***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[Richard]

I'm wondering y'know... how easy is 230 going to be to chase at night with James Anderson in the side?

Who knows, he might be all-over-the-place, but if he's on-target (which there's always an odds-even chance of him being) looking at how Maharoof went on Monday I'd not be amazed to see him offer a real threat.

IMO, Lanka have been damn careless to let England get this many. Shah was allowed way, way too many singles at the start of his innings.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Strauss just patently is not a one-day batsman IMO. He was only ever successful in ODIs for an incredibly short time, and that mostly against West Indies.

Since the start of calender-year 2005 Strauss has done nothing, be it at four or opening (that's another thing that annoys me - instead of is he in or is he out it's is he wasting a place opening, is he wasting a place at four [when he's never been anything but an opener all his life] or is he out) to show that he's a good ODI batsman, which is exactly what I always expected. His success in 2004 surprised me, greatly. You know why? Because when he was picked, he averaged less than 30 in domestic-OD cricket, having only got it up to 29 thanks to one semi-decent summer in 2003.

Strauss is the classic case of someone's Test and long-form credentials obscuring their complete lack of one-day virtues. Strauss struggles to pick gaps, is blatantly not a good improvisor, and what's worse, in attempting to do this he's got worse as a Test batsman IMO.

I really hope Strauss just writes one-day cricket off completely.

Strauss may not be a natural ODI player, but I challenge you to name one native-born Englishman who is (well, Flintoff). What has eroded his play - and what would reasonably undermine anyone - is the fact that the English selectors will not persist with members of a losing team.

They've used this selection formula, probably pathologically, for the past fifteen years and how many winning ODI teams has it reaped them? Bupkiss.

The fact remains that Strauss has performed enough times in the ODI top order, and in lieu of any obvious alternative has done enough to retain his place. The fact that the selectors are searching for an alternative (though I would have persisted with Loye) and failing says enough about the stability of the side when defeat means a search for scapegoats.

I don't think Strauss is a good, or even consistent, option. But he's the best that's there.

 

[gettingbetter]

These cases are exceptionally rare. Shah may, conceivably become one of them, but I'd be really rather surprised if so TBH.

I've never suggested Bopara should be dropped if he fails in SL (though I will say I've not been as impressed by him in ODIs as some seem to have been), just that if he does, I'd not be surprised to hear calls for the return of Strauss.

Doesn't justify in him not getting picked again.

Hopefully all the money I'm spending on uni will help me out here, but you Richard are using the fallacy of hasty generalisation where you assume someone like Shah will never be a success.

 

[analyst]

England never seem to understand ODI cricket and quite frankly never have, even during their most succesful times, I mean consider if you will the 92 world cup, Botham was opening... fine it worked but I mean he could have done more damage down the order. Same theory applies now to every wicketkeeper by the looks of things, pinchhitters are no longer needed, Sri Lanka were not using a pinch hitter in Romesh Kaluwitharana, he could really open with some degree of success, it was a partnership with some sort of reputation. I mean you cant keep shuffling through the whole county circuit looking for a keeper capable of opening the batting, thats plain ridiculous. Your keeper has to be able to keep and score runs quickly, it shouldnt be a priority that he has to open... . I would like to see Prior or Mustard utilised lower down the order and someone from this middle order, stand up and agree to open and take off from there.

 

[Richard]

Strauss may not be a natural ODI player, but I challenge you to name one native-born Englishman who is (well, Flintoff). What has eroded his play - and what would reasonably undermine anyone - is the fact that the English selectors will not persist with members of a losing team.

They've used this selection formula, probably pathologically, for the past fifteen years and how many winning ODI teams has it reaped them? Bupkiss.

The fact remains that Strauss has performed enough times in the ODI top order, and in lieu of any obvious alternative has done enough to retain his place. The fact that the selectors are searching for an alternative (though I would have persisted with Loye) and failing says enough about the stability of the side when defeat means a search for scapegoats.

I don't think Strauss is a good, or even consistent, option. But he's the best that's there.

TBH I don't see where you bring being native-born Englishmen into it. What does it matter whether Mascarenhas is Aussie, or Pietersen SAfrican, or Afzaal Pakistani. They all learned their cricket in England, and wish to play for England. What else matters?

There'd have been no point persisting with Loye IMO, he'd never have been around in 2011 (I know being an Aussie you probably care more about the next 2 years than that but I don't). And as I say - Strauss should never have been picked ITFP, and there are better alternatives.

