All time England ODI XI

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I demand the inclusion of Vic Marks in someone's team.

 

[wpdavid]

True about Lamb - forgot him, should probably be in ahead of Fairbrother or Smith who indeed didn't play much in the 80s, were more 90s players. I did check Randall and his ODI record's poor (like so many other reasonable Test players, the Gattings and the like).

The only thing I remember about Gower is him saying he hated one-dayers because he hit his cover-drive and usually only got 1. Only averaged 30 in ODIs, too.

No way would I go for Emburey ahead of Underwood. Underwood was the perfect one-day spinner - lovely and fast, lovely and flat. Emburey might've been a bit similar, but Underwood's speed is legendary.

And weren't Old and Hendrick commonly recognised to be the best line-and-length bowlers in the country, along with Geoff Arnold? (Who I would've had as first-reserve seamer) Not too sure about DeFreitas, was always too inconsistent for mine.

Yup, I read the same Gower quote. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't play this form of the game, and don't forget that odi totals were generally lower in those days, so an average of 30 translates much higher today. (I hope that one doesn't come back to haunt me, but it makes sense right now.) So what was Broad's oneday average then? If we're starting with Gooch, Amiss & Gower, my gut inclination is to go with a middle order batsman at 4 or 5 rather than play Broad out of position. I wasn't completely sold on Randall, but I'm struggling to think of alternatives. Maybe Greig at 5, who also gives a couple of additional options with his bowling. Obviously he didn't get to play many odi's, but you'd have to reckon that he'd have adapted.
As for the bowlers, I couldn't claim to be too fussed either way.

No way, Jose. Good seamers are good seamers on all surfaces, you don't need a spinner or a trickster IMO, wherever you're playing.

So who was playing when Jayasuria belted our quicks all over southern asia in 1996? My only recollection of that game is Reeve coming on, slowing him down big time, and eventually dismissing him shortly after doing likewise with a noball or having him dropped. OK, not the hugest basis for a 16 year selection period, but I'm sticking to it. Agree to differ on the spinner too.

 

[wpdavid]

I demand the inclusion of Vic Marks in someone's team.

1. England allrounders that almost made a hundred in Pakistan XI
2. Shockingly poor picks for Ashes tours XI
3. England spinners since 1970 who've never knowingly turned the ball XI

need I go on?

 

[Richard]

I demand the inclusion of Vic Marks in someone's team.

You would.

So, doubtless, will Mr. 71178 when he arrives...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You would.

So, doubtless, will Mr. 71178 when he arrives...

You know me this well?

Clearly not well enough to realize that I wasn't serious then.

 

[Richard]

Yup, I read the same Gower quote. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't play this form of the game, and don't forget that odi totals were generally lower in those days, so an average of 30 translates much higher today. (I hope that one doesn't come back to haunt me, but it makes sense right now.) So what was Broad's oneday average then? If we're starting with Gooch, Amiss & Gower, my gut inclination is to go with a middle order batsman at 4 or 5 rather than play Broad out of position. I wasn't completely sold on Randall, but I'm struggling to think of alternatives. Maybe Greig at 5, who also gives a couple of additional options with his bowling. Obviously he didn't get to play many odi's, but you'd have to reckon that he'd have adapted.
As for the bowlers, I couldn't claim to be too fussed either way.

Broad's ODI average was over 40, and virtually no-one other than Gower managed even to average 30. If Broad played along with Gooch and Amiss (who are IMO musts) he had to bat three, being an opener. I just can't think of anyone else who even deserves a shot. Mind, I did miss Lamb.

So who was playing when Jayasuria belted our quicks all over southern asia in 1996? My only recollection of that game is Reeve coming on, slowing him down big time, and eventually dismissing him shortly after doing likewise with a noball or having him dropped. OK, not the hugest basis for a 16 year selection period, but I'm sticking to it. Agree to differ on the spinner too.

Perhaps if I'd seen that game I might be of similar mind. In my time, though, the Caddick-Fraser-Mullally types rarely failed to do it, and too much mixing-up in ODIs is a recipe for disaster in my experience - good simple line-and-length of the type those two specialised does it 99 times out of 100. Gough was hardly the worst at trying something "different", anyway.

You'd have the spinner instead of which one, BTW? All 3 l&l bowlers are undroppable I reckon.

 

[Richard]

You know me this well?

Clearly not well enough to realize that I wasn't serious then.

It was patently obvious you weren't.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It was patently obvious you weren't.

In what way? By the way that I demanded the composition of other people's ODI teams?

I'm of the opinion that I was not serious and I think it's blindingly obvious that that was the case. And as much as I respect your opinion, you're wrong.

 

[Richard]

Hang-on, hang-on... you were serious about Marks, now?

OK, let's take this nice......................... and......................... slowly......................

You posted... my reaction upon my first scan of your post was "Liam was having a joke there about that - he was remembering Marc's constant use of Victor in a debate with my good self ages ago regarding the ill-informed idea of his (Mr 71178's) that I thought ODIs had not changed".

I then posted a reply... which I thought was fairly straightforward, recognising as I did that Liam was not being serious in his initial post.

Liam then wholly confused me.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hang-on, hang-on... you were serious about Marks, now? :

I misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant "weren't joking". But on re-reading it all, I've no clue how I interpreted it that way.

Apologies.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I then posted a reply... which I thought was fairly straightforward, recognising as I did that Liam was not being serious in his initial post.

I expected the Marc retort, but I thought you implied me too. Again, apologies.

