*Official* England in India

[Howe_zat]

In India Patel, Pieterson and Bopara might do a tidy job in place of Dernbach in the initial overs. It goes against the idea of picking Dernbach as a specialist bowler but if you're going to pick him I reckon it might not be that bad an idea to have him bowl 5-6 overs at the death and the other 4 from Patel.

If he's going to do as little as that - don't forget he is a tailender, batting below Finn, and isn't that hot in the field either - then he needs to be a death overs master for it to be worth carrying him the rest of the time. As it is he can't quite do that, though I'm hopeful he'll improve.

 

[MW1304]

He definitely deserves a go in India considering the lack of Broad and the uselessness of our one-paced bowling in the World Cup.

 

[Howe_zat]

With the 2 new ball rule and the presence of Anderson in the side, if England are smart tactically then there's little to no reason for Dernbach to touch the ball in the first 20 overs unless he's fielding.

Problem with saying "do it for Surrey" is that he already has, he's been the best quick bowler in this season's CB40 by an absolute mile - including an outstanding performance in the final at Lord's.

What I meant is to show with Surrey that he can do other roles with the ball, be it a middle overs holding role or getting the new ball to swing, whatever. He's never been reliable enough to do either of those, even at county level.

 

[Furball]

What I meant is to show with Surrey that he can do other roles with the ball, be it a middle overs holding role or getting the new ball to swing, whatever. He's never been reliable enough to do either of those, even at county level.

What if having him do those things isn't the optimal strategy for RHB?

I like Dernbach and think he's definitely got a future, surely the whole point of building towards a World Cup is that you can afford to experiment a bit in series like these?

 

[Howe_zat]

While Broad is injured there's no real reason to leave him out, so yes. I don't really dislike him either, I'm just bothered by his lack of versatility. I do hope he proves me wrong, though.

 

[Furball]

While Broad is injured there's no real reason to leave him out, so yes. I don't really dislike him either, I'm just bothered by his lack of versatility. I do hope he proves me wrong, though.

Broad aside, that's a criticism that can be levelled at all of our ODI seamers tbh. When was the last time Bresnan did anything with the new ball?

 

[OMM!]

Can we afford to carry Anderson who can only bowl in the 1st Powerplay and is a terrible batsman?

Does he not have exactly the same problem as Dernbach, just reversed?

Dernbach isn't perfect. If he ripped out the top order with the new ball, then crashed into the middle-order in the middle-overs, before breaking toes and stumps at the death, he'd be Wasim Akram! And Wasim Akram he ain't!

However, he is supremely talented as a limited overs bowler and his improvement since around late 2009 to now is incredible. If he can improve THAT much in 2 years. He could be something very special by the next World Cup!

You can't just throw away a bowler like Dernbach, he is definitely worth persevering with! We've already just chucked away Ajmal Shahzad who was proving useful in ODI cricket, let's not do the same thing to Jade Dernbach as well.

 

[Cabinet96]

Not looking forward to this series. Having feeling it could get grizzly for the English. No Morgan, no Broad possibly no KP and India will have most of their big guns back. However I do think that England's ODI side is going in the right direction, lots of you players who can whack it out the park. Kieswetter, Hales, Bairstow, Buttler, Stokes etc... Will be interesting to see how they go.


Not looking forward to the new rules as well. 2 new white balls against Sehwag, Tendulkar and Gambhir. No middle overs against Yuvraj, Raina and Donhi.

 

[Daemon]

Can we afford to carry Anderson who can only bowl in the 1st Powerplay and is a terrible batsman?

Does he not have exactly the same problem as Dernbach, just reversed?

Wickets early in the innings usually are more valuable than wickets at the death.

 

[OMM!]

Do any teams score 100 runs in the 1st 10 overs?

Do many teams score 100 runs in the last 10 overs?

 

[Howe_zat]

Wickets early in the innings usually are more valuable than wickets at the death.

That, and Anderson has put in 10 matchwinning overs on many occasions before, and is a proven test class bowler. There's really no comparison there to a bowler who may in theory be able to bowl 5 overs a game.

 

[Daemon]

Damn. You had me fooled for a moment there OMM!, I saw a couple of serious posts from you earlier and thought you had stopped trolling

 

[OMM!]

I love the way on this forum that if you have a different opinion to a long-term poster you are "trolling" or "baiting"

Classic gamer forumming!

I disagree that a good opening overs bowler is better than a good death bowler. Is that trolling?!

 

[Daemon]

I love the way on this forum that if you have a different opinion to a long-term poster you are "trolling" or "baiting"

Classic gamer forumming!

I disagree that a good opening overs bowler is better than a good death bowler. Is that trolling?!

I gave you the benefit of the doubt tbh. If it isn't trolling then it's stupid.

Anyways, I do agree with you that Dernbach should be persisted with and hopefully developed to have a slightly more useful containing role in the middle overs.

 

[OMM!]

I'm not saying don't bowl Dernbach until the last 15 overs.

With the new change of rules regarding the Batting and Bowling Power Play overs, there will be more "hitting" overs later on in the innings. That plays into Dernbach's hands.

He has work to do on his bowling in the middle-overs, but any clown can learn to bowl tightly in those overs. With his pace, wickets should follow.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't like the idea of a new ball from both ends, tbh. Spinners probably won't appreciate it.

 

[Daemon]

I'd rather have the split innings thing, even if it were just for novelty's sake

 

[G.I.Joe]

What's the reception in Australia been like, to the split innings'?
It has the potential to ruin interest in a game earlier than now, tbh. If the teams ended up, say, 130/2 and 75/6 respectively after their first block of 25 overs, its killed spectator interest in the match after 50 overs of gameplay itself, rather than after 75 overs in the regular format. Not that its necessarily a bad thing; it'd be a time saver for us. We'd need some sort of 'follow on' rules in place to let the second team continue batting in the third inns, or the first team batsmen could bore us by batting for the red ink, knowing that they were sufficiently ahead to not take any risks upping the run rate.

 

[Furball]

What's the reception in Australia been like, to the split innings'?
It has the potential to ruin interest in a game earlier than now, tbh. If the teams ended up, say, 130/2 and 75/6 respectively after their first block of 25 overs, its killed spectator interest in the match after 50 overs of gameplay itself, rather than after 75 overs in the regular format. Not that its necessarily a bad thing; it'd be a time saver for us. We'd need some sort of 'follow on' rules in place to let the second team continue batting in the third inns, or the first team batsmen could bore us by batting for the red ink, knowing that they were sufficiently ahead to not take any risks upping the run rate.

The idea's been binned after 1 year.

 

[NasserFan207]

The idea failed miserably in Australia. Apparantly the format sucks balls.