When Flintoff Returns to ODIs, What Then??, For Pieterson??..>

[Zainub]

If we are going to drop vaughan from the ODI side...

Vaughan's recent scores have been 74 (vs Ind) 17 (vs Zim) 5 (vs Sri) 86 (vs Aus) 7 (vs WI) 56 (vs Zim) 11 (vs Zim) 54* (vs Zim) 90* (vs Zim) 44* (vs SA) 42 (vs SA) 0 (vs SA)

That is 486 runs at an average of 54 in 12 innings, fair enough 5 of those innings were against Zimbabwe C, but its still pretty consistent.

Especially considering he has always been seen as non-intity in one-day cricket those aren't bad statistics. Slowly but surely I think Mike Vaughan is getting the hang of one-day cricket.

[Trescothick]

I'm not trying to discredit your point because you do make a good one... But 486/12 = 40.5 not 54....

So 40 is still pretty good but not as good as that original statistic...

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Trescothick

I'm not trying to discredit your point because you do make a good one... But 486/12 = 40.5 not 54....

So 40 is still pretty good but not as good as that original statistic...

Tres, you're forgetting that Not Outs don't count as a completed innings for the purposes of averages.

[tigerlillythe7th]

Why do we have to drop a batsmen? If Freddie's fit he's a certainty to bowl 10 overs, and the likes of Vaughan/Collingwood/Trescothick are being a lot more economical than the extra seamer. We've got a shorter batting line-up than most of the other international teams and an extra batsmen would allow us to free our arms sooner.

[Notts Exile]

That's good. Then at number eight we can have a proper wicketkeeper !!!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by tigerlillythe7th 37591

Why do we have to drop a batsmen?

I don't buy this: I really don't see that batting down to 8 or 9 really matters in ODI cricket. SA played guys like Pollock and Boje at the bottom of the order and what good did it do them? A few lusty blows were managed by each.. but Ntini could have been backed to manage those. The scores have been set by the top and middle order bats.

Surely the dream scenario remains 5 frontline bowlers... each doing 10 overs.. preferably with some "slack" from an occasional bowler. No more "fiddling" of overs. Keep the pressure on throughout, keep taking wickets and make sure you don't actualy NEED that much batting.

Surely that's what Flintoff facilitates?

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

That's good. Then at number eight we can have a proper wicketkeeper !!!

LOL.. fine thought.. but there surely remains some merit in the better batsmen being protected from the new ball by some sort of sacrificial lamb. Can't have it both ways!

[Ernest]

This one day series have proved what i have been saying for Ions Rachael, Test Cricketers should not never ever play one day cricket.
Look at Harmison, his heart had already gone, now with these ODIs his soul for the game has gone as well.
Vaughan batting with Pieterson yesterday was out of his depth, we managed to get over 300 good achievment, but we would probably have won had Vaughan known how to accelerate.
Hoggard, Knackered before these one day matches, to tired to perform.
Giles has not competed in these matches, I could go on.

It is about time, we had a seperate team and captain for this one day stuff, all it achieves is to burn our players out, and Vaughan does not even merit a place in the one day team. as player or captain, so what has been achieved, from making Test players play ODIs, "nothing"
Only for a none Test batsman yesterday,(Pieterson" we would have been humiliated in a one day match"yet again".

Sorry to go well of topic.

[Zainub]

This one day series have proved what i have been saying for Ions Rachael, Test Cricketers should not never ever play one day cricket.

I disagree Ernie, a lot of test cricketers have played one-day cricket and excelled at it, in fact most people do, England should do as well, 2 of the best teams the world has ever seen [Aus present, and WI of the 70s] had almost the same one-day and test sides. In fact Duncun Fletcher has been on record saying he wishes for his one-day side to be a close as possible to the test side as possible. Its the same with other teams as well.

Steve Harmison is not a bad one-day bowler, he's just suffering from a disease (phsycholigical one) called homesickes, one that he has (unfairly) not been treated for. When he's not homesick, and underconfident and tired as he is now he can bowl pretty threatenning in Limited overs internationals. He has also lets not forget also taken a hatrick in this form of the game. I think in the future he will play a lot more ODIs and bowl well in them as well. (IF he's handled properly, but that's a significantly big if.

Vaughan tried his best to keep the score pushing, but let's not forget that SA bowled well. I don't think that innings yesterday was enough to label him a non-one-day cricketer. He can and has played effectively in that format, and I have some faith that he will do so in future too.

