Group A - India, England, Australia, West Indies

[tooextracool]

Vaughan, Hussain etc were selected for years when past their prime and the former would probably still be in the team if even half fit. You'll see from my past comments that I dont rate him as any more than average in any form of the game these days and he wouldnt play for Eng again if I were a selector.

rubbish, Vaughan was made a certainity immediately after his golden run in the winter 2002/03 for the VB series and failed miserably in both that series as well as the world cup. It wasnt too much different from his performances in ODIs before his first knee injury either.
Hussain on the other hand, it was quite clear never had the required ability to succeed in ODIs from day 1, and his SR shows that quite clearly. However in both their cases they held down places in the side moreso for their captaincy than for their playing abilities.

As for Mahmood and Yardy - I dont need to look at their career records to tell whether they can play or not. One has great potential, the other will be nothing more than a county pro and anyone with a modicum of experience could tell that in 2 minutes.

I think its pretty obvious in anyones eyes that Cook doesnt have the tools to be successful in ODIs.
As far as Yardy is concerned, he was picked for his skills as an all rounder and whether you like it or not, a bowling average of 26.5@ 2.94 in 5 ODIs is a bloody good start for any player, let alone someone in his first 5 games. I dont think hes been given a fair shot with the bat yet(3 innings 2 poor decisions), but whether or not hes up to it with the bat hes done enough with the ball to hold down a place in the England side.

That being said, even if they do deserve a shot, at least back them with some experienced players who can be relied upon to take up the slack if they fall flat on their faces. Unfortunately, the Eng selectors compound the problem by selecting a team full of Yardys and Mahmoods..

Err yes, but the selectors tend not to pick successful list A players, they instead follow your philosophy of picking the Owais Shah's, Rikki Clarke's and Robert Key's all of whom are successful FC players but rubbish OD players.

In relation to Cook, the guy averages nearly 55 in tests and 40 in ODIs with a strike rate of 85+ and yet he needs experience in picnic matches in Eng?

except hes played a whole 2 odis and his list A record is no better than Yardys

Eng need to get back to basics, pick an ODI team made up of a core of their best test players complemented by a smattering of athletic players with promise or tools appropriate to the one day game.

BTW,Oz has only won the last 2 wcs doing that very thing.

Except thats been done and it hasnt worked. Like i said before all these best test players have played and done miserably. Strauss, Collingwood, Vaughan, Shah, Hoggard, Harmison, Mahmood have all had plenty of chances and none of them look like being quality OD players. Oh and guess whos Englands best ODI bowler ATM? Its Jon Lewis who could barely hurt a fly at the test match level. Meanwhile 3 of Englands best ODI batters in their history all fell short of being test match successes- Hick, Knight and Fairbrother. Oh and btw Australia won their last 2 world cups because of a certain Michael Bevan, and last i checked he was a failure in tests.

 

[tooextracool]

How much will you bet?

id be willing to bet 10 quid that he'll be the most expensive bowler out of the regular bowlers- Lewis, Dalyrmple, Giles, Yardy, Anderson and Flintoff. Id also be willing to bet that he'll come out with the worst average out of the pace bowlers. Of course the bet only holds as long as the selectors dont decide to pick Liam Plunkett or Stuart Broad

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Interesting to compare Clarke tonight to the Bravo catch. Was a marginal thing, looked inconclusive on the replay and a few of the other Australian's seemed to think he'd caught it, and Clarke just said he wasn't sure, so it was given not out.

Also at a fairly important point in the game as well.

 

[marc71178]

Good to see a fielder sticking his hand up in such a manner.

 

[Laurrz]

Wooo go Pigeon!

hes gotten better through every game, from Malaysia to now!!!!! gradually...
pitch was really bouncy yesterday... well for Indian wickets anyway... and thats all he needs and most batsmen are clueless

hes just bowling in the 130's... however from last night... it is enough for batsmen to be worried... used the bouncer to excellent use as well

at 37 years he is still owning everyone
batsmen and critics included
wheres Thommo Lawson etc.etc. now???

 

[magsi23]

wow good start by WI, superb stuff

 

[social]

rubbish, Vaughan was made a certainity immediately after his golden run in the winter 2002/03 for the VB series and failed miserably in both that series as well as the world cup. It wasnt too much different from his performances in ODIs before his first knee injury either.
Hussain on the other hand, it was quite clear never had the required ability to succeed in ODIs from day 1, and his SR shows that quite clearly. However in both their cases they held down places in the side moreso for their captaincy than for their playing abilities.



