*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

[Richard]

The only thing more frustrating than a bunch of no-hopers included because they're the best available is a bunch of no-hopers included because someone better is being ignored due to being a disruptive influence.

FFS, why are we only hearing this now about Trott? Pietersen it was supposed to be the case all career, and so far in his international career we've seen roughly zero evidence of it actually existing (despite some attempts to manufacture it in various media outlets). So why has Trott been playing county cricket for 6 years before anything comes to light?

 

[aussie]

Generally since i've been following cricket we have been useless yea, but currenlty England have one of best teams this decade & we have a solid nucleus that should be around for the 2011 WC.

Just need to settle on an opening pair & the a keeper (preferably an attacking keeper @ 7/8). The current ODI series in India IMO will do the side wonders come that World Cup.

 

[wpdavid]

The only thing more frustrating than a bunch of no-hopers included because they're the best available is a bunch of no-hopers included because someone better is being ignored due to being a disruptive influence.

FFS, why are we only hearing this now about Trott? Pietersen it was supposed to be the case all career, and so far in his international career we've seen roughly zero evidence of it actually existing (despite some attempts to manufacture it in various media outlets). So why has Trott been playing county cricket for 6 years before anything comes to light?

Fair points, and I was only pondering aloud. However, if he did pull out of the Perfomance Squad for no good reason, BB's right that we're entitled to wonder how interested he is. btw how great were his List A stats lst season?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Fair points, and I was only pondering aloud. However, if he did pull out of the Perfomance Squad for no good reason, BB's right that we're entitled to wonder how interested he is. btw how great were his List A stats lst season?

List A in England 2008.

Very good, as English qualified players go. 537 runs @ 53.70

 

[GIMH]

As I've said so many times, good\bad selection is based on the merits of the players at the time, not on what ended-up happening.

"We won so therefore the selection was good" isn't an option, IMO. Nor "the bad selection can be ignored because we won". Selections (good or bad) are what they are completely independent of the result.

I (or Dan Smith, or Darren Murphy) could be picked for Australia and they'd probably still win most games. It'd not make it a good selection.

Graeme Swann's exclusion from the SA series was a shocker. That SA were poor enough and some of the rest of England's players good enough for it to not impact on a 4-0 victory is irrelevant to that.

I agree in some ways on that theory. However, you cannot quite simply turn round and say "it was a joke that Swann never played in that series" because the idea of selecting a team is to select one that wins. Swann's exclusion was justified on the basis that he wasn't really needed in that series, and I think that's fine.

However, I don't subscribe to a "we won so keep the side the same" theory and think that it was ludicrous for Swann to be left out on that basis (presumably).

 

[Arjun]

A few things England have got right for ODIs-

• Their pace attack of Anderson, Broad, Harmison and Flintoff
• A decent ODI spinner in Swann- unspectacular, but no liability.
• Pietersen scoring chunks.
• A capable inner-ring fielding unit, and more than decent fielding support at the ropes.
• Ravi Bopara in the XI, now higher up the order.

We wouldn't want any of this to be tampered with, as of now. We've seen England get good things in place, and then do away with them for supposedly better replacements that ultimately let down the team. They, however, need to get these things in place-

• A genuine wicketkeeper: Matt Prior is not much of a wicketkeeper, and by no means an international standard opener. You're not getting runs, and you're making it a lot harder for your bowlers. Finding another Alec Stewart is a tough ask, but is it so tough finding another Jack Russell or Blakey?
• A steady opening partnership: If needed, they can get their Test openers to open for them again. Concerns of it affecting their Test game should be put aside, if they really are any good. Hayden, Smith, Gayle and England's own Trescothick did equally well opening in both forms of the game, so why not the next generation? They may not boast of great strike rates, but as long as partnerships over 50 and 100 are regular, it serves the team well. The real strikers bat lower down the order and can take full advantage of these cushions.
• Running between the wickets: This hasn't looked good at all. While it requires no change in personnel, they need to get into running action and look to take smart, if not fast, singles that can build partnerships rather than merely try to make the fielders look silly and end up being even worse. They play out too many dot balls, and they'd be better placed with more dot balls made into singles.

 

[GIMH]

Very good point about the running. It seemed almost lackadaisical (sp?) in the last game, very disappointing.

