England ODI Team

[Jigga988]

Why is Freddy opening more plausible than Pietersen?

Pietersen is technically much better and capable of playing longer innings, agreed?
It seems to me that just becaue people want someone who can score quickly that they think it is better to put a lesser batsman in. Surley it is better to have someone that can score quickly but also build an innings? Something Pietersen can do more consistantly than Flintoff. Whether Pietersen should open is highly dubious and perhaps he shouldnt but I have no doubt that he could do it. The only argument I can see for Flintoff is that he is a poor starter against spin, but I would still rather have Pietersen face the first few overs than Flintoff.

Can see your argument but without KP in the middle order England could struggle immensly if he goes early (which is more likely when facing new ball) to post a decent total while scoring quickly, Shah has done okay of late but is not that established and Colly and Bell don't score a good innings very often and Freddy isn't the best starter, especially if spin is on and could go cheaply. Bopara/Patel/Dimi/Wright/Davies/Patel/Prior or whoever else will be there are all not established and will struggle. KP is pivitol to the set up of the England OD side, if he goes England will struggle, thus the reasoning that he should be protected. The reason for me saying that you might prefer Fred there (although for the record he should never open) is that he is less valuable to the England line up and can do just as good a job upping run rate.

 

[Richard]

I agreed with this until very recently, but frankly I am sick of England using players who simply aren’t good enough to open. (Prior and Wright being obvious examples) Pietersen is our best player and if he is batting at number 3 then there is a pretty good chance that he will be in during the first few over’s anyway.

Not neccessarily. The hope is that the openers will manage to last at least 6 or 7 overs (and if they don't then different ones need to replace them until we eventually find someone who regularly does). This is generally just about long enough in a ODI to take most of the shine off the ball. I'm far, far more confident in Pietersen batting three than two or one.

As he is our best player I personally feel it makes sense to give him the maximum over’s possible, Tendulkar has done this for years.

I'm never keen on doing something because someone else has. Each case should be treated on its own merits. If there are arguments for giving Pietersen the opening berth, "Tendulkar did it" should not be one. I don't think it neccessarily makes sense to give Pietersen the maximum overs possible - as long as he gets 30 or more, which is overwhelmingly likely if he bats three, then I'm fine. I think there's more likely to be lost via Pietersen coming in in the first 5-10 overs, every time, than there is to be gained.

Also, as if it needs mentioning, Tendulkar > Pietersen. In so many ways.

I also feel that we have some pretty decent middle order batsmen Collingwood, Flintoff and recently Shah.

Collingwood isn't that good and never has been; Shah's form runs about 10 games, and is surely likely to abate before long. Not strong enough, IMO, that you can afford to lessen Pietersen.

 

[Jigga988]

Not neccessarily. The hope is that the openers will manage to last at least 6 or 7 overs (and if they don't then different ones need to replace them until we eventually find someone who regularly does). This is generally just about long enough in a ODI to take most of the shine off the ball. I'm far, far more confident in Pietersen batting three than two or one.

I'm never keen on doing something because someone else has. Each case should be treated on its own merits. If there are arguments for giving Pietersen the opening berth, "Tendulkar did it" should not be one. I don't think it neccessarily makes sense to give Pietersen the maximum overs possible - as long as he gets 30 or more, which is overwhelmingly likely if he bats three, then I'm fine. I think there's more likely to be lost via Pietersen coming in in the first 5-10 overs, every time, than there is to be gained.

Also, as if it needs mentioning, Tendulkar > Pietersen. In so many ways.

Collingwood isn't that good and never has been; Shah's form runs about 10 games, and is surely likely to abate before long. Not strong enough, IMO, that you can afford to lessen Pietersen.

100% agree

 

[Pothas]

Not neccessarily. The hope is that the openers will manage to last at least 6 or 7 overs (and if they don't then different ones need to replace them until we eventually find someone who regularly does). This is generally just about long enough in a ODI to take most of the shine off the ball. I'm far, far more confident in Pietersen batting three than two or one.

