England 14 man squad for ICC trophy

[Nate]

They've only just had the dressing room mirrors replaced after Rikki Clarke, they can't afford to take any chances

 

[masterblaster]

Pretty poor selections, I was surprised to see Solanki back, not so much with Kabir as I've always thought he's had potential. Batty won't do much I don't think. A pretty average strength squad really, here's hoping Strauss, Flintoff and Trescothick get England through most of the time (for England's sake)

 

[Craig]

Michael Vaughan (c)
Kabir Ali
James Anderson
Gareth Batty
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Ashley Giles
Darren Gough
Steven Harmison
Geraint Jones
Anthony McGrath
Vikram Solanki
Andrew Strauss
Marcus Trescothick

No Ian Bell, surprsingly. No Ian Blackwell despite showing good recent form. I'm surprised to see McGrath still there. Nice to see Kabir Ali getting another chance.

I never would have given Solanki, Kabir and Batty much chance of selection to be honest.

The squad that has been picked shows me the lack of quality replacements just bursting at the seams to be picked.

 

[Neil Pickup]

its looks like that Neil and Marc are not happy, I remember a comment that Neil made in another topic over 2-3 weeks ago about Agreeing with the selectors, it seems to me he dont share that view anymore, the 3 worcester player are in because the are among the best 15 english players in england? Solanki is an Exciting player with a Dash of flair and brilliance need to be more composed at the wicket, Kabir is an exclennet bowler who swing and seam the ball with ease and he got a excellent record and Batty is a very good all rounder, I know Marc hates him with a Passion but he will come good and England will benefit

I hope they're right...

 

[Richard]

As for the others its great to see Blackwell and Clark finally told to work on it in county cricket for a while but WHAT THE F**K is Mcgrath still there? im sure he and giles have some sort of blackmail material on someone in the ECB

It is extraordinary that McGrath has been in 5 consecutive squads, played little and not distinguished himself when he has played.
All I can think of is that he bowled better than some people in The NW Series... I just can't see anything else.

 

[Richard]

What about Sajid Mahmood? He wasn't really given a chance in the NatWest Series-one match out of six. And he has 20 totesport league wickets this season.

At an economy-rate of more than 5, yet again the folly of picking one-day bowlers on average rather than economy-rate is demonstrated.

 

[Richard]

And the Solanki we saw last summer was supposedly a different one from the one we first saw in International Cricket.

This is very true.
We heard of "Vikram Solanki's second-coming as a one-day-international player" yesterday on TCS - quickly reconsidered to "third-coming".
To be fair, this season he has scored one-day runs against teams other than one comprised of local club-players; last season he averaged 31.28 with that innings, 24.12 without it. This season he has averaged in the high 50s in both competitions.
As we've all seen, one good season does not an international player make...
But it's still better than no good seasons.

 

[Richard]

Ali never bowled for England in ODI cricket, and did well in his only test. Then he got injured. I think he has potential to be a future test regular.

There is another option to Gareth Batty: Graeme Swann. He bowls really well, has done well recently batting wise and is an athletic fielder. Another Northants player snubbed by the ECB...

This is a very valid comment.
Swann's overall one-day record is still pretty poor but he's been nothing short of magnificent in the National League this season. And he's been economical without being especially penetrative in the Championship.
Certainly there could be worse picks... like Simon Jones, with his fantastic List-A one-day record of 5.92-an-over and 129.
However, Batty has been equally good in one-dayers this season, as last. His selection can't have too much quibbling - though I still don't think normal-pace fingerspinners (50-55mph) will make ODI-class bowlers except on turning wickets.

 

[Nate]

This is a very valid comment.
Swann's overall one-day record is still pretty poor but he's been nothing short of magnificent in the National League this season. And he's been economical without being especially penetrative in the Championship.
Certainly there could be worse picks... like Simon Jones, with his fantastic List-A one-day record of 5.92-an-over and 129.
However, Batty has been equally good in one-dayers this season, as last. His selection can't have too much quibbling - though I still don't think normal-pace fingerspinners (50-55mph) will make ODI-class bowlers except on turning wickets.

yeh i half-agree with the latter.

 

[marc71178]

At an economy-rate of more than 5, yet again the folly of picking one-day bowlers on average rather than economy-rate is demonstrated.

You need wicket-takers in any side.

