The point is he should've played every ODI since the tour of Sri Lanka, but hasn't. He's at one point been dropped for a batsman who bowls a bit of part-time spin FFS.
England selectors don't have much of a clue about how to pick a ODI side, so it's still, to me, a bit of a worry that Swann might get dropped again at some point.
It certainly shouldn't - it was in a Test match.He didn't do too badly against Australia....or does that not count either?
Nah, CBA TBH. Swann's strike-rate won't stay so low either. But his economy-rate when he's been used well has been very good - he's only suffered for being picked on miniscule grounds and being bowled an odd over in a Powerplay. If he'd not had to do that his economy-rate since coming back in in Sri Lanka would in all likelihood be ~4.3-4.4-an-over, which while not outstanding is pretty good.
Fair enough but it shouldn't be completely written off - you can't get much tougher than making your International debut in a deciding Ashes Test match, so it's been a good showcase for his temperament.
No he isn't and Sidebottom at 31 is supposed to be at his peak while Anderson still has to reach his.
Agree that he shouldn't have been dropped last summer. But this summer just gone he wasn't dropped, he was rested while they tried something else. You yourself have said plenty that ODIs outside the WC should be used to build to the WC so I am 100% fine with players being rested and the best XI not playing each game.The point is he should've played every ODI since the tour of Sri Lanka, but hasn't. He's at one point been dropped for a batsman who bowls a bit of part-time spin FFS.
Don't agree with Flintoff at 5. Would be a complete waste of Morgan having him down at 7. I'd stick Fred down at 7, with Morgan at 6 and Collingwood at 5. With Mascarenhas coming in, replacing Wright. I'd completely forgotten about Mascarenhas tbh.Eight is far too low for Flintoff. Why on Earth would you want a proven pretty decent ODI batsman like him batting below a waste of space like Luke Wright?
In that side I'd probably have Flintoff five, Collingwood six and Morgan seven. Collingwood is quite capable of bowling 10 overs - yes he'd usually go for plenty but should go for less than Trott, Pietersen etc.
Mascarenhas is a better OD bowler than most in this country if bowled at the right time, and Sidebottom however bad he's been recently is still better than Anderson, however touched by fortune he's been once again recently.
I'd say the other way around. At 31 most seam bowlers would expect to be past peak (if still pretty good by-and-large) while at 26-27 most would expect to be at the height of their powers.
It's poor, for sure - I am wholly ambiguous on whether Sidebottom is \ will be ODI-class, but Anderson has always been, to me, all career, obviously not ODI-class.
Sidebottom isn't a strike bowler, and ODI cricket isn't about striking, it's about restricting.
Oh absolutely. Leaving aside the fact that for me it's patently obvious Rashid isn't ODI-class (might well never be either BTW) and I didn't need him to play those ODIs to tell me that, Swann has missed plenty of games in amongst those he's played, for all sorts of reasons, since becoming (apparently) established in Sri Lanka. Thus I'd not be at all surprised to see him miss more games before all that long.
Not alone there. But as I say - Flintoff has had no success whatsoever batting down the order. He has however had a fair bit batting five or six. He's a better ODI batsman than Collingwood and Morgan and thus should be given more overs than them. Morgan on the other hand has actually demonstrated something very rare in players from round these parts - the ability to come in and strike the ball with only a handful of overs to get the eye in first. Yes he does seem as though he can play the "normal" role as well, but he seems more adaptable to me than Flintoff. He's something of a Bevan or Rudolph; Flintoff is pretty one-dimensional and if he doesn't get the role he can perform, his batting is basically useless.
Anderson bowled well in a whole 2 ODIs - the games against Sri Lanka and South Africa that, coincidentally enough, England won. Apart from that he's not bowled well really since the First and Seventh games in the India series way back in the 2007 summer. Though there were a couple of games (Third ODI in NZ that winter, Third ODI against SA in 2008) in the interim where he looked vaguely convincing. It's really not much to say though, and Anderson all ODI career has been the same - very occasionally bowls very well, but it's sandwiched between 15 or 20 poor performances.
Sidebottom is actually much better as an opener-and-middle-order bowler than at the death - the few of his really good days came in that role. I've seen him caned at the death plenty, even though there has indeed been the odd occasion where he's bowled superbly. A bit, in that respect, like Andrew Hall and Chaminda Vaas.
If England were to go into and ODI with that line up I personally would like to see us have a bit of flexibility in the batting line up. In the case of a top order collapse I'd have more confidence in Colly rebuilding the innings but in the case of the top order firing I'd much rather see Flintoff or Morgan walk out to bat with a decent score on the board and 12 overs to go.
Almost all of Flintoff's significant ODI innings with the bat have come when he's been at the crease before the 20th over with England 3 down for not very much.
Yeah by-and-large you need a flexible ODI batting unit. Nothing wrong with having the top four on a relatively fixed basis and the next lot on an as-and-when one.
So long as England continue to prefer "look like wicket-taker but in reality neither wicket-taker nor accurate" bowlers over genuine economical types like Mascarenhas they're never going to get anywhere. Sadly, that's in recent times become as ingrained as another woefully fallacious mindset which is that First-Class cricket matters more than OD stuff when picking ODI players.
It's the completely wrong mindset but one that seems to be held by both the selectors and the majority of the cricket watching public. The point I was making was that when it comes to comparing players the majority of people will look at the number of overs Mascarenhas has bowled, the number of wicket's he's taken and his average. Economy doesn't seem to weigh all that heavily on the average person's mind when comparing the better bowler, which is why I said that Mascarenhas is hard done by in that respect as his economy is probably his largest strength over other bowlers.
But when does that ever really happen? Seperating economy and wickets seems rather strange to me, surley everyone can realise that they have a massive effect on each other. No matter what Richard claims wickets do restrict scoring and of course by the same token good accurate bowling is often likely to lead to wickets as batsman feel the pressure of slow scoring. There is a place for a player like Dimi who keeps (one of my very favourite players) the runs down without posing much of a wicket threat but I think it is always a bad idea for sides to be happy taking no wickets in the middle overs while going at around 4 or 5 an over, this allows teams to provide platforms in which attacks can be made later on, sides should always be looking for wickets.
I didn't say it was a regular occurrence, I just said it was possible. It sometimes seems as though people forget that and think the only way to win games is to take wickets. That isn't the case. Admittedly taking wickets can make it a lot easier.
Settling for 4 or 5-an-over in the 10-to-40-non-Powerplay overs is not something I'd remotely recommend, that's settling for mediocrity. On anything bar a complete runway, the best bowlers - like Mascarenhas - are well capable of restricting to much, much lower scoring-rates - 3.4-3.5-an-over, sometimes even less than that if the pitch is a bit two-paced or offers plentiful seam-movement.
