Why has England become so good in ODIs

[Victor Ian]

This England team is starting to gain my respect. What has changed that has led to them becoming a serious contender for the World Cup? Have they introduced something new in play style like Sri Lanka and the flying starts, or just got lucky with a number of skillful players all existing at the same time?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Picked a proper team by dropping players who had been failures like Cook and Bell and got a bit lucky at the same time. Trouble is while the ODI side has vastly improved under Bayliss the test side has gone backwards by the same amount.

 

[Flem274*]

they made some good players

 

[BoyBrumby]

We're fortunate in that we have a decent crop of attacking batsmen all maturing comtemporaneously, but selecting the right cattle is an underrated virtue too.

The selectors have finally grasped the seemingly obvious point that different players are sometimes better suited to different formats.

Still think we're maybe a seamer light, which might cost us in an arse-nipper, but hopefully Stokes won't be as short of a gallop next summer as he obviously is currently. Or isn't detained at Her Maj's pleasure either, obvz.

 

[wpdavid]

The impact of Morgan's captaincy shouldn't be under-rated. As much for developing the culture of the side as for his decision making.

 

[Hicheal Michael]

Rubel Hossain

 

[cnerd123]

Rubel Hossain

Was this meant for the Willis Vs Morkel thread

 

[Beamer]

For me it's the batting that has shot them up to number 1 status. Their batting lineup is relentless, strokemakers keep coming at you even if you get early wickets. Also a change in batting mindset to carry on playing their shots no matter what, which I credit Eoin Morgan's captaincy for.

I do think their bowling is still hittable though, so they need to look at that if they want to win the World Cup. I think they're right up there though and may well win it anyway.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Excellent techniques in their batsmen. The amount of cricket played made them better. Not slowing down in the middle overs.

Basically they bat their opponents out of the game.

Their bowling is still a few levels from the top. 3rd tier at best

 

[Bijed]

Was this meant for the Willis Vs Morkel thread

Think he probably meant the match where Bangladesh defended 276 to knock us out of the 2015 world cup, thanks to Rubel taking 4-53. A watershed moment for us in ODIs - our next series was the NZ one where we made the necessary changes and scored 400 for the first time. Basically Rubel is so bad that even when he bowls well, it just means the other team gets about 5x better.

33rd Match, Pool A (D/N), ICC Cricket World Cup at Adelaide, Mar 9 2015 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

 

[S.Kennedy]

One thing you'll never see cited is England's domestic one-dayer competition, the Royal London Cup, when this question arises, yet it is a very enjoyable format where the likes of Stokes and Hales have thrived before getting into the international set-up. Anyone remember Stokes's 164 v Notts (2014)?

 

[Victor Ian]

For me it's the batting that has shot them up to number 1 status. Their batting lineup is relentless, strokemakers keep coming at you even if you get early wickets. Also a change in batting mindset to carry on playing their shots no matter what, which I credit Eoin Morgan's captaincy for.

I do think their bowling is still hittable though, so they need to look at that if they want to win the World Cup. I think they're right up there though and may well win it anyway.

This is what I was thinking... The batting part. I think they have taken an almost T20 approach to batting, particularly through the middle section which was traditionally consolidation time. I feel England is ushering in another major change in philosophy.

 

[Black_Warrior]

This England team is starting to gain my respect. What has changed that has led to them becoming a serious contender for the World Cup? Have they introduced something new in play style like Sri Lanka and the flying starts, or just got lucky with a number of skillful players all existing at the same time?

Because they finally started taking it seriously..and by that I mean at an organisational level. I mean you had England captains show up after crashing out of a World Cup and unconvincingly state "ODIs are important" when deep down everyone knew it was ****. A good example is the 2011 World Cup which followed England's successful and probably their greatest Ashes triumph in Australia in recent times. They crushed to a 10 wicket defeat against Sri Lanka in the QF and you could tell no one in ECB or English media were that bothered because they were still celebrating the Ashes win. You can see in the attitude of English fans on CW towards LO cricket and that sums up the way LO cricket was perceived.



For the first time after WC 2015, they started to take ODIs seriously as a format and focused on improving their white ball cricket.

The question we should be asking is, what changed in 2015? What was different about their World Cup 2015 humiliation to World Cup 2011, 2007, 2003, 1999, 1996?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Method.

They took a sim formula and applied it to real cricket.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Because they finally started taking it seriously..and by that I mean at an organisational level. I mean you had England captains show up after crashing out of a World Cup and unconvincingly state "ODIs are important" when deep down everyone knew it was ****. A good example is the 2011 World Cup which followed England's successful and probably their greatest Ashes triumph in Australia in recent times. They crushed to a 10 wicket defeat against Sri Lanka in the QF and you could tell no one in ECB or English media were that bothered because they were still celebrating the Ashes win. You can see in the attitude of English fans on CW towards LO cricket and that sums up the way LO cricket was perceived.



For the first time after WC 2015, they started to take ODIs seriously as a format and focused on improving their white ball cricket.

The question we should be asking is, what changed in 2015? What was different about their World Cup 2015 humiliation to World Cup 2011, 2007, 2003, 1999, 1996?

Breaking point.

At some point a straw breaks a camel's back.

 

[Zinzan]

Brendon McCullum.

Everything changed for England in their ODI series vs. NZ at home a few months after the 2015 WC. Pretty sure Morgan has been quoted saying they took a leaf out of McCullum's book in trying to bat without fear. They've never really looked back.

Also helps that they have some really good players, with fantastic depth in their batting.

 

[MW1304]

Shouldn't be forgotten that some of the batsmen who are now thriving, mainly Roy and Hales, had serious doubters for the first few years of their careers. They didn't didn't start off fully formed, they were cultivated into the hugely attacking, but relatively controlled and capable of huge scores, batsmen they are now.

Selectors deserve a lot of credit for patiently building this team over a few years.

 

[ImpatientLime]

reckon the bowling is getting a little under valued here.

moeen, rashid and plunkett in the middle overs are very effective and chris woakes over the past couple of years has become a very good new ball spearhead.

jake ball should never be allowed near an england team ever again though.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Brendon McCullum.

Everything changed for England in their ODI series vs. NZ at home a few months after the 2015 WC. Pretty sure Morgan has been quoted saying they took a leaf out of McCullum's book in trying to bat without fear. They've never really looked back.

Also helps that they have some really good players, with fantastic depth in their batting.

True and fact, but like psuedo echo - they did it better.

 

[theegyptian]

reckon the bowling is getting a little under valued here.

moeen, rashid and plunkett in the middle overs are very effective and chris woakes over the past couple of years has become a very good new ball spearhead.

jake ball should never be allowed near an england team ever again though.

Basically unrelated but I've wanted to say it for a while. Plunkett's stats since the last wc are interesting - averages 36 wickets @ 36.38 when England bowl first, averages 39 wickets @ 19.2 when England bat first.

What to make of them? He's probably benefited from England putting on above par scores when batting first, opposing batsman having to look to attack, even recklessly because England have scored so many. Obviously bowls well when the opposing batsmen have to attack him but his average has probably benefited from a lot of cheap wickets that he wouldn't have got playing in a weaker side.

Most of the other bowlers there isn't a whole lot of difference between bat or bowl first since the last wc.