When you have Flintoff at one end keeping it tight then someone at the other end can attack a bit more.

 

[Arjun]

Good side, although they could play an extra frontline batsman, in place of Anthony McGrath. Blackwell may not be the most intelligent batsman around, but he has a lot of power to hit sixes and fours to win a game- Anthony doesn't. Besides, he's a better bowler on flat pitches than Anthony, isn't he? Even Ian Bell would be a good choice.

Bowling is not too bad, although James Anderson has not proven himself against good batting sides, on good batting wickets- the World Cup is proof. Kabir Ali may not have played much, but may be good enough to support the strike bowlers, who should be Gough and Harmison. Besides, he can also get some useful runs. Giles' new-found form should help. Flintoff can also be used as an attacking option.

Fielding is a problem area- Michael Vaughan occasionally hits the stumps directly, but is slow and has dropped a few sitters. Trescothick is not very mobile either, and nor is Giles. Geraint Jones may be a good batsman, but his wicketkeeping, slow and inconsistent, won't win matches. Harmison and Anderson have improved, while Flintoff is reliable in the slips. The key fielder will be Collingwood. The rest, are just average.

Balance is also quite good, with Flintoff, Jones and probably Anthony and Kabir. With Flintoff, there is place for an extra bowler, or a genuine wicketkeeper. The presence of Jones will strengthen the batting, though it will weaken the fielding. But if this team should win the tournament, they have to take wickets regularly, hit the stumps directly, stop those easy singles and possible boundaries, hold on to their catches, even if they are a little tough and most importantly- play to win.

 

[Richard]

You need wicket-takers in any side.

When you have Flintoff at one end keeping it tight then someone at the other end can attack a bit more.

You can usually bank on a few poor strokes played against Flintoff, meaning he'll get a wicket or two in most games.
An almost-inevitable result of bowling accurately in the one-day game.
My point about Mahmood is that he can take wickets at domestic level - despite being hammered all over the park - but from the little I've seen I can't help highly doubting he'll get anything like that number of wickets at ODI level.

 

[Richard]

Good side, although they could play an extra frontline batsman, in place of Anthony McGrath. Blackwell may not be the most intelligent batsman around, but he has a lot of power to hit sixes and fours to win a game- Anthony doesn't. Besides, he's a better bowler on flat pitches than Anthony, isn't he? Even Ian Bell would be a good choice.

I'd prefer have McGrath than Blackwell anyday.
Blackwell's ODI average could be even lower than it is but for the innings in his 2nd game and the dropped catch in his 4th.
It's appalling enough anyway.
McGrath and Blackwell are both rubbish bowlers on wickets that don't suit seam or spin. They'll usually both get hammered.
But with the bat Blackwell might hit the odd six here and there, but he tends to last such a short time that there's very little chance of him changing a match.

Bowling is not too bad, although James Anderson has not proven himself against good batting sides, on good batting wickets- the World Cup is proof. Kabir Ali may not have played much, but may be good enough to support the strike bowlers, who should be Gough and Harmison. Besides, he can also get some useful runs. Giles' new-found form should help. Flintoff can also be used as an attacking option.

Harmison could well go back to getting hammered in The NW Challenge, Anderson still looks wholly ordinary most games with the odd exception, Giles still hasn't demonstrated much to suggest he's an ODI-class bowler (he's only played 1 ODI since the Bangladesh tour) and well, Kabir Ali, I reckon he's best with two DNBs in his ODI career.

Fielding is a problem area- Michael Vaughan occasionally hits the stumps directly, but is slow and has dropped a few sitters. Trescothick is not very mobile either, and nor is Giles. Geraint Jones may be a good batsman, but his wicketkeeping, slow and inconsistent, won't win matches. Harmison and Anderson have improved, while Flintoff is reliable in the slips. The key fielder will be Collingwood. The rest, are just average.

Wicketkeeping can never win matches, but it can lose it.
Personally I simply think Read is a better one-day batsman than Jones irrelevant of any wicketkeeping ability.

Balance is also quite good, with Flintoff, Jones and probably Anthony and Kabir. With Flintoff, there is place for an extra bowler, or a genuine wicketkeeper. The presence of Jones will strengthen the batting, though it will weaken the fielding. But if this team should win the tournament, they have to take wickets regularly, hit the stumps directly, stop those easy singles and possible boundaries, hold on to their catches, even if they are a little tough and most importantly- play to win.

