England ODI Team

[zaremba]

You've pretty much exhausted all opening options then, who would open with Bell then?

Depends who else they select. From those currently in or near the squad, Cook is one option, Bopara another. In truth there's no obvious solution.

 

[Jigga988]

Thats just not true. That is the kind of view you'd expect to read in some ****ty article in one of the tabloids about why Prior is crap. People forget that he was a good enough batsman to be selected for as a batsman in a third of his ODI's, although he hasn't been for a couple of years.

Seriously, I don't doubt that Prior has some talent, but the fact is that he is confused about his role as an opening batsmen, that's been plain to see in most of the OD games when he's opened, sometimes I feel for him slightly with the way England deal with him, like I said I don't think he knows where he stands in the OD side and nor does England tbh as shown by the India series where they just kept chopping and changing.

 

[Jigga988]

Depends who else they select. From those currently in or near the squad, Cook is one option, Bopara another. In truth there's no obvious solution.

I liked Bopara opening, (ignore my location) but no room in the squad for him with Strauss in the team, dont think Cooky is much of an option in OD cricket.

 

[ozone]

Seriously, I don't doubt that Prior has some talent, but the fact is that he is confused about his role as an opening batsmen, that's been plain to see in most of the OD games when he's opened, sometimes I feel for him slightly with the way England deal with him, like I said I don't think he knows where he stands in the OD side and nor does England tbh as shown by the India series where they just kept chopping and changing.

I think thats much closer to the truth. He is a talented batsman, and people give him abuse because its easy. I feel for him having to the job he is doing in ODIs as well, but there is no way he will improve at it if England continue to swap him up and down the order and in and out of the side.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I have put very little thought into this, but...

Davies (wk)
Bopara
Pietersen
Strauss (c)
Flintoff
Collingwood
Shah
Mascarenhas
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom

 

[GIMH]

Strong batting

 

[TheEpic]

Swann above Broad though surely?

 

[Goughy]

He certainly doesn't play as if he knows this, all he does is take one agricultural shot every three overs that barely ever works then goes back in to his shell.

I agree with this. I like Prior and he may be a good bet in the middle order but watching him open is painful. He cant work the ball around, gets stuck and then trys to force it with an big shot brought on by pressure and he gets out.

For someone who is supposed to get the innings off to a fast start and and take advantage of power plays his strike rate is terrible and the way his innings are structured are poor.

A more natural middle order position could probably get rid of most of these issues and would be the best bet. Prior as opener has failed so far. It may work in the future but its a long shot.

Thats just not true. That is the kind of view you'd expect to read in some ****ty article in one of the tabloids about why Prior is crap. People forget that he was a good enough batsman to be selected for as a batsman in a third of his ODI's, although he hasn't been for a couple of years.

Just because Prior was selected as a batsman didnt mean much. Bad choices are still bad choices. Prior has done little in his OD career to justify this.

Certain players who are naturally aggessive find it hard to translate their game to ODs. Its a complicated process and talented players like Prior, Slater, Botham and Owais Shah have had issues.

 

[wpdavid]

I have put very little thought into this, but...

Davies (wk)
Bopara
Pietersen
Strauss (c)
Flintoff
Collingwood
Shah
Mascarenhas
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom

Lots of pluses - recognises that Anderson's more of a test match bowler nowadays, strong batting (as GIMH said), puts Strauss where he actually enjoyed success on ODIs, doesn't waste Bopara at 8 and there's a choice of 3 allrounders after the 4 proper bowlers. The openers are something of a gamble, but you didn't have much choice there.

I'd be happy to see that XI start the ODI series.

 

[Goughy]

1. Strauss (capt)
2. Davies (wkt)
3.
4. KP
5. Flintoff
6. Patel
7. Collingwood
8. Wright
9. Swann
10. Broad
11. Harmison

I know, I know. I dont rate Wright and yet I have included him. Its just this XI doesnt need an extra specialist bowler and 8 is to low for a specialist bat. Wright adds needed muscle and firepower.

Im not sure about the #3 position. There is noone I realy care to bat there. Shah, Bell and Bopara are not upto it IMO, but one of them probably needs to be picked. The only other option would be Wright to open (the openers generally fail so may as well make a dash for it rather than go down quietly), Strauss to bat 3 and Mascarenhas at 8.

 

[wpdavid]

1. Strauss (capt)
2. Davies (wkt)
3.
4. KP
5. Flintoff
6. Patel
7. Collingwood
8. Wright
9. Swann
10. Broad
11. Harmison

I know, I know. I dont rate Wright and yet I have included him. Its just this XI doesnt need an extra specialist bowler and 8 is to low for a specialist bat. Wright adds needed muscle and firepower.

Im not sure about the #3 position. There is noone I realy care to bat there. Shah, Bell and Bopara are not upto it IMO, but one of them probably needs to be picked. The only other option would be Wright to open (the openers generally fail so may as well make a dash for it rather than go down quietly), Strauss to bat 3 and Mascarenhas at 8.

IIRC Wright's dashes when opening have been very brief indeed: batting in binary, as they say. My main problem with your side is that out of the top 3, one has a moderate oneday record, one you say yourself that you don't rate, and the 3rd is completely untested at this level. I'm not sure that's a recipe for success.
I think KP has to bat at 3 now.

Plus Harmison ahead of Sidebottom in these games sounds like a liability to me.

However, I had forgotten about Patel, who should no better now that he's not bowling at Indians.

 

[Goughy]

IIRC Wright's dashes when opening have been very brief indeed: batting in binary, as they say. My main problem with your side is that out of the top 3, one has a moderate oneday record, one you say yourself that you don't rate, and the 3rd is completely untested at this level. I'm not sure that's a recipe for success.
I think KP has to bat at 3 now.

