PDA

View Full Version : Why is England so horrible in ODIs?


Ishtylish cricketer
February 25, 2008, 09:21 PM
Given the crop of talent England has it is surprising to see them near the bottom of the ODI ranking. A team that boasts rare talent like Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, James Anderson, Stuard Broad, Alaistair Cook and Mascharennas, how can that be the case? It's true they lack a good keeper but that's probably it. According to Geoff Boycott there isn't a single bad player in the English team yet they lost against a less than impressive Newzeland side. My own theory is that they play pro 40 in England so when play ODIs they think they have extra 60 balls to play and take it easy. Their batting is often their achilies hills which also doesn't make sense because most of their batters are technically very sound and good strokemakers.

bharat
February 25, 2008, 09:35 PM
You are being a tad too harsh on England, even though they appear to be in the 7th position they are only 5-6 points from the 3rd position.The ODI rankings can be very fickle especially the lot from 3rd to 8th.They change very quickly, a good tour can see England in the 3rd position.

Also they have won a ODI series against India and SL (in SL) and did not do too badly against the NZ(in NZ).

Essentialy in ODI's there is one section Aus and SA , then there is the second section comprising all the others except Zim and BD and there is the last section which comprises of BD and Zim.

As I see it by the end of the year I (or would like to) see the young Indian team in the first section and BD in the second section.

Ishtylish cricketer
February 25, 2008, 09:44 PM
Why do they still play pro 40? It doesn't make sense.

GuruTM
February 25, 2008, 10:14 PM
A team that boasts rare talent like Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, James Anderson, Stuard Broad, Alaistair Cook and Mascharennas, how can that be the case? It's true they lack a good keeper but that's probably it.

They miss their best player. She would've scored faster than some of the Bangladeshi batsmen. In case you don't know its Boycotts gran.

Sohel
February 26, 2008, 05:29 AM
England is not a bad ODI side at all. But they're certainly not as good as they can be. According to my Guru Ian Chappell, the English have a tendency to make cricket more complicated than it needs to be. I concur.

BD-Shardul
February 26, 2008, 05:59 AM
England is not a bad ODI side at all. But they're certainly not as good as they can be. According to my Guru Ian Chappell, the English have a tendency to make cricket more complicated than it needs to be. I concur.

Poor England. They didn't had the opportunity like NZ to play BD to gain their confidence back. They only can blame ECB for not arranging a series with BD :-D

Shobha
February 26, 2008, 08:40 AM
well they did seem to be getting their self together at one point when they won both odi series with india and srilanka. i think their just not adapting well in the NZ atmosphere.

akabir77
February 26, 2008, 10:33 AM
they need to practice with boycotts mom...

Surfer
February 26, 2008, 11:23 AM
they need to practice with boycotts mom...

Thats a bad idea as that will give them inferiority complex:D

Ishtylish cricketer
February 26, 2008, 01:32 PM
They miss their best player. She would've scored faster than some of the Bangladeshi batsmen. In case you don't know its Boycotts gran.

Haha. My grandma would have scored a century against them. The best reply against Boyc's famous line was that of Brett Lee. He said "his grandma must have been a great cricketer".

insideedge
February 27, 2008, 11:32 AM
England is within 8 points of the third ranked team, and they have 105 points and they are 9 points infront of the eighth rank team, viz West Indies.

So they are closer to the third team than the eighth team, pointwise. After the CB tri series in Australia is over, England may as well overtake Sri Lanka to become the number 6 ranked ODI team.

BangladeshFan
February 27, 2008, 05:37 PM
why is england so horrible in ODI?

because they are not as good as you think:D

Slater582
February 29, 2008, 11:36 AM
Given the crop of talent England has it is surprising to see them near the bottom of the ODI ranking

A lot of that talent is quite young & has only just come through. As we've been towards the bottom of the ODI table for some time, they haven't had time to make much of an impact.

team that boasts rare talent like Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, James Anderson, Stuard Broad, Alaistair Cook and Mascharennas, how can that be the case?

KP has been having a poor time for a little while now. Tiredness is my guess. Bell & Cook aren't 100% suited to the ODI enviroment. Broad is still learning. Anderson has no real cricketing intelligence. Mascharennas is suited to 20/20's...less so ODI'S

According to Geoff Boycott there isn't a single bad player in the English team

Sure...but how many 'great' players do England have?

OZ: Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Hussey, Symonds, Lee etc
SL: Sanath, Mahela, Kumar, Murali
IND: Sachin, Dravid, Dhoni
PAK: Khan, Yousuf, Asif
SA: Kallis, Boucher, Steyn, Ntini

KP is the only one really. Can't count Flintoff as he hasn't played regularly for two years now. I'd put Trescothick in that bracket but he's had mental problems. :(

yet they lost against a less than impressive Newzeland side.

