Kapugedera

 

[Richard]

And on the other side you have people like Klusner who're not playing for their country because of stupid personal issues their captain has. Can England invoke some obscure, obsolete commonwealth law and somehow get Klusner into their starting XI? They did get Pietersen!

Klusener now doesn't play for SA for 2 reasons: 1, he's too old; 2, he's an ICL player.

He doesn't play for England, and never will, for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with Commonwealth laws. Pietersen playing for England had absolutely nothing to do with Commonwealth laws either - Pietersen can play for England because he's half-British and because he served his residence qualification. Klusener can play for a county (not for England) because of European law (soon to be amended) but without meeting residence qualifications, he can't play for England.

 

[Richard]

England are a bad ODI side because they dont play that many ODIS, i mean they have talent but the talent doesn't click if you play ODI matches after such long gaps

Not playing enough ODIs doesn't help, but England are poor because they lack high-calibre one-day cricketers, have done for quite a few years now, and several of the few players who might be ODI-class get ignored by the selectors in favour of utter rubbish like Sajid Mahmood.