The England Thread

[Barney Rubble]

Look's like lucky England might end up sneaking through due to this game right now.

Who would have thought they'd be reduced to being Bangladesh's beeotches and have them to thank for it though.

Oh, go start another account already so you can annoy us under a different name.

 

[Richard]

What do 'active regular' members have to do with anything? This is typical of when you're proven to be hopelessly wrong or proven to be pulling crap out of thin air, you try and move the goalposts or come up with some other meaningless bulldust - or usually both.

Active regular members have everything to do with everything. The eight-and-a-half-thousand or so accounts which have no or virtually no posts are those which have nothing to do with everything, no goalposts ever need to be moved to realise that. Certain straw-clutchers might like to try and use them to prove something, of course. But it's hard to think anything of someone you've never encountered. The only people who have encountered me are active regular members, and hence no-one other than them is remotely relevant.

If you think you know what people really think of you you're seriously deluded.

Or maybe you just cannot configure the fact that there are people with an opinion of me that differs to yours.

 

[Evermind]

That you bring-up lie-detectors in an attempt to infer that there would be any reason to lie ITFP is a pretty decent indicator of your lack of authority on the matter.

I tried real hard to figure this sentence out.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Active regular members have everything to do with everything. The eight-and-a-half-thousand or so accounts which have no or virtually no posts are those which have nothing to do with everything, no goalposts ever need to be moved to realise that. Certain straw-clutchers might like to try and use them to prove something, of course. But it's hard to think anything of someone you've never encountered. The only people who have encountered me are active regular members, and hence no-one other than them is remotely relevant.

Or maybe you just cannot configure the fact that there are people with an opinion of me that differs to yours.

And you still don't know what they think about you (and that goes for virtually everyone for everyone else unless you're into mind-reading), not that it has much to do with the context of my earlier post and your response to it anyway - there being no way you can assume there aren't 'many' who consider your cricketing opinion to be of much merit.

 

[Ash_A55]

Batting 1st vs. Aus. Were going to need 300+ to be competative

 

[Evermind]

Batting 1st vs. Aus. Were going to need 300+ to be competative

Pietersen's gotta get 200, then.

 

[Ash_A55]

Pietersen's gotta get 200, then.

Thats about right

 

[Evermind]

Plunkett in for Vaughan + Mahmood (same batting and bowling strength), Dalrymple, Joyce back in.

 

[Ash_A55]

Plunkett in for Vaughan + Mahmood (same batting and bowling strength), Dalrymple, Joyce back in.

Your joking right?

 

[Evermind]

Your joking right?

Absolutely not. Can't do any worse than Vaughan.

Meanwhile, quote of the week:

"I don't know why I'm not scoring many runs, to be honest. Every time I try to hit the ball, it doesn't go anywhere..." - Flintoff

 

[Richard]

And you still don't know what they think about you (and that goes for virtually everyone for everyone else unless you're into mind-reading), not that it has much to do with the context of my earlier post and your response to it anyway - there being no way you can assume there aren't 'many' who consider your cricketing opinion to be of much merit.

No-one can be 100% sure of anything - every single thing ever written, typed, spoken and transmitted via telepathy might be a lie. So that really gets you nowhere.

Anyway - apparently "both sides know what's expected of them", so from now on I'm not going to respond to a single one of your posts, or comment about you on the forums.

 

[Richard]

Plunkett in for Vaughan + Mahmood (same batting and bowling strength), Dalrymple, Joyce back in.

Replacing 2 men with 3 might be useful, but sadly it's against the Laws.

 

[Evermind]

Replacing 2 men with 3 might be useful, but sadly it's against the Laws.

No wonder you have 29,399 posts.

 

[Richard]

I just happened to be the first one to say such a thing - had someone else beaten me to it, I'd not have bothered repeating it. That was ALWAYS going to be said by someone.

 

[PhoenixFire]

No wonder you have 29,399 posts.

Well Richard does make sense.........

 

[Prince EWS]

Now I know I'll probably cop a bit of flak for this, but I've been thinking it for a while and I have to say it really.

Dalrymple is better than Strauss. Seriously. Strauss's record may look fairly decent - but he only averages 28.7 against ODI standard sides. Further still, if you take out a couple of series against a clearly substand West Indies bowling attack, he averages 25.4. Given he bats in the top order, it's quite clearly unacceptable - and I think everyone realises that. But what many don't realise, is that in the times Dalrymple has been given a chance to bat decent time, he's done well.

In 11 innings batting at #6, Dalrymple averages 33.4 - and that being in matches against Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Australia - quite respectable bowling attacks. He quite clearly is not at all good at "going the tonk" at the end of the innings and as a result failed when he was batted lower behind Flintoff and sometimes Nixon. This point was further illustrated in the fact that, even when he batted at #6, he was getting really good starts and then having to throw his wicket away at the end - he only failed to get past 20 twice from 11 starts.

Now, he could well fail up the order, making him a fairly useless player that can only play a half-measured Collingwood role before throwing it away when the time to really accelerate came, in which case he should be promptly dropped from the squad after the WC. But the signs are there IMO to suggest it is worth a go, considering the fact that Strauss is not only a poor player but is in poor form to go along with it. The worst thing England could do though, is replace Strauss with Dalrymple and then bat him at 7 or 8 or something ridiculous - he has to be at 5 or even higher as far as I'm concerned. Collingwood's effectiveness seems minimal when he comes in later than the 25th over really so he could well benefit from batting #4 (and if not, Dalrymple could bat 4 himself..), and on the wickets in this World Cup, Pietersen at #3 really makes perfect sense.

