In this article Boycott claims England aren't seriously interested in ODI success or winning the World Cup. Since the last World Cup these players have made their ODI debut: R Clarke; A McGrath; JO Troughton; RL Johnson; RWT Key; Kabir Ali; AJ Strauss; GO Jones; SI Mahmood; AG Wharf; IR Bell; KP Pietersen; SP Jones; MJ Prior; J Lewis; CT Tremlett; LE Plunkett. I've highlighted the regulars. The others have either dropped down the pecking order or act as reserve players when the senior players are rested. Here is the team that failed to win through to the Super Six stage in 2003:
From that team, only Trescothick, Vaughan, Collingwood, Flintoff and Giles have played consistent ODIs. Add Strauss, GO Jones and Pietersen to that line-up leaves England 3 players short of an established, settled ODI side.

Is it any surprise then that since 2000 England have played 15 away series and only managed to beat Zimbabwe (3 times) and Bangladesh (once)? They did manage to play a drawn series in India, 2001/02, and in the West Indies, 2003/04.

Do you agree with Boycott that England don't put enough emphasis on their ODIs? How can they improve in that area?

I think England should treat the ODI's more seriously. Even if they managed to become the no.1 Test side in the World, if they were still ranked no.6 on the ODI rankings you wouldn't be able to consider them the best all round cricket teams. Surely if there ODI game improves it should actually help them with there test game also?

At the risk repeating my myself yet again on this matter it's known the main reason I am not keen on one day cricket is the fact that I am of the opinion that shots such as cross batted, and against the spin shots (fine in speciaist one day players) are finding players out when the crossoever to Test cricket takes place, Boycott is one of the first commentators to jump on player for this reason, inless they get a quickfire 100, then he heaps praise like all the rest with hindsight.

However IMO he is right, England do not take one day cricket seriously like I do, by that I meant they don't play appropriate teams for each form of cricket.

By that I mean a rethink is needed into one day cricket, preferably with all countries, but if that is not to be, then it's a must by England.

No wonder it's pecieved that England don't take this form of cricket seriously, they dont have a plan, a plan that maybe radical, but will nevertheles ensure IMO that both forms of cricket field their best and FITTEST sides, and not just money will be the consederation for the ODIs.

I think England should under the ECB umberella embrace a plan that would ensure that a fine one day series like that being played in India at the moment, is played with Englands very best one day players involved.

The way forward IMO is to form a brand new one day set up that is capable of winning games, and that can only be achieved by sending home after a Test series ALL the Test team to rest for the coming seasons Test cricket, and replacing them with a fresh and keen specialist one day side, with it's own captain, and preferably it's own coach.

What about Flintoff I can hear, and Pietersen and even Trescothick, well we all have an idea just what Trescothick thinks and I agree that 3 fresh young players would play better than this jaded trio, and show the world that they are dedicated to fielding the best one day team they can.

Despite Flintoff and all the other set of glittering stars, the fact remains over the last few years that England by a mile have the worst playing record of all the best playing cricket nations, India have just wiped the floor with them, fairbrother a serously better one day player than Flintoff - bears this out, specialist players are needed.

I do believe though that a factor could have been that it is harder for England playing so many matches in tropical countries like India and Pakistan, and in the heat of Australia and Shri Lanka up in the high 80s, that a player becomes of no use to his team after his team has played two Test series and two longish ODI series, but I also believe it must be easier for a team to adapt from a hot and humid country , to the weather normaly in the pleasant 70s, rather than the seering 80s in the tropical parts of the world.
These things can count against a side, and that is why a fresh one day side would be welcome news for England.

That can be changed by sending a young keen and hungry for success England one day side, chomping at the bit to have a go at teams like India Pakistan and Australia.

Only then can England claim to be taking ODIs seriously, and be shown to be sending their very best one day squad to play the top teams in world cricket.

They could reallly do no worse that playing Test players, look at Trescothick, look at he weary face of Flintoff, on the TV, but most of all look at the records, England have won very very few of the ODI sries over quite a few years, so it must be time foe a change.

We may not win the coming World Cup, but by employing contunity, a must for a winning side, we with our new approach should we adopt it, would probably favourites in the World Cup the next time, with other side then emulaing England.

Also off topic a little, this would allow for Test sides to practice cricket shots, that don't involve cross bat slogs, and risky sweeps against the spin.

And bowlers will stand more chance of staying fit, in both formats of cricket, and I might even see the merits of one day cricket.

