IIRR (skd mentioned this a while back) he has apparently stated that he does want to play for England, and provides a break from the conventional flying-the-flag-of-convenience EU-passport player.
It'd be all well and good if Strauss and Vaughan really were accumulators, but the more common theme for both is to sometimes blaze, sometimes creak, to 20 or 30 then hit one straight to a fielder.
Collingwood's form in ODIs recently has been better than at any other point in his career. For the first time ever, he actually merits a place in the ODI side.
Why does he need exposure ASAP? At the moment he's patently not good enough to play internationally anyway, and given that most bowlers who get brought in as teenagers suffer injury problems, would waiting not be a far more sensible option?
Just because they bowl better than they bat, doesn't make them International class players.
Saqlain?Richard said:
Oh piss off. In the one-day international series last march/may (can't remember which) he had the best bowling figures of the England team IIRC. According to Brian Rose, Blackie will be the fittest he's ever been in his professional cricketing career very shortly.
The 2011 World Cup is being played in the subcontinent, and Monty is England's best attacking and defensive spinner by a margin. A no-brainer for mine really.
You don't know that, because they've never played ODIs.
You mightn't give them a second look, but I would, because they've actually bowled well, you just refuse to acknowledge it because they aren't always big wicket-takers and aren't very quick.
News-flash: having 1 series where you do better than the likes of Plunkett, Kabir Ali and Mahmood is no great achievement, nor is being fit when you don't possess the talent.
Trouble is, not all matches in the intervening time are being so, and it'll be difficult to prepare accordingly.
FFS, get over yourself. Blackie most certainly has the talent and if you don't see it, then that's a shame.
Not sure how you can drag them three into it. Broad and Tremlett haven't played that much ODI cricket. And Harmison more often than not was a very good bowler for England. Comparing all of the above listed to Martin Jenkins is a joke. He plays county one day cricket. Hardly up to International standards.
And an economy rate of 3.89 against India in India for a fingerspinner is very good. Forget about how he performed relative to a weak bunch. He did a fine job in his role.
Actually, in 26 of his 46 matches, Steve Harmison went for more than 5 runs per over. In 13 of those 26 games, he went for more than 6 runs per over. In 11 of those 26 games he was wicketless. And in a whopping 20 of his 46 ODI matches, Harmison took no more than 1 wicket and went for more than 5 runs per over.
Nonsense, Harmison played 41 ODIs, the first 10 in which he was utterly and totally useless (5.57-an-over, average 50.55). He was half-decent in the summer of 2004 (11 games, 6 good, 5 bad), and had a pretty good summer in 2005 against Australia (7 games, 4 good, 2 bad, 1 absolutely abysmal). Other than those handful of games, he was absolutely ****-poor: in those first 10 games, in South Africa, in Pakistan, against Sri Lanka last summer, and worst of all in the Champions Trophy.
And you don't know that unless he gets picked in ODIs. The bowlers I listed have, and have proven (to date in some cases) woefully substandard. Martin-Jenkins' domestic career is far better than those useless bowlers.
Blackwell has been no better than Dalrymple and Yardy, who're nought but part-timers. Indeed, when Blackwell was first picked it was under the assumption that he could bat (on decent-sized grounds). That was soon put-paid to, of course.
James Foster and Ryan Sidebottom? Haven't they proven substandard when they were picked?
