Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Definately favourites against the West Indies, but against India I think a fair bit will depend on who the Indian selectors pick in their touring squad.
-
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.
Where do England go from here?
- Thread starter Bob Bamber
- Start date
shortpitched713
International Captain
Strauss is such a gun Test opener though. Cook would probably be the guy out if both Trescothick and Vaughan play.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ahh, the England v Kiwi chatter is beginning to take the place of the traditional England v Australia stuff. Good to see.
I hear that the Kiwis have already bought all the tickets for the RWC play-off for third place. Bring on the gag reflex come semi final time.
Last edited:
Hoppy1987
U19 Debutant
Tresco's stress related illness, is called homesickness!!
I cant believe stuart broad wasn't given a chance in this tournament, and im sure the selectors couldve pulled a few strings to get Harmy involved as he was by far our best bowler in windies on our last outing!!
I think a distinct lack of application against lesser bowlers is what f**ks us up!!
I cant believe stuart broad wasn't given a chance in this tournament, and im sure the selectors couldve pulled a few strings to get Harmy involved as he was by far our best bowler in windies on our last outing!!
I think a distinct lack of application against lesser bowlers is what f**ks us up!!
Barney Rubble
International Coach
I think it's fairly obvious that our approach to ODIs needs a major rethink after this World Cup. To that end, I think it's time we thought about our batting order, much as Goughy suggested elsewhere. The personnel will no doubt stay much the same, so the approach needs to change if we're to improve. Here's what I'd suggest:
1. Ian Bell - has always impressed me as an opener in ODIs. Should stay there until Trescothick returns.
2. James Benning - has shown enough in domestic cricket for it to be obvious that he's a very good striker of a cricket ball. We're not in a position to be leaving players out who are successful in domestic cricket - we're not exactly spoilt for choice - so he deserves a chance.
3. Kevin Pietersen - seeing as we can't rely on the rest of our batting, we must give him as long as possible to bat.
4. Michael Vaughan - gets out every time he tries to force the pace, so let him bat in the middle overs when he doesn't have to. We desperately need his captaincy.
5. Andrew Flintoff - has produced his best ODI innings from here, so hopefully if he gets back there it might bring back some memories of back when he could bat.
6. Paul Collingwood - still bats best as our finisher, and our late overs performances lately have been dire, so we need him there.
7. Ravi Bopara - has massive potential, both as a late-overs ODI batsman or in the top order. For the moment he can stay at 7, but only on the grounds that he should be bowling more often.
8. Paul Nixon - done nothing to suggest he isn't worthy of keeping his place in the ODI side after the World Cup is over. You can already see the influence of his experience on some of the younger members of the squad, notably Bopara in that run-chase against SL.
9. Sajid Mahmood - we all know he's not going to get dropped any time soon, and although I'm going to cop some flak for this, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. I've made it no secret in the past that I believe he has a lot more potential than some do, provided he gets his line and length under control - he's shown signs of being able to do that in recent weeks, IMO. Has taken some wickets, too, however lucky.
10. Monty Panesar - still learning how to bowl in OD cricket, but is improving all the time. Once he develops a bit more variation, will be a valuable weapon.
11. James Anderson - on his day, as good an ODI bowler as anyone else in the world. Needs to have more days.
It's very easy to say, in the light of our impending elimination from the World Cup, that we don't have the players to succeed, or that we do, but they're just not playing well enough. It's not a matter of that, however.
There is no such thing as "good enough" or "not good enough" for international cricket - there is no fine line at which a player becomes incapable of performing to an adequate level. What must be done when you're not succeeding is to work out how to get the best out of the players you've got.
You can't worry about having players in the team who might not be batting in their ideal position, or bowlers who might not be 100% dependable 100% of the time - as long as you've got players who are capable of producing what it takes to win games on an occasional basis, it can provide a basis for long-term improvement.