I think its pretty obvious in anyones eyes that Cook doesnt have the tools to be successful in ODIs.
As far as Yardy is concerned, he was picked for his skills as an all rounder and whether you like it or not, a bowling average of 26.5@ 2.94 in 5 ODIs is a bloody good start for any player, let alone someone in his first 5 games. I dont think hes been given a fair shot with the bat yet(3 innings 2 poor decisions), but whether or not hes up to it with the bat hes done enough with the ball to hold down a place in the England side.



Err yes, but the selectors tend not to pick successful list A players, they instead follow your philosophy of picking the Owais Shah's, Rikki Clarke's and Robert Key's all of whom are successful FC players but rubbish OD players.



except hes played a whole 2 odis and his list A record is no better than Yardys



Except thats been done and it hasnt worked. Like i said before all these best test players have played and done miserably. Strauss, Collingwood, Vaughan, Shah, Hoggard, Harmison, Mahmood have all had plenty of chances and none of them look like being quality OD players. Oh and guess whos Englands best ODI bowler ATM? Its Jon Lewis who could barely hurt a fly at the test match level. Meanwhile 3 of Englands best ODI batters in their history all fell short of being test match successes- Hick, Knight and Fairbrother. Oh and btw Australia won their last 2 world cups because of a certain Michael Bevan, and last i checked he was a failure in tests.

What I meant by "past his prime" is that the selectors continued to pick Vaughan even after his test batting had deteriorated markedly and his knee injuries made him a liability in the field. They picked him literally for years on potential alone and probably would today if he were fit.

Hussain was never that good in ODIs but had no competition on the domestic front.

Cook is eatly 20s and averages over 50s in tests - it's a joke that he isnt in the ODI side and an even bigger joke to suggest that he hasnt the ability to improve his stroke range

Yardy will be lucky ever to play another ODI - he's a Lehman standard bowler, ordinary fieldsman and cant bat.

Please dont bring up the list A comparison again - it's chalk and cheese

As for Eng's test players failing in ODIs, youre absolutely right. But, look at how they've used them

Hoggard - predominantly used when he was cannon-fodder in all forms

Collingwood - butchered to spare Flintoff, Kp etc

Jones - only selected when he was an ordinary bowler

Strauss - done OK

Shah - cant field and not selected after test success

Mahmood - improving

Harmison - mental pygmy

In other words, England's selectors (and Fletcher) have a lot to answer for

As for Bevan - he DID NOT win Oz 2 WCs. He was an excellent player but had a teensie amount of help from the Waughs (without Steve we'd have been knocked out early in 1999), Warne (MOM in semi and final in '99), McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting (MOM in '03) and a heap of others

 

[tooextracool]

What I meant by "past his prime" is that the selectors continued to pick Vaughan even after his test batting had deteriorated markedly and his knee injuries made him a liability in the field. They picked him literally for years on potential alone and probably would today if he were fit.

No he was reselected in his prime, right after the Ashes of 2002/03. The fact is that they had made him ODI captain at a time when he was in his prime in the test format and therefore there was no way they could drop him easily(not while they kept winning series at least). However the fact that his ODI record is crap(averaging 23) pre captaincy in 2003 in all of 26 ODIs before that(this in the same period where he was averaging 50 odd in tests) does not do you or your claim any favors.

Hussain was never that good in ODIs but had no competition on the domestic front.

Yet he was a regular in the test side, which maybe goes against your theory.

Cook is eatly 20s and averages over 50s in tests - it's a joke that he isnt in the ODI side and an even bigger joke to suggest that he hasnt the ability to improve his stroke range

No its not. For once the selectors have actually made the right decision in his case. What on earth would be the point of introducing an immensely successful batsman who is yet to fail to a format where he is 99% likely to fail(throwing him into the deep so to speak)? If anything its more likely to ruin his test career as well by shattering his confidence.
Common sense dictates that when he starts scoring runs in list A cricket, which he will probably do if he has the talent anyways, he should be given a place in the ODI side.

Yardy will be lucky ever to play another ODI - he's a Lehman standard bowler, ordinary fieldsman and cant bat.

Because of course Lehmann ever had a series with an ER of 2.94
Like it or not, you cant drop a bowler with an average of less than 30 and an ER of less than 3, not while the rest of your bowlers are going at 6 an over at least. his batting as far as anyone is concerned should simply be treated as an accessory rather than his main strength.

