England at the 2015 World Cup.

[Making_Splinters]

To put this rather bluntly, England have just over 60 ODIs before the next world cup and the players in our team for that match should have played a minimum of 30 of those matches, they guys who are on the cusp at the minute and are likely to be there or there abouts should have 15 to 20 ODIs under their belt and played in every lions match between now and then, when they are not in the full squad.

It is rather pointless to come up with speculation about a players form three years down the line, but what England have to do is start putting the processes in place so our players can finally start competing with the big boys in terms of experiance and know how.

[andy]

good point ms, however i really hope that buttler is in the side for the world cup, fantastic talent, and perfect to play the finisher role, which also allows morgan to bat higher up in the order.

[dan08]

good point ms, however i really hope that buttler is in the side for the world cup, fantastic talent, and perfect to play the finisher role, which also allows morgan to bat higher up in the order.

That's if Morgan is still in the team. A lot can happen in 3 years...

[andy]

very true however, i have a lot more faith in morgan when it comes to odi's then i do with him in test cricket.

[HarryPotter]

Yes. We're missing Trott, Bopara, Swann from that team who might well be around. Hales and Briggs who are ahead of options in this team. Six months ago Bairstow would have been in a speculative team. Now it seems like the first act of his career is over, in the eyes of the press. His lustre in the writing of teams on the back of envelopes, has faded.

Most instructive thing about this team is a sudden doubt over Swann and Trott. And a lack of belief in Ravi.

My team for the 2015 WC, would actually be the team I would pick for the next game England have. Otherwise they wouldn't be playing.

Absolutely right.

[OffStumpYorker]

Yes. We're missing Trott, Bopara, Swann from that team who might well be around. Hales and Briggs who are ahead of options in this team. Six months ago Bairstow would have been in a speculative team. Now it seems like the first act of his career is over, in the eyes of the press. His lustre in the writing of teams on the back of envelopes, has faded.

Most instructive thing about this team is a sudden doubt over Swann and Trott. And a lack of belief in Ravi.

My team for the 2015 WC, would actually be the team I would pick for the next game England have. Otherwise they wouldn't be playing.

Absolutely right.

The problem with the media is you're only as good as your last game, especially if you dont come from Hamshipre, Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, or Kent. Its the same with footballers, if you dont play for Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea, City, or Liverpool.

It wasnt 6 months ago that they were singing Bairstows paises he has a bad series in India (very foreign conditions) and suddenly isnt worth a place in the squad.

[Kim]

"The problem with the media is you're only as good as your last game"

True. They have to sell papers. The other problem is they mostly dont know what they are talking about regarding players outside the international set up. The Chief Criket writers of two quality papers never watch county cricket (one actually baosts about it) so really dont have a clue when putting names forward - thats why when they suggets replacements its generally someone who has played before, a youngster they have never seen but has good figures or someone who has done well in a televised game. Trott, for example, didnt fit any of these categories which is why none of them saw him coming back in 2009.

Problem is they have more power than in most sports because cricket is more read about than watched - at games/on TV - below international level.

So I take most of what they say with a tonne of salt.

Morning rant over. No idea where that came from. Sorry.

[Gingerfinch]

"The problem with the media is you're only as good as your last game"

True. They have to sell papers. The other problem is they mostly dont know what they are talking about regarding players outside the international set up. The Chief Criket writers of two quality papers never watch county cricket (one actually baosts about it) so really dont have a clue when putting names forward - thats why when they suggets replacements its generally someone who has played before, a youngster they have never seen but has good figures or someone who has done well in a televised game. Trott, for example, didnt fit any of these categories which is why none of them saw him coming back in 2009.

Problem is they have more power than in most sports because cricket is more read about than watched - at games/on TV - below international level.

So I take most of what they say with a tonne of salt.

Morning rant over. No idea where that came from. Sorry.

Maybe I should be a cricket writer (possibly not) as I don't watch any county cricket, which makes debating with you guys quite difficult at times.

