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

I havent watched him much and i haven't watched him in List A. But I doubt you can get that sort of average without having a few shots in your locker. I think he wants to go back to the english system. so maybe if he does we will see what he can do then

Well as one of the best batsmen in the world, at First Class level then he is clearly very effective. But then it's another step up to play inventive and powerful shots against extreme pace and accurate spin bowling. He does have time on his side, as does Gary Ballance, though it seems batsmen may be quickly overlooked these days if they lack the raw power to hit sixes.

Trott is quite high up the all-time List A averages and was a very divisive player who copped quite a bit of criticism for not having a second gear. Sometimes he would score a hundred and that be deemed detrimental the England's chances!

Trotts average in ODI is 51 and 47 in list A..

the others we are mentioning have higher SR's and higher averages in List A.

Well that's the point, 51 is a monstrous average, but would he make an all-time England XI? - probably not for most people.

So averages are not the be all and end all, which was my original point. A high List A average for a player who has played little or no international cricket might just mean they are a very good domestic level player, possibly batting lower in the order and accumulating a lot of Not Outs.

Even for Tests there are plenty of high averaging players that are overlooked, with the likes of Vaughan and Trescothick famous examples of players with mediocre first class averages who went on to have very good Test careers. And that's because they were picked for their attributes rather than their averages.

he played in loads of ODI's and averaged a huge amount(and yes is fondly remembered- I am struggling to understand your point mate)- yet was worse at List A than the other 3 mentioned!

but what the others also represent is an even higher SR which is becoming even more important today. that is a very key attribute IMO..

all three have decent SR's(over 85 list A)

I get VTR's points, which are (I think):
- averages don't tell the whole story (especially when you factor in not outs)
- the 40-over format is really quite different, so records in 40 overs cannot necessarily be extrapolated to 50 over cricket
- in general records in domestic cricket aren't enough in their own right due to differences in pitches, standards etc.

I agree on the whole with VTR, with the caveat that I've always thought it a bit unfair that some people seem to view not outs as a bad thing: especially for a finisher being able to guide the chase all the way through would be a definite plus point for me, it's why someone like Bevan, although his average may be inflated, was so so valuable.

However it is certainly true that 40 over cricket is very different from 50 over, the latter being a full 25% longer. The point being that the middle overs are far longer in 50 over cricket, and this means the skills needed to keep the scoreboard moving along through both singles and boundaries, without losing wicket, are much harder to execute.

As for the difference in standards I have made my views on this eminently clear in the past. The fact is you can get by in county cricket with a healthy (80+) strike-rate by just being able to put the bad balls away. Not so in internationals. I remember writing a couple of years ago (and having a full-on argument with mysti about it) that Cook wouldn't make a successful international T20 player as he wasn't capable of manufacturing a boundary option from a good ball. It strikes me now that I was entirely correct, and that moreover this failure of Cook has transfered to the ODI game (where increasingly you have to be able to score boundaries off good balls).

I illustrated this with the standard just back of a length ball just outside off-stump. I still cannot see how Cook is hitting that ball for 4 (given a relatively standard field of third-man and square-leg back), and I can't think of any other international top 3 player who doesn't have a clear boundary option for that ball. Take someone like Bell, he can either use his feet or hit on the up through cover; Cook doesn't really play those shots.

Pujara I see maybe as similar to Cook. He certainly has a number of shots, but they are mostly about putting the bad balls (too straight and/or too full) away; added to that a very good technique and temparament meaning he won't go giving his wicket away and won't often be got out by good bowling, and you can see why he has an excellent domestic record.

Regarding Ballance I think the issue is for Yorkshire he is a bit of a basher/finisher whereas England see him as a top 3, for which right now he doesn't seem to have the game for (in ODIs).

Thankyou Mike, you have eloquently summarised my points there. Not outs can of course be a good thing depending what they represent. We would all intuitively know for example that quite a lot of Bevan's were closing out a chase at International level

In response to Mysti, I wouldn't say Trott is that fondly remembered as an ODI player, I thought he was decent myself for the time he played, which was around when the 2 new balls came in, but was very often criticised for playing his own game and not accelerating. So my point with Trott is, yes it's a high average (and List A includes ODIs, which is the list that Taylor is 3rd in/Ballance 7th/Pujura 2nd) but he has to be judged on other factors. Otherwise, as it stands, on the assumption he is unlikely to play another ODI he is England's greatest ODI batsmen ever. Well I don't think many would even have him in the top 10.

I'll leave it there anyway, it's been a good debate and I think I have made my position clear

I think trott was a magnificent player for England, he'd hold the innings together but unlike a cook or bell he was able to rotate the strike well and make big scores.

