I am not opening this thread just because England toiled to win against the ICC Combined XI made up by cricketers from ICC associate nations, in fact I have decided to open this thread just when England decided to play against them. The fact that the combined XI gave England a good run for their money is the icing on the cake.
England Secure Unconvincing Win
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan...ry/548696.html
The reason I am bringing up this discussion is because recently some of us (or very few of us) strongly opposed Law's idea of BD playing longer version games against associates. I have to mention our beloved member LBW103 here. He called that thought a 'blunder'. And if my memory is serving me right an expert like Ian Pont also opposed the idea of playing against associates before world cup. The notion was that we wouldn't gain anything by playing against associates, instead it might backfire by giving our cricketers otherwise inflated averages which would be misrepresentation of our real strength. But I personally believe the decision of not playing adequate practice matches before such a big tournament just because big teams were not available was not a good one.
Another argument I have come across in the forum is that our cricketers need more intensive skills training than practice matches. I am not an expert but from common sense I understand that just skills training sessions can't give a cricketer the real taste of playing a match over 4/5 days period. Practice sessions can't be a true alternative of going through all the up and downs of a real match, for instance, the tension of batting or bowling on a 4th/5th day pitch with a target to achieve. There is no doubt that intensive skill trainings are necessary for the development of players. But being one of the lowest ranked test team we only get to play 5-8 test matches a year and minimal number of ODIs. We have plenty of time for intensive training sessions over the year even if we decide to play some games against associates.
Although we like to think we are way ahead of the associates with larger players' pool, handful of domestic competitions and massive fan following, our performance against top ranked associates hasn't been as clinical as our closest ranked test teams performed against us. In fact we have been brought down by the top associates on few occasions in not so favorable conditions.
Also I find it hypocritical when we refuse to play against associates saying it would not help us improving our skills much while we have been complaining that the top test teams are not giving us enough opportunity to play against them.
If we can arrange more matches against test teams and their A teams thats well and good. But since we have failed to do that I see no harm playing against top associates. The match between England and ICC Combined XI has given us the opportunity to think hard about this. If England being the no.1 test team in the world consider the associates worthy enough opposition for preparation of a test series why cann't we? And looking at the scorecard of that match makes me think it might be well worth it.
ICC Combined Associate and Affiliate XI 1st innings- 281
England XI 1st innings- 185
ICC Combined Associate and Affiliate XI 2nd innings- 164
England XI 2nd innings- 261
Result: England XI won by 3 wickets
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan...ch/531625.html
I would like to know your thoughts on this.