Quotehanger

  • "The fact is that once I was playing again I was automatically available for everything on the schedule and that meant Stanford. I make no apologies for that and, as for the suggestion that I should waive the fee or give it to charity, I don't see why I should be a special case."
    Steve Harmison feels strongly about suggestions that he came out of one-day retirement in order to play the Stanford Twenty20 for 20

    Sep 7, 2008

  • Recent Posts

    Try DVD rental for £3.99 per month!

    The headlines

    The news

    TWC



    England squad for 2007 World Cup

    By Will last year, mid-January Leave a comment on this post

    I forgot to post the 30 England players chosen for the World Cup so, instead, I thought the following from Scyld Berry would summarise the pathetic state of England’s one-day set-up:

    England named their provisional World Cup squad of 30 players, who will be reduced to 15 in mid-February, for the competition which begins in early March. A pitiful list it is too, innocent of match-winners in every department of one-day cricket. England are not so much rank outsiders for the World Cup as plain rank.

    The 30 players in the provisional squad have scored 12 one-day international centuries between the lot of them, and that includes Vikram Solanki, who scored two and has long since been jettisoned. Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies have all at least one current batsman who has made more one-day hundreds off his own bat than England’s entire squad.

    England’s bowling cupboard is equally bare. No sign of a match-winning pace bowler, especially as Darren Gough has been consigned to history: the 36-year-old Gough, Ian Blackwell and Tim Bresnan have been ruled out of the World Cup already because they are not expected to reach the fitness levels required by the Feb 15 deadline.

    No sign of a match-winning spinner either, not that England’s one-day side have ever had one, unless Monty Panesar kicks on from his debut in Melbourne last Friday. And as Ashley Giles is back in training and in the provisional squad of 30, Panesar will have to win a match quickly if he is to make England’s 15 for the World Cup ahead of Giles.

    Pitiful indeed.

    Tags: , |

    27 Responses to “England squad for 2007 World Cup”

  • Kathy wrote:
    January 14th, 2007 at 2.07 am

    When will Simon Jones be playing cricket again…?

  • Will wrote:
    January 14th, 2007 at 9.26 am

    2010

  • the village idiot wrote:
    January 14th, 2007 at 1.49 pm

    Reading that world cup thing, well, it all looks a bit bleak.

  • Reverse Swing wrote:
    January 14th, 2007 at 7.09 pm

    To think that a few years ago there was actually a coherent strategy for ODI’s - separate squads and a different skipper than for Test Matches. We had a whole buch of one day specialists (Hollioake, Fleming, Ealham, Brown etc) plus the odd crossover (Stewart) and looked as though we were getting somewhere.

    Now it’s a total and utter disaster area, ilustrated by the fact that we have Strauss and Vaughan opening.

  • japaddy wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 1.36 am

    Don’t be so pessimistic; who would have nominated stuart clarke as a match winner in oct/06; or dare to predict that symonds would establish himself as a test player. It is sad that england has lost momentum; and at an administrative and management level English cricket has failed it’s public badly. Things can and will improve.

  • Kathy wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 5.06 am

    Yeah, agreed Japaddy. Quality players can come out of nowhere — form can come out of nowhere. I’m getting really really tired of the pessimism. It’s even more dispiriting than watching England lose all the time. If I see one more English cricket writer say “pitiful”, “pathetic” or “hopeless”, I’ll…. I’ll…. just watch cricket instead of reading about it.

    This NZ-England match is going to be crucial for the confidence of both sides. Both will be desperate not to lose. And England can have cause to be pleased that they played better against Australia than NZ did, and NZ are way up the rankings. So let’s not act like the world has ended.

  • bichishort wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 8.03 am

    excellent point by reverse swing.

    towards end-90s, the english ODI side had a strong middle order packed with both nudgers & hitters –along with mavericks like corkie and ALLY BROWN(!!) -
    i think the odi rot started with nick knight’s retirement.

    it’s definitely the batting that is most dispiriting. dont young english batters want to free their arms anymore or shall we all blame fletch again?

  • Reverse Swing wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 8.28 am

    Actually I think the rot started when the authorities got a bit spooked by someone prepared to speak his mind and play the game hard and get in the opposition’s face like Adam Hollioake did.

    ‘Can’t have that sort of behaviour old boy…’

  • Harrowdrive wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 9.21 am

    Looking on the bright side, one or two players can turn an ODI side around. KP in South Africa for example.

    If a couple of the rookies burst through in combination with good form from KP and the team get on a roll then there is a chance.

    Slim, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

  • japaddy wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 9.25 am

    However good England were the world cup has so far eluded them. they have not once looked a dominant force in this form of the game. Time to move on and look to the future.

  • bichishort wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 11.07 am

    hehe - couldn’t help noticing the book being peddled on the left sidebar of this page. not terribly smart marketing eh?

