***Official*** England in India

[silentstriker]

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

So that makes Pathan a better ODI bowler than the entire English bowlnig line up... You can't have it both ways. Either Pathan is a champion bowler (largely off the minnows), or he isn't.

Not to mention, by the stats, Pathan is a better Test bowler than Flintoff too. And I have never known anyone anywhere even thinking about that possibility.

 

[steds]

Not to mention, by the stats, Pathan is a better Test bowler than Flintoff

Pathan has stats on his side. Fred with the judgement of people with common sense on his. Only one way to settle this:

googlefight.com

 

[atichon]

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".

How dare you compare Bangladesh with Derbyshire. Derbyshire are having a bad patch or a bad year or a bad decade but they will come good (one day)

 

[Sanz]

Pathan has stats on his side. Fred with the judgement of people with common sense on his. Only one way to settle this:

googlefight.com

Turns our Salma Hayek is a better bowler than flintoff.

googlefight.com

 

[aussie]

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.

Your idea of dropping Vaughan is fair. But realistically i would be really tough for it to happen but we'll see.

Refering to the side thentop 6 is just about right, only debate is whether Bell is the right man for number 3, blokes like Shah or even an Ed Joyce could come in their. Read should be keeping he showed has showed in his international career that he could be devastating at the death & we all know how good his glovework is.

I'd keep Blackwell even if Gilo does come back sine i am a fan of his & i believe with his bowling doing well this winter once his batting can click he be a very good bloke to have.

The three seamers for me should be Harmison, Jones & Anderson. Jones showed breifly during the natwest series he could be a good death bowler along with Flintoff, while Anderson is the wicket-taker while Harmy has shown enough that he can cut it in OD cricket. Finally i'd let Tres be captain just to let Freddie concentrate on his game since he already England most valuable player.

So the best XI:
Trescothick
Strauss
Bell - for now
Pietersen
Flintoff
Collingwood
Blackwell
Read
Harmison
Jones
Anderson

 

[luckyeddie]

So that makes Pathan a better ODI bowler than the entire English bowlnig line up... You can't have it both ways. Either Pathan is a champion bowler (largely off the minnows), or he isn't.

Not to mention, by the stats, Pathan is a better Test bowler than Flintoff too. And I have never known anyone anywhere even thinking about that possibility.

I don't want it 'both ways' at all. I just don't think that statistics are the sole judge of the abilities of a cricketer.

The problem with the comparison you are trying to make is that statistics are all that Pathan has got.

 

[aussie]

Why should you care what happened?

what happen man, ya like me or something?, why you always got to pick up on every little thing i say. For a big man you behave like a real little girl.

 

[steds]

Turns our Salma Hayek is a better bowler than flintoff.

googlefight.com

What about this one?

 

[Timewell]

How dare you compare Bangladesh with Derbyshire. Derbyshire are having a bad patch or a bad year or a bad decade but they will come good (one day)

Calm down! Did you not read the bit, in an earlier or perhaps later post, where I said that Bangladesh have huge potential?

 

[Timewell]

I don't want it 'both ways' at all. I just don't think that statistics are the sole judge of the abilities of a cricketer.

The problem with the comparison you are trying to make is that statistics are all that Pathan has got.

Quite correct too and, finally, someone has the common sense to see that disregarding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from statistics is stupid. As you say, statistics are NOT the sole judge of the abilities of a cricketer.

 

[Anil]

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

whether anyone advocates it or not...in all honesty, do they count? if you say yes, why? zimbabwe just doesn't have a team worth mentioning and bangladesh might have a competitive one day side maybe two years from now....just maybe????

 

[marc71178]

what happen man, ya like me or something?, why you always got to pick up on every little thing i say. For a big man you behave like a real little girl.

You're not an England supporter, so stop claiming disappointment when they lose.

 

[luckyeddie]

whether anyone advocates it or not...in all honesty, do they count? if you say yes, why? zimbabwe just doesn't have a team worth mentioning and bangladesh might have a competitive one day side maybe two years from now....just maybe????

Simple answer?

Yes.

Because someone is always the worst team in the world, and if you go down the road of arbitrarily eliminating statistics you don't want, you might as well buy into Richard's 'First chance whilst wearing blue underpants in that innings average' rot.

 

[Anil]

Simple answer?

Yes.

Because someone is always the worst team in the world, and if you go down the road of arbitrarily eliminating statistics you don't want, you might as well buy into Richard's 'First chance whilst wearing blue underpants in that innings average' rot.

i am not arbitrarily eliminating anything but the answer is not so simple you know....there is a significant difference between being the worst team(s) in the world and being pathetically non-competitive and out of place.....

 

[Timewell]

Like I said, when Bangladesh beat Australia - did their runs and wickets count then? If so, then I'm only going to count runs when people make centuries because single figures are just rubbish - and you don't count rubbish now do you?

 

[kvemuri]

Harbhajan has proved his CW detractors wrong

I will take that one, yep I was and still am his detractor, full credit to him he bowled and batted (why do i get a funny feeling its not a word) very well and deserved MOTM. Having said that he needs to perform consistently to prove this detractor of his wrong, a one hit wonder won't do.

 

[kvemuri]

Finally there are a huge majority who have absolutely no clue as to how to tackle the turning ball and resort to a horizontal sweep of the willow in the fond hope that somewhere along the line the blade will come in contact with the ball.

Most English batsmen have traditionally fallen in this category.

As is the case there for Viru with his penchant to get out to a short ball. Has no clue how to deal with a short rising ball. I wonder how he will get out at Faridabad to a short ball of course. hmmm..wonder should i start a poll on how he will get out caught in slips, caught at third man, caught at mid wkt or just for the sake of variety caught behind.

 

[kvemuri]

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

Bingo!

 

[Goughy]

A test batting average is exactly that- an average of runs scored in a test career. This obviously includes Zim and Bang as they are Test nations. It is a figure that defines a fact and nothing else. Too often too much is read into it.

Test Av. is not an automatic measure of quality and ability. It can be used as a measure of who is the best player but it is flawed and not the most accurate. For example other methods such as the ICC player rankings attempt to do this more accurately than just using the average.

The only way to have a proper analysis is to compare like for like. Whilst all test teams are different standards, Zim and Bang are so far behind their inclusion in an analysis of a player is not appropriate. The difference between 1 and 8 (Aus and WI) is not as great as the difference between 8 and 9.

Like for like is very important as with having a large sample size and having all sources of data come from a reasonably similar standard.

Zim and Bang data should also be left out of numbers when comparing modern players to those of the past (never a good idea but often done). As Z&B (quicker that way) are so much weaker, than any opponent the older guys would have faced, then to include them would make a serious 'like for like' comparision impossible.

So my conclusion, Z&B are test countries and obviously their stats should be included in test averages however, a test av. is not the best assessment of how good a player is and when serious consideration is given to the topic Z&B must be excluded as their inclusion clouds the data.

Stats like cigarettes should come with a safety warning. There are bad stats and good stats and understanding their role is important in drawing any conclusions or patterns.

I mean seriously, if we took test average (during the Z&B age) as the judge of a players ability then Anthony McGrath is the greatest England allrounder in history (40 with bat 14 with the ball).

A serious evaluation involves using meaningful and comparable data. Including Z&B prevents that.

 

[adharcric]

Stats like cigarettes should come with a safety warning. There are bad stats and good stats and understanding their role is important in drawing any conclusions or patterns.

Lovely analogy mate. Well said and well thought out post.