6th June - Group A - England v New Zealand

[Prince EWS]

Taylor would be better at 4 or not at all I reckon. Hes still a great partnership builder but lacks the ability to really close out games these days, Smith would definitely be able to adapt better to that role.

Guptill
Warner
Williamson
Taylor
Smith
Maxwell
Head
Wade (+)
Starc
Hazlewood
Cummins/Boult/Milne/Southee

Smith, Maxwell, Head and Williamson would need to bowl 20 odd overs which is a tad jammy IMO, team ANZ needs one of Henriques, Neesham or Anderson to actually produce some consistent results.

Yeah that's just too many batsmen IMO. Even if you didn't want to pick one of the mehrounders, picking four seamers or picking Zampa would make more sense than picking all those bats I think. One of Head/Taylor has to go.

 

[hendrix]

This also is 50% down to batting coaching.

Ross Taylor: Add a reverse sweep to your repertoire - will make mid-innings strike rotation and SR boosting much easier.
Corey Anderson: Ditto
Tom Latham: Stand a bit further outside your crease*

*I don't actually know about this one, talking out my arse here.

The point is that some of these problems and their solutions are pretty damn obvious. Taylor, Anderson, Latham and Neesham have been stagnating for a long time now.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah that's just too many batsmen IMO. Even if you didn't want to pick one of the mehrounders, picking four seamers or picking Zampa would make more sense than picking all those bats I think. One of Head/Taylor has to go.

Head for Santner it is, you've twisted my arm.

 

[OverratedSanity]

India's 2011 bowling attack had peak Zaheer though.

Also had Munaf Patel and Ashish Nehra as the other pacers, and Bhajji chucking darts at every batsman's pads tbh. Zaheer and Yuvraj were our only 2 actually good bowlers that tournament.

 

[Prince EWS]

Also had Munaf Patel and Ashish Nehra as the other pacers, and Bhajji chucking darts at every batsman's pads tbh. Zaheer and Yuvraj were our only 2 actually good bowlers that tournament.

Harbhajan's darts were awesome in that tournament though. Having an effective miser complimented India's strong batting lineup really well and made batsmen do silly things against Yuvraj.

 

[Flem274*]

England's bowling at its best should not be weak though, in fact quite the opposite.

I'd also argue India 2011 had a quality attack for the world cup conditions of the time.

 

[harsh.ag]

Ball more than making up for Woakes' absence gotta be the biggest plus for England from this game.

 

[Moss]

For the Bangladesh game I'd have a set of small changes - drop Broom, bring in Latham to open, push Ronchi to 7 and Neesham up to 5. I know Latham isn't highly regarded as an ODI player here but he does have form coming into this tournament against the same opponents. Also it's been three consecutive ODI's in which the batting post the top 4 has folded, so would be stupid to stick with the formula.

Hesson is stubborn to put it mildly so he'll probably see Ronchi's passable BMac imitation against Australia as reason to persist with things.

 

[harsh.ag]

For the Bangladesh game I'd have a set of small changes - drop Broom, bring in Latham to open, push Ronchi to 7 and Neesham up to 5. I know Latham isn't highly regarded as an ODI player here but he does have form coming into this tournament against the same opponents. Also it's been three consecutive ODI's in which the batting post the top 4 has folded, so would be stupid to stick with the formula.

Hesson is stubborn to put it mildly so he'll probably see Ronchi's passable BMac imitation against Australia as reason to persist with things.

Agreed. Wouldn't be the worst idea to just replace Bloom with Latham at number 5 either.

 

[Howe_zat]

England's bowling at its best should not be weak though, in fact quite the opposite.

I'd also argue India 2011 had a quality attack for the world cup conditions of the time.

It's not weak though. It's just full of players with middling records. Even so, players like Plunkett and Rashid have been among the biggest wicket takers in world cricket over the last year or so.

Games like yesterday show the attack can work well because it's attack that is designed to defend large totals by breaking partnerships in the middle overs, regardless of economy rate.

India 2011-13 is a good analogy, though a very different attack tactically, because it was the attack that - with no world class faster bowler to call on - they could do the job that needed doing.

 

[harsh.ag]

It's not weak though. It's just full of players with middling records. Even so, players like Plunkett and Rashid have been among the biggest wicket takers in world cricket over the last year or so.