__________________
Ern

Bang on the money - failure to find a settled side. England have a solid team and game plan for tests. They know what they're doing and have confidence in their ability. The same can't be said for ODIs. We seem to stuble through matches, struggling to build an innings, not sure of which areas to bowl etc. As for whether England take ODIs seriously, I'm sure they do, and Fletcher has often stated his dissatisfaction with with being a middle ranking team, as he wants us to be no.1. However, when it comes to juggling resources, the test team will always take preference, especially with the Ashes coming up. I think that's the observation Boycott is making, and I agree with him entirely. England are focusing on the Ashes more than the World Cup.

__________________
Just what is going off out there?

We will probably see another 3 or 4 players make their debuts before the world cup squad is announced.Can't see us doing anything in the one day game in the near future.

That's the key for me, players coming in fresh who haven't just had a gruelling test series. They will be totally fresh so will perform to a much better level and totally reduce any chance of burnout for players like Flintoff, and also allow the test players (who would be taking up more of the tour) to go home and see their families.

I think if England played their ODI series before they tests we would take them more seriously, mainly because it is the perfect chance to get time in the middle or overs under your belt before a series against some top class opposition. Freddie will have just had his mandatory captain's month off and would come into an ODI series in need of some bowling. He gets to bowl a decent range of deliveries with the variation required late on and can work on his line and length in the early overs. He will get time in the middle to hit his shots and get all that out of his system before the tests.

How can England play continuity if we are playing seven ODI's with a mixture of knackered test players, young players who are inexperience and Vikram Solanki who is in and out of the side so cannot settle.

If half the test team go home for injuries then the ODI team have lost a bunch of their players and this continuity factor cannot exist. It's quite obvious what needs to be done, eliminate nearly all or most of the test players from the England ODI set up.

Then we will see more continuity not only in but in performances.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

Speaking of knackered players here's Flintoff's schedule for the next 12 months including the current ODI series in India:

Over the next 12 months England will play six one-dayers in India, three Test matches and five ODIs at home against Sri Lanka, four Tests and five ODIs at home against Pakistan, the Champions Trophy in India, five Tests in Australia plus the VB Series and the World Cup in the Caribbean. Is Flintoff going to play in every one of those fixtures? In recent weeks Ponting and Fletcher have expressed fears of player burnout.

Fletcher has recently stated that he knows who his World Cup team is. I am pretty sure that quite a few of those players are not involved in the ODI series in India. With such a heavy schedule slated for the next 12 months why risk burning (literally ) your senior players out in India?

Here is how I see England's WC squad: (The bolded players are currently resting in England.)

ME Trescothick, AJ Strauss, MP Vaughan, KP Pietersen, A Flintoff, PD Collingwood, GO Jones, AF Giles, D Gough, SJ Harmison, SP Jones.

Reserves:

IR Bell, VS Solanki, MJ Prior, LE Plunkett, ID Blackwell, MJ Hoggard, JM Anderson, Kabir Ali

What bothers me is that Australia always manages to field most of their key one-day players despite their Test commitments and usually win the ODI series they contest. England may prefer to rest players more but their team loses the winning habit, as a result. Psychologically, they will not be mentally prepared when they play winning teams like Pakistan and India in the World Cup. What is the answer? In my opinion, England should try to play a settled ODI side, even if it contains few Test players. For example, could this side do any worse than the current side if allowed to remain settled to develop as a team?

ME Trescothick
IR Bell
KP Pietersen
PD Collingwood
A Flintoff
VS Solanki
+CMW Read
ID Blackwell
Kabir Ali
LE Plunkett
JM Anderson

Reserves:
MJ Prior
OA Shah
CT Tremlett
GJ Batty

That side I think would do just as well as most sides we field now, and even if they don't do so well (the bowlers) they will stilll have plenty of games to progress as a side and perform. Certainly they will be very fresh and could challenge most sides if together long enough.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

I agree that between world cups the first three years should focus on a specialist ODI side, even if that side has a lot of inexperienced players. This will allow most of the Test team to rest between series. In the 12 months preceding the World Cup management can then start to develop their WC squad by rotating some of the Test players into the ODI side to give them practice. From this experimentation it shouldn't be too hard to determine who the best combination will be from the Test players and the ODI specialists.

I thnink the first three years would be a decent break for the test players, a squad that has that much time to develop will certainly cut the players who will be contending to play in the World Cup.

Also, if the specialist ODI squad actually really started to get some momentum with their new found continuity in selection and actually started to play well some of the test players might actually struggle to get into the side which would be quite refreshing.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May