Indiatalking

Just read somewhere that England are concentrating on the 2007 World Cup. Are they serious? They can’t play one-day cricket to save a dying grandmother. Just look at the mess they made against Sri Lanka.

peep

“England have endured some rough moments in recent times in one-day cricket but rarely such abject humiliation.” – Vic Marks in The Observer after the third ODI defeat against Sri Lanka.

gameplans

Their tour of India in March-April 2006 went the same way. Everyone kept asking why there was such a huge difference between the England Test and ODI squads. And here’s what Matthew Hoggard said: “Any team on their day can win the World Cup. It takes two people to win a game of one-day cricket. In five-day cricket, it’s team against team and it takes a lot more than two people to win it.” Would you still say they are focused on the World Cup?

koolnerve

“I think seven one-dayers is too many. Three or five is right. With more, you just keep ticking them off and counting them down.” That was Michael Vaughan talking about the length of the India tour and player burnout. Interesting that a series comprising five Tests is not seen the same light.

safehands

I just think the England players are not quick-thinking enough to adapt to the requirements of an ODI. They are much more comfortable when plodding along for five days. Their world begins and ends with the Ashes anyway, so why would they bother about ODIs?

Jeremy

Guess this is a digression, but Geoffrey Boycott described the Sri Lanka attack thus: ”The only way they’ll get a wicket is if the ball hits a brick in the middle of the pitch ... it wouldn’t frighten me mum, this bowling.” How about eating your words Boycs? Quite evidently, it did frighten the England team.