Eng in Lanka

First topic message reminder :

From not being keen on Moeen's position, Cook now uses him to open the batting and bowling sometimes.
While I am a fan of Moeen's temperament, I dont think he is the saviour that Eng is looking for.

also he won't do well as an opener for too long.

Cook has strong dislikes and it seems now Hales is on that list.


Lanks has been Mauled by India and must be at lowest possible morale.

Eng is not a great ODI side and lagging by the day as Morgan observed.

Should be an even series if not a high quality one. Lanks might still win

JDizzle wrote:
Anderson can't bowl in the death and for me, I can't pick a guy to bowl his 10 overs before the 40 over mark. Finn > Anderson, for me.

You must be seeing a very different Finn to me. He still looks a long way from decent form, let alone his best form - and in Australia I could see him easily going for 7 an over while offering little wicket taking threat. shame, at his best he should have been an England stalwart for a decade.
True Anderson is not a death bowler - but he is often used quite well, in overs 40-45. For me Anderson is the most likely bowler we have to take wickets at the top of the innings and thus has to play - we will only win matches by taking wickets, not by containing at the death.

And to Sunday's match - hope I am wrong, but I reckon Taylor has only slightly more chance of playing than Pietersen. In fact I can see them bringing Bell in to open with Hales staying at 3 (with all sorts of mumbo jumbo about not wanting to mess with Hales etc) so it is easier to bring cook back. Hales, who has struggled a little so far in his ODI career, should really be selected in his county position to make things simpler for him.

JDizzle wrote:I, like you Guildford, suspected it would have something to do with the fact that SL had lost a wicket. And despite MFC's superb explanation, it still seems bizarre to me that DL punishes them for losing a wicket by decreasing their total, despite that with the punishment of being 1 down SL still got to 242. If meant no increase at all, that would have made sense given they were only two overs in when the rain came down, but to decrease still doesn't really make sense to me! But thats the system, and I don't have a better one!

I'm sorry, I have to intervene here a little. DL doesn't take any notice of what happens after the interruption, the fact that SL made it up to 242 is irrelevant to DL. What's relevant to DL is:
1) the fact that there were two overs before the interruption, in which SL lost one wicket (n° of runs is irrelevant again here).
2) the fact that the game was at this point reduced to 35 overs per side and then played out without further interruption.

To take an extreme example. Suppose a team bats first, has a nightmare and after 15 overs is 8 wickets down (for 70 let's say). It rains. The match is reduced to 20 overs. Surely it's only fair in such a situation that the team batting second has their target re-adjusted downwards, since at the time of the interruption it was looking unlikely that the team batting would get to a decent 50 overs score? In DL terms this means that at the time of the interruption, in view of a 50 over game, the side batting first has very few "ressources" left.

In this case, DL computed that the ressources SL lost by having the two overs in which they lost a wicket were less than the ressources they would have lost had they not begun their innings at all.

Anyway, I'll leave it there before getting too technical, sorry.

I didn't say Finn was back to his best, but I still think he's a better ODI bowler than Anderson. Anderson doesn't bowl well in Australia or at the death. At least Finn gives you some x-factor.

The situation you describe is slightly difference MFC, as the side batting first believe they are plaing a 50 over game up until the end of the innings and should have a reduced T20 score. Whereas SL practically played a 35 over game from the start, given the only missed two overs. Having said that, I do see how it is has got there now, but it still seems like it is very harsh on SL, especially when they've come out to bat again and reached a very good total, even with one of their resources down! Anyway, I'll stop talking about it, seen as I'm completely in the wrong!

The argument is that they would have had a higher total if they had not lost that resource.

Thanks again for the further DL comments, MfC.

I'm at one with the fairness aspect of your ''extreme example'' scenario. Whether fairness was actually achieved in yesterday's particular situation, I still have my doubts but I'll leave it there.

Good and interesting comments from you and JD about Bopara and Jordan.

I think if Bopara is to nail down a place for the WC, it needs to be primarily on account of his batting with his bowling as a useful extra. He does though imo need to bat more meaningfully - I'm not just talking about averages and run rates but game changing innings. If he could do that, it would so raise his worth to the team. It might even push him further up the order and squeeze Morgan out; I don't particularly want that but, let's face it, Morgan has to start getting some runs and soon.

