Are England really favourites for CT17?

[Moonsorrow999]

So after England's crushing victory over a side whom I thought played like part timers, the media has generally gone quite nuts over England's chances for the Champion's Trophy. If memory serves me correctly, they failed to beat any of the other 'big teams' when last playing against them. I get that Stokes has been a decent all-rounder in test cricket after in my opinion people over-rated him at the start, but he's not done it that much in limited overs yet. Morgan seemed to have found a bit of form in India after a long time without runs, Buttler does it about once every ten games, Hales can't bat unless it's weak bowling and their bowling attack seems really samey. Whereas when I look at Australia they just lack a top quality wicket keeper. England seem to have a lot of weaknesses for 'favourites' and tend to play a lot of braindead cricket at times. I live in the UK but I was born in Australia and most of my family is Australian so I tend to follow them a lot more when I get time, but the media over here has gone into uproar about England defeating Ireland and I can't understand it. If they were playing this in Bangladesh, would they be favourites? I apologise if I missed anything with regards to my knowledge of how great English cricket is or even if Ireland are a great team and England did really well, but I am just curious to hear what any of you guys from India, S.A, N.Z or people who follow Aussie cricket more than I do think about England being labeled as 'favourites' because they do this over here every year with the football and always seem to be taken out by mighty footballing nations like Iceland.

Do love reading this forum, I have tried to follow things for a while but this is my first proper post so I look forward to having a contribution over future cricket-related matters.

 

[Howe_zat]

To answer the thread title, yeah they are.

Oddschecker at the time of writing -
England 4.33
Australia 4.5
South Africa 5
India 6
New Zealand 11

Like you can argue that they shouldn't be, and it's certainly close enough that there's no overwhelming favourite so sure why not, but that's the reality of the situation.

Don't care for talk about 'the media' as though everyone talks in unison so I'll talk your other points

-If memory serves me correctly, they failed to beat any of the other 'big teams' when last playing against them.

What's a 'big team'? We've comfortably beaten Sri Lanka, NZ and Pakistan recently and while it's a while since we beat India, Australia or SA in a series, we've run them pretty close and won a couple of games each series.

- I get that Stokes has been a decent all-rounder in test cricket after in my opinion people over-rated him at the start, but he's not done it that much in limited overs yet.

Took him a lot longer in limited overs I agree but he's been pretty outstanding in all formats over the last year or so, and has just cracked a 40 ball ton in the IPL, so he must be in good nick. Still too expensive with the ball for my liking in ODIs but he's not there to do everything. Decent death bowling option and great fielder.

- Hales can't bat unless it's weak bowling and their bowling attack seems really samey

Well Hales did excellently against South Africa in South Africa who most would agree have a strong ODI attack, especially upfront. Also winning the tournament is often about taking your chance when the standard falters, so having a bloke who hit 170 odd in 35 overs in his last home summer seems like a not terrible thing.

The attack has a lot of seam but that generally works in ODIs here. In 2013 we reached the final with an attack of Anderson, Bresnan and Broad who are much more similar than Willey, Wood and Woakes. We've also got three very different spinners in Rashid, Moeen and Root, even if we lack a spinner as good as Swann. I'd argue that the better pace attacks that Australia and South Africa are bringing are actually more samey than England's.

~

For the most part I think while England are a flawed side they're not drastically more flawed than anyone else, they have consistently been of a decent standard in ODIs for some time now and have a strong batting lineup. We were good in the world T20, in the last CT and in our last two home summers. Being at home helps make up the difference to the couple of sides that are stronger on paper, and I don't think anyone bats as deep as we do. England are certainly among the top teams, I don't mind them being favourites.

 

[harsh.ag]

It's theirs to lose, which they probably will

 

[indiaholic]

And you can doctor your pitches.

 

[honestbharani]

Their style of play is àn absolute joy to watch and their LO side has lot more likeable players than the test side. So if India can't win it, I will be rooting for England.

To answer the actual question of the thread, yes, I think they are favorites.

 

[harsh.ag]

On a more serious note, England just need one of Roy, Hales and Morgan to work every match. Root, Buttler and Stokes will push them over. Plunkett and Rashid are good ODI bowlers, and the support bowling, especially if they pick Willey, is enough to win it for them.

Is Broad playing?

