BBC BLOGS - Test Match Special
« Previous | Main | Next »

England one-day ratings

Alec Stewart - former England captain | 19:16 UK time, Saturday, 28 June 2008

Here's how I rated the performances of the England team in the one-day series against New Zealand.

Ian Bell
England's best looking player but must convert promising starts into meaningful, match-winning scores. 4

Luke Wright
Still trying to find his feet at this level. Has talent, but must kick on. 4

Kevin Pietersen
Apart from his 100 at Durham and the 'switch-hit', just 23 in four innings is not good enough. 5

Ravi Bopara
Should be persevered with for his undoubted ability, but needs a big performance soon. 5.5

Paul Collingwood
Led by example with bat and ball and will return to the helm after his ban. His apology has been accepted by New Zealand. Time to move on. 7

Owais Shah
Now looks at home at this level and his position looks secure. A good personal series full of inventive batting. 8

Tim Ambrose
Offered nothing with the bat and missed two straightforward chances. A strong character who needs more consistency. 2

Graeme Swann
Impressive series with the ball and will grow in stature. Must work on his throwing at the stumps. 7

Stuart Broad
England's Man of the Series, in my opinion, Growing in stature by the game, and I can't speak too highly of what he's achieved to date. 8.5

Ryan Sidebottom
Injury hampered England's Mr Reliable, and he didn't quite reach his usual high standards. 5

James Anderson
Bowled well at times but must improve his consistency with the white ball. 4

Tremlett, Mascarenhas, Cook - didn't play enough to make a judgement....


  • Comment number 1.

    how does Bopara score 5.5 (above average) and Bell 4 (well below) when Bell averaged more

  • Comment number 2.

    Bell was run out by Pietersen in Durham just before his 50. Has happened before. Bell has been playing catch up ever since. Pressure? Why not ask our new captain? Bell was at his best in Durham. We'll never know what innings was nipped in the bud by Pietersen's carelessness. Somehow Pietersen never gets the message that other players matter as much as he does. Pietersen also tore into poor Ambrose for taking his free hit. Ambrose looked really shaken. How to knock a fellow player's confidence?
    Rating Bell at 4 below Bopara is nonsense.
    Bell is also in new role as opener. Is this to accommodate Pietersen at 3?
    If Moores backed his classiest batsman maybe Bell could settle in one position instead of being shoved up and down the order.

  • Comment number 3.

    Ambrose is a failed one day experiment, so back to Mustard please.
    Bell irritates me beyond belief. He has had every opportunity going this last couple of years, yet appears immune from the consequences of repeated underachievement.
    Luke Wright does not look classy enough at the top flight to me. I can understand how a captain would want him in their side, as he resembles an Andrex puppy bounding round the field trying to please, and he's got a bit of bottle.
    The front line bowlers have served us pretty well, but we definately need Freddie back to add a bit of x factor in the field, and a bit of muscle in the middle for some tail end hitting.

  • Comment number 4.

    Typical of a Surrey man, I think he's automatically deducted points from players outside the London counties (the capt excluded).
    According to these scores, Bell would be the first batsmen to be dropped which I can't believe is right - for tests at least. His prominance in our one-day team and even playing him in 20-20 just shows how thin on quality we really are. The best batting sides build their line-ups around their openers, we seem to try and fill in around our (under-achieving) superstar.
    I think Ambrose has missed his chance - time for Mr Mustard perhaps.

  • Comment number 5.

    Ambrose out Prior in. Will strengthen the batting which is still the problem with England

  • Comment number 6.

    You missed out someone:

    Andrew Strauss - 10+, for putting up with driving around a thousand miles (including return trips) for England without getting to actually play in the starting XI.

  • Comment number 7.

    Bell has proved that he is the man to open for England.

  • Comment number 8.

    I find it astonishing that Sidebottom gets a higher score than Anderson. Sidebottom had a really poor series and picked up only two wickets in his 3 matches - bb 2/55, ave 75, econ 5.35. He looked miserable much of the time as well. Just because he is normally reliable doesn't mean he has to be marked higher than he deserves. "Didn't quite reach his usual high standards" - pur-lease!

    Anderson wasn't at his best either but his average, economy, strike rate and wicket hauls were all better than Sidebottom's. Stewart draws our attention to Jimmy's inconsistency - as if we are ever allowed to forget - but after going for 61 runs at Bristol (and he did take 3 wickets), he showed a lot more control at the Oval and Lord's.