There's clearly a lot of potential with Jordan but he's someone who thrives or falls on confidence and so needs to be handled carefully. With Stokes currently a long way off my WC team, I'm now thinking about Woakes and Jordan batting at 7 and 8 and the former being the more containing bowler whilst the latter goes for the wickets.

To be fair to Anderson, who you all know I don't exactly think the world of, there are no death over specialists anymore. Steyn is a very good t20 death bowler, as is Malinga, and maybe a few more, but in 50 overs, with only four boundary riders, you're on a hiding to nothing 9/10 if the opposition has set batsmen and batters in the hut. That's why wickets are now at a premium throughout the innings. I'd pick Finn though, with the caveat that I have absolutely no idea of how well he is currently playing

LondonTiger wrote:

JDizzle wrote:
Anderson can't bowl in the death and for me, I can't pick a guy to bowl his 10 overs before the 40 over mark. Finn > Anderson, for me.

You must be seeing a very different Finn to me. He still looks a long way from decent form, let alone his best form - and in Australia I could see him easily going for 7 an over while offering little wicket taking threat. shame, at his best he should have been an England stalwart for a decade.
True Anderson is not a death bowler - but he is often used quite well, in overs 40-45. For me Anderson is the most likely bowler we have to take wickets at the top of the innings and thus has to play - we will only win matches by taking wickets, not by containing at the death.

And to Sunday's match - hope I am wrong, but I reckon Taylor has only slightly more chance of playing than Pietersen. In fact I can see them bringing Bell in to open with Hales staying at 3 (with all sorts of mumbo jumbo about not wanting to mess with Hales etc) so it is easier to bring cook back. Hales, who has struggled a little so far in his ODI career, should really be selected in his county position to make things simpler for him.

Bowling at the death (last 4 overs) - econ in brackets

146.2-2-1059-57 - Anderson (7.23)
91-1-647-36 - Broad (7.10)
35.1-0-288-16 - Finn (8.19)
18.2-0-160-8 - Woakes (8.72)
16.4-3-81-6 - Tredwell (4.86)
15-0-111-8 - Jordan (7.40)
14.3-0-86-5 - Bopara (5.93)
12.5-0-130-7 - Gurney (10.13)
3-0-45-0 - Root (15.00)
1-0-9-0 - Ali (9.0)

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks again for the further DL comments, MfC.

I'm at one with the fairness aspect of your ''extreme example'' scenario. Whether fairness was actually achieved in yesterday's particular situation, I still have my doubts but I'll leave it there.

Good and interesting comments from you and JD about Bopara and Jordan.

I think if Bopara is to nail down a place for the WC, it needs to be primarily on account of his batting with his bowling as a useful extra. He does though imo need to bat more meaningfully - I'm not just talking about averages and run rates but game changing innings. If he could do that, it would so raise his worth to the team. It might even push him further up the order and squeeze Morgan out; I don't particularly want that but, let's face it, Morgan has to start getting some runs and soon.

There's clearly a lot of potential with Jordan but he's someone who thrives or falls on confidence and so needs to be handled carefully. With Stokes currently a long way off my WC team, I'm now thinking about Woakes and Jordan batting at 7 and 8 and the former being the more containing bowler whilst the latter goes for the wickets.

It's tough with Morgan because as you say, he needs to score runs soon, but do you actually drop a guy who when on form is a match winner? For me you have to ask yourself would the opposition be happier to see an England team with or without eoin Morgan in it, and then you have your answer

Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks again for the further DL comments, MfC.

I'm at one with the fairness aspect of your ''extreme example'' scenario. Whether fairness was actually achieved in yesterday's particular situation, I still have my doubts but I'll leave it there.

Good and interesting comments from you and JD about Bopara and Jordan.

I think if Bopara is to nail down a place for the WC, it needs to be primarily on account of his batting with his bowling as a useful extra. He does though imo need to bat more meaningfully - I'm not just talking about averages and run rates but game changing innings. If he could do that, it would so raise his worth to the team. It might even push him further up the order and squeeze Morgan out; I don't particularly want that but, let's face it, Morgan has to start getting some runs and soon.

