Group A: Australia, England, New Zealand and Sri Lanka

[Ahmad94]

Personal opinion, Joe Root is not a ODI player. He is too slow. You can't play Root and Trott. They are exactly the same player. Root has to come in and score at 90+ strike rate, which he is not capable of.

 

[Owzat]

you have to say that went to plan, they built a very solid platform, kept wickets in hand then found their quick cameo down the order in bopara. the problem is that if that really is the dressing room executing it's strategy down to the letter then it's lacking in ambition and quite meek.

Unfortunately you're probably right, it went to plan except the plan wasn't a very good one.

you look at india, they're plan was derailed when they lost 3 or 4 quick wickets, but given they'd batted positively and their batsmen had taken their chances they ended up with a score that puts this one in the shade. the indian fans were complaining that they missed out on 350, england look somewhat fortunate to have made 270, yet on the face of it england was the one that better executed their strategy.

who knows, maybe this is a deceptively tricky pitch, ball not coming on to the bat very well and all that, but australia would definitely taken this given the start england had.

I'm not sure the point comparing it with other games, that was at Cardiff for starters. I think the aussies will definitely think they should chase this down, has the pitch done ANYTHING to make it seem like 270 is better than par? And I'll say for a third time, we have to make up overs for the fifth bowler and the aussies should target that and then see if they can get bonus runs off either Bresnan or Broad.

If the aussies get to 100 with 2 or less down then I'd reckon on them winning, I think England's best chance at winning is to pick up wickets regularly and I don't think this is the kind of pitch that you can control an innings with wickets - the only 10 over spell England didn't manage 50+ runs in was not down to losing wickets..................

 

[MUFC1987]

Didn't Morgan used to keep wicket? Just thinking that the batting line-up is reasonable with Cook, Trott, Bell, Morgan, Bopara and maybe Root just about justifiable inclusions, I'm wondering if Morgan couldn't 'do a Stewart' and keep for the sake of the side. Not necessary in Tests, but to get in an extra batsman and not lose a bowler then a batting keeper is an obvious move, except I don't think Buttler is it.

In fact it's daft to play Buttler as a keeper, he isn't even established and being asked to do that.

Your answer to England not scoring enough is to replace one of their more dynamic players with another accumulator? That's crazy.

But, I do agree, he shouldn't be keeping wicket. Buttler should be batting at 6, behind Morgan at 5, with the keeper opening the batting. Take your pick from Davies, Mustard and Kieswetter for that role. We should have 5 specialist bowlers, simply because we don't have a suitable all-rounder who's good enough to bat in the top 6 and get through 10 overs each game.

 

[Owzat]

Personal opinion, Joe Root is not a ODI player. He is too slow. You can't play Root and Trott. They are exactly the same player. Root has to come in and score at 90+ strike rate, which he is not capable of.

I didn't want to axe Root when I commented on the batting. We're trying to blood two youngsters when we're not great at ODIs with experienced players, although Root's SR in ODIs is 84.41. Compare that to the SRs of Bell, Cook, Bopara and Trott which are all in the 70s, not sure his SR is the issue really.

And look at Buttler's SR, 140.27. Not much blinking good thought when his average is well under 20. Still at least England have abandoned the pinch-hitting search for a Gilchrist

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

bell should be axed as opener imo. his SR is the lowest in the whole team, trott and cook are pretty much nailed on in their positions, they're good players, reliable and lead from the front. why someone in the management thinks they need another accumulator along side them I'm not sure.

either drop bell or place him down the order. root might be a good shout to open, knows the position and will score faster than bell, bopara would be other one, though he's not always the most reliable. the thing is though is not to think in term of a pinch hitter, just someone that likes to attack a bit more than nudge it around. KP was a failure opening in the WC but I'd also be tempted to revisit that.

 

[Aalay]

Alex Hales anyone?

 

[Owzat]

Your answer to England not scoring enough is to replace one of their more dynamic players with another accumulator? That's crazy.

I didn't say that, in fact I'm not even sure how you've come to the conclusion I was saying that. I was talking about which of the current XI batsmen I would retain/drop, leading to the conclusion I might lose Buttler and use Morgan as the keeper in order to bring in a fifth bowler rather than use Bopara in that role.

This is about the balance of the side, quite where your "accumulator" comment came from I don't know. And you're calling what I said "crazy", your conclusion is just baffling.

