Problems with the English ODI team

Silly management(Hire Nick Knight as an "ODI consultant")
Lack of hitters at 6,7,8
No firepower at the top.
Not enough consistent bowlers(Flintoff is arguably the only one)

Main problem is the management, i don't think they take ODI cricket as seriously as they should.

Hire Mr Fence sitter himself as 'consultant' ?

How about this problem.... they're playing a better team on a roll from their test series win against Aus.

I dont think most people in England take ODIs seriously. You've seen a small part of it on this forum. Tests are regarded infinitely higher than ODIs.

well lets face it

they aren't doing too well in tests either.

JKLever wrote:Hire Mr Fence sitter himself as 'consultant' ?

How about this problem.... they're playing a better team on a roll from their test series win against Aus.

No doubt about that but their own level of play is quite low as well.

what's the bloody point of discussing their problems ..

when the captain can't even get the opening pair right after 5 innings.

PlanetPakistan wrote:well lets face it

they aren't doing too well in tests either.

True, but I'd happily take a 7-0 ODI whitewash IF (pretty big if) we won the tests 2-0.

thats a font 72 if there clamson

ENG will be big under dogs for tests

Clamson wrote:I dont think most people in England take ODIs seriously. You've seen a small part of it on this forum. Tests are regarded infinitely higher than ODIs.

... all true, but they still won't want to lose the ODIs 7 nil.

ODI series results (wins or losses) are forgotten quickly, however, like the TV snacks they are. Test series losses burn for years, even decades.

Meh.... everything will be alright in 2009.

Easy.

Beefy said so...

Great anticipation ... really hoping to be there for the fourth and fifth Tests, if I can scrape enough credit together.

wrote:

Problems with the English ODI team.

Clueless tw@t of a coach is top of my list.

On the playing side, the obvious weaknesses are the openers and the bowlers.

A middle order of...

Pietersen
Shah
Flintoff

... interchangeable depending on the match/innings situation, looks a decent bet. Perhaps Bopara at six.

Dello wrote:On the playing side, the obvious weaknesses are the openers and the bowlers.

A middle order of...

Pietersen
Shah
Flintoff

... interchangeable depending on the match/innings situation, looks a decent bet. Perhaps Bopara at six.

So we are less than halfway there, then...

That's closer than we were at the end of the World Cup.

You can say all you like about poor management, which may well be true, but it seems we just haven't got enough good players for this form of the game.

In the batting line-up it's a choice between one-paced, slow scoring orthodox Test batsmen and village green sloggers. Bowlers who spray the white ball all over the place or those with no wicket-taking firepower.

We've got two players of undoubted world class in KP and Freddie, a few others showing some potential but not the consistency yet, and a few doing little more than making up the numbers. A bit like the rugby, except we haven't even got two star players in that!

Steve James (I think it was) wrote (or said) something interesting last week about the difficulties England have in identifying quality limited-overs openers, blaming it on the main 50-over tournament being played so early in the season with the ball hooping around corners on green-tops. He cited Marcus Trescothick - England best ODI opener perhaps ever - and his early season limited-overs average of something like seven as an example.

His point was that English limited-overs openers don't develop their games to play expansive, power-hitting, fast-scoring strokes all over the show. The early start for the main 50-over competition leads to the development of players who are bred to just survive and take the shine off the new ball, theoretically easing the way for the middle-order batsmen to cash in later.

I don't know if any of this is true, I just thought it was an interesting point. Without looking up the stats, the impression I've always had is that there's a lot more hundreds scored opening the batting in the late-season Pro40 games, once the pitches have mostly settled down, than there are "early doors".

What does it all mean? Probably not that much. But if you're wondering why England don't seem able to bring through blokes that can play positive cricket shots from the get go, perhaps there's something in Mr James' observations.

Aye - very astute I'd say.

Not much to listen to is Steve James, but his writing is pretty insightful.

Wasn't much to watch when he played either.

Did he really open the batting for England, or was that a cheese and LSD-induced dream sequence I once saw in a film?

That was the Murali 16-fer at the Oval.

I've tried to wipe it from memory.

John Crawley got a ton if I recall, bizarre

Ah yes - Crawley got a score, and then didn't make it onto the winter tours. Think it was Hick's turn to have "another shot at it".

Crazy days.

Dello wrote:Wasn't much to watch when he played either.

Did he really open the batting for England, or was that a cheese and LSD-induced dream sequence I once saw in a film?

Played in 2 crushing Test defeats at the beginning and end of the summer in '98, the second of which was Murali's 16 wicket tour-de-force, and was never then seen again.

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerOverview.asp?PlayerID=2145

Was a summer of 'substances' for me n'all, can't say I recall him playing!

JKLever wrote:That was the Murali 16-fer at the Oval.

I've tried to wipe it from memory.

John Crawley got a ton if I recall, bizarre

Damn you, Lever!

2 tests? I'd honestly have had him down as one cap wonder.... can't remember t'other appearance.

http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/66/66389.html