Can England become the #1 ODI side in the world

Just saw Flower say the next target for this side is to win the 2015 WC in Australia and NZ.

The last England ODI side to line up vs Sri Lanka, was as follows

Kieswetter (WK)
Cook (C)
Trott
Pieterson
Morgan
Bell
Patel
Bresnan
Swann
Anderson
Dernbach

1 area of worry for me remains the top 3, if Kieswetter goes early, will Cook and Trott be able fire in the powerplay overs? Pieterson on form is a destructive batsman, Morgan is a superstar in this format. Wonder if England would be tempted to try out Prior as a specialist batsman lower down the order.

Broad would obviously return in the bowling department, probably at the expense of Dernbach

For me England need to have the right mix between youth and experience. Here would be my team

1) Alex Hales
2) Alistair Cook (C)
3) Ian Bell
4) Kevin Pietersen
5) Eoin Morgan
6) Craig Kieswetter
7) Samit Patel
8) Tim Bresnan
9) Stuart Broad
10) Graeme Swann
11) James Anderson

Harsh to leave Trott out but for me he doesn't bat quick enough and when he does he often gets himself out.

Hitters down the order in Morgan, Kieswetter and Patel and also a very long batting line-up.

The bowlers really pick themselves, all in good form and all have good One-Day records.

To answer your question, I think England can become the number 1 ODI side but not for a few years yet. The India One-Day series will give us a clue if England can or can't be the number 1 in the world. A series win over them would be big.

if you are going to leave out trott then Taylor has to come in not Bell surely

bell has been given enough chances and just hasnt cut it in the ODIs

Personally for me England are a long way from being the best ODI side.

Firstly you need to factor in home conditions, we play 10 home ODIs per year and half can be effected by cloud cover etc. 90% of ODIs are played on flat tracks and therefore sides like India, Australia and South Africa are better than us.

Without something for the seamers, we normally get tonked around, we need someone with express pace. Look at Australia and South Africa, numerous 90+ mph bowlers.

The current pansies of Indian team are easier to beat than Bangladesh.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:if you are going to leave out trott then Taylor has to come in not Bell surely

bell has been given enough chances and just hasnt cut it in the ODIs

That's because Bells been down the order, he hasn't had the time to play himself and make a big score so he's often found needing to throw the bat when he comes in.

Liam_Main wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:if you are going to leave out trott then Taylor has to come in not Bell surely

bell has been given enough chances and just hasnt cut it in the ODIs

That's because Bells been down the order, he hasn't had the time to play himself and make a big score so he's often found needing to throw the bat when he comes in.

Bell has previously opened and batted at 3, he's not up to the mark in ODIs, 1 hundred in 100 games. Shocking!

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:Personally for me England are a long way from being the best ODI side.

Firstly you need to factor in home conditions, we play 10 home ODIs per year and half can be effected by cloud cover etc. 90% of ODIs are played on flat tracks and therefore sides like India, Australia and South Africa are better than us.

Without something for the seamers, we normally get tonked around, we need someone with express pace. Look at Australia and South Africa, numerous 90+ mph bowlers.

Broad and Bresnan are getting faster in ODI's, look at the Sri Lanka series both often hitting 90MPH.

Liam_Main wrote:

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:Personally for me England are a long way from being the best ODI side.

Firstly you need to factor in home conditions, we play 10 home ODIs per year and half can be effected by cloud cover etc. 90% of ODIs are played on flat tracks and therefore sides like India, Australia and South Africa are better than us.

Without something for the seamers, we normally get tonked around, we need someone with express pace. Look at Australia and South Africa, numerous 90+ mph bowlers.

Broad and Bresnan are getting faster in ODI's, look at the Sri Lanka series both often hitting 90MPH.

but I wouldn't call Broad or Bresnan a 'speedster'. Lee and Morkel for example just look rapid.

But he batted at 4 and 5 in the Aus odis and wc and didnt do much either.
taylor averages 50 in list a cricket.you cant keep him out.

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:if you are going to leave out trott then Taylor has to come in not Bell surely

bell has been given enough chances and just hasnt cut it in the ODIs

That's because Bells been down the order, he hasn't had the time to play himself and make a big score so he's often found needing to throw the bat when he comes in.

Bell has previously opened and batted at 3, he's not up to the mark in ODIs, 1 hundred in 100 games. Shocking!

For a England fan you sound very anti-English. Complaining about Swann and now Bell..

Bell batted at 3 a long time ago, he's a far better player now than he was then.

