No English batsmen to cross 5000 ODI runs?

[SaeedAnwar]

There is no English batsmen who has ever crossed 5000 ODI runs in his career, Currently Paul Collingwood is getting close with 4550 runs.

 

[GIMH]

Thanks for informing me about that. It ensures that when Colly achieves this milestone I can start a thread about it. Possibly comparing him to Bevan.

 

[Goughy]

ODIs are still being played?

 

[Migara]

Nah, this is the era of Martians

 

[slippyslip]

ODIs are still being played?

Why did England suddenly lose interest in ODI's?

England made the finals in 3 of the first 5 world cups and the semis in the other 2.

I blame Margaret Thatcher.

 

[The_roc]

We don't play enough games to accumulate the same amount of runs as players from the Indian sub=continent.

 

[0RI0N]

We don't play enough games to accumulate the same amount of runs as players from the Indian sub=continent.

really Captain Obvious?

 

[sledger]

Why did England suddenly lose interest in ODI's?

England made the finals in 3 of the first 5 world cups and the semis in the other 2.

I blame Margaret Thatcher.

She was a good leg break bowler iirc.

 

[andyc]

really Captain Obvious?

No need for insults when the poster's just replying to the intended topic.

 

[Richard]

Is saying someone's stating the obvious really classed as abuse (have always said "abuse" not "insult" is the appropriate term, as insults are taken not given) these days? Shame if so.

The opening post in this thread is stating the obvious - that reply was stating the obvious. That fact was pointed-out on the counts of both posters, don't really see why "really Captain Obvious?" is any different to "Thanks for informing me about that." Is it because a noun was involved and "captain obvious" is seen as name-calling?

IMO this thread serves no worthwhile purpose. Is that abuse now as well?

 

[slowfinger]

Crap man that struck me and yet they can muster up a really good ODI team most of the time. But bear in mind that most of them are just young players tbh...

 

[Richard]

they can muster up a really good ODI team most of the time.

Umm... no, they can't. England haven't had a remotely good ODI team for 8-9 years now.

 

[GIMH]

Won away to Australia, Sri Lanka, South Africa. Hammered South Africa at home, beat India at home, cbf thinking of any more.

Of course, we've also been pasted by NZ,India and Australia. But you don't win the series we have done without a 'remotely good' team.

 

[Richard]

I think you do. None of those victories were what I'd call victories over quality sides. And BTW the England team which featured in South Africa is for me notably the best England ODI team since 2001 - and it's still not that good.

 

[Furball]

I think you do. None of those victories were what I'd call victories over quality sides. And BTW the England team which featured in South Africa is for me notably the best England ODI team since 2001 - and it's still not that good.

South Africa pasted Australia 4-1 in consecutive series.

Victory in Australia came against the side that won the World Cup 3 months later (granted, England were absolutely dire at the start of the CB series).

Victory in Sri Lanka against a side who were runners up in the World Cup.

Interesting definition of "quality sides."

 

[Richard]

South Africa pasted Australia 4-1 in consecutive series.

Thought it was 4-1 and 3-2 TBH, but no matter. Yes, they did - nonetheless South Africa currently are not a particularly strong ODI side and precious little can be garnered from victory in a three-match ODI series anyway - one of the reasons I hate the things so much.

Victory in Australia came against the side that won the World Cup 3 months later (granted, England were absolutely dire at the start of the CB series).

England's results vs Australia in the CB Series:
3 rank thrashings
1 dead-game victory
1 really credible victory
1 victory where they got conditions which could barely have been more favourable to them if God had intervened.

Apart from the fact that that's a 3-3 scoreline, I'd say Australia comfortably had the better of England in 2006/07.

Victory in Sri Lanka against a side who were runners up in the World Cup.

Was a side which barely even resembled that side. Apart from the fact that many Lankans performed miles better in the Cup than they did in the England series, there were absences.

Interesting definition of "quality sides."

Yup, sure is.

 

[SJS]

This is an amazing bit of information. I would have never thought this was the case. Yes England do not play too many odis but Greenidge got his 5100 odd runs in 128 games, Smith has 5600 odd in149, Hayden (6100+), Dhoni (5400+) and Jones (6000+) played between 160 and 164 games.

Stewart played 170 for England and Collingwood has already played 174 !

Even in batting averages (which ignores fewer games) they have just Pietersen (at number 10) in the top 25 around the world - Qualification 30 innings minimum

 

[Richard]

England batsmen have almost never excelled at ODIs. It's very probably no coincidence that the man who looks near-certain to go down as England's best learned his cricket elsewhere.

In modern times the only ones who approach him are Knight, Hick and Fairbrother, and even Hick to some extent learned his cricket overseas, though I'm not sure that was an advantage in his case.

In the days when England were a serious ODI power it was bowling, not batting, that gave them their potency, and even after they ceased to be aught but a joke in World Cups they often still had a good few excellent-quality bowlers.

 

[SaeedAnwar]

^ Knight, Hick and Fairbrother, and Hick could have done so much with their careers, i am not sure why were they in and out of the team, why were england selectors so unfair to these guys? look at Fairbrother for example, he played from the 1986-87 season to the 1999 world cup, yet he only made just over 2000 runs, his average was always good around 40

 

[DaRick]

South Africa pasted Australia 4-1 in consecutive series.

1-4 and 2-3, as Richard pointed out.

That AUS side wasn't a particularly good ODI outfit, compared to what came before or after. Sure, it was ODI class, but Watson was missing, we had an opener promoted based on T20 hype , Dave Hussey was batting like a tailender most of the time, Ben Hilfenhaus was not an ODI-class bowler (bowled too many no-balls) and Johnson was in horrible form. We can also add to that a spearhead who conceeded over 5 runs an over in all ODI cricket. Oh, did I forget to mention that we played spin so poorly that we made someone like van der Merwe (who England belted around) look good?

SA also played better cricket against us than they did against England. That's not to say that England hasn't improved as an ODI side. Clearly, the fact that they can beat SA at home says something. But they weren't even able to come close to us in England or during the Champions Trophy, so I doubt that SA would've done anything against our side had they come across it during that time period.

Victory in Australia came against the side that won the World Cup 3 months later (granted, England were absolutely dire at the start of the CB series).

England played better cricket at the end of that series; Australia played the kind of cricket that would indicate that they were in dire need of a rest (and the CH trophy performances proved it).