BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Articles/ all comments

These 44 comments are related to an article called:

England 20/20 Winners and Losers

Page 1 of 1

comment by Silk (U1717598)

posted Jun 16, 2009

I think Shah and Anderson fall more in a middle ground. Both did OK, without being that good. Or bad.

One can hardly critcise Wright for 3 failures, but it's noteworthy that his best performance was against minnows. He's not suited to open. Maybe at 6.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

Difficult to rate Napier, who didn't even play.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

It's a shame that having picked Napier for the squad he wasn't given a go. What was the point. I thought they may have been thinking of him as a back up for Dimi, but when he was left out they picked Sidebottom (bowled well though) Napier will need a double century to be picked again !

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

just a little fact for all you napier haters
the bloke is playin today against kent
batted low down the order top scored for essex with 68 not out from 64 odd 7 4's 2 6's dat is what england were missing out on. neva mind, less he plays for england more he plays for essex smiley

| complain about this comment

comment by Silk (U1717598)

posted Jun 16, 2009

"just a little fact for all you napier haters"

I don't hate Napier.

I just don't think he'd be any good as an international batsman.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

"Arguably the most successful domestic 20/20 captain in past couple of years"
That is without doubt, so why on earth select Collingwood as captain - that decision alone beggars belief.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

Yes quite.


England should have given him a chance. His potential to be a big hitter or if out cheaply, a canny swift bowler ought to have been enough for a start in the tournament

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

I don't see how people feel Rob Key 'failed'

He was given 8 balls against the Netherlands batting down the order, in a situation (coming in late on) that is completely alien to him. What could he have done? He scored faster and more than Shah, Morgan and Collingwood that night. He should have opened instead of Luke Wright, who would be better suited down the order.

Key should have certainly been captain. We only won 2/5 games... I don't think that can be considered a successful campaign.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

Agree with some of your winners and losers but not all of them. Not sure how you can rate someone a loser when they were not even selected in the form of Napier. It is my firm belief you should play players who are good at certain forms of the game, ie specialists. Napier a 20/20 specialist. Why not at least give him a game? The worse he can do is fail, which is what the England team did any way. We are no further forward in knowing if he is good enough to play at this level or not. Do not agree about Rashid, was a bit disappointed with the lad who has been touted as an all rounder. Still he has shown some promise. Broad and Anderson were average in my opinion. Batting wise we were very poor, only KP and Bopara were consistent enough. All in all a poor showing, with no improvement. far better teams out there like SA and Sri Lanka.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

ok why is Anderson in the losers. 5 wickets, one less than Broad, economy 7.6, Broad gets a winner because of one more wicket and economy of 6.5 so difference being one wicket in five games and 1 run per over. Anderson was second to Broad in wickets, got two more than Sid and sid's economy was 7.5.
Please tell me cos I dont understand. The difference is minute, and that makes him a loser?????

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

Well, mostly i agree, but i wouldn't be harsh to Wright; good catches and only Bopara and Pietersen scored more than him.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

If Joe Denly does not make the squad next year, i will eat Geoffrey Boycott...or my shoe.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2009

Just to let you know some of my thought processes around winners and losers.

The players who wern't given a chance to play have missed out (through no fault of their own) on having the opportunity to impress at this level - Therefore they have lost out.

I also looked at whether a players reputation had been raised during the 20/20, and if they might have given the selectors a nudge in the direction of the Ashes squad.

I know it was difficult to catagorise some of the players, and without delving into the stats, I just went on whether I felt their stock had increased or fell as a result of their partisipation in the tournament.

Enjoying your comments.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

We have one thing the rest of the cricketing world does not.."The Blazered Buffoons"....ergo.. we all lose!!