I'm never keen on doing something because someone else has. Each case should be treated on its own merits. If there are arguments for giving Pietersen the opening berth, "Tendulkar did it" should not be one. I don't think it neccessarily makes sense to give Pietersen the maximum overs possible - as long as he gets 30 or more, which is overwhelmingly likely if he bats three, then I'm fine. I think there's more likely to be lost via Pietersen coming in in the first 5-10 overs, every time, than there is to be gained.

Also, as if it needs mentioning, Tendulkar > Pietersen. In so many ways.

Collingwood isn't that good and never has been; Shah's form runs about 10 games, and is surely likely to abate before long. Not strong enough, IMO, that you can afford to lessen Pietersen.

A lot of fair points made here and I basicaly agree that 3 is his ideal position, as I have said I am far from sold on the idea of Pietersen opening I just don't think it should be totaly discounted. I think he would be good enough to get through the opening overs on a good number of ocassions (certainly better than nearly everyone else we have tried.
Your arguments about Tendulkar are good ones and I think this is exactly what England have done with the idea of keepers opening (an atempt to copy Gilchrist). I definetly felt that this was the case with Geriant Jones and Prior. Davies actually has a track record of opening so hopefully things will be different with him.

 

[Richard]

Yup, there's absolutely no doubt that England have gone completely crazy with regards wicketkeepers opening - Geraint Jones had no background whatsoever and was poor at county level as a lower-order batsman so how they hoped he'd make the remotest of fists of opening in ODIs is beyond me, and of course Prior and Mustard were basically picked because of 2 and 1 good seasons respectively, both have opened for their counties for a good while now but neither have had any long-term success there so it's no surprise they failed in their ODI stints as well.

Looks like Davies is next in line. He at least has looked like a proper batsman when I've seen him but I don't have any enormous confidence he'll do a job opening in ODIs either.

 

[Jigga988]

Yup, there's absolutely no doubt that England have gone completely crazy with regards wicketkeepers opening - Geraint Jones had no background whatsoever and was poor at county level as a lower-order batsman so how they hoped he'd make the remotest of fists of opening in ODIs is beyond me, and of course Prior and Mustard were basically picked because of 2 and 1 good seasons respectively, both have opened for their counties for a good while now but neither have had any long-term success there so it's no surprise they failed in their ODI stints as well.

Looks like Davies is next in line. He at least has looked like a proper batsman when I've seen him but I don't have any enormous confidence he'll do a job opening in ODIs either.

He could fail, not because he doesn't have the ability to do it but when you are opening for England so much pressure is put on how you approach the power plays and this could put him off, in county cricket he could just play as he liked, he could go slow if he needed to or (more often than not) he could go quickly. But i know all English people will be waiting to see how he'll approach the power plays and I reckon he could just as easily end up like Prior, not knowing what role to play at the top. He'll probobly go out and try to blast every ball though I don't envision much success if he goes down that route.

 

[fredfertang]

Anyone got any views on my suggestion of Patel opening? I don't know him well enough to judge whether he could do the job, and I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

From what I can see he doesn't appear to have ever opened for anybody so it would be a bit of a long shot - not convinced we should be taking speculative punts like that prior to Denly being given a shot at it

 

[Prince EWS]

Yup, there's absolutely no doubt that England have gone completely crazy with regards wicketkeepers opening - Geraint Jones had no background whatsoever and was poor at county level as a lower-order batsman so how they hoped he'd make the remotest of fists of opening in ODIs is beyond me, and of course Prior and Mustard were basically picked because of 2 and 1 good seasons respectively, both have opened for their counties for a good while now but neither have had any long-term success there so it's no surprise they failed in their ODI stints as well.

Looks like Davies is next in line. He at least has looked like a proper batsman when I've seen him but I don't have any enormous confidence he'll do a job opening in ODIs either.

