***Official England in India***

[Richard]

But the case of Tendulkar and Ganguly does suggest that a good idea on flat ODI decks is to push the stroke-makers used to coming in in the middle order to the top. Probably true.

Dunno about that, for all the middle-order strokeplayers who've succeeded as ODI openers (Mark Waugh, Gilchrist, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Astle, Johnson, Gibbs, Jayasuriya [though they transformed themselves into Test openers too, albeit both were something of flat-track bullies]; and obviously Kaluwitharana and Afridi weren't successful, but they both opened many times in ODIs) there've been plenty of specialist long-form openers as well (Saeed Anwar, Graeme Smith, Kirsten, Knight [who eventually turned himself from middle-order batsman to opener successfully in both forms], Trescothick, Hayden, Gayle [though the Test credentials of all those three are dubious to me]).

I'd be much more confident of seeing a genuine First-Class opener who could also play one-day cricket emerging than a middle-order player who someone thought could do the job at the top succeeding by being tried. Someone who's not of county one-day standard as a middle-order batsman is ridiculously unlikely to be ODI-standard opening, and someone who's county one-day standard in the middle is a rare and precious commodity and really can't afford to be wasted at the top of the order.

And BTW, can we discuss the terrorist attacks and their effect in the other thread please?

 

[IndGunner]

Well nice way to get out of a 7-0 drubbing.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah people being killed is a great way to not be mildly embarrassed in a game.

 

[IndGunner]

Yeah people being killed is a great way to not be mildly embarrassed in a game.

... obviously i didnt mean it.

And i do apologise for anything from the previous comment.

 

[Athlai]

... obviously i didnt mean it.

And i do apologise for anything from the previous comment.

Had a few guys saying that kind of thing today. Bit of a shocker, tis all good m'friend.

 

[Rant0r]

Yeah people being killed is a great way to not be mildly embarrassed in a game.

worked for pakistan... or did it ? :S

 

[honestbharani]

shame that the terrorist idiots have spoiled a possibility of a white wash. Obviously there are bigger stuff to be concerned about here, but the cricket fan in me will definitely miss these matches.

 

[Uppercut]

Dunno about that, for all the middle-order strokeplayers who've succeeded as ODI openers (Mark Waugh, Gilchrist, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Astle, Johnson, Gibbs, Jayasuriya [though they transformed themselves into Test openers too, albeit both were something of flat-track bullies]; and obviously Kaluwitharana and Afridi weren't successful, but they both opened many times in ODIs) there've been plenty of specialist long-form openers as well (Saeed Anwar, Graeme Smith, Kirsten, Knight [who eventually turned himself from middle-order batsman to opener successfully in both forms], Trescothick, Hayden, Gayle [though the Test credentials of all those three are dubious to me]).

I'd be much more confident of seeing a genuine First-Class opener who could also play one-day cricket emerging than a middle-order player who someone thought could do the job at the top succeeding by being tried. Someone who's not of county one-day standard as a middle-order batsman is ridiculously unlikely to be ODI-standard opening, and someone who's county one-day standard in the middle is a rare and precious commodity and really can't afford to be wasted at the top of the order.

And BTW, can we discuss the terrorist attacks and their effect in the other thread please?

Maybe in England, but in the subcontinent ODI opening is so different it's untrue. Rather than the first ten overs being the hardest to score runs in, as is the case in England, it's the easiest ten overs to score runs in- a hard ball that comes onto the bat, fielding restrictions, minimal movement and spinners won't be on. Aggressive openers are not optional. I'd actually prefer to see an in-form Mascarenhas at the top than Cook or Bell, at least he has a chance of taking advantage with a quickfire slogged fifty. If Cook succeeds he'll score something like 70 off 100 balls, which probably has an overall detrimental effect on the team's likelihood to win the match.

 

[Goughy]

If Cook succeeds he'll score something like 70 off 100 balls, which probably has an overall detrimental effect on the team's likelihood to win the match.

