This thread isn't intended for people to list who they'd play in ODIs with a view to the World Cup (squad), but instead HOW they'd go about picking the side, the 'make-up' of the side with so many all-rounders, so many bowlers and even which you'd slot in first and how it would impact on how you select the rest.
EDIT : if I/it wasn't clear, I'm also looking at not just WHO you'd pick in terms of player types, but in what order While you might pick such and such a type, an "all-rounder" say, how much the players you have available fit that description/ideal may vary so you might end up having to shift the balance slightly if you don't have a Freddie Flintoff available say.
For example, what I came up with before thinking about this thread.
Two bowlers
I'd start by selecting two bowlers who would probably open the bowling, but who would be picked purely on their bowling ability. This might be Anderson and Onions, it isn't really about who but to show they're not picked for their batting. There's no real need for 10 and 11 to bat much so why pick them with that purpose in mind, is there any sense having a number 10 picked because he can bat if by the time he bats you'd be behind the eight ball?
The only sticking point with this ordered first is someone like Flintoff might fit the bill, but he'd fill the all-round slot later and I wouldn't open with him anyway, at worst someone who can bat would fill the second pair of picks or the final few.
Two bowling all-rounders
Next I'd pick two bowlers who can bat 8 and 9, in this case probably the easiest picks as Swann and Broad readily fit the bill. I'd certainly want the spinner to be able to bat, while I don't feel a Test side necessarily needs a spinner at all depending on conditions, I think the ODI side should have at least one.
Wicket-keeper
I personally believe the keeper has to be able to bat, who it is and where he bats can shape what all-rounders you need. Whether you pick Prior for down the order hitting, or Kieswetter fora cheap wicket opening can be crucial to the shape so that's why I'd pick the keeper next. I'll go with Prior for the sake of picking someone, as I said this is more for the process than for the players
Five batsmen
Next up I'd pick the top order, who depends on where the keeper bats in the side. Another reason for picking the top order batting next is in case someone bowls a bit which opens your options up and may even free up the final bowling slot to be filled by an extra batsman. In this case it would be something like Strauss, Denly (say), Pietersen, Collingwood and Trott.
The all-rounder/rest
With Collingwood in the side you have some bowling, someone who could fill in up to 10 overs, but depending on who the side is would depend who fills in the final spot. Of course the build-up has to lean towards Flintoff filling the role, but if he wasn't available then you'd pick based on the rest, in this working example someone to fill in the gap if not Flintoff could be tricky. England demonstrate this isn't too simple, Collingwood, Pietersen and Wright
used last ODI and Wright doing more this ODI. I feel England need to trust in their main bowlers more, recognise the importance of taking wickets as well as "keeping it tight"
So does anyone else have, or can come up with, an alternative way of selecting? Doesn't have to be England, might be refreshing to apply a selection process to a different team (that doesn't pick itself that is) Having a template seems more logical to me than picking players and not considering how the differing players impact with their designated roles. Sometimes you feel that England just pick players and if Wright say doesn't bowl then never mind. With Collingwood in the side is there much call for Wright, especially batting down the order? Equally with so many players who can bowl, do you feel that bowlers like Broad (in this match) not completing their overs is a waste of resources?
EDIT : if I/it wasn't clear, I'm also looking at not just WHO you'd pick in terms of player types, but in what order While you might pick such and such a type, an "all-rounder" say, how much the players you have available fit that description/ideal may vary so you might end up having to shift the balance slightly if you don't have a Freddie Flintoff available say.
For example, what I came up with before thinking about this thread.
Two bowlers
I'd start by selecting two bowlers who would probably open the bowling, but who would be picked purely on their bowling ability. This might be Anderson and Onions, it isn't really about who but to show they're not picked for their batting. There's no real need for 10 and 11 to bat much so why pick them with that purpose in mind, is there any sense having a number 10 picked because he can bat if by the time he bats you'd be behind the eight ball?
The only sticking point with this ordered first is someone like Flintoff might fit the bill, but he'd fill the all-round slot later and I wouldn't open with him anyway, at worst someone who can bat would fill the second pair of picks or the final few.
Two bowling all-rounders
Next I'd pick two bowlers who can bat 8 and 9, in this case probably the easiest picks as Swann and Broad readily fit the bill. I'd certainly want the spinner to be able to bat, while I don't feel a Test side necessarily needs a spinner at all depending on conditions, I think the ODI side should have at least one.
Wicket-keeper
I personally believe the keeper has to be able to bat, who it is and where he bats can shape what all-rounders you need. Whether you pick Prior for down the order hitting, or Kieswetter for
Five batsmen
Next up I'd pick the top order, who depends on where the keeper bats in the side. Another reason for picking the top order batting next is in case someone bowls a bit which opens your options up and may even free up the final bowling slot to be filled by an extra batsman. In this case it would be something like Strauss, Denly (say), Pietersen, Collingwood and Trott.
The all-rounder/rest
With Collingwood in the side you have some bowling, someone who could fill in up to 10 overs, but depending on who the side is would depend who fills in the final spot. Of course the build-up has to lean towards Flintoff filling the role, but if he wasn't available then you'd pick based on the rest, in this working example someone to fill in the gap if not Flintoff could be tricky. England demonstrate this isn't too simple, Collingwood, Pietersen and Wright
used last ODI and Wright doing more this ODI. I feel England need to trust in their main bowlers more, recognise the importance of taking wickets as well as "keeping it tight"
So does anyone else have, or can come up with, an alternative way of selecting? Doesn't have to be England, might be refreshing to apply a selection process to a different team (that doesn't pick itself that is) Having a template seems more logical to me than picking players and not considering how the differing players impact with their designated roles. Sometimes you feel that England just pick players and if Wright say doesn't bowl then never mind. With Collingwood in the side is there much call for Wright, especially batting down the order? Equally with so many players who can bowl, do you feel that bowlers like Broad (in this match) not completing their overs is a waste of resources?
Last edited: