West Indies in England

[sohum]

The West Indies can't be that good a ODI team as their actual side hasen't changed much, since the test series. England should be able to beat the West Indies as easily as in the test series, because we made their bowling and batting look very ordinary during the tests, so why can't we be just as convincing as the tests.

Incorrect assumption on your part that England are a good ODI team because they are a good test team and that West Indies are a bad ODI team because they are a bad test team, in my opinion. Apart from the fact that the selected bowling line-ups for England were quite different from the tests and ODI's, there's just the fact that England have not exhibited the ability to play ODI's convincingly for a long time. Minus Flintoff and Pietersen and Collingwood, it seems most of their batsmen gift their wicket away when the pressure of 50 overs is on them. The same batsmen (Cook and Bell, for example) thrive when the unlimited overs of test cricket is around them.

West Indies also have bowlers who have got the variations to cause batsmen trouble (like Bravo and Smith), as well as the part-timers (Gayle and Samuels) that can cause trouble over their 10 over spells. My final verdict is even if the teams are the same, every player has a different rating between tests and ODI's.

 

[kersnort]

Incorrect assumption on your part that England are a good ODI team because they are a good test team and that West Indies are a bad ODI team because they are a bad test team, in my opinion. Apart from the fact that the selected bowling line-ups for England were quite different from the tests and ODI's, there's just the fact that England have not exhibited the ability to play ODI's convincingly for a long time. Minus Flintoff and Pietersen and Collingwood, it seems most of their batsmen gift their wicket away when the pressure of 50 overs is on them. The same batsmen (Cook and Bell, for example) thrive when the unlimited overs of test cricket is around them.

West Indies also have bowlers who have got the variations to cause batsmen trouble (like Bravo and Smith), as well as the part-timers (Gayle and Samuels) that can cause trouble over their 10 over spells. My final verdict is even if the teams are the same, every player has a different rating between tests and ODI's.

International players should be able to adjust their qualiity of play to any form of the game that's what makes them good enough to be international players. Also, the England bowlers should be able to develop suttle variations like bravo and smith. Also Bravo's wickets come at a sizeable cost of 31 a piece at 5.29. And Smith's `variations` matter even less as he averages 39 runs per wicket and goes at 4.83 an over.

Therefore it is clear that the more pacey bowlers usually better records than the dibbly dobblies, like Fiedel Edwards, who has actually caused us problems. So maybe we don't need a person with suttle variations, maybe we need some with raw pace, who is a genuine wicket taker.

 

[m_vaughan]

I agree with sohum here. Believe it or not there is a considerable difference in the application and mentality needed for test and one day cricket. In test cricket, patience is the key and usually the more "talented" players succeed in this form of the game. But the one day game doesnt give you as much time to think and choose. You need to be in pace with the game.

West Indies would do well to score between 250-300 in a 50 over game but struggle to make totals above 500 if they were asked to play on. England on the other hand would take their time and get to a high total, but at the same time arent able to maintain a good enough run rate, which is needed in one day internationals.

The West Indies have a lot of these perfect one day players, especially in Bravo and Smith. They might not be the most talented players but are able to do the small things needed in their bowling spells and are get quick runs with the bat, irrespective of how they get them.

For England, Collingwood and Pietersen, are the two key men in one dayers. And Pietersen the best of the two, has failed in this series, making it even harder for the team to cope.

The bowling was good in the first game but it was probably a bit too good to believe.

For England the good thing is that this is a fairly new team and needs to learn a lot before becoming a winning side. There are a lot of guys who could go on and become crucial one day players. So patience is required as things dont change overnight.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Bravo's a class player though. Should be batting in the top 4 for the Windies.

 

[sohum]

International players should be able to adjust their qualiity of play to any form of the game that's what makes them good enough to be international players. Also, the England bowlers should be able to develop suttle variations like bravo and smith. Also Bravo's wickets come at a sizeable cost of 31 a piece at 5.29. And Smith's `variations` matter even less as he averages 39 runs per wicket and goes at 4.83 an over.

Therefore it is clear that the more pacey bowlers usually better records than the dibbly dobblies, like Fiedel Edwards, who has actually caused us problems. So maybe we don't need a person with suttle variations, maybe we need some with raw pace, who is a genuine wicket taker.

