*Official* India v England 3-ODI series at Maharashtra CA Stadium, Pune

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I was talking about tests because some people are literally comparing average across eras without taking into consideration the quality of bowling attack, nature of pitch, change in ODI rules which has literally made ODI cricket a batting shootout contest in last 6 -7 years.

Ah, gotcha.

Obviously Bairstow isn't the GOAT ODI opener (which isn't really a hard thing to pick) but you may be underselling him nevertheless. You're right that openers who played in earlier, (s)lower scoring eras shouldn't be assessed against the averages and strike rates of the current era. But the reverse is also true, i.e. Bairstow shouldn't be assessed on how well he'd have hypothetically fared facing up to 80s ODI bowling attacks and conditions. He should be judged against his contemporaries and on how good he is in the conditions that he actually has to play in.

If you rate Bairstow as the stand out opener of his own era, there's no reason why he shouldn't be considered an ATG. And even relative to his era his stats are pretty great, especially if you give a high weighting to strike rate. He's also a big part of the #1 team and has won a world cup. A flat track bully can be a great if you play in an era of flat tracks and you're the biggest bully.

 

[Daemon]

V

Right back at you

0-72 off 6

Woeful

 

[sunilz]

Ah, gotcha.

Obviously Bairstow isn't the GOAT ODI opener (which isn't really a hard thing to pick) but you may be underselling him nevertheless. You're right that openers who played in earlier, (s)lower scoring eras shouldn't be assessed against the averages and strike rates of the current era. But the reverse is also true, i.e. Bairstow shouldn't be assessed on how well he'd have hypothetically fared facing up to 80s ODI bowling attacks and conditions. He should be judged against his contemporaries and on how good he is in the conditions that he actually has to play in.

If you rate Bairstow as the stand out opener of his own era, there's no reason why he shouldn't be considered an ATG. And even relative to his era his stats are pretty great, especially if you give a high weighting to strike rate. He's also a big part of the #1 team and has won a world cup. A flat track bully can be a great if you play in an era of flat tracks and you're the biggest bully.

I rate Bairstow highly. But to call him ODI ATG with around 3400 ODI runs would be like calling Bumrah with 80 test wickets as ATG bowler.

 

[Noumenon]

If you rate Bairstow as the stand out opener of his own era, there's no reason why he shouldn't be considered an ATG.

If bairstow can sustain this performance over 200 matches atleast, I don't imagine anyone begrudging him being anointed the GOAT or ATG. Longevity is key.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

He's 31 and England don't ODI spam. He'll probably get about 100.

 

[Teja.]

He's 31 and England don't ODI spam. He'll probably get about 100.

He's played 85 already though and I'm assuming he'll play a fair few when teams start ODI spamming in tours in the lead up to the 2023 WC which he will surely play. For instance, he played 42 ODIs total in 2018 and 2019 combined in the lead up to the 2019 WC and 20 ODIs total in 2016 and 2017 combined.

I don't know about 200, but he should run close to 150 by the time of the 2023 world cup. Whether he hits 200 or not would depend on whether he's part of England's plans for 2027.

 

[Teja.]

Ah, gotcha.

Obviously Bairstow isn't the GOAT ODI opener (which isn't really a hard thing to pick) but you may be underselling him nevertheless. You're right that openers who played in earlier, (s)lower scoring eras shouldn't be assessed against the averages and strike rates of the current era. But the reverse is also true, i.e. Bairstow shouldn't be assessed on how well he'd have hypothetically fared facing up to 80s ODI bowling attacks and conditions. He should be judged against his contemporaries and on how good he is in the conditions that he actually has to play in.

If you rate Bairstow as the stand out opener of his own era, there's no reason why he shouldn't be considered an ATG. And even relative to his era his stats are pretty great, especially if you give a high weighting to strike rate. He's also a big part of the #1 team and has won a world cup. A flat track bully can be a great if you play in an era of flat tracks and you're the biggest bully.

