Andrew Flintoff opening?

[jondavluc]

to tell you the truth flintoff is a thought for me in.I think its worth a shot its not like he has being giving a chance so why not

My side would be this

cook
flintoff
ian
kevin
collingwood
petal
wicketkeeper (A good one please)
broad
harmi
sidebottem
anderson

 

[Precambrian]

to tell you the truth flintoff is a thought for me in.I think its worth a shot its not like he has being giving a chance so why not

My side would be this

cook
flintoff
ian
kevin
collingwood
petal
wicketkeeper (A good one please)
broad
harmi
sidebottem
anderson

Petal?

 

[Goughy]

I dont realy care either way about Flintoff opening. I dont think its a great idea in England with the new ball seaming around but maybe on more docile tracks.

I still remember an interview with Ian Bell an year or 2 ago "Other teams seem to capitalise on the fielding restrictions and attack early and aggressively but England have struggled in that regard. Any reasons"

To which Bell replied "We dont approach it the same way and that isnt our plan"

Or words to that effect.

Well no ****. Englands approach seems to faff and struggle and after 20 overs be 70-4.

There is a reason that England are one of the worst ODI sides and that is their approach.

England are poor so at least go down swinging.

'Go Big Or Go Home XI'

1. Wright
2. Flintoff
3. KP
4. Trott
5. Patel
6. Prior
7. Collingwood
8. Broad
9. Sidebottom
10. Harmison
11. Anderson

Im not sold on Bopara as a specialist batsman, though he would be the next name down at the moment. Shah is the best T20 batsman in England but he doesnt play ODIs with the same improvisation and carefree attitude. His approach is different and so is his success. Bell is dropped to find someone that can incorporate urgency into their game.

 

[Precambrian]

I dont realy care either way about Flintoff opening. I dont think its a great idea in England with the new ball seaming around but maybe on more docile tracks.

I still remember an interview with Ian Bell an year or 2 ago "Other teams seem to capitalise on the fielding restrictions and attack early and aggressively but England have struggled in that regard. Any reasons"

To which Bell replied "We dont approach it the same way and that isnt our plan"

Or words to that effect.

Well no ****. Englands approach seems to faff and struggle and after 20 overs be 70-4.

There is a reason that England are one of the worst ODI sides and that is their approach.

England are poor so at least go down swinging.

'Go Big Or Go Home XI'

1. Wright
2. Flintoff
3. KP
4. Trott
5. Patel
6. Prior
7. Collingwood
8. Broad
9. Sidebottom
10. Harmison
11. Anderson

Im not sold on Bopara as a specialist batsman, though he would be the next name down at the moment. Shah is the best T20 batsman in England but he doesnt play ODIs with the same improvisation and carefree attitude. His approach is different and so is his success. Bell is dropped to find someone that can incorporate urgency into their game.

Makes a lot of sense tbh. Except Colly coming ahead of Prior.

 

[Goughy]

Makes a lot of sense tbh. Except Colly coming ahead of Prior.

I can see that. It is just that I think 7 is one of the key positions. IMO, often more important than 6. As such, Id rather Collingwood bat their than Prior.

 

[Woodster]

Personally not sold on Luke Wright in any form of the game, especially for England. Had a pretty shabby time of it last season with Sussex, and similar to what they're doing with Bopara at the minute, batting them at number 8 and not bowling them!! Pretty much a waste of a position, Mascarenhas I'm sure will do no worse as a number 8 batsman and I'm sure KP must have a little more faith in chucking him the ball for a few overs than he must have in Bopara and Wright.

Bopara for me will be a top 4 batsman for England in the coming years, and is currently having to earn his stripes down the order, fair enough, but 8 is ridiculous.

 

[Woodster]

While I am in the mood for plugging Essex players, I also think Graham Napier could do a decent job at 8. Before he is considered I would like to seem him perform consistently again for Essex next season. As everyone knows he hits a very long ball, and bowls with very nippy pace, decent exponent of the yorker helps his death bowling.

Essex are probably the best one-day side in the country, so why not include a few more of their players.

 

[Goughy]

Personally not sold on Luke Wright in any form of the game, especially for England.

Dont get me wrong, I have no high opinion of him as a player (batsman or bowler).