 

[Richard]

I agree in some ways on that theory. However, you cannot quite simply turn round and say "it was a joke that Swann never played in that series" because the idea of selecting a team is to select one that wins. Swann's exclusion was justified on the basis that he wasn't really needed in that series, and I think that's fine.

Well... aside from the fact that to me selecting a ODI team is about winning not now but in the next World Cup...

I don't think Swann's exclusion helped England win. And just because they won despite his exclusion, as I say, that doesn't make his exclusion a good decision.

If Australia left Michael Hussey out in the Second Test against New Zealand they might quite easily still win the game. Would that stop it being the worst selection in history? No, of course it wouldn't.

 

[Richard]

A few things England have got right for ODIs-

• Their pace attack of Anderson, Broad, Harmison and Flintoff

Aaarrrrghhh. Just no. Neither Anderson nor Harmison are remotely likely to help England win many games. They're just not very good ODI bowlers (and their Test credentials are far from rock-solid either).

They, however, need to get these things in place-

• A steady opening partnership: If needed, they can get their Test openers to open for them again. Concerns of it affecting their Test game should be put aside, if they really are any good.

I don't think so. Test cricket is a higher priority than ODIs, and I don't want anyone doing something to improve the ODI team that will damage the Test team. In any case, whatever Strauss does, he won't ever be a ODI-class player. Cook right now is struggling with his Test game.

 

[GIMH]

Well... aside from the fact that to me selecting a ODI team is about winning not now but in the next World Cup...

If you want to win the World Cup then you need to be winning games in between. Winning breeds confidence, winning breeds winning.

I don't think Swann's exclusion helped England win. And just because they won despite his exclusion, as I say, that doesn't make his exclusion a good decision.

Well there is no way of knowing what would have happened had he played, and I'm not saying it was a good decision per se but the team played well, won convincingly, and Patel bowled and batted well. As such, it wasn't a bad decision, and it was a decision which was justified.

As well as the fact that picking alternatives feeds the whole 'building for the WC' ethos.

If Australia left Michael Hussey out in the Second Test against New Zealand they might quite easily still win the game. Would that stop it being the worst selection in history? No, of course it wouldn't.

Darren Pattinson?

 

[Arjun]

Aaarrrrghhh. Just no. Neither Anderson nor Harmison are remotely likely to help England win many games. They're just not very good ODI bowlers (and their Test credentials are far from rock-solid either).

They're still lightyears ahead of any pace bowler picked specifically for ODIs. Are there any? Doesn't look like it, and you may end up with the likes of Tremlett, Bresnan, Sajid Mahmood and Kabir Ali. That's not a good thing at all.

I don't think so. Test cricket is a higher priority than ODIs, and I don't want anyone doing something to improve the ODI team that will damage the Test team. In any case, whatever Strauss does, he won't ever be a ODI-class player. Cook right now is struggling with his Test game.

Strauss wasn't that good, then. A world class Test opener should settle in easily in one-dayers, like so many who've played before and still play now. If they can't, it's their problem. If other teams can find good openers for all forms of the game, why can't England? Cook may struggle right now, but he's surely a lot better than the openers we've seen open for England lately. Bell, on the other hand, is playing out of position, and may end up losing his place due to a shortage of runs if he continues to open the innings.

 

[gettingbetter]

1. Bell
2. Trott
3. Bopara
4. KP
5. Shah/Patel
6. Flintoff
7. keeper
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Sidebottom
11 bowler

 

[Uppercut]

Their ODI players are just pretty poor. Using the XI from the first series game:

Bell
Prior
Shah
Pietersen
Flintoff
Collingwood
Patel
Bopara
Broad
Harmison
Anderson

How many of those are better ODI players than test players? I'd say Pietersen, Flintoff and Broad. SA have a similar "issue" since Pollock's retirement, where their most talented players are suited to tests. NZ have the opposite.

If i were an England fan, the last thing i'd be doing is complaining.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Their ODI players are just pretty poor. Using the XI from the first series game:

Bell
Prior
Shah
Pietersen
Flintoff
Collingwood
Patel
Bopara
Broad
Harmison
Anderson

How many of those are better ODI players than test players? I'd say Pietersen, Flintoff and Broad. SA have a similar "issue" since Pollock's retirement, where their most talented players are suited to tests. NZ have the opposite.