    As for Bell: as usual marked down because of what he should have achieved rather than what he did. A fairly mediocre series with no big scores, but still made more runs than Pietersen despite KP's ton and deserves 5 or at least 4 and a half.

  • Comment number 9.

    Why would you pay upwards of £40 to watch England play ODI cricket.

    Forget Stanfords millions.

    Pietersen played well in one game - and Shad had a reasonable run, but otherwise the batting as a unit comprehensively failed.

    What does the batting coach teach these guys at International level? Too much thinking and planning, not enough instinctively hitting the ball. It's a simple game don't make it too complicated.... I recognise there is an improvement in standards but the likes of Bopara and Wright appear to be over-coached - just let them play....

    England have had relatively easy cricket for 6 months playing a NZ team who would struggle to beat some of our county sides - Bracewell has driven the best NZ players out of the game and is now wanted by Gloucs!!!!

    SA will be a much sterner test. Mr Moores has coached a team that beat a poor WI side and a NZ side with about 4 good players in it. Failed to beat India and SL when it really mattered.

    England has at least 20 good international standard players in the county game - yet the likes of Bell, to name one, have consistently failed against high quality bowling attacks.

    Make some bold decisions and pick players in form who deserve a run at this level - both in batting and bowling departments.

    Otherwise the game in years to come will be watched by an increasingly older and disillusionsed population.

    PS - Mr Stewart kept wicket for far too long and Micky's selection prevented Jack from keeping wicket in his pomp. As a batsmen-wicketkeeper your average was not justification for keeping one of the best keepers out of the side.

    That closed shop appears to continue today with the likes of Bell....

  • Comment number 10.

    One thing Alec did get right is that Stuart Broad was the stand out player on both sides. He has become Englands most consistent performer with the ball at such an early time in his career and we should look forward to him troubling the Aussie top order next summer.

  • Comment number 11.

    Bell - 5.5
    Wright - 4.5
    KP - 5
    Bopara - 5.5
    Collingwood - 5.5
    Shah - 7.5
    Ambrose - 1
    Broad - 8
    Swann - 6.5
    Sidebottom - 5
    Anderson - 4.5

    Cook - 4.5
    Dimi - 5
    Tremlett - 5

  • Comment number 12.

    I wonder what Chris Read has done to upset the selectors. He is a consistent run scorer in all forms of the game and streets ahead of the competition as a wicketkeeper. Is he paying the price of that one dismissal all those years ago?

  • Comment number 13.

    Hard to take seriously anything from Stewart regarding Bell. How can he be objective when he is his agent and therefore talking him up (albeit not marking him up) whilst salivating at thoughts of 10% of Bell's share of the 2020millions.
    On a more general note it seems to me that the current england team are a self satisfied pampered bunch who think the hard work is done by getting into the squad and are now desperate not to lose out on the millions soon to be swilling around the system. Therefore they are not playing their normal game and the pressure is on more than ever. It is not surprising we read of divisions and cliques opening up between Test only and shorter form players as imagine how strauss for example might feel in missing out on £1m+ to someone like say swann . It's all going to end in tears.

  • Comment number 14.

    Well, after congratulating NZ for once again outlasting England, and beating them once more in the one day form, how can England players expect England fans to be paying good money to come and see them get worse in 2008, after some quite good ODI results in 2007?

    It is really frustrating to see England squander potential match winning situations time after time, with the talent available in the country. What is Ambrose doing in the team, with Mustard doing well in county cricket and 20/20, and, with the evident batting problems, why not bring an experienced player like Strauss back in to partner Bell, or another opener like Denly, or Mustard?

    Whatever happens, the England coach and batting coach had better sort something out quickly, otherwise S.Africa is going to slaughter England in the test matches and ODIs, and I don't think that I am going to be the only disillusioned England fan. Despite what the coach and Collingwood are saying about this being a young team learning to improve in the short form of the game, England is going nowhere, and apparently do not even have the pride or guts to give their fans something to cheer about.
    Thank goodness for the Olympic team, with the athletes, rowers, sailors, and cyclists- maybe they could teach our pampered cricketers and footballers how to win!

    A fed up England fan

  • Comment number 15.

    I'm not usually particularly supportive of Ian Bell but 4 seems a little harsh. The same applies, although to a greater degree, to James Anderson. He may not have had a fantastic series, but he tends to be a slightly unlucky bowler, and his fielding is usually first-class. Therefore I would give him at least 5.5 out of 10.