Liam_Main wrote:

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:if you are going to leave out trott then Taylor has to come in not Bell surely

bell has been given enough chances and just hasnt cut it in the ODIs

That's because Bells been down the order, he hasn't had the time to play himself and make a big score so he's often found needing to throw the bat when he comes in.

Bell has previously opened and batted at 3, he's not up to the mark in ODIs, 1 hundred in 100 games. Shocking!

For a England fan you sound very anti-English. Complaining about Swann and now Bell..

Bell batted at 3 a long time ago, he's a far better player now than he was then.

I think, like Shanky, that Taylor deserves a go. Bell has dah 100 games, give a youngster a go.

But he batted at 4 and 5 in the Aus odis and wc and didnt do much either.
taylor averages 50 in list a cricket.you cant keep him out.

England put Bopara over Taylor so I doubt there going to put Taylor over Bell!

Bells in the form of his life he can't show that if he's down at number 6.

Liam
your team is heavily short of bowling.patel doesnt bowl his full quota of overs for notts so to expect him to bowl 10 overs every game for england is asking for way too much.if you are going to pick patel then you need another batsman in the team who can bowl.i would pick ben stokes instead of hales and kieswetter should continue to open with cook.why split what so far has been a successful opening pair for england in their short stint?

Stokes hasn't bowled much for Durham this season in the shorter format so I wouldn't look to him to bowl 10 overs.

Reason I have Kieswetter down the order is that we have alongside Patel a finisher of the innings. Something England have lacked of late.

kieswetter opens for somerset.if he is a finisher then so is Stokes.
my team would be

cook
kieswetter
kp
taylor/trott
morgs
stokes
patel
bresnan
broady
swanny
jimmy

Stokes isn't a finisher of the innings he bats 3/4 for Durham.

So then what would you have Stokes for Bell or Taylor for Bell? Both won't get into the team.

No

Liam
i by mistake edited my previous post instead of posting a new one <doh>
ok so plz read the post and reply.

In a word, no.

England has a fair way to go in the ODI game. when there is a helpful sky above, there bowling becomes absolutely lethal, and Swann' s presence would make life dificult for the batting side.
However, their flat wicket gamee is not quite up there as yet.

MSP
Thanks for the insight from an outside perspective - you make a very good point that England almost have to develop 2 ODI teams, one to compete in home conditions where having technically solid batsmen at the top of the order and a line-up of fast medium seam/swing bowlers will be necessary, and one to compete on the flat wickets elsewhere in the world, where having batsmen who play aggressively through the line of the ball and bowlers with a lot of control and variations are necessary.

Makes it much harder to be consistent, especially when we do not target ODIs to the same extent as some of the other nations.

There are plenty of issues to sort out before England start thinking about becoming number 1 in the shorter format. There's the Cook/Trott/Bell combination in the top 6 made more pertinent by KP's wretched ODi form, the lack of a genuine number 7 and a 6th/7th bowling option from the batsmen.

All Bell's best scores have come when he was in the top 3, including his century. If he plays that's where he belongs.

Has England given up on Paul Colingwood a touch too soon?

England line Up in bowler friendly conditions

Cook
Kieswetter
Trott
KP
Morgan
Stokes
Patel
Bresnan
Swann
Broad
Anderson


England Line Up on Flat Pitches

Cook
Kieswetter
KP
Taylor
Morgan
Stokes
Patel
Bresnan
Swann
Broad
Briggs/Dernbach

Think Anderson has evolved as a bowler, and although he's doubly effective in swinging conditions, he's been a wicket taker in ODIs in general.
I am not really convinced by Dernbach even in helpful conditions, certainly not on flat tracks.

Oh I forgot that there will be two new balls from each end.
That should suit Jimmy.
Jimmy doesnt bowl well at the death.So we should bowl him out.So he will be able to swing the ball throughout and will be a consistent threat.

Broady and Bresnan can bowl at the death.

I think the potential is there however alot of is needed to do and under flower i think there is a chance it could be achieved, they have come on well over the last 2 years or so in test matches and i cant see why the same cant be done for ODI's

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:
1 area of worry for me remains the top 3, if Kieswetter goes early, will Cook and Trott be able fire in the powerplay overs?

As an Essex fan (admittedly so because of Cook's double century against the Aussies in 2005), I've been following Essex in pretty much every game since 2005. Cook managed to blast a 56-ball century in a domestic T20 game either last year or two years ago. Moreover his 83-ball 95 proves he can hit it about at the top level. He has got the shots and ability to score quickly, it's just a matter of form and confidence.

The selectors have put faith in him being able to score big and quickly at the international level, and only time will tell if they've done so correctly.

