Why has England become so good in ODIs

[Daemon]

a statement of zero value, despite your attempt here to bluster otherwise. Stop trying to sound like the intellectual you're not.

Yep, leave that to the mods

 

[TheJediBrah]

Indubitably

 

[Borges]

It is fair to say that many teams, when playing England, come to grief by holding on to their preconceived notion of what a 'good defendable ODI score' is.

Often it doesn't work out, because this is a somewhat strange team: one where the bowling is weak (should/could have set a stiffer target)
and the batting is much stronger (the usual Dhoni technique of choking them in the middle overs doesn't work as expected)..

 

[cnerd123]

I think that's more of a factor with Kohli tbh - his crazy chasing ability has meant that if you bat first against India you better put up something steep, and that puts the team batting first under pressure.

In case of England they've been most dangerous when they bat first IMO, because they can start in high gear without needing to assess conditions. They don't need to worry about platform building and wickets in hand and trying to work out an ideal target to set. This is what most sides struggle with when batting first, because when you don't #BatDeep, you need to take some time at the top of the innings to assess conditions and can't afford to lose early wickets. But England have 9 sloggers and a Root. They just go beserk from ball 1 and see what they end up with in 50 overs, and barring some collapse in bowler friendly conditions, they'll end up with something steep that they can defend through good fielding and NRR pressure.

It's actually also their biggest flaw - they've struggled to put up competitive scores in good bowling conditions, and their bowlig isn't that good defending a low score.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Ian Chappell has an article out today where he pointed out how all teams had to do in order to win overseas is to pick batsmen who can perform all conditions. Must have read this thread

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The Australian selectors weren't selecting Agar and Paine because they were ignorant of the fact that we needed to score runs though. You're just creating a straw man, no-one here thinks that the Australian selectors are doing a good job or are great cricket brains. It's not underrated at all, the concept is known universally, it's just the execution that's the issue. The problem you have is that saying "Too many teams play right into England's hands by not scoring enough runs" is tantamount to saying that too many teams help England by losing. It's a statement of zero value, despite your attempt here to bluster otherwise. Stop trying to sound like the intellectual you're not.

Yeah, nah.

Bat deep, strike rate, good in the field.

Their bowlers get a fair bit of criticism, but they keep getting the job done. Too many teams play right into England's hands by not scoring enough runs.

It is clear that England has focused on its batting deep and high sr even at its bowling expense (besides a 6th option when Stokes is fit). And it is clear they're winning despite having a bowling attack that is often criticized as not being of high quality. And despite this, you have people like Finch just this very season say that he batted a bit slower as his own team didn't bat deep and were worried about losing wickets.

So yeah, teams are not taking down these more 'ordinary English' bowlers on road pitches for enough, because England back themselves with their batting deep line up at high sr to score more than the opposition, even if their bowlers aren't the best on the field.

It is like some teams regularly think they've done well to score around 300, only to see England chase it down with ease.

Umm, no. I don't think you've tried engaging a debate of a contentious point with him, either that or you're too similar to him to notice his nature. Those posters you are calling immature are sick of having their words twisted while being treated in a condescending manner and seeing him then claim victim status when called out.

Keep telling that to people Starfighter.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It is fair to say that many teams, when playing England, come to grief by holding on to their preconceived notion of what a 'good defendable ODI score' is.

Often it doesn't work out, because this is a somewhat strange team: one where the bowling is weak (should/could have set a stiffer target)
and the batting is much stronger.

Agreed.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Aus & Ind at their peak were doing just that, except facing an older bowl & 5 fielders outside the circle, after the first 15 overs.
England are getting away with it in part - due to their T20 mode batting in 50 overs, it works exceptionally well on flattish roads, but on tough surfaces you'll see this strategy unravel just as fast.

Tough surfaces should really reduce the high SR hitting England like with Roy et al, but England still bat deep if the pitch is very tricky, to still put a score on the board. It still is Moeen at 7, Woakes at 8, Willey at 9, the first two more than capable of putting a big partnership on with Buttler or Root. And if the pitch is horrid, this will reduce the difference between the bowling teams.

Clearly England prefer the flat decks, though, I agree. It gives the likes of Roy and Hales a chance to display what they're best at, swinging and hitting through the line, and not batsmanship.

 

[Jack1]

Any team with Agar and Paine in it, in any position, is going to struggle

The selectors have a lot of contribution to the teams in cricket. Not many teams pick their best side and it's why England are doing so well right now. Picking Paine in limited overs is not only criminal, but a disgrace to the game of cricket. There is no logical reasoning behind it, honestly it's pathetic to the point of incredible and mind-numbing stupidity. At least Agar is a talented player, Paine is no where near good enough for international limited overs cricket. His strike rate is horrendous. I would love to have picked Australia's side for the England ODI's, Australia hadn't a hope in hell because of their inept selections and it devalued England's series win which was a shame.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The selectors have a lot of contribution to the teams in cricket. Not many teams pick their best side and it's why England are doing so well right now. Picking Paine in limited overs is not only criminal, but a disgrace to the game of cricket. There is no logical reasoning behind it, honestly it's pathetic to the point of incredible and mind-numbing stupidity. At least Agar is a talented player, Paine is no where near good enough for international limited overs cricket. His strike rate is horrendous. I would love to have picked Australia's side for the England ODI's, Australia hadn't a hope in hell because of their inept selections and it devalued England's series win which was a shame.

