***Official*** England in India

[wpdavid]

Collingwood averages around 30 and if I could be bothered to filter it out his bowling economy rate would be reasonable (I know it was mid 4s when I worked it out for the last year, about 6 months ago). Trescothick averages just under 35. Given the positions they bat and their roles in the team there's nothing wrong with those. The only conclusion remains that you're either mistaken, which I doubt because you're being pig-headed or you're simply biased - I'll leave it to you to choose which.

If you take out the Bang & Zim games, as we always do, I'd be amazed if Colly averaged 30 against real sides over the last 2 years. Likewise Tres & 35. If I'm wrong, then fair enough. I'll look it up later if you don't have time to.

But I have to ask, exactly what is this supposed "bias" against?

EDIT
Turns out that Tres & Colly average nearer 25 & 20 respectively against proper sides over the last 2 years.

 

[Timewell]

But the fact of the matter remains that they're still ODI sides and the games played against them still count as ODIs! So you cannot really say that they're not a "proper" side! They are a "proper" side, they're just not that good yet! You can only beat what you come up against! Plus, I think that Bangladesh have enormous potential with some great young talent and winning easily against them, at the moment, should not be taken for granted!

 

[silentstriker]

But the fact of the matter remains that they're still ODI sides and the games played against them still count as ODIs! So you cannot really say that they're not a "proper" side! They are a "proper" side, they're just not that good yet! You can only beat what you come up against! Plus, I think that Bangladesh have enormous potential with some great young talent and winning easily against them, at the moment, should not be taken for granted!

No, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe do not count. Otherwise, Tendulkar isn't really in a funk, and Pathan is a champion bowler.

 

[Jono]

But the fact of the matter remains that they're still ODI sides and the games played against them still count as ODIs! So you cannot really say that they're not a "proper" side! They are a "proper" side, they're just not that good yet! You can only beat what you come up against! Plus, I think that Bangladesh have enormous potential with some great young talent and winning easily against them, at the moment, should not be taken for granted!

With all due respect mate, its the norm to remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe when discussing figures and stats. Its just what you have to do in modern day cricket. I agree, Bangladesh are showing plenty of potential but that's not really the point. No matter who you are looking at, when trying to prove a point regarding someone's stats, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are always taken out to show more accurate view of how they have done.

Otherwise if you include Bangladesh, Tendulkar's test record recently isn't that bad, Pathan is one of the best bowlers in the world and Bell is a brilliant test player. Whilst stats may show this, it's obviously misleading.

 

[Jono]

No, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe do not count. Otherwise, Tendulkar isn't really in a funk, and Pathan is a champion bowler.

Lol seems you got there before me.

 

[fishyguy]

ARGG!! What is wrong with England. Couldnt chase 204 down!

All out for 164! Once again Pietersen and Flintoff showing any kind of resistance with the bat in ODI.

They'll have to pick up their batting big time.

 

[marc71178]

what the hell happpened in Delhi?, i left home this morning at 8:35 for school with KP & Freddie in full cry now i'm in school check go on cricinfo to see England lose by 39 runs , dalm..

Why should you care what happened?

 

[Timewell]

With all due respect mate, its the norm to remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe when discussing figures and stats. Its just what you have to do in modern day cricket. I agree, Bangladesh are showing plenty of potential but that's not really the point. No matter who you are looking at, when trying to prove a point regarding someone's stats, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are always taken out to show more accurate view of how they have done.

Otherwise if you include Bangladesh, Tendulkar's test record recently isn't that bad, Pathan is one of the best bowlers in the world and Bell is a brilliant test player. Whilst stats may show this, it's obviously misleading.

So whenever you hear a commentator talking about someone's average or the average is displayed on screen during a match - does it say "excluding matches involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe"? No. Tell me, when Bangladesh win - does it count then?

When sides play Derbyshire, they don't say "Oh don't count the runs I score in this game" because they know that all runs count! People can play poorly against a "poor" side and everyone will be all over them saying how they "should have done better, they're playing Bangladesh" but when someone plays well it's "Oh...it was only against Bangladesh".

Consistency is the key!

 

[steds]

Why should you care what happened?

Why do you care that he cares dawg?

If you must know, all de other kids in that their ghetto. They support India, 'cause they beat England in the second test, so they must be better. So, aussie keeps track of the score so he can laugh at the rest of the Newton Heath massiv and how there team lost to England. Would never happen to Asutralia. That's why he supports them.

 

[Jono]

So whenever you hear a commentator talking about someone's average or the average is displayed on screen during a match - does it say "excluding matches involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe"? No. Tell me, when Bangladesh win - does it count then?

When sides play Derbyshire, they don't say "Oh don't count the runs I score in this game" because they know that all runs count! People can play poorly against a "poor" side and everyone will be all over them saying how they "should have done better, they're playing Bangladesh" but when someone plays well it's "Oh...it was only against Bangladesh".

Consistency is the key!

I'll tell you what Timewell, you argue a good case. And you're right, it is inconsistent, but I think there's a case when players DO NOT perform against the best quality teams often enough but only perform against the minnows. Now my input in this argument has nothing to do with whether the English ODI players mentioned (Tresco, Collingwood, Strauss) are doing this, particularly since I really rate Collingwood in ODIs, but my main point is that on this board, it is the norm to remove Bang and Zim figures (particularly in test cricket, but in both forms of the game still) from a player's career stats to give a more accurate display of just how well they are doing.