 

[weldone]

The betting sites are making harakiri. South Africa is clear favorite. I'd keep England at no. 4 or 5 - definitely after Australia, India and maybe even NZ too. England's pace attack is one-dimensional. In the modern ODI game you need yorkers, slower balls, bouncers, cutters, knuckle balls. Their spinners are nothing special. Batting is the only special thing they have - perhaps 2nd best after South Africa.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Is Broad playing?

No. Not good enough.

 

[theegyptian]

. If they were playing this in Bangladesh, would they be favourites?

Isn't that the point to why they are one of the favourites. They are playing at home. That's a decent advantage. They'd be one of the lesser favoured teams if the tournament was to be played in Bangladesh.

Another big factor is that England take this tournament seriously. More than most of the teams imo, maybe bar South Africa who seem (for similar reasons to England) to be taking the tournament seriously. SA and England need to win the tournament. SA need to get rid of their choker tag and winning this would ease the pressure and add confidence before 2019. Eng (and Strauss) are staking a lot on the rejuvenation of the white ball sides and ploughing lots of money into that side of it. Bayliss was selected as coach with his white ball credentials in mind. 2019 is a big tournament for cricket in this country and England could do with a succesful team for it to boost cricket's popularity.

For the likes of India, and Aus the champions trophy is just another tournament. They have won recent world cups. They have also had very busy schedules in recent times which have mainly focused on test cricket and the IPL.

SA and ENG also have an advantage in that they have an ODI series beforehand whilst most other teams have a couple of warmup games which will be of lesser intensity.

India could easily start the tournament slow and be out before they can hit form, yet if they get through the group stages they have the kind of team that should do well on what will be tired wearing wickets.

There's no clear favourite imo but I'd certainly have England as one of 3 or 4 who I like their chances along with Ind, Aus and SA a little way behind.

 

[harsh.ag]

SA already won the CT back in '98, right?

 

[S.Kennedy]

The media think so. I hope they lose personally. Club over country any day.

 

[Furball]

Thanks for that.

 

[Firebreaker]

Moeen Ali is the only weak link in England team.He's like what Buttler was at time of last CT.Lets see if he can turn it around like Buttler

 

[Moonsorrow999]

Moeen Ali is the only weak link in England team.He's like what Buttler was at time of last CT.Lets see if he can turn it around like Buttler

Isn't he mostly used for his bowling now? As for Buttler he is talented but does it like once every ten games. No surprise to see M.I leave him out.

 

[marc71178]

For someone who apparently has only had 8 or 9 good games in ODIs and 4 or 5 good games in T20Is, Buttler's career record is pretty good.

 

[ImpatientLime]

have to say, the open top bus parade for the team after the ireland series was a little ott.

 

[Black_Warrior]

"Big Team" is a subjective term.

They have failed to beat the below teams in ODIs
Australia
India
South Africa

They have beaten the below teams in ODIs
Pakistan
West Indies
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
New Zealand

Big or small you decide

As far as CT is concerned, all this is only relevant only up to the Knock Out stages. Once the KO starts, it's anybody's game

 

[Dendarii]

Once the KO starts, it's anybody's game

Except South Africa's.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

"Big Team" is a subjective term.

They have failed to beat the below teams in ODIs
Australia
India
South Africa

They have beaten the below teams in ODIs
Pakistan
West Indies
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
New Zealand

Big or small you decide

As far as CT is concerned, all this is only relevant only up to the Knock Out stages. Once the KO starts, it's anybody's game

And that win over NZ has to be taken with a grain of salt. England won the series 3-2 but had Mitchell Santner (who is a world-class fieldsman) not dropped a sitter off Bairstow in the 5ht and deciding match, NZ would have won that series.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Top 5 teams in CT

South Africa - great batting; great bowling (pace attack not as good as Aus and NZ, but pretty good and Tahir is the best spinner in the world)- struggle to win big ODI tournaments
Australia - great batting; great pace bowling (mediocre spinners) - excellent record in big ODI tournaments
India - great batting; adequate bowling - excellent record in big ODI tournaments
NZ - good batting; great bowling (probably the best balanced bowling attack in the tournament)- struggle to win big ODI tournaments
England - great batting; mediocre bowling - unknown in big ODI tournaments (young team)