Davies, unlike Prior and Jones, actually has some pedigree as a one day opening batsman, though. He hasn't done it for very long so it's obviously still not the ideal, but at least he's been doing it at county level lately and has been successful in the role in the short term. Jones had never opened at all and Prior hadn't done it with any real success. Mustard quite obviously just lacked the class required - Davies could well be in a similar boat given, like Mustard, he's only really had one good season, but those who've seen him (including yourself) seem to have good things to say, so I think it's a fair enough selection.

I think he should be given an extended run opening with Strauss (assuming Strauss is going to keep the OD captaincy).

As for the team itself, it's worth noting that England last fielded this as their top 6:

1. Bopara
2. Cook
3. Pietersen
4. Collingwood
5. Flintoff
6. Shah

I think you have to actually use that as a base to work with - you can't go selecting teams from scratch all the time or there's no continuity. Bopara and Cook failed, Strauss is obviously coming in and I said I'd run with Davies as an opener, so there's the opening combination sorted for mine. In that last match, Pietersen scored 111* at 3 , Collingwood scored 40 at 4 and Shah scored 66* at 6 so changing the order, even though I don't think that order is a long-term solution, wouldn't really adhere to proper processes.

Hence, my team from the squad selected:

1. Strauss
2. Davies
3. Pietersen
4. Collingwood
5. Flintoff
6. Shah
7. Patel
8. Mascarenhas
9. Broad
10. Swann
11. Sidebottom

Eventually I'd like Collingwood to go back down to 6 and Trott to replace Shah in the team and bat 4, but there's really no merit in that right now given Trott had a pretty poor season and Shah has been good for England of late.

 

[Richard]

Davies, unlike Prior and Jones, actually has some pedigree as a one day opening batsman, though. He hasn't done it for very long so it's obviously still not the ideal, but at least he's been doing it at county level lately and has been successful in the role in the short term. Jones had never opened at all and Prior hadn't done it with any real success.

You know, the interesting thing about Prior is that when he was selected for ODIs (went on tour in 2004/05 but that was only to Zimbabwe, so 2005/06 was the first time he'd played) his previous two seasons had been pretty good. Startlingly, in 2004 and 2005 his average for Sussex was 39.54. I still didn't rate him, at all, because of the fact that between 2000 and 2003 he'd been dreadful (15.63), and because I'd seen him bat in pretty well all the seasons in question (Sussex have always had more televised games than most as their ground was the first to get floodlights in this country and Sky Sports have a considerable preference for day\nighters in the domestic-OD stuff they cover) and haven't been remotely surprised that in 2006 and 2007 (26.85) he's reverted to type. He also toured with England A in 2004/05 as well as visiting Zimbabwe with the full side and did terribly there as well.

 

[Uppercut]

I think where the match is being played is relevant. In England the first 10-15 overs typically belong to the bowlers so aggressive batting isn't necessary early on. In India, as Sehwag and Tendulkar showed, it's generally the best time to score quick runs- hard ball and fielding restrictions.

 

[Bob Bamber]

Before I start this, I'm going to make this post before I read any of the other posts properly (helps keep it my own idea). I'll read through afterwards so don't ridicule me if I repeat any players that have been heavily discussed already.

Anyway, this is my team, without Strauss as captain (and you might be surprised who is). Its building towards the 2015 world cup (the 11 one is too late now, but it'd be a good yardstick nonetheless).

1) Joe Denly
2) Steven Davies
3) Kevin Pietersen
4) Ravi Bopara
5) Andrew Flintoff
6) Owais Shah
7) Adil Rashid
8) Graham Napier
9) Stuart Broad (C)
10) Graham Swann
11) Ryan Sidebottom

It looks like a remarkable change. Its not really. Its two new guys at the top (but it's not as if we've had anything that works in the past).