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

I'd rather see the ECB support the English Women's side than the rabble Flower is now in charge of. If it wasn't for the Aussies I wouldn't bother watching the current England side. They are a bunch of self-obsessed muppets that could learn a lot from the ultra-professional, but badly supported, women's team. Guys like Collingwood that claim to be able to hold their head high after their awful performances in the 20/20 series and previous tours over the past 12 months are a joke and an insult to the game. But thats just my opinion.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

trevorbarker (U10797632)

Sounds like your barking on a bit laugh

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

Pretty much agree with most of what has been written on here. Its easy to comment after the fact but I do not feel that England had the right balance to the team. It was almost but not quite. Key should have been given a chance to open the batting with Bopara followed by KP and then Colly. Wright would have slotted in nicely at number 5 with Shah at 6. I agree that Foster is a good wk but can't help but feel that Prior would have been a good option in the squad. He could probably have got into the team just with his batting and I hope he is back in for the tests. I think what does need to happen is a bit of long term planning. Colly needs to be pushed slowly towards the exit door - unfortunatly neither Bell or Shah seem to be able to put any pressure on.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

Luciano - you can only be a male chauvanist if you deny that the English Women are ten times more professional and better prepared than the mens team. Is this acceptable for the fans? No!

| complain about this comment

comment by Ga (U10811305)

posted Jun 17, 2009

The thing that disappointed me most was the fielding for run outs.All too often, the ball was thrown in wide , and can`t remember one run out from a ball being thrown at the stumps.
Wright was dissapointing against India after having several slashes and misses,Where was the footwork.He couldv`e hit them for cover drives.He needs to calm down a bit with all the swing and miss.
As for the point of the Womens team being more professional, i don`t agree.They are doing very well, but the other nations aren`t exactly great.Until the other nations become more better, then it will never be a great spectacle.Besides the ropes are so close to the wicket, there is no reason why any team should be bowled out for 60.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

Not sure if the T/20 should, or will effect any thinking in the run up to the ashes but I do believe that all England fans need to prepare themselves for several blasts from the past come Monday’s squad announcement. Going on flower’s words:

"The squad we'll initially announce will be larger than the 12 or 13 for the first Test," said Flower.

I think we can take it as given that Steve Harmlesson (I know there are still some fans out there on the 606 boards and I somewhat admire your faith) and Michael Vaughan are a definite for this squad, when really England need to be moving on.

Bell probably deserves to be back in, but neither he nor Vaughan will get near the test number 3 place. I think bell (and shah) for that matter should be looking at the number 5 spot for their test return and whether it is this series or a future one, this is the next England batting place up for grabs. Vaughan is just about redundant and should be consigned to history.

As for the bowlers, Anderson, broad, Sidebottom (not sure whether he merits this or not, but will be in and around the squad in case of swinging conditions), flintoff, swann, panasar and rachid seem likely to be there. I would add Onions and Bresnan, but feel Harmless will have one of these initial spots. Prior and Foster to be the two wickies, Prior first choice.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

Vaughan? Harmlessone? Bell? Any votes for Hoggy and Jones?....It's this kind of thinking that consigns England to the dustbin of cricket!! Comfort blanket and cocoa anyone??

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

ps..didn't I read somewhere that Vaughan's knee has buckled again recently?

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

When Prior can catch a ball is when maybe he should become first choice. At the present time he loses more runs to the side by his poor keeping than he provides with the bat. The advantages of having a proper wicket keeper was clearly displayed by Foster's performances.

| complain about this comment

comment by Medlaw (U14001042)

posted Jun 17, 2009

Why is Harmison even being considered? He always seems like he doesn't want to be out there when he plays and why should you have to keep motivating someone like that? Surely playing for your country should be motivation enough?

Is Monty going to get a recall? I know that we'll probably play two spinners at Cardiff. Swann is definitely in. It then comes down to a choice between Monty and Rashid. Given that Rashid has shown some promise in the 20/20, he probably edges Monty out. Feel a bit sorry for Monty...

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

jovia

i am not saying they should, i am saying they will if you read between andy flowers quotes.