Plus Harmison ahead of Sidebottom in these games sounds like a libility to me.

Leaving aside th fact Id want Harmison.

The simple fact is that England are short of quality.Your description of the top 3 may be accurate but diferent people are not going to change that. Shah has a bad record, Bopara has a bad record and isnt eperienced and to be honest I dont rate about 5 of the XI.

You maybe right that KP needs to bat 3 but then who to take the vacant middle order position?

 

[Prince EWS]

Strauss' game just isn't suited to attacking in the Powerplays though. And attacking in the Powerplays is neccessary in ODIs, plain and simple.

Not from both batsmen, IMO. If he can rotate the strike and maintain a good average (which, to be fair, there is little indication he'll actually manage to do) then he'll be fine. Having two batsmen incapable of hitting over the top early on both open is a bad idea, but having one (assuming he does everything else well) is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Prince EWS]

1. Strauss (capt)
2. Davies (wkt)
3.
4. KP
5. Flintoff
6. Patel
7. Collingwood
8. Wright
9. Swann
10. Broad
11. Harmison

I know, I know. I dont rate Wright and yet I have included him. Its just this XI doesnt need an extra specialist bowler and 8 is to low for a specialist bat. Wright adds needed muscle and firepower.

Im not sure about the #3 position. There is noone I realy care to bat there. Shah, Bell and Bopara are not upto it IMO, but one of them probably needs to be picked. The only other option would be Wright to open (the openers generally fail so may as well make a dash for it rather than go down quietly), Strauss to bat 3 and Mascarenhas at 8.

Whilst I still don't rate Shah as a one day batsman any more highly than you do, he's done well lately so dropping him now wouldn't really make much sense. He probably shouldn't have played the games he actually did but now that he's done well in them, you have to stick with him.

Oh, and Napier > Wright in Wright's typical role of hitting down the order and providing another fast bowling option, IMO. I'm still not convinced that such a role will offer much but if you're going to opt for it, I don't see why you wouldn't pick Napier.

 

[wpdavid]

Leaving aside th fact Id want Harmison.

The simple fact is that England are short of quality.Your description of the top 3 may be accurate but diferent people are not going to change that. Shah has a bad record, Bopara has a bad record and isnt eperienced and to be honest I dont rate about 5 of the XI.

You maybe right that KP needs to bat 3 but then who to take the vacant middle order position?

Yeah, we know each other's views on Harmison - one for the agree to differ pile.

And you're dead right about the lack of quality - the question is how best to spread it. Three poor or inexperienced players at the top almost guarantees a poor start to the innings, whereas splitting them up reduces that. To answer your question, it would be one of the guys already mentioned - Strauss if he's not opening, or Shah or Bopara. Same names, same overall quality, but maybe a better spread.

 

[Goughy]

Whilst I still don't rate Shah as a one day batsman any more highly than you do, he's done well lately so dropping him now wouldn't really make much sense. He probably shouldn't have played the games he actually did but now that he's done well in them, you have to stick with him.

Oh, and Napier > Wright in Wright's typical role of hitting down the order and providing another fast bowling option, IMO. I'm still not convinced that such a role will offer much but if you're going to opt for it, I don't see why you wouldn't pick Napier.

The Shah argument is interesting. He has done better recently and is a quality T20 player as he can play with more freedom. However he doesnt compare to the quality in ODIs other nations have. However, apart from KP, which English player do? I can see both POV.

Regarding Napier, he has not done enough yet to justify selection. Especially in the floating role with bowling 2ndary. I cant pick a guy with an average in the teens with batting in mind.

Wrights isnt much better but it is better and he is 5 years younger. Seldom makes sense to pick the older guy with the worse record.

 

[Prince EWS]

The Shah argument is interesting. He has done better recently and is a quality T20 player as he can play with more freedom. However he doesnt compare to the quality in ODIs other nations have. However, apart from KP, which English player do? I can see both POV.

Regarding Napier, he has not done enough yet to justify selection. Especially in the floating role with bowling 2ndary. I cant pick a guy with an average in the teens with batting in mind.

Wrights isnt much better but it is better and he is 5 years younger. Seldom makes sense to pick the older guy with the worse record.

Fair enough on Napier; I actually thought he averaged 25 odd with the bat in List A cricket for some reason.

 

[zaremba]

1. Bell
2. Patel
3. Pietersen
4. Strauss (c)
5. Flintoff
6. Collingwood
7. Prior (w)
8. Mascarenhas
9. Swann
10. Broad
11. Sidebottom

I've no idea whether Patel is capable of opening or not, but what the heck. The more I think about it the more I like the idea. It allows quite a nicely balanced team - a long batting order with a variety of different kinds of batsmen, and plenty of bowling options.

Mascarenhas is very lucky to get in but has the ability to do something spectacular at no 8, and his dibbly dobbly bowling is a useful option in the middle overs. However he plays only on condition that he removes his earring.

 

[Pothas]

1. Pietersen
2, Strauss
3. Patel
4. Collingwood
5. Flintoff
6. Shah
7. Prior
8. Mascarenhas
9. Swann
10.Broad
11.Sidebottom

I know that there are many good arguments against Pietersen opening and I have never advocated it before. I also don't know if he would be willing to do it (especially atm) but why not try it? England have tried pretty much everyone else opening so why not try our best player?
Patel gets in just ahead of Bopara but there is not much in it.

 

[superkingdave]

Like Neil's team tbh. Even if you expect your No.8 to occassionaly just have to come in and smash a few I'd rather Mascarenhas than Wright, who is not just a poor ODI player, he's a poor List A player.