*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

[Richard]

In other words, good bowling will be more effective. Bad bowling on the other hand will still get the treatment. That's why the new ball - the only time in a ODI where it's usually genuinely plausible to bowl wicket-taking deliveries - is a time where looking to take wickets is a legit pursuit.

Which, yes, is exactly what I said in the above post and have said so many times before.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Hardly. The 4 wickets could be from bad deliveries. The innings needs rebuilding, the batsman take fewer risks no matter what the bowling is like and the scoring is slower. Hence the scoring is slowed down by the fall of wickets and not accurate bowling.

 

[FBU]

Hardly. The 4 wickets could be from bad deliveries. The innings needs rebuilding, the batsman take fewer risks no matter what the bowling is like and the scoring is slower. Hence the scoring is slowed down by the fall of wickets and not accurate bowling.

I agree.

 

[Richard]

Hardly. The 4 wickets could be from bad deliveries.

In which case obviously it's merely bad bowling being effective, same way wayward bowling not getting the treatment is. This does obviously happen from time to time because batsmen are not supermen, but such things tend to be relatively small minorities. And I wasn't, in any case, talking about them, because wickets with bad deliveries have nothing to do with what the bowler has done right.

The innings needs rebuilding, the batsman take fewer risks no matter what the bowling is like and the scoring is slower. Hence the scoring is slowed down by the fall of wickets and not accurate bowling.

Smashing rubbish bowling isn't taking risks. Ergo no amount of reduction in risk-taking (whether caused by fall of wickets or anything else) will slow the scoring-rate against inaccurate bowling. Reduction in risk-taking will, however, increase the effect of high-quality accurate bowling.

 

[Furball]

Hardly. The 4 wickets could be from bad deliveries. The innings needs rebuilding, the batsman take fewer risks no matter what the bowling is like and the scoring is slower. Hence the scoring is slowed down by the fall of wickets and not accurate bowling.

Case in point, the first 10-12 overs of Australia's chase in the CT final. While there's no doubt that Bond and Mills were bowling superbly, the loss of 2 wickets for **** all meant that White and Watson built slowly, before unleashing later in their innings.

Without further wickets, Australia's chase turned into a bit of a cakewalk.

Wickets in ODIs are vital.

 

[Richard]

That had nothing to do with anything concerning wickets and is purely due to the fact that Bond and Mills are excellent bowlers while Franklin, Butler and Patel are all dreadful. If that attack had been Bond, Tuffey, Mills, Oram, Vettori then the economy would, in likelihood, have been much more wide-ranging.

In any case chasing 200 is hardly a good example of anything. Goes without saying that you've got virtually no chance of defending that without quite a few early wickets. I'm talking about when you're a) fielding first or b) defending a reasonable score.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Of all the crank theories put forward the idea that taking wickets can't be an effective way of slowing the scoring unless the bowling is accurate has to be the daftest yet. Whether it be early wickets or removing established batsman mid-innings it's just basic common sense that the number wickets in hand can have a great effect on the scoring rate.

 

[aussie]

Fair enough but it shouldn't be completely written off - you can't get much tougher than making your International debut in a deciding Ashes Test match, so it's been a good showcase for his temperament.

Not really. Darren Ganga scored back to back test hundreds vs AUS in 2003 & looked what happened to him. Not saying Trott will go down that road, but test form doesn't equal ODI success & IMO based on what i've seen of Trott in domestic ODIs opening is not his best role.

 

[aussie]

Because unlike you I don't accept mediocre batsmen who are useless in the field and won't let 1 innings change that.

Nonsense. He has 2 bad series in 2 years & doesn't deserve to be dropped as he has been now especially when these idiot selectors have recalled Cook.

Who said anything about batting them at 7? There's an opening at the top of the order - and Davies is more than deserving of a shot at it.

Clearly you aren't reading properly. How is there a vacany at the top of the order when Denly is currently Strauss's partner?. The option of Kieswetter & Davies opening cannot happen unless Denly fails in SA or Strauss regresses after a solid 09 of ODI batting.

The whole point of me saying Prior in a NON Flintoff ODI XI should bat @ 7, is because it suits the balance much better than to pick 6 batsmen & a bits a pieces player like Wright @ 7.

He's done nothing to justify the chances - yet there's someone who has. Like I say, it's not rocket science.

How could he justify a chance to bat in his more natural position when due to selectorial blunders of the past, he was batted out of position for most of his ODI career & failed.

Based on this logic India should have dropped Laxman because he failed as an opener in tests back in the late 90s

 

[aussie]

Yeah but don't you know that runs scored in doemstic cricket in England aren't worth anything?!!!!!!!!! [/aussie mode]

You can mock me son, but thats the hardcore truth about domestic OD cricket in England.

 

[Richard]

Of all the crank theories put forward the idea that taking wickets can't be an effective way of slowing the scoring unless the bowling is accurate has to be the daftest yet. Whether it be early wickets or removing established batsman mid-innings it's just basic common sense that the number wickets in hand can have a great effect on the scoring rate.

By-and-large, inaccurate bowling gets smashed in a 50-over game, however many wickets are or are not in hand, and however long the batsmen have been at the crease. It's as simple as that.

You'd have to a) be a crank or b) not have watched much ODI cricket to think otherwise, in fact.