Known as 'The Dippenaar' effect

 

[Richard]

Maybe in England, but in the subcontinent ODI opening is so different it's untrue. Rather than the first ten overs being the hardest to score runs in, as is the case in England, it's the easiest ten overs to score runs in- a hard ball that comes onto the bat, fielding restrictions, minimal movement and spinners won't be on. Aggressive openers are not optional. I'd actually prefer to see an in-form Mascarenhas at the top than Cook or Bell, at least he has a chance of taking advantage with a quickfire slogged fifty. If Cook succeeds he'll score something like 70 off 100 balls, which probably has an overall detrimental effect on the team's likelihood to win the match.

Maybe. Sacrificing a Mascarenhas or Swann is a worthwhile risk because of the minimal amount offered down the order. However, sacrificing a Pietersen or Flintoff is much different.

That said, if you have a Trescothick-Knight partnership, there's no need. This would be the ideal thing for England, but I can't help feeling it'll be a little while before we see one player of the calibre of the lesser of those two (Trescothick) again, never mind two at the same time.

Also, while fully accepting that there are different requirements in different cricket-playing places, an unsettled batting-order is rarely a good thing.

 

[Uppercut]

Also, while fully accepting that there are different requirements in different cricket-playing places, an unsettled batting-order is rarely a good thing.

But that effect is completely cancelled out by the inherent uselessness of a player like Cook in the team. If he plays badly, he'll do the team no good. If he plays well, he'll score so slowly that it's arguably even worse for the team. He's not an especially good fielder and doesn't bowl. They'd be better off playing with ten men.

Incidentally, Cook is probably my favourite player in England's test side.

 

[GIMH]

Nah, not the same at all TBH, they spend 2 years trying (and failing sometimes) to qualify for the things. And the 2 years in between trying to qualify for the Euro Championship.

It's exactly the same principle, changing a side just before the World Cup. It took you that long to realise your setup wasn't right? The fact that they're qualifiers isn't really relevant, they are still used to try and find the best side available

 

[Richard]

But that effect is completely cancelled out by the inherent uselessness of a player like Cook in the team. If he plays badly, he'll do the team no good. If he plays well, he'll score so slowly that it's arguably even worse for the team. He's not an especially good fielder and doesn't bowl. They'd be better off playing with ten men.

Incidentally, Cook is probably my favourite player in England's test side.

Trust me, as someone who has regularly bowled with ten, occasionally eight or nine, fielders, and also bowled in a team with three, four or even five infirm fielders who can do nothing but stop a ball hit straight to them, and pretty well never played in a team with ten genuine up-to-standard outfielders + a good wicketkeeper... eleven fielders is preferable to ten or fewer any time.

Either way, as I say, I don't dispute that Cook isn't currently a ODI-standard player. I do hope he can become so in time, but that's by-the-by - the matter is currently there here-and-now. I don't want to see him playing ODIs at the moment. But if we had a semi-decent opener, I'm not terribly sure I'd want to see him shifted around and\or dropped to accommodate the nuances of the subcontinent, Australia, the Caribbean, or wherever.

 

[Richard]

It's exactly the same principle, changing a side just before the World Cup. It took you that long to realise your setup wasn't right? The fact that they're qualifiers isn't really relevant, they are still used to try and find the best side available

A dangerous game, if, in trying to find the best side, you do sufficiently poorly to put yourself in a situation where the side you've assembled doesn't even play the competition you've been aiming for.

Unlike non-cricket-WC ODIs, football-WC qualifiers impact on whether you play in the competition finals at all. Non-WC ODIs would be better compared to international friendlies.

And as for changing the setup just before the Cup - yeah, taking ages to realise whatever it is that's concerned isn't right is poor. What'd have been preferable is just to have picked the superior candidate ITFP. Sadly, once you pick a poor player, you have to give him a fair run. I don't recall very many calls for Geraint Jones' head during his ODI career, though I said before, during and after it that he should never have played a single ODI.