Games like yesterday show the attack can work well because it's attack that is designed to defend large totals by breaking partnerships in the middle overs, regardless of economy rate.

India 2011-13 is a good analogy, though a very different attack tactically, because it was the attack that - with no world class faster bowler to call on - they could do the job that needed doing.

Honestly though, an attack having Woakes, Plunkett and Rashid in their current form can't be called weak unless all present context is taken away.

 

[Moss]

It's not weak though. It's just full of players with middling records. Even so, players like Plunkett and Rashid have been among the biggest wicket takers in world cricket over the last year or so.

Games like yesterday show the attack can work well because it's attack that is designed to defend large totals by breaking partnerships in the middle overs, regardless of economy rate.

India 2011-13 is a good analogy, though a very different attack tactically, because it was the attack that - with no world class faster bowler to call on - they could do the job that needed doing.

Agree with all of the above except the bit about India having no world class faster bowler to call on, I think Zak was a masterful operator at least till the 2011 WC (can't recall if he played much ODI cricket after that).

 

[Moss]

It's not weak though. It's just full of players with middling records. Even so, players like Plunkett and Rashid have been among the biggest wicket takers in world cricket over the last year or so.

Games like yesterday show the attack can work well because it's attack that is designed to defend large totals by breaking partnerships in the middle overs, regardless of economy rate.

India 2011-13 is a good analogy, though a very different attack tactically, because it was the attack that - with no world class faster bowler to call on - they could do the job that needed doing.

Agree with all of the above except the bit about India having no world class faster bowler to call on, I think Zak was a masterful operator at least till the 2011 WC (can't recall if he played much ODI cricket after that).

 

[ImpatientLime]

plunkett is just a really good story.

pick as a youngster because of duncan fletchers fetish for young pace, despite having no radar. riddled with self doubt and despite some promising glimpes (2007 commonwealth bank series) was ultimately dropped and a bit of a figure of fun.

since then he's worked hard on that repeatable action, added an extra yard, added variations and become one of the first names on the teamsheet.

he's also an outstanding athlete and all rounder fielder and one of the most fun batsman in the world.

 

[Black_Warrior]

England's bowling is weak only compared to India/Australia. Combined with their batting, still enough to overcome most other sides in this tournament

 

[flibbertyjibber]

plunkett is just a really good story.

pick as a youngster because of duncan fletchers fetish for young pace, despite having no radar. riddled with self doubt and despite some promising glimpes (2007 commonwealth bank series) was ultimately dropped and a bit of a figure of fun.

since then he's worked hard on that repeatable action, added an extra yard, added variations and become one of the first names on the teamsheet.

he's also an outstanding athlete and all rounder fielder and one of the most fun batsman in the world.

Who potentially could get a test recall if Woakes is injured for the opening few tests against SA and Stokes can't bowl his share of overs. Not saying I would pick him but rather him to Finn, hope we go for Roland-Jones actually.

 

[marc71178]

It bloody well helps though.

Personally I'm always taking the team with the stronger bowling attack (as long as the batting isn't that bad). England has the best, longest lineup I reckon but the other teams aren't that far behind and they have much better bowling groups. I guess we'll see in just over a week but I just don't see it.

People keep saying that other line-ups aren't far behind but since the 2015 World Cup the gulf in run rate is astronomical between England and the next best.

 

[Zinzan]

That's awkward moment when we only brought three batsman.

True about the 3 batsmen, only some of us harped on about this pre-tournament. It's nothing we didn''t all know.

Could anyone explain to me what Corey Anderson is in the team for these days? Bowls absolute garbage and somehow picks up jammy wickets while almost always going for over 6s and bowling at least one freebie an over. Can't recall him playing one significant ODI innings against decent opposition since the 2015 WC semi.

What a disappointment he's turned out to be after that amazing 2014 and more than decent 2015.... and now.

 

[Burgey]

People keep saying that other line-ups aren't far behind but since the 2015 World Cup the gulf in run rate is astronomical between England and the next best.

Haven't played Australia since then have they?

 

[91Jmay]

Haven't played Australia since then have they?

Yup, Results | England v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo was right after World Cup so very much work in progress side at that point. Scored 300 twice in 5 games in a fairly moderate scoring series for both sides.