Who should be dropped in the English side?

[ramkumar_gr]

Under a boat in Barbados.

 

[Richard]

You're right, I'm not English. But neither is Perm.

Perm, like me, is a CW all-rounder, who is not purely concerned with his own team.

 

[Richard]

Theres absolutely no way anyone can say for certain that Nixon won't be around in 2011. England did the exact same thing with Stewart after the 99 world cup before he returned a year after and ended up playing till the 2003 world cup at almost 40 years old. Arguably he was playing better between 37-40 than he was playing at any other point in his ODI career. Nixon is about as fit as Stewart ever was, and while its not exactly bankable that he will pay in 2011 i wouldnt say it was completely OTT either.

There's just the small matter, however, that Nixon is not remotely close to being as talented as Stewart. Sure, he might well still be playing domestic cricket in 2011, but if you seriously think he can maintain his ODI performances for that time (and it's not like they've been anything more than respectible in any case) you're asking rather a lot.

 

[Richard]

I hate you. As if Giles is better than Panesar.

In ODIs, yes, he is, beyond all question.

As is even Ian Blackwell.

 

[Pup Clarke]

IMO Panesar >>>>>Blackwell even in ODI cricket.

 

[Richard]

Why? It's clear to me that Panesar has a hell of a lot to lose by playing ODIs, and equally little to gain currently by doing so.

 

[Pup Clarke]

There's a process called development Richard.Panesar can defenitely develop into a good bowler in ODI if he mixes his pace up a bit more.The amount of flax he is getting for being in the OD side is a bit harsh IMO.

 

[Richard]

And how about learning that while your superiors reprisent England?

If, of course, he can indeed learn such things, which is certainly not a given.