And if you're referring to Buttler as "dynamic", he's about the equivalent to pop-gun Afridi so far, quick runs but no substance. That's not "dynamic", to suggest it is is "crazy", it is a C-A-M-E-O and you can't pick players on the basis of quick cameos.

To flog the point a little longer, his innings so far are 0, 14, 21, 3, 14, 2, 47no and 1. Frankly I'd prefer to have a proper keeper, the likes of Swann and Bresnan can manage that kind of return.

And his SR is largely down to that 47no off 16 balls, before that it was a run a ball which not a lot of runs off not a lot of balls = not a lot of use. If you pick batsmen purely on the basis of their SR then wave bye bye to Cook, Bell, Trott and Bopara because they all have an SR less than 80. Ironically before this innings, possibly still, Bopara's SR is slightly lower than Trott's!

ODI strike rates (before this game)

78.14 Cook : ave 39.38
74.88 Bell : ave 37.17
76.14 Trott : ave 52.29
84.41 Root : ave 59.57
85.82 Morgan : ave 38.56
75.96 Bopara : ave 30.59
140.28 Buttler : ave 16.83

So for all the slating of Trott for his pace of batting, he scores faster than bell and Bopara, nearly as fast as Cook - putting in an anchor role weight of runs to boot. I'm not saying he scores quickly, nor that you want all your batsmen scoring at less than a run a ball, but some seem to think a run a ball is the be all and end all of ODI batting.

And as mentioned, only Bopara of the top order batsmen scored at more than 80 strike rate, although no doubt someone somewhere is making that somehow Trott's fault.................

But, I do agree, he shouldn't be keeping wicket. Buttler should be batting at 6, behind Morgan at 5, with the keeper opening the batting. Take your pick from Davies, Mustard and Kieswetter for that role. We should have 5 specialist bowlers, simply because we don't have a suitable all-rounder who's good enough to bat in the top 6 and get through 10 overs each game.

A fair few times when Collingwood was in the side he'd bowl five overs, usually for up to 25-30 runs and we'd have a bowling card of 9s, 8s and 7s.

We don't have an all-rounder, but England are busy trying to either make someone into a bowler as they 'can bowl', or bring in some bits n pieces cricketer and pretending he's a solution.

We can get away with a lower order including Bresnan, Swann and Broad, but the problem is whoever comes in as the fifth bowler needs to be able to bat, probably at seven. We have too many 'can bat' s in the side already, maybe England are just conceding they don't have an answer so will try and bat our way to wins hoping Bopara can do enough with ball, or be tidy enough, that we don't get punished.

----------

bell should be axed as opener imo. his SR is the lowest in the whole team, trott and cook are pretty much nailed on in their positions, they're good players, reliable and lead from the front. why someone in the management thinks they need another accumulator along side them I'm not sure.

The problem with dropping someone for their SR is that who you bring in may simply not be good enough. 20 average even if at an SR of 200 is not what is needed to win matches.

Bell averages 41 opening, unless someone is nailed on to score 30+ and more quickly, neither of which is guaranteed, I can see why they retain him.

either drop bell or place him down the order..

That comes across as a bit of a contradiction there my friend, why would you drop a slow scorer down the order? To me he either opens or doesn't play, but then some time ago I was suggesting Trott as opener but back then I think KP was in the picture.

root might be a good shout to open, knows the position and will score faster than bell, bopara would be other one, though he's not always the most reliable. the thing is though is not to think in term of a pinch hitter, just someone that likes to attack a bit more than nudge it around. KP was a failure opening in the WC but I'd also be tempted to revisit that.

What we need opening is a batsman first and foremost, someone who can play aggressively and preferably someone who is experienced as an opener or you're just offering an early wicket. I'd not go with KP, I think people are too worried about our opening pair when it is when we're around the 100 mark and we seem to lose our way.

I think it is more about mentality, because they're in the main all Test players they're stuck in second gear (thinking). They can all be aggressive, attack the bowling, but somehow they don't seem too willing. Maybe they're afraid of losing too much, or perhaps just never got the hang of ODIs. Look at the XI, Cook, Bell, Trott, Root, *, *, *, Bresnan, Broad, *, Anderson. You could include Morgan as having played Tests.

And could we say the one-day "specialists" approach has worked? Woakes, Yardy, Wright, Dernbach to name but four. Wright scored at an SR of 89.30, but 22 average ain't much use. Woakes was too expensive bowling, and for a quasi all-rounder his SR was worse than the whole of the current XI top order (73.44)


We could try Hales, not sure he'd fix the real problem that we've had since Flintoff stopped playing - #7. Maybe some are just in a comfort zone, know they can average well at their relatively slow SRs and not be dropped, if they try batting faster they may end up lowering their average and being dropped. I wonder if it isn't too much a club, hard to get into but once you're in you don't expect to be kicked out

 

[MUFC1987]

You said you'd pick Bopara in the top 6 and drop Buttler, that's picking Bopara ahead of Buttler. I'm classing Bopara as another accumulator. You understand that?

And yes, Buttler has a low average, but let's look at why. For Somerset, he averages above 50 still, and why is that? It's because he normally comes in with 15-20 overs to go, so he can set himself before the assault fully begins. He has 15 scores of 50+, in about 55 innings. That's not a bad rate at all and at a decent strike rate.

Now, what is he being asked to do for England? He's being asked to bat in the last 10 overs, either chasing down 10 an over, or trying to score at 10 an over to set a total, without having the chance to set himself. And you wonder why his average is so low? He's essentially having to slog from the word go. My point is, if he bats at 6 and we have a more dynamic top 4, as well as a Coach/Captain who is willing to change the order, he'd have time to come in earlier, in order to set himself so that he can then charge.

Also, with regards to bowlers batting, we have Bresnan, he averages what, 20? At 7, we should just need someone to come in for the last 10 overs at most, he's more than good enough for that, plus he's good enough to bowl 10 good overs, meaning that we should be chasing less anyway. That's without even mentioning Broad and Swann who can swing the bat in the last 5 overs quite well.

 

[Owzat]

You said you'd pick Bopara in the top 6 and drop Buttler, that's picking Bopara ahead of Buttler. I'm classing Bopara as another accumulator. You understand that?

Maybe you just need to brush up on your use of the English language, that's not replacing someone that's leaving out a "dynamic" cameo merchant and retaining an accumulator as you put it, since they're both in the starting XI - and there's no "another" about it, as Bopara is already in said line-up. The person who'd be replacing Buttler would be the number seven, an all-rounder.

But essentially all you're getting all het up about is speed of runs, few of our top order score quickly so you're worried about keeping Bopara who can bowl and dropping someone average a dozen runs because he took only 9-10 balls to score them. If you were talking about bringing in more quick scorers fair enough, one pop-gun Afridi in the middle order isn't a solution, as I say to suggest that is "crazy"

Until such a time as he can add weight of runs to speed, he's like a sprinter trying to run a half-marathon and dropping out before he's managed even a few miles.

And yes, Buttler has a low average, but let's look at why. For Somerset, he averages above 50 still, and why is that? It's because he normally comes in with 15-20 overs to go, so he can set himself before the assault fully begins. He has 15 scores of 50+, in about 55 innings. That's not a bad rate at all and at a decent strike rate.

Now, what is he being asked to do for England? He's being asked to bat in the last 10 overs, either chasing down 10 an over, or trying to score at 10 an over to set a total, without having the chance to set himself. And you wonder why his average is so low? He's essentially having to slog from the word go. My point is, if he bats at 6 and we have a more dynamic top 3, as well as a Coach/Captain who is willing to change the order, he'd have time to come in earlier, in order to set himself so that he can then charge.

Well you've made a right meal there of making an excuse for him. He can't pick and choose when he comes in, he comes in when he's needed, and I very much doubt your template for 'how to make Buttler a star for England' describes every innings he's every played for Somerset.

If he can't score runs in quantity and when he is asked to come in then there's no point picking him, "dynamic" or otherwise. And no, he doesn't have to "slog from the word go", the longer he has to bat the more time he has to settle. You make it sound like batsmen aren't allowed to change pace during the innings, again "crazy" and certainly contradictory to your using the word "dynamic" - one dimensional is more fitting, one speed if you prefer.

Also, with regards to bowlers batting, we have Bresnan, he averages what, 30? At 7, we should just need someone to come in for the last 10 overs at most, he's more than good enough for that, plus he's good enough to bowl 10 good overs, meaning that we should be chasing less anyway.

Bresnan averages 19.58 in ODIs, 30 in Tests. His ODI average helped by 1/4 of his innings being not out, he has scored 80 but his usual efforts are cameos of 20-30 late on.

Bresnan, Broad and Swann are all good for quick cameos lower down the order, the #7 doesn't necessarily always come in when we're five down in the 42nd over, sometimes we can be five down after 20 or 30 overs.

