***Official*** England in New Zealand series 2013

[hendrix]

Actually, Watling probably won't keep. So I should edit that.

It's fine, artistic license.

 

[theegyptian]

The bad news for England is that in the Lions there are worse options of the same players doing well in the top 4. Chopra and Taylor are just less good versions of Bell and Trott and if either of them got promoted we'd be in even more trouble.

Hales is the obvious option as an opener. I feel like England are worried that his technique isn't quite good enough. He also has been a bit of a **** in the past with some discipline problems. He is powerful and attacking and a completely different player to Trott and Cook. You need contrasts to cause problems to the bowlers. Today NZ just bowled at Trott. Bell is slightly better as he moves around and charges the bowler but he doesn't have the power to really bother bowlers. They know he's going to get out eventually and without a match defining innings( unless it's a low scoring game).

The problem is eased a bit when KP comes back in but he is a long way from the brilliant ODI player that he was. He really struggles these days to add impetus to an innings. Maybe he just doesn't care for the format. KP would make a decent opener now as he has the skill to counter good attacks agains the new ball and won't let bad attacks dictate to him. The problem with lifting KP to open is you have no number 4.(cook, kp, trott, root is still too pedestrian)

Bairstow was rightly not selected for this game. He doesn't really have the skills to rotate the ball in the middle order and looks out of form. In a couple of years I'm hoping that Bairstow or Stokes can bat 3 or 4. Bairstow has shown that he is a good strokeplayer and can take on the best in test cricket in his brief career. Ideally what you want from top order players is someone who is good enough technically to counter the new ball when in early and build an innings before being able to accelerate and make a big hundred.

teams are just comfortable with bell, trott, cook, root batting because they know they aren't going to destroy them at any point. It's good to have 2 of these type of players to build foundations and be able to counter good bowling but 4 means the opposition is never under much pressure. you need contrasts in batting styles to cause the opposition problems and not allow them to settle.

 

[Neil Young]

Don't really get the McCullum hate tbh.

Yeah, I'm not really sure where it's come from.

 

[hendrix]

well I don't agree with the McCullum hate either, but it's pretty easy to see where it's coming from.

He's seen as a proxy of the Hesson/NZC **** up with Taylor.

Moreover, it doesn't help that he's seen as a massive under-achiever, as he's failed to live up to his early career heroics against Australia. Compounding the frustration is the manner of his failures, which are typical of aggressive batsmen across the world, but that doesn't make them any less good fodder for a baying public.

 

[Prince EWS]

McCullum's not an underachiever; he's just not quite as good as he or a lot of the general public think he is. He's not a bad player and he certainly deserves his spot in the side but it shouldn't be any surprise that he's not pulling up trees all the time. The misconception that he underachieves is the catalyst behind his constant shuffling around the order to the detriment of team balance all the time; there's always someone who thinks they can get more out of him than what he's producing because he's "sooo talented".

 

[Cabinet96]

I don't want to come across as a **** here, but I think part of the reason people view McCullum as a better player than he is is because he plays for New Zealand. He's always been one of the sides best batsman, particularly in ODI cricket, therefore he's naturally viewed as someone who should be averaging higher than he is in all forms. If he played for a side like South Africa I doubt he would be viewed as such an underachiever.

 

[hendrix]

McCullum's not an underachiever; he's just not quite as good as he or a lot of the general public think he is. He's not a bad player and he certainly deserves his spot in the side but it shouldn't be any surprise that he's not pulling up trees all the time. The misconception that he underachieves is the catalyst behind his constant shuffling around the order to the detriment of team balance all the time; there's always someone who thinks they can get more out of him because he's "sooo talented".

I only partially agree. While I do think his ability is overexaggerated, he does have a very solid technique, and no apparent flaws in his game.

He's comfortable against genuine quick bowling (which is something one could say about only 2-3 players in NZ). He's a good player of spin. He has the ability to rotate the strike against tight bowling. He's quick between the wickets and was an excellent wicketkeeper when he was doing it full time. And obviously he can slog with the best of them.

The issue is that powers of concentration is not considered an ability, so dismissals attributable to concentration failures are seen as him underachiever, rather than him actually not having that critical cog.

 

[Mike5181]

I only partially agree. While I do think his ability is overexaggerated, he does have a very solid technique, and no apparent flaws in his game.

He's comfortable against genuine quick bowling (which is something one could say about only 2-3 players in NZ). He's a good player of spin. He has the ability to rotate the strike against tight bowling. He's quick between the wickets and was an excellent wicketkeeper when he was doing it full time. And obviously he can slog with the best of them.

The issue is that powers of concentration is not considered an ability, so dismissals attributable to concentration failures are seen as him underachiever, rather than him actually not having that critical cog.

I personally think he has better skills, and more talent than his numbers would suggest. I think mental weakness, or inconsistency can be overlooked a bit, and that's where he falls short quite often though. Sometimes it can diminish with experience/age, and that's probably why McCullum is put out there as an underachiever so much. We see him playing amazing innings like that T20 vs Australia, and expect him to match that ability with consistently, it simply doesn't work that way though. You need the mental side of things to match your ability to be a consistent/better performer. People are kind of waiting for him to ditch the approach to his batting he showed tonight in his first 15-20 balls, but he legitimately believes that's the best way for him to bat.

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't want to come across as a **** here, but...

That always ends well

 

[Cabinet96]

Knew you'd say that

 

[mightymariner]

teams are just comfortable with bell, trott, cook, root batting because they know they aren't going to destroy them at any point. It's good to have 2 of these type of players to build foundations and be able to counter good bowling but 4 means the opposition is never under much pressure. you need contrasts in batting styles to cause the opposition problems and not allow them to settle.

