Boycott's bombshell

[Tom Halsey]

What has England done of note in ODIs other than beat Australia (and be competitive in the losses) in a few games? If beating Australia/being competitive is what it takes to be #2 in the world, then until recently India have been the 2nd best side in test matches, but we know that's not the case right? Because you have to be competitive against all teams.

Watch, if England lose the ODIs in Pakistan its because they mean "Bugger all" but if they win them then they're the 2nd best team in the world.

Well, for a start they got to the final last year in the Trophy, beating Australia on the way I might add, with proper players playing (as opposed to Kabir and Blackwell who have been playing occasionally when we haven't been taking them as importantly).

If England lose to Pakistan (which I doubt, if they're playing our best ODI team) then it will be because we were beaten by a better team. If we're playing naff players, then we weren't taking it as seriously as we might have.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

They also got to the final of the ICC Champions Trophy beating Australia on the way.

I guess we'll know in 14 months.

Actually, we'll know sooner. Mainly, I think we'll know when England play some ODIs against the mid-table sides and we see how they go. England's basically had no ODI success except for doing well against Australia in the pre-Ashes series and the CT you mention. If they show improvement against the other teams, obviously they will move up the rankings. In 14 months they'll play Australia again followed by the CW, and I wouldn't be surprised if England were a force by then. Doesn't mean they deserve the number 2 title yet, or even anything close to it.

 

[honestbharani]

So what if England don't take the WC seriously and decide to rest their Ashes heroes (IF they win the Ashes in Aus)?

 

[Jono]

Well, for a start they got to the final last year in the Trophy, beating Australia on the way I might add, with proper players playing (as opposed to Kabir and Blackwell who have been playing occasionally when we haven't been taking them as importantly).

If England lose to Pakistan (which I doubt, if they're playing our best ODI team) then it will be because we were beaten by a better team. If we're playing naff players, then we weren't taking it as seriously as we might have.

And if you play 'naff' players, then simply you can't call yourself the 2nd best ODI team. That's England's fault if they don't play their best XI in ODIs. Even if they have a team full of stars, if they're not on the park because England don't take ODIs seriously and hence England lose the ODIs, then frankly they can't be rated a good team.

Oh and in that same trophy England lost to WI, so are WI thus better than England? No. Last year SL lost 3-2 to Australia in the ODIs at home, the same as England (with a tie). So why is England better than?

In the past 18 months, what have England done in ODIs? That's all I want to know.

 

[luckyeddie]

They also got to the final of the ICC Champions Trophy beating Australia on the way.

I guess we'll know in 14 months.

I'm just going to say this, Simmy.

You came on here, bold as brass after the Twenty20, and told us all how we were going to grab the Ashes, despite reputations. I ridiculed you for it then, because what you were saying was quite preposterous.

I'm ridiculing you for this now.

Then I'm going down the bookies and putting a fiver on England. Cheers, mate.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I can say that when we're playing our best side we're second best, however (although granted it is our fault if we don't). IMO we only lost to Australia because they had the luck of the toss which helped their SuperSub, and we didn't. I've told you what we've done. Done rubbish in a few series due to players playing, and been very good when we've had our best players playing (this summer, ICC Trophy, at home to India in 2004).

(at Jono)

 

[Arjun]

Well, for a start they got to the final last year in the Trophy, beating Australia on the way I might add, with proper players playing (as opposed to Kabir and Blackwell who have been playing occasionally when we haven't been taking them as importantly).

Only got to the final. And lost. From a winning position. And who won the match for the Windies chasing? Not Lara, Gayle or Chanders, but two unfancied tailenders! Besides, Kabir Ali was one of the few good medium-pacers available, given that Alex Wharf was once a regular in the ODI side. Kabir Ali may be far from accurate, but he makes things happen and picks up wickets regularly, unlike Wharf, who's done nothing of note but for his 3 for not too many in his debut ODI.

 

[Jono]

All I can say is I hope they field their best team against Pakistan, because an improving England ODI outfit and a good (which can sometimes be great sometimes be awful) Pakistan ODI team going at it will be a very good ODI series and will go a long way in showing just how good England are.

Like I said, I don't think England are rubbish, I just think they are firmly part of what I like to call the "pack". Basically every ODI team bar Australia. They don't seem much better than any of the other teams, just like atm SL don't and neither do SA or NZ etc. So how do you judge who is 2nd best then? Well by results, and that's why I can't say England are 2nd best, because they don't win enough ODI tournaments and series. If they do in the next few months (with the WC around the corner) then they can have a strong claim #2 spot.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Fine, if you prefer, they tied with Australia, in England. Ignore everything else, and they tied.

