England's Openers for the ODI's

[NZTailender]

Yay. Tail starts at one.

You could say that about most English ODI teams, though.

 

[Goughy]

You could say that about most English ODI teams, though.

Id take that from an Aussie, but a Kiwi...

 

[_Ed_]

The length of the tail is one of the few things we can feel superior to other nations about though. Often our tail starts and ends with Chris Martin.

 

[wpdavid]

The top 4 will be Bell & Prior followed by Shah & KP, as, apparently, KP thinks Shah is wasted at 7. Translated, that reads to me as if the skipper doesn't fancy batting at 3 tbh.

 

[gettingbetter]

Starting to wonder if KP has a problem with Bopara. Shunned from the Test team and now, if what you are saying is true, he's not going to bat at number 3 anymore.

 

[Goughy]

Starting to wonder if KP has a problem with Bopara. Shunned from the Test team and now, if what you are saying is true, he's not going to bat at number 3 anymore.

?

This isnt Bradman or Lara we are talking about but Ravi Bopara. Its not like he is a proven International player that is being shunned. In fact, he is an unproven player with a horrible record. He can hardly expect to be included or be upset when not picked.

 

[wpdavid]

Starting to wonder if KP has a problem with Bopara. Shunned from the Test team and now, if what you are saying is true, he's not going to bat at number 3 anymore.

tbf he batted at 4 against NZ iirc. So if he plays it would probably be at 5, which isn't so much of a difference. As for the test side, apparently KP wanted 5 bowlers, and Bopara wasn't going to replace the skipper or the previous test's centurion. I wouldn't read anything into it.

 

[wpdavid]

?

This isnt Bradman or Lara we are talking about but Ravi Bopara. Its not like he is a proven International player that is being shunned. In fact, he is an unproven player with a horrible record. He can hardly expect to be included or be upset when not picked.

Has he done either?

 

[Goughy]

Has he done either?

Nah, Im not suggesting he has. Bopara could be the most balanced and realistic cricketer for all I know.

My comments were more directed at the poster that suggested the idea rather than Bopara himself.

 

[tooextracool]

Would be very surprised if Flintoff made a success of opening in ODIs.

Well I guess Im in a minority here in my view on Flintoff being capable of being somewhat of a success at the top. The thing is he hasnt been a rip roaring success down the order in List A cricket either, in fact hes been far from that. If anything he is at least likely to provide some energy at the top of the order and contrast the style of Ian Bell. I dont see Flintoff being anything other than a very poor middle order batter in ODIs, his best innings in ODIs have come when England have lost early wickets.

Hes a very poor batter when he has to work the singles around during the middle overs and hes even poorer against spin early on in his innings. I think he would enjoy the field restrictions and actually make use of them far more than the likes of Cook, Bell, Strauss, Mustard or Wright ever could.

 

[Woodster]

Well I guess Im in a minority here in my view on Flintoff being capable of being somewhat of a success at the top. The thing is he hasnt been a rip roaring success down the order in List A cricket either, in fact hes been far from that. If anything he is at least likely to provide some energy at the top of the order and contrast the style of Ian Bell. I dont see Flintoff being anything other than a very poor middle order batter in ODIs, his best innings in ODIs have come when England have lost early wickets.

Hes a very poor batter when he has to work the singles around during the middle overs and hes even poorer against spin early on in his innings. I think he would enjoy the field restrictions and actually make use of them far more than the likes of Cook, Bell, Strauss, Mustard or Wright ever could.

Flintoff tends to struggle against the moving ball, and does not have a technique good enough to counter the new ball. Yes a positive, aggressive approach may yield him some early boundaries but it would only seem a matter of time before number three was making his way out.

An impact player down the order is where I see Freddie batting, even if it just allows him to relax for now and not have the added pressure of having to score runs up the order. He is not in particularly good form and a few lusty blows in the dying overs may bring back some of that lost belief.

 

[tooextracool]

The top 4 will be Bell & Prior followed by Shah & KP, as, apparently, KP thinks Shah is wasted at 7. Translated, that reads to me as if the skipper doesn't fancy batting at 3 tbh.

I dont think hes ever liked batting at 3. Hes stated his preference for batting at 5 in both forms of the game in the past, but the lack of prowess of the rest of the batters has meant that he has to bat up the order.

 

[tooextracool]

Flintoff tends to struggle against the moving ball, and does not have a technique good enough to counter the new ball. Yes a positive, aggressive approach may yield him some early boundaries but it would only seem a matter of time before number three was making his way out.

Im not sure I agree with that. Flintoff has played many good innings against the moving ball, even at Edgbaston in the SA series he looked fairly good when the ball was moving around a bit got 30 odd before he ran everyone else out. He plays with a very straight bat, gets in good positions with his feet, has good balance and all of the shots in the book. All of his 3 100s in ODIs and even his 99 against India came in fairly difficult conditions when he was in very early in the game. His only technical issue is that he plays with hard hands and he tends to poke at deliveries outside of the off stump. But its not like hes incompetent against the moving ball as people seem to be making him out to be.

An impact player down the order is where I see Freddie batting, even if it just allows him to relax for now and not have the added pressure of having to score runs up the order. He is not in particularly good form and a few lusty blows in the dying overs may bring back some of that lost belief.

But it is as an impact player that Flintoff has failed miserably in ODIs. His best innings in ODIs have been when hes come in early. Hes always been a far better player when hes been allowed to settle in and then start to play his shots ala Edgbaston 2005 rather than when hes tried to hit from the go as he will undoubtedly be expected to do batting at no 6 or 7. Even if he is to perform a role similar to Mal Loye in the Commonwealth bank series, he would still be providing a bigger contribution to England than any other opener in the side possibly could.

 

[Woodster]

Im not sure I agree with that. Flintoff has played many good innings against the moving ball, even at Edgbaston in the SA series he looked fairly good when the ball was moving around a bit got 30 odd before he ran everyone else out. He plays with a very straight bat, gets in good positions with his feet, has good balance and all of the shots in the book. All of his 3 100s in ODIs and even his 99 against India came in fairly difficult conditions when he was in very early in the game. His only technical issue is that he plays with hard hands and he tends to poke at deliveries outside of the off stump. But its not like hes incompetent against the moving ball as people seem to be making him out to be.

Yes he does hard at it with his hands, also indecision in his footwork at times lets him down, thus he still goes through with his shots when he is in no position to play them.
To suggest he was in very early in those games, I disagree with. The earliest I think he came in was in the 17th over, and there is a stark contrast in facing first and second chanmge bowlers with a 17 over old ball as averse to facing the opening bowlers armed with a brand new one.

But it is as an impact player that Flintoff has failed miserably in ODIs. His best innings in ODIs have been when hes come in early. Hes always been a far better player when hes been allowed to settle in and then start to play his shots ala Edgbaston 2005 rather than when hes tried to hit from the go as he will undoubtedly be expected to do batting at no 6 or 7. Even if he is to perform a role similar to Mal Loye in the Commonwealth bank series, he would still be providing a bigger contribution to England than any other opener in the side possibly could.

I agree that when he is form and during the period of scores you mentioned above, he quite clearly was, then it is important he has time to settle before unfurling his big shots.
Currently in one of the opening slots I think he would be a bit of a walking wicket. Better at this stage for there to be less expectation and in England's ODI side, even at number 7 he'll have chance to get set before beginning his assault.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes he does hard at it with his hands, also indecision in his footwork at times lets him down, thus he still goes through with his shots when he is in no position to play them.
To suggest he was in very early in those games, I disagree with. The earliest I think he came in was in the 17th over, and there is a stark contrast in facing first and second chanmge bowlers with a 17 over old ball as averse to facing the opening bowlers armed with a brand new one.

The ball was still moving around when he came in during those games, which was my point. Its hard to bat at 5 and come in the first 10 overs. Heres another game, was in during the 12th over http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OD_TOURNEYS/NWC/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_NWC_ODI2_10JUL2005.html

I agree that when he is form and during the period of scores you mentioned above, he quite clearly was, then it is important he has time to settle before unfurling his big shots.
Currently in one of the opening slots I think he would be a bit of a walking wicket. Better at this stage for there to be less expectation and in England's ODI side, even at number 7 he'll have chance to get set before beginning his assault.

Maybe, he might be a better option when he already has his form back. But do you see him getting his form back by batting at number 6 and having no other alternative but to slog it around? Theres inevitably more pressure batting at 6 than at the top IMO because you can easily screw up a match situation irrepairably in a shorter period of time. I think giving him the opportunity to settle in and take his time at the start of the innings would be ideal for him to get his form back. He needs time at the crease, not the license to slog because that is how hes being allowed to bat in CC and in the nets.

 

[Uppercut]

Against spin he's very weak indeed of late. I don't think England have much to lose by using him as a pinch hitter, at worst he'll get himself out then instead of getting himself out 40 overs later. Don't know if it would work but given their problems at the top it may be worth a shot for a few matches. After all, it's not like any of the others are without their flaws batting at the top.

 

[Zinzan]

Flintoff is hopeless against spin, so the best bet is him opening and getting a crack at new hard ball with ball coming nicely onto the bat and with some pace to work with, England needs to use the power-plays in a better way, so they need some attacking players at the top, so i wouldn't mind Flintoff and Cook/Bell opening.

Being successful against the new ball for a middle to lower batsman is often easier said than done. Agree he struggles against spin, but still not convinced he would make a successful transition. But hey, I've been wrong before

 

[Uppercut]

Being successful against the new ball for a middle to lower batsman is often easier said than done. Agree he struggles against spin, but still not convinced he would make a successful transition. But hey, I've been wrong before

Does the Bell-Prior opening partnership really convince you? Come to think of it, is there any remotely convincing opening option for England in ODIs?

 

[Goughy]

There is merit to the Flintoff as opener suggestion.

Ive partially advocated it in the past.

Its based on 2 simple reasons.

a) England openers have been poor and scored too slowly
b) Flintoff has struggled for runs in ODIs for a while down the order.

There is no risk. If he fails then the status quo prevails.

However, if he comes off then it is quick scoring with a lot of batting to come.

I can understand why some dont like it and think it will fail. TBF, I dont particularly like it and think it will probably fail in the long term. However, it could possibly be the best of a group of bad options.

 

[NZTailender]

Id take that from an Aussie, but a Kiwi...

Haha, fair call. But the be honest, there aren't many sides going around, or maybe aren't many players going around, that fill me with confidence in terms of relying on them to score runs consistently or play a big innings (in ODI's).

Australia would have the highest percentage of batsmen who do, followed by South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, with New Zealand, England & WIndies equal, followed by Bangladesh & Zim.