I miss him

I am probably being a little harsh on Trott, though it's not really my opinion (I said in my last post I thought he was decent - not exactly high praise but not negative!), every time he made a big score he seemed to get attacked for scoring too slowly. The real problem though was often other players contributing hardly anything.

Bell is infuriating, he has all the ability to be a Mahela type player in ODIs but has achieved virtually nothing whatsoever. He should be a senior player but can't even command a place in the side now. Unfathomable.

Bell's figures are pretty similar to that of Mahela's, who has a fairly mediocre ODI average.

As for Trott. His figures are fine, and he would walk back into our side, but as a player, he was a little selfish at times. I remember him scoring a ton once, in a losing cause. He was well set and didn't go after the bowling near the end when it was needed, which led to us losing the game. Afterwards, most said at least he scored a few, but that was IMO a poor effort.

Interesting on Bell vs. Mahela - I know who I would rather have guiding a run chase though.

I don't think Trott would necessarily walk back into the side now, I think the game has and is moving on rapidly. I suppose there is a place for one Trott type player still, batting at 3 or 4, ticking over at an 80-ish SR in the middle overs. Root seems to be the man in possession of that role at the moment.

VTR wrote:Interesting on Bell vs. Mahela - I know who I would rather have guiding a run chase though.

I don't think Trott would necessarily walk back into the side now, I think the game has and is moving on rapidly. I suppose there is a place for one Trott type player still, batting at 3 or 4, ticking over at an 80-ish SR in the middle overs. Root seems to be the man in possession of that role at the moment.

Stats hey!

Bell has made the step up in test cricket, but he scored too many 40-60's, as an opener in ODI's. Bell or Cook? Bell. But Cook isn't going anywhere till after the world cup, when I expect him to step down.

Stats indeed, and those damn averages again - surprised Mahela has such a low average but he is clearly a more valuable player than his average alone suggests.

Would be Bell for me as well, and Cook to step down or be dragged out of the position, whatever it takes!

There is no way i would like trott back in the side..

Cook and then root are the only two players we need in that style. the rest have to be able to easily score all over.

If trott moved up to opening and captaining! Then maybe.. but he isnt even as fast a scorer as cook. The game has moved on- Trott was quality- but if we still had a team featuring bell and trott after cook and then root!! well its not the way the game is going!

we need to pick the players that have a top SR in list A and give them a go- taylor and ballance both deserve a
shot.. ballanace has had a few games - but think he needs more.

its not just about average its also about SR.

And all this winging and whining over cook. Its a Bad patch- he will come good soon enough.

I'd take Trott over Cook, who apart from a brief period when he took over as skipper, has never been that good in the 50 over stuff. He should never have been made captain, really. We should pick our best side, then select a captain from that.

Trott probally couldnt take the resposibilty of captaincy on. We dont even know why he had to go home. A lot of rumours - but he isnt in the frame yet is he.

Build towards the future.

If trott was/is 100% mentally and physically fit then maybe he could captain and open over cook.

but is he a natural leader?- is he a good opener?

its one of 3 if we want one of the old guard(cook, bell or trott) But only 1.

the runs isnt the most important factor either(all 3 will be similar on SR and maybe a few runs apart opening)- its the captaining skills.

Trott is/was twice the ODI player Cook was.

He does/did exactly what Cook is meant to do (hold the innings together while rotating the strike and making 80,90, 100 odd at pretty much a run a ball).

Cook even when he was on form in the test arena was never a good ODI player. He doesn't have the power and then he doesn't make up for that by rotating the strike/being busy enough at the crease (like Root does so well).

I wouldn't have Trott as captain, just in the side.

but you would have him over cook?

so who would captain? and who would open(trott has never opened)

Its archaic to have a trott or bell type in at 3 or 4(prehistoric to have them both) in the ODI game.

mystiroakey wrote:but you would have him over cook?

so who would captain? and who would open(trott has never opened)

Trott could bat at three. Root or Morgan could captain, or even Broad.

Openers? Hales, Ali, Roy or even Bell?

With Trott, and Root at three or four, we could afford to have two openers, who can give it a bash.

Ok as long as we 2 openers that can score fast thats fine.

I would flip out if we had 3 of them(that does include bell)

That said. Cook will captain, and Trott won;t be going to Aus, well, I wouldn't have thought, so it's all irrelevant.

I think after the world cup, a complete re-think is in order......unless we win :-)

Yep this is all after the World cup. I have accepted that Cook will stay on- so I am hoping that bell or trott will not make an appearance..

If cook can get his swagger back- the last two games may have positively influenced him- we will be in an ok position anyway.

He won the first(his individual performance was also solid) and then the team without him were pitiful.

