My 1992 one day theory

Guys I'm going to make a very controversial post, you guys probably wont agree with anything I say but oh well, here is what the team should be for the 50 over games:

1. Ali Cook
2. Andrew Flintoff
3. Marcus Trescothick
4. Paul Collingwood
5. Kevin  Pietersen
6. Andrew Strauss
7. Jamie Dalrymple
8. Chris Read
9. Stuart Broad
10. Chris Tremlett
11. Monty Panesar

Heres my thinking. I am basing this on the 1992 England team. A feature of that England team is very accurate bowlers, solid middle order, explosive lower order and an opening partnership of the most solid player around (Gooch) and the most destructive (Botham).
I have chosen Cook because he is very difficult to get out and Flintoff because he is incredibly destructive on his day. My middle order looks good with Tres at number 3 replacing Robin Smith who was probably the best player in 1992 since Gooch and Botham were a bit passed it. I then have Colly and Pietersen because they are usually solid and often make good partnerships.
I moved Strauss down the order to be the Neil Fairbrother of the side or as I like to call him the token left hander. He is solid if the game goes wrong for England and he can attack too. I think every one day side should have two spinners to bowl from the 20th to the 35th over so I chose Dalrymple who is also a decent batsman and of course Monty. Their bowling styles should mix well I think.
My keeper is Read in a postion where there is less pressure on him. My two fast bowlers are bowlers who have great potential and they are both Glen McGrath type bowlers who are very accurate.
So my bowlers are: Broad, Tremlett, Panesar, Dalrymple, Flintoff, Colly and Pietersen if necessary. So what does everyone think? It is a very young side and could work within a two years or so.

Edited by 70_degree_spin - 08 January 2007 at 9:02pm

well if hes fit and not suffering from mnetal problems...

Comparing the 92 side to the lame ducks of today is crazy - the 92 side was the best in the competition and should have been the 1st England side to win the world cup.  That side batted right down to number 10 and there were 7 bowlers in the team too!

    Today's shower will get murdered in this series in Australia and be home early from the world cup too.

Who picks a team in 2006 based on the form of a team in 1992? That's madness

Why do most people doubt Alastair Cook's ability to score runs at a quick rate? We saw him make a run a ball 40 against Sri Lanka last year he, he is also the future of the team so why not play him in ODI's and he is better then Bell in both forms if not he will be better.

I never said that he cannot score quickly ,I only said Bell is more solid and has a decent strike rate as well .

being able to field 15 players would not help england

Don't count on it CM , we'd have a tail longer than a brontosaurus!

Yes Clobs , Pringle and Illingworth weren't up to much , but I did see some useful runs at the death from Reeve.

Originally posted by Chin Music Who picks a team in 2006 based on the form of a team in 1992? That's madness

No its not, it is taking a successful formula to a failing team, its worth a go because this team isn't going to win anyway so they may as well try new things. As for the Bell issue, I think he should become a test match batsman so he concentrates more on that. This team bats down to 8 which while not being down to 10 is pretty close. As for the Flintoff, he could handle it at opener, batting at 6 for a decent side means that he often faces the second new ball for the test squad and does pretty well. He could more than handle the spot I think. I put Tres at 3 because he is the best player in ODI (when not mental) and the best player should be at 3. The captain, I forgot to say is Strauss.

that was the shortest 2 weeks ever 

Originally posted by Clobber Although I am light heartedly knocking him I actually quite admired Pringle in some ways - the guy took unbelievable stick for not being Ian Botham but always stuck to his own way of doing things and was a more than handy one day bowler. I remember an ODI when Gordon Greenidge hit the first two balls of his spell for 6 & 4, yet he still ended up only conceding 27 off his 10 overs.

  One day cricket has changed so much since 1992 Clobs. That England side's strength was the numbers of allrounders in it's ranks. That most of those were carthorses in the field didn't really matter then , the side were more than capable of chasing down big totals.
   Few sides batted to 10 , as England did and no side had as many bowlers. If someone got pasted , then there were plenty of others willing to take over.
   Pringle was , like many others , branded with the poisoned chalice of the next Botham , unfairly and unrealistic too - the tabloids have a lot to answer for!

   As for Greenidge , he'd still be a star today , that man could really hit!

Yep ,they played a diffeernt game then and another reason might have been  because the boundary was on the perimeter of the ground and not 20 yards in !

It's a good idea in theory but in my opinion is not what you are looking for by England's perspective at the moment. I'll just put up the team you posted:

 Matty Prior is probably the best option at wicketkeeper CM , but I'm pretty deflated and don't really give a rat's a**e !!