If i were an England fan, the last thing i'd be doing is complaining.

Bopara too, certainly. & I'd probably chuck in Colly as well. His bowling's definitely more of a factor in the shortened forms. But your point's well-made; in fact with Colly, KP & Fred it's all a fairly borderline call as to whether they're better in ODIs but with the test specialists (Sammy excepted as his test form is an unknown factor as of now) they're all far superior in the longer format.

& that's without the guys like Strauss, Cook & Monty whose one-day abilities are so meagre as to not even make the team.

Not gonna stop me complaining tho, but. It's pommie nature to whinge, innit?

 

[Richard]

If you want to win the World Cup then you need to be winning games in between. Winning breeds confidence, winning breeds winning.

I don't neccessarily know that that's true, there've been no shortage of teams who've had relatively poor WC run-ins and ended-up performing well in the tournament itself. Nonetheless, obviously, winning > losing and obviously if you're going to win in the Cup you need good players and the longer those good players have been playing the better and if they've been playing a while there's a decent chance they'll have helped their team win quite a few games in that time.

However, the point is that it really didn't matter whether England won that SA series or not. Picking Swann would've helped towards both that aim and the aim of doing well in the WC. But I'd say that a decision which went against building for the Cup in favour of trying to win that series (not, I emphasise again that that actually happened, but purely on ifs) was an extremely poor one indeed.

Well there is no way of knowing what would have happened had he played, and I'm not saying it was a good decision per se but the team played well, won convincingly, and Patel bowled and batted well. As such, it wasn't a bad decision, and it was a decision which was justified.

See, there's no middle ground. A decision is either good, or it's bad. You can have very good decisions and very bad ones (the Hussey being dropped example for instance to take to extremes) but there is no decision that's neither good nor bad.

Swann had no grounds for exclusion from that series, so therefore to exclude his was an error. IMO. Regardless of the fact that Patel justified - in the short-term - the faith shown him.

As well as the fact that picking alternatives feeds the whole 'building for the WC' ethos.

That'd be all well and good if Swann was an established player of high calibre who could be rested for a series. But he wasn't. Swann too would almost certainly have benefited from playing that series, it'd have helped him get a firmer grip on the place.

Darren Pattinson?

That'd be even worse than that.

 

[Richard]

They're still lightyears ahead of any pace bowler picked specifically for ODIs. Are there any? Doesn't look like it, and you may end up with the likes of Tremlett, Bresnan, Sajid Mahmood and Kabir Ali.

Nah. There's a few - people like Neil Killeen, Mascarenhas (if he can get his form back), and hopefully in time a lad called Tom Smith who's a fine line-length merchant and what's more like Mascarenhas can bat a bit.

In any case, it's not like Anderson and Harmison are spectacularly better than Tremlett and Kabir Ali - all are decidedly poor. The fact that Bresnan and Mahmood - who are or were at the time of their selection woeful - were picked for ODIs (though partly down to injuries) simply demonstrates that the England selectors don't have a clue what makes a good one-day bowler. While such clueless selection persists, the team doesn't have a cat-in-hell's chance, because it also extends to the batting.

That's not a good thing at all.Strauss wasn't that good, then. A world class Test opener should settle in easily in one-dayers, like so many who've played before and still play now. If they can't, it's their problem. If other teams can find good openers for all forms of the game, why can't England? Cook may struggle right now, but he's surely a lot better than the openers we've seen open for England lately. Bell, on the other hand, is playing out of position, and may end up losing his place due to a shortage of runs if he continues to open the innings.

I don't like Bell at the top of the order at all and I'm by-and-large in favour of specialist four\five-day openers opening in OD cricket (especially for England as there's never been a good English ODI opener who didn't open in First-Class cricket for his county as well, even if he wasn't neccessarily a Test player), and I also hope that one day Cook can become a good-to-decent ODI opener.

However, there's all sorts of batsmen who've had success at the top of the ODI order for other countries without being openers in the longer game: Ganguly, Mark Waugh, Astle, Johnson, Tendulkar, Lara, Gilchrist. Heck, there's even Chanderpaul, Alastair Campbell and possibly in time Shoaib Malik.