  • Comment number 16.

    Alec Stewart - great cricketer, god-awful pundit.

  • Comment number 17.

    I cannot see why praise is constanly heaped on Pietersen while Bell is rubbished.

    They are both undoubtedly good players, however, when Pietersen fails his place is never in danger, whereas Bell seems to be constantly under threat.

    It's all a question of character. Pietersen is so much in your face that nobody dares question him. But Bell is a much humbler sort of chap, so it seems, and therefore an easy target for the armchair people. It's a pity really, but there it is.

    Anyway, if Bell plays again SA, then I reckon he'll get more runs than Pietersen.

  • Comment number 18.

    My ratings of both the team players on a 0-100 scale are:


    Collingwood (97) Owais Shah (81) Swann (62) Ian Bell (58) Luke Wright (57) Pietersen (56) Stuart Broad (56) Bopara (54) Anderson (38) Sidebottom (21) Tremlett (10) Cook (9) Mascarenhas (9) Ambrose (7)

    New Zealand:

    Styris (100) Kyle Mills (82) Southee (75) Elliott (72) McCullum (60) Vettori (51) Oram (46) How (46) Flynn (37) Taylor (29) Gillespie (26) Hopkins (17) Mason (11) and J A H Marshall (2)

  • Comment number 19.

    My choice of English ODI team is:
    Batsmen: Pietersen, Cook, Owais Shah, Ian Bell, Ed Joyce OR Luke Wright.
    Bowlers: Plunkett, Jon Lewis, Sidebottom, Stuart Broad
    All Rounder: Collingwood
    Keeper: Philip Mustard

    My choice of English test match team is:
    Batting: Pietersen, Vaughan, Cook, Strauss, Bell.
    Bowlers: Tremlett, Anderson, Sidebottom, Panesar
    All Rounder: Collingwood
    Keeper: Ambrose.

  • Comment number 20.

    well stewie, i couldn't less agree with your comments. collie = 4, shah =9 bopara = 7 broad = 6, anderson/ryan =4 . these are my ratings, england were outplayed by a weak/unexperienced new zealand side. thats horrible, england have great stars in their line up but no1 is performing when it counts and no1 is giving ideas to any1. england need some experienced plays so the oval incident never happens again. im glad collie got dropped for his very selfish behavior. im glad nz won. and as usual bell flopped, so did kp and so did ambrose. what happened to mustard??????????

    second topic. this is my england side for the 1st test against south africa


    overall england will win the tests but badly loose the one dayers

  • Comment number 21.

    England team for first test vs SA

    Prior (WK)

    This means we have 5 bowlers, and broad has proved himself as a batsman, Prior is worth his place on batting alone and lets face it, only had a couple of bad games with the gloves!

  • Comment number 22.

    I agree with many people that Bell has underachieved in ODIs and he should have made many more 50s and 100s. However I do feel that Bell is quite harshly treated. When Bell made a classy 54 n.o. against NZ when we were hammered in the Hamilton test , no one gave him credit because we had already pretty much lost the game. However when Shah (who can't seem to do anything wrong in the pundits eyes) makes 69 yesterday (in a lost cause by the time he reached 20) people commend his innings much more than Bell's. Double standards comes to mind. Bell is undoubtedly a better player than Shah. Ok he hasn't performed well in recent times but he did manage a century 4 test matches ago. But oh no that century didn't count because it was a flat track and anyone could have got those runs. Get off Bell's back. Other players have underperformed in recent times (Colly, KP, COOK!) and they don't get, which is fine until Bell gets targeted and singled out as they single reason for Englands misdemeanours.

  • Comment number 23.

    test team v SA:


    Odis v SA

    Mascarenhas (Colly @ 5 when available)

  • Comment number 24.

    Shame693 - Read is paying for his awful batting in the Ashes down under.

    Back when the Test side was all but the ODI side we knew the players were international quality. These days we're picking any pom, rick or garry to play because they've whacked second rate bowling around or score quickly. Single out those with less than 20 Test caps and you'll see bulk of the problem, not all maybe but you don't get 20+ Test caps by being a bad cricketer.

    Bell 6/10 - got starts, England looked on course to level the series while he and Cook were opening

    Cook 5/10 - not much of a chance, did ok

    Wright 3/10 - can't believe someone suggested him as a Test number six, can (just about) bat, can (just about) bowl and needs much improvement before he is picked. We effectively went in with four bowlers to accommodate him!

