England ODI squad

[marc71178]

I agree entirely with Bazza. The guy talks sense, Marc, at the moment you are not. Explain to us please why an average middle order batsman who bowls a bit is a good choice for the ODI side? Because he's proven quality? One good Test against almost pathetic opposition doesn't prove anything. Zimbabwe were even worse than a county team.

On 2nd thoughts...don't bother. It's pointless arguing with a brick wall.

I have never said he's proven quality, but unlike some people, I'm prepared to back the person who's been the biggest reason behind our recent upturn in fortune's judgement when recommending players to be selected.

Collingwood's figures hardly made him an obvious candidate for the ODI side, but can you honestly say that you wouldn't select him if fit for the first Eleven?

And again, I ask you to suggest an alternative player in county cricket that fits the bill as to what the side needs.

 

[PY]

Is it just me, or are other people also getting tired of this McGrath/Harmison "trial". You guys are saying the same thing over and over and over again. Will the defence and the prosecution please just SHUT UP!

Well tried , it is getting bit repetitive as this is the third thread that has just turned into a McGrath/Harmison discussion.

:rolleyes:

 

[Langeveldt]

Well tried , it is getting bit repetitive as this is the third thread that has just turned into a McGrath/Harmison discussion.

:rolleyes:

Well its an issue that people obviously have quite serious and varying views on, its their to be discussed and we are discussing it..... Its not exactly a flame war is it???

 

[marc71178]

And considering both are in the title of the thread, it's not even off topic!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well its an issue that people obviously have quite serious and varying views on, its their to be discussed and we are discussing it..... Its not exactly a flame war is it???

But it's boring because no one is evidently changing his (or her) opinion and as such, the same points of debate are being repeated over and over again, whether in support or against.

Alright, we get the point:
1/ Harmison is young and talented.
2/ Harmison has no control and shouldn't be in the team.
3/ But the Aussies liked Harmison. They think he's talented.
4/ Johnson should play instead of Harmison.
5/ Give Harmison a decent chance to prove himself. He hasn't been THAT bad...

1/ McGrath is a crappy selection.
2/ Stats aren't everything, he can bat.
3/ He's not an allrounder and he was picked as one.
4/ But he got 3 wickets and a 60odd on debut.
5/ He debuted against Zimbabwe
6/ Give him a decent chance to prove himself.
7/ Hollioake should have been picked instead.

And on and on and on............

 

[Langeveldt]

Ill add a point to Mxy's very valid argument !

6.How come once guys like Ormond and Silverwood put a foot wrong they get cast on the scrapheap, Harmison is still here...

 

[Rich2001]

Ill add a point to Mxy's very valid argument !

6.How come once guys like Ormond and Silverwood put a foot wrong they get cast on the scrapheap, Harmison is still here...

Yeah and Ormond plays for apprently the team England Selectors are most bias to, so surley if they were he would have had a extented run?

 

[PY]

Well its an issue that people obviously have quite serious and varying views on, its their to be discussed and we are discussing it..... Its not exactly a flame war is it???

Yes, I suppose but the views don't vary, that's the point.......they don't change and it goes over old ground but tis still an interesting sparring match

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

6.How come once guys like Ormond and Silverwood put a foot wrong they get cast on the scrapheap, Harmison is still here...

Indeed, especially when Harmison foot was even wronger (it's a word if I use it :P) than Silverwood's....

 

[Rik]

I think England's ODI side shows Fletcher's view that he wants more players who play in both forms of the game. Unfortunately, Harmison (his record shows why Durham rarely bowl him in ODers, in Tests he's too inconsistant), Key (scored slowly and a batting average of 18 in 8 Tests does not a OD call up deserve), Vaughan (as captain, with his record he shouldn't even be 1st choice as a batsman), Johnson (who I feel is a better bowler in the longer form, Kirtley is more of a OD bowler) are just some of the puzzling choices in my opinion.

 

[PY]

Bit harsh on Vaughan aren't we? :rolleyes:

 

[Eclipse]

Not really Vaughan has never been a good One Day batsman and his selection as ODI captain is based on Test Form.

He avraged just under 30 last year as an ODI batsman with just I beleve just 3 fiftys 2 against minow sides in the World cup meanwhile he was in the best form of his life in test cricket.

 

[marc71178]

He missed a large number of ODI's, both in the VB series and back in England, due to injuries, and was looking like a quality player as he got used to it. Have to remember that he's not played a lot of ODI cricket yet, and his early low scores have kind of hurt him.

Oh, and his 50's included one against Pakistan, who aren't by any stretch of the imagination minnows.

 

[Eclipse]

I really did not think he looked that comftable and I watched every match he played in.

He played some really nice shots but he was consistently forcing it to much seemed like he was trying to play shots that just were not in his capacity and to be honest you just knew he would probably get out because he was going at the ball so hard.

And he should have been out twice before he reached 20 in that game vs Pakistan would have been out for 0 if not for a no ball.