Please dont bring up the list A comparison again - it's chalk and cheese

Because as we all know the best way to judge whether someone is good enough for ODI cricket is by looking at their test record.
test cricket and ODI cricket is chalk and cheese, only a fool would suggest that a failure in list A cricket would succeed in ODI cricket, it simply defies all logic. If list A has no relation to ODI cricket, how come almost every successful ODI player has had a successful list A career as well?

As for Eng's test players failing in ODIs, youre absolutely right. But, look at how they've used them

Hoggard - predominantly used when he was cannon-fodder in all forms

Dont think its ever looked like he'd be more than cannon fodder in the ODI format im afraid. 6 games were more than good enough an indication when someone gets absolutely puked upon as he did when he played recently.

Collingwood - butchered to spare Flintoff, Kp etc

Hes actually been very ordinary in all positions, be it batting before after or between those 2. Thats a pointless argument really, if he can bat in test cricket, one would think he should be capable enough of batting up the order in ODIs.

Jones - only selected when he was an ordinary bowler

Im sorry what? You are saying that Jones was an ordinary bowler less than a month before the Ashes? Because he didnt play a single game against ODI class opposition before he played australia.

Strauss - done OK

Averaging 31 isnt ok in my book. Its better than some others, but still quite poor.

Shah - cant field and not selected after test success

played 3 ODIs in India, with a top score of 7 and struggled to get the ball of the square.This was immediately after his sublime innings at Mumbai.

Mahmood - improving

yes from total and complete garbage to just garbage. give him a medal.

As for Bevan - he DID NOT win Oz 2 WCs. He was an excellent player but had a teensie amount of help from the Waughs (without Steve we'd have been knocked out early in 1999), Warne (MOM in semi and final in '99), McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting (MOM in '03) and a heap of others

I think you've escaped the point im trying to make. Bevan succeeded in ODIs despite being a failure in tests. Same with Knight, Hick and a few others. You would think that the english selectors would actually take a look at their history of ODI cricket and analyze how their selections had nothing to do with test match success.

 

[marc71178]

Because of course Lehmann ever had a series with an ER of 2.94
Like it or not, you cant drop a bowler with an average of less than 30 and an ER of less than 3, not while the rest of your bowlers are going at 6 an over at least. his batting as far as anyone is concerned should simply be treated as an accessory rather than his main strength.

In that case he has to be selected to bat at 8 or 9 then, not in the top order.

 

[wpdavid]

I think you've escaped the point im trying to make. Bevan succeeded in ODIs despite being a failure in tests. Same with Knight, Hick and a few others. You would think that the english selectors would actually take a look at their history of ODI cricket and analyze how their selections had nothing to do with test match success.

I suppose you could add Fairbrother and Mullally to that list.

However, the bigger picture is that successful oneday sides have always been largely made up of players good emough to play test cricket - usually 8 or 9 out of the XI would come into that category. Some might be youngsters who haven't fully broken into the test side yet, and some might be oldsters whose experience is more valuable to the oneday side than the test XI, but there is no evidence that the two forms of the game are so different that different sets of players are required. It just hasn't happened. The Aus side from 2003 may look like an exception to that rule, but don't forget that Warne & Gillespie were missing due to suspension & injury respectively. Usually, we get an extra all rounder and a particularly slow batter is replaced by a dasher or maybe a test bowler's style isn't deemed suitable for the 50-over stuff. Apart from juggling the batting order, that's about it.

Going back to England, there are those who would argue that Knight and/or Hick would have made it as test players had they been given the settled run in the test side that they had in the oneday side. Impossible to prove either way, of course. Given what's gone on elsewhere, I'd have to say that Fletcher's been badly let down by a lot of his test players in the oneday game. He has made some duff calls too - the attack for the SL debacle springs to mind, as does being a batsman light in the CT this year. Cook certainly should have played in the CT. And Hoggard probably would have worked it out if he'd been given a proper run in the side. But he was entitled to more than he's had in the last 3 years or so from Tres, Strauss, Collingwood, G.Jones & Harmison.

 

[pasag]

Interesting to compare Clarke tonight to the Bravo catch. Was a marginal thing, looked inconclusive on the replay and a few of the other Australian's seemed to think he'd caught it, and Clarke just said he wasn't sure, so it was given not out.

