Rachael's ECB XI vs Ernest's preferred XI - ODI cricket

[Rachael]

In another thread I asked Ernest what he'd be saying if England split the Test and ODI sides and ended up with the following first-choice ODI XI: Tresco, Mustard, Pietersen, Solanki, Collingwood, Bopara, Flintoff, Broad, Swann, Plunkett, Anderson.

Ernest responded with his preferred way of splitting the sides... which involved the following 1st choice ODI XI: Joyce, Bell(C), Shah, Solanki, Bopara, Mascarenhas, Mustard/Prior(K), Onions, Schofield, Plunkett, Broad

Mustard, Solanki, Bopara, Broad and Plunkett are common to both sides... but where I'd anticipated the ECB adding Tresco, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Swann and Anderson (5 of whom should surely be considered automatic picks for a strongest ODI side) Ernest suggested they should aim at Joyce, Bell, Shah, Mascarenhas, Onions and Schofield - a tad curious as most would, I suspect, deem half that list as better at Test cricket than at pyjama cricket!

Question is... would Ernest's ODI side (which sacrifices Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff and Anderson to his Test side) be significantly weaker than the ODI side I listed (say facing Australia in the ODI games associated with the next Ashes tour)?

Views on the resulting Test sides can be aired here: Rachael's ECB XI vs Ernest's preferred XI - Test cricket

[greg]

The side Rachael has picked is far stronger but that is because Ern has KP and Flintoff in his test side and not the one day side.You can't expect a team without those two to perform at the same level as one with them.

[engssmoothcriminal]

Well ignoring the fact that picking Trescothick for me ranks on a par with putting Simon Jones in a hypothetical test side in the desperate optimism stakes Rachel's side is comfortably superior in quality (a spine of KP, Fred and Colly renders it something of a no contest) although Bell as captain does have a certain appeal .

(If I was forced into picking a completely seperate one day side messers Swann, Mahmood, Wright, Trott, Lewis would certainly push out the proven one day flops Solanki and Joyce plus the pie thrower Schofield and guy who's hardly played any one day cricket for Durham Onions)

[darksideofthemoon]

Originally Posted by engssmoothcriminal

Well ignoring the fact that picking Trescothick for me ranks on a par with putting Simon Jones in a hypothetical test side in the desperate optimism stakes Rachel's side is comfortably superior in quality (a spine of KP, Fred and Colly renders it something of a no contest) although Bell as captain does have a certain appeal .

(If I was forced into picking a completely seperate one day side messers Swann, Mahmood, Wright, Trott, Lewis would certainly push out the proven one day flops Solanki and Joyce plus the pie thrower Schofield and guy who's hardly played any one day cricket for Durham Onions)

Mahmood - 25 matches 29 wickets at 38.89 econ 5.85 s/r 39.80

[engssmoothcriminal]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

Mahmood - 25 matches 29 wickets at 38.89 econ 5.85 s/r 39.80

Hmm Graham Onions as well as being a good 5-10 mph slower than Mahmood has the earth shattering List A stats of 34 wickets at 34.47 and goes at 5.27 rpo (as well as close to 4 in first class cricket). Not exactly the clash of the titans but Mahmood wins it hands down.

[Trescothick's Footwork]

I'd have to go for Rachel's here (though both are terrible IMO and shows why we shouldn't split the sides) simply for the fact Ern hasn't included either Swann or Sidearse in his test team, and for some incredibly fickle reason hasn't included them in his one day team either. Despite them being our best bowlers in one day cricket in recent times! What has Luke Wright done wrong as well? Without the test players he should be a shoe in, far ahead of the likes of Solanki and Joyce.

Perhaps another thread would be to say who has done best in their splitting of the sides overall. In this case it would be Rachel, as both of her sides would be competitive, though below all of the sides currently playing except for NZ, WI, Zim and Bang. Ern's on the other hand throws all the best players (bar Bell) into the test team, but his one day team would be hopeless, beaten by maybe everyone in the world. Australia and Sri Lanka would probably score over 500 from that bowling attack!

Here's my two sides for ****s and giggles, though I would prefer to rest players occasionally for one day cricket and play less test matches then split the teams.

Test - Cook, Trescothick (or Strauss if Tres is still a fruitcake), Vaughan (c), Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar

ODI - Wright, Mustard, Shah (c), Bopara, Joyce, Solanki, Mascarenhas, Swann, Broad, Sidebottom, Anderson


I happen to think that is our best ODI bowling attack currently anyway, even without splitting the teams. But the batting is horrid, an unproven Wright, Mustard and Bopara, a constantly failing Solanki and a slow scoring Joyce! Only Shah of the required standard IMO.

[Rachael]

Best post in the thread to date.. though I suspect my ODI side would trounce yours! I am curious though:

1. Surely Tresco would be better off returning (if he can) on the ODI side of the fence: I don't dispute his merits as a Test opener... but if you did the old school-playground trick of two captains picking players in turn... Tresco might well be pick no 1... followed by Flintoff, Collingwood and Pietersen... whereas the Test captain would be more concerned to secure Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar... and would consider Vaughan and Bell as important as the Somerset man.

2. Following on from the above... is it not fair to say that Collingwood would be considered a top 3 target for the ODI side... but as less important by the Test side?

3. Same goes for Flintoff: the Test side would regard him as indispensible if he could bowl 20+ overs a match at 90+ mph... but cannot make him a critical selection without those guarantees: he's simply not a good enough bowler to be useful at 85mph... and if he's going to bowl just 12-15 overs a day he'll have to be picked as a batsman and thereby destroy the balance of the side.

I'd also argue that Pietersen is more critical to the ODI side than to the Test side: I'd prefer to have him in both sides.... but I suspect guys like Joyce and Shah are better potentia Test replacements than ODI replacements.

[acker]

Australia split the teams during Steve Waugh's day

It was a disaster.

Waugh.S got jealous of Ponting and even Waugh.M. Langer got dropped from the One day squad and tried to smash everything in an attempt to get back in it.

Basically the test players who were not in the much more public eye shorter form of the game cracked the proverbial's with the exception of Warne who had more publicity and sponsorships than anyone else in the squad anyway.

In the era of players making money through sponsorship based on their public appeal and add their after cricket careers comentating or advertising cashing in on their carreers.

Playing One Dayers and most probably Twenty/20's is something more rather than fewer test players will want to continue being exposed in and keeping their personal profile highly exposed.

Steve Waugh got very sour and his form and care factor tapered off after he got cut from the one day squad.