England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Magrat Garlick]

i thought top players didnt experience that kind of pressure Richard

Now you're mixing first-class and one-day cricket again. And they are, of course, completely different sports.

 

[Swervy]

Now you're mixing first-class and one-day cricket again. And they are, of course, completely different sports.

no they arent!!!!! they are still the same sport that require the same fundamental skills, just used in slightly different ways and in general they are played by the same players

 

[V Reddy]

If Solanki played for Warwickshire and had an identical record would you pick him??

Actually there is no need to answer that one!

I think he's been quite good this season. I would also pick Bell in my squad rather than wait for them to succeed in County Cricket. His bowling must be atleast as good as Clarke's and in batting there is no comparision.My England Playing XI at the moment would be

Trescothick
Solanki
Strauss
Vaughan
Flintoff
Bell
Jones
Giles
Gough
Anderson
Harmison

With Collingwood, S Jones, Batty or Gidman[Heard that he is very talented] as backup

 

[Magrat Garlick]

no they arent!!!!! they are still the same sport that require the same fundamental skills, just used in slightly different ways and in general they are played by the same players

That was actually a joke, mate...sorry for not putting smilies in...

Reddy: IMO Collingwood should be chosen over Solanki. Reasonably proven ODI batsman, and a great fielder to boot.

 

[V Reddy]

Reddy: IMO Collingwood should be chosen over Solanki. Reasonably proven ODI batsman, and a great fielder to boot.

Yup but he has been in poor form lately and he is a middle order batsman. Eng team could be this way to accommodate Paul

Tres
Strauss
Bell
Vaughan
Freddie
Collingwood
Jones
Giles
Gough
Harmison
Anderson

with the rest as backup. But the thing that needs to happen imo is those top order batsman should bowl more than they are doing at present. If the batting is struggling then include either Solanki or Pieterson when he is eligible and make the batsman bowl more

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Solanki has bowled about 2 balls a match in his ODI career...economy rate 5.52, average 43.45 - doesn't seem like a very good part-timer, despite 5/40 (fluke caused by Middlesex batting)

Can't Vaughan bat at three? I just don't like the look of Bell that high up in the order...they're both builders, and I think Vaughan's more reliable than Bell - who can bowl quite a bit (although, again, is likely to do the same as Solanki).

And with that order, you don't need the top order bowling anyway. Unless you include Giles as a specialist bat, it's got five bowlers (well, once Flintoff gets his foot fixed). I reckon he shouldn't really be considered for ODIs (he does a reasonable job as stock bowler in Tests), but that's another story.

 

[Swervy]

That was actually a joke, mate...sorry for not putting smilies in...

Reddy: IMO Collingwood should be chosen over Solanki. Reasonably proven ODI batsman, and a great fielder to boot.

no worries...i was wondering whether you were joking or not

 

[Langeveldt]

What about Mal Loye?? He has far more going for him and one of the best eyes in the English game.. Without question he is more worth than McGrath, Clarke, Key, Collingwood and possibly Wagh... If he was younger he may well have found himself in ahead of Bell...

Oh sorry lads, nobody cares, all the ECB care about is WC2007 and "the future" as usual Shame they won't be winning a lot in between....

 

[Richard]

i thought top players didnt experience that kind of pressure Richard

For crying out loud, you really are determined in this one. How many times are you going to make blatantly deliberate misunderstandings to try to make a point?
The First-Class and one-day game mightn't be, as S_V jokingly suggested, "completely different sports", but it is incredibly obvious that scoreboard pressure exists in one and doesn't in the other.
In the First-Class game pressure due to a slow scoring-rate only exists in the minds of the poor batsman. In the one-day game, meanwhile, it doesn't exist only in the minds of the poor batsman.
Oh, and regarding:

no they arent!!!!! they are still the same sport that require the same fundamental skills, just used in slightly different ways and in general they are played by the same players

Yes, the two forms of the game are the same sport, but they're a different variant of the sport. Rugby Union and League require some of the same skills, but enough of different ones to make the two very different.
First-Class and one-day cricket is played well by plenty of different players. There are plenty of players who can play one but not the other. Equally, there are plenty who can play both.

 

[Richard]

Can't Vaughan bat at three? I just don't like the look of Bell that high up in the order...they're both builders, and I think Vaughan's more reliable than Bell - who can bowl quite a bit (although, again, is likely to do the same as Solanki).

Vaughan more reliable than Bell?!?!?! This the same Bell whose average is 6 higher than Vaughan's? Despite a horror-story so far this season?
And IMO Bell looks to be developing into a very handy bowler, in both forms of the game. Certainly already a million miles better than Solanki.

 

[Richard]

Gidman[Heard that he is very talented]

We've heard a lot of things... it's frighteningly frequent that players with averages of 18 get talked-up as superstars.

 

[Richard]

No, the game is becoming increasingly in favour of batsmen.

Every change makes runs more likely.

And the fact is no-one can make a rule that stops bowlers bowling accurately, and no-one, no matter how desperately they may try, can make a rule that makes accurate bowling easier to score off.
Good bowlers don't need relaxed field-restrictions, poor bat technology or seaming wickets to bowl economically. Though naturally it will help.

 

[Richard]

steve waugh definetly got worse towards the end of his career,he was dropped from the ODI squad in 2002. the other 2 arent ODI cricketers and fitness didnt really play as much of a role when they played as it does now.