Seriously, think about how skewed Pathan's test career record looks with him absolutely annihilating Bangladesh and Zimbabwe but struggling against most other teams. If you just looked at his average now, you'd think he's a very very good bowler and if you looked at it around 6 months ago you'd think he was legitimately the next Akram or something. He had a test bowling average of something like 24 or 25. Very misleading.

 

[Jono]

Anywho, this IMO is England's Best ODI XI. It is when everyone is fit of course (Except Giles, I'm making the assumption he doesn't return to ODI cricket, if he returns to int'l cricket at all).

Tresco (c)?
Strauss
Bell
Pietersen
Flintoff (c)?
Collingwood
Prior (wk) - Could open him and drop Strauss if desired, and slot in Cook or Shah or whomever
Blackwell (I reckon he's decent enough for ODI cricket)
Plunkett/Simon Jones (When he eventually returns, he probably deserves more chances to improve his current record)
Harmison
Anderson

There's 6 legitimate bowling options there, and I guess Bell can be used if needed. Geraint is gone because he's crap. Also Vaughan should go, and when he returns from his knee injury he should retire from ODIs for his benefit as well as England's chances in the ODI arena. Tresco or Freddy can captain.

If I've missed something huge then feel free to criticise.

 

[Francis]

England need Hershelle Gibbs! He recently scored more than England did!

 

[silentstriker]

So whenever you hear a commentator talking about someone's average or the average is displayed on screen during a match - does it say "excluding matches involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe"? No. Tell me, when Bangladesh win - does it count then?

When sides play Derbyshire, they don't say "Oh don't count the runs I score in this game" because they know that all runs count! People can play poorly against a "poor" side and everyone will be all over them saying how they "should have done better, they're playing Bangladesh" but when someone plays well it's "Oh...it was only against Bangladesh".

Consistency is the key!

So right now its:

1) Glenn McGrath
2) Irfan Pathan

in terms of best bowlers in the ODI scene (McGrath averages 22, Ifran 25).


Yay for Irfan. How long before we compare him to Marshall?

I am always consistent. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe do not count in stats. Ever. If I ever post stats including Zimbabwe and/or Bangladesh (and I did yesterday in W/L records as I wasn't sure how to exclude two countries from statsguru), then those stats decieve.

 

[luckyeddie]

If you take out the Bang & Zim games, as we always do, I'd be amazed if Colly averaged 30 against real sides over the last 2 years.

Ah, but Bangladesh beat Australia.

Should we remove scores made against them too?

Collingwood is all right in my book - tries his guts out. End of story.

 

[Sanz]

My England team for the next match :-

Strauss,
Prior,
Solanki,
Shah,
Pieterson,
Flintoff,
Collingwood,
Blackwell,
Harmison,
Anderson,
Ali

 

[Neil Pickup]

Harmison's broken

 

[wpdavid]

Ah, but Bangladesh beat Australia.

Should we remove scores made against them too?

Collingwood is all right in my book - tries his guts out. End of story.

Oh, I like him as a cricketer enormously: I just object to the unreality regarding to his (and others') contribution to our oneday side. As Scaly said, his bowling is generally fine and we all know about his fielding, but a lot of people seem to be denial about his batting, which just hasn't justified his position in the top 6 in these games. I'm not saying we should drop him. Or Tresco. But we should be a bit more real sometimes.

Quite where this all leaves us with our odious side is anyone's guess. I'd be amazed if the CC was chocka with better alternatives for the top 6, but fact is our batting has been dire for quite a while now. And to blame the non-regulars, as was happening, is just going for soft targets and ignoring the fundamental problems.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Have to give credit to the Indians for the way they bowled to our lower order, but really there's no way we should've lost from 117-3 chasing 204.

Can't really fault our bowlers' efforts, but with the some of the shots the batters perished to we were the architects of our own demise. We have guys who can at least hold a bat coming in all the way down to 10 so why was our lower-middle order still trying to force the pace?

 

[luckyeddie]

With all due respect mate, its the norm to remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe when discussing figures and stats. Its just what you have to do in modern day cricket. I agree, Bangladesh are showing plenty of potential but that's not really the point. No matter who you are looking at, when trying to prove a point regarding someone's stats, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are always taken out to show more accurate view of how they have done.

I have never known anyone anywhere other than on Cricket Web advocating such a thing.

What next - Flintoff having to remove all the times he gets Adam Gilchrist because he's his bunny?

 

[luckyeddie]

Oh, I like him as a cricketer enormously: I just object to the unreality regarding to his (and others') contribution to our oneday side. As Scaly said, his bowling is generally fine and we all know about his fielding, but a lot of people seem to be denial about his batting, which just hasn't justified his position in the top 6 in these games. I'm not saying we should drop him. Or Tresco. But we should be a bit more real sometimes.

Quite where this all leaves us with our odious side is anyone's guess. I'd be amazed if the CC was chocka with better alternatives for the top 6, but fact is our batting has been dire for quite a while now. And to blame the non-regulars, as was happening, is just going for soft targets and ignoring the fundamental problems.

I'm a great advocate of playing your best XI for all cricket, and dispensing with the idea of one-day specialists.

It's got added advantages too.

Gets Blackwell out of the side.