There's also good Test openers who've not made good ODI openers: Atherton, Slater, Taylor, heck even Sehwag to an extent (his credentials as a Test opener are dubious to me).

 

[Richard]

1. Bell
2. Trott
3. Bopara
4. KP
5. Shah/Patel
6. Flintoff
7. keeper
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Sidebottom
11 bowler

Doesn't look too bad, though I don't like the idea of either Trott or Bell opening. Would prefer Trott at three and no Bell at all, with Bopara five.

The other bowler, ideally, would be Mascarenhas, and if he can get his form back next season I'll be positively mailbombing the ECB to get him picked. And he and Swann would both bat above Broad, which means you have a powerful lower-order batting to ten even with five front-line bowlers who can be relied upon to send down 10 overs. Trouble is, there's 3 bowlers who'd need to be kept away from the death at all costs - Mascarenhas, Swann and Sidebottom. Flintoff and Broad would pretty much have to bowl the last 8 themselves, which is never a recipe for the ideal.

The other un-ideal thing is that the best batsman of the wicketkeepers would be completely wasted at seven - Steven Davies. Ideally he'd bat in the top five. It's that old problem again of there being too many top-order batsmen in this country and not enough lower-order hitters. And the two hitters of proven calibre (Pietersen and Flintoff) are both batsmen who've proven so much better coming in with plenty of time left.

As of next summer, on the assumption that Mascarenhas gets his form back early, Trott keeps performing, Davies starts well again and the form of Pietersen, Flintoff, Sidebottom (whenever fit), Swann and Broad is maintained, I'd be maybe looking at something like:
1 Cook \ AN Other if he's still struggling in Tests
2 AN Other
3 Trott
4 Pietersen (three and four could be swapped)
5 Bopara \ Afzaal (if Bopara doesn't perform and Afzaal starts well again)
6 Davies (lower than I'd like, it really is, but there just doesn't seem much alternative)
7 Flintoff (as above)
8 Mascarenhas
9 Swann
10 Broad
11 Sidebottom

Ideally, I'd like Davies and Flintoff shifted up one slot (maybe with Bopara \ Afzaal shifted out) and some other batsman who was good at lower-order hitting, didn't much prefer to come in with lots of overs left and was not a walking wicket in there. Plus a couple of good openers (one of whom may be Cook by then but may not). Sadly, none of these three things (two openers and one lower-order bat) are in regular supply in this country and there's no-one apparently in the pipeline.

There's also plenty of part-time overs in there, with only Cook of those mentioned anywhere in either of the above posts not a bowler of any real note.

 

[Athlai]

Cook needs to open and England need to get over the idea they need two stroke playing openers. You aren't Australia.

 

[Richard]

I think "you aren't X-and-Y" needs to be got over almost as much as selectors\media\public actually thinking they are. Both attitudes are pretty harmful. You must aim to be the best you can be, whether that means copying others or not.

England's current trouble is they don't have one (never mind two or, even better, one of each) opener who has suggested he has what it takes to bat through a ODI innings or smash a quick 30-odd (10 or 15 is no use) regularly in the first 10-15 overs.

At just about any point in the last 18 years, this is something England have always had (or had to come back in soon). Be it Gooch, Atherton, Knight or Trescothick (and occasionally two of those four at the same time). Since the departure of Trescothick (even though, as pointed-out elsewhere, he was hardly of outstanding scoring in 2004 or 2005) England have completely and totally lacked one good opener of any style. And it's a highly unfamiliar situation

 

[FBU]

I think the running between the wickets is very poor especially in the first 10 overs. It seems the batsmen are looking for boundaries instead of dropping the ball at their feet and running. Other teams get three singles in their first over while Bell and Prior like to give maidens to the bowlers. I see also that Bell who lets 5 balls go by likes to get a run off the last ball to keep the strike. We have players like Bell, Bopara and Shah that get run out quite often.

Not having a left/right hand combination at the top of the order means the opposition bowlers don't have to change their lines. Well our number 1-9 are right handed batsmen and I think we need a couple of left handers in the top 5. I am surprised that India are going to change from their left/right opening combination to two right handers.