Cricket

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us compare the bowling figures of two of the England bowlers in this final:-

Anderson.....10-2-38-2

Woakes.......10-0-89-0

 

[Whistler40145]

Woakes should surely be replaced in the ODI squad?

But who would replace him?

 

[ainsworth74]

Stokes? Or is that just my like of simple rhyme coming out again

 

[Whistler40145]

Well, I've got lots of time for Stokes.

There must be some really good One Day specialist all rounders out there knocking on the door?

 

[DownSouth]

Is Bopara injured and currently able to only bat? England needed some of his tight stump-to-stump bowling to soak up a few overs to leave them with other options ahead of Woakes at the end of Australia's innings.

I was impressed with Moeen Ali's bowling today, he went a big way to stopping the Australian counter-attack going on to a 300+ score and was unlucky to not be rewarded with more than just one wicket. Perth is a venue that rewards a hard working spinner, and he did what was needed to make it work for him.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Woakes should surely be replaced in the ODI squad?

But who would replace him?

Not Stokes. He's even less consistent and more of a liability for England than Woakes

 

[Whistler40145]

How about Chris Jordan?

Or there's Tom Smith, Jordan Clark or Luke Proctor at Lancashire?

Should England play a left arm bowler, e.g. Harry Gurney?

 

[Oswyntail]

Another dismal ODI performance by England, it doesn't seem to matter who's in the squad, they always fall short, especially in a final and against Australia.

Of course, the last two WCs have been won by teams that lost their previous ODI series

 

[DownSouth]

How about ... Or there's ... or ...

No. Stick with Chris Woakes. He's a quality player who just had a bad day - and unfortunately picked the same day to have a bad one as all the specialist batsmen. His eight wickets in the series was good, and he wasn't even the worst of the four seamers .

The bowler that England need their coach to light a firecracker under his arse is not Woakes, but Stuart Broad.

Woakes was comfortably better than Broad over the course of the series with more wickets (8 v 5, and until today's match 8 v 2), a better average (33.6 v 50.8), a better strike rate (33.0 v 51.4) and an economy rate only a tiny bit worse (6.1 v 5.9). The most important stats in ODI cricket are economy rate and strike rate, which makes Woakes comfortably England's third-best seamer behind Finn and Anderson.

When you're going for as many runs as Broad is, you'd better be taking wickets because you sure as hell aren't giving Anderson a challenge for the single spot as England's defensive bowler.

Should England play a left arm bowler, e.g. Harry Gurney?

The lack of variety in the England attack is something that should be a little concerning. Dropping Woakes and/or bringing in Stokes won't help there - Woakes provides a little variety (it appears the system hasn't yet fully tamed him) while Stokes does not - but I guess Stokes might be able to provide a like-for-like replacement if Broad gets injured.

A left arm bowler would be good - but only if they are actually good enough, not just because they are a left arm bowler. Let's be honest, what the English really pine after is a Fastbowleria Mitchellius (either Starc or Johnson sub-species) who can bowl bloody fast, have a good variety of tactics and the ability to make the ball do loop-the-loops through the air in either direction.


Of course, all this is just dancing around the real problem for England - the player who would make the biggest improvement if he came in is Kevin Pietersen, not any of the second-string bowlers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course, the last two WCs have been won by teams that lost their previous ODI series

Unfortunately for England, the odds are against them as every World Cup but one has been won by a side which was not defeated in the most recent Ashes series

 

[Whistler40145]

Well, even though I'm an Englishman, we've focused more on Test Cricket in the past, so in some ways, I must humbly agree.

 

[Busaholic]

I can't see that Gurney has done anything to deserve selection. IMO Topley or, possibly Willey with explosive batting as an added string, should be prime contenders for the left-armer role.Tymal Mills is probably the fastest, but unless you can accompany that with some nous you are a liability. Woakes, I agree, should not be discarded. He can bat to win one-day matches, unlike Broad with his unintelligent 'hit out or get out' approach : actually, I seriously wonder how intelligent Broad actually is, as opposed to expensively educated. Woakes also seems to take two or three catches each time.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The lack of variety in the England attack is something that should be a little concerning. Dropping Woakes and/or bringing in Stokes won't help there - Woakes provides a little variety (it appears the system hasn't yet fully tamed him) while Stokes does not - but I guess Stokes might be able to provide a like-for-like replacement if Broad gets injured.

Since you make mention of Stokes, I show the scorecard details from the ODI of the latest England Lions tour match.

England 378-6 (50 overs)
Stokes 151 not out (15 x 6 / 7 x 4)

South Africa "A" 289 all out (42.5 overs)
Stokes 8-0-51-3

Come what may, 15 x 6 in an innings is not bad going and he was the highest England wicket taker with his three wickets in the match.

 

[DownSouth]

Since you make mention of Stokes, I show the scorecard details from the List A match of the latest England Lions tour match.