Yeah I agree. Really need to start encouraging them to go for it earlier, play more attacking players in the top order so we don't start slowly and end up paying for it with the match.

I'd like to see a top order something like:

Cook
Hales
Trott/Bell/Root
Pietersen

Enabling us to lay down something decent from the start. Of course it would be easier if the bowlers bowled properly most of the time and kept the runs down but you can't have everything.

 

[Neil Young]

McCullum talks absolute ****e and too often plays ridiculous cricket.

But I think he numbers are about right for his complete skillset. As someone said, technically he is pretty proficient but mentally he struggles to adapt to certain game situations.

I've got to give him a break today, though. He won us the game.

 

[hendrix]

teams are just comfortable with bell, trott, cook, root batting because they know they aren't going to destroy them at any point. It's good to have 2 of these type of players to build foundations and be able to counter good bowling but 4 means the opposition is never under much pressure. you need contrasts in batting styles to cause the opposition problems and not allow them to settle.

Honestly, I disagree.

When Trott and Bell were batting the run rate was near 5 an over and I felt that 300 was on the cards.

Can't really blame them for the failure of the middle order.

 

[theegyptian]

Honestly, I disagree.

When Trott and Bell were batting the run rate was near 5 an over and I felt that 300 was on the cards.

Can't really blame them for the failure of the middle order.

i don't blame them per se. that's their skillset. At least Bell seems to have some sense of the match situation, wicket, boundaries etc. Trott just plays the same innings almost regardless

Its Giles and Flower I blame for going in with top 4's like this.


If you take Trott's ODI career I think you'll find his career is made up of 3 significant trends


Opposition score average/less than average score; Trott nearly always contributes(50+ sr 75) and England nearly always win

eg. 4th ODI: England v Australia at Chester-le-Street, Jul 7, 2012 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo, 3rd ODI: England v South Africa at The Oval, Aug 31, 2012 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo, 5th ODI: England v Sri Lanka at Manchester, Jul 9, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

England chase down above average score/ bat first and score above average; Trott normally contributes something (40+@ sr80) but one of Strauss, Collingwood, KP, Morgan makes match defining contribution at >90 sr.

eg. 2nd ODI: England v Pakistan at Leeds, Sep 12, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo, 3rd ODI: England v Bangladesh at Birmingham, Jul 12, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo, 2nd ODI: South Africa v England at Centurion, Nov 22, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo


England score average or below par score/ fail to chase average to good scores; Trott contributes (50+ sr 75). England lose

e.g 2nd ODI: England v Bangladesh at Bristol, Jul 10, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo, 3rd ODI: Australia v England at Sydney, Jan 23, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo, 4th Quarter-Final: Sri Lanka v England at Colombo (RPS), Mar 26, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Now you could quite rightly make the point in these last 3 games that no-else contributed much and Trott made a big score so it can't be his fault that England lost. but i would counter that by Trott is playing a different game to everybody else. He plays sensible test type cricket whilst hardly adapting; the rest are left to score quickly and innovate and for some they simply don't have the ability to do that. There is a lot of pressure on the guy batting at the other end to Trott as they know he isn't going to change from his gameplan. This is fine if you have the ability to score quickly but players like Cook, Bell and Root are conventional players also and struggle to offer real dynamism




There is no doubt in my mind that Trott's overall contribution to the ODI team is positive but he is never winning games for England. Either the bowlers win it for England by limiting the opposition to below par scores or Trott makes a contribution but another batsman makes the defining contribution.

At the moment though with Trott, Cook, Bell and Root in the top 4, there is no one for Trott to bat with that will make the defining contribution. Morgan and Buttler can make it but battting at 5 and 6 and with no-one after there is a lot of pressure on them and Buttler is still inexeperienced.

 

[grecian]

TBF aren't we over-analyzing things a bit, many of our players looked very rusty, as you'd expect from people who haven't played any cricket for a while.

We still weren't massacred and you'd hope we will be better for the match.

 

[Cabinet96]

The thing is, having aggressive players at the top of the order has never really worked for us. I thought CK did OK when he was there, but we've done better since Bell came in. Most of the games where the 3rd trend occurred for Trott were either away from home or when we had an understrength bowling attack. In the Champions Trophy that isn't going to be the case, at least the former certainly, and hopefully the latter. Trott played 9 completed ODI's last summer, against a wide variety of teams, who were all reasonably strong, and we won 8 of them, mostly because our bowling attack did well.

If KP comes in for Root at 4 for the Champions Trophy we'll have slightly more power, while being in the conditions where a powerful top order is needed least. I think our current side, with KP in for Root, will be fine for the Champions Trophy, and that's all that we really need to be working towards at the moment IMO.

 

[BeeGee]

Hales is the obvious option as an opener.

AWTA. In the modern ODI game you need some firepower at the top.

 

[Cabinet96]

I'd argue that the game is regressing though. Two new balls, less fielders aloud outside of the circle allowed, meaning powerplays have less impact, only 10 overs of powerplay up top now.

Don't get me wrong, I quite like the idea of Hales opening in ODI's, but I just don't think there's space for him at the moment, and I don't think a batter with such firepower is "needed" to be successful at the moment, particularly in England.

 

[BeeGee]

As someone said, technically he is pretty proficient but mentally he struggles to adapt to certain game situations.

This. He's an underachiever because his mental game can't make the most of his natural talent.

 

[Kippax]

Southee and Rutherford called up.

Southee Returns, Woodcock Writhes in Pain - YouTube