  • 13thMan wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 2.03 pm

    The NZ-Australia scorecard was pretty deceptive. The Kiwis actually played fairly well until they fell apart. Sounds silly, I know, but Fleming set excellent fields, and apart from incredibly destructive mad moments (well, entire overs) from the bowlers, they did fairly well. Although no-one can - nor should - take Bond’s hat-trick away from him, it came at a time when it was meaningless. He certainly took the wickets, but the batsemen were pretty much just flailing about. The Kiwi batting sucked, but I’d say it may have been a bit of an abberation..
    The Poms, despite registering a higher score, don’t really look that flash. Especially now that the Jaapie is finished - how ironic, and indicative of the state of English cricket, that their clearly best ODI player isn’t even really a Pom, but merely a cricket-whore.
    Despite the Kiwis struggling to play tests well, they should do OK in the one-dayers. The Poms may win one or two, but I would put any money on it.

  • Alexander wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 5.45 pm

    Well 13thMan, you’re probably right about the relative form of the Poms and Kiwis, but you can get stuffed with all that “he isn’t even really a Pom, merely a cricket-whore” bollocks about KP: his mother’s English, after all, but that isn’t really the point. I seem to remember one Kepler Wessels playing for Australia in the late 80s and early 90s, and do I need to remind you that the one non-white player in the Australian side (and more or less the only one they’ve ever had) is Symonds, who was born in Birmingham? The fact that England is a sufficiently diverse and attractive society to draw in people from all over the world is a cause for celebration: so is the fact that this is then reflected in the make-up of the cricket team, even if certain moronic Australian spectators seem unable to accept that the likes of Sajid Mahmood can be English. The fact that Australia’s cricket team does not reflect the diversity of Australian society is nothing to be particularly proud about - and I fully expect it to change soon.

  • Zainub wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 8.27 pm

    Alexander, any sports team should not necessarily represent the diversity of the populace of the nation it represents (if it does, that’s an added bonus) but principally it should represent the best set of players of that game, and to accommodate players who are not the best just to accommodate the diversity is not a theory I subscribe to.

  • japaddy wrote:
    January 15th, 2007 at 9.30 pm

    Zainub;- Alexander makes an important point, i think you may be splitting hairs over context.
    However if there is such a thing as a cricket whore Pietersen is surely it, he leaves South Africa grizzling about the quota system gets himself a tattoo and soon after selection for England. He is a prodigiously talented cricketer but immature and self centred.
    Symonds went the other way; enticed into the county system and offered English qualification, he decided instead to return to Australia and earn selection here.

  • Kathy wrote:
    January 16th, 2007 at 12.44 am

    What insulting rubbish about Pietersen. He has an English mother, he played by the rules and he qualified properly. What else can you ask of him? If you want him to change his personality and be all shy and retiring about himself, he wouldn’t be the player he is.

  • 13thMan wrote:
    January 16th, 2007 at 1.21 am

    Irrespective of his parentage, Pietersen is without doubt a cricket whore. The man was a South African until it wasn’t convenient. He wasn’t produced by the English system, despite the Poms’ love of him - he’s a foreign mercenary.
    Regarding Wessels - I don’t recall denying his existence. I didn’t mention him because it’s not germane. As it happens, I don’t recall anyone here really accepting him as an Aussie, and we certainly didn’t try to recast him as one.
    At least Symonds was raised here - unlike Pietersen. Phil Jaques, too, has an English connection - but is an Australian. This shouldn’t be about convenience, it’s about representing your nation - and Pietersen chose to jump ship. Englands benefit, RSAs loss, perhaps, but it doesn’t change the facts. Do we have to go through all of the Australian born or trained so-called English players throughout recent history? Including those who weren’t quite good enough to get a run here, and so put their hands up for (not even close to) second best?
    I seem to recall it taking until very recently for certain moronic English cricket administrators to realise that players like Mahmood were English. Perhaps if your cricket hadn’t been quite such a boys club for so long, you’d have a better side. Had we the large Pakistani and Indian communities that you have had for some time, I am fairly certain we’d have had national representatives from those communities long before now. The simple fact is that here in Australia, we don’t have anywhere near as many migrants from cricket-playing nations. It takes a couple of generations for our newer ethnic communities to start to develop an interest in cricket or AFL. Most Aboriginal Australians tend to play AFL (and are highly represented in that sport), and many migrants come from soccer backgrounds - and are well represented there - and are only now starting to dabble in other sports on offer here. Keep an eye out for them over the next generation or so. We can certainly see many at the Grade and District levels. When one shows sufficient form, he’ll get capped. Unlike England, which seems to base selection on background - until recently, when desperation seems to have forced them to start accepting others.
    As Zainub wrote - selection should be based on ability. Not the meeting of racial quotas.
    And Kathy, if you want insulting: I suspect that you are more of a cricket whore than Pietersen. No matter how much you try to delude yourself and everyone who reads your Will-endorsed nonsense, you are a New Zealander. Do you now regret previously stating that? Short of taking out UK citizenship, you won’t become a Pom merely by wishing really hard. Consider backing your own team for once.

