**Official** 2004 Natwest Series (Eng, NZL, WI)

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think that the WI is stronger than both NZ and Eng in ODI's but will not perform well. England came away with a 2-2 draw in the 7 match series affected by rain in the WI,however they only won the first OSI after smashing 18 off the second to last over. NZ i think would have the worst of the 3 lineups, but should perform better than WI since they have already acclimatised to English conditions. WI will be coming with a young contingent, many of whom are on their first trip to England and others who are very inexperienced. The only players who i think are well accustomed are Brian LAra and Shiv. Chanderpaul.

Hmmm... well Dwayne Bravo and Devon Smith have played in England before, as has Tino Best. Smith had an incredible U19 series there. Ravi Rampaul has also played for the U19s in England I believe. Jermaine Lawson also made that A team trip. Overall, the squad is not as alien to English conditions as you'd think.

West Indies A squad

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

not a day. the only experience they have of england is from the last tour, and POSSIBLY (not sure) from WC1999.

Neither of them were close to selection at the time of the World Cup in 1999.

 

[Arjun]

This series may actually be a lot closer than one might expect, if you look at each team, its strengths, weaknesses and present form.

• England- Post World Cup, they have played their best ODI cricket in the recent past- they have started winning ODI series. Their batting is a bit weak, but if Trescothick plays well, it also affects the rest of the batting side and they too play well. Vaughan is a world class batsman, at par with some of the best, but his ODI statistics are far from inspiring. He definitely has a lot to prove as an ODI batsman. Strauss is shaping up well, but lacks the striking power. The next 3 lack both striking power and staying power and are not up to the mark. However, the likes of Blackwell and Solanki (not in the side), who are aggressive, can come useful, especially againt bits-and-pieces middle overs bowlers. Flintoff is a dangerous batsman, since his hard hitting can change the course of a match. Read's batting is a gamble, it may not come off all the time. Clarke should not get a game in the playing XI.
  
  The bowling, in ODI's is not that great. Gough is still the best, but he is short of form. Against an aggressive batting lineup, the pace attack, especially Gough, go for a lot of runs, but the old hero is still effective in the final overs. Harmison's form in Tests should carry on in ODI's, since he is on form England's best bowler, but he too has a lot to prove in ODI's. Anderson is nothing special, since he cannot maintain a good start- not one who can take 5 wickets. Flintoff has to maintain a better line and length, than bowl so many wide deliveries and short ones. Lesser seen of Kirtley and Saggers, the better- they are totally useless on flat pitches. Read's wicketkeeping will help the bowling side a lot. Giles can't do much- he hasn't turned the ball since the tour of SL. The fielding is good only in patches, but Vaughan, Harmison and Giles are weak links. Ultimately, a good team playing at home.
  
• New Zealand- Hampered by injuries, this team will have a hard time. Their batting is far too dependent on two or three batsmen and the others have not done much. Fleming's fitness and form are an issue, being the best batsman on form in that side. Nathan Astle is another crucial player, since his batting can hold the team together and take the game away from the opposition, but is not the most consistent. The same can be said of Craig McMillan, whose average is far from inspiring, but still cannot be counted out. Styris, Cairns and Oram are aggressive batsmen whose main strength is hard hitting- if one of them makes a 50+ score, it can help.
  
  NZ are a very good fielding side, which is needed for a very average bowling attack. Cairns, their best bowler, is not in good form, while Tuffey has his limitations, being only medium pace. Butler has some pace, but lacks control. Mills has no great control either and goes for a lot of runs in 4's and 6's- the six-ball-no-ball danger still exists. Vettori's fitness is another problem. Andre Adams may not have too many fans, but he makes the batsmen play and bowls at a decent pace. Wicketkeeping is a problem, given the number of catches McCullum drops, which hit the team hard in the match- first the Dravid Drop in the World Cup, then the drops in Headingley. The side has its problems, but can spring a surprise, as they always have.
  
• West Indies- A very aggressive and dangerous batting side, they not only have a world record holder (Lara) in their ranks, but also the powerful Chris Gayle and intelligent, partnership-building pair of Sarwan and Chanderpaul. All batsmen can hit sixes and fours in a bunch when needed. However, their defence is a weakness, so tight bowling will work agaisnt them. They are not the best runners between wickets.
  