I would suspect most look at the averages and base their opinion on that?

[OffStumpYorker]

No problem kim, we all have a rant inside us atleast once a week.

I must admit i dont get to watch as much county cricket as I would like but I do try and listen to streamed live matches when I'm at work, especially if its a yorkshire match, then theres the highlights from the CC on the ECB that I try and watch as well, its just a shame the feed is such low res.

As you say most of the 'cricket' jouralists dnot actually watch lower level games, In the end the only people I take seriously in the Media are Scyld Berry, Mark Hughes, occasionaly Aggers makes sense (but he can be a bit wet at times), as do Boycs, and other ex-players.

[Kim]

Maybe I should be a cricket writer (possibly not) as I don't watch any county cricket, which makes debating with you guys quite difficult at times.

I would suspect most look at the averages and base their opinion on that?

Ive seen Sky do that when discussing possile replacemnets for Strauss as opener. Botham just held up a list of openers averages - not split between Div one and two - and they went through that.

Mind you it was Botham who said picking Darren Pattinson was ridiculous because "he never heard of him". At the time Darren was third in the FC averages and had already been picked in an England performance squad. Show how much basic reserach Beefy does.

[Kim]

No problem kim, we all have a rant inside us atleast once a week.

I must admit i dont get to watch as much county cricket as I would like but I do try and listen to streamed live matches when I'm at work, especially if its a yorkshire match, then theres the highlights from the CC on the ECB that I try and watch as well, its just a shame the feed is such low res.

As you say most of the 'cricket' jouralists dnot actually watch lower level games, In the end the only people I take seriously in the Media are Scyld Berry, Mark Hughes, occasionaly Aggers makes sense (but he can be a bit wet at times), as do Boycs, and other ex-players.

Nor me - but we are bantering/arguing/ debating on a message board not holding ourselves out as national experts with influence. Id add (sorry Mildred/Arthur) George Dobell to your list of media - which I agree with bar Aggers - at least on county cricket cos he spends ever day at games in the summer.

[rich1uk]

Maybe I should be a cricket writer (possibly not) as I don't watch any county cricket, which makes debating with you guys quite difficult at times.

I would suspect most look at the averages and base their opinion on that?

Ive seen Sky do that when discussing possile replacemnets for Strauss as opener. Botham just held up a list of openers averages - not split between Div one and two - and they went through that.

.

the other bizarre thing about doing that with strauss is the time he spent playing FC cricket away from tests last year his stats were probably as good if not better than anyone who might be considered to replace him.

[meninblue]

"The problem with the media is you're only as good as your last game"

True. They have to sell papers. The other problem is they mostly dont know what they are talking about regarding players outside the international set up. The Chief Criket writers of two quality papers never watch county cricket (one actually baosts about it) so really dont have a clue when putting names forward - thats why when they suggets replacements its generally someone who has played before, a youngster they have never seen but has good figures or someone who has done well in a televised game. Trott, for example, didnt fit any of these categories which is why none of them saw him coming back in 2009.

Problem is they have more power than in most sports because cricket is more read about than watched - at games/on TV - below international level.

So I take most of what they say with a tonne of salt.

Morning rant over. No idea where that came from. Sorry.

Exactly, most cricket writers in India too would not be knowing even the names of domestic tournaments. I doubt if they are aware of tournaments like Shalini Bhalekar trophy and what purpose it is played for. I doubt they even know which tournaments actually can be classified as domestic and which do not.

I am very choosy about what i read as far as cricket is concerned. First thing i see is who has written the article. If the author is not a proper cricketer then i don't read it because i believe without practical knowledge the writers will only be able to tell you the scores and general things like the ball was moving etc and some played rash strokes so match was lost. For example i skip Firdoose Moonda's articles on cricinfo but always try to read Akash Chopra's articles. Firdose Moonda cannot analyze what Akash Chopra can ( technicalities of batting, bowling, fielding, wicket keeping ) because of the vast gulf in their cricket upbringing. One has just watched the game whereas the other has played. Like you say cricket is more read than watched and i would add played properly by far fewer. Media thrives on this and is successful in selling a lot of nonsense articles.

