2011?? Your team

[pup11]

I think Rogers doesn't have any realistic chance of making it into Aussie odi side as he has a very average List A record and by 2011 he would be 33.


Anyways in 4 years time a lot could change, a lot of players could get a lot better or they could just vanish from the scene.

And if Ponting is no longer playing odi cricket in 2011 then Clarke should bat at no.3 and White should come in at no.4.

 

[SJS]

I didnt attempt this because its so far away but what the heck.

1. Sehwag
2. Uthappa/someone else
3. Yuvraj
4. Raina
5. Kaif
6. Dhoni
7. Irfan
8. Piyush Chawla
9. Some new fast bowler
10.Sreesanth
11. Munaf Patel

Maybe...

we will know better in two years

 

[NUFAN]

This wud be Aus team in 2011 WC

Jacques
Rogers
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Symmonds
Haddin
Lee
White
Tait
Bracken

Batting looks gr8 but on flat sub continent pitches i dont Lee & Tait playing together

Worst team. Rogers is lucky to be in the WA lineup really. Langer, Ronchi, Voges, Marsh, North, are all better them plus Gilchrist and Hussey.

Can you explain the need to have Cameron White at number 9? Did you just decide the team needs a big hitter there who can bowl 4-0-34-0 ?

 

[Craig]

I'll take a stab-in-the-dark at England...

Trescothick
Benning
Afzaal
Pietersen
?
Flintoff
Read (I'd go for Pothas if he was just a couple of years younger)
Mascarenhas
Tom Smith
?
?
(I'm not fool enough to think there's the slightest chance of RMJ being picked)

But it's every bit, and I mean every bit, as likely we'll be fartaessing around for the next 4 years with the Onionses, Amjad Khans and whoever the next Mahmoods are (those probably right now playing for Burnley and Uppingham Seconds). The whole English attitude to one-day cricket needs to change (and not just from the selectors), and until it does we won't get anywhere. We need batsmen who are capable of scoring runs, not just playing shots (and not just to pick those who are good in Test-cricket), and seam-bowlers who can bowl line and length, not be perceived wrongly as "wicket-takers".

How old is Mascarenhas? He would be close to 40 (well on the wrong side of 35 at least) wouldn't he?

I would say that they haven't picked him now then they never will.

 

[Pup Clarke]

How old is Mascarenhas? He would be close to 40 (well on the wrong side of 35 at least) wouldn't he?

I would say that they haven't picked him now then they never will.

He's 29.

 

[marc71178]

And has also been mediocre for at least the last 2 years

 

[Pup Clarke]

And has also been mediocre for at least the last 2 years

So have Mahmood, Plunkett, Bresnan, Onions, Khan, Bresnan etc. Why not give Mascarenhas a game?.He can hardly do any worse than these "wickettakers".

 

[Richard]

And has also been mediocre for at least the last 2 years

Indeed he has. But he was good for longer before that time, which suggests to me he could return to his ways of excellence this year, and if he did such a thing he'd still very much be in my thoughts.

 

[marc71178]

So have Mahmood, Plunkett, Bresnan, Onions, Khan, Bresnan etc. Why not give Mascarenhas a game?.He can hardly do any worse than these "wickettakers".

A bowler who lacks penetration or economy is even worse than one that lacks penetration (which is pretty much where he was 2 years back)

The reason he's not had a game is because those charged with picking a team have evidently watched him bowl and established that he'd not stand a chance of actually succeeding at a higher level.

 

[Pup Clarke]

The reason he's not had a game is because those charged with picking a team have evidently watched him bowl and established that he'd not stand a chance of actually succeeding at a higher level.

So why have the selectors picked the likes of Bresnan, Onions and Khan?.Surely they must have watched them and been impressed for some reason. I find it hard to believe that the selectors think these average county bowlers are going to have a hope in hell with regards to succeeding for England.

 

[Scaly piscine]

So why have the selectors picked the likes of Bresnan, Onions and Khan?.Surely they must have watched them and been impressed for some reason. I find it hard to believe that the selectors think these average county bowlers are going to have a hope in hell with regards to succeeding for England.

Onions bowls in the mid-80s, is rapidly improving and is 24.

 

[marc71178]

So why have the selectors picked the likes of Bresnan, Onions and Khan?.Surely they must have watched them and been impressed for some reason. I find it hard to believe that the selectors think these average county bowlers are going to have a hope in hell with regards to succeeding for England.

So how much exactly of them have you watched to write them off then, and how are you so certain that a sub-average county bowler over the last 2 years has a hope in hell of succeeding?

I know for a fact that Onions is extremely highly regarded because of his improvements in recent times, particularly over the winter.

 

[Richard]

You don't need to watch Amjad Khan to realise he doesn't have a hope in hell of succeeding at the Test or ODI level.

 

[marc71178]

And why not?

Without watching him, you can make absolutely no judgement on his ability.

 

[Scaly piscine]

And why not?

Without watching him, you can make absolutely no judgement on his ability.

Meh, don't bother with that - County Cricket career averages reveal all-eth. Forget astrology, the stars, the bible and that phony Nostradamus.

 

[Richard]

And why not?

Without watching him, you can make absolutely no judgement on his ability.

You can. If you're a rubbish bowler at the domestic level - which Khan mostly is - your chances of international success are close to zero.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

You don't need to watch Amjad Khan to realise he doesn't have a hope in hell of succeeding at the Test or ODI level.

That's one of the most ridiculous comments I've read on these boards. I realise that my name and allegiance will totally strip me of any credibility on this subject, but for what it's worth, Khan has the potential to do very well at international level. I'd certainly pick him above Mahmood and Plunkett right now if he was fit, which unfortunately he isn't.

 

[Richard]

I can't see how he's any different to Mahmood and Plunkett, TBH - he's so, so typical of the wayward seamer who will - sometimes - take a few wickets.

And I can't see that ever changing.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

And I can't see that ever changing.

But you haven't watched him. So how could you even know that?

He is pretty expensive, but I'd say he's quicker and more accurate than Plunkers and Mahmood, and he's probably a better batsman as well to boot.

 

[Richard]

Being a bit more accurate than Plunkett and Mahmood is hardly a praiseworthy trait...

I have actually watched him once or twice, and he's got a good action, but I don't need to watch every game he plays to realise that, currently, he does not possess the accuracy for international cricket. And I can't see that changing given how long he's been playing for.