***Official England in India***

[Richard]

In saying that though, you guys must admit that the bloke has been unlucky not to play an ODI after the WC, where he was England's best bowler.

In 3 games he took 9-50-4 (which flattered him, needless to say), 9.2-60-0 and 4.2-49-0.

Paints its own picture IMO.

Flintoff was easily England's best WC bowler, as one might expect.

Mahmood was rightly dumped after the Cup, having never remotely merited his selection ITFP. He has bowled 20 spells in ODIs for England. 12 of these 20 can legitimately be described as among the worst you can expect to see. That's 3\5ths. And only 3 which were anything less than poor.

I honestly had thought we'd seen the last of him. It's depressing that the same mistakes, which are among the worst mistakes ever made by any selection committee, are being repeated.

 

[gettingbetter]

Why? As I've said, I don't shy from giving credit where it's due, and this is far beyond anything Shah had ever achieved before.

I don't expect it to last, any more than any shorter spell of good form of his has done, but that's how things are. Right now, for the first time in his career, Shah actually merits a place in the England ODI side.

Why. Mainly because you are inconsistent with your policy upon players who have a poor first stint. As I've mentioned before, I've used the examples of Flintoff and a few other players to highlight that players should be given second chances.

 

[Richard]

If players deserve a second chance a good start is to have deserved your first one.

Mahmood has deserved neither nor come close.

 

[Langeveldt]

If players deserve a second chance a good start is to have deserved your first one.

Mahmood has deserved neither nor come close.

Tell you someone who does deserve a second chance, 36 or not.. Mal Loye

 

[Richard]

Nah, he doesn't. Woeful form last season, and at 36 he's not going to be playing in WC2011. Pointless picking players in ODIs who're not going to be around for the next Cup IMO, and it's one of the few philosophies the selectors actually see some sense on.

 

[GIMH]

Didn't he have a crack at the ICL as well?

 

[Langeveldt]

Nah, he doesn't. Woeful form last season, and at 36 he's not going to be playing in WC2011. Pointless picking players in ODIs who're not going to be around for the next Cup IMO, and it's one of the few philosophies the selectors actually see some sense on.

Hate the idea of 'playing for the next world cup'.. England do sod all in World Cups anyway, and it just means picking players who aren't ready at the moment, so they end up in a viscious circle of losses and poor morale..

 

[Richard]

Didn't he have a crack at the ICL as well?

Couldn't have done, surely? Else Lancs would've released him.

 

[Richard]

Hate the idea of 'playing for the next world cup'.. England do sod all in World Cups anyway, and it just means picking players who aren't ready at the moment, so they end up in a viscious circle of losses and poor morale..

I don't like picking players who aren't ready yet (especially as many of those concerned never will be) but nor do I like picking those who won't be ready in however-many-years-time-the-next-Cup-is.

The fact England have done sod-all in recent WCs doesn't mean anyone should give-up trying BTW.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

England's idea of planning for a World Cup is to pick a string of inadequate wicketkeepers for three years then select a 36 who's never played before when the time comes.

 

[GIMH]

It's the same in football tbh, spend 4 years playing 4-4-2, then a week before the tournament, oooh how about Gerrard as second striker? And during the tournament, well all the cool kids are playing 4-5-1 so why don't we? The truth is we're a joke.

 

[aussie]

Damnn, India is is on fire. The consolation for me is that pretty much every other team would have gotten this beating except for Australia.

This series will help England a great deal come 2011.

 

[GIMH]

you reckon?

 

[silentstriker]

you reckon?

It's possible that they'll exhaust every possible way to lose and thus start winning.

 

[GIMH]

Indeed, it happened in Australia last year!

 

[weldone]

Damnn, India is is on fire. The consolation for me is that pretty much every other team would have gotten this beating except for Australia.

This series will help England a great deal come 2011.

And probably Sri Lanka? Remember since Mendis and Murali started playing together they're almost unbeatable on spinning tracks...

 

[aussie]

England's idea of planning for a World Cup is to pick a string of inadequate wicketkeepers for three years then select a 36 who's never played before when the time comes.

Don't expect that to happen again, between now & 2011 its been Prior, Foster & Davies to be the ODI side's number 1.

It's the same in football tbh, spend 4 years playing 4-4-2, then a week before the tournament, oooh how about Gerrard as second striker? And during the tournament, well all the cool kids are playing 4-5-1 so why don't we? The truth is we're a joke.

Lol, i'd say Sven idea's were pretty good. Gerrard could have played as a second he does it for Liverpool all the time. Its just that at that stage of his tenure as gaffer it was clear he couldn't get the best out of the players on the pitch.

you reckon?.

Yea, you could probably say SRI with the M duo may have been able to tie them down a bit but the end result would have still been the same.

Plus if such an experience in Indian contions plus a probably CT visit to PAK doesn't improve these guys ability on the sub-continent conditions something will be very wrong.

 

[Richard]

It's the same in football tbh, spend 4 years playing 4-4-2, then a week before the tournament, oooh how about Gerrard as second striker? And during the tournament, well all the cool kids are playing 4-5-1 so why don't we? The truth is we're a joke.

Nah, not the same at all TBH, they spend 2 years trying (and failing sometimes) to qualify for the things. And the 2 years in between trying to qualify for the Euro Championship.

 

[Richard]

Don't expect that to happen again, between now & 2011 its been Prior, Foster & Davies to be the ODI side's number 1.

No-one expected it to happen 2003-2007 either, but it did. Why did it? Because they dropped the best man for the job despite him doing little wrong, not once but twice, and picked an inferior batsman and gloveman in Geraint Jones.

Now they're repeating the errors, with Prior and Mustard, neither of whom are close to ODI-class batsmen, never mind the fact Prior is a poor wicketkeeper and Mustard adaquete at best. Plus Ambrose for all of 5 games, which is nowhere near long enough however poor he was on the 3 occasions, or whatever it was, he got the chance to bat. Foster is exceptionally unlikely to be a batsman who's going to offer much worth in ODIs either. We can only hope Davies might solve the problem, because no-one else is very likely to. And if he's going to he'll have to bat no lower than five.

 

[Uppercut]

**** Mahmood to play ODI cricket once more

Also, Sehwag kicks ass at ODIs at this moment in time, in spite of his past record. And to repeat what i said at the end of England's innings, i've never watched a KP innings before and ended up thinking he failed to score quickly enough.