Now, if everyone in England was available, Dalrymple wouldn't be my first choice to bat in the top 5 by any means, but given the players in the squad, I think it's really worth a go. It'd leave a side looking something like this:

1. Ian Bell
2. Michael Vaughan
3. Kevin Pietersen
4. Paul Collingwood
5. Jamie Dalrymple
6. Ravi Bopara
7. Andrew Flintoff
8. Paul Nixon
9. Saj Mahmood (we all know it's going to happen..)
10. Monty Panesar
11. James Anderson

Now, I know that looks pretty strange on paper, and a side that an over-reacting imbecile who wanted to change things for the sake of it would post - but I think it's worth a go really for the reasons I've outlined above.

 

[Goughy]

^ RE: The above.

It is time for England to start looking at doing something interesting as the current plan isnt effective and despite this, if they win their next 4 games then they will be World Champions. Similar things have happened mid-tournament that have made a difference. Consider Imrans 'cornered Tigers' or the change and player power in Englands Football tactics at Italia 90.

So obviously Im not adverse to change for England, my only concern with your suggestion is how weak and slow the top-middle order looks. Bell and Vaughan are slow accumulators that have never scored ODI 100s. Bopara and Dalrymple are unproven batsmen at any level and Flintoff is out of form. There is still the same amount of pressure on KP and Collingwood as before.

I personally would take a risk and gamble. The known facts are that the top order is terrible and when they bat they score slowly and the middle-late order is prone to collapse.

Now with the squad avaialble I would try and make things happen rather than be reactive (especially as a very big score may be needed to beat SA).

Firstly. Bopara isnt an ODI quality player at the moment. Is he good enough to bat top 7? No. Is his bowling much cop? No. He must be dropped. Its not that I dont think he has any ability, its that I dont 'get' what his role is. He is barely bowling so must be playing mainly as a batsman. He certainly isnt one of the top 7 batsmen available.

Secondly- The England line up is short of specialist batsmen. Whether they have been a great success or not they must play given the current batting failures and squad options

Thirdly- The top order need explosion

Fourthly- Possibly the most important batting position in a OD side is #7. This is the player that either bats long after a collapse or accelerates in the final overs. This player has to be one of the most skilled batsmen and capable of scoring at over a run a ball or working the ball for singles.

So with this in mind, and using the current squad I would suggest the following line up for the final 2 Super 8 games.

Bell
Flintoff cant bat where he is at the moment and England are losing early wickets, so even if the gamble fails nothing has been lost and the potential rewards are great.
Joyce loss of early wickets are nothing new for England so pack the team with as much batting as possible
KP Should bat at 3 but doesnt like it and at this stage upseting his mojo would be a disaster.
Collingwood
Strauss Hopefully batting after a steady or explosive start has been made will free him up to make contributions. As with Joyce part of throwing quanity of batsman at the batting problem
Vaughan cant score hundreds and is feeling the pressure at the top and is undropable. Solution, put him in a position where he doesnt have to score hundreds and the field is spread in order for him to get going
Nixon
Plunkett to me he is as equally bad as Saj, but the superior batting swings it
Panesar at 10 batting doesnt really come into the equation, and despite not bowling particularly well is still better than Dalrymple
Anderson

Now I did mention #7 as the most important position and then I went and put Vaughan there . That is purely lack of balls to make the brave decision. Collingwood is a natural for that space but I couldnt bring myself to put him there. I probably should

This obviously would not be my prefered England OD XI, but given the squad for the WC and current form it is what I would go into the last 2 Super 8 games with

 

[Evermind]

Plunkett in for Vaughan + Mahmood (same batting and bowling strength), Dalrymple, Joyce back in.

Replacing 2 men with 3 might be useful, but sadly it's against the Laws.

Clearly, Joyce would come back in for Strauss (or someone else). So Vaughan, Mahmood and Strauss out, Dalrymple, Joyce and Plunkett in. When I said "Dalrymple, Joyce back in" obviously I meant at the expense of someone else in the team.

Vaughan is simply NOT an ODI player. He should not be in the team. The team isn't working, but they're sticking with the same players over and over and over again. Flintoff hasn't worked at #6 for what, a year now? The only certainties are Collingwood, Pietersen, Bell, Flintoff (for bowling) and Nixon (for keeping). They need to dismantle the rest of the team, start from the basics: "Who do we need at the top of the order? Who do we have?" and take it from there.

I think the suggestions that Flintoff should open are worth considering. Can't be any worse than it is now. Just, please, drop Vaughan, Strauss and Mahmood.

 

[GIMH]

^ RE: The above.

It is time for England to start looking at doing something interesting as the current plan isnt effective and despite this, if they win their next 4 games then they will be World Champions. Similar things have happened mid-tournament that have made a difference. Consider Imrans 'cornered Tigers' or the change and player power in Englands Football tactics at Italia 90.

luckyeddie's favourite story that...I'll have to find it!

Interesting posts from Prince and Goughy. I personally am crap at picking out ODI sides, but I do feel a reshuffle is needed. TMS also suggested batting Vaughan at 7 as a bowling all-rounder !! They really did.

 

[Scaly piscine]

My side:

Bell
Joyce
Flintoff
KP
Collingwood
Dalrymple
Bopara
Nixon
Plunkett
Broad
Anderson


England should just do a NZ, NZ have no genuine class batsmen basically so they just pack the batting order so they've got quantity over quality and have the freedom to play shots. This way you hope you can provide the consistency from 8-9 players that Australia achieves with 6 - obviously there's no way of matching the quality of Australia's lineup for any side really.

I think this is also virtually the best fielding team England can realistically provide, which is obviously important as well.