    Pietersen 5/10 - one hundred to win the opening match, 23 in four as AJS mentioned thereafter. Poor captain, that should not be tried again. He has 24 scores of 50+ for England and England have won only nine of those matches, England may prosper more with a team approach than this individual (approach)

    Collingwood 8/10 - captaincy is ok bar one or two bad decisions. Batted well and bowled well, perhaps captaincy is one thing too much to ask of him.

    Bopara 5/10 - not convincing enough with bat, very much a part-timer regards international bowling. I think trying to bring in him AND Wright at the same time was a mistake, England badly missed the fifth bowler that one of them replaced.

    Shah 9/10 - bar the silly situation he was put in to bowl, he was England's top runscorer by FIFTY runs and looks to have settled in finally.

    Ambrose 2/10 - a series to forget for him, not too much wrong with his keeping but 10 runs in five innings is not good enough (and sadly brings back bleats for Read's recall)

    Swann 6/10 - a bit of work on his batting and he could be a good all-rounder, that and perhaps his throwing. Joint top wicket taker for England, unfortunately only the one knock of note to compliment his bowling.

    Mascarenhas 5/10 - didn't do too much wrong, scored a handy 23 and bowled just the one over.

    Broad 8/10 - doing in ODIs what he struggles to do in Tests - take wickets.

    Tremlett 7/10 - took 1/24 off 10 overs and that's his only appearance - go figure

    Sidebottom 3/10 - two expensive wickets and at an ER of 5.36, Tremlett must wonder what he has to do because clearly bowling better than Sidebottom isn't enough to keep your place.............

    Anderson 4/10 - Took 3-61 in a low scoring game and that keeps his average down, his accuracy needs work

    Worthy of praise - Shah, Broad, Collingwood

    Unlucky - Tremlett, Cook, Mascarenhas.

    Need to go - Wright, possibly Bopara, Ambrose

    Did those who made one appearance do worse than Sidebottom and Anderson (bowling) or Wright and Bopara (all-round/batting) ? It says it all that you could drop three, three excelled and three were not given a fair go when maybe those who got chances ahead of them didn't justify that faith.

    On the basis of the series I'd say the next series XI should look like :-

    Strauss (Until Collingwood is available again)
    Mustard - not as an opener
    Sidebottom - lucky to survive, mainly because he's a lefty

    My only real concern is the lack of a Flintoff, someone who can slot in at six or seven (ODIs only) and bat well as well as bowl well. England need five main bowlers, 10 overs for 72 runs is too expensive. Strauss is in good nick so could come in as captain, Wright making way for him. Mustard in for Ambrose but as he averages only around 20 opening I say save him for later on - especially as Cook and Bell did well enough yesterday. Tremlett back in for Anderson, he bowled nearly as well as Broad in that low scorer. And recall Mascarenhas unless Flintoff happens to be fit, England need five bowlers and Wright and Bopara have barely done enough with bat to compensate the extra gift runs and KP's one hit wonder innings.

  • Comment number 25.

    I guess I think the same as what other people have said. Bell opening the innings is I think a good idea. He certainly has the range of shots and is an intelligent player. But he is by far the most irritating player in English cricket (if not international cricket). How can someone so capable, so classy and so obviously talented continue to throw their wicket away just when they're getting set? I'm a huge supporter of Bell, but he's not played a substantial innings in either form of the game all year. Against SA's awesome pace battery, I unfortunately fear for him.

    As for the bowlers, I think we miss Freddie a great deal for his bowling. But I'd like to throw a suggestion out there. When do we recall Simon Jones? So far this season he's been phenomenal for Worcestershire. He took yet another five-fer earlier on today to add to the upteenth he's already collected so far this season. Three of those wickets today were bowled.

    Obviously, this is Simon's first proper season in county cricket for a couple of years, but that is partly due to Glamorgan. At the minute though, he seems to be mounting a substantial case for selection. My preference would then to have Anderson replaced with Jones - Jones is by far the more economical bowler, but can be just as destructive as Anderson. He is also capable of bludgeoning a few runs but has a really silky off drive - just ask Shane Warne. My bowling attack would then consist of: Panesar, Sidebottom, Broad, Jones and Flintoff.

