datura
Full Member
Great team performance, thoroughly deserved it.
Great stuff from england again,Can't believe we have won a one day tournament.Keiswetter looks a fine player too and the batting looks so solid now good for the future.Dame Edna, Rolf Harris, Clive James, Skippy - can you hear me Skippy? Your boys took a hell of a beating!
Shouldn't be too much of a problem will bring back anderson and prior for that I imagine and keep keiswetter at the top as a pure batsman.destroyed the aussies was by far the better team, will be intresting to see if it can adapt to 50 over cricket with that world cup next year.
Depends how much Kieswetter's 'keeping develops, as he himself acknowledges he needs to do some work on it.Shouldn't be too much of a problem will bring back anderson and prior for that I imagine and keep keiswetter at the top as a pure batsman.
I think they will be an average ODI team..destroyed the aussies was by far the better team, will be intresting to see if it can adapt to 50 over cricket with that world cup next year.
I agree.I think they will be an average ODI team..
I think you're making the cardinal mistake everyone else is making. 50 overs cricket is not 20 overs cricket, far from it. Twenty20 is a format on its own which need a skill set of its own. The same goes for ODI and Test cricket. Just because you're doing great in the one does not infer you will do great in the other. For example, Kieswetter and co might go hard at you in the 20 over game because if they lose wickets, they have depth to bat out the 10-15 overs left. Different story all together with ODI. If you lose 4-5 wickets in the first 15 then you're in grave danger of not batting out your 50 or post a par score as such. So no, I won't get carried away at this stage.They will carry this form to the WC ODI. Its a new look side with KP clicking in time.
Thing is, some of the players will be dropped. And no matter your form, it is another format all together. Confidence is one thing, but that's not to say the players actually have the skill set required for the 50 over game. Different ball game mate.Its the form, mate. If you are in good nick, then your confidence does you a world of good.
And if you carry that confidence with you in whatever form of game, you should do well.
Spot on. I get the feeling England fans are getting carried away. I say this without bias, I'm not nitpicking -- you can see that I said England are one of the favourites for the World T20 in this thread, but 50 over cricket is a whole different ball game and I don't think a lot of people understand this. Lumb and Kieswetter can go hell for leather in 5 overs in a T20 contest because they have the license to do so. If they flop a few times, no one cares. In 50 over cricket, if you do that, you'll get dropped after a few failures. 50 over cricketing mentality(it feels so weird having to say 50 over cricket instead of ODIs because t20 is also a ODI technically) is entirely different.I agree.
I think you're making the cardinal mistake everyone else is making. 50 overs cricket is not 20 overs cricket, far from it. Twenty20 is a format on its own which need a skill set of its own. The same goes for ODI and Test cricket. Just because you're doing great in the one does not infer you will do great in the other. For example, Kieswetter and co might go hard at you in the 20 over game because if they lose wickets, they have depth to bat out the 10-15 overs left. Different story all together with ODI. If you lose 4-5 wickets in the first 15 then you're in grave danger of not batting out your 50 or post a par score as such. So no, I won't get carried away at this stage.
2008 November was the 3rd from last ODI series you played, against India, 5-0...We've been an improving one day side for a few years, anyway. And, to be fair, the side that won the ashes in 2005 never played together again, as far as I can remember, so the entire England team has been in a state of flux for several years. With Andy Flower in charge and looking like he could be there for several more years, we're starting build teams that are dedicated to the particular form of the game, and rightly so, which was something that Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan weren't so keen on doing.
If you look back at our one-day form over recent years, while it hasn't been World Cup winning standard, by any means, there are very few examples of us being blown away by any of the worlds best sides in a five or seven game series. As I've said, that doesn't mean that we will be competitive in a ODI World Cup, but it's usually our batting that isn't up to standard in that form of the game, and we do finally have enough players to choose from, and the determination within the England team to pick them, so I wouldn't be surprised if we made it to the later stages.
That statement makes me think you haven't seen much of England at all. Strauss, Kieswetter, Pietersen and Morgan are all more than capable of scoring a run-a-ball hundred, Wright and Bresnan are pretty reasonable sloggers and Collingwood is capable of both dropping anchor and going on the attack. Added to the fact that most of the batting options are handy with the ball and that Broad, Swann and Anderson are undoubtedly three of the best bowlers in the world, I think you're giving England far too little credit.By 'develop Kieswetter', I meant his wicket-keeping. I haven't seen enough of him to judge his keeping, but he himself came out and said he needs to work on it. Unless he works on it, Prior will be picked above him and I think Prior's not that guy who is going to win you matches with his batting.
From what little I've seen of him, I think he is a sound player. Good technique, love the way he keeps his head still till he plays the ball(KP pointed this out as well) .
England's 50 over team would have Strauss, Kieswetter/Prior, Collingwood, Morgan, KP, Flintoff, Swann, Anderson at the core, ideally. The problem with that is there are not enough batsmen who impose themself on the opposition like India, SA(I know England have beaten them recently) or Australia do. I think only KP can. They need a Lumb-like player in that set-up at the top. If Prior plays ahead of Kieswetter, that leaves the batting a little short.
It's a good side, yes, but not as good as their T20 side which IMO, is superbly balanced.
From that analysis, you're giving England too much credit. Zing and I aren't saying they can't do it, we're just saying that it doesn't necessarily follow on that if you've got a great Twenty20 side, you will have a great ODI 50 over side. Two completely different animals they are.That statement makes me think you haven't seen much of England at all. Strauss, Kieswetter, Pietersen and Morgan are all more than capable of scoring a run-a-ball hundred, Wright and Bresnan are pretty reasonable sloggers and Collingwood is capable of both dropping anchor and going on the attack. Added to the fact that most of the batting options are handy with the ball and that Broad, Swann and Anderson are undoubtedly three of the best bowlers in the world, I think you're giving England far too little credit.