*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

[aussie]

You claimed 2 bad series in 2 years, thus that prescribes anything over 21 as not being bad. I don't care what his overall average is when he's been that bad over that period of time.

What do mean by "anything over 21 as being not bad"?.

On what basis does he clearly deserve an extended run considering his results to date?.

Because like Morgan who before the CT. Only had ONE solid performance when he scored that 50 vs AUS during the 7-match ODI series, based on your logic Morgan probably shouldn't have gone to CT.

my view is that an extended run is deserved if someone has actually performed. He may turn out to be a good player in the future, but seeing as the selectors have called up a 3rd opener (when there's potential fill ins in the squad already) - I suspect they're considering his position as well...

But Denly has hardly had an "extended run". The selectors calling up Cook is plain stupidy, they dont need him in the squad.

 

[Goughy]

There is a relationship between FC and ODIs but there is also a relationship between OD and ODIs. Neither can really be separated. It has to be look at as a whole.

As a rule of thumb (and this like any rule is not hard and fast but should be used as a guideline rather than a template) players that do decently in both forms will do well in ODIs. Specialists dont really work.

Since 1992, 9 of the 10 players with the highest ODI batting average (20+ ODIs) for England have FC bat av of 40+ and OD bat av of 35+ (Collingwood being the odd-man out).

Those that have done badly have do not have the same combined numbers.

I dont know the answer, but how many current England-qualified players fit that description? Id be interested in how many fit the bill.

Using a simple (well not so much) formula this is the team I came up with. To be frank it doesnt differ too much from what England have used but then again England have used a lot of players. This would obviously be a starting point but probably shouldnt be completely torn apart.

Batting line-up could be played around with and adjusted.

1. Bell/Cook
2. Davies (wkt) to be replaced by Kieswetter when available
3. Pietersen
4. Joyce
5. Trott
6. Flintoff
7. Collingwood
8. Mascarenhas (for example Broad may be a selectorial preference here)
9. Swann
10. Anderson
11. Sidebottom

Not automatically what I would have chosen but I think it would do ok.

 

[Athlai]

Collingwood a bit too low, number #4 reserved for the token Irishmen and thats my English team 3-11.

The opening batsman is still a total lottery

 

[GIMH]

Broad's probably our best OD seam bowler after Flintoff, can't personally see any reason to pick Sidebottom or Jimmeh ahead of him. Other than that, I quite like the look of Goughy's side,

 

[marc71178]

I'd take Strauss ahead of Bell/Cook, would give Davies a good long run in the team (since he's a better performer than Kieswetter IMO) - definitely dump Mascarenhas as he needs far too many things to go in his favour to have any modicum of tightness whilst offering little penetration threat for another batsman (Wright/Morgan) and bring in Broad for Sidebottom (who seems to offer neither tightness nor penetration):

In other words:

Strauss
Davies
Trott
Pietersen
Joyce
Collingwood
Morgan / Wright
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson

It might rely on 10 overs from non-specialists but I would say that in recent years Collingwood has been as reliable a bowler as most of the specialists (and there's added options from Trott / Wright if picked and Pietersen)

 

[Richard]

There is a relationship between FC and ODIs but there is also a relationship between OD and ODIs. Neither can really be separated. It has to be look at as a whole.

As a rule of thumb (and this like any rule is not hard and fast but should be used as a guideline rather than a template) players that do decently in both forms will do well in ODIs. Specialists dont really work.

Since 1992, 9 of the 10 players with the highest ODI batting average (20+ ODIs) for England have FC bat av of 40+ and OD bat av of 35+ (Collingwood being the odd-man out).

Those that have done badly have do not have the same combined numbers.

I dont know the answer, but how many current England-qualified players fit that description? Id be interested in how many fit the bill.

I'd bet not many. Either way, it's a perfectly fair enough observation that most of the successful England one-day batsmen (at domesic and international level) have also been successful at domestic (though, as I noted, often not international) First-Class level. However, how many batsmen can you think of who've been successful at domestic OD and not domestic FC level? I can't think of so much as one.

In the case of bowlers it's obviously a completely different matter. Several of England's best Test bowlers of the last 17 years have been failures at ODI level (Headley the most obvious example, but there's also Hoggard, Anderson if you can now call him a successful Test bowler which I think you just about can; Flintoff became a good ODI bowler several years before he became a good Test one; some would even argue Harmison, though obviously not me). Equally, several of the best ODI bowlers have been obviously not Test material (most clearly Ealham and Mullally).

