**Official** England in The West Indies

[marc71178]

Oh yeah someone said that WI are in the lower half of the ODI table well, so are England. England=7/ WI=8

Don't know what table you're looking at, but the ICC one has England at 5th.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

If that's so then the WI have an equal chance of winning the series with the return of BCL and some better umpiring( Sarwan).

You failed to mention the fact that Smith (i think or it might have been Joseph) was given not out by the same umpire (Dar) when he was absolutely plub LBW to Kirtley.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You failed to mention the fact that Smith (i think or it might have been Joseph) was given not out by the same umpire (Dar) when he was absolutely plub LBW to Kirtley.

True, but who would you rather have at the crease? Sarwan or Smith? Rhetorical no doubt.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

True, but who would you rather have at the crease? Sarwan or Smith? Rhetorical no doubt.

The way the West Indies are playing anyone but Lara will do me

The Sarwan one wasnt that bad a decision..yeah he nicked it but when you first see it, it looked pretty plum. The umpires cant always go on noise alone (as saw in the Lara not-out last test).

 

[tooextracool]

Collingwood's over was not whist chasing 21 runs from 2 overs with 3 wickets in hand. Big big difference.

Also, I don't know how you have the impression that England bowled so much better than the West Indies, or that the West Indies bowled poorly.

yes but im sure if england had lost by 3 runs, swervy and everyone else would have blamed it on collingwood.
no one bowler poorly for the WI but no one bowled brilliantly either like gough and flintoff did for england. kirtley,harmison,clarke and collingwood bowled utter rubbish ,while no one in the WI(bar collymores one over) did.for me the match was not decided on who batted or bowled better but on the toss. bat 2nd,know ur total,pace yourself and wait for collymore.

 

[marc71178]

yes but im sure if england had lost by 3 runs, swervy and everyone else would have blamed it on collingwood.

I would have thought it would all have been SRT's fault, everything else round here seems to be!

 

[luckyeddie]

I would have thought it would all have been SRT's fault, everything else round here seems to be!

Choker!

Hmmm. Could it become as much of a cliche as the People's Front of Judea (splitters)?

 

[garage flower]

You failed to mention the fact that Smith (i think or it might have been Joseph) was given not out by the same umpire (Dar) when he was absolutely plub LBW to Kirtley.

There's no doubt that Windies got the worst of those 2 incorrect decisions (Sarwan/Smith) and in terms of it being plumb, I think it hit him pretty much in line with off stump, in which case the ump could be forgiven for thinking it hit just outside.

Like an idiot I went out halfway through England's innings, so I'm not very well placed to comment on the match. Having said that, I thought England were well in control at that stage (they were still 1 down) and generally had the upper hand throughout the match. It sounds like they gave up a winning position with a few injudicious swipes across the line.

Windies were certainly helped by the reduction in overs, as their batting - without BCL - isn't good enough unless the 3 proven international batsmen all hit form together.

I'd pick England for both games in Trinidad, assuming Lara doesn't play, but I hope I'm wrong (which is generally a pretty safe bet).

 

[Adamc]

Windies were certainly helped by the reduction in overs, as their batting - without BCL - isn't good enough unless the 3 proven international batsmen all hit form together.

The same could easily be said of England's lineup - of Trescothick, Vaughan, Strauss, Flintoff, Collingwood, Blackwell, Clarke and Read, the only 'proven' batsmen in ODI's are Trescothick, Flintoff and arguably Collingwood.

 

[a massive zebra]

the only 'proven' batsmen in ODI's are Trescothick, Flintoff and arguably Collingwood.

Flintoff a proven batsmen in ODIs? I would not say an average of 29 makes you proven, although admitedly his style of batting is suited to this form of the game.

 

[Adamc]

'Proven' insomuch as he has performed well often enough, unlike others such as Vaughan.

 

[badgerhair]

Flintoff a proven batsmen in ODIs? I would not say an average of 29 makes you proven, although admitedly his style of batting is suited to this form of the game.

Flintoff's ODI stats since the beginning of the 2002 season (ie 2 years):

28 matches

Batting: 829 runs @ 41.45
Bowling: 41 wickets @ 20.87, Eco 3.79, SR 33.0

Over the last two years, he has proved himself to be one of the best one-day players in the world. Those who still insist on doubting it have presumably got some other axe to grind.

But generally, I do enjoy it when people use career averages to justify their misjudgements. The more people rely on career averages, the more likely they are to say ridiculous things.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[garage flower]

The same could easily be said of England's lineup - of Trescothick, Vaughan, Strauss, Flintoff, Collingwood, Blackwell, Clarke and Read, the only 'proven' batsmen in ODI's are Trescothick, Flintoff and arguably Collingwood.

I was going to mention the fact that England have a similarly unproven line-up, though I do think that - until Lara returns - Vaughan, Trescothick, Collingwood and Flintoff give them the edge. Does seem a little odd that England have sent home their best 3 batsmen from the test series. They could easily play Thorpe or Butcher in odis, presumably at the expense of either Clarke or Blackwell.

Both sides certainly look short of batting, but I'd have more confidence in the England line-up at the moment.

 

[a massive zebra]

Flintoff's ODI stats since the beginning of the 2002 season (ie 2 years):

28 matches

Batting: 829 runs @ 41.45
Bowling: 41 wickets @ 20.87, Eco 3.79, SR 33.0

Over the last two years, he has proved himself to be one of the best one-day players in the world. Those who still insist on doubting it have presumably got some other axe to grind.

