1st June - Group A - England v Bangladesh

[Long-Hop]

It wasn't the score Bangladesh put up that concerned me, it was the ease with which Tamin and Rahim especially were able to score their runs.......we never really looked like troubling them.

I felt throughout most of his innings that Tamim didn't show enough urgency in spite of the lack of trouble the pair looked in. He scored 23 runs off his first and indeed again off his second 35 balls. I reckon using the rest of the team's SR and applying it to 300 balls (adding the extras onto that of course) that Bangladesh ended up around 23 runs short although I agree with BW that they ought to have got a lot lot closer to 350.

If you take just before the third wicket they'd scored 261/2 off 44.2 overs at 5.89 rpo, and yet they managed a relatively unimpressive 44/4 off the last 33 balls given wickets in hand and an end run rate of 6.10 .

England needed I think it was 60 off the last 8 overs at 7.5rpo, whilst they probably would have accelerated according to a higher target, an extra 20+ runs would certainly have helped their cause. That an injured Root and Hales then Morgan managed to bat with relatively little danger to their wickets, and the Bangladesh pair before them, suggests maybe not the best pitch but that 290 is certainly not par.

When I went to bed i was confident enough we'd chase the runs but no disrespect to Bangladesh there are better attacks in this comp that aren't gonna let our batsme cruise to 300+ scores with such ease.

I felt they needed more wickets early on, said on another forum I spent most of the Bangladesh innings posting on that when England were 180/2 at the 30 overs mark or thereabouts they'd be firm favourites, so it proved.


Will the fielder get hauled over the ropes for his dissent at the catch not being given? Well at least it being given soft or whatever the expression is. Well next up Bangladesh need to beat the aussies, England can hope to give themselves every chance of progress if they beat the kiwis, but you have to wonder if it came down to a 2 or 3 way tie to decide progress if England mightn't have done better in their NRR.

How could it end up going to NRR? AUS beat NZL, NZL beat ENG, ENG beat AUS and everyone beats BAN is one way and there are permutations including an upset from Bangladesh so one side winning all three (AUS perhaps), but NZL beats ENG and BAN beats NZL leaving NZL, ENG and BAN on one win apiece.

England will be worried about Woakes, the all-rounders good, bad or indifferent are what make England's strength come potential. Without Stokes, Woakes and Ali in the 3rd ODI against South Africa they crumbled, as much to do with the batsmen playing silly shots, but having Rashid at #7 was hardly batting deep. England probably won't be too worried about Root, scored most if not all of 100 runs hobbling and I gather scored more 2s than the rest of the batsmen on both sides combined! (at one stage late in England's innings although I doubt it changed) Personally I might have suggested he retire hurt to enable England to accelerate a lot more, if 305 was 30-40 runs shy for Bangladesh then it was for England too so cruising to a narrow NRR win probably wasn't wise.....

 

[Long-Hop]

The English batting line-up is truly formidable at the moment..

The disastrous innings against South Africa not withstanding, I'm not sure it can be "formidable". It does have vulnerabilities, not least Roy who has been backed by his captain to play all the group games in spite of a run of un-formidable form - 1, 4, 8, 1, 20, 0, and 17 in his last 7 innings @ 7.29 (SR 55.43)

If he has no confidence and is desperate to put runs on the board he won't play a natural game, may use up way too many balls trying to get in and failing to, and frankly England don't need a walking wicket to give the opposition early on. Before that run of scores he was averaging 41.00 @ SR 104, now he's averaging 35.24 @ SR 102 and for averages and SRs to dip so dramatically over so few overs takes some doing - unless we are talking early career with not many innings on the board which is not the case with Roy, but bear in mind for others when they've 100, 200 or more innings and that absorbs bad form, hiding it from the naked eye.

 

[StephenZA]

The disastrous innings against South Africa not withstanding, I'm not sure it can be "formidable". It does have vulnerabilities, not least Roy who has been backed by his captain to play all the group games in spite of a run of un-formidable form - 1, 4, 8, 1, 20, 0, and 17 in his last 7 innings @ 7.29 (SR 55.43)

If he has no confidence and is desperate to put runs on the board he won't play a natural game, may use up way too many balls trying to get in and failing to, and frankly England don't need a walking wicket to give the opposition early on. Before that run of scores he was averaging 41.00 @ SR 104, now he's averaging 35.24 @ SR 102 and for averages and SRs to dip so dramatically over so few overs takes some doing - unless we are talking early career with not many innings on the board which is not the case with Roy, but bear in mind for others when they've 100, 200 or more innings and that absorbs bad form, hiding it from the naked eye.