In short, England are setting their sights too high. We have long been discarding players who do not produce the good immediately, because we've been looking for players who seem to be capable of performing at the highest level. The fact is that those sorts of players don't come along overnight, and you're far more likely to encourage a player to succeed at international level by giving him an extended run of games in a role to which you believe he is suited than by chucking him into whichever spot in the team is deemed to be available.
Just as switching personnel left, right and centre does not solve problems in a heartbeat, neither does switching tactics. I've often heard people say that England need to be "more aggressive" in their ODI cricket. That's all well and good, but what if it doesn't suit us? Aggression is not the universal solution, and neither would adopting a wait-and-see approach be.
England must find a group of players and a strategy that suits them, and must concentrate on giving themselves the opportunity to improve, rather than demanding immediate results from a group of players who are not being given sufficient support from the management to allow them to achieve it.
In short, we just need to set our sights lower in ODI cricket - we're not good enough to be challenging for the World Cup, that's obvious. If in two years' time, we are consistently winning ODI series at home and putting in good showings away from home, then we can start thinking about challenging the big guns. Asking for instant results very seldom receives a positive answer.
1. Ian Bell - has always impressed me as an opener in ODIs. Should stay there until Trescothick returns.
2. James Benning - has shown enough in domestic cricket for it to be obvious that he's a very good striker of a cricket ball. We're not in a position to be leaving players out who are successful in domestic cricket - we're not exactly spoilt for choice - so he deserves a chance.
3. Kevin Pietersen - seeing as we can't rely on the rest of our batting, we must give him as long as possible to bat.
4. Michael Vaughan - gets out every time he tries to force the pace, so let him bat in the middle overs when he doesn't have to. We desperately need his captaincy.
5. Andrew Flintoff - has produced his best ODI innings from here, so hopefully if he gets back there it might bring back some memories of back when he could bat.
6. Paul Collingwood - still bats best as our finisher, and our late overs performances lately have been dire, so we need him there.
7. Ravi Bopara - has massive potential, both as a late-overs ODI batsman or in the top order. For the moment he can stay at 7, but only on the grounds that he should be bowling more often.
8. Paul Nixon - done nothing to suggest he isn't worthy of keeping his place in the ODI side after the World Cup is over. You can already see the influence of his experience on some of the younger members of the squad, notably Bopara in that run-chase against SL.
9. Sajid Mahmood - we all know he's not going to get dropped any time soon, and although I'm going to cop some flak for this, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. I've made it no secret in the past that I believe he has a lot more potential than some do, provided he gets his line and length under control - he's shown signs of being able to do that in recent weeks, IMO. Has taken some wickets, too, however lucky.
10. Monty Panesar - still learning how to bowl in OD cricket, but is improving all the time. Once he develops a bit more variation, will be a valuable weapon.
11. James Anderson - on his day, as good an ODI bowler as anyone else in the world. Needs to have more days.
It's very easy to say, in the light of our impending elimination from the World Cup, that we don't have the players to succeed, or that we do, but they're just not playing well enough. It's not a matter of that, however.
There is no such thing as "good enough" or "not good enough" for international cricket - there is no fine line at which a player becomes incapable of performing to an adequate level. What must be done when you're not succeeding is to work out how to get the best out of the players you've got.
You can't worry about having players in the team who might not be batting in their ideal position, or bowlers who might not be 100% dependable 100% of the time - as long as you've got players who are capable of producing what it takes to win games on an occasional basis, it can provide a basis for long-term improvement.
In short, England are setting their sights too high. We have long been discarding players who do not produce the good immediately, because we've been looking for players who seem to be capable of performing at the highest level. The fact is that those sorts of players don't come along overnight, and you're far more likely to encourage a player to succeed at international level by giving him an extended run of games in a role to which you believe he is suited than by chucking him into whichever spot in the team is deemed to be available.
Just as switching personnel left, right and centre does not solve problems in a heartbeat, neither does switching tactics. I've often heard people say that England need to be "more aggressive" in their ODI cricket. That's all well and good, but what if it doesn't suit us? Aggression is not the universal solution, and neither would adopting a wait-and-see approach be.
