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.1. Strauss (capt)
2. Davies (wkt)
3.
4. KP
5. Flintoff
6. Patel
7. Collingwood
8. Wright
9. Swann
10. Broad
11. Harmison
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.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.
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).I have put very little thought into this, but...
Davies (wk)
Bopara
Pietersen
Strauss (c)
Flintoff
Collingwood
Shah
Mascarenhas
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
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).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.
1. Pietersen
2, 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.Flintoff
Strauss*
Better keeper and better ODI opener.except the first choice keeper - if Mustard's better than Prior then I'm Alan Knott
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.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.
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.Better keeper and better ODI opener.
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.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.
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.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.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.
Why is Freddy opening more plausible than Pietersen?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.