GKT - i imagine we will see all three spinners in the pre-ashes squad, that then gets whittled down later on

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

Why feel sorry for Monty?What should be pitied is the tendency in the England selection system to be so harsh on some players more than others,especially when such players fail on one or two tours.Against the Aussies,it is suicidal to trade Monty's experience for whatever positives Rashid has shown.Rather let his experience as part of the squad rub onto Swann than send Aussies two novices to put to the sword.Remember,Aussies are great experts at targetting inexperienced players.It is very likely they have a plan of attack for Swann already.If he fails,whom do you turn to? Rashid?Not a very wise move.

| complain about this comment

comment by Silk (U1717598)

posted Jun 17, 2009

Monty averages 93 with the ball this season.

He shouldn't be anywhere near the Test side.

Whether Rashid should be is a completely different matter.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

comment by Silk (U1717598)
posted 17 Hours Ago

I don't hate Napier.

I just don't think he'd be any good as an international batsman.


But Silk how can you make such an idiotic statement? He's never played so we don't know. I suppose you're the type who wants to continue with the same old players who constantly fail instead of giving new players a chance.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

All the bowlers but particulalry the spinners will need a top notch gloveman to take the opportunites to come their way. However the batting line up - if Foster is picked - would leave a weak looking lower middle order Flintoff (yes his batting has been weak for a while now!), Foster, but conversely a stronger tail than for many a year - Swann, Broad, Sidebottom / Rashid, Anderson.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

Foster cannot come into the test team unless Flintoff is reliable enough with the bat. The WK arguement is a pretty boring one now as a test WK needs to be able to bat, unless one of the bowlers is able to bat at 6 this goes back as far as Stewart/Russell. So that means no Foster and no Chris Read. With Foster in the team you would be either a bowler or bat light. Test team for Cardiff should be Stauss, Cook, Ravi, KP, Colly, Prior, Flintoff, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions. With one of the seamers droping out for another spinner if the pitch will take it

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

"i am not saying they should, i am saying they will if you read between andy flowers quotes"

Sorry, but for the life of me I can't see what it is your reading between Andy Flower's quotes. There's a bit about Flintoff's progress, but he wasn't in the same boat as Vaughan and Harmison in the first place. But there's not a syllable to suggest he's looking for an opportunity to get the "old guard" back in at any opportunity.

Nor is there any suggestion from any of the decisions made by Flower or Strauss since taking over that that's a strategy either is remotely interested in. Plenty, however, to suggest the opposite, eg:
Bopara at 3 intead of Vaughan or Bell
Onions for Harmison
Prior at 3 in the ODI for an injured Pietersen ahead of Bell
Morgan in the ODI 11 ahead of Bell
Rashid added to T20 squad - and playing

So why do you asusme that a delay in announcing the squad and a statement that there'll be more than the final 13 selected make you think he's looing at the likes of Vaughan Bell and Harmison ahead of the likes Rashid, Woakes and Hildreth?

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

Hi

Yes Flowers is not up to it

But 20 20 is a fun game apparently given significance but the description world championship.

Joke !


So now to the real thing who will be in the
squad for the Ashes.

I canot understand why Harmison had not decked this guy.

But Harmy is too nice I might one day meet the Flowers who apparentlly likes aggressive people.


Tottenhaman

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2009

I think one of our worst players was Stuart Broad, he proved he can't bowl well under pressure.and that he can't change a plan even when it is obviously failing - he only bowled over the wicket at the death in the last two games.
Sidebottom was 3 times the bowler in this tournament.

Both Napier(152* for Essex) and Mascarenhas(5 sixes in an over) were selected because of one innings each. How is this the selection policy.

| complain about this comment

comment by Kapnag (U11006724)

posted Jun 18, 2009

what a hilariously bad collection of opinions on international cricket

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2009

Blimey! Geoff Millar watched Vaughan make an unbeaten 21 off 34 balls yesterday
I don't know how he managed to contain himself!!

| complain about this comment

comment by Silk (U1717598)

posted Jun 18, 2009

"But Silk how can you make such an idiotic statement? He's never played so we don't know. I suppose you're the type who wants to continue with the same old players who constantly fail instead of giving new players a chance."