I'd agree but he has only been involved as a core player of England's ODI team since 2015-16. Would say he needs to play for quite a few more years to be considered an ATG.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

He's played 85 already though and I'm assuming he'll play a fair few when teams start ODI spamming in tours in the lead up to the 2023 WC which he will surely play. For instance, he played 42 ODIs total in 2018 and 2019 combined in the lead up to the 2019 WC and 20 ODIs total in 2016 and 2017 combined.

I don't know about 200, but he should run close to 150 by the time of the 2023 world cup. Whether he hits 200 or not would depend on whether he's part of England's plans for 2027.

Yeah I meant 100 purely as opener

 

[Howe_zat]

I'd agree but he has only been involved as a core player of England's ODI team since 2015-16. Would say he needs to play for quite a few more years to be considered an ATG.

Only got into the side as an opener during the 2017 CT iirc

 

[Apex Predator]

India need some fearless approach at the start. Can't believe a talent like Kishan is benched for Dhawan who has no future in WC. His reflexes are done. Honestly only one among Rahul & Pant should make it. Pant is keeping plus a left hander in middle order makes. KL's ton was one of the most selfish inns I have watched after SRT 100 ton in Asia cup.
Kishan
Rohit
Virat
Pant
SKY
Hardik
Jadeja
Bhuvi
Prasidh
Bumrah
Rahul Chahar

I'd back this team to beat England in a 3 match series. Current side will rely mostly on individual brilliance like 1st ODI.

 

[Nintendo]

Dhawan is what, 35? The fact that India continue to play him when guys like Shaw, DDP, and agarwal are absolutely slaughtering the domestic scene In one dayers is crazy. Dhawan being around at the next wc is very, very unlikely, and the sooner India start blooding there young guns, the more experience they will have come the WC. This exact same methodology of not preparing early was a major reason that India's middle order was untested going into the WC and that they lost to NZ.

 

[sunilz]

If IND win tomorrow, then it will cap highly successful 4 months for Indian cricket. Don't know when India had such successful season( Barring WC )

 

[Manee]

Dhawan is what, 35? The fact that India continue to play him when guys like Shaw, DDP, and agarwal are absolutely slaughtering the domestic scene In one dayers is crazy. Dhawan being around at the next wc is very, very unlikely, and the sooner India start blooding there young guns, the more experience they will have come the WC. This exact same methodology of not preparing early was a major reason that India's middle order was untested going into the WC and that they lost to NZ.

I think potentially individuals on forums like this prioritise tournaments more than most team managements. I think ODIs are viewed as worthwhile in themselves and in the context of WCs whereas it feels that many treat ODIs outside of WC / CT as the equivalent of friendly exhibitions. Neither side is right or wrong but it is a matter of perspective.

Dhawan has a good record that hasn't exactly disappeared in recent years and so I think it is fair enough he's given more time in the team. Moreover, it was only the last ODI that his 98 won us the game. I would personally like Shaw, DDP (Yoga) and Agarwal into the team but I think it makes sense re: Shaw and Agarwal why team management are reluctant given how absolutely at sea they were against the new ball in the Australia Tests. Conscious it is a popular view on CW (going back over 10 years) to reassert that ODIs and Tests are completely different games and I do sympathise with this but I think this is the reason for some reluctance on the side of management. With Shaw in particular, I doubt he'll have come up against much quality new ball bowling in the Vijay Hazare. Also re: Agarwal, 86 runs in five ODIs and two failures to convert starts against Australia does not fill one with confidence!

Re: the favoured narrative of India's untested middle order against NZ in the 2019 WC, I don't think it is fair or right but rather just an attractive narrative. I think when you are chasing 239 on a pitch which is difficult to score off, then it is fair enough that you only muster 221 when you're 24/4 against the new ball. It feels a bit of a weak point that was constantly repeated that India were a bit at sea when the first four went cheaply, because this would be true of most teams - that is half of your batsmen gone and a fifth of your time gone!

I really think the emergency is with the bowling and it is an emergency because there aren't obvious options to turn. I think it should now be obvious that Kuldeep needs time out of the India setup because bowling in the nets is doing to do him no good and it should all be about match practice and consistency and not being afraid to experiment to regain his form.