Ranked #3 in the world. ;)

theory is that they play pro 40 in England so when play ODIs they think they have extra 60 balls to play and take it easy. Their batting is often their achilies hills which also doesn't make sense because most of their batters are technically very sound and good strokemakers.

I'd agree they're good technically...but that's often at a cost of natural free flowing talent. We don't have many unorthodox players, which maybe you need in the shorter game.

Bharat is spot on with his comments imo.

& :-D @ the Boycotts gran comments :D

Why do they still play pro 40? It doesn't make sense.

Money for the counties. The PCA (Professional Cricketers' Association) came out with an expensive survey on Domestic cricket in England. They asked the players whether too much cricket is played...the majority answered yes. They asked whether the 40 over game was good for producing a good ODI team...they answered no & suggested that the competition be scrapped. This would leave 1 OD Domestic competition in England, a 50 over one that already exists & is repected by the fans.

This was prestented to the County chairmen (who basically run cricket in England) and they took no notice of it. The 40 competition gets them money, so it stays. Regardless of whether it helps the England team...

Poor England. They didn't had the opportunity like NZ to play BD to gain their confidence back. They only can blame ECB for not arranging a series with BD :-D

In ODI cricket Bangladesh are no longer minnows. Last time we played (at the '07 World Cup) was a very close game. Your first win against us is close.

because they are not as good as you think :D

Sadly that's probably true.

JonBain
March 2, 2008, 03:52 PM
I think most sides could improve their performance by selecting quite different sides for ODI's and tests. In ODI's you must pick your best fielders, generally the younger crowd. Tests require mental stamina - the older guys. England sees ODI's as less important to tests, so they often seem sluggish in the field.

Having fielders like Jonty Rhodes (an average batsmen) puts pressure on the opposition to score quickly, and they are then forced to make mistakes. ODI's are all about fielding.

Miraz
March 2, 2008, 04:02 PM
I think most sides could improve their performance by selecting quite different sides for ODI's and tests. In ODI's you must pick your best fielders, generally the younger crowd. Tests require mental stamina - the older guys. England sees ODI's as less important to tests, so they often seem sluggish in the field.

Having fielders like Jonty Rhodes (an average batsmen) puts pressure on the opposition to score quickly, and they are then forced to make mistakes. ODI's are all about fielding.

Agree with you.

ODIs are more about fresh legs with good reflexes.

Not only in fielding but also in batting. A player with a good hand eye coordination can be more dangerous than a player with sound technique.

A Mark Greatbatch can do wonders in ODI than a Jacqueus Kallis.

JonBain
March 2, 2008, 06:52 PM
A Mark Greatbatch can do wonders in ODI than a Jacqueus Kallis.
Such a statement could only be made by a supporter of Australia's F-team. Kallis has more co-ords than all of the Australian F team. Greatbutch couldn't catch a cold in a blizzard.

Ishtylish cricketer
March 2, 2008, 07:58 PM
Bell and Cook are very sound batsman and in fact I back both of those guys to get 10000 runs in test and even for ODIs, they can do wonders if they learn to shift gears. Cook's need to realize that he has to play his way to succeed but the #2 batter has been a problem for England for a while now. The wicketkeeper batsmen at #2 have failed too many times. At 3, Belly is fine but the problem is he doesn't make 100s and he really needs to do that to cement #3 position in both ODI and test format in the english squad. Too many commentators bash Bell because he's too orthodox. They say that he hits in predictable areas ie. hits cover drives in cover, square cut in square so it becomes easier to place fielders for him. That maybe the case but there's no doubt about his quality and given enough time there's no reason why Bell or Cook couldn't do the job for Englad. There's always going to be a place for orthodox, textbook players, because you need them to set a foundation to built scores. Pietersen is England's best player/batsman but others batsmen fail to complement him. There's a fine line between selecting hitters and good aggressive batsmen. England are selecting hitters like Luke Wright and Dimi Mascrenhas so that's a positive sign. But I think given the quality they have they should win a lot more games that they do now. Panesar needs to play ahead of Swann. Shah is a good player, amazing record in county cricket and actually plays in unorthodox fashion but if he's not playing in top 5 there's almost no need for a player like him when Flintoff returns. England tried out Mal Loye who sweept Brett Lee's 150kph balls in VB series and deposited them over cow-corner to long-leg but he really had no other quality and was past his prime. Anderson lost his outswing so he isn't as lethal. England missing the big bully Flintoff in bowling especially. Broad is still learning the art of bowling. Panesar must play to add balance to the team and more English batsman should (learn to) bowl to allow variety in bowling. In Newzeland, it was pretty much all out seam attack. Operning two seamers Anderson and Broad who are in the 135kph to 140 kph range that followed up by Dimi, Wright and Collingwood are essentially all medium pacers in 120kph range. England need Panesar in all forms of cricket.