Opinions on The Super Series

[Richard]

Don't know how you can say Strauss, Flintoff and Collingwood are poor ODI players.

If you look carefully I didn't say Flintoff is a poor ODI player, just that he wasn't especially good in 2005 (and he wasn't - batting average 32.60, bowling economy-rate 4.41 with average 28).
As for Strauss - this (see 1st columns - only success in ODIs against West Indies) is why I consider him a poor ODI player.
As for Collingwood - averages 26 or so against the ODI-standard teams, has had his situation helped by the fact that he averages 69.40 against the substandard teams. And his bowling has only looked worth consideration since last winter. One of the most overrated players going around ATM.

In the main, a good Test player will also be a good ODI player, and vice-versa. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

No, not really - you're not good until you're proven good. There are quite a few players who are good in the one-dayers and not in the limitless-over stuff, and plenty vice-versa too.
Currently in the England Test side Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, both Joneses and quite possibly Harmison too (though obviously it'd take something quite far-fetched to call him Test-class) aren't ODI-class.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If you look carefully I didn't say Flintoff is a poor ODI player, just that he wasn't especially good in 2005 (and he wasn't - batting average 32.60, bowling economy-rate 4.41 with average 28).
As for Strauss - this (see 1st columns - only success in ODIs against West Indies) is why I consider him a poor ODI player.
As for Collingwood - averages 26 or so against the ODI-standard teams, has had his situation helped by the fact that he averages 69.40 against the substandard teams. And his bowling has only looked worth consideration since last winter. One of the most overrated players going around ATM.

Flintoff - fair enough.
Strauss - he only really had a poor 2005, his 2004 was very good. I think we'll see him establish himself as a very good ODI player.
Collingwood - his stats do him a disservice. He's a very good finisher, and his pacing of his innings is very good. His average is harmed by having to sacrifice his wicket alot.

 

[Richard]

Strauss - he only really had a poor 2005, his 2004 was very good. I think we'll see him establish himself as a very good ODI player.

And there's two ways of looking at that - almost all his innings in 2004 were against West Indies. Maybe that's why he was good in 2004.
But his domestic-one-day record is nothing special at all - barely averages 30 - and as we all know players who make good internationals without doing the stuff at the domestic level are exceedingly rare. Strauss is unlikely to be an exception and I expect him to do poorly in Pakistan.

Collingwood - his stats do him a disservice. He's a very good finisher, and his pacing of his innings is very good. His average is harmed by having to sacrifice his wicket alot.

Not true, just something commonly bandied-about to let him off for his failures. Far more often than not he comes in when he's got a chance to get some decent runs (either batting at four or five or coming-in at six when lots of wickets have fallen early). Collingwood is not a good finisher at all, how on Earth he got that reputation is totally beyond me. He can't do anything when you put the field up and bowl accurately at him, he's only good at working the ball off his legs into gaps, and you don't become a good one-day player by having only one way of playing unless you're utterly exceptional at it (most good one-day players can both nurdle and hit boundaries - Collingwood can only hit the ball against very poor bowling - see the Twenty20 Australia game).

 

[Maison]

i dont quite beleive the 'super series' means anything, but I still won't complain, cause I enjoy watching Australia win.

The series isn't that pointless, so what if it's "for money" ? I'm enjoying the coverage, well sort of..... the World side is pretty hopeless so far.

bah.

*gets out the '05 ODI Aust vs England tapes*

now thats better.

oh and one of the above posts said Harmison isnt good at ODI? well I'd rather have him than Ahktar in my team... lol

 

[Swervy]

And there's two ways of looking at that - almost all his innings in 2004 were against West Indies. Maybe that's why he was good in 2004.
But his domestic-one-day record is nothing special at all - barely averages 30 - and as we all know players who make good internationals without doing the stuff at the domestic level are exceedingly rare. Strauss is unlikely to be an exception and I expect him to do poorly in Pakistan.

still pushing that one are you???? I like the 'WE ALL KNOW..' when in fact most of us wouldnt be so foolish to suggest it is exceedingly rare that people with not so amazing domestic records can actually succeed at international level.

