***Official*** West Indies in England

[Neil Pickup]

Shotta, since Shah was given a chance in 07 to cement his place in the ODI side he has averaged 36, with some solid middle-order performaces. How this is mediocre is beyond me.

In that period, 36 people have a better record than him in ODIs. That would be mediocre.

 

[superkingdave]

I don't have a problem with Strauss opening at all since there is need for stability in the 50 over game.

People are too obsessed with the Australia blueprint- Hayden and Gilchrist blasting it at the top, and if you've got those type of players- use them, but there's more than 1 way to be successful.

I'd rather 1 man be a wall at 1 end (averaging 80 or so which Strauss does when in form) and have the guys like Bopara, Pietersen, Morgan (I'd replace Shah straight away since he isn't up to it at international level in any format of the game), Mascarenhas & Flintoff (when he's back) be given a licence to play shots.

I'd have, with everyone fit:

Strauss (c)
Bopara
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Patel (I don't care if he's fat- he's good!)
Davies (wk)
Mascarenhas
Swann
Broad
Bresnan


I don't like Anderson for limited overs cricket and although we've bowled the West Indies out cheaply, against South Africa, India, Australia's batting line-ups, it's our bowling which'll be exposed.

I think Mascarenhas is an under-rated bowler in limited overs cricket. He generally bowls a tight straight line and is slow enough that batsmen have to put the pace on the ball themself.

Medium pacers like him and Collingwood are essential for the middle period of a game IMO.

Why would you pick Davies and then bat him out of position at 7? He opens for his county, that's where he's had success!

Strauss and Bopara opening won't be successful long term because neither of them score quickly. Strauss will have periods where he does okay opening but mainly these will be because teams bowl poorly to him. His scoring areas should be fairly easy to restrict in ODI cricket so when he comes up against a good bowling attack he will struggle. I'm still yet to be convinced of Bopara as a ODI batsmen but he's got a fair few years on Strauss and has shown glimpses

Flintoff needs to come in no higher than 7 unless its the last few overs.

 

[superkingdave]

How is Shah just a fill in player?. The man has clearly cemented himself into the ODI middle order player since IND 07. Of course Morgan being in the side now, will put pressure on him - but by no means is his place in question ATM.

Whichever way you look at it he's not set the world alight, he's the wrong side of 30, a poor fielder and runner between the wickets, he's also usually a poor starter which given he's likely to be back to six when Pietersen returns is a problem. They were talking about it on commentary today and said he probably wouldn't have played had Pietersen not been ruled out.

Davies needs another consistent season with the blade as an opener to be considered. Plus James Foster chances of replacing Prior is just as solid.

Prior clearly is not good enough to bat up the order in ODI cricket, so that a selectorial blunder that hadn't payed off, in efforts to let him open the batting.

He could do a job as he should glimpses off in the WI as a solid finisher, since he can hit the ball into weird area's & his technical deficiences won't be exposed if he bats up the order.

Davies is currently in the middle of his 3rd consecutive good season (457@38.1 in 07, 689@49.21 last season and 315 @45 so far this year) with all due respect, Prior and Foster can only dream of that consistency

 

[aussie]

In that period, 36 people have a better record than him in ODIs. That would be mediocre.

Haa and what does have to do with the FACT, that he has been a solid performer in the ODI middle-order for ENG in the past 2 years now?

Whichever way you look at it he's not set the world alight, he's the wrong side of 30, a poor fielder and runner between the wickets, he's also usually a poor starter which given he's likely to be back to six when Pietersen returns is a problem.

He hasn't had to set the world alight though. The role he has cemented is the lower-order finisher, his 100 vs IND 07, that 80 in SRI, numerous solid innings in IND this winter proves he can do the job quite effectively.

He is poor fielder yea. Don't think his running between the wickets is that bad, his recent crazy run outs have sort of overexaggerated that problem & he has never come across to be as poor starter. Maybe when he bats @ 3 or 4. But not @ 6, in the top innings he has played in past 2 years.

Davies is currently in the middle of his 3rd consecutive good season (457@38.1 in 07, 689@49.21 last season and 315 @45 so far this year) with all due respect, Prior and Foster can only dream of that consistency.

I dont think he was opening in 2007 though. I think last year was when he was given the chance to open full time. I distinctly remember his scoring a superb hundred @ OT in a game last year...

The reason i mentioned Foster, is because its still up for debate whether the ODI needs a keeper to open or to bat down the order.

Plus that bloke Kiewsetter is also a chance when he qualifies...

 

[superkingdave]

But Foster doesn't realy have a great record in List A down the order in any case.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Haa and what does have to do with the FACT, that he has been a solid performer in the ODI middle-order for ENG in the past 2 years now?

