Champions Trophy - England and Wales 2013

trebellbobaggins wrote:Yeah they have bowled really well and justified not having Finn.

I still think the middle part of the batting got it wrong though and that needs addressing.

If we face SL in these conditions they will get a very high score.

alfie wrote:...and I trust those who were calling for Ashley Giles' head earlier today will have the good grace to admit he might know a bit more about the game than they assumed

Mike Selig wrote:Easy enough for England who played to their plan. People may not like it, and it may be limited in the sense that if they come up against a Gayle, Watson, Guptil etc who has a big day then they'll struggle to counter it, but with England's resources it's surely the best plan available.

As alfie and others have pointed out, England simply don't (in the absence of a Pietersen) have a player who can play that role. Root may eventually be able to, but so far there is no evidence of that, and a pseudo-global tournament is not the right time to experiment with that. We've seen in the past that trying to have an aggressor at the top of the order for the sake of it doesn't work - you need a genuine quality player in that role.

Does it make for particularly exciting cricket? no. Does it work? most of the time, if the last couple of years are anything to go by, yes.

msp83 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Easy enough for England who played to their plan. People may not like it, and it may be limited in the sense that if they come up against a Gayle, Watson, Guptil etc who has a big day then they'll struggle to counter it, but with England's resources it's surely the best plan available.

As alfie and others have pointed out, England simply don't (in the absence of a Pietersen) have a player who can play that role. Root may eventually be able to, but so far there is no evidence of that, and a pseudo-global tournament is not the right time to experiment with that. We've seen in the past that trying to have an aggressor at the top of the order for the sake of it doesn't work - you need a genuine quality player in that role.

Does it make for particularly exciting cricket? no. Does it work? most of the time, if the last couple of years are anything to go by, yes.

Well, I believe its a bit of a misconception to suggest that the go-slow and leave everything to Morgan and the lower middle order in the last 15 approach has helped England for the last couple of years. For a start, in the UAE, when they blanked Pakistan, Pietersen opened with Cook, who himself showed terrific intent right from the start. Cook consistently provided them positive starts throughout 2011, having brought about the much needed intent to his batting. Even when they lost against India in 2011, Cook played a very positive brand of cricket. Even against South Africa, Bell often tried to play positively, and so did Cook, but with less success admittedly. In fact Kevin Pietersen was moved up the order during the 2011 world cup with a view to showing greater intent.
Cook's lack of big scores, and the absence of Pietersen isn't helping England in recent times, but the lack of intent from Trott and Bell is a more serious concern. For me, the natural game theory doesn't hold much water. Perhaps Giles should study Rahul Dravid's ODI career a bit closely.

Marcus wrote:England (and Giles) bailed out by their world class bowling line up again. The batting still isn't up to scratch. We were lucky to be up against a 3rd rate Australia team.

Mike Selig wrote:

msp83 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Easy enough for England who played to their plan. People may not like it, and it may be limited in the sense that if they come up against a Gayle, Watson, Guptil etc who has a big day then they'll struggle to counter it, but with England's resources it's surely the best plan available.

As alfie and others have pointed out, England simply don't (in the absence of a Pietersen) have a player who can play that role. Root may eventually be able to, but so far there is no evidence of that, and a pseudo-global tournament is not the right time to experiment with that. We've seen in the past that trying to have an aggressor at the top of the order for the sake of it doesn't work - you need a genuine quality player in that role.

Does it make for particularly exciting cricket? no. Does it work? most of the time, if the last couple of years are anything to go by, yes.

Well, I believe its a bit of a misconception to suggest that the go-slow and leave everything to Morgan and the lower middle order in the last 15 approach has helped England for the last couple of years. For a start, in the UAE, when they blanked Pakistan, Pietersen opened with Cook, who himself showed terrific intent right from the start. Cook consistently provided them positive starts throughout 2011, having brought about the much needed intent to his batting. Even when they lost against India in 2011, Cook played a very positive brand of cricket. Even against South Africa, Bell often tried to play positively, and so did Cook, but with less success admittedly. In fact Kevin Pietersen was moved up the order during the 2011 world cup with a view to showing greater intent.
Cook's lack of big scores, and the absence of Pietersen isn't helping England in recent times, but the lack of intent from Trott and Bell is a more serious concern. For me, the natural game theory doesn't hold much water. Perhaps Giles should study Rahul Dravid's ODI career a bit closely.