There's clearly a lot of potential with Jordan but he's someone who thrives or falls on confidence and so needs to be handled carefully. With Stokes currently a long way off my WC team, I'm now thinking about Woakes and Jordan batting at 7 and 8 and the former being the more containing bowler whilst the latter goes for the wickets.

It's tough with Morgan because as you say, he needs to score runs soon, but do you actually drop a guy who when on form is a match winner? For me you have to ask yourself would the opposition be happier to see an England team with or without eoin Morgan in it, and then you have your answer

Olly - good point about Morgan but I think it's also fair to say that his fear factor will diminish the longer he goes without runs.

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks again for the further DL comments, MfC.

I'm at one with the fairness aspect of your ''extreme example'' scenario. Whether fairness was actually achieved in yesterday's particular situation, I still have my doubts but I'll leave it there.

Good and interesting comments from you and JD about Bopara and Jordan.

I think if Bopara is to nail down a place for the WC, it needs to be primarily on account of his batting with his bowling as a useful extra. He does though imo need to bat more meaningfully - I'm not just talking about averages and run rates but game changing innings. If he could do that, it would so raise his worth to the team. It might even push him further up the order and squeeze Morgan out; I don't particularly want that but, let's face it, Morgan has to start getting some runs and soon.

There's clearly a lot of potential with Jordan but he's someone who thrives or falls on confidence and so needs to be handled carefully. With Stokes currently a long way off my WC team, I'm now thinking about Woakes and Jordan batting at 7 and 8 and the former being the more containing bowler whilst the latter goes for the wickets.

It's tough with Morgan because as you say, he needs to score runs soon, but do you actually drop a guy who when on form is a match winner? For me you have to ask yourself would the opposition be happier to see an England team with or without eoin Morgan in it, and then you have your answer

Olly - good point about Morgan but I think it's also fair to say that his fear factor will diminish the longer he goes without runs.

Strange thing is in the t20's in the summer he was his usual self (believe he made 70 odd against India in 30 balls didn't he?)

Anyway if we're going to have any sort of a chance we need him in the side for me. And we have to hope he fires soon

Anyways cook has been confirmed as captain for the world cup 

Appears we don't pick players or captains on merit anymore. Defies all logic

It almost seems like the ECB would rather lose than be proven wrong

Hales and Moeen could put on a 300 partnership tomorrow opening and it'd make zero difference to the world cup plans. 

They must feel so encouraged to play well

this would be my side for the world cup

1.Hales
2.Moeen
3.Ballance
4.Taylor (c)
5.Morgan
6.Ravi
7.Buttler
8.Woakes
9.Rashid
10.Broad
11.Finn

If its Bell who replaces Cook tomorrow I'm going to lose all faith

Have to give Taylor a shot, have to

The whole 30 man squad thing is a bit of a nonsense. Cook is no more likely to be captain at the WC than he was yesterday. If the ECB/Moores do have the epiphany that he is a crap ODI player, they aren't going to announce him being dropped by not including him as skipper in the 30 man squad. The only way he misses out is if Hales/Taylor/Moeen smash it everywhere tomorrow and/or Cook gets even worse in the lead up to the WC, same as it was before the 30 man squad was announced.

nothing wrong with the 30 man squad really (though can't help thinking that including Luke Wright is a bit silly). England could pick a decent final squad out of that lot, but won't (or maybe they will, only to pick completely the wrong final XI...).

Happy that Brooks, Vince and Roy are in there, but don't expect any of them to make the final cut (don't think Brooks should, but Vince and Roy should be in there somewhere).

It will all work out. Taylor has been picked, he is on eighty not out, and World Cup glory beckons on the horizon.

But not for England!

No! Taylor flummoxed by Mendis on 90. Was hoping he'd get a ton.

What do you consider a minimum score to be, duty? Somewhere around 270-80 or a bit more?
Hope to see Morgan and Buttler get a hold of a few deliveries and put some pressure back on SL.

