England One Day Side

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

rather than getting stale playing the PJ game also.

Hello, back for a bit... see things haven't changed Ern is still on his bizarre no Test players in the ODI team theme!! Oh happy days, no point arguing is he will never change his mind... but what I will say is that KP has looked stale, but only in the ODI's he seems to pick up his enthusiasm once the Test series starts. Had a very average ODI series against the Windies, then was by far the best batter in the India Test Series, and is now back for a poor ODI series, so I don't think the ODI's are making him stale for Tests, just ODI's!!

Even if he wasn't selected, do you think he would be having a rest, I doubt it, he would be playing for Hampshire, so he may as well play the ODI's in my opinion...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Hello, back for a bit... see things haven't changed Ern is still on his bizarre no Test players in the ODI team theme!! Oh happy days,[...] no point arguing is he will never change his mind

First good to see you back FF - No I won't change my mind because I think cricket is in a bit of a mess - I have never seen as many injuries in my many years of playing (when younger), and watching for many more years (i was not a good player).

Originally Posted by flanflinger

but what I will say is that KP has looked stale,[...] but only in the ODI's[...] he seems to pick up his enthusiasm once the Test series starts.

Yes he does look stale, and if it's only in the ODI's like you are suggesting, then better he did not play in them.

Two good reasons for my dislike of Test players (besides Pietersen) playing in ODI's - Flintoff in 2004 against the Windies in England was forced into the one day side when injured to prop up the batting, if you remember he batted with a runner - look at his ankle 3 years and many one day games later.

Steve Harmison who used to be called "GBH" played in South Africa in the winter of 2004 (I think), was clearly home sick and was of little use to the side, but most of the Test players retured home - leaving a sick Harmison to play a long one day series, he could have been at home getting mentaly prepared for the coming home season.
I could never understand that decission.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Even if he wasn't selected, do you think he would be having a rest, I doubt it,[...] he would be playing for Hampshire, so he may as well play the ODI's in my opinion...

Well that would depend if Hampshire decided he needed a complete rest, and would allow that.

But even so I believe that playing for the counties would be a change, also with a slower pace - that would IMO be better than letting him run out of form in these one day games

[darksideofthemoon]

Here are my Test and ODI teams then Ern.

Tests
Cook, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Joyce, Foster, Sidebottom, Harmison, Hoggard, Panesar

ODIs
Wright, Swann, Shah, Bopara, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read, Mascarenhas, Broad, Plunkett, Anderson

[Collyisamackem]

My ODI side at present would be:

Mustard+
Bell
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood*
Bopara/Wright (I think Wright needs time, but if we need more hitting power in the meantime he could be brought in)
Mascarenhas
Plunkett
Broad
Anderson
Panesar

[flanflinger]

I don't see the need for Plunkett when you have Bopara, Collingwood, Bell and Pietersen in the side all of whom can make up the fifth bowler, so I would find a place for Bopara and Wright, by removing Plunkett...

so my team would be close to yours but would include the extra batter

Mustard+
Wright
Bell
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Bopara
Mascahrenas
Broad
Anderson
Panesar

But I would hope that Flintoff can play again (it would be very sad if this really is the end), and I would also keep Cook in and around the ODI team, because I feel he is a quality player and the best players (of which he could be one) can adapt. Look at Dravid, Kallis, Fleming and Chanderpaul - they are similar players to Cook, but you would consider all of them for a world ODI XI...

[Rachael]

Plunkett? At present? Curious. He so young that a long career in ODI cricket is surely a realistic ambition... but right now he's got to be a reserve player rather than a 1st XI player.

More to the point... with Broad, Anderson, Mascarenhas, Panesar, Collingwood, Bopara... there's more than enough bowling in your side anyway!

I still see no reason to view Cook and Flintoff as anything other than core players though...

Edit: posted mine without having seen Flanflingers - seem to have written the same post

[engssmoothcriminal]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I don't see the need for Plunkett when you have Bopara, Collingwood, Bell and Pietersen in the side all of whom can make up the fifth bowler, so I would find a place for Bopara and Wright, by removing Plunkett...