  Their bowling has pace, but not much control. The likes of Lawson, Edwards and Best have potential, but are frequently erratic. To be honest, nobody would expect much of a Dillon-led attack- he is not that great even on helpful pitches and a target on flat ones. Pedro Collins and Drakes should not pose a threat. Collymore has a good seam position, but still a few weaknesses exist. Without pace, they are useless. The bits-and-pieces bowlers, except for Gayle and Dwayne Smith, are not promising. The major weakness is the fielding. A good team when they play positive, attacking cricket.

Definitely a series to look forward to.

 

[superkingdave]

This series may actually be a lot closer than one might expect, if you look at each team, its strengths, weaknesses and present form.

• England[/bThe bowling, in ODI's is not that great. Gough is still the best, but he is short of form. Against an aggressive batting lineup, the pace attack, especially Gough, go for a lot of runs, but the old hero is still effective in the final overs. Harmison's form in Tests should carry on in ODI's, since he is on form England's best bowler. Anderson is nothing special, since he cannot maintain a good start. Flintoff has to maintain a better line and length, than bowl so many wide deliveries and short ones. Lesser seen of Kirtley and Saggers, the better- they are totally useless on flat pitches. Read's wicketkeeping will help the bowling side a lot. Giles can't do much- he hasn't turned the ball since the tour of SL. The fielding is good only in patches, but Vaughan, Harmison and Giles are weak links. Ultimately, a good team playing at home.
  

• 
  
  How can you say Flintoff needs a better line and length? He's been Englands best bowler for a while and was THE most economical bowler of all in the world cup!
  
  Also Mark my words Anderson IS Special

 

[Arjun]

How can you say Flintoff needs a better line and length? He's been Englands best bowler for a while and was THE most economical bowler of all in the world cup!

In ODI's, especially in WI, he was not the most accurate- a few meat deliveries were still bowled. As for the World Cup, the figures were helped by that 1/15 in that match against India- against whom he has done well. Economy is not everything- he also has to take wickets. He has a good average (26-odd), but has no 5-wicket hauls. Hopefully he will have 2 in this series.

Also Mark my words Anderson IS Special

The Anderson fan club. May the tribe increase.

 

[tooextracool]

The next 3 lack both striking power and staying power and are not up to the mark.

the next 3?flintoff and collingwood lack striking power and staying power?

However, the likes of Blackwell and Solanki (not in the side), who are aggressive, can come useful, especially againt bits-and-pieces middle overs bowlers. Flintoff is a dangerous batsman, since his hard hitting can change the course of a match.

Read's batting is a gamble, it may not come off all the time.

considering he bats at 7 or 8 i dont see the problem with that.....i do hope that the selectors stick with read for the ODIs because he hasnt really done anything wrong yet and is capable of stop-start innings(can hit ball 1 out of the park).

Flintoff has to maintain a better line and length, than bowl so many wide deliveries and short ones..

you obviously havent seen much of flintoff's bowling have you?
just looking at some of his performances over the last year....
average E/R
world cup 20.00 2.88
natwest challenge18.20 3.25
natwest series 18.10 3.81
west indies 31.20 4.46(best amongst the fast bowlers in that series)

so does a bowler come up with figures like that bowling short and wide?show me better stats than that in ODIs!

 

[tooextracool]

Also Mark my words Anderson IS Special

no wonder he cant make his way into the test side.... oh commone now not living on his performances on those seamer friendly wickets.....until he does something about his pace and accuracy he will struggle to make his way into either side

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Their bowling has pace, but not much control. The likes of Lawson, Edwards and Best have potential, but are frequently erratic. To be honest, nobody would expect much of a Dillon-led attack- he is not that great even on helpful pitches and a target on flat ones. Pedro Collins and Drakes should not pose a threat. Collymore has a good seam position, but still a few weaknesses exist. Without pace, they are useless. The bits-and-pieces bowlers, except for Gayle and Dwayne Smith, are not promising. The major weakness is the fielding. A good team when they play positive, attacking cricket.

