Post Ashes England Cricket discussion - ODIs and the NZ squads

First topic message reminder :

As Olly roundly predicted (and I can tell you, he aggressively told people), England have stormed the Ashes and now move forwards to a one-day series with the Aussies.

Tonight, they name the squad for New Zealand, with Vince expected to keep his place for more convincing knocks, whilst Liam Livingstone is tipped to get the call too.

Charged with affray.

Could well be a prison sentence if found guilty.

I wonder if the original perpetrators of the crime have been charged with anything. The two that picked on a man for being gay in the club then Stokes stepped in.

EDIT: Yes looks like they have been charged as well thankfully.

Hugely unlikely he'd get jailed, but its going to be very difficult for England not to suspend him assuming hes found/pleads guilty (which is pretty much a given, the CPS wouldnt go with such a high profile case unless they were very confident )
I guess another 6 months at least without him whilst this drags through the courts... Its going to make rebuilding the test side even harder if he misses the summer.

If that's what they were doing I hope so. Beyond that not fussed

Well he’s been cleared to play in New Zealand!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Well he’s been cleared to play in New Zealand!

Yes I saw that.

Changes a lot of things with regards starting line-up etc. Who gets dropped from the side? I think the team will line-up in the First Test something like this:-

Cook
Stoneman
Vince
Root (Capt.)
Malan
Stokes
Bairstow
Ali
Wood
Broad
Anderson

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Well he’s been cleared to play in New Zealand!

Yes I saw that.

Changes a lot of things with regards starting line-up etc. Who gets dropped from the side? I think the team will line-up in the First Test something like this:-

Cook
Stoneman
Vince
Root (Capt.)
Malan
Stokes
Bairstow
Ali
Wood
Broad
Anderson

Something along those lines I’d imagine Craig - unless they move Malan to 3, YJB to 5, and being in Foakes or Woakes at 7/8.

Having him back gives us so many more options

Wonder if Livingstone did better than Vince in the warm up game if he would get the number 3 position. Like the team by CaledonianCraig.

I have heard many people advocating moving Malan to number 3 in order to give Vince or the next entry a go in the less pressured position at 5. I would be keen on keeping Malan at 5, like in Craig's team. I don't see the point of risking breaking one part of the team that seems to work in an attempt to solve another part of the team that clearly doesn't work.

Drop Borad and play Woakes in New Zealand. It’ll swing, Broad can take a rest, still gets Wood in.

Vince annoys me so his inclusion will be annoying wherever he plays. More than one player who has flopped at 3 but then not had the team moved around and given a chance at 5.

LivinginItaly wrote:I have heard many people advocating moving Malan to number 3 in order to give Vince or the next entry a go in the less pressured position at 5. I would be keen on keeping Malan at 5, like in Craig's team. I don't see the point of risking breaking one part of the team that seems to work in an attempt to solve another part of the team that clearly doesn't work.

Hi LiI - yes, I tend to go along with you about Malan staying at 5.

Malan's doing pretty well in that role and for similar reasons I can't see the gloves being taken off Bairstow to push him higher up the order (Olly's bit of speculation above refers).

Anyway, the likely sort of team, as posted by Craig, immediately comes across as having so much more balance and depth with Stokes restored.

I doubt they want another left hander at the top of the order so Malan is unlikely to move up to three. Arguably unfair to him in any case ; and , as Living in Italy says : why change a part that is working to fix one that doesn't ? Remember when they moved Root up to open after he'd done well in the late middle order ? Not a great outcome : then he was edged down to three - and ended up dropped (albeit briefly)... Main point being : it didn't help anyone.

Since Vince is still in the party I fancy he is likely to start ; though I suppose Livingstone is an option. Actually Craig's team looks quite likely. Could vary the bowlers (though I am keen to see Wood tried ) with Woakes and Overton around ...and if Moeen hasn't regained his mojo Crane could stay as the spinner - easier to do with Stokes back aboard.

Nothing against Foakes but Bairstow seems to have pretty much overcome critics of his keeping - which was arguably more consistently good than his batting on the Ashes trip ; so I can't see much point in messing about with that position.