Its just that if you are going to throw early wickets away then Id take 15 off 9 rather than 9 off 15.

TBH, Im not really bothered about Englands OD but I still dont want 2nd rate ball ticklers like Bell involved.

If you need to bring 2nd or 3rd rate players in then at least make them have a pretty unique skills set ie fast scoring, or allrounder etc.

Napier would probably fall in that bracket but Id be looking more for a bat that bowls than a bowler that bashes it in the lower order. The top order needs sorting out.

 

[Woodster]

Dont get me wrong, I have no high opinion of him as a player (batsman or bowler).

Its just that if you are going to throw early wickets away then Id take 15 off 9 rather than 9 off 15.

TBH, Im not really bothered about Englands OD but I still dont want 2nd rate ball ticklers like Bell involved.

If you need to bring 3nd or 3rd rate players in then at least make them have a pretty unique skills set ie fast scoring, or allrounder etc.

Napier would probably fall in that bracket but Id be looking more for a bat that bowls than a bowler that bashes it in the lower order. The top order needs sorting out.

There are no obvious candidates to open the one-day innings for England, and it may take a punt from the selectors on a player they have a hunch with, despite not breaking any records in County cricket.

I appreciate that to make use of the opening powerplay it's important batsman exploit the fielding restrictions. Whether that is by finding the gaps with orthodox strokeplay, of which Bell is selected for, or whether they decide to go over the top with authority, it doesn't matter to me providing they are effective.

For me Bell seems unsure of what his actual one-day role. Is he there to get on with it from the off and continue to do so ? Or should he be exploiting the restrictions before settling down pushing the ones and twos, keeping the board ticking and the strike rotating, and knuckling down to play the majority of the 50 overs ? The latter I'm sure is the best plan.

I agree Goughy this top order needs sorting. As much as I rate Bell, just think Cook may, long term, do a better job at the top, now there's a player that is not likely to fit into your electric strike rates in the opening overs

 

[Precambrian]

I can see that. It is just that I think 7 is one of the key positions. IMO, often more important than 6. As such, Id rather Collingwood bat their than Prior.

How No.7 is a crucial spot than No.6? In ODIs?

 

[Goughy]

How No.7 is a crucial spot than No.6? In ODIs?

Many reasons but just 2 would be-

At 6 you can take a gamble and be aggressive when you have a quality number 7. A poor number 7 leaves the line-up vulnerable. I could throw Prior in at 6 with a license to play his shots safe in the knowledge that Collingwood was a contingency plan if it didnt work.

Which is more dangerous. Gambling $10 when you have $20 in your pocket or when you only have $10? Collingwood at 6 and Prior at 7 would be potentially collapse-tastic

7 has a wide variety of possible roles to play and a quality player is needed for this pivotal role. Firstly he is the last recognised batsman and has to be able to marshall the tail into an effective batting unit. That means a cool head, ability to take singles, leadership qualities etc. Number 7 has to be capable of being flexible and play a number of types of innings. He may have to come in with 5 overs left and bash the ball all over or he may come in with his team 100-5 with 25 overs left and build and accumulate a mature and disciplined innings.

It is a position that demands professional and skilled players rather than those that are a gamble or a risk.

7 can be the key to finishing an innings with an explosion or preventing a collapse becoming terminal by protecting the tail.

A strong number 7 is about team balance, options and lengthening the batting line up and allowing the more aggressive players to play with the freedom that their failure is not disastrous.

Consistency and flexibility is the key for the number 7. It probably isnt glamerous and they will never put up massive numbers but they need to be capable of scoring 35 off 50 balls or 35 off 20 balls depending on the situation. They are usually involved in the business end of the innings and their varied contributions are key.

 

[tooextracool]

Keep him at 5-7, I can't see him being sucessful at opening against a swinging ball, batting up to 50 overs, then bowling 10, going flat chat. I can't see it being successful, I don't think he is the kind of guy who could open the batting, in any form.

Interesting that. If someone like Ganguly could make a successful career opening the batting without any of the tools required to succeed against the swinging ball one would think that Flintoff could do it too. Personally, I think the idea that Flintoff cant play the swinging ball is hopelessly overplayed. We've seen him play some excellent innings against the moving ball in the past both in ODIs and in tests. Flintoff batting at 6 or 7 is a joke IMO, its a complete waste of talent.