You point out Roy but forget the rest of the line-up? I agree outside Root, no individual player is likely to make an all time great list. But when you have players of the caliber of Buttler and Moen coming in at 6 and 7, players capable of scoring centuries at faster than a run a ball. Along with a number of allrounders of pretty decent quality... then yes you have an overall 'formidable' batting line-up.

 

[Howe_zat]

Isn't Warne touted as one of the greatest Captains Aus never had? You would think he had better insight then.

just a big myth really

 

[StephenZA]

just a big myth really

More 'fake' news... damn the media!

 

[Burgey]

just a big myth really

He probably would have made a decent skipper on the field tbh. Side wasn't exactly a tough one to lead.

 

[Adders]

The disastrous innings against South Africa not withstanding, I'm not sure it can be "formidable". It does have vulnerabilities, not least Roy who has been backed by his captain to play all the group games in spite of a run of un-formidable form - 1, 4, 8, 1, 20, 0, and 17 in his last 7 innings @ 7.29 (SR 55.43)

If he has no confidence and is desperate to put runs on the board he won't play a natural game, may use up way too many balls trying to get in and failing to, and frankly England don't need a walking wicket to give the opposition early on. Before that run of scores he was averaging 41.00 @ SR 104, now he's averaging 35.24 @ SR 102 and for averages and SRs to dip so dramatically over so few overs takes some doing - unless we are talking early career with not many innings on the board which is not the case with Roy, but bear in mind for others when they've 100, 200 or more innings and that absorbs bad form, hiding it from the naked eye.

Roy's current form is a concern for sure, but I loved this comment from Morgan.......

"With the batting, obviously you can't ask guys to go out and play positive cricket and whack it everywhere - there's an element, a high-risk element - and then drop them as soon as they are lacking runs. On previous teams, that has happened and we don't want it to happen.
"We want to reinforce confidence so the guys can go out and we can make 300 an easy score to get, by playing real positive cricket. And contributing to that, both as a captain and coach, and selectors, by backing your own players up."

Roy's confidence will come from the backing of the selectors........obviously there is a point where you will have to say enough's enough but if they considered him the best option at the start of this tournament then one failed outing doesn't change that. Also worth noting that it was only last year that Morgan himself could easily have been booted for lack of runs and now the guy is in some rich vein of form and no one would question his place in this side.

 

[Starfighter]

I believe Warne's great captaincy innovation was giving Ponting a full ten overs.

Can't say his commentary gives the impression he'd be any better than average.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I don't think it's his age which determines his lack of insight on this particular matter though. It's interesting how some great players in a given sport don't translate to good analysts. Warne is so self-centred he probably just thinks hed be able to defend a lower total so everyone should. I wis he's just commentate only when spinners are bowling in test matches tbh. When he actually talks about the mechanics of that or when he does those masterclass things he's awesome.

Nothing to do with age at all. I don't think Warne lacks insight about the technical aspects of the game either. When he is focused on the game and is not bored, he can provide some excellent insights.

The problem Warne has is not exclusive to him and has nothing to do with how old he is .its something that a lot of other commentators have - Ramiz, Chappell, Taylor, Healy, Wasim. They just don't watch enough cricket today. Hence they are not really aware of the trends or developments taking place. Test cricket as a format is the same so you won't sound out of touch there but LO has changed so much, and it changes so fast, that if you're not watching games or keeping up to date with what's happening in the last few years, you won't have an informed perspective.

Ask Wasim Akram to speak about ODI cricket today and he'll say "openers should see of the new ball, middle order should consolidate and save wickets till the 40th over and lower order should attack the last 10 overs.

These are all excellent cricketers and I am sure they have great insights on the game..its just they no longer take a deep interest in the game to follow it closely.

The best commentators - Athers and Nass are great because they actively participate in the game..they don't talk from a position of "when i was a player in 1991". They talk from the position of an analyst who is looking at data on a daily basis and studying and analysing the game at a deep level and then expressing their perspectives.

 

[StephenZA]

Roy's current form is a concern for sure, but I loved this comment from Morgan.......

Roy's confidence will come from the backing of the selectors........obviously there is a point where you will have to say enough's enough but if they considered him the best option at the start of this tournament then one failed outing doesn't change that. Also worth noting that it was only last year that Morgan himself could easily have been booted for lack of runs and now the guy is in some rich vein of form and no one would question his place in this side.

My biggest problem with backing of Roy is they are leaving out Bairstow and I am unconvinced that should be happening anyway even without Roy's bad form... but that just me looking from an outsiders perspective.

 

[Adders]

My biggest problem with backing of Roy is they are leaving out Bairstow and I am unconvinced that should be happening anyway even without Roy's bad form... but that just me looking from an outsiders perspective.

