Do England Take ODI's Seriously?

[Tom Halsey]

Yes but Australia do that and win anyway. That's kind of the point people are trying to make.

Well, they tied with us in the NatWest series in the summer, then won the NatWest Challenge 2-1, so they were far from convincing.

Then, while they won the VB series, again they weren't exactly dominant, and got beaten a few times, some of them convincingly.

Then they lost 3-2 to SA.

I'd be pretty interested to see Australia's overall record in ODIs is since the start of the NatWest series. It may be slightly in their favour, but I wouldn't have thought by much.

 

[adharcric]

Well, they tied with us in the NatWest series in the summer, then won the NatWest Challenge 2-1, so they were far from convincing.

Then, while they won the VB series, again they weren't exactly dominant, and got beaten a few times, some of them convincingly.

Then they lost 3-2 to SA.

I'd be pretty interested to see Australia's overall record in ODIs is since the start of the NatWest series. It may be slightly in their favour, but I wouldn't have thought by much.

I'd still take Australia's one-day team over England's 100 times out of 100.
Actually, 99 out of 100 if one of those were being played at the Wanderers with Gibbs at the crease chasing a big total and Mick Lewis running in.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And if England apparently prioritised them more, what are these improvements that could be made which would suddenly make England a better ODI unit? Stuff like having Geraint Jones in your team isn't evidence of England not prioritising, its the selectors having no clue.

Get players like Prior out.

My point is that our recent Test debutants who've come in and done well right away all got tested in ODIs first, to check they were the real deal. Not many of our Test players are thrown straight into Test cricket unless it is absolutely necessary (like recently, due to injuries).

 

[mr cricket]

and.................they lost to bangladesh.hahahahahahahah

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'd still take Australia's one-day team over England's 100 times out of 100.
Actually, 99 out of 100 if one of those were being played at the Wanderers with Gibbs at the crease chasing a big total and Mick Lewis running in.

Of course, not denying that.

But they've hardly been commanding have they?

 

[marc71178]

Other options aren't exactly queuing up either. I suppose Bell & Cook are the next cabs off the rank but both are accumulators rather than shot-players.

I'd rather an accumulator who can bat through the innings than a shot-player who gets carried away and dismissed stupidly.

 

[Armadillo]

It's not a case of not taking them seriously.

It's a case of taking Tests as the priority, and the ODIs as the ones which are "nice to win", but victories in ODIs are usually forgotten about in a week's time.

See, now you're going back on your argument. At first you claimed that England don't take ODIs seriously because of the players that they field in the side, now you're claiming that they infact do take them seriously, but not as seriously as tests. Well we all know that countries don't take ODIs as serious as tests, and I even mentioned it in the first post of this thread.

 

[Tom Halsey]

See, now you're going back on your argument. At first you claimed that England don't take ODIs seriously because of the players that they field in the side, now you're claiming that they infact do take them seriously, but not as seriously as tests. Well we all know that countries don't take ODIs as serious as tests, and I even mentioned it in the first post of this thread.

I said in our MSN convo that ODIs are "nice to win", so I don't see how I'm going back.

 

[Armadillo]

I said in our MSN convo that ODIs are "nice to win", so I don't see how I'm going back.

Because your initial argument was to say that England don't care about ODI's, however after seeing the reactions of others, you have switched to saying, they do care, but they do not have the significance of tests. Well done Einstein! Ofcourse they don't.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Because your initial argument was to say that England don't care about ODI's, however after seeing the reactions of others, you have switched to saying, they do care, but they do not have the significance of tests. Well done Einstein! Ofcourse they don't.

Time to dig up the log of the convo...

Originally, I said that England won't be too bothered about losing a few ODIs in India (edit: should say that this part of the argument was with Danish).

You then said that ODIs are important, and I said yes, but compared to Tests they're not, and all these huge ODI series are pointless (VB, NatWest, the current 7 match one etc) and I hope Flintoff is rested from one of these long series before long, to prevent burn-out.

 

[_Ed_]

Or that New Zealand doesn't take cricket seriously.

We're not the best in the world and nowhere near it, but I think that's a bit harsh!

 

[Armadillo]

Time to dig up the log of the convo...

Originally, I said that England won't be too bothered about losing a few ODIs in India (edit: should say that this part of the argument was with Danish).

You then said that ODIs are important, and I said yes, but compared to Tests they're not, and all these huge ODI series are pointless (VB, NatWest, the current 7 match one etc) and I hope Flintoff is rested from one of these long series before long, to prevent burn-out.

And you forgot to dig up the part where you said that you thought England didn't take ODI's seriously because of the team that they field, which excludes players such as Hoggard and Panesar ( )

 

[Pedro Delgado]

It's not a case of not taking them seriously.

It's a case of taking Tests as the priority, and the ODIs as the ones which are "nice to win", but victories in ODIs are usually forgotten about in a week's time.

That's it exactly. ODI cricket is like a rough one night stand you soon forget about, Test cricket is like your first love (IMO of course).

P'tang Yang Kipperbang, uh.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And you forgot to dig up the part where you said that you thought England didn't take ODI's seriously because of the team that they field, which excludes players such as Hoggard and Panesar ( )

I mentioned Panesar as a very outside possibility.

Hoggard I feel should be in the side.

 

[adharcric]

That's it exactly. ODI cricket is like a rough one night stand you soon forget about, Test cricket is like your first love (IMO of course).

P'tang Yang Kipperbang, uh.

It's only rough for England. Class acts like Australia and India have a hot one night stand.
England have only recently learnt how to fall in love. Then you've got the Bangladesh and Zimbabwe boys who are utterly rejected: no love and no one night stands.

 

[luckyeddie]

That's it exactly. ODI cricket is like a rough one night stand you soon forget about, Test cricket is like your first love (IMO of course).

P'tang Yang Kipperbang, uh.

"Please God. Today or tomorrow - or early next week at the latest, weather permitting. Just *one* kiss. One'll do. Amen. And I'll never ask for anything again."

If Channel 4 remade that film today, Alan would still say the same prayer - only it would be about Tommy.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

"Please God. Today or tomorrow - or early next week at the latest, weather permitting. Just *one* kiss. One'll do. Amen. And I'll never ask for anything again."

If Channel 4 remade that film today, Alan would still say the same prayer - only it would be about Tommy.

You know, I haven't seen it since it was first screened in what, '84 or so when I was 13.

Why don't they ever show it?

Chiz.

 

[Armadillo]

Looks like we're not the only ones that have debated this question...
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,,1752009,00.html

 

[luckyeddie]

You know, I haven't seen it since it was first screened in what, '84 or so when I was 13.

Why don't they ever show it?

Chiz.

Absolutely right.

'Twere a brilliant film.