 

[tooextracool]

Personally not sold on Luke Wright in any form of the game, especially for England. Had a pretty shabby time of it last season with Sussex, and similar to what they're doing with Bopara at the minute, batting them at number 8 and not bowling them!! Pretty much a waste of a position, Mascarenhas I'm sure will do no worse as a number 8 batsman and I'm sure KP must have a little more faith in chucking him the ball for a few overs than he must have in Bopara and Wright.

Bopara for me will be a top 4 batsman for England in the coming years, and is currently having to earn his stripes down the order, fair enough, but 8 is ridiculous.

Yeah it does seem ridiculous to pick Wright when Mascarenhas could essentially perform the same role more efficiently

 

[Richard]

I still remember an interview with Ian Bell an year or 2 ago "Other teams seem to capitalise on the fielding restrictions and attack early and aggressively but England have struggled in that regard. Any reasons"

To which Bell replied "We dont approach it the same way and that isnt our plan"

Or words to that effect.

Well no ****. Englands approach seems to faff and struggle and after 20 overs be 70-4.

There is a reason that England are one of the worst ODI sides and that is their approach.

I don't think that's the reason at all, though undoubtedly it doesn't help. There's been precious few openers in England ODI history along the lines of a Mark Waugh, Ganguly or Anwar who can play shots but also have the technique to counter the moving ball. Trescothick and Knight are about the only ones. One of the biggest problems, of course, is that typically the ball moves more in England than most places, so developing such players is less easy than in places like India, Pakistan and Australia.

In recent times, there simply haven't been many cricketers in England who are good at one-day cricket. Strokeplaying openers who are something other than a walking wicket aren't the only things that are lacking, there are a great many, and no one of these is a bigger reason for England's woeful ODI performances of the last 8 years than another, IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Thought this was about bowling TBH.

Do like the "Go hard or go home XI".

Should get a run IMO.

 

[aussie]

Interesting that. If someone like Ganguly could make a successful career opening the batting without any of the tools required to succeed against the swinging ball one would think that Flintoff could do it too.

Personally, I think the idea that Flintoff cant play the swinging ball is hopelessly overplayed.

Ganguly may not have the technique to play the moving ball yea, but obviously in ODI's he wouldn't have encountered many seaming decks in ODI's would he?. So yea i see your arguments but i really can't see Flintoff taking apart the likes of Lee, Steyn, Akhtar, Malinga etc against a fresh new ball in a 50 over game (maybe in a 20/20), thats a bit too much pressure on him TBH. He much better taking them on when a bit of shine is off the ball coming in @ 5 or 6.


Fact is England don't have any real competent ODI openers in the current side or in the domestic circuit ATM (although i like the look of Joe Denly for the future), losing Trescothick was a huge blow for the balance of the current side.

Cause lets be honest, if you had Trescothick & decide who you want to keep (and what position to bat the keeper), England would have one of our best sides since about 2000 or 2002.

We've seen him play some excellent innings against the moving ball in the past both in ODIs and in tests. Flintoff batting at 6 or 7 is a joke IMO, its a complete waste of talent.

Once he is batting well no doubt, him batting @ 5 is perfect.

 

[Precambrian]

Interesting that. If someone like Ganguly could make a successful career opening the batting without any of the tools required to succeed against the swinging ball one would think that Flintoff could do it too. Personally, I think the idea that Flintoff cant play the swinging ball is hopelessly overplayed. We've seen him play some excellent innings against the moving ball in the past both in ODIs and in tests. Flintoff batting at 6 or 7 is a joke IMO, its a complete waste of talent.

Ganguly might have had his share of problems against the swinging ball like every other subcontinental batsman, but to suggest that he, who made 3 successive tons in England, is a complete tool against swing bowling, able.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Why doesn't Andrew Flintoff open in ODI's???

Because against a new ball he'd have all sorts of problems. I'd imagine this is the reason.

 

[Furball]

Jonathan Trott should be opening for England in ODIs.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

England odi side doesn't have any good openers ....so Flintoff can prove better......