 

[wpdavid]

Broad's ODI average was over 40, and virtually no-one other than Gower managed even to average 30. If Broad played along with Gooch and Amiss (who are IMO musts) he had to bat three, being an opener. I just can't think of anyone else who even deserves a shot. Mind, I did miss Lamb.

Perhaps if I'd seen that game I might be of similar mind. In my time, though, the Caddick-Fraser-Mullally types rarely failed to do it, and too much mixing-up in ODIs is a recipe for disaster in my experience - good simple line-and-length of the type those two specialised does it 99 times out of 100. Gough was hardly the worst at trying something "different", anyway.

You'd have the spinner instead of which one, BTW? All 3 l&l bowlers are undroppable I reckon.

I never knew that about Broad. How many games did he actually play then? Oh well, he can bat at 3 followed by Gower & Lamb as straight swops for Smith & Fairbrother in your original XI.

As for later side, I suppose it would probably be Caddick. That still leaves Gough, Mullally, Flintoff & Fraser, which isn't too shabby.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I never knew that about Broad. How many games did he actually play then? Oh well, he can bat at 3 followed by Gower & Lamb as straight swops for Smith & Fairbrother in your original XI.

34 games, averaging 40.02.

 

[Richard]

& 34 in those days was about the equivalent of 200 today.

Bearing in mind both the expansion and England's lack of ODI enthusiasm. Even in those days England played less than everyone else.

 

[Richard]

I never knew that about Broad. How many games did he actually play then? Oh well, he can bat at 3 followed by Gower & Lamb as straight swops for Smith & Fairbrother in your original XI.

Already long since done, pal. Check-out said post.

As for later side, I suppose it would probably be Caddick. That still leaves Gough, Mullally, Flintoff & Fraser, which isn't too shabby.

No, but nonetheless I'd still prefer 3.9-an-over Caddick to 4.4-an-over Giles.

 

[Richard]

I misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant "weren't joking". But on re-reading it all, I've no clue how I interpreted it that way.

Apologies.

I expected the Marc retort, but I thought you implied me too. Again, apologies.

Haha, no bother.

As the great Bob once said: "The cracked bells and washed-out horns, blow into my face with scorn."

 

[tooextracool]

Id much rather pick a side from players that ive actually watched play. Like richard i cant see how players playing in the 80s can be compared to those thereafter given the clear abyss between the 2 eras in ODI cricket.

Nick Knight
Robin Smith
Graeme Hick
Allan Lamb
Kevin Pietersen
Graham Thorpe
Alec Stewart
Andrew Flintoff
Darren Gough
Angus Fraser
Alan Mullally

Marcus Trescothick/Robert Croft

Pretty Straight forward for me. Anybody who watched Robin Smith bat knows how destructive he could be, im actually quite surprised that his SR is less than 70, but thats probably cause i watched his 167* and it was an amazing inning. Couldnt quite fit Trescothick in there, but i think his checquered record over the last few years(completely hit or miss) hasnt helped. I dont think Hick, Lamb, Pietersen or Knight require any explanations.
I had Thorpe in ahead of Fairbrother because there was only room for one nurdler, and because Thorpe was IMO the better ODI batsman and would have ended up with a 41-42 average if he had played ODIs consistently. As such Fairbrother was always a doubt(particularly against Australia) because his technique wasnt very good and Thorpe was a proven test match cricketer.
Robert Croft meanwhile is a far better bowler than Giles and clearly should have played more than he did. would only play him in the subcontinent though or when there is a turner, probably ahead of Fraser.

 

[tooextracool]

Hick pips Smith on the basis of his bowling. IMO no spinner demands inclusion so you play to your strength and use Hick and/or KP to do the spinning (worked perfectly well for 80's Windies). Fairbrother is there as the nearest thing we had to a Bevan, as well as for his fielding. De Freitas might surprise but he's in our top four ODI wicket takers gives the team batting to No 9 and more athleticism in the field (remember you can't "hide" anyone in ODIs.) As for the captain it has to be the man under who we were favourites to win in '92 (and we've never said that about England before or since).

Hick was not only a better batsman IMO but an amazing fieldsman. He had a better arm than all the bowlers in the side and was often made to field on the boundary towards the end of innings. He was the most reliable catcher anywhere on the field and easily the most versatile fielder.

 

[wpdavid]

(re Broad) & 34 in those days was about the equivalent of 200 today.

Bearing in mind both the expansion and England's lack of ODI enthusiasm. Even in those days England played less than everyone else.

Sure, and I won't be quibbling that 34 wasn't enough. What now looks bizarre is that he didn't get to play in the 1987 WC final - Robinson was preferred to him at the top of the order, and even Athey played lower down IIRC.

Going back to our XI, by only slight concern is about Broad coming in first wicket down instead of opening, where he made all his runs. Without checking, I wonder how many games Amiss actually played and how much he achieved in this form of the game. Obviously there was that big 100 in the 1975 WC against India, but they might as well have been playing with curved bats in that game, so far was it removed from even the mid80's.

EDIT
OK, it turns out that Amiss also made a couple of hundreds against Aus, including the first ever odi ton made by anyone. Which would have been quite a nice trivia question if I hadn't just answered it. I guess if one of Broad, Amiss & Gooch had to bat at 3 instead of opening I'd go for Gooch. Either way, I'll pick Amiss too: he was one of my favourite players at the time, and, as you said, most of the subsequent guys seem to have quite shocking averages. Even Beefy rarely did much with the bat in this form of the game.

 

[GIMH]

Love reading discussions between wpdavid & Richard