England ODI Team

[Pothas]

Just really hope that Dimi can produce more with the ball than he has before because essentially he is a MUCH better bowler than he is batsman. However I am not sure that he can quite do it at the highest level but I can still hope.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Mustard/Davies (wk)
Bopara
Pietersen
Strauss (c)
Flintoff
Collingwood
Patel
Swann/Mascarenhas
Broad
Sidebottom
Harmison

 

[GIMH]

That side's not terrible tbh

 

[zaremba]

except the first choice keeper - if Mustard's better than Prior then I'm Alan Knott

 

[Jamee999]

Flintoff
Strauss*
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bopara
Shah
Prior+
Swann
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson

Harsh on Patel really, but I'm not sure where he could fit in.

 

[Uppercut]

1. Strauss (capt)
2. Davies (wkt)
3.
4. KP
5. Flintoff
6. Patel
7. Collingwood
8. Wright
9. Swann
10. Broad
11. Harmison

Hmm, I'd replace Wright with Mascarenhas. Dimi's a better batsman than Wright in all circumstances, and an infinitely better bowler too. How Wright was continually preferred is one of the great English ODI mysteries.

I'd also replace Harmison with Sidebottom and have Shah at 3. So I'd go:

1. Davies (wk)
2. Strauss (c)
3. Shah
4. Pietersen
5. Flintoff
6. Collingwood
7. Patel
8. Mascarenhas
9. Swann
10. Broad
11. Sidebottom

 

[Jigga988]

I reckon out of the team there are so many people who could come in.

I like this team:

Davies
Strauss
KP/Shah
Shah/KP
Flintoff
Colly
Bopara
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson/Harmison

I'd probobly choose Bopara over Mascheranas and Patel, just because Bopara adds more than both with the bat and is just as capable of upping the score rate as much as Dimi, also he can, if England are ever in trouble play a good saving knock. I admit there hasn't been much evidence of either of these things in this time but I have faith in the guys limitless ability. Shah has to play, done way too well not to hold a spot, and it will probobly end up being around 3 or 4.

Anderson/Harmison is debatable, in the Windies especially the ball doesnt tend to conventially swing, only reverse and seeing as though the ball changes after thirty something overs this isn't going to be a problem, then again there isn't any pace in Windies wickets so bounce is hardly going to be that much of a threat also. I'd probobly pick Harmy just because if Anderson bowls that pitch up length and it's not swinging Gayle could get a lot of runs really quickly.

Strauss and Davies both have to open, don't quite see the scence in batting the only recognised opener in the team at 4 and Davies could have a good series opening. Not enough room for Prior to go in the middle and Prior shouldn't open so Davies is obvious choice.

 

[Richard]

1. Bell
2. Patel
3. Pietersen
4. Strauss (c)
5. Flintoff
6. Collingwood
7. Prior (w)
8. Mascarenhas
9. Swann
10. Broad
11. Sidebottom

I've no idea whether Patel is capable of opening or not, but what the heck. The more I think about it the more I like the idea. It allows quite a nicely balanced team - a long batting order with a variety of different kinds of batsmen, and plenty of bowling options.

Mascarenhas is very lucky to get in but has the ability to do something spectacular at no 8, and his dibbly dobbly bowling is a useful option in the middle overs. However he plays only on condition that he removes his earring.

Much as I don't rate Strauss, I'd prefer to see someone with pedigree opening, if he's in the side, instead of someone who has none. IE, Strauss opening, Patel four.

 

[Richard]

I have put very little thought into this, but...

Davies (wk)
Bopara
Pietersen
Strauss (c)
Flintoff
Collingwood
Shah
Mascarenhas
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom

Could do worse (I'd imagine Bopara would bat one if opening with Davies BTW) but I think the day Anderson is dropped for Mascarenhas is probably the day you travel to the moon. Unfortunately, England selectors just don't seem to be capable any more of picking a bowler who can bowl economically ahead of someone who looks like he's a wicket-taker (even if the reality is that he's actually not a wicket-taker).

 

[Richard]

Not from both batsmen, IMO. If he can rotate the strike and maintain a good average (which, to be fair, there is little indication he'll actually manage to do) then he'll be fine. Having two batsmen incapable of hitting over the top early on both open is a bad idea, but having one (assuming he does everything else well) is perfectly acceptable.

That's quite true, of course, but Strauss (as you allude to) is not someone who can knock the ball around. He's suited to leaving lots, blocking lots then hitting the odd boundary when the bowlers eventually err and bowl in one of his two strong areas (on the pads or short).

I always generally like an opening pairing of someone who can knock the ball around (albeit that's difficult to do in the Powerplays) and someone who can hit the ball over the top. However, the really key thing is to have one out of three in the top three in this mould. It can be opening pairing comprised of over-the-top hitter and worker and another over-the-top hitter at three, or it can be the openers both being over-the-top hitters and the worker at three. I think if you have either all the top three as hitters or more than one as a worker, you're heading for trouble.