Also at a fairly important point in the game as well.

Just saw this:

Australian fair play gets boost as Clarke concedes catch

 

[tooextracool]

In that case he has to be selected to bat at 8 or 9 then, not in the top order.

I dont see him batting much higher than 7 anytime soon for England, if he continues to get picked. But then again this is Duncan Fletcher we're talking about, so i wouldnt be surprised if he ends up opening the batting next game.

 

[tooextracool]

However, the bigger picture is that successful oneday sides have always been largely made up of players good emough to play test cricket - usually 8 or 9 out of the XI would come into that category. Some might be youngsters who haven't fully broken into the test side yet, and some might be oldsters whose experience is more valuable to the oneday side than the test XI, but there is no evidence that the two forms of the game are so different that different sets of players are required. It just hasn't happened. The Aus side from 2003 may look like an exception to that rule, but don't forget that Warne & Gillespie were missing due to suspension & injury respectively. Usually, we get an extra all rounder and a particularly slow batter is replaced by a dasher or maybe a test bowler's style isn't deemed suitable for the 50-over stuff. Apart from juggling the batting order, that's about it.

i think the basic theory is that those that play test cricket successfully for most countries also end up being quite capable ODI players with excellent list A records. Whatever the reason is as to why Englands test players have extremely good FC records and yet extremely poor list A records is anybodys guess(one would think its the number of list A games that they play these days) the fact is that unlike the rest of the world, there arent players who are doing well in both forms of the game. As such it would be stupid to go with players that cant score runs in List A cricket and expect them to succeed in ODIs because it just wont happen, and exceptions dont change anything.

Going back to England, there are those who would argue that Knight and/or Hick would have made it as test players had they been given the settled run in the test side that they had in the oneday side. Impossible to prove either way, of course. Given what's gone on elsewhere, I'd have to say that Fletcher's been badly let down by a lot of his test players in the oneday game. He has made some duff calls too - the attack for the SL debacle springs to mind, as does being a batsman light in the CT this year. Cook certainly should have played in the CT. And Hoggard probably would have worked it out if he'd been given a proper run in the side. But he was entitled to more than he's had in the last 3 years or so from Tres, Strauss, Collingwood, G.Jones & Harmison.

I am certain that Hick would have been a test match success had he been treated properly. Knight on the other hand had a clear technical weakness, and i dont think anybody would have given him more than 17 tests to prove his worth when he failed in almost all of them that werent against zimbabwe. I dont know why anyone would expect Strauss to have done better than hes done for the ODI side. Hes been just as good as his list A average is, and one can hardly wonder how he could have been expected to perform better than that. Equally if anyone expects Strauss to have turned a corner in ODIs with his hit or block philosophy they couldnt be any more wrong. G.Jones never really deserved to be in the side in the first place and Harmison has never been particularly in both ODIs or list A cricket. The 2 players that should however have played better than they have in the past 2 years are Collingwood and Tresco, and to be honest, at one point in his ODI career, i was expecting big things from Paul Collingwood and suffice to say hes been extremely disappointing.

 

[ash chaulk]

Yeah bad decision hit his shirt but still terrible collapse by England are a just clueless or talentless (havn't decided which yet) one day batting unit.

greatest poster ever

 

[wpdavid]

i think the basic theory is that those that play test cricket successfully for most countries also end up being quite capable ODI players with excellent list A records. Whatever the reason is as to why Englands test players have extremely good FC records and yet extremely poor list A records is anybodys guess(one would think its the number of list A games that they play these days) the fact is that unlike the rest of the world, there arent players who are doing well in both forms of the game. As such it would be stupid to go with players that cant score runs in List A cricket and expect them to succeed in ODIs because it just wont happen, and exceptions dont change anything.

There was an interesting interview with John Bracewell the other day. As you probably know, he turned a very ordinary Gloucestershire side into the most successful oneday side in the country, winning numerous competitions in a short number of years. I'm paraphrasing, but I think the jist of his comments was that the oneday game just isn't taken seriously in this country - at domestic level, that is - and standards are very low. Simply by making Glouc more than competent, he was able to clean up trophy-wise. The ties in with what I've always felt about the bulk of the players who turn out in odi's for us and, not to put too fine a point on it, Fletcher is having to make a silk purse out of a bunch of sows' ears.

 

[pietersenrocks]

Bracken was the best bowler,today..