It is do with the FACT that being "solid" in our ODI middle order is mediocrity in itself. To play ODI cricket as a specialist bat you must be standout - averaging 50+ - or able to offer something in the field, with the ball, or hitting game-changing innings.

Shah has never broken out beyond looking decent, despite a couple of innings that hinted at potential... it is becoming a Bell story of failure to fulfil potential or win matches. The vast majority of his runs have come on flatties or in lost causes.

He has made two fifties in 17 ODI wins. He starts poorly, is diabolically bad between the wickets, a liability in the field, and offers nothing with the ball. His place is safe at present (at least until Samit gets shot of the pies) but long-term it's far from guaranteed, particularly after the rubbish he served up in the Test series.

 

[FBU]

I don't have a problem with Strauss opening at all since there is need for stability in the 50 over game.

People are too obsessed with the Australia blueprint- Hayden and Gilchrist blasting it at the top, and if you've got those type of players- use them, but there's more than 1 way to be successful.

I'd rather 1 man be a wall at 1 end (averaging 80 or so which Strauss does when in form) and have the guys like Bopara, Pietersen, Morgan (I'd replace Shah straight away since he isn't up to it at international level in any format of the game), Mascarenhas & Flintoff (when he's back) be given a licence to play shots.

I'd have, with everyone fit:

Strauss (c)
Bopara
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Patel (I don't care if he's fat- he's good!)
Davies (wk)
Mascarenhas
Swann
Broad
Bresnan


I don't like Anderson for limited overs cricket and although we've bowled the West Indies out cheaply, against South Africa, India, Australia's batting line-ups, it's our bowling which'll be exposed.

I think Mascarenhas is an under-rated bowler in limited overs cricket. He generally bowls a tight straight line and is slow enough that batsmen have to put the pace on the ball themself.

Medium pacers like him and Collingwood are essential for the middle period of a game IMO.

Anderson was the leading ODI wicket taker in the West Indies
9 wickets at 21.11

 

[aussie]

But Foster doesn't realy have a great record in List A down the order in any case.

True. But i remembe him in FPT final last year along with a few domestic OD games i've caught on Sky last season - & he aint a power player at all, but can score 20 of 20 balls with quick running & hitting the ball into weird area's.

It is do with the FACT that being "solid" in our ODI middle order is mediocrity in itself.

Sad but true. Thats why when arguments about our ODI side inevitably come up. I always say instead of blasting our players for not being on level on other sides.

We should first accept what we have & play to our strenghts i.e stop following Australia in looking for the keeper to open if we don't have one. Because the current set-up is pretty much the best ODI group ENG have had since the early 2000s.

To play ODI cricket as a specialist bat you must be standout - averaging 50+ - or able to offer something in the field, with the ball, or hitting game-changing innings.

Haa, i think you know that averaging 50+ part is a wild hyperbole yo. But has hit game changing innings before, so he has one part covered.

Shah has never broken out beyond looking decent, despite a couple of innings that hinted at potential... it is becoming a Bell story of failure to fulfil potential or win matches. The vast majority of his runs have come on flatties or in lost causes.

How can you compare Bell & Shah. Shah aint the greatest yea, but the man for the past 2 years in a "set role" batting @ 6 has been extremely efficient.

Sometimes when i see these arguments againts Shah on CW over & over. Its like you blokes just think "oh god Shah is average" & fail to appreciate anything good he has done.

This is the kind of argument i expect to hear, when im on the block with cats smoking a blunt, not on CW. Come on now...

He has made two fifties in 17 ODI wins.

So?. That doesn't mean Shah didn't do his job. His performances in India this winter immediately comes to mind - brilliant finishing innings - but England's bowlers couldn't stop a rampaging Indian batting line-up.

You people trying so hard to ridicule Shah, it getting funny now...

He starts poorly, is diabolically bad between the wickets, a liability in the field, and offers nothing with the ball. His place is safe at present (at least until Samit gets shot of the pies) but long-term it's far from guaranteed, particularly after the rubbish he served up in the Test series.

He only stars poor, when he bats @ 3/4. Since coming in againts the new ball @ international level he struggles. But has i've said before coming in @ 6 with limited overs to play in a chase or to set a target. He does very well because his technique instead of being exposed - becomes effective in the way he hits the ball into weird area's.

Secondly he aint "diabolically bad" between the wickets haha. Currently he has gotten himself into a bad habit since those couple of dismissals in the test matches. But that is not a problem that i reckon is really significant.

 

[Bonnie Prince C]

On the point of Anderson not being a good ODI bowler. I feel you need guys like him to take the new ball and bowl at the death. I certainly would not take him out of the side just now.

