***Official*** Sri Lanka in England

[dinu23]

Having watched the 3 ODIs , I feel sad that England are not competing well in ODIs .

me too. I mean it's not as if they don't have good players. It seems they're not clicking as a unit.

 

[dinu23]

With the extra 5 power play overs the par score these days is 280-290 in most grounds IMO and 250-260 is only par score if there is something in the pitch for the bowlers.

I thought 260 was a good score. If only their bowlers bowled good line and length the result would have been close. poor Struass, he was really let down by his bowlers.

 

[superkingdave]

The game was lost in the first 20 overs when England failed to make use of the power play overs for the 3rd time running. We still seem to think a 'solid start' is what we need, when it is far easier to score runs in the first 20 overs than to play catch up later on. We saw in the first 2 ODI's that SL won because of the runs they scored in the power plays - they actually didn't score that many in the last 20 both times.

When chasing (especially a big score) you need to be ahead of the rate early on, as you know you aren't going to score at 6's and 7's between 20-40 overs.

SL are also just a better side than us

 

[a massive zebra]

What can you expect if the selection of frontline bowlers is based almost entirely on pace rather than quality. This entirely erronuous theory has really come back to haunt them.

 

[Craig]

I know England has lost some key players, but there is not what I would have expected from them.

Doesn't bode too well with a World Cup nearly around the corner.

 

[grecian]

I'm sorry ...but i have to laugh at some of the english fans on this website that predicted around 12 months ago that England would be a real force at the 2007 W.C and how their oneday side was on the up. I won't mention names ...you know who you are

I think there was only one name tbh, most of us realise we rank with Bangladesh and Zim, without freddie in one-dayers.


still, theres always the agonies of the football, whixch I'm trying to distract myself from at the moment

 

[Top_Cat]

What can you expect if the selection of frontline bowlers is based almost entirely on pace rather than quality. This entirely erronuous theory has really come back to haunt them.

Bit hard to argue that Plunkett and Bresnan were picked on the basis of pace.

Plus of the bowlers in your other post, Richard Johnson wrecked Zimbabwe, Kirtley in the early days was a bowler picked on pace alone did well initially and was then spanked in SL and Saggers struggled against weak opposition.

England's best bowlers of late have been at their best when bowling 90+ (Jones Harmison and Flintoff) so it's not a bit surprising that English selectors would try to continue the tradition. Sure picking bowler solely on pace isn't always a good idea but it's orders of magnitude better than in the 90's when medium-fast county specialists were getting chance after chance (and getting spanked) whilst genuine wicket-takers warmed the bench, only getting a chance when they were worn-down enough to become 'county trundlers'.

 

[Goughy]

England have an unofficial policy of only picking players who are 6'4"+, young and bowl at above decent pace. I will try and find the quote that stated this. (BTW Hoggard was selected before this policy was introduced).

I have no problem with this in theory but in reality it dangerously narrows the talent pool and leaves players like Saj who seem only to be picked because they fit the criteria rather than on their actual ability to bowl.

There needs to be increased flexibility in the selection policy to allow players who are not perfect bowling specimins but are capable of being successful at the next level.

 

[a massive zebra]

Plus of the bowlers in your other post, Richard Johnson wrecked Zimbabwe,

You can only perform against the teams you are up against, and he did that perfectly.

Kirtley in the early days was a bowler picked on pace alone

Kirtley was emphatically not selected for his pace alone as there have always been plenty of faster bowlers in county cricket. In reality, he was selected primarily in recognition of his consistent performances for Sussex over a number of years (and I believe he may have been the highest wicket taker in first class cricket during the year prior to his selection). The fact that he did have decent pace was entirely incidental.

and was then spanked in SL

He was spanked in one match. Warne has had at least a dozen worse matches than that and yet he is the bowler most likely to win any "best bowler ever" vote.

It seems to me that if a fast bowler like Sajid Mahmood gets consistently hammered it is put down to inexperience and they are persisted with yet if a slower bowler like Kirtley or Lewis have one bad game they are immediately dropped and written off as too slow.

Saggers struggled against weak opposition.

The only weak opposition Saggers played was Bangladesh against whom he averaged 20.

