• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Moving forward what type of side should England pick in ODI cricket?

grecian

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hurricane said:
Sure I could compromise on him going down to number 6 due to his bowling abilities. He has two centuries in 22 innings and one was against Scotland. Against test playing nations his ODI average is 28.7.
Click to expand...
Brilliant, you talk about 100 conversion-rates then suggest keeping Bell 4 100s in 160 games. Moeen is not a liability because his bowling has been fine.

In the end, he's our primary spinner too, just madness to say he only stays in on strike-rate.

In the end, I tend to think that batsmen in ODI's should be picked on being good on at least 2 of 4 categories. Strike-rate, Fielding, Bowling option, average (runs scored).

Bell isn't really good at any of them. One-dimensional cricketers lead to one-dimensional sides, which we are. Bell is an huge part of that. Honestly if you want experience, bring back Trott better in most ways.
 
Viscount Tom

Viscount Tom

International Debutant
Furball said:
I don't actually think the batting requires major surgery bar actually batting the guys who could potentially be really good in positions that would get the best out of them.

The bowling is suffering from the age old problem of 'think these guys are bad? The blokes we have coming through are worse.'
Click to expand...
Thing is though regarding the bowling that the up and comers probably face a fair bit of the new style of LO batting so I don't think we can do much harm in giving them a go.
 
grecian

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Viscount Tom said:


Thing is though regarding the bowling that the up and comers probably face a fair bit of the new style of LO batting so I don't think we can do much harm in giving them a go.
Click to expand...
I think my problem with a lot of the younger bowlers is they're all so injury-prone. Really don't know why this is. Doesn't help that as soon as they get in a bit of form, they're out.

Overtons. Wood, Willey, Topley, Mills.....
 
D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Let's be serious. There's one glaring omission from all of these future prospects:



#TeamRikki
 
A

Antihippy

International Debutant
Daemon said:
Cook and Trott are needed so badly for England to be any good now.
Click to expand...
No they're not. The english team's problem is that they can't bowl anyone out and they don't have enough firepower in the middle order. You reckon they need cook and trott for that?
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Antihippy said:
No they're not. The english team's problem is that they can't bowl anyone out and they don't have enough firepower in the middle order. You reckon they need cook and trott for that?
Click to expand...
Not enough firepower in the middle is not the problem imo. Having no players at the top who know how to build an innings is a big one though. Guys like Hales, Moeen (if he's pushed down) and Butler can do a job later in the innings when they have a platform set.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
It is interesting that many are saying player x or y should be dropped as he'll be too old in 2019. Looking at the success of Sangakkara and Vettori (imo the best players so far in the tournament), age is hardly an issue. Misbah is playing pretty well and even Khurram Khan is doing ok. If the English players are good enough, they're young enough
 
Hurricane

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
grecian said:
Brilliant, you talk about 100 conversion-rates then suggest keeping Bell 4 100s in 160 games. Moeen is not a liability because his bowling has been fine.

In the end, he's our primary spinner too, just madness to say he only stays in on strike-rate.

In the end, I tend to think that batsmen in ODI's should be picked on being good on at least 2 of 4 categories. Strike-rate, Fielding, Bowling option, average (runs scored).

Bell isn't really good at any of them. One-dimensional cricketers lead to one-dimensional sides, which we are. Bell is an huge part of that. Honestly if you want experience, bring back Trott better in most ways.
Click to expand...
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Ian Bell was the English top scorer in the tri series, and top scorer in the world cup. Yet he is being made the scape goat. He is the 2nd best bat in the team next to Root. After Bell and Root it is daylight to your next best bat.Would Ian Bell make the World 2nd XI or World 3rd XI - probably not. But the only argument I can see for dropping him is if you completely clean house and drop 3-4 of your batsman. But it makes no sense if he is the only one to go when he is palpably better (technique and ability wise) than almost all the other batsman. And then on top of that people want to keep Ali opening when he only looks like a List A standard top order batsman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top