England's ODI failure

[Ernest]

Rachael at international level their are no players with flaws, by that I mean players selected to play for their countries.
Like all other sports players have different strengths and weaknesses, Trescothick may well not have the best footwork in the World, but he is one of the Worlds most effective batsmen.
With respect the first to paragraphs of your post - you would be unable to support your claims, the least credit going to the most effective players.

I would that amongst the ball bashers you mention - both Gayle and Flintoff have shown they can bat with the best when playing in s hot selecting mode.

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Rachael, you are confusing technical "flaws" with simple strengths and weaknesses.

Colly is right on the money here, with respect I think this is a flaw in your assessing players at times.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Tresco and Strauss, or of Gayle, of Sehwag, of Hayden, of Martyn or of Gilchrist

These players are amongst the best in the World, where would Australia have been without Hayden or Gilchrist, two of the most prolific run getters the game.

Wo would take Bell in exchange for Gayle?, or Hayden?.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Rachael at international level their are no players with flaws [...] Trescothick may well not have the best footwork in the World, but he is one of the Worlds most effective batsmen.

As was noted when England last toured SA, Kallis stands out in the SA batting line up because he has no obvious weakness. Where it's easy enough to see how you might get the wicket of the rest, analysing Kallis' game is a recipe for despair: you could easily conclude that the best strategy is to keep him off strike and hope for a run-out!

Who do you think Ambrose, Lillee, Hadlee, Donald or Marshall would fancy their chances against: Tresco or Kallis? Strauss or Dravid? Sehwag or Cook? Hayden or Vaughan? Martyn or Ponting? The former player in all those pairings are so obviously flawed that any decent bowler would fancy their chances.

Technique is obviously not everything in Test cricket... but let's not draw the ridiculous conclusion that it does not matter... especially when facing great bowlers or on pitches that give the bowlers a bit of encouragement. That said.. on contemporary pitches and against contemporary bowlers... the occasions on which the attack is good enough to expose deficiencies are becoming rarer.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Who do you think Ambrose, Lillee, Hadlee, Donald or Marshall would fancy their chances against: Tresco or Kallis? Strauss or Dravid? Sehwag or Cook? Hayden or Vaughan? Martyn or Ponting? The former player in all those pairings are so obviously flawed that any decent bowler would fancy their chances.

I will answer these one by one.

Tresco or kallis - Tresco just, so easy to underestimate Trescothick.

Strauss or Dravid - Strauss - because of Dravids's defensive skills.

Cook or Hayden - I am 100% sure Cook, really should not have been matched IMO.

Martyn or Ponting - I have to go with Ponting on record, but I am not sure I am right with the bowlers you mentioned + a fit Flintoff.

Hayden or Vaughan - Vaughan by a mile - for the simple reason Vaughan had lost it, long before he was injured, there is such a thing as a mental flaw, and that I suggest is worse than lack of 'technique'.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Technique is obviously not everything in Test cricket... but let's not draw the ridiculous conclusion that it does not matter...

Technique though desirable does not matter as much these days, look at Pietersen yesterday, some of his shots belonged in club cricket - but without shots from Pietersen NOt needing 'technique' England would not have won.

Is technique relative I wonder these days/, by that I mean is the a special techniquethat allows players like Petersen - Flintoff - Trescothick - Sehwag or Afridi that enables them to play unorthadox shots that other like Dravid Cook and Vaughan could never play.

[Pete]

If Vaughan's technique is so good, why does he keep getting bowled by straight deliveries?

[Alison]

I can't help thinking that the way we seem to be continually experimenting has to be a major issue in terms of why we struggle with the one-day game

[darksideofthemoon]

Originally Posted by greg

The squad of 14 i would take to the World Cup next year would be this:

Trescothick - provided his head is right.
Strauss
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Joyce
Flintoff
Dalrymple
Read
Blackwell/Yardy - hopefully VB series will show who should go.
Broad
Anderson
Lewis
?????????? - One space is open for a pace bowler to step up and grab this winter whoever it may be.

Well for the World Cup we are allowed 15 players. I wish Cook was a better fielder because in the two ODIs he played he had a strike rate of 86.95 and has the patience to bat through an innings. Joyce has not had a chance to prove himself in international cricket but I have seen him play for Middx and he understands how to pace an innings. He is a very good player of spin so would be ideal. I certainly don't want to see Vaughan back in the ODI side. Broad has 20/20 experience of containing batsmen and being economical which should be useful and he can bat. Mahmood is expensive but learns quickly so the VB series would help him. Also he has taken quite a lot of wickets in the West Indies when out there on the A tour when Ali and Wharf found it very hard. Mahmood is a chance worth taking as he is a quick learner. I think Lewis will keep his place and he must have put an end to Gough's chances of making a comeback for the World Cup. So for numbers 14 and 15 I would pick Cook and Mahmood.

[Quagmire]

If your talking about technique you have to remember to look at the batsmans head position which is the most important part of batting. Due to the pace bowlers being so quick batsman at the top level don't usually have enough time to get there foot perfectly to the ball. Players like Kallis, Dravid, Hodge and Tendulkar have perfect techniques but players like Ponting and Pietersen have and obvious technical problems which is they both play across the line but they are so natuarally talented that they usually will get away with it for so long before they are dismissed. It is the same with players like Hayden and Trescothick, Hayden is so big and strong that the puts his foot down the wicket and trusts his eye and skill to smash the ball. Batsmen today have more text book techniques than ever its not saying that they are better or worse than previous players. Cricket is just more robotic now both with bat and ball in the modern game.