Probably need a minimum of 290.

England will struggle to make 265, though, unless Buttler makes a score again.

42.4 overs played and a massive 130 dot balls.

Buttler's gone, England are gone.

Ah 265 exactly. Sri Lanka should win with ease.

Nice spirit from Morgan at the end, though.

Yes Jimmy T! And good to see Morgan in the runs too.

Unfortunately they'll now drop Hales for Cook

Said it before and will do so again, I really do think Chris Woakes will become a very good cricketer for England. 

Beginning to have doubts about Stokes now

someone remind me why Tredwell isn't playing again? SL bowled, what, over 30 overs of spin?

MfC - you just beat me to that question?

England bowling ok but Sri Lanka ticking along and getting that bit closer to their target every over. I can see them putting the foot on the gas when Stokes comes on ....

.... and now Stokes comes on for the 25th over. Let's see what happens ....

It might be the most obvious post in history . But we need a wicket and fast.

How did we only end up with 260 . Its baffling.

Mysti - yeah, it is obvious but it's still spot on.

SL 140/2 off 27. Realistically, we are now going to have to get 8 wickets in 23 overs to win. Very, very little chance of that. By contrast, our batting line up often looks strong on paper as far down as to number 10 (as it did today) but the later order fails to deliver.

all wrong from England again I'm afraid. Wrong wrong selection, wrong bowling options (why always wait so long to bowl Stokes?), not great field settings, and some very basic fielding errors.

at least Taylor made some runs. Shame Hales hasn't grabbed his chance...

A low energy bulb has been lit at the end of the tunnel. We have a wicket.

what a year Sangakrra is having in odi's!! 1000 runs at an average of 43.... + his excellent keeping..

freemo wrote:what a year Sangakrra is having in odi's!! 1000 runs at an average of 43.... + his excellent keeping..

No doubt it will all go to pot as soon as he turns out for Surrey!

Jordan does seem to have this happy knack of picking up wickets with not-great balls. Probably got wickets with his two worst deliveries today...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Jordan does seem to have this happy knack of picking up wickets with not-great balls. Probably got wickets with his two worst deliveries today...

MfC - agreed but it should still help him a lot. I mentioned the other day that he's a player who particularly thrives or falls on confidence, even more than most sportsmen.

Completely agree with you also that Stokes came on far too late. If he is going to bowl, he really needs to be given the ball early doors.

Meanwhile, following on from my chat with you and JD the other day, another ordinary performance from Bopara. Not the worst England player today but again imo punching below his weight and not bringing enough to the party.

Get in there Jimmy T. Haven't seen it yet, but it sounded like he was nervous early on (which is understandable when he knew that yet again he probabl had only 1 game to impress) but went through the gears nicely. And used his feet to spin well?

Indeed, Guildford. It's a shame really, as Bopara played very nicely in the first ODI and was given very little support and then was tops scorer in the thrashing of game 2 I believer? However, it is very much the story of his career that he shows some promise, but can't back it up consistently. Slightly out of left field, but maybe Stokes could get a go in that role? Bat 5/6 and only bowl if required, I know he is terrible form but giving him some responsibility with the bat might getting him going. Wishful thinking from me, but his knock in the domestic OD semi final was really very good.

on Bops, I've said before that as a N°7 I think he does a job. Bashes a few, bowls a few tidy overs. England in the last couple of games rather than play him at 6/7 have brought him in at 5. Possibly wanting Moggs down at 6 (due to his lack of form, why not?), possibly because Bops did well in the first two games (which doesn't make so much sense, why move someone from where he's done well?). In any case, I don't think he's a good enough player to bat 5 in ODIs. If England do want to persist with Morgan at 6, then they need to pick another n°5, and I'm not sure who fits there (bearing in mind that ideally he'd probably have to bowl a few overs too...)

so many extras... will ultimately be the difference between the two teams today.

there goes England's last chance, surely...