You're being disingenuous when describing England's tactics. It is not "go-slow and leave everything to Morgan", and you know it. Labeling it as such cheapens your argument. Even when Pietersen was opening, the onus was not on smashing it around at the start, but having your best players in the top 3 so one of them batted through the innings.

Dravid had a career strike-rate of 71, and apart from one year (2007) never got into the 80s. 2004-2006 his SR was 73-74. Bell's SR since 2011 has never dipped below 77, and had a similar high to Dravid in 2012. An interesting comparison indeed. Trott is more variable - his seasons have been either in the 60s (which is very poor) or high 70s/low 80s.

Bell was positive today TBH. He played out a few too many dot-balls possibly, but played with a fair amount of intent.

msp83 wrote:England finish with 269. Good effort from Bopara that took them thus far, after that collapse. 269 is a lot of runs, and it won't be easy for a struggling batting lineup with Michael Clarke. But if Watson and Warner get going, it won't be much of a chase. But the larger point is that England's game plan is a poor one. I do get the argument about the 2 new balls and the need to keep wickets and the chance to go big in the last 15 and all that. Mahendra Singh Dhoni, the Indian captain did mention that its important to keep wickets in the first few overs and then go for the big ones at the end. Yet, if you take a look at things, even in the last match, the 2 Indian openers, Shikhar Dhawan and Rohit Sharma scored 53 in the first 10 overs. Rohit, on his day, can hit it big against any bowler. Dhawan showed he has the ability to quickly move through the gears and bat long. Virat Kohli, their number 3 is capable of scoring 50 of 70, and then turn it to 110 of 100. They have Dhoni, one of the best ever ODI players in the world, the likes of Jadeja, Karthik and Raina are all capable of adapting their games to the match situation.
England on the other hand, often fail to go pass 40 in the first 10, their openers often find it difficult to consistently build the tempo of the innings while batting long, their number 3 can't shift gears and he usually bat too long in the same gear. In the rest of the lineup, only Eoin Morgan has a real fast pace game and the benefit of experience. Jos Buttler has potential, but up to now he has not been able to find consistency at this level. Root can adapt his game to the match situation, but he's not the one to go at 10 an over himself though he can help someone else at the other end do that.
So, the top order has to bat at a better pace. No need to go 7 an over, but 4.5 to 5 in the first 10, and a rate above 5 thereafter is a must. If they get in, they have to not only bat long, but also keep the tempo building through their innings. Its absolutely stupid to expect that your 5 and 6 will be able to score at a strike rate of 300 every day and get those big totals. They might do it now and then, but you have to be a total clown to make your plans based on such expectations.
When England under Flower tried opening with KP, the intent to try and do something proactive was there. Cook's remodeling of himself as an ODI batsman showed the same intent. But now they have gone back to plans that never worked, and plans that are nothing like plans, although some individual brilliance can at times make it look like a half-sensible idea.

msp83 wrote:

alfie wrote:...and I trust those who were calling for Ashley Giles' head earlier today will have the good grace to admit he might know a bit more about the game than they assumed

Well, England are winning this one comfortably in the end. If one result speaks everything for the coach, then Giles certainly is vindicated. But this has been a bizarre week, first Rohit Sharma playing 2 good knocks in 3 matches, and now this. But I think Steven Finn is a way better bowler than Tim Bresnan is. I don't think Ravi Bopara is the kind of bowler you can trust with 10 overs consistently. Who between Bresnan and Bopara to play is very much debatable, but dropping Finn didn't make sense then, it doesn't do now either in my book, and I absolutely believe England will realize it sooner rather than later.

Mike Selig wrote:The main reason India got to 127 in the 22nd over, and England didn't was that South Africa bowled mainly rubbish, and Australia bowled mainly well. Nothing to do with intent in that case. Dhawan apart from 2 times when he came down the pitch just put a series of long hops away. Ditto Sharma (one heave where he got nowhere near the ball notwithstanding). Both Bell and Trott attacked the bowlers every bit as much.