Excellent point, and tbh, I can't think of a time when we've had a player as good as Bairstow unable to get a spot.......in any format.

But this batting lineup of England.......they're not greats, bar Root there is not one of them you'd pick in any sort of ATG England ODI side, and considering how crap we've been in this format that says a lot. But as a collective unit they are the best we've ever put on the park. And IMO that's because they have been given a license to just go out there and hit the ****ing thing and if you get out, we've 8 or 9 behind you who will do it..........there is no value on your wicket in ODI cricket anymore. Hit out or get out.

So I 100% agree with Morgan that you can't send your batsmen out there with this philosophy and then tell them they are dropped because they've had a handful of innings where they've got caught at deep fine leg trying to ramp one. This is tough on Bairstow who always delivers but Roy was unbelieveable last year and deserves a run.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I totally understand the Roy/Bairstow dilemma and there are no easy answers here. A team strategy and approach is built on certain values and philosophies and that means you face the consequences of that. This England team is built on a certain brand of cricket, and if that's what Morgan/selectors/coach go and tell the players, then they have to back them through both the good and bad times.

Dropping Roy now sends the wrong message- that we want you to play attacking cricket but the moment you don't get runs, we'll drop you.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

My biggest problem with backing of Roy is they are leaving out Bairstow and I am unconvinced that should be happening anyway even without Roy's bad form... but that just me looking from an outsiders perspective.

If you take aside Roy's poor form as you say who do you leave out for Bairstow? The answer is surely no one.

 

[theegyptian]

Roy has been very good since he came into the team. He gets England off to blistering starts on the regular.

However he returned from the IPL in no form. His movements look off. He's moving around the crease too much, head moving too much. He just looks different. He looked thoroughly unconvincing in his 20 from 33 vs Ireland. He's got the kind of technique that if it's a little off, everything can go wrong.

So I don't just think it's a confidence matter with Roy (although the more failures the more the confidence will go). And mid tournament I'm not sure you have the time to fix things technically.

Woakes out of the tournament. Big blow for England especially with Stokes probably not at peak fitness.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you take aside Roy's poor form as you say who do you leave out for Bairstow? The answer is surely no one.

I guess the only possible answers are "Roy anyway even when he's playing well" or "Moeen and make Root the sixth bowler". I'm not a big fan of either answer, but they're not ridiculous if you happen to be a big Bairstow fan.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

I guess the only possible answers are "Roy anyway even when he's playing well" or "Moeen and make Root the sixth bowler". I'm not a big fan of either answer, but they're not ridiculous if you happen to be a big Bairstow fan.

I'm a pretty big Bairstow fan and they both sound ridiculous to me.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I guess the only possible answers are "Roy anyway even when he's playing well" or "Moeen and make Root the sixth bowler". I'm not a big fan of either answer, but they're not ridiculous if you happen to be a big Bairstow fan.

With Roy in form, and if you want to play Bairstow, and this is a hypothetical scenario, the best option would be to drop a seamer and play an extra batsman..England already have so many bowling options

Roy
Hales
Root
Morgan
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Woakes
Plunkett
Wood


But then you can't play Rashid.

I guess Bairstow will have to wait for Morgan to retire and Root to take over as captain.


Plus with Stokes injury issues, he will get to play every now and then

 

[Prince EWS]

But then you can't play Rashid

You can if you drop Moeen, which is absolutely would in that lineup. He was MOTM against South Africa in a game recently so he's not in any immediate danger, but if every player was in standard form his overall ODI record is pretty blekh and his role is pretty inconsequential half the time. I'd play him anyway because I think he adds about what Bairstow would down the order with the bat and is an upgrade on Root's bowling, but if I had to squeeze Bairstow in and Root was in form, he'd be the one I'd cut rather than Rashid.

(I was working off their 'usual' lineup ftr, rather than the silly seamer-heavy one they played against Bangladesh)

 

[ImpatientLime]

Roy has been very good since he came into the team. He gets England off to blistering starts on the regular.

However he returned from the IPL in no form. His movements look off. He's moving around the crease too much, head moving too much. He just looks different. He looked thoroughly unconvincing in his 20 from 33 vs Ireland. He's got the kind of technique that if it's a little off, everything can go wrong.

So I don't just think it's a confidence matter with Roy (although the more failures the more the confidence will go). And mid tournament I'm not sure you have the time to fix things technically.

Woakes out of the tournament. Big blow for England especially with Stokes probably not at peak fitness.

are they allowed to call up a replacement for woakes?

 

[StephenZA]

are they allowed to call up a replacement for woakes?

Yes I think so as long as it was an injury done during the tournament and not before... i.e. you can't carry an injury in and then get replaced for it, I believe.