It does make a bit of sense, though. Much like Pep Guardiola explains moving defenders into attacking positions by saying you want your best players to see more of the ball, there is a cricketing school of thought (which I adhere to, if I'm honest. As does Lehmann, judging by his Xi) which says that you put your best batter in a position where they can get more batting time. Ravi had been the best batter in the beginning of the tour so it served sensible to then have him facing more deliveries. It hasn't quite come off, but it isn't without logic.

Anyway, seems England's problems were not in fact revolved around Alastair. Quite happy for Taylor, if only because the idea of him not making it as a cricketer because he's too short was preposterous. Hales to me doesn't look the money. I haven't seen anything from him to make me think he'll succeed in Australia, but apparently he has X-factor, so he'll be persevered with. Morgan is really a shadow of his former self. Which is astonishing has he's still pretty young. You'd back him to find "himself" eventually, but is the world cup too soon?

congrats SL, made a bit of a meal of it and rather limped home, but got there in the end.

England can actually take some positives from this one. Taylor looked at home, Morgan got some much-needed runs and Jordan bowled pretty well.

Problems were lack of runs from Bops/Buttler and the tail which left them a few short, while Stokes's bowling form is a real concern now (not helped by the way he's been used, but...).

I suspect (given the selector's choices here) that we're looking at a WC XI of
Cook
Moeen
Taylor/Hales/Bell (Taylor might have the edge after today, hopefully)
Root
Bops
Morgan
Buttler
then four seamers, probably picked from Anderson, Broad, Finn, Jordan and Woakes.

Extra squad members could be one extra batsman, two seamers (so whoever's not playing above plus Stokes) and Tredwell.

oh and among the problems should be the extras which is getting silly now, and maybe some of the fielding (though there were some excellent bits too, so more of a mixed bag that one).

Mad for Chelsea wrote:congrats SL, made a bit of a meal of it and rather limped home, but got there in the end.

England can actually take some positives from this one. Taylor looked at home, Morgan got some much-needed runs and Jordan bowled pretty well.

Problems were lack of runs from Bops/Buttler and the tail which left them a few short, while Stokes's bowling form is a real concern now (not helped by the way he's been used, but...).

I suspect (given the selector's choices here) that we're looking at a WC XI of
Cook
Moeen
Taylor/Hales/Bell (Taylor might have the edge after today, hopefully)
Root
Bops
Morgan
Buttler
then four seamers, probably picked from Anderson, Broad, Finn, Jordan and Woakes.

Extra squad members could be one extra batsman, two seamers (so whoever's not playing above plus Stokes) and Tredwell.

MfC - agree with most of what you say and especially concerning the positives. Didn't see them bat but clearly pleasing that Taylor and Morgan were in the runs. Jordan is now looking not only that he belongs there but that he believes he belongs there. Hope that continues. Can only be good for him and England.

The one other problem today in my view was the absence of Tredwell. Sri Lanka took 9 England wickets with their mix of spinners. Tredwell doesn't turn the ball that much but more than makes up for it imo with his canny approach and unruffled nature. At this stage, he would make my WC team. Given I am forced by the selectors to accept Cook's inclusion, maybe:-

Cook
Moeen
Taylor
Root
Morgan
Buttler
Woakes
Jordan
Broad
Tredwell
Anderson.

Reserve players: Roy (unlikely I know), Hales, Finn and - just an outside possibility of the selectors going back to him - Samit Patel.

Couple of comments.

1. I'm playing an extra fully recognised bowler in place of the part-timer Bopara. Whilst this inevitably lengthens the tail, I believe that if your top 6 don't bat well you're normally looking at defeat anyway.
2. I'm conscious of Mike's doubts about Moeen opening in Australia and also have concerns (albeit not so great). I do though want him and his bowling option in my team. Difficult to know where to bat him. If one of Taylor, Root or Morgan has to drop out through form or fitness, my inclination would be to bring in Roy to open and push Moeen a bit down the order.

Woakes at 7? In odi's really??? He's not a finisher..

Freemo - I accept the batting isn't stand out brilliant in my team but that was a compromise I had to make so as to avoid the problems of having a fifth bowler combo (I'm still haunted by memories of the dozen overs bowled by Boycott, Gooch and Larkins in the '79 WC final!).