Plunkett may spray it all over the place at times but he has the precious knack of regularly picking up the big wickets which all the bits and pieces cricketers you've mentioned simply don't and they will get caned by good batsmen on flat pitch (and comfortably milked for 4-5 an over on a more helpful surface) something India have amply demonstrated this series. Given that the 3rd and 4th bowlers Mascarenhas and Panesar also currently offer zero wicket taking threat and because of their particular styles of bowling simply cannot be used in the power plays and at the death meaning their is only a small window of opportunity when they can be effectively used (a time when the fill in 5th bowler needs to be bowling) we are left with effectively a 2 man attack. So basically if you see off the new ball against this England side you should be making 300 and the odds are you win the game. The three times India have had a substantial opening partnership they've comfortably passed 300 and unsuprisingly won every game.

Hopefully once the initial excitement of Mascarenhas's recent slogging exploits have calmed down and his limitations with the ball become more transparent Moores will move away from the bits and pieces route and realise that you need the 4 frontline bowlers in the side. Certainly 3 plus Monty (who's still very much a work in progress in this format) has to be the absolute minimum.

So in an ideal world with everyone fit my one day XI would be:

Bell
Cook
KP
Collingwood
Ambrose (wk)
Bopara
Flintoff (or Wright if Flintoff sensibly retired from ODI's in a bid to prolong his test career)
Plunkett
Broad
Anderson
Panesar

[flanflinger]

So you would drop Shah? Your team only works if Flintoff is fit. Now I agree with you that Maschrenas is not a long term option, but at the moment he does seem to be getting results, so for me he stays.

I like Plunkett, and I see him as a long term option, but I feel he needs a few more years in the county scene. Yes he does take wickets, but he is also very inconsistent, and for me he needs to find that consistency in a level below international standard.

[engssmoothcriminal]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

So you would drop Shah? Your team only works if Flintoff is fit. Now I agree with you that Maschrenas is not a long term option, but at the moment he does seem to be getting results, so for me he stays.

I like Plunkett, and I see him as a long term option, but I feel he needs a few more years in the county scene. Yes he does take wickets, but he is also very inconsistent, and for me he needs to find that consistency in a level below international standard.

Well to be honest I'm not a big Shah fan and as he's not technically good enough to bat at 3 I see it as a straight choice between him and Bopara (who I rate extremely highly) for the number 6 finisher role and Bopara's superior all round game and massive long term potential gets him the nod.

The fitness of Flintoff is I agree key for the balance of the one day side but hypothetically if you brought in Wright (some interesting stats on cricinfo on why Wright would be worth percervering at 7 rather than bumped up to pinch hit in the power plays Cricinfo - How important is the No. 7 batsman? ) for him and dropped Monty for an extra quick (be it Tremlett, Sidebottom....) you'd still have 4 frontline seamers. The only downside would be it would be somewhat one dimensional attack.

Mascarenhas has taken only the 3 wickets at 63 in his 6 ODI's and even with an economy of 4.15 (a figure that is steadily rising) and that is IMHO nowhere near acceptable for someone who is in the side primarily as a bowling all rounder.

In terms of Plunkett being inconsistant and needing time playing county cricket I do agee but can't we say exactly the same thing about Broad? Plunkett should certainly be nowhere near the test side but playing ODI's in between more regular outings for Durham can only aid his development IMHO and with the world cup 4 years away the need for short term imediate success is not as pressing.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by engssmoothcriminal

The only downside would be it would be somewhat one dimensional attack.

For me not having a spinner is more than just a downside... we tried it once this series and look what happened

Cricinfo - 2nd ODI: England v India at Bristol, Aug 24, 2007

IMO when you have Bopara, Collingwood and Pietersen in your side you really don't need a full time fifth bowler, as you have pointed out the No 7 position is key, and if you have Flintoff, then fine, you can have a front line batter at 7, but if you want five front line bowlers, then without Flintoff, one will have to bat at 7, and the fact is that as good as Broad or Plunkett are with the bat, I would prefer to see Shah/Wright in that position.