Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Moving on the selection of an all time England ODI side to the pace bowlers, we can choose three options from the names above. Remember there will be an all rounder section later on which will feature some bowlers not selected in this category.

So far the team is

Hales
Trescothick
Root
Pietersen
Collingwood

though the vote is ongoing.

I used stats to select these, but have to own up that I overlooked Gladstone Small to get Steve Harmison in.

Tim (Bresnan) and Neil Foster missed out on statistical merit but the choice was marginal at the lower end.

These are the figures by SR for all pace bowlers to take 50 wickets against traditional top eight teams.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=bowling

I've tended to think that England only ever produced two world class ODI bowlers, Flintoff and Gough. I also went for Finn, who briefly looked like he might be the best of the lot but didn't sustain it.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Moving on the selection of an all time England ODI side to the pace bowlers, we can choose three options from the names above. Remember there will be an all rounder section later on which will feature some bowlers not selected in this category.

So far the team is

Hales
Trescothick
Root
Pietersen
Collingwood

though the vote is ongoing.

Shows England do not have even a single ODI great batsman. And this is all time best team. CMS selection panel are helpless here for lack of great batters.

Have to get some great ODI bowler at least.

Might give NZ all time ODI XI a game.

Gough
Freddie
Jimmy

It's more difficult to have a sense of how the bowlers now (Wood, Woakes, Willey, Ball, Stokes, Plunkett etc) stand in relation to players from the old days. The batters now have many more new shots, and we get a sense of that through the bigger scores and increased strike rates they have now. But the bowlers, they have many new deliveries and arguable a greater knowledge of the properties of the ball, yet they just go for more and more runs in spite of their development.

Putting the England bowlers in order of their economy, is basically to put them in order of their debut. Yet the opposite is true of SR, which just keeps on getting better. Few players buck these trends. One England bowler who does, though we haven't got to spin yet, is Derek Underwood. He has the econ of a seventies player, but the SR of a 21st century bowler. Freddie was one of the pace bowlers (like Steyn) who for a time held back the explosion in batting SRs as a bowler.

It feels to me the NZ team of McCullum was at the vanguard of sides who almost gave up on improving economy by bowling dots and just started to try and take wickets as a means of keeping the opposition in a permanent state of rebuilding. Hence we can have a bowler now like Rashid, who feels like a key player for England, but has a very high economy against his very good SR. Twenty years ago spin would dry up the middle overs. Now it feels like they hardly try. They just buy wickets.

It's tempting to just read into the stats that the biggest factor in the pattern of the stats are things extraneous to the quality of the cricketers. Changes in equipment and environment and rules.

Gingerfinch wrote:Gough
Freddie
Jimmy

Anderson is occupying the third seamer spot for now.

Gingerfinch wrote:Gough
Freddie
Jimmy

I've gone with the same .

Went for Plunkett as my 3rd because of his ability to take wickets in the middle of an innings.

Looks like Anderson will join Gough and Freddie. Never seen Anderson all that much as an ODI bowler, but the competition isn't that strong.

Thought Bob Willis would pick up a couple. And Daffy.

Considered Willis quite seriously...the fact that he played in a now ancient era shouldn't count against him as the best players would surely adapt. Went for Jimmy in the end largely for his fielding as an added bonus...trying to design a one day outfit that will fit the modern game. I think he would fit well with Flintoff and Gough...and the as yet unappointed spinner/all rounder.