Morgan should captain the T20 and ODI side in my humble opinion, as for me not only is he one of our best players in both forms, but he knows both games inside out and thus I think his captaincy (on the limited showings so far) has been more savvy and innovative (not always better I know, but it helps more in the shorter format I think).

I agree with Olly, Morgan for captain. Re Bell, he should be the old head screaming out to be the next captain but he just isn't there after over 100 games as well. Root looks to be the other option medium to long term

Root = long term test captain. Not sure about ODI's - its becoming apparent that you need two different ideologies . I have no problem having the same odi captain as the t20 one.. I think that's the way its headed rather than having the same ODI captain as the test one.

When we inevitably crash out of the world cup we should start the real rebuilding with a new settled captain.. But they are sticking with this system and that's the way it is.. Cook has the world cup.

But then after the world cup we can get on with 'real' cricket again and cook still stays as captain for me untill Root takes over.

I'm not convinced by Morgan's captaincy. Don't rate it anything special. Of course, he does have the benefit of actually being good enough to get in England's ODI side, which is always a positive for a captain and he's probably the best of the bunch. Root seems to have been anointed as the next skipper, but he needs to grow a lot before that time for me. Doesn't strike me as having that aura yet, I think he seem a bit too much 'one of the lads' rather than having the ability to seperate himself as a leader. Still really young though, plenty of time for him to get some experience.

ODI cricket won't go away once the Tests start Mysti! And I think its about time England identified a formula and stuck with it, rather than chopping and changing and using it as an audition for the Test side. I would personally trade a bit of success in Tests for a World Cup win or at least a good run for once

VTR wrote:I am probably being a little harsh on Trott, though it's not really my opinion (I said in my last post I thought he was decent - not exactly high praise but not negative!), every time he made a big score he seemed to get attacked for scoring too slowly. The real problem though was often other players contributing hardly anything.

Bell is infuriating, he has all the ability to be a Mahela type player in ODIs but has achieved virtually nothing whatsoever. He should be a senior player but can't even command a place in the side now. Unfathomable.

He isn't in the team because Cook is there as captain - they won't pick 2 orthodox openers.

VTR wrote:ODI cricket won't go away once the Tests start Mysti! And I think its about time England identified a formula and stuck with it, rather than chopping and changing and using it as an audition for the Test side. I would personally trade a bit of success in Tests for a World Cup win or at least a good run for once

I agree and I want separation.

To win the world cup is the thing I want to see England do the most. Seen us win the ashes, be number one in the world, win the t20 world cup

Same here Olly, cricket and football world cup are the only things left in sport that I would like to see, everything else has been ticked off!

The cricket world cup would be of course nice, but I'd rather win the ashes back.

Stella wrote:The cricket world cup would be of course nice, but I'd rather win the ashes back.

But the cricket world cup is only every four years, the Ashes is every 6 months or so now. We can win them back in the next thrilling installment, probably scheduled for next Winter!

VTR wrote:

Stella wrote:The cricket world cup would be of course nice, but I'd rather win the ashes back.

But the cricket world cup is only every four years, the Ashes is every 6 months or so now. We can win them back in the next thrilling installment, probably scheduled for next Winter!

I know, but I much prefer test cricket, hence my thinking. Don't get me wrong though, a 50 over world cup win, would be tremendous.

I prefer Tests, but I don't enjoy them as much as I used to. The ten in a row Ashes Tests were a load of rubbish, and I can't believe the Aussies are here yet again this summer. The India series last summer was a damp squib against a completely disinterested team. Ticket prices are also a joke now, £75 for a day at Trent Bridge, err, no thanks.

Have England ever got Sangakarra out in an ODI? To say he feasts on our bowling is an understatement!

If Bopara isn't going to bowl, why not play Hales instead of him?

Nice finish from Stokes.
A few no balls there but 6/47 is the best ever performance by an England bowler in SL.

240 runs seems a gettable total.

Did Stokes dye his hair?

I love Chris woakes

Hi Dog - you mean Woakes but, yes, the best ever performance by an England bowler in SL.

Although Woakes' are the stand out figures, a very fine contribution from Tredwell. I do believe that (again) shows his worth and trust it puts him in strong  contention for a WC team place.

Root's 5 overs were not untidy. MfC can continue in his belief that Root can be part of a fifth bowler combo although I'll remain uncomfortable with that until it's clearly proven.

Meanwhile, not a single over from Bopara.

General view is that SL's total is very good for this ground and will take a lot of beating. With rain about, looks like DL will come into play - over to MfC

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Dog - you mean Woakes but, yes, the best ever performance by an England bowler in SL.

Although Woakes' are the stand out figures, a very fine contribution (again) from Tredwell. I do believe that (again) shows his worth and trust it puts him in strong  contention for a WC team place.

