Penguinissimo
U19 12th Man
As has been endlessly recited, England had a superb side for the T20 World Cup - quick-scoring openers who (as a pair) could deal with spin as well as pace; classy middle order; series of hard-hitting all-rounders; niggly, intelligent, adaptable bowling attack. But would that translate to similar ODI success?
Then three wins on the reel in the ODI format against a weak Aussie side had people tipping England for the next World Cup as well. Two subsequent losses might have put that in perspective slightly. So I wanted to debate the pluses and minuses of the current England side, and pick out the differences between the requirements of T20 and ODI cricket which I feel were ignored going into the Australia series.
Pluses
Strauss is a good, adaptable ODI batsman, capable of either building an innings or coming out firing depending on circumstances. He also showed good nous with his captaincy against Australia - not sure I've seen a man caught a short leg in an ODI too often in recent times, for example.
Collingwood's fighting spirit and ability to carry an innings in difficult situations makes him very valuable. Whilst his bowling was little used against Australia, it will have real value on the subcontinental pitches.
Morgan goes from strength to strength. That knock in the first match was rightly praised to the rooftops, and whilst he didn't set the world on fire in the last few games, he will be in the team for a long time. Now has to try to weather the inevitable storm as teams analyse him in detail for weaknesses in his role as possibly England's key wicket.
Broad's bowling has now become a geniune threat in ODIs. He seems to be the go-to bowler for Strauss, and generally delivered. Whilst his batting has gone inexplicably backwards, his bowling more than makes up for it.
Bresnan's batting is showing itself to be what his promoters always claimed. He is far more than a middle-order slogger, with a wide range of genuine cricket shots to augment the hoicks over cow corner.
Minuses
Kieswetter, much like his Aussie counterpart Tim Paine (who England should actively have tried to keep at the crease), looked totally out of his depth opening the innings in this form of the game. Unlike T20, ODIs offer genuinely good bowlers the opportunity to run in and focus on wickets, rather than economy rate. He is a talented player of spin bowling - his footwork in particular is excellent - which argues for his continued inclusion ahead of a subcontinental World Cup, but if he stays it must be down the order at 5 or 6 in ODIs.
Luke Wright should not be batting at 6 in a 50 over match. Whilst an infinitely better player than the raw slogger who first got shoved into the side, his average over the last 18 months remains at 20, and he cannot be asked to play a role where he might have to reconstruct an innings - as was tacitly acknowledged when Strauss sent Yardy in at 6 at the Oval. And his bowling, whilst handy and equally improved, is not enough to earn him a spot. Either he or Bresnan must make way for a specialist batsman, with the survivor batting at 7.
James Anderson continues to warrant his (slightly irritating) "daisy" tag. You never know for any given spell - never mind match - whether he's going to go miles or take three wickets. Strauss isn't the first captain to be wary of him as an attack leader - attack leaders don't go AWOL quite so regularly. The inclusion of Sidebottom in the World T20 looks increasingly wise, and his place should be under threat in ODIs also.
KP's batting was out of nick again, although he did get sawn off at the Oval. He's obviously worth his place, but should he really be coming in at 3? When Kieswetter fails (see above) he is exposed to the new ball, which is not ideal given that he is a fairly nervy starter. Main argument in favour of him at 3 is the lack of other candidates, and whilst I'd argue in the short term it's more important to find a replacement opener to allow Kieswetter to drop down the order, getting the best out of our best batsman shouldn't be far behind on the priority list.
Then three wins on the reel in the ODI format against a weak Aussie side had people tipping England for the next World Cup as well. Two subsequent losses might have put that in perspective slightly. So I wanted to debate the pluses and minuses of the current England side, and pick out the differences between the requirements of T20 and ODI cricket which I feel were ignored going into the Australia series.
Pluses
Strauss is a good, adaptable ODI batsman, capable of either building an innings or coming out firing depending on circumstances. He also showed good nous with his captaincy against Australia - not sure I've seen a man caught a short leg in an ODI too often in recent times, for example.
Collingwood's fighting spirit and ability to carry an innings in difficult situations makes him very valuable. Whilst his bowling was little used against Australia, it will have real value on the subcontinental pitches.
Morgan goes from strength to strength. That knock in the first match was rightly praised to the rooftops, and whilst he didn't set the world on fire in the last few games, he will be in the team for a long time. Now has to try to weather the inevitable storm as teams analyse him in detail for weaknesses in his role as possibly England's key wicket.
Broad's bowling has now become a geniune threat in ODIs. He seems to be the go-to bowler for Strauss, and generally delivered. Whilst his batting has gone inexplicably backwards, his bowling more than makes up for it.
Bresnan's batting is showing itself to be what his promoters always claimed. He is far more than a middle-order slogger, with a wide range of genuine cricket shots to augment the hoicks over cow corner.
Minuses
Kieswetter, much like his Aussie counterpart Tim Paine (who England should actively have tried to keep at the crease), looked totally out of his depth opening the innings in this form of the game. Unlike T20, ODIs offer genuinely good bowlers the opportunity to run in and focus on wickets, rather than economy rate. He is a talented player of spin bowling - his footwork in particular is excellent - which argues for his continued inclusion ahead of a subcontinental World Cup, but if he stays it must be down the order at 5 or 6 in ODIs.
Luke Wright should not be batting at 6 in a 50 over match. Whilst an infinitely better player than the raw slogger who first got shoved into the side, his average over the last 18 months remains at 20, and he cannot be asked to play a role where he might have to reconstruct an innings - as was tacitly acknowledged when Strauss sent Yardy in at 6 at the Oval. And his bowling, whilst handy and equally improved, is not enough to earn him a spot. Either he or Bresnan must make way for a specialist batsman, with the survivor batting at 7.
James Anderson continues to warrant his (slightly irritating) "daisy" tag. You never know for any given spell - never mind match - whether he's going to go miles or take three wickets. Strauss isn't the first captain to be wary of him as an attack leader - attack leaders don't go AWOL quite so regularly. The inclusion of Sidebottom in the World T20 looks increasingly wise, and his place should be under threat in ODIs also.
KP's batting was out of nick again, although he did get sawn off at the Oval. He's obviously worth his place, but should he really be coming in at 3? When Kieswetter fails (see above) he is exposed to the new ball, which is not ideal given that he is a fairly nervy starter. Main argument in favour of him at 3 is the lack of other candidates, and whilst I'd argue in the short term it's more important to find a replacement opener to allow Kieswetter to drop down the order, getting the best out of our best batsman shouldn't be far behind on the priority list.
Last edited:
