-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Moving forward what type of side should England pick in ODI cricket?
- Thread starter Niall
- Start date
hendrix
Well-known member
Bell is just not that good. If he drops down to 4 his strike rate will drop further.
Frankly I don't think Moeen is a long term option as an opener either. I'd leave Bell there with Hales, put Taylor at 3, Root 4 and Moeen at 5. Buttler 6.
Spark
Global Moderator
Consistent 40(70) may look good for your average but the utility for the team is very, very limited. Doesn't put the bowlers under any RR pressure and doesn't leave the team in a good position when he gets out either.
Spikey
Well-known member
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Tbf, his stats when batting in the top 3 since 2009 are actually better than i thought they would be. Got the average of 40 that is expected nowadays, but he hasn't got the hundreds that we now expect from top order players in OD cricket. Kumar just matched Bell's entire OD career. Still, there's probably a good argument to be made in Bell's favour
but **** bell
Tbf, his stats when batting in the top 3 since 2009 are actually better than i thought they would be. Got the average of 40 that is expected nowadays, but he hasn't got the hundreds that we now expect from top order players in OD cricket. Kumar just matched Bell's entire OD career. Still, there's probably a good argument to be made in Bell's favour
but **** bell
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah; averaging 45 and striking in the 80s is not "consistent 40 (70) scores". He's getting a lot of scores like 70 (85) with a few failures thrown in; it's a lot different.
I still don't think England have a lot to gain by playing him in the short-term, but if the other players they try don't work out then I wouldn't hesitate in bringing him back in the run up to the next World Cup.
I still don't think England have a lot to gain by playing him in the short-term, but if the other players they try don't work out then I wouldn't hesitate in bringing him back in the run up to the next World Cup.
grecian
Well-known member
Indeed, and most people want Ali to drop down the order. In the end we have explosive top-order bats in county cricket. In the end, Ali adds other things to the side, which Hurricane seems to want to ignore. Bell has been part of consistently disappointing sides in World Cups for three times now. He's not really a scapegoat, he's been bloody lucky to be picked 160 times. Some half-decent form as opener recently, doesn't justify another 4 years of meh, before another average World Cup.
In the end let's just try something new, what the **** have we got too lose.
Oh and it's all very well writing off Moeens 100 against the Sweaties, but he'd have batted like Bell, we'd have probably lost that too.
Last edited:
Scaly piscine
Well-known member
Someone said Bell and Root are England's best ODI bats. No way.
Buttler is. Averaging late 30s/40 with a nothing strike rate has far less impact than averaging low 30s at a strike rate well over 100.
Moeen Ali and Root are next. Bell is 4th at best. If Cook remembers how to bat he's better.
Ultimately Bell has no upside, is a good fielder but not a great fit for ODIs, doesn't bowl and is not going to get any better. England need to draw a line under this World Cup.
Buttler is. Averaging late 30s/40 with a nothing strike rate has far less impact than averaging low 30s at a strike rate well over 100.
Moeen Ali and Root are next. Bell is 4th at best. If Cook remembers how to bat he's better.
Ultimately Bell has no upside, is a good fielder but not a great fit for ODIs, doesn't bowl and is not going to get any better. England need to draw a line under this World Cup.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Root is, but it doesn't help that Buttler hasn't been allowed to put a case forward (or only when England is ****ed).
honestbharani
Well-known member
I am getting the feeling that many English fans here are trying to see if they can have a team of 11 matchwinners.. That so very rarely happens. Bell is a good example... He is doing OK for his role, so just give the man a bit of time. You cannot expect match winning performances from every player. Bell is a good solid bat and will be a good counter for Ali at the other end. Taylor at 3 seems good too, and I would never move Root from 4. He is bedding in nicely there. Buttler at 5 seems like an excellent suggestion too. There is enough cake in this top 5 for England to be competitive in most places they play ODIs at. The real trouble is 6.7 and 8 and the bowlers... They need to find a decent spinner, fast... If Samit is the best option, then bring him back in, diet control be damned. Stokes and Woakes as the batting and bowling allrounders sound decent too, and then you can get to pick the 3 fast bowlers you need... James Anderson, Broad and Jordan does sound like a solid line up.. In an ideal world, in slow pitches, England will be able to replace Jordan or Broad with a spinner who is actually decent. I really think England in ODIs will get better than people think...
And damn it feels so bad to praise England considering how **** couple of their posters have been to me, but oh well
And as bad as KP has been in ODIs for a few years now, if he does manage some miracle and stages a comeback, him at 5 cushioning the lower order biffers and the top/middle order cake could be a God send.
And then there is Morgan and Bopara who can always regain form and stage a comeback.
I do not know much about the new players coming through in the County system, so I have stuck to the guys I know. If there are better ones coming through, then so much the better for England.
They just need to find a board and chairman who are not ****, like the current regime.
And damn it feels so bad to praise England considering how **** couple of their posters have been to me, but oh well
And as bad as KP has been in ODIs for a few years now, if he does manage some miracle and stages a comeback, him at 5 cushioning the lower order biffers and the top/middle order cake could be a God send.
And then there is Morgan and Bopara who can always regain form and stage a comeback.
I do not know much about the new players coming through in the County system, so I have stuck to the guys I know. If there are better ones coming through, then so much the better for England.
They just need to find a board and chairman who are not ****, like the current regime.
Cabinet96
Global Moderator
We play our best one day cricket in non world cups years.In fact what's even the point in us playing away ODIs at all until 2019
Zinzan
Well-known member
Excellent article by Mark Nicholas;
Mark Nicholas: Surprised by England's World Cup debacle? Don't be | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
When I first played county cricket, I was struck by the gulf between those who were very good and those who, well, let's be generous, and say those who were not so good. It was a long time ago. One of my first games was against Gloucestershire. Mike Procter, Zaheer Abbas and Andy Stovold contrasted markedly with Jim Foat, Julian Shackleton and David Shepherd. This comparison is in no way meant as disrespectful. "Shep" was the first to point it out when he kindly spent time with us youngsters over an ale. It was the same pretty much everywhere. At my county, Hampshire, we had Barry Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Andy Roberts and some good English players such as Trevor Jesty and David Turner. But we had some pretty ordinary cricketers too.
Put simply, the system allowed it. Overseas players papered over the cracks in English cricket, in the same way a few exceptional Test players papered over the cracks in the England team. Geoffrey Boycott, Graham Gooch and David Gower were high-class batsmen, Alan Knott was a remarkably gifted cricketer and Bob Willis was a no-nonsense, world-class, fast bowler.
The South Africans gave England a bit of edge. Tony Greig and Allan Lamb, then Robin Smith and Kevin Pietersen. Occasionally an outstanding character, with rare skills, emerged to confront opponents with his very un-English attitude. I'm thinking Sir Ian Botham, Andrew Flintoff and, to a degree, Graeme Swann too.
Some good captains took England down the right paths - Mike Brearley, Gooch in his way, Michael Vaughan and Andrew Strauss. Mind you, they had some of the better cattle. In general, English cricket was spread thinly and still is now.
Back in the day, I played club and grade cricket in South Africa and Australia, and many of those weekend amateurs were obviously more talented than about 30% of the professionals in the county championship. England gives too many cricketers a job and rewards an alarming number of those who can cling on for long enough with a benefit year.
There is nothing wrong with this per se. The county system was conceived with good intentions 125 years ago. Much of it is admirable and sought after by cricketers from abroad who see the county game as a finishing school - and a decent boost to their bank balance. But it is a system designed to represent the country through the shires, and because there are a lot of them, that means a lot of cricket.
It is not a system best appointed to develop international players or prepare them for the international game. It is a system in which quantity overrides quality. It was ever thus and is exaggerated now by the way in which England contracted cricketers have been removed from the county game, thus diminishing its relevance and standard.
A few years back, I wrote that there needed to be fewer county teams and fewer matches at the top level of the game. The best players need more exposure to one another to raise the overall standard. This caused a tremendous hue and cry, especially within the counties that missed out in a streamlined proposal for the future structure of the first-class game in England. This is an old record but if you were given a blank sheet of paper, you wouldn't start the 2015 season with 18 teams in the top flight. The point is that successful England teams take the field in spite of the system not because of it. English cricket has always had a limited talent pool.
It is 23 years since England performed well in a World Cup. During that time, the once hugely popular NatWest Trophy and Benson and Hedges Cup have morphed, alongside various other sponsors - Cheltenham and Gloucester, Friends Provident, Royal London - into a competition that passes almost unnoticed, with a final played in the mid/late September chill that no longer even threatens to sell out. This used to be a showpiece first- Saturday-of-September event, and a hard ticket, which bookended the summer. No one in administration cares about 50-over cricket anymore.
The county system is not best appointed to develop international players or prepare them for the international game. It is a system in which quantity overrides quality
The players' response to this neglect has been their own neglect. If we say Alastair Cook and Ian Bell have been the best English-born batsmen of this generation, what can we say about their 50-over cricket? Not enough, is the answer. Have they evolved or grown as one-day players? No, they have stood still. Opponents work you out; the best work themselves out in response and move on to new and more fashionable methods.
Fifty-over cricket has become a confused obligation. Why? Because T20 has taken over the hopes and dreams of counties, who must balance the books. T20 should have been wrapped up in a series of franchises and given its English-summer window five years ago when the mood was ripe and a breakaway cabal was ready to go. But such acumen was stifled by thoughtless and selfish leadership from the ECB, a body that refused a) to accept its own shortcomings, or b) look into the future.
As T20 franchises were leading the game's zeitgeist and opportunity, England was fumbling along with its own version geared towards, guess what, the county system.
Watching England lose to Bangladesh was sad, but sadder still was watching the witless, old-fashioned cricket and the alarming lack of confidence and flair.
Honestly, I have no idea whether Peter Moores is good at his job or otherwise. Paul Downton famously called him the outstanding coach of his generation, which he might be. But I sense he is of a type. Pulling a decent fellow from the heartlands of county cricket and expecting him to cut a dash on the international stage seems unlikely to me. To do so twice is unlikelier still.
It is not that the blame for England's World Cup humiliation should fall specifically on Moores - far from it - but his appointment is symptomatic of the way in which English cricket thinks. It is like picking James Tredwell ahead of Adil Rashid. Or James Taylor ahead of Jonny Bairstow.
Moores said he would need to review the data. The data! You watched the matches, Peter. The reasons are before your eyes. England's batsmen are rooted to the spot (Jos Buttler excepted); England's bowlers lack speed, swing and spin. The players' body language betrayed their fear of failure. It appears from afar as if free spirits are frowned upon.
But why should they fear failure? Because they have seen what is going on around them. This tournament is an explosion of the senses; a unveiling of the modern one-day game. During it, England have been playing a limited-overs league match on a grey day in the burbs. Around them, artists throw thick paint at huge canvases while they join dots with pencils and a rubber.
Only Eoin Morgan and Buttler have the game to match some of the creators elsewhere. But Morgan, inexplicably, seems shot and Buttler bats too low. Ian Bell has abundant class but no direction. If Bell would look to slay the opponent without fear of recrimination, he would come closer to justifying his talent. Bell should think Aaron Finch more than he should think Hashim Amla. It is his limit. Instead, he bats with the word responsibility pounding in his head and eventually the pain overtakes him.
Joe Root is just 24 and bravely seems to carry the burden of the team's fear. He is trying so hard he looks as if he might burst. The same can be said of others but Root's apparent determination sets him apart. Trying too hard is a terrible thing. Your mind, muscle and sinew become so tight that breathing is difficult enough, let alone changing the situation of a critical match. England's cricketers need to be set free.
Then there is the strategy. The foolishness of believing that the seven-match series in Sri Lanka prior to Christmas meant anything. The late change of captain, the later change of No. 3 and Nos. 6 and 7 batsmen. The mistrust of talent such as Ben Stokes. The sameness and predictability of the attack. The staggering tactic of bowling back of a length at the death. The use of Buttler. Against Scotland, England's first wicket fell in the 31st over with the score on 172. Gary Ballance walked to the wicket, not Buttler. Why not Buttler? Be Scotland and think who you do and don't want to see walking to the wicket right then.
And then there is the toss. Why do England put the other blokes in to bat? The pitches are terrific for batting and the impact of a good first innings has changed. Now the last 10-15 overs are weighed so heavily in favour of batsmen that outrageous totals are the norm. Get to the 35th over with wickets in hand and it's like a charity match. The best players don't worry about their stumps, the most adventurous have no regard for their wicket. Manageable scores of around 300 have turned into 350-plus. This does terrible things to the mind of the run-chaser. You can just about get your head around six an over. Seven and beyond is destabilising.
Yes, blame the players for a few things. They are well paid for work they are performing inadequately. But blame the leadership and the administration too. Ask questions about a lack of foresight, ridiculous schedules, muddled thinking, arrogant liaisons and a complete disregard for the format of the game that is, after all, the format of the World Cup. Surprised that England fell short of expectation? You shouldn't be.
Two new and good men are about to take the helm in London - Colin Graves as chairman, Tom Harrison as CEO. If only they had that blank sheet of paper.
Mark Nicholas: Surprised by England's World Cup debacle? Don't be | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
When I first played county cricket, I was struck by the gulf between those who were very good and those who, well, let's be generous, and say those who were not so good. It was a long time ago. One of my first games was against Gloucestershire. Mike Procter, Zaheer Abbas and Andy Stovold contrasted markedly with Jim Foat, Julian Shackleton and David Shepherd. This comparison is in no way meant as disrespectful. "Shep" was the first to point it out when he kindly spent time with us youngsters over an ale. It was the same pretty much everywhere. At my county, Hampshire, we had Barry Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Andy Roberts and some good English players such as Trevor Jesty and David Turner. But we had some pretty ordinary cricketers too.
Put simply, the system allowed it. Overseas players papered over the cracks in English cricket, in the same way a few exceptional Test players papered over the cracks in the England team. Geoffrey Boycott, Graham Gooch and David Gower were high-class batsmen, Alan Knott was a remarkably gifted cricketer and Bob Willis was a no-nonsense, world-class, fast bowler.
The South Africans gave England a bit of edge. Tony Greig and Allan Lamb, then Robin Smith and Kevin Pietersen. Occasionally an outstanding character, with rare skills, emerged to confront opponents with his very un-English attitude. I'm thinking Sir Ian Botham, Andrew Flintoff and, to a degree, Graeme Swann too.
Some good captains took England down the right paths - Mike Brearley, Gooch in his way, Michael Vaughan and Andrew Strauss. Mind you, they had some of the better cattle. In general, English cricket was spread thinly and still is now.
Back in the day, I played club and grade cricket in South Africa and Australia, and many of those weekend amateurs were obviously more talented than about 30% of the professionals in the county championship. England gives too many cricketers a job and rewards an alarming number of those who can cling on for long enough with a benefit year.
There is nothing wrong with this per se. The county system was conceived with good intentions 125 years ago. Much of it is admirable and sought after by cricketers from abroad who see the county game as a finishing school - and a decent boost to their bank balance. But it is a system designed to represent the country through the shires, and because there are a lot of them, that means a lot of cricket.
It is not a system best appointed to develop international players or prepare them for the international game. It is a system in which quantity overrides quality. It was ever thus and is exaggerated now by the way in which England contracted cricketers have been removed from the county game, thus diminishing its relevance and standard.
A few years back, I wrote that there needed to be fewer county teams and fewer matches at the top level of the game. The best players need more exposure to one another to raise the overall standard. This caused a tremendous hue and cry, especially within the counties that missed out in a streamlined proposal for the future structure of the first-class game in England. This is an old record but if you were given a blank sheet of paper, you wouldn't start the 2015 season with 18 teams in the top flight. The point is that successful England teams take the field in spite of the system not because of it. English cricket has always had a limited talent pool.
It is 23 years since England performed well in a World Cup. During that time, the once hugely popular NatWest Trophy and Benson and Hedges Cup have morphed, alongside various other sponsors - Cheltenham and Gloucester, Friends Provident, Royal London - into a competition that passes almost unnoticed, with a final played in the mid/late September chill that no longer even threatens to sell out. This used to be a showpiece first- Saturday-of-September event, and a hard ticket, which bookended the summer. No one in administration cares about 50-over cricket anymore.
The county system is not best appointed to develop international players or prepare them for the international game. It is a system in which quantity overrides quality
The players' response to this neglect has been their own neglect. If we say Alastair Cook and Ian Bell have been the best English-born batsmen of this generation, what can we say about their 50-over cricket? Not enough, is the answer. Have they evolved or grown as one-day players? No, they have stood still. Opponents work you out; the best work themselves out in response and move on to new and more fashionable methods.
Fifty-over cricket has become a confused obligation. Why? Because T20 has taken over the hopes and dreams of counties, who must balance the books. T20 should have been wrapped up in a series of franchises and given its English-summer window five years ago when the mood was ripe and a breakaway cabal was ready to go. But such acumen was stifled by thoughtless and selfish leadership from the ECB, a body that refused a) to accept its own shortcomings, or b) look into the future.
As T20 franchises were leading the game's zeitgeist and opportunity, England was fumbling along with its own version geared towards, guess what, the county system.
Watching England lose to Bangladesh was sad, but sadder still was watching the witless, old-fashioned cricket and the alarming lack of confidence and flair.
Honestly, I have no idea whether Peter Moores is good at his job or otherwise. Paul Downton famously called him the outstanding coach of his generation, which he might be. But I sense he is of a type. Pulling a decent fellow from the heartlands of county cricket and expecting him to cut a dash on the international stage seems unlikely to me. To do so twice is unlikelier still.
It is not that the blame for England's World Cup humiliation should fall specifically on Moores - far from it - but his appointment is symptomatic of the way in which English cricket thinks. It is like picking James Tredwell ahead of Adil Rashid. Or James Taylor ahead of Jonny Bairstow.
Moores said he would need to review the data. The data! You watched the matches, Peter. The reasons are before your eyes. England's batsmen are rooted to the spot (Jos Buttler excepted); England's bowlers lack speed, swing and spin. The players' body language betrayed their fear of failure. It appears from afar as if free spirits are frowned upon.
But why should they fear failure? Because they have seen what is going on around them. This tournament is an explosion of the senses; a unveiling of the modern one-day game. During it, England have been playing a limited-overs league match on a grey day in the burbs. Around them, artists throw thick paint at huge canvases while they join dots with pencils and a rubber.
Only Eoin Morgan and Buttler have the game to match some of the creators elsewhere. But Morgan, inexplicably, seems shot and Buttler bats too low. Ian Bell has abundant class but no direction. If Bell would look to slay the opponent without fear of recrimination, he would come closer to justifying his talent. Bell should think Aaron Finch more than he should think Hashim Amla. It is his limit. Instead, he bats with the word responsibility pounding in his head and eventually the pain overtakes him.
Joe Root is just 24 and bravely seems to carry the burden of the team's fear. He is trying so hard he looks as if he might burst. The same can be said of others but Root's apparent determination sets him apart. Trying too hard is a terrible thing. Your mind, muscle and sinew become so tight that breathing is difficult enough, let alone changing the situation of a critical match. England's cricketers need to be set free.
Then there is the strategy. The foolishness of believing that the seven-match series in Sri Lanka prior to Christmas meant anything. The late change of captain, the later change of No. 3 and Nos. 6 and 7 batsmen. The mistrust of talent such as Ben Stokes. The sameness and predictability of the attack. The staggering tactic of bowling back of a length at the death. The use of Buttler. Against Scotland, England's first wicket fell in the 31st over with the score on 172. Gary Ballance walked to the wicket, not Buttler. Why not Buttler? Be Scotland and think who you do and don't want to see walking to the wicket right then.
And then there is the toss. Why do England put the other blokes in to bat? The pitches are terrific for batting and the impact of a good first innings has changed. Now the last 10-15 overs are weighed so heavily in favour of batsmen that outrageous totals are the norm. Get to the 35th over with wickets in hand and it's like a charity match. The best players don't worry about their stumps, the most adventurous have no regard for their wicket. Manageable scores of around 300 have turned into 350-plus. This does terrible things to the mind of the run-chaser. You can just about get your head around six an over. Seven and beyond is destabilising.
Yes, blame the players for a few things. They are well paid for work they are performing inadequately. But blame the leadership and the administration too. Ask questions about a lack of foresight, ridiculous schedules, muddled thinking, arrogant liaisons and a complete disregard for the format of the game that is, after all, the format of the World Cup. Surprised that England fell short of expectation? You shouldn't be.
Two new and good men are about to take the helm in London - Colin Graves as chairman, Tom Harrison as CEO. If only they had that blank sheet of paper.
grecian
Well-known member
I am getting the feeling that many English fans here are trying to see if they can have a team of 11 matchwinners.. That so very rarely happens. Bell is a good example... He is doing OK for his role, so just give the man a bit of time. You cannot expect match winning performances from every player. Bell is a good solid bat and will be a good counter for Ali at the other end. Taylor at 3 seems good too, and I would never move Root from 4. He is bedding in nicely there. Buttler at 5 seems like an excellent suggestion too. There is enough cake in this top 5 for England to be competitive in most places they play ODIs at. The real trouble is 6.7 and 8 and the bowlers... They need to find a decent spinner, fast... If Samit is the best option, then bring him back in, diet control be damned. Stokes and Woakes as the batting and bowling allrounders sound decent too, and then you can get to pick the 3 fast bowlers you need... James Anderson, Broad and Jordan does sound like a solid line up.. In an ideal world, in slow pitches, England will be able to replace Jordan or Broad with a spinner who is actually decent. I really think England in ODIs will get better than people think...
And damn it feels so bad to praise England considering how **** couple of their posters have been to me, but oh well
And as bad as KP has been in ODIs for a few years now, if he does manage some miracle and stages a comeback, him at 5 cushioning the lower order biffers and the top/middle order cake could be a God send.
And then there is Morgan and Bopara who can always regain form and stage a comeback.
I do not know much about the new players coming through in the County system, so I have stuck to the guys I know. If there are better ones coming through, then so much the better for England.
They just need to find a board and chairman who are not ****, like the current regime.
A bit of time, 160 matches not enough then. Look you play a guy that often, you invest time and money, you expect him to do one match-winning innings in the three World-cups he's played in, again he gives nothing in the field.
You seem to be just suggesting playing exactly the same players that have failed for ages, what is the point in this?
Oh and spin bowling has not been remotely our problem here.
Oh and have England fans been beastly to you? Chin-up old chap.
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
He's saying that Bell is mediocre and should aim to be the most dangerous player mediocrity allows him to be - hence "it is his limit". (at least, that's how I read it)
Think it's a very good article, btw.
Last edited:
ImpatientLime
Well-known member
lolwut
the same johnny bairstow who averages 20 less in list a cricket than taylor and has 10 less centuries?
a decent article with some typical bat**** insane nicholas comments thrown in for good laughs.
grecian
Well-known member
Yeah, and Rashid goes for over 4 regularly in first-class cricket, I dread to think what he'd do in ODI's. Some decent points in there but ruined by that sentence. If he'd said something innovative like Billings and Ansari it would make more sense.
