Champions Trophy, Feb 19 - March 9

[Arthur Crabtree]

Santner 10-1-41-1 is a good effort.

[sussexpob]

Your missing an obvious point?! The players you mentioned there wouldn't have played in the one day cup for a few years because of the hundred.....when is the last time they played in the 50 over cup?! The hundred has taken place at same time in last 3 years...?! The 50 over cup is a developmental tournament now....I'm not sure where your getting confused with that point? You seem to be the only one who is...

Look at Eskinazi also. Finished top scorer in the competition with amazing stats, apparently utterly meaningless.

Gets picked for the Lions, subsequently dismantles an attack including the current ranked 3rd bowler in the world and with 5 players with a huge amount of ODI experience in back to back games vs South Africa.....

England picked Tom Abell in the next squad over him... he scored 13 and 0, averages 15 less in List A cricket with a SR in the 70s.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There's the wicket, but a handy partnersip in the circumstances.

[sussexpob]

End of the day Andy, the results speak for themselves.

When we pick players with OD pedigree and good records, we get good players. When we pick players who arent good in the OD cup based on other format performance, we get failures. The side is in complete abject disarray, and none of the new selections have worked. That is a given. It seems foolhardy to stick with a plan that, in other forms, didn't work for 35 years before 2015 either. Interestingly, when we ditched this attitude we dominated.

But lets not learn those lessons. Lets instead pick Warwickshires 11th best batsman based on vibes .... defo a great idea. Vibes always work.

[andy]

There are certain points there Sussex where I agree with you....for example Sam Hain I have no idea how he hasn't been selected it's baffling he is clearly class in white ball...but stats aren't everything and for the most part since taking over mccullum and keys hunches have worked there's only a couple that haven't....my point being some people are better with the step up....for example ducketts odi record since coming back and opening is very good ...better than his one day cup record and there's no way he deserves to be dropped.....

Not everyone will come off if you are going to go by stats alone then you have to really take apart all games all bowlers and all conditions....because yes people do well in the one day cup but you aren't telling me that just because someone averages 50 in a sub par 50 over comp that they are gonna come out and average 50 against....starc Hazelwood and Cummins for example....

Duckett, malan bethell etc have scored runs at international level...duckett has a good record across formats rn...and bethell is new to international cricket but in tests at least looked at home.....your paying far too much attention to a sub par 50 over comp which does nothing for the national side

[andy]

Think we have a game on here...250 to win....competitive but not unchaseable...but 4 quality spinners for India...game on

[Arthur Crabtree]

All to decide whether they play SA or Australia...

[sussexpob]

but stats aren't everything and for the most part since taking over mccullum and keys hunches have worked there's only a couple that haven't

Once again, dare I say that you are taking performance in one format, and using it to argue performance in another.

Since April 2022 when Key took over England have won 19 of 50 matches, for a win ratio of 0.38. In the history of English ODI cricket, they have never had a 5 year period where their win ratio dropped below 0.828 (the shortest I can isolate the available stats by). So by an absolute country mile, Key has over seen the worst performing ODI side we have ever had.

I don't want to get tucked into McCullum too much yet, but his record so far is 7 games, 7 losses. The second worst streak in English history (after 11 losses in 2000/01). So while I appreciate he's not had much time, even given that context a 100% loss record is shambolic.

Key's inprint is all over the bowling attack. He asked for express pace, and that's what we got..... and what we have with it is the worst bowling attack around. The stats on things like middle overs bowling econ with England's express pacers is embarrassing.

And none of the batsman left field picks worked.

I give Key 0/10 for his ODI performance so far. And I think thats generous.

[andy]

I'm not saying that works, I'm saying the England think tank do, nor am I saying they all work, but out of all left field selections since mccullum took over in all formats I'd say they have more right than wrong.... everything isn't as black and white as you make them out to be...cricket is unique in that there are so many variables and for them all to work at the same time almost never happens!

Yes a rebuild is needed but also an element of common sense needs to remain it isn't all panic stations

[sussexpob]

Not everyone will come off if you are going to go by stats alone then you have to really take apart all games all bowlers and all conditions....because yes people do well in the one day cup but you aren't telling me that just because someone averages 50 in a sub par 50 over comp that they are gonna come out and average 50 against....starc Hazelwood and Cummins for example....

Its not the point, Andy.

I am not saying that the 50 over cup guarantees a player will do well - simply that players who can't out-perform 10 of their team-mates in the same competition can be judged in comparison to those players. I cannot tell you what Barnard scoring big runs means in the 50 over cup for his chances to play against the very best - but I can conclude that he outperforms Bethell by such a gigantic margin given the exact same conditions, he has a significantly higher chance than Bethall in stepping up.

Any other conclusion is based on something artificial. Here we can directly compare how they perform in the format

[andy]

Shami got hit on the shoulder when batting and it looks like it's really affecting his bowling looks in considerable pain

[sussexpob]

your paying far too much attention to a sub par 50 over comp which does nothing for the national side ....Yes a rebuild is needed but also an element of common sense needs to remain it isn't all panic stations

As I have demonstrated above, the data we have available shows a clear trend between 50 Over Cup success over time and doing well for England - and players with middling or bad performance in turn failing to make the grade in international cricket. In this regard, the data tells us exactly what we expect - actual good performance in the format translates, and its absence leads to the opposite. Following the "left field" path has lead to arguably our worst returns in ODI cricket history.

You seem to be suggesting that the "common sense" approach would be to ignore what the clear trends that the data shows us, ignore the fact that bad v good performance when all other variables are the same is indicative of quality between players, and instead we should use a data set that is completely irrelevant in judging the question in hand - and by extension, ignore the fact the results of following this path have been rubbish.

Not sure that is common sense to me. Quite the opposite in fact.

[sussexpob]

England seem to assume that players who can maintain good averages for the T20 format at high strike rates, somehow have the capacity to drop SR with a natural proportional increase in averages. The problem is, you get a lot of players in T20 who play a bit more on instinct, and there is no great problem with going out and plundering a quick fire 15 or 20, it can be useful. But that 20-15 runs in ODI is useless. You need players who can maintain longer innings and make big scores.

Guys like Bethell, Banton, Crawley, Smith et al all bat around the 80s SR in 50 over cricket. In order to increase the run performance, they actually need to be cautious. The problem is, they also don't score big innings along with it. You can have one or the other, Brook for instance could work in a decent team being a big hitting guy with a low-mid 30s average (but not in a team of similar players, you need someone who can move on) because he will occasionally just take a game away from someone.

England are essentially picking players hoping that their SR and average increases when exposed to top level cricket - which seems highly unlikely. If a player can't hit a minor counties attack around quickly or make big innings, how with they do it v the best? It's a foolhardy strategy.

That's essentially what this argument comes down to. Why would pick players who cannot bat long or quickly in the hope exposed to better standards they suddenly can do both, and ignore the players that have proven irrespective of the level of competition, that they can.

It's simple... you follow the data you have to make an assessment.

[Arthur Crabtree]

NZ not going to make it. India v Australia. NZ v SA.

[Durhamfootman]

which of Aus or SA had to make two 3 hour flights in order to accommodate India?

and which of them only had to make one?