England 378-6 (50 overs)
Stokes 151 not out (15 x 6 / 7 x 4)

South Africa "A" 289 all out (42.5 overs)
Stokes 8-0-51-3

Come what may, 15 x 6 in an innings is not bad going and he was the highest England wicket taker with his three wickets in the match.

Given that I was primarily talking about Stokes as a bowler, I'm more interested in the three wickets and high economy rate of that List A tour match - they are quite similar (more expensive economy rate) to Broad's figures of 10-1-55-3 in the most recent real ODI.

With respect to his batting, a look at his ODI stats (actual ODIs against first-string international teams, not List A tour matches) shows a high score of 70 (his next best was 33 not out), an average of 15.7 and a strike rate of 76. His stats for only 2014 matches are about the same as for the whole career, despite that high score of 70 having been in 2014.

That says 'bowler who can swing the bat a little at the end' rather than 'all-rounder' to me - very similar to Broad's ODI batting career (high score 45*, average 13.1, strike rate 75) actually. Stokes' bowling would have to be right on par with Broad for that 2.6 run difference in batting average to be a useful tie-breaker for selection.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Well, I've got lots of time for Stokes.

There must be some really good One Day specialist all rounders out there knocking on the door?

Unfortunately he did have a horrendous run last year, didn't he? Wasn't it something like 18 runs in 10 innings (plus a broken hand)? He hardly deserved to keep his place in the team. It's all very well scoring heavily (once) for the 'A' team, and the likes of Botham and Pietersen talking him up, but he didn't deliver when he had the opportunity.

 

[ainsworth74]

Well as a Durham fan I'm still somewhat purplexed as to why England are so interested in Stokes as a One-Day/T20I player as for us he is strongest in the 4 Day game. He's an important part of our one day setup but far more important to the Championship side.

 

[Buttsy]

Well as a Durham fan I'm still somewhat purplexed as to why England are so interested in Stokes as a One-Day/T20I player as for us he is strongest in the 4 Day game. He's an important part of our one day setup but far more important to the Championship side.

As a Worcester supporter, the same could be said about Moeen, who's worst area was 20/20 yet he was picked first for this with England.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Of course, all this is just dancing around the real problem for England - the player who would make the biggest improvement if he came in is Kevin Pietersen, not any of the second-string bowlers.

Well that idea has taken a new turn today with the news that Kevin Pietersen will have a connection with the World Cup, but only as a guest on the Test Match Special commentary team during the World Cup.

 

[Busaholic]

Well that idea has taken a new turn today with the news that Kevin Pietersen will have a connection with the World Cup, but only as a guest on the Test Match Special commentary team during the World Cup.

I hope fervently that Pietersen is commentating when James Taylor reaches a century.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Well that idea has taken a new turn today with the news that Kevin Pietersen will have a connection with the World Cup, but only as a guest on the Test Match Special commentary team during the World Cup.

Perhaps they should invite Ricky Ponting along as well....they could do a reprise of their conversation during a big bash game....it was hilarious!

 

[Busaholic]

England once again seem to be going into this World Cup with a superior and gung-ho attitude, as though this has ever done them any good in the past. I'm honestly thinking that perhaps they'd have done better sticking with Cook, what's Morgan got to boast about, one decent innings in his past dozen? Unlike Cook, he can't even seem to get the 20s and 30s. Now it's confirmed he doesn't rate Bopara's bowling enough to entrust him with more than a couple of overs, just get Stokes into the squad, he could make all the difference in a vital match. For those who think it can't be done, well, other teams seem to manage it without even necessarily feigning an injury!

 

[DownSouth]

Entertaining practice match between Australia and India at Adelaide Oval today.

The scariest moment for opponents to see would easily have been after Glenn Maxwell brought up his century on the second ball of the over, which according to Australia's internal team rules for practice matches meant he would retire at the end of the over. The remaining four balls went for 22 runs.

David Warner and Mitchell Starc duelled for the title of Australia's best fielder on consecutive balls with a direct hit run out and a one-handed catch (with his non-preferred right hand even!) on the boundary rope respectively. Even if Starc hadn't taken it inside the rope, he might have been able to exploit the ICC's recent rule changes (if the fielder parries the ball back in while airborne, it no longer matters whether they were last grounded inside or outside the rope) to get it back inside and complete the catch or at least save six runs.

 

[Busaholic]

Only a warm-up match, and Windies probably not very tough opposition except in home conditions, but the bowlers (Woakes in particular, with 5 wickets again) did all that was expected of them and Mooen and Bell did the rest. Pakistan, despite a lot of injury problems particularly with their bowlers, may offer a sterner test on Wednesday, England's last game in this phoney war period.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Lancashire have appointed the 29 year-old all-rounder, Tom Smith, as their new team captain as successor to Glen Chapple, who will join the coaching squad.