 

[a massive zebra]

in reality it dangerously narrows the talent pool and leaves players like Saj who seem only to be picked because they fit the criteria rather than on their actual ability to bowl.

There needs to be increased flexibility in the selection policy to allow players who are not perfect bowling specimins but are capable of being successful at the next level.

Spot on.

 

[superkingdave]

Kirtley still has a dodgy action apparently

 

[steds]

Apparently?

 

[superkingdave]

well allegedy then, he was out remodelling his action, and when he came back he was useless, strangely enough his action is now not the same as when he came back and he's taking wickets.

admittedly, one of the main accusers is hardly a paragon of virtue, being Shane Warne

 

[tooextracool]

The game was lost in the first 20 overs when England failed to make use of the power play overs for the 3rd time running.

the game was really lost when they selected the squads for the tournament. I mean when are people going to realise that its not just England underperforming in tests and ODIs but the fact that more than half of the players in the current squad dont deserve a place in the side while the others are debatable? The Ashes and the ODI series last year were a fluke, they had far too much luck in their favor rather than simply being the better team.

 

[steds]

well allegedy then, he was out remodelling his action, and when he came back he was useless, strangely enough his action is now not the same as when he came back and he's taking wickets.

admittedly, one of the main accusers is hardly a paragon of virtue, being Shane Warne

I was asking an "is there any doubt?" question. Although I didn't know he'd remodelled it and come back. Suppose it's a while since I've seen him.

 

[tooextracool]

Bit hard to argue that Plunkett and Bresnan were picked on the basis of pace.

plunkett was not picked on pace? What else does plunkett offer other than pace?
Plunkett has been struggling for his county, he barely has any variations with the ball and he hasnt performed (bar one game) in his entire career, and its not hard to see why not. Plunkett may not be express but you wouldnt put him down in the hoggard category of pace. Fact is that 90+mph bowlers arent exactly a dime a dozen in county cricket, and if you're looking your pace, you're looking for the next best options- 85 mph bowlers. then you get plunkett and saj

England's best bowlers of late have been at their best when bowling 90+ (Jones Harmison and Flintoff) so it's not a bit surprising that English selectors would try to continue the tradition. Sure picking bowler solely on pace isn't always a good idea but it's orders of magnitude better than in the 90's when medium-fast county specialists were getting chance after chance (and getting spanked) whilst genuine wicket-takers warmed the bench, only getting a chance when they were worn-down enough to become 'county trundlers'.

When it comes to ODI cricket pace has never been an issue. in fact some of the best bowlers in ODIs have been ones who were only medium pace.
As far as tests are concerned, pace is definetly an asset, but to pick someone based on pace alone is inane. No bowler has ever succeeded with pace alone, theres always been the need for variety and accuracy. Going back to the 90s how many of these 'genuine wicket taking 90 mph bowlers' were in the county system? Id be quite surprised if there were any at all who didnt get their chances at the international level.

 

[tooextracool]

Bit hard to argue that Plunkett and Bresnan were picked on the basis of pace.

I would not be surprised at all if Bresnan was picked as Graveney's answer to the future Flintoff. The fact that he was picked in a series in which Flintoff was injured isnt likely to be coincidental either.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm sorry ...but i have to laugh at some of the english fans on this website that predicted around 12 months ago that England would be a real force at the 2007 W.C and how their oneday side was on the up. I won't mention names ...you know who you are

some like David Lloyd still think that is the case. I think the most laughable claim was Duncan Fletcher telling everyone that he knew 10 out of 11 players of his world cup side already.

 

[tooextracool]

Is there a reason England are picking every player in the county system right now? I know there are some injuries but considering we're talking ODI's, surely Darren Gough must be feeling a bit left-oput right about now....... (unless he's injured too).

I think its very much like what Harmison said. Gough is the last option. They feel that they can always turn to him if they need him for the world cup and that they should focus on discovering some fresh talent until then. Which is fine, but it would help if they picked players with talent, not Kabir Ali

 

[marc71178]

I'm sorry ...but i have to laugh at some of the english fans on this website that predicted around 12 months ago that England would be a real force at the 2007 W.C and how their oneday side was on the up. I won't mention names ...you know who you are

All 1 of him.