But generally, I do enjoy it when people use career averages to justify their misjudgements. The more people rely on career averages, the more likely they are to say ridiculous things.

Cheers,

Mike

Excluding the Bangladesh games (they are hopeless) he has only scored 652 runs at 32.60 since 2002. Not much better than his career record. Never denied he was a good ODI bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

Does seem a little odd that England have sent home their best 3 batsmen from the test series. They could easily play Thorpe or Butcher in odis, presumably at the expense of either Clarke or Blackwell.

how many times do we have to go through this?

hussain is retired from ODIs and it wasnt like he was any good at it anyways.

thorpe too has retired from ODIs and the last thing england want to do is to increase the work load of a 34 year old whos been the best batsman we've had for over a decade.they're saving him for the ashes and if they overuse him now they might have him missing his 3rd ashes series in a row(yeah i know he played one test match in 2001 but missed the rest of the series so it doesnt count)

as far as butcher goes, the selectors dont seem to like him and are building a team for the 07 wc so FORGET ABOUT HIM.

 

[tooextracool]

Excluding the Bangladesh games (they are hopeless) he has only scored 652 runs at 32.60 since 2002. Not much better than his career record. Never denied he was a good ODI bowler.

hes worth his place in the ODI side for his bowling alone and i'll settle with 32.60 for someone who bats at no 5(usually).

 

[tooextracool]

I would have thought it would all have been SRT's fault, everything else round here seems to be!

and i never blamed anything on SRT....my point is that he always fails to finish the job thereby not making him a great batsman.

 

[garage flower]

how many times do we have to go through this?

hussain is retired from ODIs and it wasnt like he was any good at it anyways.

thorpe too has retired from ODIs and the last thing england want to do is to increase the work load of a 34 year old whos been the best batsman we've had for over a decade.they're saving him for the ashes and if they overuse him now they might have him missing his 3rd ashes series in a row(yeah i know he played one test match in 2001 but missed the rest of the series so it doesnt count)

as far as butcher goes, the selectors dont seem to like him and are building a team for the 07 wc so FORGET ABOUT HIM.

At the risk of getting myself engaged in one of the tiresome arguments you seem to enjoy, my first repsonse would be: "don't go through it then."

With regard to Thorpe, if he's retired fair enough, if not I would have thought he could manage a few ODIs in his apparent dotage.

As far as Butcher goes, I realise he's never been picked for a 1-day game and presumably never will be, but that in itself is quite odd.

I suppose my suggestion really is that more out-and-out specialist bats are required and Thorpe and Butcher are probably the best available (assuming they are available).

And posting ENTIRE WORDS IN CAPS makes you appear UNHINGED.

 

[badgerhair]

At the risk of getting myself engaged in one of the tiresome arguments you seem to enjoy, my first repsonse would be: "don't go through it then."

With regard to Thorpe, if he's retired fair enough, if not I would have thought he could manage a few ODIs in his apparent dotage.

As far as Butcher goes, I realise he's never been picked for a 1-day game and presumably never will be, but that in itself is quite odd.

I suppose my suggestion really is that more out-and-out specialist bats are required and Thorpe and Butcher are probably the best available (assuming they are available).

And posting ENTIRE WORDS IN CAPS makes you appear UNHINGED.

How many specialist bats do you think there should be in a one-day side? England have Vaughan, Trescothick, Strauss, Collingwood and Clarke. How much room is there for others after you've included five main bowlers and a keeper?

If you're going to try and weasel out of this by attempting to suggest that Clarke is an all-rounder rather than a batsman who turns his arm over, perhaps you'll do so by explaining why an all-rounder has only once bowled his full ration of overs.

And yes, for the millionth time, Thorpe has retired from one-day cricket because he thinks it's pointless and he would much prefer to be with his kids. Bringing in Butcher who is a complete novice at international one-day cricket does not seem a particularly good way of increasing the team's experience level.

So who are these out-and-out specialist batsmen who are going to magically transform the England side?


Cheers,

Mike

 

[garage flower]

How many specialist bats do you think there should be in a one-day side? England have Vaughan, Trescothick, Strauss, Collingwood and Clarke. How much room is there for others after you've included five main bowlers and a keeper?

If you're going to try and weasel out of this by attempting to suggest that Clarke is an all-rounder rather than a batsman who turns his arm over, perhaps you'll do so by explaining why an all-rounder has only once bowled his full ration of overs.

And yes, for the millionth time, Thorpe has retired from one-day cricket because he thinks it's pointless and he would much prefer to be with his kids. Bringing in Butcher who is a complete novice at international one-day cricket does not seem a particularly good way of increasing the team's experience level.

So who are these out-and-out specialist batsmen who are going to magically transform the England side?


Cheers,

Mike

Its time to reach for the Prozac Badger me old mucker. The point was that there aren't any specialist batsmen other than those mentioned.

I don't really see that there's anything to weasel out of and will ignore your rather bizarre attempt (is there a full moon tonight?) to provoke an argument around Rikki Clarke's status . I'll just simply re-iterate my view that they look a proven-international-quality batsman short.

And I'm sure you've been told a billion times not to exaggerate.