Why is Kieswetter ahead of Prior?
One is a proven world class performer who scores at a silly rate in Tests, the other just seems like a poor replacement.

Prior failed when he opened the batting as england seem to want an opener, Kieswetter has come in and done well enough so far as he did in the Sri Lanka series.

Kieswetter averages 32 from 17 games in ODI's
Prior averages 24 from 68 games in ODI's

i dont think we can become no1 odi side.

ReallyReal wrote:Why is Kieswetter ahead of Prior?
One is a proven world class performer who scores at a silly rate in Tests, the other just seems like a poor replacement.

Kieswetter had a terrific One-Day series in Sri Lanka he won't be dropped.

Priors had his chance but hasn't delivered in the shorter forms of the game.

The point of Kieswetter is to take advantage of the powerplays, an area England were shamefully poor in under Fletcher. His job is to boost the run rate to above 7-8 runs an over.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:The point of Kieswetter is to take advantage of the powerplays, an area England were shamefully poor in under Fletcher. His job is to boost the run rate to above 7-8 runs an over.

Exactly right and up to this point he's done well doing so.

Liam_Main wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:The point of Kieswetter is to take advantage of the powerplays, an area England were shamefully poor in under Fletcher. His job is to boost the run rate to above 7-8 runs an over.

Exactly right and up to this point he's done well doing so.

Not as well as Davies.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:The point of Kieswetter is to take advantage of the powerplays, an area England were shamefully poor in under Fletcher. His job is to boost the run rate to above 7-8 runs an over.

Exactly right and up to this point he's done well doing so.

Not as well as Davies.

Davies- 8 Matches 244 Runs @30

Kieswetter- 17 matches 524 Runs @32

Not a lot between them really.

Kieswetter also has a better List A record than Davies.

Liam_Main wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:The point of Kieswetter is to take advantage of the powerplays, an area England were shamefully poor in under Fletcher. His job is to boost the run rate to above 7-8 runs an over.

Exactly right and up to this point he's done well doing so.

Not as well as Davies.

Davies- 8 Matches 244 Runs @30

Kieswetter- 17 matches 524 Runs @32

Not a lot between them really.

Kieswetter S/R 89
Davies S/R 105

So Davies seems to exploit the powerplays better.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:The point of Kieswetter is to take advantage of the powerplays, an area England were shamefully poor in under Fletcher. His job is to boost the run rate to above 7-8 runs an over.

Exactly right and up to this point he's done well doing so.

Not as well as Davies.

Davies- 8 Matches 244 Runs @30

Kieswetter- 17 matches 524 Runs @32

Not a lot between them really.

Hard to base Davies' SR when he's only played 8 matches.
Kieswetter S/R 89
Davies S/R 105

So Davies seems to exploit the powerplays better.

Hard to base Davies' SR when he's only played 8 matches.

Fact is Kieswetter was the one chosen has done well so far and his place shouldnt be in doubt until he doesnt perform

Hoggy
What is your obsession with Davies despite kiesy doing well?
why does davies deserve a place ahead of kieswetter when his List A record is significantly inferior to that of kieswetter.


kies averages 41 in List A cricket davies averages 37.
kies has 8 centuries in 82 List A matches.
davies only has 5 centuries despite playing 117 matches.
i dont know davies' s/r in List A cricket but kieswetter's s/r in List A cricket is 92 which is hardly a disgrace.i am sure davies' s/r isnt much(if at all) higher.
Better Average
Far Better centuries per match ratio
and similar s/r

Plz dont compare their ODI S/r because kies has played 17 matches compared to davies' 8 and has a slightly higher average than davies.his s/r may not be quite as high but i dont think having a s/r of over 100 matches after just 8 matches is any sort of acheivement.

their keeping is very similar.
and kies offers us a right left combo at the top.
and dont forget he was the 3rd highest run getter in our World T20 triumph.And MoM in the WT20 which suggests to me that he is a man for the big occasion.
Is that not enough for you Hoggy?

ok so on a slightly superstitious note we have won 12 and lost only 5 ODIs out of the 17 that he has played.
We have lost 5 and won only 3 ODIs out of Davies' 8.
we have also won the world t20 with kieswetter performing well.

he forms a good partnership with cook and both have done well so far.

Hoggy i hope these reasons are enough.if not,compare their List A records once again.

so plz stop this obsession with davies.

you are a very good poster hoggy.I think you didnt know their List A records.Thats why you said davies is better.

what do you think now mate?