The key area I think Enlgnad need to sort out is their top 3. I hope they stick with Pietersen at 3 cause IMO in the ODI format he has to be there, I would like to see him there for the test area but that is a seperate issue. I like Strauss at the top of the order, he does have the ability to score runs at a decent rate and is the type of player that can bat the innings, the type of innings that often win games for teams. Yeah he is not going to score 100 off 60 balls but he could certainly get 100 off 120 which can offer the foundations to a very good innings, foundations England often dont have. Really not sure about Bopara at 2. For me I would bat him at 4. The 3 guys I would have come into there are Denly, Davies and maybe a bit of strange one (certainly never heard it mentioned in the media or that) Joyce. I think a pinch hitter can work but IMO they should still have the quality to be playing at that level.

 

[tooextracool]

Prior and Shah just filler players really. Hopefully Morgan gets a chance for a decent bat in Birmingham and does well. Shah is just meh, has an average record, but we are not really going to progress to become a half decent ODI side with him in the side i reckon.

The same can be said about pretty much half the side. Unless players like Strauss, Anderson, Collingwood, Bresnan, Mascarenhas have become world class ODI players overnight. All of the above mentioned players are average players.

 

[tooextracool]

He could do a job as he should glimpses off in the WI as a solid finisher, since he can hit the ball into weird area's & his technical deficiences won't be exposed if he bats up the order.

Prior should not be let near the ODI side. Hes not capable of batting anywhere in the top 9 and hes one of the worst specialist keepers in England. If hitting the ball to cover is a weird area, then yes he has that ability to hit the ball in weird areas.

 

[Burgey]

Prior should not be let near the ODI side. Hes not capable of batting anywhere in the top 9 and hes one of the worst specialist keepers in England. If hitting the ball to cover is a weird area, then yes he has that ability to hit the ball in weird areas.

 

[tooextracool]

It is do with the FACT that being "solid" in our ODI middle order is mediocrity in itself. To play ODI cricket as a specialist bat you must be standout - averaging 50+ - or able to offer something in the field, with the ball, or hitting game-changing innings.

And of course there are so many players in the history of international cricket with 50+averages? Try 2, in 35 odd years that ODI cricket history. Given the position in which he bats in/should bat in, which is around 5 or 6, his record is fairly decent and theres no one going around in English cricket at the moment who can do a better job. In fact there is no one in the national side who can do better. If Shah's mediocre, then the rest of the side are rubbish.

 

[Flem274*]

Strauss
Davies
Pietersen
Morgan/Trott
Bopara
Collingwood
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson

Would be my team when everyones fit and firing. Mascarenhas to come in if an allrounder or bowler goes down.

 

[tooextracool]

Strauss
Davies
Pietersen
Morgan/Trott
Collingwood
Patel
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson

Would be my team when everyones fit and firing. Mascarenhas to come in if an allrounder or bowler goes down.

Umm no Bopara?

 

[Flem274*]

Umm no Bopara?

woops

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Shotta, since Shah was given a chance in 07 to cement his place in the ODI side he has averaged 36, with some solid middle-order performaces. How this is mediocre is beyond me.

According to King Pietersen, averaging 35 (or close to it) is mediocre. Ask him.

 

[Uppercut]

It's highly dependent on strike rates. Adam Gilchrist averages only 35, but his strike rate of 96 means his stats are still rather good indeed. Rahul Dravid averages 39, but with a strike rate of 71 I wouldn't have him anywhere near the team if we were going on stats alone.

 

[Goughy]

It's highly dependent on strike rates. Adam Gilchrist averages only 35, but his strike rate of 96 means his stats are still rather good indeed. Rahul Dravid averages 39, but with a strike rate of 71 I wouldn't have him anywhere near the team if we were going on stats alone.

Also runs per game is a big factor. How often and regular your contributions are to the team. How reliant is the team total on your contribution.

A player could average 40 but only score 20 runs a game.

Quick look shows 30+ runs per game to be very good (Gilchrist, Gayle, Chanderpaul, Tendulkar is nearly 40). Collingwood and Shah at 24 and Bravo at 15.

Openers will factor high but then they lose out on the not outs for average. It is a balance of the 3 things (av, runs per game and SR).

 

[Uppercut]

Also runs per game is a big factor. How often and regular your contributions are to the team. How reliant is the team total on your contribution.

A player could average 40 but only score 20 runs a game.

Quick look shows 30+ runs per game to be very good (Gilchrist, Gayle, Chanderpaul, Tendulkar is nearly 40). Collingwood and Shah at 24 and Bravo at 15.

Openers will factor high but then they lose out on the not outs for average. It is a balance of the 3 things (av, runs per game and SR).

Go with runs per innings- can't hold it against a player batting 6 when his team chases down a total without needing his help. It's quite a notable difference sometimes. Michael Hussey's runs per match would be calculated as 28, while his runs per innings is 35. You'd be significantly penalising him just for being in the side on a day when the bowlers did the job for him.