The England Thread

[Richard]

As if we didn't know this before we went 3-0 down to India, I'd just like to say that as far as the World Cup goes, we're screwed.

Don't worry, come next summer we'll win a game, then suddenly our World Cup preparations will be on great track.

 

[Goughy]

Only you could compare someone taking a sicky from work with downright lies as in this situation.

Both of you are off the ball. Firstly, if he lied, so what? and secondly what he did is different to taking a sicky.

England cricket maybe Goughs primary source of income but he is an independant contractor. He can choose any job he wants and is under no obligation to do something he is not interested in doing. Common courtesy may suggest he tells the truth as to why he does not want to take a particular job but he certainly doesn't have to. It is totally different to a guy not turning up for his 9-5 work. Its like telling a plumber/laywer/accountant that they must take a job no matter what they think about it.

As for wanting to see his family more. Who said he didnt? I know the dancing took up a lot of time but being on the same continent sure makes you more accessable.

 

[Richard]

I wasn't really comparing the actual taking-time-off-work thing, more the lying-about-taking-time-off thing.

 

[Darren]

My Team

Blackwell? surely you mean Giles? [/QUOTe



1. Marcus Trescothick
2. Andrew Strauss
3. Michael Vaughan = Captain
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Andrew Flintoff
6. Paul Collingwood
7. Geraint Jones = Wicket Keeper
8. Ashley Giles
9. Darren Gough
10. Stephen Harmison
11. Simon Jones

 

[Richard]

That appears likeliest at this stage, indeed.

 

[adharcric]

With Vaughan doubting his ODI future and Giles doubting his cricketing future, I'd say this is more likely (and not too bad):

M Trescothick, I Bell, A Strauss, K Pietersen, A Flintoff, P Collingwood, G Jones, I Blackwell, L Plunkett, S Harmison / J Anderson, S Jones / J Anderson (because Harmison and Jones are also injury issues)

 

[Richard]

Harmison hasn't had that many injuries - him and Jones are more issues (as is Anderson) because none are proven quantities at ODI level.
There'd be no point whatsoever in Bell (a middle-order player) opening and Strauss (an opener) batting at three.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Harmison hasn't had that many injuries - him and Jones are more issues (as is Anderson) because none are proven quantities at ODI level.
There'd be no point whatsoever in Bell (a middle-order player) opening and Strauss (an opener) batting at three.

Except that Bell has played well just about each time he's opened the batting? And aside from cashing in against Bangladesh, Strauss hasn't been quite the same. Bell may be a middle/top-order batsman by upbringing, but he hasn't done much wrong opening the batting so far. To say that a "middle order" batsman who succeeds opening the batting is still an unfit opener is ridiculous. By the same measure, to say an "opener" who struggled opening and does better down the order is an unfit middle order player is lame.

Strauss averages 23.92 opening against countries other than Bangladesh. Bell has scored 46 and 32 in his two chances opening against countries (just India) other than Zimbabwe. Not much, but he hasn't done much wrong yet.

 

[Richard]

I really fail to see how anyone could judge ANYTHING on those 2 outings, especially given that both came in dead games where the opposition were clearly struggling to rouse themselves.
Bell is not an opener and it's highly doubtful that he ever will be. Strauss almost certainly isn't a ODI-standard opener, but he damn sure isn't any better anywhere else (yes, I know that his ODI-standard-team average is better at three and four, but only against West Indies).
In the last 3 years we've seen Solanki, Vaughan, Geraint Jones and Prior be attempted to be turned into openers when they patently are not. The last thing we need, with so little time left, is another case.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Opening in ODIs is a pretty different prospect to tests. Mark Waugh was never an opening batsman, but he's one of the best ODI openers of all time. The same incidentally is true of Gilchrist, Lara, Astle and plenty of others.

 

[Richard]

Err, it's different (there are many more examples - Ganguly, Tendulkar, Kaluwitharana, etc.) but it was pretty clear to me that none of those experiments were ever likely to work - not least due to the fact that none of the players concerned were of ODI standard even in the middle. I doubt the case is different with Bell.
England's best ODI openers - Graham Gooch and Nick Knight (albeit their ODI careers can't be compared, being in different eras) - were both specialist opening batsmen who happened to be good in both forms of the game (even if Knight couldn't transfer his domestic-First-Class form to the Test arena).
Manufacturing opening batsmen doesn't often work, in England anyway.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sure, those experiments didn't work, but saying "Bell can't open in ODIs because he isn't an opener in first class cricket" isn't much of an argument, since taking that stance would have deprived cricket of some of the best ODI openers ever. Andrew Strauss hasn't exactly had a great ODI career so far, so I don't see the harm in trying someone else up there.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Harmison hasn't had that many injuries - him and Jones are more issues (as is Anderson) because none are proven quantities at ODI level.
There'd be no point whatsoever in Bell (a middle-order player) opening and Strauss (an opener) batting at three.

I know that Anderson is young and yet to prove his class, but I think he's better proven at ODI level than Harmison and Jones, and, IMO, should play in ODI's ahead of Harmison.

 

[Richard]

That's not unreasonable, but I'd reckon that both would be ahead of him in the pecking-order at present.

 

[Richard]

Sure, those experiments didn't work, but saying "Bell can't open in ODIs because he isn't an opener in first class cricket" isn't much of an argument, since taking that stance would have deprived cricket of some of the best ODI openers ever. Andrew Strauss hasn't exactly had a great ODI career so far, so I don't see the harm in trying someone else up there.

I do - as I say, I'd prefer someone who is an opener to someone who isn't.
Bell isn't merely not an opener in First-Class cricket, he's not an opener in domestic one-day cricket either. Not just doesn't do it regularly - simply has never done it (except IIRR for the u19s).
Anyway, most if not all batsmen who've made good ODI openers without being of that disposition in the longer game have been strokeplayers.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I really fail to see how anyone could judge ANYTHING on those 2 outings, especially given that both came in dead games where the opposition were clearly struggling to rouse themselves.
Bell is not an opener and it's highly doubtful that he ever will be.

I find it hard to believe how you can judge him then:

Bell is not an opener and it's highly doubtful that he ever will be.

What lovely standards... albeit two of them.

 

[Richard]

Maybe I should have said judge anything GOOD on those 2 outings.
Because that's what I meant.

 

[adharcric]

If you can't judge the GOOD things, don't judge the BAD things.

 

[Richard]

Why not?
It's much easier to tell when a player's not good enough than when he is.

 

[aussie]

any fans of the Dazzler being back into the OD team for the WC?