England must find a group of players and a strategy that suits them, and must concentrate on giving themselves the opportunity to improve, rather than demanding immediate results from a group of players who are not being given sufficient support from the management to allow them to achieve it.
In short, we just need to set our sights lower in ODI cricket - we're not good enough to be challenging for the World Cup, that's obvious. If in two years' time, we are consistently winning ODI series at home and putting in good showings away from home, then we can start thinking about challenging the big guns. Asking for instant results very seldom receives a positive answer.
open365
International Vice-Captain
I cannot believe anyone would seriously consider batting Bopara in the top 5, i've seen him play every one of his innings for England and a few in county cricket and no way is he good enough to be a top 5 batsman even for England.
PF makes the best point in this thread, with Trescothick (especialy in ODIs) England would be a hell of a lot better side and imo his absence has affected us more than anyone elses.
Vaughan after this WC(and that includes if he makes any sort of score in the enxt two matches) just has to be dropped, i've been saying for about 3 years that he's the worst batsman in ODIs of his era and no amount of skill as a captain is worth his pathetic batting.
EDIT: How the hell does Vaughan still keep his place Matt??
Last edited:
Salamuddin
International Debutant
How so ? Trescothick averages something like 35 outside England ? Add to the fact that he's never really done all that much against a full strength Australia, and I can't see how he would have made all that much of a difference.
open365
International Vice-Captain
Last ashes series he was second in England's averages against an attack i don't rate that much worse than the one in 05.
Trescothick is a class player who i would have backed to score more runs than Strauss and Cook did, the importance of our opening parternships in 05 cannot be over rated and the last series in Australia showed how crucial they are to a team
Trescothick is a class player who i would have backed to score more runs than Strauss and Cook did, the importance of our opening parternships in 05 cannot be over rated and the last series in Australia showed how crucial they are to a team
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
No chance, consider our home record and India's away record and we are clear favourites.
Salamuddin
International Debutant
India's away record since 1 January 2001 isn't that bad at all.
Against top 8 opposition, they have won only 2 tests less than England have away from home and more than Pakistan and South Africa have.
Granted England still start pretty warm favourites but England wouldn't want to go into the series thinking it'll be a walkover and a;ll we have to do is show up and Let Harmo scare them :-)
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Our record away from home is completely irrelevant. Fact is, England haven't lost a home Test series since 2001, India have only beaten West Indies away from the subcontinent over whatever period of time. The fact that we've lost a plenty on our travels won't affect the events of this summer, so why bring it up? Might as well mention our 5-0 defeat to Sri Lanka in ODIs last year.
Salamuddin
International Debutant
My point is they are not that bad a team away from home and England are far from unbeatable at home as Sri Lanka showed last year.
open365
International Vice-Captain
Salamuddin
International Debutant
You only drew 1-1 with Sri Lanka last year in tests.
Barney Rubble
International Coach
Putting our differing views about his captaincy to one side, and regardless of how bad an ODI player he might be, you and I both know that realistically, he is not going to be dropped. While he is still in the side, we have to at least attempt to give him the best chance of scoring some runs - to that end, he should bat at four.
Barney Rubble
International Coach
Yeah, I wasn't doing a "this is what I'd like it to be" kinda thing, I was doing a "this is what it should be bearing in mind Fletcher's personal preferences", kinda thing. Should have said that before.
Against WI definately.Against India England are probably just marginal favourites as the series is in July/August. Historicaaly (with the exception of 1986 when England were a shambles) if India do something in England it is in the second half of the summer (1971, the drawn series in 2002 and the heroic draw at the Oval in 1979 when Gavaskar got a 200, they nearly broke their (then) world record run chase and by all accounts even Mike Brearley was briefly flustered).If the series had been played when the WI one is being played England would be clear favourites but IMO as it is in the second half of the season it evens up the odds...