[Gingerfinch]

"The problem with the media is you're only as good as your last game"

True. They have to sell papers. The other problem is they mostly dont know what they are talking about regarding players outside the international set up. The Chief Criket writers of two quality papers never watch county cricket (one actually baosts about it) so really dont have a clue when putting names forward - thats why when they suggets replacements its generally someone who has played before, a youngster they have never seen but has good figures or someone who has done well in a televised game. Trott, for example, didnt fit any of these categories which is why none of them saw him coming back in 2009.

Problem is they have more power than in most sports because cricket is more read about than watched - at games/on TV - below international level.

So I take most of what they say with a tonne of salt.

Morning rant over. No idea where that came from. Sorry.

Exactly, most cricket writers in India too would not be knowing even the names of domestic tournaments. I doubt if they are aware of tournaments like Shalini Bhalekar trophy and what purpose it is played for. I doubt they even know which tournaments actually can be classified as domestic and which do not.

I am very choosy about what i read as far as cricket is concerned. First thing i see is who has written the article. If the author is not a proper cricketer then i don't read it because i believe without practical knowledge the writers will only be able to tell you the scores and general things like the ball was moving etc and some played rash strokes so match was lost. For example i skip Firdoose Moonda's articles on cricinfo but always try to read Akash Chopra's articles. Firdose Moonda cannot analyze what Akash Chopra can ( technicalities of batting, bowling, fielding, wicket keeping ) because of the vast gulf in their cricket upbringing. One has just watched the game whereas the other has played. Like you say cricket is more read than watched and i would add played properly by far fewer. Media thrives on this and is successful in selling a lot of nonsense articles.

I'm not that bothered what level a writer has played or if at all. If a modest club cricketer watches a lot of cricket then he will gain enough knowledge to give a good opinion.

[meninblue]

"The problem with the media is you're only as good as your last game"

True. They have to sell papers. The other problem is they mostly dont know what they are talking about regarding players outside the international set up. The Chief Criket writers of two quality papers never watch county cricket (one actually baosts about it) so really dont have a clue when putting names forward - thats why when they suggets replacements its generally someone who has played before, a youngster they have never seen but has good figures or someone who has done well in a televised game. Trott, for example, didnt fit any of these categories which is why none of them saw him coming back in 2009.

Problem is they have more power than in most sports because cricket is more read about than watched - at games/on TV - below international level.

So I take most of what they say with a tonne of salt.

Morning rant over. No idea where that came from. Sorry.

Exactly, most cricket writers in India too would not be knowing even the names of domestic tournaments. I doubt if they are aware of tournaments like Shalini Bhalekar trophy and what purpose it is played for. I doubt they even know which tournaments actually can be classified as domestic and which do not.

I am very choosy about what i read as far as cricket is concerned. First thing i see is who has written the article. If the author is not a proper cricketer then i don't read it because i believe without practical knowledge the writers will only be able to tell you the scores and general things like the ball was moving etc and some played rash strokes so match was lost. For example i skip Firdoose Moonda's articles on cricinfo but always try to read Akash Chopra's articles. Firdose Moonda cannot analyze what Akash Chopra can ( technicalities of batting, bowling, fielding, wicket keeping ) because of the vast gulf in their cricket upbringing. One has just watched the game whereas the other has played. Like you say cricket is more read than watched and i would add played properly by far fewer. Media thrives on this and is successful in selling a lot of nonsense articles.

I'm not that bothered what level a writer has played or if at all. If a modest club cricketer watches a lot of cricket then he will gain enough knowledge to give a good opinion.

Agreed, Ginger. Even i am not bothered about the level of the writer at proper cricket as well. All i look for is that he has played proper (club) cricket at least.