With KP at 3 - I agree with Geoffrey Boycott on this one - his you're best One day international batsman by a country mile, so what difference does it really make if he's batting at number three or number four? All it can do is give you're best player more time at the crease - why can only be a good thing surely?

Bopara at 4. He's an immense tallent - I don't think many people will disagree on that one. I think opening batsman is one step too far for him, but I think number 4 will best represent his talent. Anyone who doesn't think he deserves this role I suggest should think back to his innings with Paul Nixon in the World Cup.

Flintoff at 5. I'd kinda leave this as a floating role. He's never been a good player of spin. Perhaps in the sub contient he could bat lower (depending on how good Rashid and - to a lesser extent - Napier are at playing spin),

Shah - a great finisher. And number 6 is defiantly his role.

Rashid - the future. Promising spinner who can bat.

Napier - dependable bowler, can hit the ball from ball 1 (which is what you need from a number 8).

Broad (C). I think I'll be surprised if saying he should be captain will be the most debated part about this post. Looking at all of the potential players I think this man is the right man for the job. He's a super bright cricketer, he's got the (and excuse the horrible pun) broad shoulders to handle what would be a long job. A young talent with many miles under his belt already, I think he could lead us long term.

Sidebottom and Swann are good players. Sidebottom has some good English fight in him which I like, and I think he is well honed on the county circuit. Swann is a good dependable player. He's not going to have that 'impact' ability of Rashid - but he's a solid safe bet, more often than not he'll do you a job.

I think in that team you have a good balance. In Flintoff, Broad, Sidebottom and Rashid you have 40 overs of bowling. Then in Bopara, Swann and Napier you have enough fille overs to competently.

Feel free to critique it - but as I said - I haven't yet read through the rest of the thread - so don't feel the need to bring up the same individual player issues again, as I'm about to read them.

 

[FBU]

Flintoff, Shah, Napier and Sidebottom will have retired by the time the 2011 World Cup comes around

 

[Penguinissimo]

This is my team, and I think once you've made some of these decisions you're going to have to stick with them until the end of September at least.

1. Bopara - I think Strauss is better suited to middle order batting in ODIs where taking advantage of the powerplays is so important. I will not tolerate Bell in any form of cricket anymore, Cook has the same problem as Strauss, so Bopara wins by default.

2. Davies - Prior has never really settled into this role, and Davies had a superb season doing exactly what this role requires for Worcs. I don't think he'd make a case for the Test side regardless of how well he does, but in the long run he's the best keeping prospect we have so it is a nice side-bonus that he gets some experience against international bowling. That said, if someone insisted on Prior I wouldn't be that upset.

3. Pietersen - get your best player in for as long as possible. If KP bats for 35 overs, we will always reach a competitive score.

4. Strauss (c) - can play the role of accumulator if we are doing well, just rotating the strike and keeping the scoreboard ticking (yes, I would like to use some more cliches in this sentence), or can shore up if we're in trouble.

5. Flintoff - contemplated having him at 7, but he usually needs to have a couple of overs to see the ball to have full effect so prefer him at 5.

6. Collingwood - nothing to say really, is one of the few easy bits about this team.

7. Shah - can be an absolutely devastating finisher, can really re-start a floundering innings or push in the last 10 overs, and that is the reason I have him here rather than putting him at 4 and Strauss at 7.

8. Swann - we need a good solid spinner in ODIs and Swann is it just now.

9. Broad - was a revelation with the new ball in India and should generally be a fixture for a long time.

10. Sidebottom - tough to get away in the opening powerplays and at the death, and can leave the wicket-taking to other bowlers. An automatic selection if fit.

11. Harmison - in seamer-friendly conditions Harmy can be really difficult to get away as first or second change. Colly's dobblers give us back-up if he goes miles, and without Anderson (who has been rubbish in ODIs for most of the year) we can afford one hit and miss bowler.

