***Official England in India***

[GIMH]

If it wasn't such a forlorn thing to be doing, I'd not be against sending in Swann and Broad to open. At least when they regularly did poorly it wouldn't be that much of a disappointment because it'd be so heavily expected.

Yeah, let's do this, we are already batting batsmen at 8 so why not stick bowlers at 1 and 2

 

[Richard]

Haha, can you imagine:
Broad
Swann
Bell
Pietersen
Bopara
Collingwood
Flintoff
Shah
Patel
Prior
Anderson \ Harmison

How ridiculous would that be?

 

[FBU]

So it looks like Saj Mahmood won't play for England again after all, false alarm!

That was close.
Looks like Vaughan is a selector as well

'At 11.15 that night our head coach David Parsons called me to his room in the stadium. England wanted a replacement for Stuart Broad who had pulled up with a hamstring, and someone else in case Fred (Andrew Flintoff) was rested from one of the last two one-dayers ahead of the Test series.

We came up with Sajid Mahmood and Amjad Khan, although it might have been a chance for Adil Rashid, because he's young and exciting and at 5-0 down you have to try and find some positives.'

 

[Richard]

Dunno whether the idea that Amjad Khan was in the frame was more or less worrying than that Mahmood was picked.

 

[gettingbetter]

How often did Khan play CC last season?

 

[Richard]

Not much. Seem to remember he played 1 game mid-July or so, then 2 or 3 toward the very end of the season.

 

[FBU]

Khan
2006 - 9 matches
2007 - 0
2008 - 6 - 145.1 overs

a bit like Simon Jones

2006 - 1
2007 - 4
2008 - 9 - 211 overs

 

[Rant0r]

I'm not really enough of a footy fan to know much about that. However, the silly thing is, the sudden change at the last minute - picking Nixon - in the end was a decision that had some things going for it; the wicketkeeper situation had gone badly wrong with those (or he) they'd been thinking for 3 years would be playing in the Cup.

What annoyed me was that Geraint Jones played for 2 years, because he should never, ever have played a ODI, and once he got in it was hard for an utterly convincing case to be made for him to be got out again.

I wasn't terribly enamoured with Nixon getting the gig ahead of Read in 2006/07, and I'd still have preferred Read to have been given the go. But Nixon's case was solid, and he ended-up justifying the faith shown in him.

I just wish Read had never been dropped in 2004. Had that one mistake not been made, it's possible we'd never have been scrabbling around for the wicketkeeper at the last minute, though all other positions would've been unaffected.

yeah i'm a bit of a purist, put the best keeper in even if his batting isn't gilchristrian, he can improve, they killed read, his batting was stout enough to be handy, and by far the best keeper going round, he improved england so much when they dropped jones

Haha, can you imagine:
Broad
Swann
Bell
Pietersen
Bopara
Collingwood
Flintoff
Shah
Patel
Prior
Anderson \ Harmison

How ridiculous would that be?

broad can bat like a mother ****er, got something good from his old man, luckily it wasn't his personality, i think he will end up a genuine allrounder, but probably not an opener.

something about sajid mahmood makes me feel he is an ordinary cricketer, can bowl a bit and hit a ball, but just an ordinary cricketer, little things like fielding, getting back behind the stumps, one percenters etc, it's like he was dragged out of the same shack that ntini came from and taught the game

 

[Richard]

yeah i'm a bit of a purist, put the best keeper in even if his batting isn't gilchristrian, he can improve, they killed read, his batting was stout enough to be handy, and by far the best keeper going round, he improved england so much when they dropped jones

I do care greatly about batting. Thing is, Read is almost certainly the best one-day batsman of all wicketkeepers in this country. Only Ambrose and (though this has only been the case for a season) Davies are possibly as good.

Based on batting, Read should never have been dropped. Read > Jones as a one-day batsman, easily.

broad can bat like a mother ****er, got something good from his old man, luckily it wasn't his personality, i think he will end up a genuine allrounder, but probably not an opener.

I don't think he'll make that much of an opener, was merely saying that by opening with him you're at least not conferring any great expectations on the player.

something about sajid mahmood makes me feel he is an ordinary cricketer, can bowl a bit and hit a ball, but just an ordinary cricketer, little things like fielding, getting back behind the stumps, one percenters etc, it's like he was dragged out of the same shack that ntini came from and taught the game

Eh? Mahmood is a terrible player, full-stop. Easily the worst player I've ever seen play for England in my admittedly relatively short span.

 

[pskov]

broad can bat like a mother ****er, got something good from his old man, luckily it wasn't his personality, i think he will end up a genuine allrounder, but probably not an opener.[

Wasn't a certain left-handed West Indian originally picked as a bowler and batted at 9 on his debut? One can dream...

 

[tooextracool]

If it wasn't such a forlorn thing to be doing, I'd not be against sending in Swann and Broad to open. At least when they regularly did poorly it wouldn't be that much of a disappointment because it'd be so heavily expected.

What on earth is the point of not wanting to open with Pietersen and Flintoff when if Broad and Swann opened, they would be in during the first 10-15 overs anyways?
ODI cricket is more about just the number of the position in which you bat in. People seem to obsess about oh Pietersen must bat at 3 only or 4 only because of his brilliant record in such position. However, this makes little sense if he is essentially in in the first 10 overs anyways. This isnt superstition we are talking about here, players succeed in one postion over another because more often than not they bat in the sort of situation in which they are most comfortable with.

