All time England ODI XI

[wpdavid]

Love reading discussions between wpdavid & Richard

Kind of you to say so mate

 

[Beleg]

Knight
Trescothick
Hick
Thorpe
Smith
Pieterson
Stewart
Flintoff
Ealham
Gough
Mullally

I never watched Lamb play (apart from 92 WC final) so I can't really include him.

 

[Richard]

Love reading discussions between wpdavid & Richard

Ain't it nice to see my speaking civilly with someone.

EDIT: I'll add that I enjoy having said discussions, too.

Hope the feeling is mutual...

 

[Richard]

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.

Seriously, Bill Athey's case baffles me more than most others. I'd love to hear your opinion on him... he got God-knows-how-many games at a time England were being thrashed virtually non-stop, while doing less than virtually anyone else who's played such a number of games.

And his domestic record wasn't anything remarkable.

Was he just a latter-day batsman-version of Mahmood?

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... I guess if one of Broad, Amiss & Gooch had to bat at 3 instead of opening I'd go for Gooch.

Yes, that's true, actually.

Daym, too late to edit my team again.

Even Beefy rarely did much with the bat in this form of the game.

I only included him because I struggled to think of anyone else, and it did seem better to have a bowler-who-bats-a-bit (which is all he was in ODIs) than anyone else. It seems a shame that Greig never got any decent ODI career... mind, he'd probably have found a way to make some awful faux-pas if he did...

 

[Richard]

Oh, and I forgot - Thorpe vs Fairbrother ?

Just noticed that...

It's a tricky one, they were pretty similar. I guess I'm kinda biased towards Fairbrother because I love ODI-specialists. Maybe his uselessness in Tests (not that I saw any of his Tests, was only a season after I started watching the game at all and this was long before we got Sky) gets me to give him extra ODI marks. I didn't watch a hell of a lot of his ODI innings - only the 1998\99 ones - but just heard him repeatedly described - justifiably - in the 1999, 2000 and 2001 seasons as "a little genius at the one-day game".

Thorpe was good, no doubts, but I always think of him as a Test player who just happened to be rather good at ODIs, too.

And it did enrage me that he almost always got thought of as better than Knight.

 

[tooextracool]

Fairbrother and Thorpe were quite similar except that Fairbrother used to like to chip the ball over fielders for singles and 2s while Thorpe was much more of a wristy nurdler much like he was in tests. Honestly there isnt a significant difference between the 2, both were master chasers and one felt quite comfortable no matter what the score while the 2 were at the crease.However IMO Thorpe having a better technique and success in the test format was good enough IMO for him to be considered ahead of Fairbrother who on a sticky wicket had a very dodgy technique

 

[Richard]

D'you mean a tricky wicket?

 

[tooextracool]

yes, any wicket which offers plenty of assistance for the bowlers.

 

[wpdavid]

Ain't it nice to see my speaking civilly with someone.

EDIT: I'll add that I enjoy having said discussions, too.

Hope the feeling is mutual...

Yeah

 

[wpdavid]

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.

Interesting that Smith is opening, when he played his best innings at number 3 IIRC. Certainly he was at number 3 in the game you saw, and at home to Pakistan the previous summer when he made loads of runs. I can see why he *should* be good at he top of the order - it's just not where he actually played afaics.

Only 4 bowlers worries me too, unless you view Hick as good enough to rely on a full quota.

 

[wpdavid]

Seriously, Bill Athey's case baffles me more than most others. I'd love to hear your opinion on him... he got God-knows-how-many games at a time England were being thrashed virtually non-stop, while doing less than virtually anyone else who's played such a number of games.

And his domestic record wasn't anything remarkable.

Was he just a latter-day batsman-version of Mahmood?