You mean pick their best XI as a team instead of rigid role based selection (eg 5bats+1wk+4best bowlers+1AR) as against resting players, right John?

I can see the possible ambiguity confusing people to your point. I agree with team based selection being better than role based, and I see it already becoming more common in tests.

 

[Jack1]

Tough surfaces should really reduce the high SR hitting England like with Roy et al, but England still bat deep if the pitch is very tricky, to still put a score on the board. It still is Moeen at 7, Woakes at 8, Willey at 9, the first two more than capable of putting a big partnership on with Buttler or Root. And if the pitch is horrid, this will reduce the difference between the bowling teams.

Clearly England prefer the flat decks, though, I agree. It gives the likes of Roy and Hales a chance to display what they're best at, swinging and hitting through the line, and not batsmanship.

England's policy is the best possible on all decks. Like any side they are going to struggle more the higher quality the opponent is with bat and ball. No matter what the surface we are trying to maximise our strike rates (and therefore the total) whilst surviving 300 balls. We can only do that to the best of our batsman's abilities and the tactic is still the best and only one on all surfaces against all opponents in my view. Then it's up to the bowlers and fielders. Also we need to pick enough bowlers of course, but bowlers that can bat and field. The pitch becomes irrelevant like you say when our policy is to bat all the way down. The tactic of trying to survive 300 balls whilst going as fast as possible with SR, whilst having as few good LO bowlers in the side as possible and as many good fielders as possible is the best and only perfect strategy in ODI cricket. If you select all the sides like this then the best side/men win and there is no argument. It's a shame Australia picked a bad side in the ODI series for example and devalued our series win. They will learn from that obvious lesson before CWC 2019.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

England's policy is the best possible on all decks. Like any side they are going to struggle more the higher quality the opponent is with bat and ball. No matter what the surface we are trying to maximise our strike rates (and therefore the total) whilst surviving 300 balls. We can only do that to the best of our batsman's abilities and the tactic is still the best and only one on all surfaces against all opponents in my view. Then it's up to the bowlers and fielders. Also we need to pick enough bowlers of course, but bowlers that can bat and field. The pitch becomes irrelevant like you say when our policy is to bat all the way down. The tactic of trying to survive 300 balls whilst going as fast as possible with SR, whilst having as few good LO bowlers in the side as possible and as many good fielders as possible is the best and only perfect strategy in ODI cricket. If you select all the sides like this then the best side/men win and there is no argument. It's a shame Australia picked a bad side in the ODI series for example and devalued our series win. They will learn from that obvious lesson before CWC 2019.

Yeah, I agree that bat deep works on all pitches, on flat decks the SR is raised because wickets are valued less, and on tough pitches, there's more batting that potentially make the bane of the pitches' demons sting less with more batting to follow.

The question is more to the specific individuals like Roy and Hales on tricky surfaces being better options than a more batsmanship player. But squad sizes are limited after all.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The selectors have a lot of contribution to the teams in cricket. Not many teams pick their best side and it's why England are doing so well right now. Picking Paine in limited overs is not only criminal, but a disgrace to the game of cricket. There is no logical reasoning behind it, honestly it's pathetic to the point of incredible and mind-numbing stupidity. At least Agar is a talented player, Paine is no where near good enough for international limited overs cricket. His strike rate is horrendous. I would love to have picked Australia's side for the England ODI's, Australia hadn't a hope in hell because of their inept selections and it devalued England's series win which was a shame.

I would have thought that half the country's best players being injured or banned would have "devalued" it more than a few inept selections tbh

 

[cnerd123]

It is like some teams regularly think they've done well to score around 300, only to see England chase it down with ease.

Evidence?

Also quit disingenuous to suggest that England are seeking out bowlers who can bat and field. This has been clarified before, but their current bowling attack is actually their best ODI bowling attack regardless of their batting and fielding ability. Those are just happy bonuses that have enabled them to play a certain way. To suggest that this #BatDeep strategy is some sort of genuine policy from the selectors/management and crediting them with success for coming up with it is misleading. That's not what happened, and their management aren't any sort of 'visionaries' laying out some revolutionary new blue print. They just have some good players on hand, and credit should be given for actually picking them and sticking with them. That's basically it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Evidence?

Also quit disingenuous to suggest that England are seeking out bowlers who can bat and field. This has been clarified before, but their current bowling attack is actually their best ODI bowling attack regardless of their batting and fielding ability. Those are just happy bonuses that have enabled them to play a certain way. To suggest that this #BatDeep strategy is some sort of genuine policy from the selectors/management and crediting them with success for coming up with it is misleading. That's not what happened, and their management aren't any sort of 'visionaries' laying out some revolutionary new blue print. They just have some good players on hand, and credit should be given for actually picking them and sticking with them. That's basically it.

