***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[Richard]

IMO the crappy field-settings was far, far more to do with the matter than the lack of a decent fifth-bowler. Even part-time spinners should be able to tie-down Paul Collingwood and Owais Shah for a time if you bowl to a decent field.

Hahahaha, that post looks good complete with your sig.

Watching SL today was like watching South Africa in blue. Four fast bowlers and no decent spin option in the middle overs, where easy runs were being gifted through the crappy field settings.
On top of that during the run chase Sangakkara did a really nice Kallis impersonation.
__________________
For as long as there is limited overs cricket - of ten, twenty or fifty overs - there will remain the Sri Lankan spinners' mid-innings choke

 

[Lostman]

lol the mid inning spin choke would hopefully be back by game 4

 

[Goughy]

Can't remember that TBH. Folk at CricInfo (and quite a few other places) did but I can't even remember many on here taking it seriously enough even to discuss it, for this reason:

I was in favour of Flintoff opening for 4 good reasons

a) The current (at the time) openers couldnt buy a run
b) England were the slowest batting team in the power players and it usually cost them
c) Flintoff was struggling in his normal position and wasnt looking comfortable
d) It lengthened the batting line-up but pushing a specialist lower sown so if early wickets fell (as they had been doing) their would be secialist to rebuild rather than part-timers.

In an ideal world I wouldnt want him there, but with team composition and attitude it made/makes sense.

Basically there was no down side to it. There was the potential of fixing 4 problems with the only risk being losing Flintoffs poor production at his then current position.

In terms of pay off it was money for old rope

 

[Richard]

The thing is, though, especially where England are concerned, "pinch" hitters have never worked. Strokeplaying opening batsmen have: Gooch, Knight, Trescothick. No-one, ever, has had success opening in ODIs for England who has not been an opening-batsman by trade.

For this reason, I've never been in favour of trying to manufacture ODI openers, regardless of that they may be strokeplayers. We've tried it with so many different people, cut from different cloths: people who've been good elsewhere; people who've been good elsewhere but are currently struggling; people who've played a bit elsewhere and done sod-all; people who've never played a ODI and had half a season of success domestically; and people who "he's a big-hitter" even though he's never opened in any way shape or form.

I hate it. Openers should open in one-day cricket, at least where England are concerned. No, you don't want Andrew Strausses or Michael Vaughans (or even Michael Athertons really) either but the only way we're going to go anywhere is by getting more Trescothicks. Or, ideally, getting the current Trescothick back. Sadly, there's little anyone can do to speed that to reality.

 

[stumpski]

Dog on field is always good for a laugh. Is it five runs if the ball hits it?

 

[Goughy]

The thing is, though, especially where England are concerned, "pinch" hitters have never worked. Strokeplaying opening batsmen have: Gooch, Knight, Trescothick. No-one, ever, has had success opening in ODIs for England who has not been an opening-batsman by trade.

For this reason, I've never been in favour of trying to manufacture ODI openers, regardless of that they may be strokeplayers. We've tried it with so many different people, cut from different cloths: people who've been good elsewhere; people who've been good elsewhere but are currently struggling; people who've played a bit elsewhere and done sod-all; people who've never played a ODI and had half a season of success domestically; and people who "he's a big-hitter" even though he's never opened in any way shape or form.

I hate it. Openers should open in one-day cricket, at least where England are concerned. No, you don't want Andrew Strausses or Michael Vaughans (or even Michael Athertons really) either but the only way we're going to go anywhere is by getting more Trescothicks. Or, ideally, getting the current Trescothick back. Sadly, there's little anyone can do to speed that to reality.

I see your point and agree with it in theory. However, in practice, Flintoff (however far from ideal) would address issues and strengthen the team.

Therefore, however little we may not like it, it gives England the best chance of winning games.

If the openers were doing a decent job at a decent rate and if Flintoff didnt look like he needed a change of scenery then I would never suggest it.

Practical application trumps ideological desire when needs must (does that make sense? I dont know )

 

[gettingbetter]

I was in favour of Flintoff opening for 4 good reasons

a) The current (at the time) openers couldnt buy a run
b) England were the slowest batting team in the power players and it usually cost them
c) Flintoff was struggling in his normal position and wasnt looking comfortable
d) It lengthened the batting line-up but pushing a specialist lower sown so if early wickets fell (as they had been doing) their would be secialist to rebuild rather than part-timers.