No question the whole side looks better with Stokes there...batting and bowling. More solid : and more flexibility ... if that's not a paradox

alfie wrote:I doubt they want another left hander at the top of the order so Malan is unlikely to move up to three.  Arguably unfair to him in any case ; and ,  as Living in Italy says :  why change a part that is working to fix one that doesn't ?  Remember when they moved Root up to open after he'd done well in the late middle order ?  Not a great outcome : then he was edged down to three - and ended up dropped (albeit briefly)... Main point being : it didn't help anyone.

Since Vince is still in the party I fancy he is likely to start ; though I suppose Livingstone is an option.  Actually Craig's team looks quite likely.  Could vary the bowlers (though I am keen to see Wood tried ) with Woakes and Overton around ...and if Moeen hasn't regained his mojo Crane could stay as the spinner - easier to do with Stokes back aboard.

Nothing against Foakes but Bairstow seems to have pretty much overcome critics of his keeping - which was arguably more consistently good than his batting on the Ashes trip ; so I can't see much point in messing about with that position.

No question the whole side looks better with Stokes there...batting and bowling.  More solid : and more flexibility  ... if that's not a paradox

Agreed - Stokes absence in the Ashes particularly meant that we had no flexibility to play e.g. Crane instead of Ali or to use YJB as a batsman and Foakes as a keeper/batsman. Add to that having Balance as the only reserve batsman, someone who the coaches obviously didn't trust, and the selection was somewhat shambolic even before we lost about 4 or 5 seamers.

Whilst it's true that our team looks a lot stronger with the return of Stokes, we still have some key areas to address.

Cook
? (stoneman)
? (Vince / Livingston / 3rd opener e.g hameed)
Root
Malan
Stokes
Bairstow
? (Moeen or frontline spinner)
? (third seamer: Woakes, Wood, TRJ)
Broad
Anderson.

I think Stoneman is fortunate that the number 3 is proving to be such a big problem which means that his fighting, gutsy performances have been valued higher than they otherwise might have been. I personally would prefer to see Hameed brought in at some point in the summer as an opener with stoneman fighting for the number 3 spot.

The next big issue is the spinner. Enough has been written about this already. With the return of Stokes at 6 and consequently Bairstow at 7 I would choose a frontline spinner and stick with them.

The last issue is the 3rd seamer. Last year it seemed that Woakes was establishing himself nicely, but he has followed this up with a bad ashes both with the ball and bat. However, if we are going with a new spinner e.g. crane or leach who would bat lower down then I would prefer Woakes over Wood or TRJ  at number 8.

Hazlewood out of the second ODI, thus tipping the balance to England just a little bit more.

Moeen at 5, Crane or another spinner in, Malan at 3.

Or Stoneman at 3, another opener in.

All depending on Root not playing 3. Could Mo go to 3?

The above selection I posted is what the selectors will go for in my opinion. But I'd prefer to see much more tinkering. Something like:-

Cook
Stoneman
Bairstow
Root
Malan
Foakes (w/k)
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Crane
Anderson

CaledonianCraig wrote:The above selection I posted is what the selectors will go for in my opinion. But I'd prefer to see much more tinkering. Something like:-

Cook
Stoneman
Bairstow
Root
Malan
Foakes (w/k)
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Crane
Anderson

I think this team would be a batting collapse waiting to happen. In my opinion number 3 is too high for Bairstow, number six is too high for Foakes, number seven is too high for Woakes, number 8 is too high for Wood and arguably number 9 is too high for Broad.

LivinginItaly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The above selection I posted is what the selectors will go for in my opinion. But I'd prefer to see much more tinkering. Something like:-

Cook
Stoneman
Bairstow
Root
Malan
Foakes (w/k)
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Crane
Anderson

I think this team would be a batting collapse waiting to happen. In my opinion number 3 is too high for Bairstow, number six is too high for Foakes, number seven is too high for Woakes, number 8 is too high for Wood and arguably number 9 is too high for Broad.