What 'old players'?

England have barely played any 20/20 cricket. So how can we ditch 'old players'?

I suppose you're the type who wants to change half the team every time we lose instead of giving players a chance to find some form and play as a unit.

"I think one of our worst players was Stuart Broad, he proved he can't bowl well under pressure."

I don't know why I bother. Really, I don't.

3/17 vs Pakistan.
1/14 vs South Africa
0/21 vs India

Against the big three teams we played (under pressure?) he went for LESS than 5.5 an over.

That's BRILLIANT bowling under pressure.

He had one poor over, in difficult conditions, against the Windies and suddenly he can;'t handle pressure?

doh

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2009

England must not depend too much on past laurels but get fresh young blood and top performers from the counties. Last ashes they tried to get same ashes team of 2005, most of them were out-form, result was white-wash. Vaughan, Ian bell, collingwood..these players are history, rather try new one to retain ashes. Take Aussies with a suprise as they did in 2005

| complain about this comment

comment by Silk (U1717598)

posted Jun 18, 2009

"England must not depend too much on past laurels"

What past laurels?

We haven't won anything for years!

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2009

As long as England consider the Ashes to be the pinnacle of cricket then we will never progress. The Ashes are great, yes, but it's a "Derby" game the rest of the World doesn't give a toss about. There are competitions and trophies aplenty to be won in World cricket and, to date, we've won naff all!
Collingwoods post match comments summed it up for me after we were dumped out of the "World Cup"..."We'll take the positives but now we can "move on" to the Ashes".....no comitment, no passion, no pride in wearing the shirt!

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2009

Collingwood and his f'in postitives. How about looking at it from any england fan's perspective, we weren't good enough, were too inconsistent and our selection was poor. No denly & malan for me was an absolute mystery.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2009

Eddie

Take a wee wonder over to cricinfo and take a read of their analysis of what Flower has said (incidentally I posted before I had read them).

A will eat my bike helmet if Harmision and Vaughan are not in the “extended” squad. It will be around 18 players,

Strauss
Cook
Bopara
Kp
Colly
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Onions
Anderson

Sideshow
Foster / ambrose / mustard (pay your money, take your pick)
Monty
Rachid
Harmison
Vaughan
Bell

I applaud the idea that you would rather see the “new blood” come in, but in all seriousness, it does not happen. England will revert to tried and tested methods and I would actually not be that surprised to see Harmison play the 1st test (assuming they go with 4 quick’s and I spinner). Yes he has tried a few things, but come the pressure of the ashes, all this will be swept away as per usual.

As for Bopara, this was no stroke of genius for the “great reformer” flower. There was no one bloody else to pick. This is in no way a criticism of Bopara, he has taken his chance fantastically, but who else was going to be tried at 3, after Shah and Bell were dumped

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2009

Is Harmy playing too?doh Go with three spinners...Aussies had real trouble with them in T20

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2009

I meant in 2005 - past laurels...once they get glory they go crazy and do all sorts of drunken paedolo things..hard to keep their feet on ground..

| complain about this comment

comment by Kapnag (U11006724)

posted Jun 18, 2009

Aussies had trouble scoring at 8 an over against spinners. That doesn't mean 3 spinners will bowl aussies out in a day over 5 matches

This is why people should stop talking about 20 over cricket success, that's not even 1 session in a test match!

| complain about this comment

Page 1 of 1

HINTS & TIPS

Deleting comments

You are in charge of your own space - if you see an offensive comment, you can delete it

Reasonable debate is allowed - please don't delete a comment just because you don't agree with it

If you are not sure, or feel a comment warrants further attention, you can refer it to a moderator instead