A few examples:
Saeed Anwar
Shahid Afridi
Salim Elahi

Sanath Jayasuriya
Romesh Kaluwitharana
Marvan Atapattu

Sourav Ganguly
Sachin Tendulkar
Rahul Dravid

Mark Waugh
Adam Gilchrist
Ricky Ponting

Matthew Horne
Nathan Astle
Craig McMillan

Nick Knight
Michael Atherton
Graeme Hick

An example not:
Gary Kirsten
Herschelle Gibbs
Jacques Kallis

Quite often, one of the three is actually pretty incompetant. But the pattern remains.

 

[Richard]

1. Pietersen
2, Strauss

Flintoff
Strauss*

at both of these TBH. As we don't have any good ODI openers, the first thing we should look to avoid doing with the position is to avoid losing one of the few good middle-order bats we have.

Pietersen at three (or four) and Flintoff at five (or six) is a must.

 

[Scaly piscine]

except the first choice keeper - if Mustard's better than Prior then I'm Alan Knott

Better keeper and better ODI opener.

 

[Jigga988]

at both of these TBH. As we don't have any good ODI openers, the first thing we should look to avoid doing with the position is to avoid losing one of the few good middle-order bats we have.

Pietersen at three (or four) and Flintoff at five (or six) is a must.

agreed, especially the idea of Pietersen opening. Freddy is slightly more plausible but will give his wicket away trying to be too aggresive in power plays when England need him to bat a long while.

 

[Richard]

Better keeper and better ODI opener.

Not really. Mustard and Prior are both diabolical ODI openers. And in what little success they've had opening at county level, Prior has had more of as well.

 

[Pothas]

at both of these TBH. As we don't have any good ODI openers, the first thing we should look to avoid doing with the position is to avoid losing one of the few good middle-order bats we have.

Pietersen at three (or four) and Flintoff at five (or six) is a must.

I agreed with this until very recently, but frankly I am sick of England using players who simply aren’t good enough to open. (Prior and Wright being obvious examples) Pietersen is our best player and if he is batting at number 3 then there is a pretty good chance that he will be in during the first few over’s anyway. As he is our best player I personally feel it makes sense to give him the maximum over’s possible, Tendulkar has done this for years. I also feel that we have some pretty decent middle order batsmen Collingwood, Flintoff and recently Shah.

I'm not saying it would definitely work but I just think that is worth considering and not blindly rejecting.
Agree about Flintoff as I think he would fail too often as an opener, he is perfect for five and six and should stay there.

 

[zaremba]

Anyone got any views on my suggestion of Patel opening? I don't know him well enough to judge whether he could do the job, and I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

 

[ozone]

Anyone got any views on my suggestion of Patel opening? I don't know him well enough to judge whether he could do the job, and I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

Although I haven't seen all that much of him either, I suspect he would score more runs doing it that any of Prior, Mustard, Wright etc. However, I don't think he would do the job that England are looking for, i.e. that of someone who will score runs quickly. If they were going to go away from the aggresive opener figure, I would guess Bopara would be the first in line to have a good go.

However, the fact that no-one seems to have a strong opinion on it indicates that no-one really knows how he would fare, so I suppose if the selectors want to find out, the WI is the place to give him a go.

 

[Jigga988]

Anyone got any views on my suggestion of Patel opening? I don't know him well enough to judge whether he could do the job, and I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

Not sure about how well he'd bat in international stage, seen quite a lot of him and is good off his legs and square of the wicket on offside but not sure if he is an opener, btw he can score quite quickly in middle order but don't think he has got the class to open, Bopara is a better bet there if you need a guy to come in but like I said, I would prefer Strauss and Davies opening.

 

[Pothas]

Davies is worth a try certainly, didn't put him in my side but him and Strass opening with Pietersen at 3 might work well. But obviously it is open to doubt, one can never tell how someone will take to international cricket and Davies might not be ready.

 

[Pothas]

agreed, especially the idea of Pietersen opening. Freddy is slightly more plausible but will give his wicket away trying to be too aggresive in power plays when England need him to bat a long while.

Why is Freddy opening more plausible than Pietersen?

Pietersen is technically much better and capable of playing longer innings, agreed?
It seems to me that just becaue people want someone who can score quickly that they think it is better to put a lesser batsman in. Surley it is better to have someone that can score quickly but also build an innings? Something Pietersen can do more consistantly than Flintoff. Whether Pietersen should open is highly dubious and perhaps he shouldnt but I have no doubt that he could do it. The only argument I can see for Flintoff is that he is a poor starter against spin, but I would still rather have Pietersen face the first few overs than Flintoff.