 

[Uppercut]

11. Harmison - in seamer-friendly conditions Harmy can be really difficult to get away as first or second change. Colly's dobblers give us back-up if he goes miles, and without Anderson (who has been rubbish in ODIs for most of the year) we can afford one hit and miss bowler.

Hmm, if he's in the team it's as a wicket-taker, maybe to break those smelly partnerships that develop in the middle overs. Personally wouldn't have him near the team.

 

[Penguinissimo]

Hmm, if he's in the team it's as a wicket-taker, maybe to break those smelly partnerships that develop in the middle overs. Personally wouldn't have him near the team.

I'd prefer him to Anderson, since at least he might break partnerships and when he gets going he can be unplayable. Having Anderson in the team means he has to open the bowling, which is tantamount to letting the opposition start on 30-0.

And if it goes wrong, you get 45 overs from eg Sidey (10), Broad (10), Swann (9), Flintoff (10) and Collingwood (6).

 

[Uppercut]

I'd prefer him to Anderson, since at least he might break partnerships and when he gets going he can be unplayable. Having Anderson in the team means he has to open the bowling, which is tantamount to letting the opposition start on 30-0.

And if it goes wrong, you get 45 overs from eg Sidey (10), Broad (10), Swann (9), Flintoff (10) and Collingwood (6).

I wouldn't have Anderson in either. My team was:


1. Davies (wk)
2. Strauss (c)
3. Shah
4. Pietersen
5. Flintoff
6. Collingwood
7. Patel
8. Mascarenhas
9. Swann
10. Broad
11. Sidebottom

So Broad, Sidebottom, Swann and Flintoff are the front-liners and Mascarenhas, Collingwood and Patel make up the fifth.

Interesting to note that even without his batting considered Mascarenhas's List A record is far, faaaaaaar better than Steve Harmison's.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, if he's in the team it's as a wicket-taker, maybe to break those smelly partnerships that develop in the middle overs. Personally wouldn't have him near the team.

Thing about Harmison is that generally, when he takes ODI wickets, he does so by bowling economically. I'm pretty sure there's never been an occasion in Harmison's ODI career where, in the same spell, he's gone for a few and taken wickets. If there ever has been, it'll have been being gifted wickets rather than earning them.

What's more, as I say, wicket-taking in the middle overs of a ODI is basically impossible for a non-spinner (and most spinners need a turning pitch, obviously). That is, bowling wicket-taking deliveries. The ball isn't usually in a sufficient state. The only way to get batsmen out in the middle overs is to bowl economically.

What's even more, as I also say, taking wickets in the middle isn't often all that much use. If you're wanting to take wickets and be useful, you need to take them at the start, and not just one, but two or three.

Anyway, if Harmison bowled the sort of spell he bowled relatively often in the summer of 2004, he'd obviously be a ODI fixture. But he hasn't, nor has he ever looked like doing so, so he isn't and shouldn't be.

 

[Richard]

9. Broad - was a revelation with the new ball in India and should generally be a fixture for a long time.

Not sure about that. Broad was poor in India, for the first time in a year. His figures had been excellent since the winter of 2007/08, and especially in the summer of 2008.

 

[Richard]

Anyway, this is my team, without Strauss as captain (and you might be surprised who is). Its building towards the 2015 world cup (the 11 one is too late now, but it'd be a good yardstick nonetheless).

Six years is far, far too long to be attempting to look ahead. You don't have a cat-in-hell's chance of knowing anything that's going to happen in that time.

2011 is the only tournament anyone should be aiming for. It's looking, not remotely surprisingly, like it's going to be exactly the same as the last four and come-up long before England are ready for it, but there's no sense giving-up on the thing completely.

 

[ozone]

So Broad, Sidebottom, Swann and Flintoff are the front-liners and Mascarenhas, Collingwood and Patel make up the fifth.

If Mascarenhas plays, surely he's got to bowl his full compliment of overs in most of his games?