Why is Englands one day team so different to the test team?

[marc71178]

Dave Fulton - he's had his season

Oh, the irony!

 

[Neil Pickup]

But most of us here knew he was mediocre before he even set foot in the England team.. So why does he need ODI caps just to prove it to us??

I'm intrigued to know what you base that on. One innings sits in my mind of his, single-handledly dragging Surrey past a decent Derby total under lights.

http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_data.../01-02SEP2002/DERBY_SURREY_NLS_02SEP2002.html - Clarke 98* - the only Surrey batsman to pass 30.

He has 4 first class centuries - including one on debut - at 41.00. He's better than a lot you listed.

 

[marc71178]

Currently Clarke and Collingwood are being given the chance to make the grade.

Clarke is, Collingwood already has.

If Hussain's form goes then he'll be in the Test side faster than you can say "iluvrikkiclarke"

 

[Neil Pickup]

Oh, the irony!

Hey!!!

I've learned from the mistakes of my youth. Isn't that enough?

 

[a massive zebra]

??

 

[luckyeddie]

But most of us here knew he was mediocre before he even set foot in the England team.. So why does he need ODI caps just to prove it to us??

The furore at the time was that it was his position as a Surrey reserve who had played a couple of first-class games in front of the london-based press (for whom a journey north of Watford requires months of planning, a couple of Inuit guides and a team of huskies) which caused Rikki's fizzog to be raised above the parapet.

He might turn out to be an absolute belter in a year or two - then again, he might not. The list in your previous post hardly contained a single name who could be considered a realistic alternative candidate (Rampers sorry, no offence).

I'll say one thing about Clarke - he's the best ground fielder in that side by an absolute mile - and that means quite a bit in ODIs (Remember Jonty? he averaged 35 with the bat - but that 35 was worth 50. Well, it took Jonty Rhodes 31 tries before he got to 50). I rate Clarke almost as high as a fielder, but obviously he has to prove his worth elsewhere.

Aaagh! I've just defended RC. I feel all dirty now.

 

[Neil Pickup]

??

Have a read of me and Marc arguing about Fulton. Has one or two stupid comments in I'd quite like to forget

And interestingly, Rich, you omit one player I rate above all of those - Alex Gidman.

 

[Lions81]

Have a read of me and Marc arguing about Fulton. Has one or two stupid comments in I'd quite like to forget

And interestingly, Rich, you omit one player I rate above all of those - Alex Gidman.

Just one or two? That was definitely a good spell of posts from Marc then.

 

[Lions81]

And now I'll go through them all and point out why they aren't playing ODIs

Richard Montgomerie - too old
Jim Troughton - I assume you missed last year's NatWest Series
Ian Bell - Needs a big year
Vikram Solanki - I assume this is a joke. He scares me
Graham Hick - Is Ramps here, too?
Ian Ward - Big success for England, he was
Mark Butcher - isn't gonna play ODIs - there's enough threads on it
Adam Hollioake - retired from International cricket
Tim Ambrose - not better than Clarke
Matthew Fleming - retired
Rob Key - er, no.
Dave Fulton - he's had his season
Matthew Walker - not better
Trevor Ward - serious?!
David Sales - one year wonder
Mark Wagh - see Bell
John Crawley - no chance matey
Mark Ramprakash -
Rob Turner - yes, OK, Richard, how about Carl Gazzard?
Paul Nixon - I said batsman
Mark Ealham - get out of it
Paul Weekes - off the basis of what, exactly?
Ian Sutcliffe - you been raiding your mate's stash again?
Matthew Maynard - name me the last decent Welsh cricketer, also old
Tim Hancock - the run machine (!)
Matt Windows - see Hancock
Mark Alleyne - retired, and I said batsman
Jon Batty - see Nixon
Alistair Brown - slogs too much
Mark Chilton - I told you, batsman
Michael Powell - after his last stunning three seasons
Michael Powell (glam) - based on?
Nasser Hussain - retired
Ronnie Irani - remind me of his Ashes
Owais Shah - of the wonderful ODI career
Will Jefferson - based on the start of last season and how much since

Heck, I'm starting to sound like a Rikki fan.

Well sadly this just speaks to the lack of talent in England as opposed to the quality of Rikki Clarke.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Well Clarkes bowling has improved 10 fold in just the previous year (ok its still crap and it was probably as bad as was humanly possibly at the start) but it shows he has potential. I also think he's a good batter, its just for some reason when he comes in he tries to play sweeps / reverse sweeps etc instead of playing straight, but im sure he'll come good and as mentioned before he's one of the best fielders in the world at the moment.
I think he'll make a good understudy to Flintoff incase we want to rest him but i do wonder why he's in the team currently.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well sadly this just speaks to the lack of talent in England as opposed to the quality of Rikki Clarke.

Never has there been a truer word spoken about the state of English cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

Matthew Fleming
Rob Key
Mark Ealham
QUOTE]

how old is matthew fleming now ?he was part of the series in sharjah that england won and he looked as though he was already 50
mark ealham?u seriously thought he could bat?id prefer a left handed chris martin instead of him
and if anyone else brings up robert key's name up for selection again im going to shoot him.stupid fat ugly how many chances has he got piece of ****

 

[badgerhair]

But most of us here knew he was mediocre before he even set foot in the England team.. So why does he need ODI caps just to prove it to us??