Uhmm *****, with all due respect, whether it was a deliberate plan, or a lucky accident, it has happened, and they are winning. You can debate whether it is by design (dropping Broad and Anderson), or sheer luck (Willey, Woakes, Ali, Plunkett, Rashid) all you like. I think it has been a large part by design, and leads to some of the picking and sticking, but it really doesn't matter one iota to the thread topic.

They do bat deep. And it does make a big difference.

On your separate request:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...gland-1st-odi-eng-tour-of-aus-and-nz-2017-18/

I don't have the time for you today to go through all the scorecards, but you can from Jun 2015 if you're that interested.

 

[cnerd123]

Broad and Anderson haven't been good in ODIs for ages. They aren't that much better than Willey or Plunkett, and if you've got comparable bowling skills then obviously you pick the guy who can bat or bowl better. And even if Broad and Anderson are superior ODI bowlers, they've been left out for ages to focus on Tests.

England are just picking their best bowlers and best batsmen, and then setting out a strategy that works for the team they have. Pretty straight forward. You take this BatDeep strategy to the players available at India's disposal or Australia's and they'll lose more games than they win.

Also ny question isn't how many successful 300 run runchases England had - my question is how many times have a team left runs out on the field thinking they scored enough, only to find out they didn't. That's what you said is happening, please prove it. The scorecard you gave isn't relevant - Australia lost 8 wickets, which suggests they couldn't have really scored many more runs in those 50 overs.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Broad and Anderson haven't been good in ODIs for ages. They aren't that much better than Willey or Plunkett, and if you've got comparable bowling skills then obviously you pick the guy who can bat or bowl better. And even if Broad and Anderson are superior ODI bowlers, they've been left out for ages to focus on Tests.

England are just picking their best bowlers and best batsmen, and then setting out a strategy that works for the team they have. Pretty straight forward. You take this BatDeep strategy to the players available at India's disposal or Australia's and they'll lose more games than they win.

*****, with all due respect, you're now going round in circles. The question is why is England a very good ODI team now. Part of the explanation is because they bat deep.

You can either accept it or not.

Also ny question isn't how many successful 300 run runchases England had - my question is how many times have a team left runs out on the field thinking they scored enough, only to find out they didn't. That's what you said is happening, please prove it. The scorecard you gave isn't relevant - Australia lost 8 wickets, which suggests they couldn't have really scored many more runs in those 50 overs.

No, what I said was:

It is like some teams regularly think they've done well to score around 300, only to see England chase it down with ease.

So you want to claim that 8 wickets indicates Australia's displeasure with their score? I'm not sure I agree entirely on that, so what is needed is not just a scorecard, but player interviews about their batting total.

So here you go: (NZ post 349 at 7 wickets down but lose to an Eng chase with 6 overs spare) - Brendon McCullum speaking:

"Incredible run chase, I thought we had a whole lot of runs on the board but we have been blown off the park. We need to be a bit better. We lacked a bit of accuracy with the ball and against good players there is no room for error. Trent is a big loss but we're still confident with the attack we've got, we just weren't good enough. I was confident with 349 on the board, I didn't think the wicket would play as good as it did, they got off to a great start and we weren't able to drag them back. Throughout 50 overs you are always going to have a lull, we had that in the Powerplay but still, I thought we had enough runs up.

4th ODI (D/N), New Zealand tour of England at Nottingham, Jun 17 2015 | Match Commentary | ESPNCricinfo

Now - like I say, you can do this for games from Jun 2015. But I don't have the time to do it for you today.

 

[cnerd123]

Do it please. 1 game isn't enough evidence, and that games speaks more to the brilliance of Root and Morgan as ODI batsmen (something no one seems to bring up), and less about how the BatDeep strategy makes them more effective runchasers.

Also every captain who loses a runchase is going to say that. Especially after scoring 349. This isn't evidence of them thinking they scored enough runs when there were more runs possible. Get me some real data - show me evidence of them taking their foot off the gas and relaxing after scoring X number of runs, thinking that they were safe, only for it not to be the case?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Do it please. 1 game isn't enough evidence, and that games speaks more to the brilliance of Root and Morgan as ODI batsmen (something no one seems to bring up), and less about how the BatDeep strategy makes them more effective runchasers.

Also every captain who loses a runchase is going to say that. Especially after scoring 349. This isn't evidence of them thinking they scored enough runs when there were more runs possible. Get me some real data - show me evidence of them taking their foot off the gas and relaxing after scoring X number of runs, thinking that they were safe, only for it not to be the case?

Sorry *****, no. If you want to, you can do it for yourself.

 

[cnerd123]

Nah.

Nice to see you fail to back up your assertions again. You're willing to fill up a thread with 300 word posts repeating yourself, but when pressed to back it up respond with just 1 line.