He had a strange career. As a youngster, he was really highly rated, although there was always a tendency to assume that a young tyke who could defend properly was going to be the next Boycott. For reasons that are beyond me, they thought it a good idea to take him to WI in 1980/81. Naturally he barely made a run, and we didn't see him for about 5 years after that. By then, he'd left Yorks, and there is a view that the blood-letting there had left its scars on him. He returned after the carnage of the 1985/6 WI tour, didn't do a lot that summer, but we were in such a mess by the start of the 1986/7 ashes that no-one was really suprised to see him at the top of the order. Gooch had made himself unavailable, Robinson was still considered shellshocked from the previous winter, so we were scratching around really. And, tbh, standards in the CC weren't great. I certainly don't recall other players that were screaming to be picked. He actually did OK in Aus - certainly in the crucial 1st test, anyway -but his form faded thereafter. I think he made a ton at home to Pakistan, but that was about it, and he'd been dropped ages ago by the time he signed up with Gatting's african jaunt in 1989. Did he actually play that many tests? As I said earlier, those were lean times.

Oddly, he did a bit better in odi's, which is strange as he wasn't exactly rapid. I think he hit a couple of 100's, and, despite my previous comments, it turns out he didn't have the worst WC in 1987 (you can tell I had to look this up). He didn't really register either way, insofar as I didn't mind him playing, but I don't remember much about him. Maybe he wouldn't have played in the 1987 WC if Gower had been available.

 

[Richard]

Did he actually play that many tests? As I said earlier, those were lean times.

23, in the end. 3 in 1980 and 1981, then 19 in a row with 1 missed between summer '86 and winter 1987\88 - then 1 more in summer '88.

And the man behind his CricInfo profile has it completely wrong in his first sentance.

 

[PhoenixFire]

1) Trescothick
2) Knight
3) Gooch *
4) Pietersen
5) Fairbrother
6) Flintoff
7) Stewart **
8) Botham - Drifting role
9) DeFreitas
10) Emburey
11) Gough

 

[wpdavid]

23, in the end. 3 in 1980 and 1981, then 19 in a row with 1 missed between summer '86 and winter 1987\88 - then 1 more in summer '88.

And the man behind his CricInfo profile has it completely wrong in his first sentance.

The bit about how he "probably didn't fulfil his potential in tests"? Depends on how good you thought he was, I suppose. Some might argue that his test average simply reflected the fact that he wasn't all he was originally cracked up to be. I couldn't say, tbh.
I know that when he reappeared in 1986 things were such a mess that it wasn't easy to keep track of who was doing what. In a couple of series - the 1986/7 Ashes and the 1987 home series against Pakistan - he started well, so people tended to ignore subsequent failures. His image as a clean living respectable type probably appealed to the selectors after the ***, drugs and rock&roll headlines that abounded in the mid80's.

And, like I said previously, we were struggling to find alternatives, especially with Gooch or Gower missing quite often by then. Promising young batsmen, especially from your part of the world, tended to either arrive with a bang and fade quickly (Ashley Metcalf) or just never live up to potential (Kevin Sharpe). Your dad will probably know more about those guys than I do. The one guy who I thought was a bit unlucky not to play more often was Martyn Moxon.

 

[Richard]

I was thinking most particularly about the "often dropped and recalled" bit, and how 23 Tests spread over 8 years tells a story.

Well... not really... there's a difference between playing 23 scattered Tests over 8 years and being brought in, dropped, recalled 8 years later and getting a run.

As regards Yorkshire batsmen, yes, there have been a good few who've seemed to fail to live-up to potential... McGrath and Vaughan to name two of the most recent examples, and even Michael Lumb was talked-up (IMO beyond his real promise) for a time.

I certainly struggle to see exactly what Moxon did so wrong, though. I'd say he quite possibly should've been first-reserve pre-Gooch\Atherton. How on Earth the likes of Wayne Larkins, Andy Lloyd, Paul Terry and John Stephenson, and even Robinson (even though he was a sensation for a short time), Mark Benson and Kim Barnett, ever got in ahead of him does rather baffle me.

 

[steds]

May as well make a topic debating the top 10 tallest midgets in the history of Billy Smart's Big top Circus.

Gringo at the top. The tape measure never lies.