As an opener, I'd prefer Cook. At least he looks like he's got some promise, and while he's hardly set The World on fire so far, he's not failed as much as Strauss yet.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't justify in him not getting picked again.

Hopefully all the money I'm spending on uni will help me out here, but you Richard are using the fallacy of hasty generalisation where you assume someone like Shah will never be a success.

Eventually you have to say "no more".

There's always a chance of someone doing well if you give them infinity chances. But almost every time it doesn't happen. For me, had Shah never been picked again last summer, I'd have had no grumble.

 

[Richard]

England never seem to understand ODI cricket and quite frankly never have, even during their most succesful times, I mean consider if you will the 92 world cup, Botham was opening... fine it worked but I mean he could have done more damage down the order. Same theory applies now to every wicketkeeper by the looks of things, pinchhitters are no longer needed, Sri Lanka were not using a pinch hitter in Romesh Kaluwitharana, he could really open with some degree of success, it was a partnership with some sort of reputation. I mean you cant keep shuffling through the whole county circuit looking for a keeper capable of opening the batting, thats plain ridiculous. Your keeper has to be able to keep and score runs quickly, it shouldnt be a priority that he has to open... . I would like to see Prior or Mustard utilised lower down the order and someone from this middle order, stand up and agree to open and take off from there.

Hmm, not sure about all of that post but I certainly think there's been an undue fascination over here with having a wicketkeeper open. It's mere coincidence that Gilchrist happened to be a wicketkeeper, has nothing to do with his batting.

Or, if there is a connection (ie, that he can think "I can play freely cos I've got my wicketkeeping") it doesn't mean that just by picking a wicketkeeper to open you can do the same. Same as the left-hander\armer argument. You can't make good sides just by picking left-handers, those left-handers have to be good enough. Equally, if someone is going to succeed opening, they have to be good enough.

 

[analyst]

Also forgotten amongst all this is that England's main ODI player for whatever reason is totally out of form so far, Pietersen either needs a new position, a rest or something but he needs to start firing for England.

 

[Richard]

Sheesh, just read Swann's innings - 34 off 37 balls without a single boundary. Brilliant effort.

 

[The_Bunny]

TBH I don't see where you bring being native-born Englishmen into it. What does it matter whether Mascarenhas is Aussie, or Pietersen SAfrican, or Afzaal Pakistani. They all learned their cricket in England, and wish to play for England. What else matters?

There'd have been no point persisting with Loye IMO, he'd never have been around in 2011 (I know being an Aussie you probably care more about the next 2 years than that but I don't). And as I say - Strauss should never have been picked ITFP, and there are better alternatives.

As an opener, I'd prefer Cook. At least he looks like he's got some promise, and while he's hardly set The World on fire so far, he's not failed as much as Strauss yet.

Agree re Cook.
Having him open with Prior/Mustard is madness though imo.

 

[gettingbetter]

Well that's a shock.... EDIT: Regarding Flintoff's fitness, not what you said.

I reckon England might win tonight. Backing my man Broad to take 3 wkts, and Pietersen to do something

Broad to go for 7+ an over.

 

[gettingbetter]

Also forgotten amongst all this is that England's main ODI player for whatever reason is totally out of form so far, Pietersen either needs a new position, a rest or something but he needs to start firing for England.

Maybe he should open with FLintoff when he's fit.

 

[The_Bunny]

Sheesh, just read Swann's innings - 34 off 37 balls without a single boundary. Brilliant effort.

And when you take into account the time he came in to bat its even more impressive.

Anyway 234/8, Good comeback, probably not enough but it at least gives them a chance.

 

[Richard]

Time to get cracking on the report. Cyaz in half-an-hour.

 

[analyst]

Maybe he should open with FLintoff when he's fit.

20/20 ?.

 

[gettingbetter]

Folk around here suggested that Flintoff should open to ease England's opening issues.

 

[Athlai]

Would only cause more TBH.

 

[gettingbetter]

Tharanga gone.

 

[aussie]

Mind already drifting towards the test series, heard Flintoff is out for the remainder of the year. So when the time comes England will have to decide whether they will pick both Monty & Swann or 3 quicks i.e Hoggard/Anderson/Sidebottom & Panesar either way Hoggard & Panesar have alot of bowling to do.

 

[The_Bunny]

Should be 2 down

Edit: Is 2 down!