The only point is that cricketers should be assessed for ODIs based on OD cricket, not FC cricket. There is far, far too much in the way of assessment based on FC cricket when picking for ODIs, in this country and indeed most if not all others. The point is not that success in one form of the game precludes it in the other.

 

[FBU]

First Class - Tests --- Limited overs - ODIs

50.81 - 49.96 --- 44.04 - 47.83 - Pietersen
45.04 - 44.66 --- 39.67 - 37.18 - Thorpe
42.91 - 44.62 --- 30.79 - 32.34 - Strauss
40.10 - 43.79 --- 38.19 - 37.37 - Trescothick
44.61 - 42.79 --- 35.35 - 30.52 - Cook
36.58 - 42.44 --- 33.30 - 35.12 - Collingwood
36.95 - 41.44 --- 29.18 - 27.15 - Vaughan
43.28 - 39.79 --- 36.76 - 35.47 - Bell
42.06 - 37.18 --- 36.75 - 30.28 - Hussain
43.23 - 33.47 --- 33.36 - 27.28 - Bopara
52.23 - 31.32 --- 41.30 - 37.33 - Hick
54.32 - 27.32 --- 40.08 - 26.86 - Ramprakash
42.46 - 26.90 --- 34.41 - 30.56 - Shah
44.18 - 23.97 --- 38.61 - 40.41 - Knight

 

[Richard]

The figures of Cook and Bopara should obviously be taken as different to the rest in that list, as their destiny is very much still to be discovered. The rest are all either finished or closer to the end of their career than the start.

 

[Furball]

Now might be a good time to bump this.

The team's going the right way up the rankings, we have a very good recent record in bilateral series and we've got quite a few exciting young players to build around.

One of the frustrations of the ODI side with the whole "use the next 4 years for building to the next World Cup" idea is that the idea, whilst sound in theory, very rarely gets implemented in practice; even though Andy Flower had been in the job for 2 years there were still a couple of strange bolters for the WC squad; Matt Prior came from absolutely nowhere to make the squad and I'm sure there were a few names in the 30 man preliminary squad that were complete wtf options.

Ideally I'd like the England selectors to settle on a pool of 25-30 players to develop in the side over the next 3 and a bit years. With the growing emphasis on building a squad that has served the Test side so well over the past 2 years (we wouldn't have such enviable bowling depth without having rested and rotated our seamers) and the need to rest and manage players' workloads, there's no reason not to blood some of the younger talent in the county game in what are, really, meaningless series.

IMO, the 20 or so players the selectors should be looking to go forward with in the immediate future are:

Cook
Kieswetter (who hasn't been at all convincing IMO)
Davies
Hales
Pietersen
Trott
Morgan
Bopara (deserves the chance to cement his place after an impressive series)
Bairstow
Stokes
Taylor (debuting him must be a priority for the winter)
Buttler
Patel (as a batsman, not a bits and pieces player and certainly not as a bowler)
Bresnan
Woakes
Anderson
Broad
Shazad
Finn
Dernbach
Swann
Borthwick

IMO that's a solid core of 22 players, there's one or two I might have overlooked as these are just names off the top of my head, there's not been a huge deal of thought that's gone into these names.

We have 74 ODIs scheduled between now and the next World Cup (15 of which are in Australia or New Zealand), which represents the ideal opportunity to blood and develop a young, talented squad with the ambition of winning our maiden World Cup.

Thoughts?

 

[OMM!]

As harsh as it may be, given his International record, Ajmal Shahzad is miles away from selection now. No chance for the World Cup.

While Steven Davies is still arguably the best available ODI opener we have, given Bairstow and Buttler's promotions, he's probably 4th choice!

Cook, Kieswetter, Hales, Pietersen, Trott, Morgan, Taylor, Bopara, Patel, Stokes, Bairstow, Buttler, Bresnan, Broad, Woakes, Swann, Briggs, Borthwick, Anderson, Finn and Dernbach.

They are the guys I would be looking at. But I suspect Bell and Tremlett will get plenty of outings too, as well as the likes of Onions too!