 

[four_or_six]

By-and-large, inaccurate bowling gets smashed in a 50-over game, however many wickets are or are not in hand, and however long the batsmen have been at the crease. It's as simple as that.

You'd have to a) be a crank or b) not have watched much ODI cricket to think otherwise, in fact.

I'm a crank.

 

[Richard]

Nah. I reckon you're just misinformed, same as others who think inaccurate bowling can be got away with in ODIs just because wickets are falling.

(BTW the crank reference was of course just a rehash - it's not a word of which I'm remotely fond. Others are though.)

 

[four_or_six]

Nah. I reckon you're just misinformed, same as others who think inaccurate bowling can be got away with in ODIs just because wickets are falling.

(BTW the crank reference was of course just a rehash - it's not a word of which I'm remotely fond. Others are though.)

There's a difference between 'inaccurate bowling can be got away with when wickets are falling' to 'taking wickets isn't a good way to slow the run rate down'. The former, I think is sometimes the case... the latter I think is definitely not true in general, although obviously there are exceptions.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There's a difference between 'inaccurate bowling can be got away with when wickets are falling' to 'taking wickets isn't a good way to slow the run rate down'. The former, I think is sometimes the case... the latter I think is definitely not true in general, although obviously there are exceptions.

It is very basic. If a team is for example 100-5 with a lot of overs in hand the batsman at the crease are more careful no matter how inaccurate the bowling is and are inferior batsman less likely to take advantage of poor bowling. It's just blindingly obvious to every person on the planet (except one crank).

 

[Richard]

There's a difference between 'inaccurate bowling can be got away with when wickets are falling' to 'taking wickets isn't a good way to slow the run rate down'. The former, I think is sometimes the case... the latter I think is definitely not true in general, although obviously there are exceptions.

Taking wickets is indeed a good way to help accurate bowling keep the run-rate low. It is not a good way to enable inaccurate bowling to be economical.

The only way in which inaccurate, penetrative bowling is going to result in a lower total than accurate, not-particularly-penetrative bowling is if you bowl your oppo out well before the allotted 50 overs. And it's incredibly difficult to bowl with penetration after about the 20th over or so with a white ball, because they simply stop doing anything much about then.

 

[marc71178]

Nonsense. He has 2 bad series in 2 years & doesn't deserve to be dropped as he has been now especially when these idiot selectors have recalled Cook.

In the last 2 years he's played 10 series and averaged less than 27 in half of them - that's more than 2

Clearly you aren't reading properly. How is there a vacany at the top of the order when Denly is currently Strauss's partner?

Because Denly's not done enough to cement a place (hence the selectors have called another opener into the squad?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

As this is supposed to be about the England team it might be worth keeping up to date here as well as in the Tour Thread.

The latest squad has seven international quality cricketers and some of those are borderline.

Andrew Strauss, James Anderson, Tim Bresnan, Stuart Broad, Paul Collingwood, Alastair Cook, Joe Denly, Sajid Mahmood, Eoin Morgan, Graham Onions, Kevin Pietersen, Matt Prior, Adil Rashid, Graeme Swann, Jonathan Trott, Luke Wright.

 

[aussie]

In the last 2 years he's played 10 series and averaged less than 27 in half of them - that's more than 2

Am Shah was recalled to ODI team after 6 years of being in & out vs WI in 2007 and he has played 11 series (leaving out 1 off matches), namely:

1. vs WI 07
2. vs IND 07
3. vs SRI 07
4. vs NZ 08 (away)
5. vs NZ 08 (home)
6. vs SA 08
7. vs IND 08
8. vs WI 09 (away)
9. vs WI 09 (home)
10. vs AUS 09
11. CT 09

During this period he has avered 35 with two bad series vs NZ 08 (away) & vs AUS recently.

Because Denly's not done enough to cement a place (hence the selectors have called another opener into the squad?

Your logic really hurts my head sometimes. The man has just started, what do you want immediate success? - geez yo. Morgan before the CT barely played ONE impressive innings during the ODI series vs AUS & was struggling a bit to replicate that natural talent that was on display for middlesex. Denly having also being picked on similar gorunds - clearly deserved a extended run in the ODI side during the SA ODI series.

 

[marc71178]

Am Shah was recalled to ODI team after 6 years of being in & out vs WI in 2007 and he has played 11 series (leaving out 1 off matches), namely:
(BIG SNIP)
During this period he has avered 35 with two bad series vs NZ 08 (away) & vs AUS recently.

You claimed 2 bad series in 2 years, thus that prescribes anything over 21 as not being bad. I don't care what his overall average is when he's been that bad over that period of time.

Your logic really hurts my head sometimes. The man has just started, what do you want immediate success? - geez yo. Morgan before the CT barely played ONE impressive innings during the ODI series vs AUS & was struggling a bit to replicate that natural talent that was on display for middlesex. Denly having also being picked on similar gorunds - clearly deserved a extended run in the ODI side during the SA ODI series.

On what basis does he clearly deserve an extended run considering his results to date? my view is that an extended run is deserved if someone has actually performed. He may turn out to be a good player in the future, but seeing as the selectors have called up a 3rd opener (when there's potential fill ins in the squad already) - I suspect they're considering his position as well...