 

[Richard]

Wasn't a certain left-handed West Indian originally picked as a bowler and batted at 9 on his debut? One can dream...

Sobers had always been a bowler though. Broad has actually always been a batsman - IIRR only started bowling seriously at the age of 16 or something like that. Seems he let his batting go in the interim, which is a bit of a shame. Since he's started taking it seriously again it's clear he's not bad at all.

But no, I don't see Broad being quarter of the batsman Sobers was TBH. He's arguably the second-best there's ever been.

(And yes, I realise you weren't really exactly expecting such a thing)

 

[Richard]

What on earth is the point of not wanting to open with Pietersen and Flintoff when if Broad and Swann opened, they would be in during the first 10-15 overs anyways?
ODI cricket is more about just the number of the position in which you bat in. People seem to obsess about oh Pietersen must bat at 3 only or 4 only because of his brilliant record in such position. However, this makes little sense if he is essentially in in the first 10 overs anyways. This isnt superstition we are talking about here, players succeed in one postion over another because more often than not they bat in the sort of situation in which they are most comfortable with.

In ODIs, not opening can essentially be described as not batting within the first 5-6 overs. I'd imagine a wicket falls within this timespan if not more often than not then certainly very close to 50% of the time.

Also, there's the mental aspects to consider. Opening - striding out at the very start - conveys certain expectations. Sometimes it's the inability to cope with this more than lack of technique to deal with the brand-new ball that causes players who possess most of the capability required to open the batting to fail to do the job.

 

[Furball]

If Davies keeps up his form into next season (average 49, strike rate 112) then he's a shoe in for an opener's slot.

 

[Furball]

Interestingly, according to cricinfo England have actually outscored India in the first 15 overs during this series.

 

[tooextracool]

Thanks in no small part due to Collingwood, Pietersen and Flintoff's plodding around. Saying that, the bowlers have certainly been more responsible for the series result than the batters have.

 

[Rant0r]

I do care greatly about batting. Thing is, Read is almost certainly the best one-day batsman of all wicketkeepers in this country. Only Ambrose and (though this has only been the case for a season) Davies are possibly as good.

Based on batting, Read should never have been dropped. Read > Jones as a one-day batsman, easily.

I don't think he'll make that much of an opener, was merely saying that by opening with him you're at least not conferring any great expectations on the player.

Eh? Mahmood is a terrible player, full-stop. Easily the worst player I've ever seen play for England in my admittedly relatively short span.[/QUOTE

have to correct you read >>>>>>>>>>jones/prior/anyone

and i've seen mahmood bowl some jaffers, think he was taught the game late however, back to the boxing ring for him

 

[Richard]

have to correct you read >>>>>>>>>>jones/prior/anyone

You don't need to correct me, I'm well aware of it. However, only Nixon of others was picked ahead of Read, and while that's a decision I'd not have made, it wasn't as bad as those to select Jones and, more recently, Prior and Mustard.

and i've seen mahmood bowl some jaffers, think he was taught the game late however, back to the boxing ring for him

I've seen myself bowl some jaffas too. However, I'm never going to come remotely close to international standard and nor is Sajid Mahmood.

 

[Rant0r]

You don't need to correct me, I'm well aware of it. However, only Nixon of others was picked ahead of Read, and while that's a decision I'd not have made, it wasn't as bad as those to select Jones and, more recently, Prior and Mustard.

I've seen myself bowl some jaffas too. However, I'm never going to come remotely close to international standard and nor is Sajid Mahmood.

nixon wasn't too bad, but why wait til he was 36 ?

i still think prior has the ability to improve his keeping and be the mainstay, someone re-hire jack russell to fix him.

i didn't see a hell of a lot of ambrose last year, looked neat, any opinions ? there seems to be a lot of opinions about prior/read/nixon/jones/mustard/davies but not much on ambrose ?

what's kepler wessels young fella like ? if nothing else he should inherit some steel, interestingly he could probably play for one of 3 countries

 

[Richard]

nixon wasn't too bad, but why wait til he was 36 ?

Because he was 33 when Alec Stewart retired and the hope was that someone who could be around for rather longer than he was ever likely to be would be a better replacement. It was only after all faith was lost in Read (and Jones' substandardness had become glaringly apparent) that he was given a go. It was only ever going to be a short-term role and it was one he performed admirably.

i still think prior has the ability to improve his keeping and be the mainstay, someone re-hire jack russell to fix him.

Even if he does, his batting isn't good enough for ODIs. Prior's mentor is Alec Stewart rather than Jack Russell, he was more Geraint Jones.

I'm yet to be convinced Prior's even the best batsman of the county wicketkeepers in the longer game either.

i didn't see a hell of a lot of ambrose last year, looked neat, any opinions ? there seems to be a lot of opinions about prior/read/nixon/jones/mustard/davies but not much on ambrose ?

Ambrose is a perfectly decent wicketkeeper and IMO a potentially excellent batsman. Sadly he hasn't scored what he should be doing in his Tests so far.

what's kepler wessels young fella like ? if nothing else he should inherit some steel, interestingly he could probably play for one of 3 countries

Riki Wessels is a below-average county player, not even first-choice at his own team. Niall O'Brien is considerably better.