 

[Langeveldt]

So it looks like Saj Mahmood won't play for England again after all, false alarm!

 

[GIMH]

A dangerous game, if, in trying to find the best side, you do sufficiently poorly to put yourself in a situation where the side you've assembled doesn't even play the competition you've been aiming for.

Unlike non-cricket-WC ODIs, football-WC qualifiers impact on whether you play in the competition finals at all. Non-WC ODIs would be better compared to international friendlies.

And as for changing the setup just before the Cup - yeah, taking ages to realise whatever it is that's concerned isn't right is poor. What'd have been preferable is just to have picked the superior candidate ITFP. Sadly, once you pick a poor player, you have to give him a fair run. I don't recall very many calls for Geraint Jones' head during his ODI career, though I said before, during and after it that he should never have played a single ODI.

ODIs fall in between qualifiers and friendlies IMO

Anyhow, in the footy it wasn't so much the change of personnel but the change of system that was inexscuable

 

[Richard]

I'm not really enough of a footy fan to know much about that. However, the silly thing is, the sudden change at the last minute - picking Nixon - in the end was a decision that had some things going for it; the wicketkeeper situation had gone badly wrong with those (or he) they'd been thinking for 3 years would be playing in the Cup.

What annoyed me was that Geraint Jones played for 2 years, because he should never, ever have played a ODI, and once he got in it was hard for an utterly convincing case to be made for him to be got out again.

I wasn't terribly enamoured with Nixon getting the gig ahead of Read in 2006/07, and I'd still have preferred Read to have been given the go. But Nixon's case was solid, and he ended-up justifying the faith shown in him.

I just wish Read had never been dropped in 2004. Had that one mistake not been made, it's possible we'd never have been scrabbling around for the wicketkeeper at the last minute, though all other positions would've been unaffected.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, Nixon had a decent World Cup after a shaky start to his ODI career (if you can call it that) in Australia. The most logical decision if you've realised everything you've been doing is wrong is to turn to a decent pro with decent experience, just wish they'd done it at least six months earlier - as I say once he settled in he did a good job; you could state a case for him being our best player at the WC (not that it's a big debate).

 

[Uppercut]

Trust me, as someone who has regularly bowled with ten, occasionally eight or nine, fielders, and also bowled in a team with three, four or even five infirm fielders who can do nothing but stop a ball hit straight to them, and pretty well never played in a team with ten genuine up-to-standard outfielders + a good wicketkeeper... eleven fielders is preferable to ten or fewer any time.

Hehe, 12th man can do his job. Bring back that bloke who ran out Ponting and give him a go as a specialist fielder for a larf.

Either way, as I say, I don't dispute that Cook isn't currently a ODI-standard player. I do hope he can become so in time, but that's by-the-by - the matter is currently there here-and-now. I don't want to see him playing ODIs at the moment. But if we had a semi-decent opener, I'm not terribly sure I'd want to see him shifted around and\or dropped to accommodate the nuances of the subcontinent, Australia, the Caribbean, or wherever.

Yeah, obviously if Trescothick were still happy to play picking him would be a no-brainer.

What's so infuriating about a sub-standard opener in ODIs is that he actually decreases his side's chance of success. As in, playing him<<<playing noone, except in the field. I can't think of any other game where a player with a solid level of skill can do that.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, what'd be ideal is if you didn't have to pick openers, if your batting order started at three.

Sadly, a "standard" start (say, you got the first 10 overs for 2 wickets for a certain score) isn't an option. If it was, it'd be more use to England now than just about any team in ODI history.

If it wasn't such a forlorn thing to be doing, I'd not be against sending in Swann and Broad to open. At least when they regularly did poorly it wouldn't be that much of a disappointment because it'd be so heavily expected.

Lad who twelfth-manned for the second half of 2005 was Gary Pratt BTW. I'd imagine he'd struggle to get time off from whatever job he's doing now though, given he finally exhausted the patience of even the most notorious putter-up with substandard home-grown players, Durham, at the end of 2006.