 

[Richard]

So... tell me... why wouldn't I still be pushing that one?
Given that most sensible people realise it's true.
Good international players are rarely unsuccessful at the domestic level, that is basic fact and all those who deny it are bizzarely formed romanticists.

 

[age_master]

oh and one of the above posts said Harmison isnt good at ODI? well I'd rather have him than Ahktar in my team... lol

yep or Bond or Vaas or Ntini

 

[marc71178]

Good international players are rarely unsuccessful at the domestic level, that is basic fact and all those who deny it are bizzarely formed romanticists.

Basic fact that is completely blown away by the current England side.

 

[Richard]

oh and one of the above posts said Harmison isnt good at ODI? well I'd rather have him than Ahktar in my team... lol

Harmison has been wholly unconvincing in ODIs, even while he's bowled well some of the time.
Looking at his domestic record and some of his ODIs I'd still say it's less likely that he'll be a ODI success than more.

 

[Richard]

Basic fact that is completely blown away by the current England side.

No, it's not.
Trescothick has failed at the domestic level and only succeeded for 1 year out of 6 in Tests.
Strauss has succeeded in First-Class cricket in Tests.
Vaughan has succeeded in First-Class cricket since his introduction into England's side, and began to succeed in Tests a year after his introduction.
Bell has succeeded in both and had a short Test career with plenty of good deliveries.
Pietersen has so far succeeded in both First-Class and Test-cricket.
Flintoff has a magnificent First-Class record since 2003 - funnily enough the exact same time as he started to become a Test-standard batter, having previously been utterly rubbish.
Jones has a good First-Class record and has so far batted without much common-sense in more Tests than not.
Giles has a decent First-Class record and has been a brilliant Test bowler on turners and an extremely poor one on non-turners
Jones has looked like he might be a very good Test bowler without doing much in the domestic-First-Class game. Might yet change.
Hoggard has a decent record at First-Class and Test level
Harmison has a poor First-Class record and a Test record where he's only for a tiny period been successful, otherwise he's been utterly disgraceful.
And that's just the Tests... the ODIs make it look even more obvious that domestic records are what need to be looked at to gauge likelihood of international success.

 

[Maison]

on the subject of 'domestic cricket'

i dont care how old some people are.

 

[Blaze]

I wish bevan was still around. He was the man.

 

[Maison]

did i also mention he averaged 97 in the domestic test series?


anyways, the super thingo starts soon.......hope chris 'slogger' gayle plays well..

 

[Blaze]

Vettori bowling rubbish and getting superb figures,

I found myself agreeing with most of what you were saying recently in this thread until this comment.

 

[James90]

Back on topic, I think the whole concept of the best team in the world after a certain period of time playing against the World XI was a good idea. The series would have been better if the mindset of most spectators was "Can anyone beat Australia at all?". Of course England defeated Australia and as a consequence the World XI lost meaning.

The standard of cricket has been poor because these guys haven't played together enough and haven't had enough warmups or games on Australian soil.

The official status of these games are also a joke.

 

[Maison]

^^^^

don't whinge too much jeez

besides the event was organised before the ashes wasn't it?

again, we're still the best side in the world, according to an 'official table'


enough said.

 

[Eclipse]

they should have played several warm up games at least 3...

 

[Knopfler]

on the subject of 'domestic cricket'

i dont care how old some people are.

I hate it when the media says the selectors are rewarding players in good form, because it is not true. I dont care how old they are either, but the selectors obviously do and if Bevan were to score twice as many this season, they still wouldn't select him.

Here are the Pura Cup stats.

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_LOCAL/PC/STATS/PC_2004-05_BAT_MOST_RUNS.html

 

[archie mac]

The standard of cricket has been poor because these guys haven't played together enough and haven't had enough warmups or games on Australian soil.

The official status of these games are also a joke.

Spot on, should be stripped of there status.

 

[Maison]

i reckon he said something to **** someone off.

bah