I can't help doubting England will get very far but you never know. I reckon Lanka are likeliest to win the first-round but they can play any abysmal rubbish any day so it's anyone's guess.

 

[Arjun]

I'd prefer have McGrath than Blackwell anyday.
Blackwell's ODI average could be even lower than it is but for the innings in his 2nd game and the dropped catch in his 4th.
It's appalling enough anyway.
McGrath and Blackwell are both rubbish bowlers on wickets that don't suit seam or spin. They'll usually both get hammered.
But with the bat Blackwell might hit the odd six here and there, but he tends to last such a short time that there's very little chance of him changing a match.

In that case, who else among the batsmen can bowl? Certainly not Collingwood. Probably Ian Bell.

Harmison could well go back to getting hammered in The NW Challenge, Anderson still looks wholly ordinary most games with the odd exception, Giles still hasn't demonstrated much to suggest he's an ODI-class bowler (he's only played 1 ODI since the Bangladesh tour) and well, Kabir Ali, I reckon he's best with two DNBs in his ODI career.

Hammered? By a batting side 7 strong, yet too weak to hit a six? Or too weak or afraid to hit more than 3 boundaries in 7 overs? Or a Number 3 who pushes himself up to show his cold feet against pace? This is Harmison's best chance to prove himself as an ODI bowler. Given Brett Lee's success in ODI's, pace can bwe quite a handful when used well, so Harmison deserves more chances. Giles has struck form, but it has to be seen how long he can keep it up. Not much has been seen of Kabir Ali- you never know what to expect.

Wicketkeeping can never win matches, but it can lose it.
Personally I simply think Read is a better one-day batsman than Jones irrelevant of any wicketkeeping ability.

If a wicketkeeper can hold on to catches to dismiss Gilchrist, Hayden and Martyn, and even have Ponting stumped, that can give his team a very good chance of winning. Crucial catches, stumpings, runouts and singles can win matches, not just big innings, or loaded wicket-hauls. The best teams in ODI's are superior fielding sides.

I can't help doubting England will get very far but you never know. I reckon Lanka are likeliest to win the first-round but they can play any abysmal rubbish any day so it's anyone's guess.

If the Australians make the finals, they wuld be really predictable, since the lack of great players in other teams shows up rather badly.

 

[Nate]

If the Australians make the finals, they wuld be really predictable, since the lack of great players in other teams shows up rather badly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

it would?? i wouldnt say that, every team (almost) has lots of superstars. indiiiiaaaa....

 

[PY]

I think Solanki may have been included due to his fielding abilities as well because Michael Vaughan has gone on record saying he was very worried about England's fielding in the NW games.

I think Harmison shouldn't be included purely due to wanting to keep him fresh for the winter tours. He looked crapped out in the 2nd Test of the back-to-back ones and I think this is big sign to the selectors that he shouldn't be expected to bowl huge amounts all year round. He's bowled 230 Test overs this summer and 46 overs in ODI plus the 100+ overs in West Indies. I just hope he doesn't burn out and lose the bite he had in the first morning of this Test match.

 

[marc71178]

Burnout seems to be a very modern occurance doesn't it.

Did FST ever suffer from it?

 

[PY]

Of course he didn't. Once he'd finished playing for England he'd go work a 12 hour down t' pit on his hands and knees until he bled and then walk home 63 miles carrying his cricket bag over the Yorkshire Dales.

 

[Arjun]

it would?? i wouldnt say that, every team (almost) has lots of superstars. indiiiiaaaa....

Not just an image, but REAL superstars. Really great players.

About Harmison, he is England's most effective bowler and the most capable of taking wickets- if he can take wickets in Tests at a good average, he can also do so in ODI's, can't he? Without Harmison, the team loses as many as 3 wicket chances in each match. But he should not get long spells.

 

[Richard]

Of course he didn't. Once he'd finished playing for England he'd go work a 12 hour down t' pit on his hands and knees until he bled and then walk home 63 miles carrying his cricket bag over the Yorkshire Dales.

Seriously Pete, burnout really is a mental thing, that's IMO demonstrated beyond all question by the infinately fewer overs bowled today than in the pre-2000 and pre-1967 years.
And IMO Harmison's sudden degredation in figures has rather more to do with a sudden improvent in batsmen's handling of him than any lowering in quality of the bowling.