    Anyway, to drag my post back to this series concluded ODI series, my thoughts can be summed up as follows: Bopara's not good enough - hardly bowled, batted like a plonker - Ambrose needs changing for Mustard and Wright needs an extended run and be given the freedom to slog as a pinch hitting opener. Pietersen also needs to shurg off the weight of expectation and have some fun.

  • Comment number 26.

    KP is always talked up because he is "one of the best batsmen in the world", when the figures show that much of the time he isn't even the best batsman in the team. Instead of giving him the captaincy, they should have dropped him for a match or two just to show him he isn't immune and make him buck his ideas up.

    England always waiting for Freddie to come back, like King Arthur, or Francis Drake, in his country's time of need. I think we've seen the best of him, and should say so out loud, and look to the future. How can we be relying on the return of someone whose not even played at international level for so long?

    And England are always waiting for the "next Ian Botham". (That millstone was dropped around Broad's neck elsewhere in the TMS blogs in the last day or so.) They (we) expect someone to ride into town like Clint Eastwood it won't happen.

    Too much emphasis on the individuals, and not enough on the team. Too much emphasis on the next innings around the corner, and not enough on grafting in this innings.

    Too much "We can take some positives from this humiliating and abject defeat" and not enough, "We need to knuckle down."

    I despair.

  • Comment number 27.

    megadragonboy16 wrote:
    I agree with many people that Bell has underachieved in ODIs and he should have made many more 50s and 100s. However I do feel that Bell is quite harshly treated. When Bell made a classy 54 n.o. against NZ when we were hammered in the Hamilton test , no one gave him credit because we had already pretty much lost the game. However when Shah (who can't seem to do anything wrong in the pundits eyes) makes 69 yesterday (in a lost cause by the time he reached 20) people commend his innings much more than Bell's. Double standards comes to mind.
    Well said, megadragonboy. Double standards is exactly the case. Bell doesn't help himself - if he had got more big scores then the critics would back off, but at the moment their response to his innings is pre-programmed, so if he plays well then it is because there is no pressure. If necessary, they rearrange the facts to suit their theory. The Hamilton innings is a case in point, and we can imagine how differently it would have been assessed if batted by Collingwood or Pietersen - if Collingwood, it would have shown his battling qualities, if by Pietersen it would have been by the only England batsman to show any resistance, but as it was by Bell it was a pointless 50 in a lost cause.

  • Comment number 28.

    unfortunately the batting just was not up to scratch the batsmen have to go on from starts and get innings especially bell, shah was a good bright spot for the batting.

    The bowling lacked a bit of consistency and it looked like something was missing with colly gone for the last odi. Broad was a class act this series and looks like he has the potential to be a very good bowler for years to come. England's death bowling again looked suspect at times and i think i needs to be looked at and they should all be practicing yorkers. Swann was another great positive and looked as though he can be great in englands odi setup.

    The huge disappointment was ambrose i'm not sure he has what it takes at international level and definitely isn't a odi player. I think the best quote i heard that summed him up was "why do we talk about keepers who bat or keep well when we select a keeper who can't do either well"

  • Comment number 29.

    I remeber the effect on the Canterbury crowd in 1948 when Lindwall opened up for the Australian attack.No one had seen anything that quick since before the war- not even Keith miller in the victory Tests

    .That is sixty years of our knowing that we need to understand the fundamentals of playing down the line.

    I spent time with Arthur Wellard at the Gover school in Wandsworth -he bent a ball two feet in the air,indoors,off three paces.

    We now hear of swing and reverse swing as though it were magic.
    Most schoolboy opening bowlers in Kent at that time knew how to swing a ball one way or the other(outers were easier !!!)

    My coach for a time was Doug Wright at Folkestone barracks on a matting wicket,turning both ways anything up to three feet,at almost medium pace.

    Read about individual skills of past men in E.W.Swanton's "Cricketers of my time"if YOU want to understand what England needs to understand and do to play better cricket - let alone win.

    When all has been said and written about the administration and coaching of cricket at all levels currently,one has only to look into the eyes of Brett Lee,Symonds,Ntini and half a dozen Sri Lankans to understand that we need a radical shake up in man management and training in our national sport.

    We need our spirit back - less talk and more technique and application.

    Ratings for individuals treats this manly game as a "soap opera".It is time to change our whole approach to cricket,and to our cricketers.

    For me,very few of our selected "squads"face up to their psychological and technical responsibilities as they should,but more importantly as their inept managers and coaches should expect.

    Selection has always been a problem for the cricket lover with some understanding.