Yes, it is a very difficult role to fill. Someone has to be able to play a longer innings if need be, but score quick, runs, AND bowl 10 overs at a decent ER and pose some wicket threat, preferably carry their own weight with the bowling.

Problem is you're setting scenarios as if that is what always happens. Sure we'd love Bresnan, Broad and Swann to come in for the last 10 overs and score at a run a ball, but that isn't always the case and they don't always deliver either. A long tail doesn't make a strong tail, it works in Tests because we only play four bowlers and if the batting doesn't make runs the tail isn't likely to be blamed anyhow

----------

That's without even mentioning Broad and Swann who can swing the bat in the last 5 overs quite well.

Therein is what you're not getting, Broad, Swann, Bresnan are all much of a muchness, late cameo merchants who can occaisionally play a longer innings but none are really a #7 - in Tests let alone ODIs.

And yes, before anyone says, I know there is less demand for a longer innings batting #7 in ODIs, but a) it can be necessary, and b) just because someone 'can bat' doesn't mean they're going to make 20s and 30s every time.

Our lower order batting can put out ducks and single figures as much as 20s and 30s, the point with a #7 who has a bit more batting in their locker as well as bowling is they have better technique with which you should get more consistency. I've suggested Swann as a #7 in the past, I think he has the ability what with opening for Notts I believe, but what you really want is someone who can average 25-27 or more with the bat at #7 and none of Swann, Broad, Bresnan, Woakes or Wright even does that


And again I'll say I'm not even sure it is about ability (to score quick runs), I think it is deep set mentality, perhaps the fear of losing makes them not so keen to take risks because when they do they tend to throw their wickets away quickly

----------

Wow, the aussies are labouring a bit. I hope their only plan isn't to attack the 5the 5th bowler or they'll be out of the game before Bopara/Root come on.

But credit to Broad and Anderson for decent opening spells, I might have been tempted to bowl one or both for another couple of overs to keep up the pressure. I almost suggested earlier I might toy with putting Bopara on first change to get through his overs, the problem is if Bresnan and Tredwell don't take a wicket or two then the aussies may be well set when Bopara does come on.

Looks like Tredwell is keeping them pinned down, the aussies need to do something as the required run rate is creeping up and they can't allow Tredwell to pin them down like this.

On that note I'm off folks, been on this PC about four hours longer than intended already while doing various things. See you's later to discuss the result probably

 

[MUFC1987]

Maybe you just need to brush up on your use of the English language, that's not replacing someone that's leaving out a "dynamic" cameo merchant and retaining an accumulator as you put it, since they're both in the starting XI - and there's no "another" about it, as Bopara is already in said line-up. The person who'd be replacing Buttler would be the number seven, an all-rounder.

But essentially all you're getting all het up about is speed of runs, few of our top order score quickly so you're worried about keeping Bopara who can bowl and dropping someone average a dozen runs because he took only 9-10 balls to score them. If you were talking about bringing in more quick scorers fair enough, one pop-gun Afridi in the middle order isn't a solution, as I say to suggest that is "crazy"

Until such a time as he can add weight of runs to speed, he's like a sprinter trying to run a half-marathon and dropping out before he's managed even a few miles.



Well you've made a right meal there of making an excuse for him. He can't pick and choose when he comes in, he comes in when he's needed, and I very much doubt your template for 'how to make Buttler a star for England' describes every innings he's every played for Somerset.

If he can't score runs in quantity and when he is asked to come in then there's no point picking him, "dynamic" or otherwise. And no, he doesn't have to "slog from the word go", the longer he has to bat the more time he has to settle. You make it sound like batsmen aren't allowed to change pace during the innings, again "crazy" and certainly contradictory to your using the word "dynamic" - one dimensional is more fitting, one speed if you prefer.

At the start of the New Zealand series, we played 6 batsmen. Buttler was one of those. You're suggesting going back to that (6 batsmen), but picking Bopara instead, that's called REPLACING him. As in REPLACING him as one of the top 6 batsmen in the team. Make sense? Good, now keep up.

You complain about Buttler's average, but what are you expecting? Him to come in and average 40, as well as going at a decent strike rate, all within the last 4 overs of an innings? That's, yes, CRAZY. My point is, to get the best of the player, you have to play to his strengths, England don't do that. And you can't determine when you bat? You can alter it. Look at today, we lost Trott with 16 overs to go. You're telling me you can't send in Morgan then and then Buttler 2 overs later when Bell gets out? That's called adapting to the situation, that's my point. But hey, why not send him in with 3 overs to go each time and then bitch and moan that he gets out trying to raise the run-rate from 4 rpo.

