England's Openers for the ODI's

[Arjun]

Depends what you mean by "genuine openers".

Sri Lanka with Jayasuria, and Australia with Gilchrist, showed the value of having a destructive player at the top of the innings.

There's no-one in England who immediately springs to mind as fitting that sort of bill.

IMO, the one day culture needs to change in England, away from the "preserve wickets and smash 100 from the last 10." It has it's value, as shown by Flintoff and Pietersen's onslaught against South Africa, but had South Africa's middle order not folded, their target would have been easily chasable.

England don't have good pinch-hitters at present, who can continue for a long time. Luke Wright, Geraint Jones and Matt Prior were not good enough. Flintoff is one you need in the later overs rather than at the top. Some of their middle-order stalwarts are not good enough for opening the innings. They need to give Cook a longer run and maybe even recall Strauss, or even Trescothick.

 

[Ahmed_Tariq]

Matt Prior and Ian Bell did a fine job of opening the innings for England in the 1st ODI but England will really miss Trescothick.

And I still reckon that England should play Alastair Cook. He's a stylish and handy opening batsman.

 

[Uppercut]

Those teams have genuine openers (Hayden, Smith, Marsh, Sehwag, Gambhir and a converted opener) who can also score quickly. They're not out-and-out pinch hitters like Gilchrist, Sanath or Gayle, but they do the job just right for ODIs, and don't crawl like we've seen, say, Marvan or Salman Butt, or here itself, Strauss. We've seen someone like Cook keep the momentum going quite well, while building an innings. The loss of Trescothick is a big one, as we saw in that match against Gloucs. The team needs either two genuine openers who can adapt to ODI cricket, or at least one very effective pinch-hitter.

Cook tends to score a lot of his runs down to third man, a position that's always occupied in ODIs. He would be okay as a foil to someone like Trescothick, but in truth he isn't really made for the game.

The point of pinch hitters at the top is that the powerplays simply must be taken advantage of, or England will be at a huge disadvantage to teams with openers like Gibbs, Hayden, Ryder, Sehwag and Jayasuriya. The problem with Cook and Bell is that they lack the vital ability to go over the top at a time when fields can't be pushed back. The ability to defend well against the swinging ball is often secondary, depending on conditions. Scoring at a strike rate of under 50 during the powerplays is often more detrimental to the team cause than getting out first ball.

 

[Arjun]

Cook tends to score a lot of his runs down to third man, a position that's always occupied in ODIs. He would be okay as a foil to someone like Trescothick, but in truth he isn't really made for the game.

The point of pinch hitters at the top is that the powerplays simply must be taken advantage of, or England will be at a huge disadvantage to teams with openers like Gibbs, Hayden, Ryder, Sehwag and Jayasuriya. The problem with Cook and Bell is that they lack the vital ability to go over the top at a time when fields can't be pushed back. The ability to defend well against the swinging ball is often secondary, depending on conditions. Scoring at a strike rate of under 50 during the powerplays is often more detrimental to the team cause than getting out first ball.

Then whom do you prefer opening for England? Bell doesn't seem a pinch-hitter at all, while Prior is a hit-or-miss player, and we've seen that already. In fact, he's not a one-dayer opener at all. Cook may have his problems and Strauss has struggled in ODIs in the past, but maybe, just maybe, they can make the necessary adjustments to score runs. By a longshot, Pietersen may open, but that will weaken the middle-order.

EDIT: Just came across this name- Kadeer Ali- who opened for Gloucs in that high-scoring encounter against Somerset. How useful is he for the job?

 

[Uppercut]

Then whom do you prefer opening for England? Bell doesn't seem a pinch-hitter at all, while Prior is a hit-or-miss player, and we've seen that already. In fact, he's not a one-dayer opener at all. Cook may have his problems and Strauss has struggled in ODIs in the past, but maybe, just maybe, they can make the necessary adjustments to score runs. By a longshot, Pietersen may open, but that will weaken the middle-order.

EDIT: Just came across this name- Kadeer Ali- who opened for Gloucs in that high-scoring encounter against Somerset. How useful is he for the job?

I don't really know, I don't watch enough county cricket to say. By no means should Pietersen ever open in ODI cricket for England. Bell is a stroke-maker, he has neither the pinch hitting abilities nor the exceptional defence against the new ball ideal for an ODI opener.

I don't have the necessary knowledge on county cricket to pick from every possible candidate, but picking from the current squad, I would probably have Bell at 3 with Cook and Prior, given a licence to attack, opening the batting, leaving out Shah. Previously I was in favour of Flintoff opening the batting, but he looks in much better touch at 5 than he did previously so that can remain undisturbed while it's working.

Whether a player will be a success as a shoe-horned opener largely depends on the player's mentality, how he approaches the situation. I'd suggest an out-and-out big hitter like Mascarenhas opening on particularly flat decks, but in truth I don't know enough about the player, his preferences for pace or spin, or his ability against a swinging ball.

None of my touted solutions are particularly convincing, I know, but England definitely have a problem with an overly conservative opening partnership. In the long run, they'll be at a huge disadvantage to teams that have genuinely aggressive openers- and most ODI teams currently do. It'll be a much bigger problem outside England, particularly in India in the next world cup, when the new ball sometimes does nothing at all and everyone else is exploiting the fielding restrictions. Throughout this series, I don't expect it to be of major concern.

 

[Woodster]

As I've suggested earlier, I'm pretty sure Cook has a big role to play for England in limited overs cricket, and probably a slot alongside an aggressor such as Prior may be the way England go in future.

Cook will rarely go along throughout his innings at a strike rate of around 100, so therefore it is important for him to provide the solidity at one end, but ensure he rotates the strike, puts the baa ball away, runs hard between the wickets, and quite importantly make some big innings. Eating up a few balls early in his innings is acceptable should he go on and make a telling contribution, not if he is then getting out for around 30 off 60 balls.

He is not a dasher and should never play as such, his strokeplay is enough for him to impose match winning contributions, without the need for fireworks. When he gets in, he invariably scores at a strike rate of around 75, which is reasonable, considering the effective players that can then bat around him in KP, Freddie, Prior, Colly, etc.

I also envisage Bell to come in at number of three for a number of successful years.

 

[Uppercut]

Bell's role in the team is what confuses me greatly. Is he there to see off the new ball? Because surely a genuine opener would be better for that. Is he there to take advantage of the powerplays? Because he hasn't exactly had much success with that...

 

[Woodster]

I think Bell may be there as to allow England to accomodate more one-day style players in the middle order, thus his orthodoxy has found him at the top of the order. It does seem a very mixed thought process with Bell, I agree, it is clear that his game is not well suited to coming in any lower than 5, there are better players around that will play the mid-final overs much better. KP is keen on four, so either as an opener, to bat like an opener (of which Cook may well be better suited) or as a number 3, which is where I would like to see him bat.

It would be interesting in team management discussions as to what they see Bell's role as.