    We are going to face the greatest test of "quicks" from SA since the mighty WI four.

    I wish our people the best of luck(of whatever is going!) -but most of all I hope for a test side to represent England with really old fashioned (like me no doubt you think) guts and determination!!!

  • Comment number 30.


    Bell - 5
    Wright - 4
    KP - 5.5
    Bopara - 5
    Collingwood - 6
    Shah - 7
    Ambrose - 1
    Broad - 7.5
    Swann - 6
    Sidebottom - 4.5
    Anderson - 4.5

    Cook - 4.0
    Dimi - 4
    Tremlett - 4

  • Comment number 31.

    You can criticse Pietersen all you like, but he is the only Batsman England have that is capable of destroying an attack. I don't like the guy, but he's the best we've got. I'm a Warwickshire supporter, but I don't belive Bell will ever be anything more than an average international player. As for the rest of the team - when will they stop picking bits and pieces players like Wright, who aren't good enough in any department. You should only be picked for England if you are good enough to get into the side as a batsman or a bowler in your own right.

    England's failing is that they have few class batsmen capable of dominating. Compare this side to the side of the 80's that had Gooch, Gower, Gatting, Lamb and Botham - five batsmen that could murder a bowling attack. I hate to say this, but England really miss Trescothick.

  • Comment number 32.

    Anderson - 4??????

    He was our best bowler in the last two games and may have gone for runs at Bristol but he took three wickets

    People seem to forget that he bowls both in the powerplays and at the death when there is little margin for error!

    He may go for 6 an over sometimes but he's far more consistent than the batsmen

  • Comment number 33.

    Overall a very poor series for england with very few positives really just the efforts of shah, broad and collingwood considering the form he was in coming into the series. Bell is frustrating but definitely needs to be kept in the side while wright looks out of his depth. Bopara needs to get some runs for essex but he does look promising. Prior should be recalled as keeper for the odis but for now i would stick with ambrose for the tests. pietersen is a world class player but isn't scoring the runs and i still am not sure he should be batting at 3. Whilst it is an important position i think having someone else there would help england much more. When kp scored all his runs in the world cup he batted at 4. Anderson has got far better with his accuracy but he still isn't consistently good enough at this level especially with simon jones coming back. I also think flintoff needs to prove himself before getting back in the team and that means definitely not until the winter.

    This is my odi team

    Prior w/k
    Collingwood (when available)

    Let me know what you think

  • Comment number 34.

    England's batting frailties have been hidden to a great extent by the weakness of the opposition bowling. Bat like this against South Africa with their pace attack and they'll get murdered. It's time England stopped molly coddling batsmen because they 'have talent'. It's about time they started achieving.

    As for England's bowling attack - Broad will be good in a few years time, but he isn't the finished article. He'll struggle againts SA batsmen. Anderson is just too profligate. He reminds me of Devon Malcolm - some days he's a match winner, but other days he goes all around the park. Ideally he should be part of a 5 man attack, because there are times when you'll need to hide him.

  • Comment number 35.


    Anderson conceded 1/3 of the runs in a low scoring match and took only 2 other wickets at an average overall of 41.40 and ER over 5 rpo. In fact England's two mainstays in Anderson and Sidebottom took just 7 wickets between them at 51.

    The batting strengths of Wright, Bopara and Ambrose managed 228 runs between them at 15.20, another cause for concern. Reputation seems to count for more than performance, Tremlett took 1/24 off his 10 overs and hasn't played since.

    Add to that problems with other batsmen, Bell getting starts and getting out, and Pietersen scoring 110no then 23 in four, then you can see why England lost 3-1 and it should have been 4-1. Yet the lack of achievement will see pretty much the same XI next series I'll wager

  • Comment number 36.

    The England selectors need to look hard at the county game, and find some players who are maintaining consistent form, and who either keep the runs down (as a bowler) or who can build an innings (for a batsman). Why Anderson is in any England team i don't know, he's terrible! And test-wise, how can england play two carbon copies of each other as openers? And harmy and simon jones have to come back soon, they're taking wickets for fun now!

    Read (wk)

    Samit Patel
    Read (wk)

  • Comment number 37.

    So the whole team performance was better than average (the mean was 5.41) but they lost the series?

    I don't understand how that works.

    Is that better than their own averages? Certainly not better than we want, and it is not better than the average of the 12 nations in the ICC ODI rankings (England are seventh).

