England's ODI failure

[greg]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Where's the weakness in the following ODI line up?

1. Tresco
2. Bell
3. Pietersen
4. Strauss*
5. Collingwood
6. Flintoff
7. Read+
8. Giles
9. Blackwell
10. Simon Jones / Lewis
11. Anderson

Where do you want me to start?

Tresco - Goodness knows where his head/body is.

Giles - Liabaility in the field and not played for nearly a year.

Blackwell - Supposed to be an allrounder but has done naff all with the bat,liabiltiy in the field but better than 'Wheelie Bin' in the field.

Jones - Probably never play for England again.

Apart from that not too bad.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by greg

Giles - Liabaility in the field

You are the second contributer to make this allegation... but it is groundless: Giles may not cover the ground at great speed... but he's actually a highly accomplished gully fielder and he has a very good arm. If all the others were as relaible as Giles the fielding would actually be better!

ps. I agree on Blackwell's fielding... and must confess that he's a player I've never liked... but let's face it, he's a cracking middle-overs bowler... and he does know how to destroy attacks with the bat even if he has done little of this in England-colours.

[Collyisamackem]

Greg, I'm backing up Rachael here, although her repeated assertion of technical "flaws" is again unevidenced or explained. Giles is a very good catcher and good at run outs, and he's got a decent pair of hamstrings on him to run after the boundary balls. Good fielder, no question.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

I'm backing up Rachael here, although her repeated assertion of technical "flaws" is again unevidenced or explained.

Does it really need spelling out? The flaws are well enough known... not least as a result of a certain Test match at Lords where McGrath exposed a complete inability to adjust to the slope on the part of every batsman except Pietersen.

Tresco's lack of footwork is legendary (and was his undoing in that Test). It's also well enough known that he's only really comfortable on the front foot and that he's truly appalling on the hook and pull as he muscles the ball with flat swats by rotating the trunk of his body rather than just rotating through the ball.

Strauss is equally well known for his limitations off the front foot (especially against spin): he can play square of the wicket as well as anyone... but that's the only area in which he looks world class. He certainly does NOT look world class when forced to play / leave in the corridoor: he plays with his hands too far infront of his body and (unlike Tresco) doesn't really wait for the ball.

I exempt Vaughan from any serious criticism, at least against seam bowling: as far as I know, no-one has ever questioned his class... though under Fletcher he has tended to just pad up from the crease to spinners to play the percentages (as if he's clueless) despite apparently being quite capable of doing better.

The same may come to be true of Bell, who is compact, well balanced, light on his feet and generally a model batsman. That said, neither Vaughan nor Bell got across their stumps sufficiently at Lords in THAT Test - though that's a failure to adapt raather than a serious technical flaw.

Cook's the other obvious class act... and like Vaughan and Bell he might become exempt from criticism... but he's clearly got issues with slow bowling at present: he's obviously not got the instinctive soft hands and touch one would expect from someone so highly regarded.

I've heard allegations that Pietersen's obvious weakness is his extravagent bat and foot movement but I see nothing inherently wrong with a either in principle (see Lara) and his movement across the crease did allow him to counter McGrath at Lords... but I guess it's fair to say he's still got a bit to prove. Like Thorpe, I think he'll eventually learn to grind out ugly, defensive, rear-guard innings... but he's a novice on that front at the moment.

For all that I've defended Collingwood over the years (right backto his Sri Lanka tour) I trust we can agree that he's essentially limited as a batsman: he makes the best of what he's got... is reasonable off the front foot... and has ways of handling the spinners that work... but his strength is mental not technical!

That leaves Flintoff... who has finally sorted out his feet enough to play a decent defensive game (no longer playing around a prematurely planted front foot)... but who has none of Pietersen's lightness on his feet, is spectacularly lacking in touch and soft hands, makes Trescothicks hooking and pulling look sophisticated and is basically only convincing in front foot drives.

I don't see anything controversial on that list... and am not suggesting players from elsewhere are all better: Hayden and Martyn are both flawed, as is Gilchrist (though Ponting and Clarke are perhaps as near perfect as any batsmen on the planet and Langer and Hussey ain't exactly easy to dislodge).

ps. I'm not even going to start on Geraint Jones and Chris Read - they are NOT batsmen!

[greg]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You are the second contributer to make this allegation... but it is groundless: Giles may not cover the ground at great speed... but he's actually a highly accomplished gully fielder and he has a very good arm.

How often is gully used in one day matches and when it is how long for?

Great in test matches as you can leave him there all day but no good when he lumbers round the boundary in a one day game.

If the people who were poor in the field were brilliant at either batting or bowling (Inzamam and McGrath are good examples) then i wouldn't have a problem but Giles is not someone who will turn a game on it's head is he.

[Collyisamackem]

Rachael, you are confusing technical "flaws" with simple strengths and weaknesses, as all batsmen have. Look at Matthew Hayden on the front foot and compare him to Strauss (!), Langer and Gilchrist against the ball nipping back in outside their off stump from around the wicket, Martyn's vulnerability against the short ball (esp. the third man region). No batsman in world cricket is strong in all areas of the batting game and all have their weaknesses, but they do not equate to technical flaws.

A flaw is something which limits your performance in the game, and how limited has Trescothick been in his test career as one of the most consistent openers? Good footwork is not the be-all and end-all of technique, you need visual technique and hand-eye co-ordination too, which Trescothick has in abundance, and Flintoff gets going pretty well once he gets in. The mental side of the game cannot be ignored as it is the root of technique - a hand or foot moves in a certian direction because the brain tells it too! As for leaving the ball and knowing where his off stump is, and bringing his bat down straight, Trescothick has been greatly ahead of Vaughan in many recent matches and especially against the Australians. As for the Lords slope, that is a geomorphological phenomenon and not a technical flaw on the part of many of the batsmen who have played there! Most have eventually got used to it and many an English batsman in the last few years and long before that has scored one or more centuries at Lords, it just takes time to get used to. Pulling - I've seen Trescothick execute a number of excellent pulls over the years and although it is not his strongest shot he is not incapable of playing it, I assure you from having seen it. He never hooks for good reason, but his leg side play in clipping off the legs and sweeping is excellent - his technique for sweeping is as good as any batsmen in the world as he gets over the ball and takes it in front of his pad with his head over the ball.

Please, if you will, describe to me what the perfect technique is, so that every single batsman in the world can be told and grow into it. Just because something is orthodox it isn't necessarily correct, and if the unorthodox (simply being different to the orthodox!) is executed perfectly then it is very much allowable in my book!

Greg, Giles does not lumber, he is an accomplished fielder and I'd challenge you to name errors you've seen him make, outside of the odd dropped catch which affects every fielder - even a Collingwood, Gibbs or Ponting on rare occasions!

[greg]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Greg, Giles does not lumber, he is an accomplished fielder and I'd challenge you to name errors you've seen him make, outside of the odd dropped catch which affects every fielder - even a Collingwood, Gibbs or Ponting on rare occasions!

We will agree to differ then.He is so slow in the field that batsmen can push for another run.He doesn't let the ball through i will accept that but he rarely puts any pressure on a batsman because he is so laboured when he runs which won't be helped now after his numerous operations.

[greg]

What is obvious to me over the last 12 months is that unlike in test cricket where we have a gameplan and follow it well in one day cricket there seems to be no plan at all and we just go out there and hope for the best.We have tried various things that have never looked like working Jones opening and Flintoff at 3 being 2 classic examples.

We should look at West Indies and New Zealand and use them as an example of getting the best out of your players.Chanderpaul and Fleming aren't dashing strokeplayers like other players in their teams but they open the batting and look to anchor the innings by batting as long as they can and by playing proper shots they accumulate good scores for their team.Hopefully we have finally got wind of this and the use of Bell up top could see us benefit in the future but you just know that Bell will be dropped for Trescothick come March and we will be back to square one.