Also choosing not to select Stokes is bizarre

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The above selection I posted is what the selectors will go for in my opinion. But I'd prefer to see much more tinkering. Something like:-

Cook
Stoneman
Bairstow
Root
Malan
Foakes (w/k)
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Crane
Anderson

I think this team would be a batting collapse waiting to happen. In my opinion number 3 is too high for Bairstow, number six is too high for Foakes, number seven is too high for Woakes, number 8 is too high for Wood and arguably number 9 is too high for Broad.

Also choosing not to select Stokes is bizarre

Ooops yes would have Stokes of course for Woakes batting at six so that would be:-

Cook
Stoneman
Bairstow
Root
Malan
Stokes
Foakes (w/k)
Wood
Broad
Crane
Anderson

LivinginItaly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The above selection I posted is what the selectors will go for in my opinion. But I'd prefer to see much more tinkering. Something like:-

Cook
Stoneman
Bairstow
Root
Malan
Foakes (w/k)
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Crane
Anderson

I think this team would be a batting collapse waiting to happen. In my opinion number 3 is too high for Bairstow, number six is too high for Foakes, number seven is too high for Woakes, number 8 is too high for Wood and arguably number 9 is too high for Broad.

No I wouldn't say nine is too high for Broad considering he averages just over 20 with the bat.

That's a very shaky looking line up even with Stokes added. Very much a 5 out, all out kind of team

VTR wrote:That's a very shaky looking line up even with Stokes added. Very much a 5 out,  all out kind of team

England went into the Ashes with a team that apparently was touted as being best batting tail in the world and look what happened there? Low scores and bowlers more included for their input with the bat than the ball. Get the best bowlers in there as you need to take 20 wickets to win a match first and foremost.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

VTR wrote:That's a very shaky looking line up even with Stokes added. Very much a 5 out,  all out kind of team

England went into the Ashes with a team that apparently was touted as being best batting tail in the world and look what happened there? Low scores and bowlers more included for their input with the bat than the ball. Get the best bowlers in there as you need to take 20 wickets to win a match first and foremost.

Nobody touted it as the best batting tail without Stokes...

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

VTR wrote:That's a very shaky looking line up even with Stokes added. Very much a 5 out,  all out kind of team

England went into the Ashes with a team that apparently was touted as being best batting tail in the world and look what happened there? Low scores and bowlers more included for their input with the bat than the ball. Get the best bowlers in there as you need to take 20 wickets to win a match first and foremost.

Nobody touted it as the best batting tail without Stokes...

Okay but my point still stands. England need to look at their priorities. Pick their best batsmen and strictly their best bowlers and not just go for bowlers who can bat a bit but are not necessarily blessed with the best bowling averages.

I'm not sure Wood and Crane are in the list of England's best bowlers. I'd rather Wood was kept for the limited overs stuff, his Test record is mediocre at best, and Crane is a long way off being a Test match quality spinner

VTR wrote:I'm not sure Wood and Crane are in the list of England's best bowlers. I'd rather Wood was kept for the limited overs stuff, his Test record is mediocre at best, and Crane is a long way off being a Test match quality spinner

Well neither is Ali so England need to look elsewhere for spinners. Of course the team named are only chosen from.the players in the squad.

Duty281 wrote:Hazlewood out of the second ODI, thus tipping the balance to England just a little bit more.

Also Cummins and possibly Paine are out now for today's match. What's the balance looking like now, Duty... and what are the revised odds?

This looks like another mauling is on the way. Unless Australia have an amazing stroke of luck and England revert back to their 'traditional' poor form in this format. Things can turn around fairly quickly in this game but I'm not so sure we will have the necessary strike power with the ball... hope I'm wrong.

I thought it was interesting reading Bairstow's reply to Warner's comment to "up the tempo" by saying "they can try to copy our aggressive style of play..." YJB does realise it was Australia who pioneered this approach many years ago (at least prior to 18 months ago) as their ODI record shows.

After all, I'm pretty sure Australia have around 80 +300 scores compared to England's 35 odd... nothing new for us but it seems to be a relatively recent goal for England. It's about time they caught up with the other big guns.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Hazlewood out of the second ODI, thus tipping the balance to England just a little bit more.