    Surely the whole team performance was below what we want and hope for, and it should be marked accordingly. Shall we say for that a score of 3?

  • Comment number 38.

    Ambrose 10 runs in 5 matches. Why is he even being considered for the South Africa series. Chris Read is the best keeper in the country and has the best batting average of any wicketkeeper this season so far.

  • Comment number 39.

    The selectors/Collingwood wind me up regarding Bopara. Yes he has the talent but he is either in the team as a Batsman or as an All Rounder.
    If he has been picked as a batsman then he shouldn't be there as there are others that can do the same role. If he is an All-Rounder then for god sake let him bowl. 2 or 3 overs this series is stupid.
    Whilst most think Ambrose should go and I will not disagree with that but in his place should be Foster. He only lost his place because of injury and Alex Stewart then took over the gloves and everyone else has had the hard task of filling his boots.
    Shah did enough as well to justify inclusion for the SA series and my team would be

    Bopara-until Collingwood is back

  • Comment number 40.

    How can Bell and Wright get the same when Bell scored more runs at, in most games, a better strike rate. His perfoemances this series have been better than any one-day opener in in recent times. Ambrose is lucky to get 2, he may be batting lower down the order than he does for his county but hes looked completely out of his depth and when he starts dropping catches as well he can't be in the side. Its about time James Foster was in the one day side. Hes been superb in Essexs middle order for years and was the stand out player in this 2020 despite Napiers heroics. One further point, I think Tremlett at least deserved to get marked. He bowled very well in his only game and how he got dropped was beyond belief to be honest, especially with Sidebottom looking no good for anything except barging people over this series.

  • Comment number 41.

    Quick response to post 39, why would you have Panesar in the one day team when Swann, barring that stupid throw, had a pretty good series, and has been impressive with the ball.

  • Comment number 42.

    Why Panesar and not Swann.
    Basically error on my part. Picked the first 10 and thought spinner and straight away wrote Panesar, didn't even comtemplate Swann, however shouldn't the spinner be the same for one day and Tests.
    He invariably would play the majority of the same players anway, just differating circumstances which ultimately could and should make the spinner a better player.

  • Comment number 43.

    Shah's the only batsman I'd keep after another dire series. He's the only one with the class to make it on a regular basis. Watch a ODI between South Africa and Austrlia top and realise how far behind we are. We have a brittle mental approach under which we either freeze, panic or commit batting suicide. I can't see any of these batsmen, save Shah, making a long-term difference. Pietersen is too fallible, Bell is class until he's in the 40's and Colly has some guts. For the rest? Might as well start every game at 40-5 and get it over with early.

  • Comment number 44.

    What does James Foster have to do to get a look in his glove work is far superior to Chris Reads PLUS Essex are the best team in One Days over the past 3 years with him behind the stumps

  • Comment number 45.

    Chris Read should come back as wicketkeeper in both forms of the game, and that should be end of. England should just accept that they don't have a wicketkeeper who can bat very well and go for the best gloveman. If the top 6 did their job properly then having a keeper/batsmen wouldn't be too much of an issue.

    Alternatively, if Flintoff comes back fully fit, he could bat at 7 with Read at 8.

    #36 tumolpk - Interesting to see Paul Horton of Lancashire getting a mention for the test team. For now I would stick with Strauss and Cook but in time Horton will have a say.

    Test team against SA:

    Read (wk)

    ODI team:

    Read (wk)

  • Comment number 46.

    The ODI squad should be as followed

    1.Stuart Law good ODI player keeps healthy run rate

    2.Kevin Pieterson(c) captin because he done well in his first game even tho they lost

    3.Owais Shah Got some good scores in ODI vs New Zealand and bats fast.

    4.Rob Key good overall player lead Kent to 20twenty winners.

    5.Graham Napier got an amazing 150 in twenty20 and played nice shots

    6.James Foster give him a chance good young talent

    7.Phil Mustard instead of Tim Ambrose also Phil is a good batsman

    8. Stuart Broad good opening bowler

    9.Ryan Sidebottom because he will keep the run rate down

    10.James Anderson good fast bowler gets a lot of wickets.

    11.Monty Panesar good spin bowler breaks good partniship

    This is Alex Nearys ODI team

  • Comment number 47.

    Interesting selection - 2 wicketkeepers.