In an ideal world I wouldnt want him there, but with team composition and attitude it made/makes sense.

Basically there was no down side to it. There was the potential of fixing 4 problems with the only risk being losing Flintoffs poor production at his then current position.

In terms of pay off it was money for old rope

So Bell will be a de-facto opener?

 

[stumpski]

That's it! A little bit of history made by that run-out. Collingwood is the first England captain since Keith Fletcher to win an ODI in Sri Lanka.

 

[Richard]

I see your point and agree with it in theory. However, in practice, Flintoff (however far from ideal) would address issues and strengthen the team.

Therefore, however little we may not like it, it gives England the best chance of winning games.

If the openers were doing a decent job at a decent rate and if Flintoff didnt look like he needed a change of scenery then I would never suggest it.

Practical application trumps ideological desire when needs must (does that make sense? I dont know )

Likewise, I see your point. Having Flintoff open at that time, though, almost strikes me as short-term-fixism. A case of "let's try it and see", rather than "this looks like a good idea, we'll go for it".

I'd have been happiest, with the more long-term in mind, to try and get Flintoff back into the runs down the order, though I'm rapidly wondering if (if he ever plays again) whether that will happen.

 

[Richard]

Dog on field is always good for a laugh. Is it five runs if the ball hits it?

Well it's certainly not bloody helpful to the overrate.

 

[gettingbetter]

Likewise, I see your point. Having Flintoff open at that time, though, almost strikes me as short-term-fixism. A case of "let's try it and see", rather than "this looks like a good idea, we'll go for it".

I'd have been happiest, with the more long-term in mind, to try and get Flintoff back into the runs down the order, though I'm rapidly wondering if (if he ever plays again) whether that will happen.

Englishmen and realism. I would of never thought...

 

[Pup Clarke]

"We've had the white version, now hears the black"

 

[Goughy]

So Bell will be a de-facto opener?

Dont get me started on Bell

Still remember an interview that Bell did and he was asked about slow scoring early during the Power plays.

His answer was, (to paraphrase) "We dont play that way, others may look to score quickly early but our tactic is to build a steady platform"

Interviewer "You realise England are the only team with that approach"

Bell "Yes"

Nearly threw the remote though the TV.

 

[Jamee999]

Another thing that annoys me is continuously going back to proven failures like Shah, and they did it with Kabir Ali several times, and Solanki too, and Ian Blackwell (who was only picked as a bowler in his latest stint, before that it was always as a batsman despite him patently being possibly the worst batter of anyone ever picked for England in ODIs as a batsman). Hope the same won't happen with Strauss.

That proven ODI failure, Owais Shah....

 

[Richard]

To date, he still is. Today's was his first really, really impressive innings in his entire ODI career, though his 62 in his 2nd game was pretty good.

 

[stumpski]

Why is it de rigeur for presenters and summarisers on Sky to wear a suit and tie? Is that Gus Fraser? He's put on some weight, and he wasn't exactly a beanpole before.

 

[gettingbetter]

Dont get me started on Bell

Still remember an interview that Bell did and he was asked about slow scoring early during the Power plays.

His answer was, (to paraphrase) "We dont play that way, others may look to score quickly early but our tactic is to build a steady platform"

Interviewer "You realise England are the only team with that approach"

Bell "Yes"

Nearly threw the remote though the TV.

Well with you proposing that Flintoff open, Bell is pretty much a defacto opner, especially consdiering Flintoff's batting in the last 2 years. A number 3s nightmare that would be.

To date, he still is. Today's was his first really, really impressive innings in his entire ODI career, though his 62 in his 2nd game was pretty good.

Well, in his second stint (or his latest stint) as an ODI player, Shah's been averaging 50+. Doesn't tell the story considering the number of times he has had to re-build the innings.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Why is it de rigeur for presenters and summarisers on Sky to wear a suit and tie?

Quite often they just wear a Sky Sports shirt with no tie.

 

[Richard]

Well, in his second stint (or his latest stint) as an ODI player, Shah's been averaging 50+. Doesn't tell the story considering the number of times he has had to re-build the innings.

One good innings, one poor one since his fourth reintroducion.

In the current series, one good innings, one poor one.

 

[gettingbetter]

MOTS for me against the Windies and he did rather well against India. Not all bad.

Either way Richard, wouldn't Shah succeeding be an instance where you'd be happy in being wrong?