Hoggard, everyone says he's not a one-day bowler, but the man himself, if anyone read his columns at BBC, was thrilled to be a part of the one-day side after a long gap, and he was very determined to prove everyone wrong. I know he's hasn't exactly set the world on fire, and that he might as well be tired, but the suggestion that he too much of a line and length bowler so he cannot do it at one-days seems incorrect to me, one of the best one-day bowlers ever (Glenn McGrath) is your trademark line-&-lenghth bowler.

Giles, he does a thankless job in one-days, has no better replacement, and he is the King of Spain, so I could go on forever about him .... ...

Very few sides have had different captain and teams for one-days, it still is the same game, just a different format. No reason why the likes of Harmy, Hoggard, Vaughan and or Giles or anyone else should not excell at both levels if they are handled properly and they justify their true potentials.

[tigerlillythe7th]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Surely the dream scenario remains 5 frontline bowlers... each doing 10 overs.. preferably with some "slack" from an occasional bowler. No more "fiddling" of overs. Keep the pressure on throughout, keep taking wickets and make sure you don't actualy NEED that much batting.

That's great in theory, but at the moment I'm not convinced that the extra bowler is taking wickets or creating pressure - if GBH returns to form, Hoggy learns to bowl the variation needed in ODIs, Jimmy actually plays some cricket & remembers how to bowl (or if S Jones returns to favour with the selectors) then yes, have the 5 bowlers & drop Solanki . Until that happens, I think that my team would be: Tres, G Jones, Vaughan, Strauss, Flintoff, Pietersen, Solanki, Collingwood, Giles, Ali/Wharf, Gough. The extra batsmen might not contribute that much directly, but it allows the guys above them to start hitting out earlier without having to worry about the consequences of losing their wicket.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

I disagree Ernie, a lot of test cricketers have played one-day cricket and excelled at it, in fact most people do, England should do as well, 2 of the best teams the world has ever seen [Aus present, and WI of the 70s] had almost the same one-day and test sides.

Zainub, even Australia had this debate not all that long ago, was not Steve Waugh relived of being the one say captain.
And there is really no comparason with teams from the 70s, because less international cricket was played, so it did not matter as much.

Originally Posted by Zainub

Steve Harmison is not a bad one-day bowler, he's just suffering from a disease (phsycholigical one) called homesickes, one that he has (unfairly) not been treated for

This is true, my point in all this has been he was home sick before he went, and this was common knowlage, but was still left to suffer in the ODIs in South Africa.
.

Originally Posted by Zainub

When he's not homesick, and underconfident and tired as he is now he can bowl pretty threatenning in Limited overs internationals. He has also lets not forget also taken a hatrick in this form of the game.

Yes I agree he did take a hat trick in one day cricket, he has that in common with Jimmy Anderson, and another thing they have in common, they have both lost confidence.

Originally Posted by Zainub

Vaughan tried his best to keep the score pushing, but let's not forget that SA bowled well. I don't think that innings yesterday was enough to label him a non-one-day cricketer.

I don't think he had a clue when to accelerate.his record in one day cricket is nothing to shout about either.

Originally Posted by Zainub

Hoggard, everyone says he's not a one-day bowler, but the man himself, if anyone read his columns at BBC, was thrilled to be a part of the one-day side after a long gap, and he was very determined to prove everyone wrong.

Well fair enough if that was what he wanted, I did not know that, however he proved nothing except that he had given his all in the Test Series, and should have gone home to rest.

Originally Posted by Kirsty,Oh sorry Zainub

Giles, he does a thankless job in one-days, has no better replacement, and he is the Kind of Spain, so I could go on forever about him .

LOL He He.

Originally Posted by Zainub

No reason why the likes of Harmy, Hoggard, Vaughan and or Giles or anyone else should not excell at both levels if they are handled properly and they justify their true potentials.

My problem here that look at England injury and stress problems, Test should be seperate IMHO, maybe in certain circumstances, a little cross over, but players should rest after a hard Test Series.

Just a little different for England, I know our summers on the whole have gone warmer, and at times even hot, when england play in Indie/Pakistan/Africa/West Indies for any length of time, the CONSTANT heat gets to them, and the humidaty we dont get at home.
Bit different when tropical teams come here, even our hot summers will be a freshener for them.