Even taking that into account, that doesn't in and of itself make England the second best team in the world, any more than India's draw in 2003 did. If England perform in ODIs against the other mid-table teams like Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa, or at least some of them, then they can claim second position. As it is, England has drawn and lost two series against Australia, and previously been belted by South Africa and generally been an average ODI team.

England didn't give a stuff about that ODI series in SA. If World Cup came along tomorrow Australia would be favourites and England would be second favourites, comfortably ahead of the 3rd favourite. Whether the results show that or not it doesn't alter that. Would you judge the players in the Super series on their scores or would you look at how they perform when it really matters?

 

[PY]

Lol, I guess you never read any of my posts in the Ashes thread where I was supporting England

I just thought you were a glory supporter.

 

[Arjun]

Oh brother....this is suddenly a hot topic...and nobody mentioned that match between the English and the Pak Patrons XI!

 

[Jono]

I just thought you were a glory supporter.

LOL. Nah I'm just a cricket fan, and I think England winning the Ashes did a lot of good for cricket. In Australia, England and worldwide.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Only got to the final. And lost. From a winning position. And who won the match for the Windies chasing? Not Lara, Gayle or Chanders, but two unfancied tailenders! Besides, Kabir Ali was one of the few good medium-pacers available, given that Alex Wharf was once a regular in the ODI side. Kabir Ali may be far from accurate, but he makes things happen and picks up wickets regularly, unlike Wharf, who's done nothing of note but for his 3 for not too many in his debut ODI.

They're both rubbish IMO.

 

[Scaly piscine]

They're both rubbish IMO.

Yep, as is Gough. I hope Plunkett does well then England have this side for the WC:

Tresco
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Flintoff
Collingwood
Geraint
Giles
Plunkett
Simon Jones
Harmison

Tremlett, Anderson as back-up, hopefully the supersub nonsense will have been finished with.

That to me looks pretty strong.

 

[Jono]

I agree Scaly, that is a strong side. Very strong actually. How much all-round potential does Plunkett have (obviously tough to decide) because with Freddy already there, and Collingwood a decent ODI bits-and-pieces player (probably better than that I reckon) another bowler than can bat (or a complete all-rounder) would really add to that team.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I agree Scaly, that is a strong side. Very strong actually. How much all-round potential does Plunkett have (obviously tough to decide) because with Freddy already there, and Collingwood a decent ODI bits-and-pieces player (probably better than that I reckon) another bowler than can bat (or a complete all-rounder) would really add to that team.

Think he bats at 8 for Durham, averages around 20 with the bat. I think he's the sort of character that will carry that sort of average into international cricket (especially as he's been around the England setup and so they'll have worked on any obvious weaknesses) and he'll certainly be someone who'll chip in with the odd half-century from time to time.

 

[Dasa]

I think we've found a new standard (according to some - a small minority - of English posters).
All England players are brilliant until they fail, when they're suddenly rubbish. Additionally, the English cricket team doesn't take any games seriously when said players play, despite any statements to the contrary before these games.

....and some you have the gall to jump on Indian members for going OTT about their team.

 

[luckyeddie]

I agree Scaly, that is a strong side. Very strong actually. How much all-round potential does Plunkett have (obviously tough to decide) because with Freddy already there, and Collingwood a decent ODI bits-and-pieces player (probably better than that I reckon) another bowler than can bat (or a complete all-rounder) would really add to that team.

Best kid I've seen since, er,

(waits until everyone's left)

Rikki Clarke.

Much, much better bowler than my main man (not Corky, sorry, my other main man), and the batting's improving in leaps and bounds.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I can say that when we're playing our best side we're second best, however (although granted it is our fault if we don't). IMO we only lost to Australia because they had the luck of the toss which helped their SuperSub, and we didn't. I've told you what we've done. Done rubbish in a few series due to players playing, and been very good when we've had our best players playing (this summer, ICC Trophy, at home to India in 2004).

(at Jono)

Only lost to Australia because of the SuperSub? You do realise don't you that all three games in the NWC were incredibly one sided, and the SuperSub had no significant impact on them at all?

In the second NWC game, Australia subbed on Brad Haddin who did not bat, bowl or take a catch.

In the third NWC game, Australia subbed on Simon Katich who (wait for it... wait for it...) did not bat, bowl or take a catch.

Yeah, they decided the game alright. This gets my award for the oddest excuse for a loss for the month.

 

[Pratters]

You know what? I had absolutely no idea that you Indian - I honestly thought that you were an Aussie (I never made the connection with your avatar).

Just shows what a good poster Jono is.