Bell has adapted (you don't seem to like him which is fine). And the stats suggest as well as Dravid did.

Gerry SA wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:The main reason India got to 127 in the 22nd over, and England didn't was that South Africa bowled mainly rubbish, and Australia bowled mainly well. Nothing to do with intent in that case. Dhawan apart from 2 times when he came down the pitch just put a series of long hops away. Ditto Sharma (one heave where he got nowhere near the ball notwithstanding). Both Bell and Trott attacked the bowlers every bit as much.

Bell has adapted (you don't seem to like him which is fine). And the stats suggest as well as Dravid did.

Australia's attack was 3 dobbers on a flat road(McKay, Marsh, Faulkner)

Any side with attacking batsmen would've punished them on the flat road in Birmingham.

England's top 3 aren't dynamic.

Relying on Buttler to slog wildly is a method to fail.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:The main reason India got to 127 in the 22nd over, and England didn't was that South Africa bowled mainly rubbish, and Australia bowled mainly well. Nothing to do with intent in that case. Dhawan apart from 2 times when he came down the pitch just put a series of long hops away. Ditto Sharma (one heave where he got nowhere near the ball notwithstanding). Both Bell and Trott attacked the bowlers every bit as much.

Bell has adapted (you don't seem to like him which is fine). And the stats suggest as well as Dravid did.

Australia's attack was 3 dobbers on a flat road(McKay, Marsh, Faulkner)

Any side with attacking batsmen would've punished them on the flat road in Birmingham.

England's top 3 aren't dynamic.

Relying on Buttler to slog wildly is a method to fail.

Is scoring over 5 an over (as was the case when Trott was out) really that bad.
Most teams would expect to accelerate in the last 10/15 overs, especially if they had wickets in hand. England's top order were scoring at a rate that would have got use 250-260. If we'd accelerated as much as we should have if Morgan and/or Buttler had not got out, 300 was certainly on the cards.
As it was, those players failed. It wasn't, however, the top order's fault that we didn't reach 300+. They did their part. The failure, if such it was, was the failure to accelerate over the last 10/15 overs,

Gerry SA wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:The main reason India got to 127 in the 22nd over, and England didn't was that South Africa bowled mainly rubbish, and Australia bowled mainly well. Nothing to do with intent in that case. Dhawan apart from 2 times when he came down the pitch just put a series of long hops away. Ditto Sharma (one heave where he got nowhere near the ball notwithstanding). Both Bell and Trott attacked the bowlers every bit as much.

Bell has adapted (you don't seem to like him which is fine). And the stats suggest as well as Dravid did.

Australia's attack was 3 dobbers on a flat road(McKay, Marsh, Faulkner)

Any side with attacking batsmen would've punished them on the flat road in Birmingham.

England's top 3 aren't dynamic.

Relying on Buttler to slog wildly is a method to fail.

Is scoring over 5 an over (as was the case when Trott was out) really that bad.
Most teams would expect to accelerate in the last 10/15 overs, especially if they had wickets in hand. England's top order were scoring at a rate that would have got use 250-260. If we'd accelerated as much as we should have if Morgan and/or Buttler had not got out, 300 was certainly on the cards.
As it was, those players failed. It wasn't, however, the top order's fault that we didn't reach 300+. They did their part. The failure, if such it was, was the failure to accelerate over the last 10/15 overs,

Australia had Adam Voges bowling his 'spin'. A more dynamic batsman would've pummelled him, it would've put even more pressure on Starc(Australia's best death bowler went for 75 anyway), McKay and Faulkner.

Bell scoring 91 off 120 odd balls didn't reflect the pitch, which was easy for batting.

Mike Selig wrote:I have to say, Johnson Charles is one of the worse international batsmen I have ever seen, and I include guys who play for France in that. As far as I can make out, his method is to play by numbers, swing his bat in a vague arc and hope it hits the middle. He misses as many as he hits, and eventually hits one straight up to be caught, dropped or land safely by some fluke.

It actually makes me angry to see someone quite so poor playing at this level.