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

[Howe_zat]

Only half a dozen players have ever managed over 2000 ODI runs at 50, ftr. And Trott doesn't have the slowest strike rate among them, Bevan does.

 

[khodder]

Wtf, are you high? NcCullum is the biggest passenger in the side. Franklin and Elliott have both put in solid performances so far this year. But I guess since NcCullum gets 0-45 every match and is a sharp fielder and contributes a handy 20 now and then he should get a pass as he's the lone spinner. Except Williamson has outperformed him in that regard.

FFS

Franklin is an interesting case. He just cannot play short pitched bowling; really he needs to be playing an anchor who can hit at the end role or not at all. He is not siutied to coming in a 7-8 and having to hit from ball one.

McCullum comes in for some unfair criticism. Over the last 12 months he is our 2nd most economical bowler in ODI matches at under 5 (Second only to MIlls who also has taken his fair share of unwarranted criticism)

Right now I would prefer to go into an ODI with the following as our (Fully Healthy) Bowling attack;

Mills, Boult, McClenaghan, McCullum, Then ride a combination of Williamson, Franklin, Elliott (Insert All Rounder here) for the other 10 overs,

Southee bowls too straight. Dougie is not a limited overs bowler, hits the wrong lengths, I don't want Ellis near this team.

However we are short on options and that hurts us. Nathan is an integral part of this team, he jsut needs to knuckle down with the willow to make sure that he can get us that crucial 20 off 15 whnever he comes to the crease and in desperate situations can be a guy that sticks around when we are collapsing.

Guptill, Rutherford, Williamson, Taylor, Elliott, McCullum, Anderson, McCullum, Mills, Boult, Mitch.

Give me that lineup; not sparkling, but good. Introduces a new allrounder in Anders who can bowl and hits a big ball, looks solid vs the Short Ball from what I have seen.

 

[Cabinet96]

Thing is, if you don't drop Trott, but want Root and Pietersen in, you end up dropping Bell, who has been averaging over 50 at over 80 since he came back. England have became a powerhouse where people's places in the side can be in jeopardy despite averaging 50.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Solution - drop Woakes and get 10 overs out of Root, Pietersen and Trott.

 

[Prince EWS]

Thing is, if you don't drop Trott, but want Root and Pietersen in, you end up dropping Bell, who has been averaging over 50 at over 80 since he came back. England have became a powerhouse where people's places in the side can be in jeopardy despite averaging 50.

The thing is though, everyone has been scoring lots of runs since Bell came back. Sure he's averaging 55 in this stint but in the same period, Trott is averaging 63 and Root is averaging 75.

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

What's perhaps surprising is that in a time of such productive top order run-scoring, Trott's strike rate has been at an all time low. You'd think that with the rest of the top order also scoring so heavily and also being largely accumulators, Trott might pick up the pace, but he's actually slowed down considerably. A sub-70 strike rate really is genuinely poor in the circumstances IMO, and that's coming from someone who has got at lengths to defend Trott's OD batting before.

 

[Zinzan]

Only half a dozen players have ever managed over 2000 ODI runs at 50, ftr. And Trott doesn't have the slowest strike rate among them, Bevan does.

Hey, I'm not one of those bagging Trott, but surely you know better than to even think about comparing the strike-rate of Bevan who played from '94-'04 to Trott's in his era.

 

[Spikey]

we could drop morgan because i mean who likes morgan

 

[Cabinet96]

The thing is though, everyone has been scoring lots of runs since Bell came back. Sure he's averaging 55 in this stint but in the same period, Trott is averaging 63 and Root is averaging 75.

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

What's perhaps surprising is that in a time of such productive top order run-scoring, Trott's strike rate has been at an all time low. You'd think that with the rest of the top order also scoring so heavily and also being largely accumulators, Trott might pick up the pace, but he's actually slowed down considerably. A sub-70 strike rate really is genuinely poor in the circumstances IMO, and that's coming from someone who has got at lengths to defend Trott's OD batting before.

I think that's mainly because he hasn't needed to score quickly. Games like this and this are a perfect example of good innings damaging overall records, and making Trott's figures look poor in an overview. I'd say Bell has been better than Trott since his recall though, and it's not because of Trott's strike rate, it's because he's had more big scores, and played more of his match winning knocks in more difficult circumstances.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think that's mainly because he hasn't needed to score quickly. Games like this and this are a perfect example of good innings damaging overall records, and making Trott's figures look poor in an overview. I'd say Bell has been better than Trott since his recall though, and it's not because of Trott's strike rate, it's because he's had more big scores, and played more of his match winning knocks in more difficult circumstances.

Yeah; that's a good point. However, if you look at games in which England have batted first in that period, his strike rate is still a fair bit lower than his career strike rate, despite the fact that the top order have been really successful in those matches (averages of 39, 55, 55 and 76 for the current top four there). In scoring so many runs in big partnerships amongst the top four, I reckon he should be looking at score at at least high 70s in the first innings. Second innings strike rates are somewhat meaningless, granted.

I've defended him in the past, but I do think his role should have changed ever so slightly of late with more consistent players around him, and it hasn't. There are essentially four blokes competing for three top order spots (Cook is captain) and they've all done really well there, so whoever gets left out, it's going to seem really harsh. They've all scored big runs, but Bell and Root seem to have a greater ability or inclination to do the same job just that bit quicker. The first innings stats do look better for Trott which backs up what you're saying, but he's still scored much slower than Bell and Root.