Also Cummins and possibly Paine are out now for today's match. What's the balance looking like now, Duty... and what are the revised odds?

This looks like another mauling is on the way. Unless Australia have an amazing stroke of luck and England revert back to their 'traditional' poor form in this format. Things can turn around fairly quickly in this game but I'm not so sure we will have the necessary strike power with the ball... hope I'm wrong.

I thought it was interesting reading Bairstow's reply to Warner's comment to "up the tempo" by saying "they can try to copy our aggressive style of play..." YJB does realise it was Australia who pioneered this approach many years ago (at least prior to 18 months ago) as their record shows.

After all, I'm pretty sure Australia have around 80 +300 scores compared to England's 35 odd... nothing new for us but it seems to be a relatively recent goal for England. It's about time they caught up with the other big guns.

England are favourites for the series - only narrowly though, 4/6.

In terms of today's game, England are 13/10, which is surely a tempter!

That was a quick response!

Yeah, jump on it. Don't think I'll be putting any money on Oz... then again I don't gamble.

This one should be interesting though. Our top order need to do a hell of a lot better than Melbourne and set a platform for an even better middle order performance than last time.

Pressure is on Starc, Tye, Richardson and Zampa. Like I said - it doesn't look the strongest of attacks on the international stage - or tested, apart from Starc. They will need to strike early and often to give us any chance.

I think, as in the Test series, one side is going in with a lot in their favour. Here it is England who have a lot of destructive batsmen even in mid to lower order. They also have a fresher bowling attack and better spin option with Rashid there now.

I aim to please, LD!

Can see that point of view, however there are some pretty destructive batsmen in that Australian side too... right down to Starc even.
Tye and Richardson should still be fairly fresh and Zampa can turn it and feeds off success. They just need to back themselves.

I would never bet on a limited over contest...too many upsets for mine.

Fancy England have the edge here but would be foolish to write Australia off with the batsmen they have.

How's the heat alfie? Building up here too. Stay cool!

Slightly bizarre selection from the Aussies imo - only three proper bowlers, and then two all rounders and a part time off spinner

254-6 with three overs left - they need a big finish here. Seems all three ENgland spinners bowled well today

The Loaded Dog wrote:How's the heat alfie? Building up here too. Stay cool!

Bl...y hot here , LD ! Cool change (over)due now...not that I can complain have been in air conditioned office so just last night to put up with...sympathy for the tennis players !

Home in time for the latter part of this Australian innings...rather fizzled out didn't it ? Finch on song ; but not a lot of support though I thought young Carey was quite impressive until he fell to some fancy footwork from Woakes...

Don't think that target will be enough.

Also amazing watching this Aussie batting line up to think that Glenn Maxwell was dropped. He’s better than at least 4 in this XI today

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Slightly bizarre selection from the Aussies imo - only three proper bowlers, and then two all rounders and a part time off spinner

254-6 with three overs left - they need a big finish here. Seems all three ENgland spinners bowled well today

The "big finish" came from Woakes and Wood ! Excellent death bowling to restrict the scoring like that at the end

I know the formats are very different. But even so the difference in the performance of Moeen and Woakes with the ball from the Test series is remarkable ...must surely be confidence more than actual technical ability. I seem to recall Woakes was originally thought to be a better bet for the long game than limited overs stuff : perhaps that was wrong ?

Hope Roy can emulate Finch and keep his form going. I couldn't watch the other night , had to settle for the wireless...hopefully wont hex him tonight

(When he plays that sort of innings you can see why they were so reluctant to drop him when he was in the horrors last year ! One good result from Stokes missing some cricket is that Roy was able to slot back into the team without any difficulty...paid off well )

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Also amazing watching this Aussie batting line up to think that Glenn Maxwell was dropped. He’s better than at least 4 in this XI today

Indeed. I know his figures aren't that great over the last year but I'd agree he would be more dangerous than White ...or arguably Head or Stoinis. Think he is paying the price for a prickly personality which seems to have alienated a few teammates.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The above selection I posted is what the selectors will go for in my opinion. But I'd prefer to see much more tinkering. Something like:-

Cook
Stoneman
Bairstow
Root
Malan
Foakes (w/k)
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Crane
Anderson

I think this team would be a batting collapse waiting to happen. In my opinion number 3 is too high for Bairstow, number six is too high for Foakes, number seven is too high for Woakes, number 8 is too high for Wood and arguably number 9 is too high for Broad.