Root's 5 overs were not untidy. MfC can continue in his belief that Root can be part of a fifth bowler combo although I'll remain uncomfortable with that until it's clearly proven.

Meanwhile, not a single over from Bopara.

General view is that SL's total is very good for this ground and will take a lot of beating. With rain about, looks like DL will come into play - over to MfC

Doesn't Woakes have a 7fer in ODI's?

Stella wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Dog - you mean Woakes but, yes, the best ever performance by an England bowler in SL.

Although Woakes' are the stand out figures, a very fine contribution (again) from Tredwell. I do believe that (again) shows his worth and trust it puts him in strong  contention for a WC team place.

Root's 5 overs were not untidy. MfC can continue in his belief that Root can be part of a fifth bowler combo although I'll remain uncomfortable with that until it's clearly proven.

Meanwhile, not a single over from Bopara.

General view is that SL's total is very good for this ground and will take a lot of beating. With rain about, looks like DL will come into play - over to MfC

Doesn't Woakes have a 7fer in ODI's?

Just checked. He has another 6 fer.

Well played Woakes, and Tredwell excellent and can claim a couple of those wickets for himself because by keeping things so tight he forced batsmen to take risks at the end of the innings.

England simply have to win from here, the bowlers have set it up, it is now down to the all too often misfiring batting to deliver. This could actually suit Cook as there is no pressure to score quickly

I agree with the general consensus about Tredwell's contribution. It just reinforces the madness of not playing him earlier. And it will IMO be a big mistake if England go into the WC with Moeen as their main spinner and the 4 seamers (although I agree with MfC that that does seem to be the current thinking; perhaps today will change things).

Woakes has really come on in the last couple of years, and he has recently looked like England's most likely option at the death.

The 5th bowler combination did OK I suppose, but 15 overs for 71 with no wickets out of a score of 240odd is not all that to shout about either. I believe that beyond the statistics, having to bowl 10 overs of non-specialist bowling means you have to bowl them at certain times and this allows the batsmen to settled themselves and play themselves in. Had Woakes not done so well at the death I believe SL would have gone on to 260 or so, and a lot of that could be attributed to the 5th bowler releasing the pressure which the early wickets had built.

I know MfC argues that a lot of the teams do it, but if you look at the more successful sides like India, South Africa, Australia, yes SA and to a lesser extent Aus fill in 10 overs but they both have genuine strike bowlers (Steyn, Morkel, Johnson, Starc, Cummins) to who they can turn in the middle overs for wickets. England don't really have that (unless Finn somehow clicks again). This means that when batting against Aus/SA you can't simply wait for the 5th bowler and then milk/go after him as those sides will bring back their strike bowlers for 2-4 over spells somewhere in the middle.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Dog - you mean Woakes but, yes, the best ever performance by an England bowler in SL.

Although Woakes' are the stand out figures, a very fine contribution from Tredwell. I do believe that (again) shows his worth and trust it puts him in strong  contention for a WC team place.

Root's 5 overs were not untidy. MfC can continue in his belief that Root can be part of a fifth bowler combo although I'll remain uncomfortable with that until it's clearly proven.

Meanwhile, not a single over from Bopara.

General view is that SL's total is very good for this ground and will take a lot of beating. With rain about, looks like DL will come into play - over to MfC

well given that SL completed their innings this is a pretty simple computation actually

England will chase roughly 215 in 40 overs, 180 in 30 overs, 135 in 20, etc (as near as I can make out...). Given SL's low score, shortened game probably favours England here.

commentators banging on about why didn't Bops bowl? must confess to a bit of a as to why England's main bowlers should have bowled even less than they did, unless they mean that Moeen shouldn't have bowled his 10 overs.

Overall I thought it was decent from England.

Commentators have just said that 20 overs would mean England chasing just under 150, which means that my DL spreadsheet isn't up to date, anyone got a more recent one?

Mike Selig wrote:
I know MfC argues that a lot of the teams do it, but if you look at the more successful sides like India, South Africa, Australia, yes SA and to a lesser extent Aus fill in 10 overs but they both have genuine strike bowlers (Steyn, Morkel, Johnson, Starc, Cummins) to who they can turn in the middle overs for wickets. England don't really have that (unless Finn somehow clicks again). This means that when batting against Aus/SA you can't simply wait for the 5th bowler and then milk/go after him as those sides will bring back their strike bowlers for 2-4 over spells somewhere in the middle.

is a decent point. However, I also argue that pretty much all the teams do it nowadays (see Pak vs NZ from a few days ago, WI usually have Sammy/Ramdin at 7/8, etc.). The only real exceptions are India (who have Jadeja) and possibly BD (I admit to not knowing who plays for them in ODIs at the moment). Since you know more about the modern thinking than I do, is there a reason for this?