Stephen Waugh was never anywhere near as good in ODIs as he was in Test-matches, his average of only 34 didn't change much throughout his career.
In Test-matches his average barely dropped below 50 once it got above it. Like everyone, he had the odd bad trot, like 2001\02, but he did not get worse.
Good players only need to be fit to reasonable standards. And Waugh more than met those standards.

 

[Richard]

yes like graeme hick? oh yes success at the county level demands selection doesnt it?

Yes, it does, and it was no surprise when Graeme Hick translated his commanding domestic one-day form to the ODI arena.

umm no......both are 35, you think that they are built with extra life batteries and can last till 38? you do realise that players get worse when they get older dont you?

Do they now? Or do people just find it harder and harder to accept that someone that old can possibly be that good? There are countless examples of players who have not got worse, indeed some have even got better and better, with age.
Any half-decent player will still be pretty good in his late 30s. It would take a fool indeed not to realise that.

rubbish he couldnt bat to save his life.......

Yes, he can. As demonstrated by the volume of runs he's scored in his career.
How stupid have you got to be to say that someone who can score First-Class 150s "can't bat to save his life"?

they were good enough to merit selction, now they are just a bunch of county pros who in those seaming conditions in england along with some of the poor quality cricket tend to excel. ealham mind you was barely good enough to get into the ODI side....he couldnt bowl in the death and spent most of his time bowling in the middle overs which explains his relatively low E/R.

Those seaming conditions that anyone who actually watches will realise have been nowhere near as prevolant in the last 3 years as outdated stereotypes would have belief are far harder to bowl in than you might realise. And Ealham and Mullally are bowling better this season than ever.
Ealham was, and very probably still is, more than good enough to make the England ODI side, and who gives a s**t if he couldn't bowl at the end of the innings that well? It takes some skill to bowl Yorker after Yorker when you're a natural good-length bowler. These sort of bowlers are best used when they've got the best chance of bowling well. Someone who can go for less than for 4-an-over in the middle of the innings, which Ealham and Mullally did many, many times, has done a very good job and has put their team in a very strong position.

 

[Richard]

not at the intl level(outside of b'desh,zimbabwe etc)

Believe me, you will see plenty of worse batsmen and fielders than Alan Mullally, at the authentic international level. You clearly haven't seen much of him.

oh yes and where did i suggest that players bits and pieces players were running wild?i would have someone who was a genuine batsman or bowler and either a quality fielder or can bowl/bat a bit.

"Bowl a bit" tends to describe someone who will regularly go for 5.5-an-over and provide no use whatsoever to any decent team. Being able to bowl for 5.5-an-over doesn't mean you're any more use than a batsman of the same average. "Bat a bit" tends to describe someone who might occasionally make a vital contribution but mostly will do sod-all and is less worthy of consideration than someone with a better bowling record.
And all too often, as in Ealham's case, we see failure with the trait they have been mistaken to be OK at taking the gloss off success with their proper trait.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Vaughan more reliable than Bell?!?!?! This the same Bell whose average is 6 higher than Vaughan's? Despite a horror-story so far this season?
And IMO Bell looks to be developing into a very handy bowler, in both forms of the game. Certainly already a million miles better than Solanki.

I think Neil made some statistics about first-class averages compared to Test averages since 1990. The correlation was about 0.05 (I'll dig the post up if you want). Doesn't seem to suggest that players with good FC averages make good Test cricketers.

IMO if Bell's put at three, he's likely to feel "OK, now all the pressure's on me to build an innings...what will if I fail?" . Fair point, if Strauss and Vaughan both fall early, the same applies, but most likely at least one of them will hang in there with Tresco. I don't think it's good selection policy to put a young guy in at three, simply because it's the position normally reserved for the best, most experienced batsman in the team. Trouble is, of course, that England doesn't have very good ODI batsman apart from Trescothick and Flintoff, and both of those are being rock solid with the role they have in the team at the moment.

Yes, I know you're going to say: "Well, why should Vaughan be the best batsman? He's awful at ODIs" - but since you can apply the principle of getting better since 1998 to Ramprakash, batting in the middle order instead of as an opener, why doesn't the same apply to Vaughan batting higher up the order? He's had moderate success at three in ODI cricket. Not set the world alight, but he's had some good innings there, and not only against poor bowling.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan's average when batting down the order in ODIs is still comfortably under 30. Vaughan has never been much of a one-day player. The thing is, Ramprakash from 1998 onwards was a genuine success in Test-cricket except when forced to open. It's totally different for Vaughan, anyway, because as I said it's been through his whole career - with Ramprakash everyone always got the feeling it was only a matter of time because of his outstanding First-Class record.
I'm sure Neil showed me that graph somewhere. And I said that I thought it was one of the most false things I've ever seen. Hardly any Test-match successes have had poor county records, and not many county successes have had poor Test-match records (out of those who've been given a fair chance, ie not just 4 or 5 innings).

 

[Langeveldt]

We've heard a lot of things... it's frighteningly frequent that players with averages of 18 get talked-up as superstars.

He just seems like the rich mans Rikki Clarke...

 

[Richard]

Clarke is one of the premium examples of game-form-mixing here in England. I sometimes think he cops a bit of unfair flack on here, even if his First-Class form has been very poor this season.

 

[marc71178]

In the First-Class game pressure due to a slow scoring-rate only exists in the minds of the poor batsman.

Which therefore declares that just about every batsman in the history of Cricket is poor, as they've all gotten out to a poor shot induced by pressure building up at one time or other.