No I wouldn't say nine is too high for Broad considering he averages just over 20 with the bat.

True he does average around 20, but his batting has regressed to a boundary or out mentality. Whilst entertaining, and occasionally the provider of very useful runs, you wouldn't say he has any great stickability at the crease which is often more important when batting with a more recognised batsman. For me he is ok at 9 if you have 7 and 8's of the calibre of Bairstow and Ali. But a 8 and 9 of wood and broad is flimsy for me.

So how good is Joe Root as bowler? On the stats alone he had the best bowling record: wickets 2 (equal top with Rashid) and economy rate 4.43 / over (joint second with Moenn and Woakes top at 4.11).

Of course this says nothing about when he bowled (presumably not towards the end) but does suggest he might become an all-rounder if he spent time improving his bowling. Steve Smith started out as a bowler before his batting ability began to shine through.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

VTR wrote:That's a very shaky looking line up even with Stokes added. Very much a 5 out,  all out kind of team

England went into the Ashes with a team that apparently was touted as being best batting tail in the world and look what happened there? Low scores and bowlers more included for their input with the bat than the ball. Get the best bowlers in there as you need to take 20 wickets to win a match first and foremost.

Nobody touted it as the best batting tail without Stokes...

Okay but my point still stands. England need to look at their priorities. Pick their best batsmen and strictly their best bowlers and not just go for bowlers who can bat a bit but are not necessarily blessed with the best bowling averages.

So you're going to pick bowlers with worse bowling averages and batting averages? Bold

Turning to the ODI, I think England with a solid start should win this one quite easily. Today targets of 270 seem to pose few problems unless there are any demons in the pitch, which didn't seem to be the case in Australia's innings.

No name Bertie wrote:So how good is Joe Root as bowler?  On the stats alone he had the best bowling record: wickets 2 (equal top with Rashid) and economy rate 4.43 / over (joint second with Moenn and Woakes top at 4.11).

Of course this says nothing about when he bowled (presumably not towards the end) but does suggest he might become an all-rounder if he spent time improving his bowling.  Steve Smith started out as a bowler before his batting ability began to shine through.

I do think he underbowls himself as captain. Has often picked up breakthrough wickets in Tests and doesn't look a bad bowler at all. Wouldn't expect him to bowl twenty overs but no reason he couldn't do a job as second spinner in Tests. Should definitely have bowled more in Adelaide , for example.

He bowled quite early on today but they were going well when he came on so he was instrumental in cutting them back ...and he kept it up without getting hammered later.

Anyway I guess I did hex Roy

(For some reason I tend to miss his best efforts : just one of those things)

But Bairstow and Hales seem to be striking the ball pretty well. 49 in eight is reasonable...and they aren't chasing a monster. You'd think Australia are a proper bowler light...

alfie wrote:Anyway I guess I did hex Roy

(For some reason I tend to miss his best efforts : just one of those things)

But Bairstow and Hales seem to be striking the ball pretty well. 49 in eight is reasonable...and they aren't chasing a monster.  You'd think Australia are a proper bowler light...

Haha - as they said on comms, the other day he had a couple which just missed a fielder, and today he picks out the fielder just. Funny old game

50's for both Bairstow and Hales, 100 partnership up also

Fifty for YJB

Overtaking Hales...but not for long as he goes to fifty also with a six

Doing this too easily at present : Finch bowling . Really ? Cannot fathom why Lyon can't get near the ODI team. Or are they afraid bowling in the format might spoil his Test form ?

Gah really poor dismissal from YJB that, just needed to consolidate for a bit after Hales went softly too