If we look at the top wicket takers of the Vijay Hazare Trophy (Domestic OD competition) then there are not many obvious contenders in there. I've always rated Dhawal Kulkarni who did well with 14 wickets at 11.78 and economy of 3.72 but it is unclear to me if he has the amount of movement or variations to compensate for his slight lack of pace (B Kumar has swing, Sam Curran has his cutters and the left arm aspect, Topley has enormous height, etc.). I do think he is likely a better bowler than Thakur - as much as Thakur constantly proves the doubters wrong. The top wicket taker was a SLA bowler called Shivam Sharma but he seemed to have great games (6fer and 7fer) and lots of average games so unsure that a 20 year old spinner would be ready for ODI cricket step-up without a buffer zone like IPL.

Also high up is Arzan Nagwaswalla (19 wickets at 13.94 with economy of 4.32) who does seem like maybe a good prospect (video). Rishi Dhawan is third and as much as I do like a RM bowler in modern cricket, I think he may be too high risk against international quality batsmen. Siddharth Kaul also had a good VH Trophy but it seems his three ODIs without a wicket or looking particularly impressive have counted him out. And then we enter joke territory with the returning Sreesanth. Other than Shivam - a serious lack of spinners on the top wicket takers list! There is also Prashant Solanki (number four wicket taker with 15 wickets at 21.46) but an economy of 6.19 does not fill one with confidence.

So let's see - definitely an area of concern re: bench strength in spin given our previous reliance on them to win the game during the middle overs.

 

[Noumenon]

Dhawan has a good record that hasn't exactly disappeared in recent years and so I think it is fair enough he's given more time in the team.

The ENG comms at sky keep visiting this point. How ENG under Morgan take no time to dump players who are doing perfectly ok as soon as a better alternative arrives on the scene. David Willey and Plunkett Junked soon as Jofra and Wood announced themselves.

Here we have a made to order opener like Shaw sitting it out while Dhawan keeps doing that looks adequate but doesn't take the team forward.

 

[Noumenon]

India needs a margdarshak mandal for the likes of Dhawan.

 

[Manee]

The ENG comms at sky keep visiting this point. How ENG under Morgan take no time to dump players who are doing perfectly ok as soon as a better alternative arrives on the scene. David Willey and Plunkett Junked soon as Jofra and Wood announced themselves.

Here we have a made to order opener like Shaw sitting it out while Dhawan keeps doing that looks adequate but doesn't take the team forward.

Yes but I think there is a risk of overstating the case because Shaw will obviously be back and he has got opportunities to play three ODIs in NZ to limited success and there is a genuine worry about his skill against top quality new ball bowling - hence his failure to perform more than the odd cameo in the IPL. There are of course counters to this argument regarding his runs in A Team cricket, the differences between T20 and ODI and some of his Test match runs but I think people need to chill out a bit because Dhawan is decent and hardly ancient. Shaw for Dhawan would not have changed the result of that match one bit! Unless people think Shaw could have lifted us to 400+ and even then I think England could have taken Kuldeep and Krunal for as many runs as they needed. KL Rahul's inability to truly accelerate is annoying also but these are the finest of margins in optimising a very good batting line up. Whereas the bowling is embarrassing.

If the car is on fire and also doesn't accelerate properly, I think get a new car (bowling line up) rather than trying to drive faster to put out the fire with the wind.

 

[Noumenon]

Yes but I think there is a risk of overstating the case because Shaw will obviously be back and he has got opportunities to play three ODIs in NZ to limited success

If you take a look at the scorecard of those ODIs where Shaw played, you'd see he was an unqualified success. Scored at a brisk pace that's needed and never really looked flustered by the NZ attack. Hence the puzzle that we have gone back to Dhawan.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Can't keep Shaw out forever. Fact is he only got two chances to bat in Aus, under lights vs the pink ball against seamers of the highest class. Don't want to rush him back in but team has to look at slowly reintegrating him at some stage.

 

[Apex Predator]

Lots of talk about Shaw which is fine as dude has great potential, but what about Kishan? Don't we need a left hander at the top who is supposed to be a dasher? I think Kishan should edge Shaw atm.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah I would rather see Ishi Kishi replace Dhawan across all LO. I also hope he continues to keep.