I definitely don't think it's a matter of just saying "Bell's been really good since he came back into the side so you can't leave him out" because they've all been really good since Bell came into the side, but yeah, I think Trott should probably be the unlucky one out.

 

[Flem274*]

Wtf, are you high? NcCullum is the biggest passenger in the side. Franklin and Elliott have both put in solid performances so far this year. But I guess since NcCullum gets 0-45 every match and is a sharp fielder and contributes a handy 20 now and then he should get a pass as he's the lone spinner. Except Williamson has outperformed him in that regard.

FFS

McCullum is a bowler though. I don't think he's great either but he makes way for Watling's shuffle down Franklin has to bowl his full ten as the fourth bowler and you need to use Williamson and Elliott every game for five overs. Also, it makes Williamson the main spinner.

Elliott and Franklin are more deserving of their places but if Watling were to move down as I would if I picked the team then one of those two needs to make way. If Williamson were a better bowler it would be different.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah; that's a good point. However, if you look at games in which England have batted first in that period, his strike rate is still a fair bit lower than his career strike rate, despite the fact that the top order have been really successful in those matches (averages of 39, 55, 55 and 76 for the current top four there). In scoring so many runs in big partnerships amongst the top four, I reckon he should be looking at score at at least high 70s in the first innings. Second innings strike rates are somewhat meaningless, granted.

I've defended him in the past, but I do think his role should have changed ever so slightly of late with more consistent players around him, and it hasn't. There are essentially four blokes competing for three top order spots (Cook is captain) and they've all done really well there, so whoever gets left out, it's going to seem really harsh. They've all scored big runs, but Bell and Root seem to have a greater ability or inclination to do the same job just that bit quicker. The first innings stats do look better for Trott which backs up what you're saying, but he's still only scored much slower than Bell and Root.

I definitely don't think it's a matter of just saying "Bell's been really good since he came back into the side so you can't leave him out" because they've all been really good since Bell came into the side, but yeah, I think Trott should probably be the unlucky one out.

I'd still be cautious about criticising him, since we've only lost one match since the start of 2012 where his strike rate has come into question, which is an improvement from the World Cup and Australia series in 2011, but I do somewhat agree. Interesting to note how high Bell's strike rate is in first innings as well, which proves his strike rate has also been damaged by low chases. I think Trott's biggest problem is he is actually pretty close to incapable of forcing the pace against good bowling, since he's not a hitter. He needs poor bowling to really score at a quick rate, which can be a problem on 300 par wickets. Although again, while I would sooner drop Trott than Bell, that's also not to say I want Trott out of the side by any means. I'd still leave Root out when KP comes back, and I'd potentially rather leave KP out than kick Trott out to bring him in; but I accept that's a controversial choice, and probably won't be popular.

 

[theegyptian]

Cook and Morgan are the only two I wouldn't consider dropping. Morgan has won more games for England than anyone since coming into the team imo. He has been poor in Asia but we don't play much there in the next few years so it's irrelevant.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Right now I would prefer to go into an ODI with the following as our (Fully Healthy) Bowling attack;

Mills, Boult, McClenaghan, McCullum, Then ride a combination of Williamson, Franklin, Elliott (Insert All Rounder here) for the other 10 overs.

Cereal?
Trent Boult?

He should be kept away from OD cricket, just like Bracewell.
Oh, and his List A record is remarkably average.

 

[khodder]

Cereal?
Trent Boult?

He should be kept away from OD cricket, just like Bracewell.
Oh, and his List A record is remarkably average.

Ideally I would not have him in the team, but right now I don't see any bowlers in domestic cricket being able to do that same job. Bates is not going to be able to do that, nor is a guy like Franklin, I could be forgetting something here

Maybe Wagner could do that job in ODI cricket.

 

[Flem274*]

Wagner seems to get some tap in white ball cricket.

Bates didn't really do anything wrong. He just wasn't exciting. Wouldn't have any issues with him being the reserve left armer to McClenaghan.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Maybe Wagner could do that job in ODI cricket.

Wagner goes for a fair few in OD cricket.


Southee, tbh.

 

[khodder]

Wagner goes for a fair few in OD cricket.


Southee, tbh.

LegSide Southee?
Miracle Ball Southee?

Not a OD bowler, and to be honest I would rather he played First Class Cricket and Tests (I would rather that with all three of Southee, Boult and Bracewell) but there is not a lot of depth there that can allow us to do that.

If I have to take one I am going with Boult, but he is an early innings bowler. Likely needs to bowl an opening spell of 7 and then come back for 3 in the middle when the ball is still 12-15 overs old.

Southee, though he has a far larger sample size, does not separate himself from Boult in either List A or ODI cricket. The one name that strangely does separate themselves in List A cricket is Neil Wagner.

 

[hendrix]

yeah I don't mind Wagner in ODI cricket.

 

[Mike5181]

LegSide Southee?
Miracle Ball Southee?

Not a OD bowler, and to be honest I would rather he played First Class Cricket and Tests (I would rather that with all three of Southee, Boult and Bracewell) but there is not a lot of depth there that can allow us to do that.

If I have to take one I am going with Boult, but he is an early innings bowler. Likely needs to bowl an opening spell of 7 and then come back for 3 in the middle when the ball is still 12-15 overs old.

Southee, though he has a far larger sample size, does not separate himself from Boult in either List A or ODI cricket. The one name that strangely does separate themselves in List A cricket is Neil Wagner.

Southee is comfortably a better OD bowler. Boult is trash in the format.

 

[Mike5181]

Wagner would be a terrible choice for ODIs as well.