Dilemma for England when KP returns?

[marc71178]

Maybe but the selectors won't do this after his performance today.They'll now view it as because he has finally got runs,he'll be in the first X1 for the WC.

So how come a 50 vs NZ keeps him his place when a 50 against Australia isn't enough to keep in a man averaging a lot more over his career?

 

[Richard]

I'll assure y'all of one thing, and happily accept my Greigy if things turn-out differently:

Andrew Strauss will not be dropped while the team is in Australia. He might be dropped during the WC, but even that I'd say is less likely than more.

Whether that is wrong or right, it's a reality we should all accept.

 

[Barney Rubble]

How crap does Nixon have to be before the gets the chop, btw? 2-ball duck today & he shelled a (admittedly fairly sharp) chance from Fleming off Colly before Fleming had made too many. He didn't even react; the ball just hit his gloves before he moved them.

Crapper than Read, which recently has been a tough ask.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Read's a perfectly fine bat for 8. It still flabbergasts me that you wouldn't play him when his batting isn't all that important to the side down so low.

 

[pup11]

At 36 neither is nixon a long term prospect or neither he is that good that he becomes an obvious pick. Read is better keeper than him and a handy batter too at no.8.

 

[deeps]

Nixon seems to be a very good keeper actually.. his batting, at 8, you'd want some more explosive batting than what i've seen with Nixon, who seems to be a nudging type batsman. At county level, he probably bats 6 or 7, and nudging singles is fine, but at 8 in a ODI, from a wicket keeper, you'd want more explosiveness.

I havent seen much or Read batting, but i know Jones is a shotmaker, so might be good at 8..however his keeping leaves a lot to be desired

 

[Goughy]

I havent been through the entire thread so apologies if this has already been said.

I think Bell's position is under threat. My issue is his orthadoxy. By that I mean he hits the fielders far too often, its far too easy for an oppostion captain to set a field to him as he his the ball to traditional areas, and bowlers can relax and feel easy in their bowling as they have a fielding strategy to back them up and Bell is never going to dominate them.

As treatening as a blunt knife. Can still kill you but is going to take longer and will not be pretty.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He does seem a lot like a guy who you can set your field straight to, and he'll hit the ball straight.

 

[Pup Clarke]

So how come a 50 vs NZ keeps him his place when a 50 against Australia isn't enough to keep in a man averaging a lot more over his career?

Strauss will not get the chop.The selectors will make sure of that.

 

[Richard]

I havent been through the entire thread so apologies if this has already been said.

I think Bell's position is under threat. My issue is his orthadoxy. By that I mean he hits the fielders far too often, its far too easy for an oppostion captain to set a field to him as he his the ball to traditional areas, and bowlers can relax and feel easy in their bowling as they have a fielding strategy to back them up and Bell is never going to dominate them.

As treatening as a blunt knife. Can still kill you but is going to take longer and will not be pretty.

Been said before... a few times, in fact.

I'll add, though... it doesn't seem to bother too many when he's scoring runs like he did last summer...

 

[slogger555]

this in my opimion is the England to x1

1) Vaughn (c)
2) Bell
3) Pieterson
4) Collingwood
5) Strauss
6) Flintoff
7) Darlmpyle
8) Nixon
9) Plunkett/Lewis
10) Anderson
11) Panesar

12th man Joyce

thats just my opinion

 

[Richard]

Vaughan and Bell opening? Two makeshift openers?

While you have a specialist opener at five?

For me, the Strauss situation is simple. You either open with him, or you drop him. End of story. And I've leant for some time on the dropping side.

 

[tooextracool]

Honestly, Strauss makes Bell look like the most unorthodox player in the world. I still think that Bell is extremely orthodox, but at least hes trying to change his game and we've seen him hit over the top plenty of times this series. Bell reminds me of Rahul Dravid at a very similar stage in their careers, which gives me hope for Bell. Strauss is just downright rubbish.
There really is no dilemma IMO, strauss has been useless in almost every series since his debut and he just doesnt know how to play ODI cricket.
Im glad to see Collingwood perform like he has recently, because ive never doubted that he is an extremely capable ODI player and could never quite understand how someone who has the perfect game to succeed in ODI cricket had been failing for so long.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Vaughan and Bell opening? Two makeshift openers

Totally ignoring that Ian Bell has looked most comfortable in ODI cricket when opening the batting...

It is possible for a "makeshift" opener to fancy opening the batting and do well there. And the evidence suggests that Bell may well be one of those players.

 

[tooextracool]

I'll assure y'all of one thing, and happily accept my Greigy if things turn-out differently:

Andrew Strauss will not be dropped while the team is in Australia. He might be dropped during the WC, but even that I'd say is less likely than more.

Whether that is wrong or right, it's a reality we should all accept.

thanks a lot captain obvious. Jeezus who would they drop him for? look at the rest of the squad. Vaughan is injured, theres Stuart Broad whos a bowler, chris read a wicket keeper and then ravi bopara whos more bits and pieces than a specialist batsman.
As far as the world cup is concerned, they id put my wager on dalrymple or bell being dropped ahead of him to accomodate Pietersen and Vaughan.

 

[grecian]

Vaughan and Bell opening? Two makeshift openers?

While you have a specialist opener at five?

For me, the Strauss situation is simple. You either open with him, or you drop him. End of story. And I've leant for some time on the dropping side.

I seem to remember Mark Waugh and Adam Gilchrist, not doing to bad a job at opening for Oz.

 

[Richard]

Honestly, Strauss makes Bell look like the most unorthodox player in the world. I still think that Bell is extremely orthodox, but at least hes trying to change his game and we've seen him hit over the top plenty of times this series. Bell reminds me of Rahul Dravid at a very similar stage in their careers, which gives me hope for Bell. Strauss is just downright rubbish.
There really is no dilemma IMO, strauss has been useless in almost every series since his debut and he just doesnt know how to play ODI cricket.

Which is why I said I'd drop Strauss. But having him bat at four is simply an even worse option.

 

[Richard]

Totally ignoring that Ian Bell has looked most comfortable in ODI cricket when opening the batting...

It is possible for a "makeshift" opener to fancy opening the batting and do well there. And the evidence suggests that Bell may well be one of those players.

On the evidence of a whole 5 innings... all in the same country...

 

[Richard]

thanks a lot captain obvious. Jeezus who would they drop him for? look at the rest of the squad. Vaughan is injured, theres Stuart Broad whos a bowler, chris read a wicket keeper and then ravi bopara whos more bits and pieces than a specialist batsman.

Which is why I said it as though it's pretty obvious... Jeezus was there really any need to post that reply?

Some people were suggesting they thought Strauss being dropped was a possibility - I pointed-out that it wasn't really.

 

[Richard]

I seem to remember Mark Waugh and Adam Gilchrist, not doing to bad a job at opening for Oz.

That was Australia.

This is England.

Most other countries have had some converted middle-order batsmen as ODI openers. England haven't. All England's best ODI openers have been openers in the longer game, too.