I do though feel that Woakes is quite a classy batsman. He bats around 6 or 7 for Warks in all formats of the county game to good effect. Furthermore, it's not just about finishing but also batting well in the starting and middle overs. If we don't do that, we'll probably be stuffed anyway.

I agree Woakes is useful with the bat, but in limited overs cricket, i would feel more comfortable with a Bopara/Buttler at 7, and Woakes at 8..

Buttler - 7, Woakes - 8.

I actually believe we should take a risk, and play six batsmen, Buttler, a bowling all-rounder (Woakes), Tredwell, plus our two best seamers (Broad and Finn?)

Ali, and Root will have to get in 10 between them, but our present team format isn't working, We need more runs, and have to bowl teams out. Having just four main bowlers does contradict that a little, but with Bopara in the team, we still only have four main bowlers.

Cook
Ali
Hales
Taylor
Root
Morgan
Buttler
Woakes
Tredwell
Broad
Finn

This gives us a power up top (bar Cook), two middle very competent middle order players, then our finishers at six and seven. There is an argument for Hales playing as an opener, and this would give a right/leftie combination.

I think in ODI's we need to have the best batting line up possible. Its turning into a 20/20 styled game and although a good bowling attack may occasionally bowl a team out before the 50 overs you are never guaranteed.

Englands problem compared to the other top nations is that we score over 300 less than all of them.. Until we fix that we wont get anywhere. I am not so bothered about limiting our oppositions score to hurt the batting. I want us to be able to score at a faster rate.

scoring 265 yesterday and batting out the 50 overs is very bad in this day and age.

Yeah, I'd even like to see Ali and Hales open the batting.

That takes some pressure off Cook who could then try and make a bigger contribution at first drop. If not, then the ECB should start to consider match ups with other in form No3s who have already been mentioned - you can't afford to carry him any more.

Take the risk!
Oz would - if they were in the same position - but we would never let it linger on for so long.

That middle order does look strong... they just need to click, obviously.

Well having watched that game I am no closer to having a "perfect" team for the WC (unless I can pick about 14 and interchange them )
Guildford's XI doesn't look too far off what I suspect they'll pick . Which is not quite the same thing...

I very much share Mike's doubts about Moeen opening in Australian conditions. Although he may well do OK against some opponents , I really don't fancy his chances against Australia or SA - or probably NZ for that matter. But I've been wrong before...he's doing fine in Sri Lanka and logically since their primary aim still has to be to win matches , given the limitations of this tour as any real guide to prospects in the very different conditions they'll face in February , he has the job and will probably keep it. Hales has been disappointing so far ; and I say this as a Hales fan. Only six ODIs ; but he really hasn't done anything yet...and some dozy running and poor fielding (how did he drop that catch ?) aren't helping his cause. He will get a warm up game or two in Australia I think ; but he will need to really do something special in them ...
I hope the Finn fans watched that last over of his yesterday ? I'd love to see him perform to his potential ; but I just can't see that anything he has done in the remotely recent past entitles him to be considered as a potential choice ahead of Anderson . Yes he might fire ; but you'd be selecting purely on hope.
Jordan has a Botham-esque knack of taking wickets with rubbish. Too many wides , etc ...but he is moving up the food chain I reckon. While Stokes moves down. All the excuses you like ; but he is bowling complete rubbish and his batting is still dining out on one Test hundred in Perth... sure he has potential. And he had some great days among the disasters in Australia last year : but unless he does something to suggest he hasn't completely lost his way very soon - assuming he even gets another chance - he will be lucky to have a place in the squad.

Taylor Waited for his chance - took it with both hands. Won't canonize him on one outing ; but he has earned a run in the side to see if he can do it again.

And no I havent a clue what possessed them to omit Tredwell either...

One surprise : for all the gloom about the weather four matches out of four have been completed , with only a little help from Duckworth Lewis. And thanks to MFC for an excellent explanation as to why Sri Lanka were trimmed of a few runs last week...it actually surprised me that one wicket and two overs moved it as much as it did - I'd expected just a couple of runs - but it all makes sense even if it appeared harsh on first viewing.
I'll select a WC squad after the next three matches but staying sat on this fence for now