  • japaddy wrote:
    January 16th, 2007 at 1.46 am

    Your very staunch Kathy…Ian Chappell made a similar defence of Pietersen; on one point there can be no argument, Pietersen should be allowed to play instinctively and we the paying public should take the rough with the smooth.

    Pietersen though can not be put above criticism, he chooses to live his life in full media glare; and profits in many senses from this over exposure. He is paid by his primary employers to play cricket and not to write tabloid editorials, Pietersen the celebrity like Warne before him will also have to learn to take the rough with the smooth.

    .

  • japaddy wrote:
    January 16th, 2007 at 2.23 am

    Cricket in Australia is overwhelmingly an anglo saxon game; run by anglos for anglos. I am interested How does our White Boys club differ from Englands? And as for Aboriginals how nice of us to let them use our facilities.

  • 13thMan wrote:
    January 16th, 2007 at 2.54 am

    “Cricket in Australia is overwhelmingly an anglo saxon game” - because it is Anglo-Saxon in origin. Inroads are, however, continually being made into other communities. As for Aboriginals, if they are good enough to play, then they do. Don’t try to create tension where there isn’t any. Japaddy you, too, are a wanker. I seem to recall you’re another transplanted Pom, aren’t you?

  • japaddy wrote:
    January 16th, 2007 at 7.43 am

    32 yrs in this sunburnt country; and you how far back do you go?
    I wave nobody’s flag i am a cricket lover, you i’m afraid are just mean spirited.

  • 13thMan wrote:
    January 16th, 2007 at 11.06 am

    8 generations dickhead. You’ve written in the past that you back England over Australia, so why not take a cab to the nearest airport?

  • Woodyway wrote:
    January 17th, 2007 at 5.01 am

    Reverse Swing beat me to it.As much as I hate to agree with him,Boycs.had the right idea when he suggested
    separate coaches for Test and one-dayers/20-20 etc.
    Go further and have two teams where never the twain shall meet except in dire emergencies or available outstanding talent.At test level ODI’s etc is Mickey Mouse cricket[I know:it's what most of us play/have played and its popular, exciting and mostly a good money spinner which subsidizes the tests [how many times is there a nearly empty ground on the last and most exciting day].
    There is a possible scenario spelling out the death knoll for test cricket?

  • japaddy wrote:
    January 18th, 2007 at 9.32 pm

    Dear 13th man 200yrs in Australia and still a chip on your shoulder, i hope i get rid of mine quicker!
    You are way to angry, relax a little take the dog for a walk!

  • andrew schulz wrote:
    January 19th, 2007 at 1.29 pm

    If the ideas of reverse swing and woodyway are anything to go by, Australia have nothing to worry about for many years. Can’t you see that there is nowhere near the depth in English cricket to have separate Test and one-day sides? To point to one-day specialists like Adam Hollioake, who wouldn’t make a club side out here, as the answer, is crazy. And different captains for the two forms of the game is not a good idea. As for comparing Kepler Wessels to Kevin Pieterson (he was actually out of Australian cricket by 1986) there is no real comparison, given that Wessels had to go elsewhere if he wanted to play international cricket.

  • Woodyway wrote:
    January 20th, 2007 at 12.43 am

    I can’t speak for Reverse Swing[I'm sure he can look after himself];all I’m saying is relegate ODI’s etc.a bit[people will still turn up] and maybe there would be a chance of developing a long term test set up-preparation etc.;not just against the Aussies but any team.
    Just an idea-take it or leave it.Does anybody really care?
    Firstly,we need a new selector system[the way Jones was treated was beyond the pale- no matter what one thinks of his ability].
    Secondly,it all starts with the school system [14 cricket/rugby pitches when I was at school as opposed to about 3 now];anyway,don’t wan’t to get into politics or racism at the moment.I’ve got a life.

  • Darrell wrote:
    January 29th, 2007 at 3.49 pm

    Look out folks…West Indes is going to run away with this World Cup trophy this year and a player not heard about by many is going to be the star of the show…his name you ask?…KEIRON POLLARD…remember it very well mates…he’s going to destroy any bowler that comes in his way…WI has got Dwayne Smith and Marlon Samuels also in the line up of players in case this youth fails to perforn in one game or two…their bowling might not be the best but with this young guy on the team, i don’t see a problem of them chasing 300 at all because i’m sure you’ve realised that i haven’t mentioned Brian Lara as yet…Have yourselves a great day mates!!!.

  • Comments

    Receive email updates on new comments


    « Brett Lee’s musical debut | Main | Meanderings on the Commonwealth Bank series »