Of course they should be able to. But that is an ideal situation that I don't believe any country has reached (bar maybe Australia). Even in Australia you see a class player like Justin Langer not making it to the ODI team. Is that because he is not an international player? Quite the opposite--he's just more suited to the longer version of the game.

Of course England bowlers should be able to develop subtle variations and whatnot. But they haven't. That doesn't mean that they are a bad test bunch. Apart from the fact that Harmison and Hoggard weren't in the ODI attack, you have to see that Harmison and Hoggard are test bowlers. Hoggard's swing is extremely important with the new ball and Harmison has more time to find some rhythm. All these are luxuries that are not available in the shorter version of the game, which is why you see these players are not in the ODI version.

So this brings me to my conclusion: West Indies is a better ODI team than England. That obviously does not mean that West Indies is a better team or better test team than England. However, I believe given the current XI's, West Indies would win a 10-match ODI series against England convincingly. Why? They've got the players who can exert themselves over 50 overs. As m_vaughan stated, these players would find it difficult to do the same thing against a red ball and over 5 days.

Another clear example of this phenomenon is Bangladesh. Bangladesh can give teams a run for their money in ODI's, but in test cricket, they find the going much more difficult.

Bravo's a class player though. Should be batting in the top 4 for the Windies.

True. I think Bravo and Chanderpaul should have been/be brought up the order far earlier than they were/are going to be.

 

[karnog]

I dont support WI nor do i have any affiliation yet i'm absolutely happy for WI. It must have been depressing during the wc and test series. Good on em. As for england's poor odi performances, it is the batting not the bowling thats letting them down. I believe broad, ando, plunkett and soon flintoff with good old monty will make a formidable attack! Pieterson hasnt been performing so i guess its say to safe that they're a one-man team (well duh). England's line-up don't have experience at all and with flintoff out of form (and injured) i'm afraid england aren't going to perform to the level as they do in tests. Not in a while anyway. Tresco needs to find the cure for his depression now... strauss needs form and england are half way there to glory. Well my 2c. As for who is a better team, they're evenly matched as victory for either depends on momentum and confidence...

 

[Sureshot]

Our new team is much a work in progress if Ravi was fit throughout the 3 games I think we'd have faired better. I think maybe only Shah and Broad could hold their heads high maybe DImi too as he was quite economical.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Plunkett didn't do anything wrong really, was a little expensive yesterday but took 3 wickets and was dropped stupidly. I don't think any of the bowlers did that badly apart from Monty and Broad and Jimmy both had 1 bad game.

 

[Sureshot]

Although we've said that 7 ODIs vs India is overkill (which it is) perhaps 7 against a good side like that is a good prolonged test for our lads?

 

[Leicester Fox]

Or it will completely destroy what little confidence they had left folloiwng the abysmal ashes defeat, they will all have breakdowns like Trescothick and drive the team coach off a cliff. Or we win

 

[sohum]

Although we've said that 7 ODIs vs India is overkill (which it is) perhaps 7 against a good side like that is a good prolonged test for our lads?

I think the ODIs will be more closely fought than some here presume. I believe 7 ODI's will give either side to come back from a large deficit. I think it's a good opportunity to test a few players out.

 

[Will_NA]

I think the ODIs will be more closely fought than some here presume. I believe 7 ODI's will give either side to come back from a large deficit. I think it's a good opportunity to test a few players out.

or we could win the first or second game and lose the rest as we always do

 

[Nishant12]

or we could win the first or second game and lose the rest as we always do

hopefully!

 

[pest]

I don't think the oneday format has proven anthing over the years except to say that it does produce unexpected results. England beat the mighty Aussies on home turf and Ireland produced similar feats in the w/c. The w. Indies are a good oneday side that does not mean that the English are any less. This said any good international cricketer should be able to adjust as someone has pointed out. The yard stick for me is test cric.

 

[sohum]

This said any good international cricketer should be able to adjust as someone has pointed out. The yard stick for me is test cric.

You will notice that it took Dravid quite a bit to adjust to ODI cricket. And Dravid is a pretty good international cricketer--better than most. I think it is unfair on your part to expect any good test cricketer to be able to adjust into a good ODI cricketer and then label them a 'not good international cricketer' if they fail in the process.

Are Hoggard and Harmison not good international cricketers? How about Vaughan? And Langer?