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Hoggy
What is your obsession with Davies despite kiesy doing well?
why does davies deserve a place ahead of kieswetter when his List A record is significantly inferior to that of kieswetter.


kies averages 41 in List A cricket davies averages 37.
kies has 8 centuries in 82 List A matches.
davies only has 5 centuries despite playing 117 matches.
i dont know davies' s/r in List A cricket but kieswetter's s/r in List A cricket is 92 which is hardly a disgrace.i am sure davies' s/r isnt much(if at all) higher.
Better Average
Far Better centuries per match ratio
and similar s/r

Plz dont compare their ODI S/r because kies has played 17 matches compared to davies' 8 and has a slightly higher average than davies.his s/r may not be quite as high but i dont think having a s/r of over 100 matches after just 8 matches is any sort of acheivement.

their keeping is very similar.
and kies offers us a right left combo at the top.
and dont forget he was the 3rd highest run getter in our World T20 triumph.And MoM in the WT20 which suggests to me that he is a man for the big occasion.
Is that not enough for you Hoggy?

ok so on a slightly superstitious note we have won 12 and lost only 5 ODIs out of the 17 that he has played.
We have lost 5 and won only 3 ODIs out of Davies' 8.
we have also won the world t20 with kieswetter performing well.

he forms a good partnership with cook and both have done well so far.

Hoggy i hope these reasons are enough.if not,compare their List A records once again.

so plz stop this obsession with davies.

you are a very good poster hoggy.I think you didnt know their List A records.Thats why you said davies is better.

what do you think now mate?

Comparing Kieswetter and Davies List A records is slightly flawed.

When Davies played for Worcestershire, New Road all ways had something in it for the seamers. Kieswetter has all ways played on the flat roads at Taunton.

Kieswetter's ODI average is better, but he has a ton vs Bangladesh and a 60 odd vs Ireland - hardly world class opposition. He was found out by the Australians last year, the 5 match home series, Harris and Tait where all over him.

Keisswetter vs Davies is a side issue, the fact noone can agree suggests they are much of a muchnesss. Its the balance of the side elsehwerre thats the issue.

Vaughan is big talking up Stokes as England number 6 for ODIS ahead of the likes of Bell and Taylor. He wants a player who can clear the ropes and keep the technical batsmen for the top 5.
Cook, Keiswetter, KP, Trott (or bell is hes not fit), Morgan , Stokes for him

My thoughts:

On Davies vs Kieswetter:
My personal opinion is Davies is marginally the better batsman, but they are actually quite different. I think Davies is good for a quick 20-50 at the top of the order, but unlikely to play a significant innings, whereas Kieswetter is more prone to failing, but when he gets in can score big. Davies will score faster for the first 30 or so runs as with Kieswetter it's basically 4 or nothing early on.

England dropped Davies not for his performances but apparently because he wasn't vocal enough in the field which I always thought was harsh, but the management have made noises for a while now that they want centuries from the top order, so with that in mind Kieswetter kinda makes sense, providing he can score them against top opposition.

On Samit patel:
I don't rate his bowling very highly, so either he is in as part of the top 6 or he isn't. I don't think we can rely on him (or him and Stokes) producing 10 overs regularly. But then I've never seen Stokes bowl so I could be wrong on that count.

On the balance of the side:
With Bresnan at 7, Broad 8 and Swann 9 there is surely enough batting to play 50 overs. The top 6 should then be your 6 best batsmen in this form of the game as balanced. I am unconvinced Cook should be there but let's give him his chance. Trott has a stellar record, I know he isn't everyone's idea of a power player but his T20 record is also excellent suggesting he can bat quickly. Whether he should play at 3 is up for debate, but Pietersen isn't solid enough there so for now he'll have to do. If Taylor is indeed the goods I'd like to see him at 3 (in time), Trott/Pietersen 4 and 5 and Morgan 6.

Other options: Stokes is clearly talented, people have mentioned Butler also. Clearly these are big-hitting options but don't forget you need guile (Clarke, Hussey, Bevan, etc...) as well. The awesome thing about Morgan is he can do both.

From my point of view i would sooner England remained the No1 test team in the world. Test Cricket is real Cricket in my eyes.

The Judge wrote:From my point of view i would sooner England remained the No1 test team in the world. Test Cricket is real Cricket in my eyes.

agree 100 percent.

The Judge wrote:From my point of view i would sooner England remained the No1 test team in the world. Test Cricket is real Cricket in my eyes.

There is the problem what faces England. Look at the great Windies and Aussie teams, they won everything ICC WC's and Test series. To vbe regarded a great side, you have to dominate all forms.