As for our bowling where do we start.Mahmood and Harmison are not one day bowlers,one is a bloody good test bowler and the other has bags of potential as a test bowler but is too raw and wayward for one day cricket.Both should be dropped now.Lewis proved today he is an effective bowler in one day cricket and has just done today what he has done for Gloucestershire for many many years,surely we can't be stupid enough to drop him again?

To back Lewis up i would go with Anderson who despite being rusty at present has shown in the past he is a good bowler in the shorter game.Flintoff when fit is a vital part of the team and that gives us 3 good pace bowlers to go on with.Broad looked promising last summer and for some reason has been discarded,he looks a far better prospect than Mahmood in one day cricket.

Now we have the slow bowling problem.To be fair to Yardy and Dalrymple they have performed above what i expected from them and it would be a little harsh to discard them but there is no doubt Giles (personally i wouldn't pick him until next summer at the earliest because after his injuries he won't be ready) will return as soon as Fletcher thinks he is fit enough.Blackwell is another option as he has bowled well in the middle overs but done little with the bat so far despite his obvious ability.A longshot could be our best spinner Panesar but as he can't field or bat there seems little point in bothering with him and he would be better served just playing test cricket.

Wicketkeeper - So far the last 2 we have tried haven't convinced and that slot is up for grabs i guess but Read should be given a run for now.

Personally i fear an embarrassing early exit in the World Cup and i would start building now for the next one to try and give us a chance to compete in future.

The squad of 14 i would take to the World Cup next year would be this:

Trescothick - provided his head is right.
Strauss
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Joyce
Flintoff
Dalrymple
Read
Blackwell/Yardy - hopefully VB series will show who should go.
Broad
Anderson
Lewis
?????????? - One space is open for a pace bowler to step up and grab this winter whoever it may be.


Rant over.Some will disagree with most of that but it is my opinion and i stand by it.

[Collyisamackem]

I'll read the rest later, but it seems pretty certain that the extra pace bowler will be Mahmood, though even by his recent performances Harmison is a much better bet!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Rachael, you are confusing technical "flaws" with simple strengths and weaknesses, as all batsmen have [...] No batsman in world cricket is strong in all areas of the batting game and all have their weaknesses, but they do not equate to technical flaws.

At the end of the Lords Test commentators noted that the Aussie wickets had fallen to poor shot selection, and mostly to cavalier, over-confident attempts to despatch good balls that deserved greater respect. All agreed that England had bowled adequately, but that the Aussies had gifted wicket after wicket after wicket.

The commentators noted that the English wickets to fall to McGrath had been very different: all were in agreement that England's batsmen, Pietersen excepted, had simply failed to adjust to the slope, allowing McGrath to exploit major technical limitations that would have been exposed quite ruthlessly in a stronger era of Test cricket.

Sure, some folk have stronger and weaker areas to their game... but an opening batsman that doesn't have great footwork doesn't have a weaker area to his game... he has a grave technical flaw that would have seen him murdered in any era with half decent bowlers (and even by modest bowlers in the days of uncovered wickets).

Similarly, a player who pulls and hooks off the front foot sucks. He might get away with it against today's ropey attacks... but if you couldn't swivel pull in the days of the great West Indian attacks you might as well have stayed at home: guys like Trescothick and Hayden have been fortunate that they have rarely had to face tall (competent) fast bowlers on quick wickets!!!!

Players like Bell and Vaughan... and the likes of Tendulkar, Dravid, Inzi, Jayawardene, Lara, Kallis, Ponting and Clarke... and possibly Cook and Pietersen... have perfect balance at the crease, equal facility of each foot, and no obvious technical weakness: no matter what ball is bowled they are almost always able to get into something like the perfect position, whether that be defensive or (if the ball is bad) attacking. You simply cannot say that of guys like Tresco and Strauss, or of Gayle, of Sehwag, of Hayden, of Martyn or of Gilchrist (to name just a handful of very successful batsmen).

Modern pitches (combined with awful bowling) have allowed the latter group of players to come close to matching the former group of players: I've no doubt that in any other era the bowlers and pitches would have seperated the men from the boys far, far more clearly, with the latter group shown up for what they are - imposters.