Good core group of players, plenty of options and lots of young talent!

P.S. Obviously 1 or 2 young kids will come through as well, some of those may not have even debuted in FC cricket yet!

Of the more established kids, the likes of Roy, Bell-Drummond, Gregory, Rafiq and Dunn all have a chance!

 

[weeman27bob]

Just from a team balance perspective, I'd have thought we could do with having three frontline spinners who have had some experience. Rashid maybe?

 

[grecian]

Gawd, looking back at some of the posts in this thread, makes me shudder. Anyway, Dernbach has proved to me that his domestic figures aren't a fluke, he's in no way an international bowler, Bell is in no way an ODI player, both need to go.

 

[OMM!]

Dernbach has 20 wickets in 12 limited overs Internationals. 11 of which have been against India and Sri Lanka, the 2 World Cup Finalists!

His economy is crap, but the guy takes wickets. You can't ignore a player who takes International wickets so regularly. He's worth a much longer look!

 

[Jacknife]

I said in the series thread, Dernbach impressed me during the SL series and for the first few games in this one, the last 2 games have been poor from him but still he's managed to take key wickets.
He seems to loose it a bit when he goes for runs and turns to the slow ball too quickly and uses it too often. He's also got a very yorker but seems reluctant at times to fire it in.
I personally think he's got all the tools to be a decent one day bowlers, he just needs to learn how to use them at the right time and just generally tighten his bowling up a bit.
I don't think he should be shown the door like one or two others do because at the end of the day there's no one else out there in domestic cricket that can bowl at the death and has decent variations.
I think Saker will work with him and hopefully we will see improvements like we've seen from the other England bowlers.

 

[grecian]

I think the problem with dirtbag, is that as series went on lankans and Indian batsmen started to read his slower balls, whichforan embryonic careerisn't encouraging. Funny I was slagging off this thread for a member saying wickets don't matter in ODI's, that is nonsense, but if you pick up wickets in the last three overs whilst going at 10, it's almost true, mind you it still gives a dot ball and a new batter to bowl at.

 

[Furball]

I think the problem with dirtbag, is that as series went on lankans and Indian batsmen started to read his slower balls, whichforan embryonic careerisn't encouraging. Funny I was slagging off this thread for a member saying wickets don't matter in ODI's, that is nonsense, but if you pick up wickets in the last three overs whilst going at 10, it's almost true, mind you it still gives a dot ball and a new batter to bowl at.

True, I think he's over-reliant on the slower ball. Got Kevin O'Brien with an absolute peach of a yorker in Dublin, and IIRC got a couple of the Indian boys with it in the T20, should work on it more so he has the confidence to deliver it in game situations.

Don't think it's particularly fair to bash his domestic record. He's been excellent this season for Surrey. He's had a promising start to his England career - he hasn't pulled up any trees but he hasn't exactly been dreadful either. We still lack truly top quality ODI quicks, throwing Dernbach on the scrapheap just now would be stupid.

 

[NasserFan207]

He's a onetrick pony for sure. I sort of respect him since he's not the most talented bowler of all time, but has focused hard to learn a skill (slower balls and yorkers basically). I saw him three years ago and he was one of the worst seamers I've seen at county level.

For now though he needs to go and add more strings to his bow.

 

[FBU]

I think Finn would be a better death bowler than Dernbach.

 

[Jacknife]

Finn's really impressed me, even before this, watching him for Middlesex you could see he'd added a bit of extra pace and all his deliveries had a bit more venom about them. You can see the program that England have got him on has worked and his time in County Cricket this year has seen him improve.
The two games he's played he's troubled nearly every batmen he's bowled to, with his pace and extra bounce he gets from a good length, if he could add a killer yorker to his repertoire he'd be deadly.

 

[NasserFan207]

Finn's really impressed me, even before this, watching him for Middlesex you could see he'd added a bit of extra pace and all his deliveries had a bit more venom about them. You can see the program that England have got him on has worked and his time in County Cricket this year has seen him improve.
The two games he's played he's troubled nearly every batmen he's bowled to, with his pace and extra bounce he gets from a good length, if he could add a killer yorker to his repertoire he'd be deadly.

Yes, though I think Finn is more of a test prospect and I'd be worried about exposing him to too much limited overs stuff. You don't want him getting a defensive mindset.