• 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.

***Official** West Indies in England***

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Should give Trott a game tbh, whats the point in picking him just to play the t20's - he could be Englands long term no 3.


You don't really need to see an awful lot of Prior to know that he has class and can play like a real batsman. I don't think it's getting carried away because he has made runs in some less than friendly conditions.
nah he's too loose, will last a couple of series imo
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Some random thoughts ....

Given the absences of Fred & Bopara, Panesar only plays if we play 6 bats plus the keeper, with Collingwood as our 5th bowler. Not sure how I feel about that, tbh. It does make the point, once again, that we don't get nearly enough out of other part-timers like Bell & KP.

Cook's only played 4 games, so I wouldn't write him off or be overly critical. We were all scratching our heads about who should open in these games, and I'd rather err on the side of picking a test batsman who may not be ideal than someone who's just out of his depth but seemed a good idea at the time (I'm thinking of guys like Benning, who's reputation in some quarters rather exceeds what he's actually done this season).

Our Aus friends must wonder how Plunkett's fallen from grace so rapidly after playing a pretty big part in us winning their triangular tournament earlier in the year. Of course I know how dire he was in the tests, but we haven't excatly been tripping over guys who can do some damage with the new ball in odi's, and Plunkers could hardly be less economical that Sidebottom was yesterday.

I'm tempted to agree with SKD about wanting to have a look at Trott, but this is where the 3 game format lets us down. What's he supposed to do in one game? How do we make any sort of judgement? Presumably there is a reason why we abandoned the triangular mid-season format, but it's beyond me.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
superkingdave said:
nah he's too loose, will last a couple of series imo
Sure? His batting looks bloody trenchant for an English keeper. If anything, his indifferent glovework's gunna let him down, from what I've seen as an antipodean.
 

Poker Boy

State Vice-Captain
We should be playing five ODIS gaainst WI and not the seven we will be against India:@ As for getting rid of triangulars, trying to read the ECB's mind here, they probaby felt they were either "twosided" triangulars (as in 2003 and 2005) or if you had two good teams against us there would be a very big risk of no England in the Final (as in 2001 and 2004). They seem to be going out of fashion outside Australia - I know SL were meant to stage one last year before SA pulled out, but I can't remember the last triangular in a test country outside Australia. (was it in Zimbabwe in 2005?)
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I just realised that the series is tied at 1-1 with one more game to play, good for cricket.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
We should be playing five ODIS gaainst WI and not the seven we will be against India:@
100% agree.

As for getting rid of triangulars, trying to read the ECB's mind here, they probaby felt they were either "twosided" triangulars (as in 2003 and 2005) or if you had two good teams against us there would be a very big risk of no England in the Final (as in 2001 and 2004). They seem to be going out of fashion outside Australia - I know SL were meant to stage one last year before SA pulled out, but I can't remember the last triangular in a test country outside Australia. (was it in Zimbabwe in 2005?)
Maybe that's the thinking, but I think it's flawed. Either way, two lots of five this summer, with a max of 2 dead games each time, would be preferable to 3 and 7. This series is too short to give the newer players a decent run in the side, and obviously 7 is far too long, as any fule knows.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
Yardy's took one wicket in his last 5 ODIs, but he has a good economy rate, but then again his batting is absolutely abysmal.

mmmm
 

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
but then again his batting is absolutely abysmal.
Wouldn't expect anything more from a guy who averages 19 in domestic one day cricket. I mean selecting Yardy in a one day team is akin to selecting Alistair Cook to open in a Twenty20 match.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Rich, just for the record Kirtley is a damn fine death bowler. Anyone who's watched one day cricket on sky in recent years will surely agree with me
Explained by his exceptional economy-rates in recent years...

Don't judge a player purely by televised matches. It's a trap so many fell into with Ian Blackwell - just looking at televised matches gave numerous the woefully misguided impression that Blackwell was a good OD batsman.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But no one's born a good death bowler. England need to develop some before the next World Cup. If that means short-medium term pain while some of these blokes get better at it, surely you have to put up with it.
You need the basic skills, though, and the place to develop them is at the domestic level. None of the bowlers in the line-up picked these last few games possess said skills.

Also, the situation's compounded by the fact that you can't pick someone just because they're a good death-bowler, if they go for 33 off their first 6 overs ATT.
Also, there has been a trend in recent times for sides to get belted in the last 10 overs - happened to Australia at home last summer as well. 70-80 in the last 10 overs may not be as bad as it once was considered to be. It may well be part of the evolution of the game.
The "evolution" (it can and I presume will go in the other direction too) is in good death-bowling being a scarce thing at present.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
As an opening bowler you expect to take one or two early wickets but you don't expect to come back for your second spell and see the same batsmen still there. Yardy and Mascarenhas may be fairly economical but they need to take wickets otherwise the batsmen will be set when facing the last ten overs by the fast bowlers and they haven't mastered the art of death bowling to set batsmen yet. Then can manage it if there are new batsmen coming to the crease.

Yardy has a strike rate of 63.00 and Mascarenhas doesn't have a strike rate as he hasn't taken a wicket in two games. At least Flintoff will replace him when he is fit. Bopara is a proper batsman who has a good bowling strike rate of 32.00. Until then I don't hold out much hope of wickets from the bits and pieces players.
It's unfair to take-out the inadequacies of the death-bowlers on those who've done a good job in the middle. It's death-bowling that needs to be improved. I couldn't care less about getting wickets in the middle of the innings, hardly anyone routinely does that, because you don't need to if your death-bowlers are good enough.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, he's a very good first class player with an average of close to 40 and gets big scores. Would thought he'd still be pretty low down for a test call up mind. Shah, Joyce, Bopara would definetely all be ahead of him.
I'm honestly not sure Bopara should be ahead of Yardy, though, TBH. Sure, Bopara actually looks like a batsman far more than Yardy will ever do, but right now Yardy is the more adept at actually scoring the runs, having been doing it for a few seasons now. Bopara, on the other hand, has always blown hot and cold to date.

Like you, though, I imagine Bopara would be ahead in the pecking-order.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Should give Trott a game tbh, whats the point in picking him just to play the t20's - he could be Englands long term no 3.
How Shah has userped him is beyond me. This is now his fourth coming - he's in danger of becoming the next Vikram Solanki.
 

Top