1. Gayle is one of the best ODI allrounders in the world. His record (84 wickets @ 29.53, 39 SR, 4.53 econ) is outstanding for an opening batsman who bowls a bit. How can you say it's not promising? Also, Dwayne Smith has been very impressive with the ball in limited opportunity. Clearly you haven't seen him.
2. Edwards would still be effective on a slower pitch in England because he swings the ball so profusely.
3. Best is not as off-target as you'd think.
4. Clearly you're making judgements on Collins without having seen him bowl lately. Collins has been outstanding and I wish he were in the ODI squad.
5. The West Indies ODI fielding has been much much better in recent times, due to the addition of Dwayne Smith and Dwayne Bravo to complement the already sharp Ricardo Powell.

Overall I think you have the jist of the West Indian situation, but the individual points are a bit misguided.

 

[Nate]

a full strength kiwi side would beat the poms IMO but now with all their injuries... i dunno!!

new zealand
then
england
then
west indies

thats my guess anywhoo. the cool thing is it could so easily be in the reverse order... should be a great, close series.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Flintoff has to maintain a better line and length, than bowl so many wide deliveries and short ones.

Do you watch cricket at all? Flintoff is perhaps the most accurate ODI bowler in world cricket. You don't get an economy rate of 4.22 and an average of 25.08 gifted to you.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In ODI's, especially in WI, he was not the most accurate- a few meat deliveries were still bowled. As for the World Cup, the figures were helped by that 1/15 in that match against India- against whom he has done well. Economy is not everything- he also has to take wickets. He has a good average (26-odd), but has no 5-wicket hauls. Hopefully he will have 2 in this series.

Every bowler bowls a bad delivery here and there, but I assure you that Flintoff was very accurate in the series in the West Indies. You seem to be judging him purely on stats, not on situation and actual performance.

 

[tooextracool]

In ODI's, especially in WI, he was not the most accurate- a few meat deliveries were still bowled..

yet he was the best fast bowler in that series...

Economy is not everything- he also has to take wickets. He has a good average (26-odd), but has no 5-wicket hauls. Hopefully he will have 2 in this series.

i would much rather have a bowler who takes 1/26 in 10 overs than someone who takes 4/60 in 10 in ODIs. E/R is just about as important in ODIs, especially considering how flat ODI pitches are these days.despite that he does have 3 4fers in his career already....not too bad at all

 

[Nate]

yea agreed, everytime ive seen andy bowl in one-dayers hes been spot-on. now for tests...

 

[tooextracool]

1. Gayle is one of the best ODI allrounders in the world. His record (84 wickets @ 29.53, 39 SR, 4.53 econ) is outstanding for an opening batsman who bowls a bit. How can you say it's not promising? Also, Dwayne Smith has been very impressive with the ball in limited opportunity. Clearly you haven't seen him.

he did say "except for gayle and dwayne smith" though....
im guessing hes looking for around 4-5 promising part time bowlers in each side

 

[Nate]

actually mate, gimmee 4/60 off 10 anyday!! taking wickets is the best way to slow the run-rate. if a team is only on 150 odd after 35-40 overs and only a few wickets down then they are gunna go the tonk and get a decent score! you need wickets - tests and one-dayers

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

he did say "except for gayle and dwayne smith" though....
im guessing hes looking for around 4-5 promising part time bowlers in each side

Sarwan has some potential .

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

actually mate, gimmee 4/60 off 10 anyday!! taking wickets is the best way to slow the run-rate. if a team is only on 150 odd after 35-40 overs and only a few wickets down then they are gunna go the tonk and get a decent score! you need wickets - tests and one-dayers

But if the bowlers bowl at 2.6 per over for 35-40 overs, the score will be far from 150odd and the eventual score will settle at 130.

 

[Nate]

yea true, but i wait for the day when either a team of bowlers can consistently bowl and that econ. rate or when a batting team let the bowlers have their way... which unless they are bangladesh or the like, doesnt look like happening

 

[Nate]

and 4/60 plus 4/60 plus 2/30
equals
all out for 150... not bad at all

 

[tooextracool]

and 4/60 plus 4/60 plus 2/30
equals
all out for 150... not bad at all

and 1/26 * 5 = 130 in 50 overs