Oh, and I didn't even mention playing a batsman as a wicket-keeper, which you suggested. While we're at it, why not get Cook to open the bowling? That's the same logic.

I'm not even going to comment on all that about Number 7 down, because you're just going to say that sometimes we need a Bradman to come in and score 100 because the top order is so bad or something. That's called moving the goalposts. I'm suggesting improving the side meaning that we can afford to have a bowling all rounder at number 7, not having to play a genuine batsmen there because the other players don't come off. If the top 6 can't get enough runs, that's not the fault of the number 7. It's like saying we should pick 6 specialist bowlers incase the first 5 aren't good enough. I'm sure you'll have another 10 pages to add on that though or something.

 

[MUFC1987]

Sense this could be a tight finish if these two bat together a little bit longer.

 

[Skater]

Well done to the team I say, any win over the convicts is more than welcome. I heard a stat that this match was the first of 24 games between the countries between now and February.

Oh and for the record I thought Johnson was run out, but when they've taken that long to look at it it was inevitable they were going to give it not out.

 

[sifter132]

A lot of complaining about the England lineup, but really the 'slow and sluggish' top order set it up beautifully, it was Morgan and Buttler who failed this time, and in my view that is the case the majority of the time. I'd love to see a split of how often England double their 30 over score, I suspect they don't do it as often as everyone thinks (will go and do some research...). I hate watching Trott bat, but he's the best batsman England have got in my view.

To the match, I think during that chase Australia was crying out for some innovation - the whole match, just quietly...but being well behind the run rate when the 2nd and 3rd wickets fell, there was an opportunity there to promote a more free scoring player (M.Marsh or Faulkner most likely, to attack the off spin of Tredwell and Root) and/or take the powerplay early. England could roll out their bowlers exactly as planned, with zero threat because the Aussies were still trying to keep wickets up their sleeve eg. Voges was hardly going to come out guns playing in the 25th over knowing he was the last specialist batsman.

Special mention of Phil Hughes who got the most bogged of anyone, working the spinners again being his problem. Root and Tredwell got plenty of dots against him.

One thing the Aussies did at least do well though was keeping Faulkner and McKay in hand for the later overs. They aren't especially dangerous wicket takers up front (neither in the Test XI), and both do pretty well at the end of an innings. Was definitely a factor in England stalling around the 30-45 over mark.

 

[aussie1st]

Solid by the English probably one thing you can be certain is they will give their bowlers something to bowl to. If it will be enough against a batting lineup on song will be another question.

We missed a trick by not picking Ferguson for mine, we really need a Bevan/Hussey back at 6 and Mitch Marsh sure isn't that. However with what we have there we may as well try Maxwell at opener and tell him to play his normal game. We need to try something as this batting lineup is in the shits. Hughes is a real worry, he has moved on from India but still struggling against spin.

Good on Bailey with his knock though and likewise Faulkner who probably would be better off in the top 7 if we are insist on having another all rounder in the top 7.

 

[Owzat]

I wouldn't be too sure about England always giving their bowlers something to bowl at, but yesterday England bowled well enough and the aussies didn't bat particularly well on a pitch I'm still sure was good enough for that total to be chased down more often than not.

Still credit to England's bowlers, while we were debating about England's batsmen's strike rates, and the inclusion of a proper fifth bowler, they were making it look like a big total. The signs were then when the aussies struggled to 35/1 off 10 overs and then 63/2 off 20. Thereafter the 158 runs off the last 30 overs was a decent effort, but the game was long gone.



And now Anderson has passed Gough's wicket total, here's the comparison :

Anderson (170 ODIs) : 237 wkts @ 29.58 (BB 5/23, SR 35.64, ER 4.98)
Gough (159 ODIs) : 235 wkts @ 26.42 (BB 5/44, SR 36.04, ER 4.40)

11 extra ODIs to take 2 extra wickets and at 3 runs per wicket more apiece. Otherwise the records are fairly comparable, with similar SRs Gough's ER was always going to be lower given his average is, the three being interlinked by nature of being based on runs/overs/wickets so if you know two of the SR, ER and average you can work out the other -

36.04 balls = 6.006667 overs x 4.40 runs per over = 26.43, the minor difference being because all the figures being used are rounded rather than exact.

Works with Anderson too 29.58 average divided by 4.98 ER = 5.939759 SR which multiplied by six (as it is in overs not balls) = 35.63855 (35.64 rounded up)