posted Jun 29, 2007

"its a new and different game.Like comparing Premiership with 5 a side."

You're preaching to the converted Pearls...!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2007

Peter Moores has made some very good selections, but really dropped a clanger last night in not picking Monty. He's come from nowhere to 6th best in the world in Test cricket in 18 months. What is there to suggest that he wouldn't do the same in 20-20 or ODIs? Especially as spinners have been the key so far in our domestic 20-20s.

Also, why continue to bowl length balls that get hit out of the ground or scooped for four, when anyone who has played any cricket saw that the situation cried out for yorkers?

England need to improve bigtime tonight.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2007

Paul Collingwood couldn't direct piss into a bucket. But bless him, he's only a wurzel so I suppose we have to forgive for him having approximately the same level of intellect as
a rhododendron.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2007

If you can play cricket you can play cricket. There is no such thing as a “20/20 specialist” or a “one day specialist” or a “Test match specialist”- any cricketer worth his salt can adapt to the demands of the situation in any game. A batsman needs sometimes to defend for a few overs and sometimes to attack. If you can't do both you shouldn't be in an international team. A bowler, likewise, needs on occasion to limit runs and on other occasions to take wickets. If you can't do both...

So you pick your most talented players whatever the form of the game. If someone isn't worth their place in the Test team then they are not worth their place in the One Day team. And vice versa. On the day, in both forms of the game, you might err on the side of picking (say) a more attacking batsman rather than a more defensive batsman for tactical reasons. You might go for a strike bowler rather than a container similarly. But the Test squad (15 or so players) should be the same as the One Day squad and the 20/20 squad. You might juggle the batting order a bit and you might use your bowlers a bit differently because there are limitations in the One Day game on field placings and on how many overs they can bowl. But you always, always, always want your best players, not “bits and pieces” players, in the squad no matter whether it’s limited overs or Tests.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2007

blade-empathy is always at the core of understanding...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2007

Long Stop-what absolute rubbish. ODI is a totally different game to Test cricket, its Englands approach that its alll the same that is letting us down. ALL the pros I have heard all state ODI is a different game requiring different levels of ability, athletisism,and strokes.

Its the belief its all the same is what is clouding the issue.Would you play 5 a side the same as Premiership. ITs a short version which requires specilaists/ Forget the Aussies model.IN 20/20 BRad Hodge plays, but a Test cricketer..err no...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2007

"On the day, in both forms of the game, you might err on the side of picking (say) a more attacking batsman rather than a more defensive batsman for tactical reasons. "

But what you're saying here, in essence, is the same thing. Of course good quality players can play in all forms of the game. But, some are more suited to test cricket than 20/20. And vice versa. Why would you ever play a more defensive batsman in a 20/20 game?

As for bowling, containers will help stem the runs in 20/20, but will never win a test match for you.

So I think the arguments are the same, yes, players are capable of playing in all forms of the game, but they are usually suited to one or the other. Generally what you end up with then is a specialist squad each for test match, one day, and 20/20 - if some players can genuinely cross over and play to the conditions in each of these games, all well and good.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2007

Australia’s top seven in their last 20/20 Match:
Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Symonds
Clarke
White

Australia’s top seven in their last Test match:
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Symonds
Gilchrist


If you can play you can play.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2007

But you're still saying the same thing Mr Long Stop. Those players are all extremely capable of crossing over from test to one day to 20/20 - like I said, if you have those sort of players, all well and good. I don't think we do, therefore we should look at other players and perhaps think of 20/20 specialists.

I think it is too simplistic to simply say 'If you can play you can play' - our approach to cricket is different to the Australians, I'm obviously not saying better, just different, and we do develop test players who are not at home at one dayers, let alone 20/20.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2007

Monty- spot on.

The Aussies dont have such a large structure.less players and therefore a smaller pool to call off. In England we do have lads on the County circuit who are specialists in OD cricket and some who play 4 day.One of our young pros has said he is focussing on becoming a one day specilaist and spends inordinate amopunts of time on his fielding,throwing,running...he can also bat and bowl but he spends hour after hour practice practice practice..he also gets the colts,old boys anyone who will give him time to practice. $ day game...no chance, has the concentration of a flea...

add comment | complain about this comment