The "most of us here" who apparently *know* that Clarke is mediocre are roughly the same team of cricket experts who told us that Flintoff was mediocre and that Harmison was a no-hoper. It seems that "most of us here" don't know our gluteus maximus from our humerus.

I am not possessed of as much insight as those who know that Harmison is utterly useless, and I have no firm opinions about Rikki Clarke. I admit to some prejudices about him formed from conversations with people who have seen a great deal more of him over the last four or five years than I have, which amount to the belief that he's a talented kid who will certainly do very well in county cricket and could be good enough to play for England regularly, but that we'll only find out about the latter if we try it.

I suppose my basic question about his being picked is the timing. Would he have benefited from another full season with Surrey before mucking about on the international stage? Well, we'll never know now.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Have a read of me and Marc arguing about Fulton. Has one or two stupid comments in I'd quite like to forget

For me, that was what launched Cricketweb as somewhere I came back to again and again.

 

[luckyeddie]

Quite an amusing thread.

For all Neil's Fultonesque faults, even he recognised Rampers as a plank very early on - and double points to the person who spotted the value of being a member of the royal family (aka playing for Surrey).

 

[Neil Pickup]

For me, that was what launched Cricketweb as somewhere I came back to again and again.

Gah.. I already regretted it...

And yes, for "one or two" read "approximately thirty-seven".

 

[Langeveldt]

how old is matthew fleming now ?he was part of the series in sharjah that england won and he looked as though he was already 50
mark ealham?u seriously thought he could bat?id prefer a left handed chris martin instead of him
and if anyone else brings up robert key's name up for selection again im going to shoot him.stupid fat ugly how many chances has he got piece of ****[/QUOTE]

If you bothered to read I stated batsmen (regardless of how old they are and whether they are near the ODI team or not)...

Left handed Chris Martin compared to Mark Ealham? I seriously think he can bat.. I hope that comment wasnt serious!!


Its a case of Rikki Clarke being so poor IMO (maybe a couple more seasons at surrey would have been good), that a lot of mediocre players end up better than him...

 

[tooextracool]

Left handed Chris Martin compared to Mark Ealham? I seriously think he can bat.. I hope that comment wasnt serious!!
...

if u think ealham can bat then chris martin would be a god

Its a case of Rikki Clarke being so poor IMO (maybe a couple more seasons at surrey would have been good), that a lot of mediocre players end up better than him...

in that case u should have made a list of batsmen who werent better than him....short and sweet?

 

[Arjun]

Could someone explain why bits-and-pieces players make it easily to a limited overs team as all-rounders? Why not have one of your best batsmen playing as a bowler and one of your best bowlers playing as a batsman? If you ask me, there seem to be few specialist batsmen in the ODI team and I doubt if Clarke and Anthony McGrath would make it to the team on batting alone.

As for playing 4 all-rounders, it definitely helps to have 2 in reserve, doesn't it? Even better if two are top-6 batsmen and the other two, strike bowlers.

About the attacking bowling v/s defensive bowling question, I would prefer bowling figures of 3/61 or even 6/72 in 10 to 0/40 or 1/47 in 10. These so-called defensive bowlers can't really win matches. It's fine to keep the run rate down, but wickets also count. You can have 2 bowlers to attack and the rest, to defend. In fact, even at 6/7 an over, it does help if the opposition batting is cleaned up before the 45th over, doesn't it? Even if economy counts, figures of 0/31 or 0/22 in 10 would help a lot more, like Muralitharan's. But not 2/61, 2/84, 1/56 and definitely not 0/87. The best bowlers in international cricket succeed in both forms of the game and are far better in ODI's than those picked just for ODI's.

Ultimately, those who succeed at Test level can do so even in ODI's. The Australian team has more or less the same players in ODI's and Tests, except for 3 players. The South Africans also field the same team (more or less). These are very good bowling teams and a lot better than other bowling sides. Now look at New Zealand. You don't expect Kyle Mills to be a leading wicket taker in the same league as Glenn McGrath, do you? The best selection involves the best batsmen and best bowlers.

 

[badgerhair]

Could someone explain why bits-and-pieces players make it easily to a limited overs team as all-rounders? Why not have one of your best batsmen playing as a bowler and one of your best bowlers playing as a batsman? If you ask me, there seem to be few specialist batsmen in the ODI team and I doubt if Clarke and Anthony McGrath would make it to the team on batting alone.

In the case of Clarke, your opinion would appear to be in conflict with that of the England selectors. It may not seem credible, but Clarke is selected as a batsman, with his bowling a possibly useful bonus.

And, as has been rehearsed elsewhere, there is no obvious case in favour of anyone else - other than Butcher, who is clearly destined to be left on the shelf forever.

And I've begun to see why that is. Butcher, or Clarke, or whoever, is going to be coming in at #6 or #7, and will usually have to scamper around and improvise. Butcher's suicidal judgement of singles is unlikely to be of assistance in such frenetic circumstances, and he's never been an inventive shotmaker.

The other thing which Clarke brings to the one-day party especially is fielding brilliance. Batting that far down the order, it's unlikely that he'll get to do much with the bat anyway, but the amount of runs he can save in the field makes him worth a great deal compared to But "terfingers" cher.

Cheers,

Mike