posted Jun 1, 2008

I don't think he should play - we need an explosive start at the top of the order, as our middle order (KP excluded) don't score runs quick enough or score runs period. I would have preferred to see benning in the squad rather than cook, or play mustard purely as a batsman

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 2, 2008

Surely with the 20/20 world cup here next year its time we started the search for a Trescothik replacement? Joe Denly of Kent maybe? KP opening also sounds like a good option - If the Ego would risk faliure!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 2, 2008

I would have used these 50 overs games to look at players who could come into contention for the ashes or even later this summer against SA, because if we have injuries or people seriously out of form then WE HAVE NO ONE with good test experience to step up.
I'd have gone for this line-up and then stick to it, so that we can at least draw some conclusions from the series.

BELL
PIETERSEN
SHAH
COLLINGWOOD
BOPARA
WRIGHT
PRIOR
SWANN
RASHID
TREMLETT
ONIONS

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 2, 2008

"I don't think he should play - we need an explosive start at the top of the order, as our middle order (KP excluded) don't score runs quick enough or score runs period. I would have preferred to see benning in the squad rather than cook, or play mustard purely as a batsman"

I find it odd how many people give KP a god-like status, ignoring facts. Don't get me wrong - KP is a great player but he's not infallible

In the last 20 ODI matches England have played :

Bell has scored 722 runs at a strike-rate of 80.67%
Cook has scored 587 runs at a strike-rate of 66.32% (19 games)
Collingwood has scored 560 runs at a strike-rate of 91.5%
Pietersen has scored 528 runs at a strike-rate of 73.64%
Shah has scored 480 runs at a strike-rate of 75.11% (18 games)

Numbers don't lie. In the last year KP has neither been the biggest scorer or the fastest scorer. Too many people put him on a pedestal that his performances do not support

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 2, 2008

Why on earth Strauss hasn't been selected beats me. He's our form batsmen and has always been a consistent performer in ODIs.

With a view to the 'specialists' tag, there are obvious one-day specialists in the county game (Loye, Maddy, Ali Brown etc) but in the international game it just comes down to whether you're good enough or not. Jayasuriya and Gilchrist, the examples mentioned in this article for hitting big, quick hundreds, have also been well-established test players for many years.

The England team needs good balance, particularly in the batting.

1. Strauss
2. Wright
3. Pietersen
4. Bell
5. Collingwood
6. Shah
7. Prior
8. Broad/Mascarenhas
9. Swann
10. Sidebottom
11. Anderson

For 20-20 side wouldn't be much different, however Mascarenhas would have to move up the order so he can get a good go at the bowlers.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 2, 2008

Our obsession with having a pinch-hitter and accumulator to open worries me ... partly because we need accumulators who can read the game and play the situation. Paul Collingwood is the perfect example of someone who plays the situation which is why he is captain. The other reason it worries me is that it puts unnecesary pressure on one batsman. With the Cook, Mustard partnership it was all on Phil Mustard to score quickly. The reason the Brendan McCullum and Jesse Ryder played with so much freedom is that they both are big hitters so there was no pressure on either one of them to hit every ball.

The make up of the top order should be three big hitters and for me that would be Mustard, Benning and Pietersen.

The remaining four batting places would be made up of two big hitters and two batsmen who can play the situation. It is then down to the captain who goes in what order. Forget about who is down as number 6 or 7. If we lose early wickets then send in the more intelligent batsmen to play the situation and if we don't lose them early then keep sending in the out and out big hitters.

So my next four batsmen would be Collingwood, Shah (or Bell), Mascarenhas and Wright.

The remaining four slots would go to the bowlers and they would be Swann, Broad, Sidebottom and Anderson.

Basically, we need to change our attitude to limtied over cricket ... take the pressure off the top order batsmen by having more than one big-hitter for the opening overs and have the nouse to juggle the batting order around so that we are reacting to the situation we find ourselves in.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 2, 2008

lingos

"always been a consistent performer in ODIs" - I don't know what you're basing that on. He made a bright start, at four I think, before gradually fading away. His current test form is irrelevant frankly. His fifty over record is distinctly mediocre despite plenty of chances.

Can anyone who continues to advocate Cook opening please tell me what role Bell then has. The latter is much more established, has a comfortably better record & can bat anywhere in the top three - why threaten that progress in an attempt to incorporate the former too?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 3, 2008

commenting on Mccullum Jaysayraya, Gilcrist, Marsh etc big hitters are ok but who topped the league, swallows and summers come to mind it takes all sorts to win a series/league, not just one big hitting performance and four failures.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 4, 2008

We don't have players capable of playing like McCollum and Jayasuria, as proven by the performances of people like Darren Maddy at the Twenty Twenty world cup, so let's just go with the best cricketers that we have!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 4, 2008

Hasn't Cook only ever hit one six in international cricket? and I'm pretty sure it was a bit of a false shot too.

add comment | complain about this comment