    Ambrose looks completely out of his depth, two good test knocks against NZ, but they have quickly worked out he is a very one dimensional batsman. Once he is under pressure as a batsman the wicketkeeping will be under ever more scrutiny.
    Personally think that Read should be picked and persevered with at both formats of the game. the only other credible alternative is Foster.

  • Comment number 48.

    Collingwood 7? You have got to be joking...?

  • Comment number 49.

    How to solve a problem like England's one-day cricket team?

    New one-day series, same mediocre results and performances. Its really frustrating that England just aren't a force in one-day cricket.

    We can play all the 20, 40, 45, 50 over cricket we like, but when have we really been a consistent force in the international game? That's the big conundrum.

  • Comment number 50.

    To RichardK74, there will be hundreds of other people asking the same questions. It seems we've moved from the days of getting rid of people after 1 or 2 dodgy performances to a cosy gentlemen's club (with the retained contract system inter alia) which will never get the best results on a consistent basis in any of the formats.

    Thankfully, there may be light at the end of the tunnel, with Shah (despite his fielding), Bopara and Wright (despite performances to date) getting into the one-day team. If we can stick with them, and get James Foster and Simon Jones - both still in their 20's - as well as Hoggy back into the squad, then there is some hope. Bell, Cook and Anderson are not one day players - the first two too slow, the latter too expensive.

    Changing the keeper aside, the test team is just a batsman and a bowler short. Freddie is not an all-rounder, whatever people might wish for, and if he gets back in should probably bat below Stuart Broad until he makes some runs. Don't yet have the missing piece of the batting jigsaw - maybe just some more grit/technique is all that's needed to compete with Australia more regularly.

  • Comment number 51.

    I'm not sure how Bell is 'harshly treated' - has he ever been dropped?

    He's clearly very talented and I don't know who there is to replace him, but Bell undoubtedly underperforms when he's consistently been one of the most secure players in the England side for donkey's years.

    Mascarenhas is a more obvious choice for me over Bopara or Wright.

    Prior should replace Ambrose.

  • Comment number 52.

    People dont seem to realise that Read is not in the team because hes a nice guy.

    In modern cricket a keepers talent is seemingly judged on how well they can insult a batsman family, rather than actual ability... or least thats how it looks to me (as a casual observer)

  • Comment number 53.

    Does Alec Stuart get paid for writing that? I hope not. Looks like he’s put that together in five minutes with no care or attention to detail.

    Alec Stuart blogging score a big fat 0!

  • Comment number 54.

    Bell gets a double ton, eat that.

  • Comment number 55.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 56.

    Good to see a few Bell supporters, though some more still knocking him. The fact is that he did look good and didn't have too poor a series, still averaging 27 which isn't exactly disastrous. Giving Bopara more points for 'obvious talent' but not giving the same marks to Bell seems a bit dim.

    I agree that Ambrose had a poor series, but perhaps he should be given a chance at one more series, he could come good. Otherwise James Foster deserves his chance, he's been in very good form consitently over the last couple of years.

    Simon Jones should be a good shout for a bowling spot too.

  • Comment number 57.

    Mt ODI team:


    The major changes are:

    Prior in - Obvious, Prior is the best Batsman/WK in the country. Ambrose has been very poor in this form of the game.

    Pietersen to #4 - Should not be batting in the top 3, OK is the score is 120+ when the first wicket goes down then maybe but that can be switched at the time.

    Bell to #3 - He is OK opening but there is a need for a solid player at #3 if your going with an attacking opener and Pietersen at #4

    Mascherenas in - Explosive with the bat and will guarentee 10 overs with the ball in most games.

    Flintoff in - yeah.

    Bopara out - Unlucky, has great talent but not convincing enough as a batsman at this level yet and not a genuine 10 over bowler either. Will improve and get another chance.

    Wright out - even more unlucky as he always gives 120% out there and has had a few effective games with bat and ball. Likely first option if any of the first XI has to drop out and again will improve.

    Andersen out - Too inconsistent and expensive, OK he was better than Sidebottom this series but I bet he wont be for the next 5.

  • Comment number 58.

    All the talk about Bell is quite frankly rather ludicrous. In both test and one day cricket he has been shunted up and down the order on a regular basis batting anywhere from one to six (or is it seven). No other player has to contend with this but it seems the only way he keeps his place in the side. It seems to me that his performances stand comparisson with anyone else in the squad and some people seem to want to judge him by different standard to others. Chief culprits being some of the Sky commentators who very obviously have their favourites.


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.