 

[Whistler40145]

I'm quite surprised that Tom Smith has been appointed as Lancashire's new Captain with Steven Croft as his deputy, IMHO I was expecting Croft to be Captain, but what do I know!

 

[Busaholic]

World Cup Fever is noticeable by its absence from this forum. Is it because we don't think England stand a chance? With the format this time, it really would be disgraceful if they didn't make it to the quarter finals, but beyond there? Reading a certain K. Pietersen's forecast today, I predicted exactly the players he'd pick in the England side to do well (Morgan, Buttler and Anderson) and those with a point to prove (Broad, Taylor and Root), exactly reflecting his prejudices, with plenty of room to slate Cook in the article too.

My own tip would be N.Z. - really think they can go all the way. Just checked the score in the opening match and NZ have just lost their 1st wicket, so 111 for 1 after 15.5 overs against SL.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'll get interested when we aren't playing Australia and New Zealand aren't playing Sri Lanka. Who thought it was a good idea for the two opening games to be repeats of the last month or so of cricket?

 

[Busaholic]

I'll get interested when we aren't playing Australia and New Zealand aren't playing Sri Lanka. Who thought it was a good idea for the two opening games to be repeats of the last month or so of cricket?

I just hope it won't be a repeat results-wise with ENG AUS.

 

[DownSouth]

I just hope it won't be a repeat results-wise with ENG AUS.

If anything, it's looking better so far

I'll get interested when we aren't playing Australia and New Zealand aren't playing Sri Lanka. Who thought it was a good idea for the two opening games to be repeats of the last month or so of cricket?

Do you think the opening day should have seen the hosts play two predictable walkovers against Afghanistan and Scotland instead?

All the big matches at the biggest grounds are on the weekends for a very good reason - the ICC has learned their lessons from the empty stadiums seen in the 2007 and 2011 tournaments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

World Cup Fever is noticeable by its absence from this forum. Is it because we don't think England stand a chance? With the format this time, it really would be disgraceful if they didn't make it to the quarter finals, but beyond there?

It looks to me like England will be in an even fight with Bangladesh for 4th-5th place in Pool A.

The big problem for England is that getting through to the quarter-final earns them a date at the MCG, a ground where they consistently get psyched out by the pressure of playing on the big stage.

My own tip would be N.Z. - really think they can go all the way. Just checked the score in the opening match and NZ have just lost their 1st wicket, so 111 for 1 after 15.5 overs against SL.

I expect that there's a fair chance of the final being Australia v New Zealand. NZ get the home ground advantage in their pool match, but playing the final at the MCG will be advantage Australia.

 

[Busaholic]

If anything, it's looking better so far


Do you think the opening day should have seen the hosts play two predictable walkovers against Afghanistan and Scotland instead?

All the big matches at the biggest grounds are on the weekends for a very good reason - the ICC has learned their lessons from the empty stadiums seen in the 2007 and 2011 tournaments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It looks to me like England will be in an even fight with Bangladesh for 4th-5th place in Pool A.

The big problem for England is that getting through to the quarter-final earns them a date at the MCG, a ground where they consistently get psyched out by the pressure of playing on the big stage.


I expect that there's a fair chance of the final being Australia v New Zealand. NZ get the home ground advantage in their pool match, but playing the final at the MCG will be advantage Australia.

England need just 148 runs to win, still with the one wicket left and Taylor going great guns, but even at 500/1 I wouldn't risk £1 on it. Another duck for Morgan, Finn's hattrick irrelevant .I thought Australia would win by 87 runs so that was wildly optimistic. I really must try to find out whether my maternal grandfather played cricket for Scotland, as was always rumoured, can't find any details on the internet, guess old coptes of Wisden the only way to nail it down. He was more than a black sheep, never mentioned in the family and I never met him - don't even know his first name. Anyway, all my support will go to Scotland now, unless Morgan is sacked (sorry, carrying an unspecified injury) and replaced by Taylor before the next game.

 

[ainsworth74]

Do you think the opening day should have seen the hosts play two predictable walkovers against Afghanistan and Scotland instead?

Australia/Sri Lanka and New Zealand/England would have done the trick for me as it wouldn't have been exactly the same games we've already seen loads of.

Also, pride goes before the fall

 

[DownSouth]

I thought Australia would win by 87 runs so that was wildly optimistic.

87 runs is a margin by which Australia would lose a match, not win it.

111 runs though, that's the right margin for England to lose - and they picked a good way to finish it off through Anderson running himself out and stranding Taylor two short of a ton. Taylor did everything right to earn himself a match or two on the sidelines by arguing it long and hard with the umpires (the run had taken place off a ball with an unsuccessful LBW appeal) so hopefully for England's sake they'll take pity on him and consider a lost century to be enough punishment.

Until the run out to close out the match, all nine wickets had been taken by the three Mitchells. I wonder if ten wickets have all been taken by bowlers with the same first name before (other than Mohammeds, and other than Anil Kumble taking ten on his own) in an international innings?