England's ODI failure

[flanflinger]

Well thanks to the West Indies the ICC championship debacle is finally over for England. Prospects for the World Cup are as dim as always, but what is the key reason why England have failed so badly.

Some have cited it is down to a focus on Test matches, others say that Fletcher's (who's only playing experience internationally was in One-Dayers) is not the right coach for One-Day side.

One cry is for us to play more ODI's (and you only have to look at the number of England players with 100 Caps and you will see we are at a distinct dis-advantage!!).

Other people would say that we do not have the right squad and in Dalrymple and Yardy we have returned to bit part players playing key roles.

We could cite injuries, (as the management do) but frankly all sides have injuries, so that can't be the reason surely??

So why are we so good in Tests and frankly awful in One-Dayers!!

[Collyisamackem]

Coaching, injuries and inexperience for me. All have coincided to drag us way down as a team, at a point where we were briefly threatening to get our act together a couple of years ago.

[Rachael]

Is it not possible that the English batting is simply not great in either form of the game? McGrath, at Lords, exposed severe technical limitations on the part of most in the Test side. After that Test the Aussie bowling was simply not good enough to repeat the carnage... but even so, England's batting was far from convincing: the Ashes were won through Simon Jones and co, not through the batting of Tresco, Strauss, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, Flintoff and Jones!

England do have rather too many players who rely on backing their eye and looking to middle the ball... and that is true in both forms of the game: Tresco looks to do it off the front foot, Strauss looks to do it off the back foot, and Vaughan just looks to do it too much; it appears to be the only way Pietersen can play and Collingwood and Flintoff occasionally reign themselves in but are basically just lesser versions of Tresco.

Only Bell looks to have the technique and temperament to really graft and wait for the bad ball... and in ODI he's clearly feeling under pressure to force the pace when he should be just playing his natural game.

To my mind the root of the problem is Vaughan's notion that the players shouldn't "die wondering": it worked for him in Australia a few years ago... but one only has to look at the serial implosion of a supposedly good Aussie batting side in the last Ashes to see what happens when a battting line-up fails to show sufficient respect to the opposition bowlers.

In this currrent pyjama tournament we're seeing other sides displaying the same flaw. SA would be far better off with Kirsten's grinding than Gibb's flair... and NZ have missed Richardson, a player who did at least realise you can't score runs from the pavillion. England miss the class of Atherton and Thorpe but also the beligerance of Hussain and Butcher: the fighting spirit has been replaced by something more cavalier... and in the ODI format the side is paying the price.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

SA would be far better off with Kirsten's grinding than Gibb's flair... and NZ have missed Richardson, a player who did at least realise you can't score runs from the pavillion. England miss the class of Atherton and Thorpe but also the beligerance of Hussain and Butcher: the fighting spirit has been replaced by something more cavalier... and in the ODI format the side is paying the price.

I don't really get this argument in relation to the question posed!! Mark Richardson played just 4 ODI's and averaged just 10!! So why mention him in the context of ODI's??

Butcher never played a ODI??? So I don't see the connection.

I must admit that England's batting seems unable to pace an innings, and too often fail to use up the overs, but others sides have a cavalier batters, and yet they manage to bat out the overs!! So I am not convinced that this is the reason...

[Ernest]

To much is expected of Pietersen and Flintoff, when you have two players of that type in the team - if they fail, then England fail.

We have a better 11 players in England that the present one day team.

Clarke
Foster
Shah
Lewis
Broad
Joyce
Just to name a few, and Yardy is suited to one day cricket, so England just have not picked their best 11, or coach.

[Pete]

In no particular order, I think..

1. Consistency in selection
2. Consistency in batting order
3. Coaching
4. Failure to do the basics
5. Poor batting

No balls and wides are a major problem, something which has been going on for a while now and doesn't seem to be getting better at all.

Players who are in and out of the team. We'll never start to play well unless we have a settled team, someone needs to identify the main XI and stick with them for a prolonged run of games. And stick with the same damn batting order! Trescothick is the only person with a solid batting position.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I must admit that England's batting seems unable to pace an innings, and too often fail to use up the overs, but others sides have a cavalier batters, and yet they manage to bat out the overs!! So I am not convinced that this is the reason...

My more fundamental point was that the batsmen are simply not good enough: not good enough at Test cricket and not good enough at ODI cricket. Bell and Vaughan aside, they all have notable technical failings.. and as a result have greater reason than players of greater talent to play within their own limitations. It's OK being cavalier when you have the talent of Ponting.... but when you ain't got that talent... it's a rather all-or-nothing, low-percentage approach!

The irritating thing about the current England side is the way players who DO have the talent to play properly nonetheless look to force the pace: Pietersen doesn't NEED to open his shoulders and can score nicely without slogging; Bell punishes poor balls so well (with orthodox shots) that he has no business taking risks against good balls; Vaughan likewise. Flintoff doesn't come into that camp... but he's another who doesn't seem to have learnt from his Trent Bridge heroics (where he eschewed forcing shots to play a mature innings).

The problem is that these poor Test-match habits are carried into the ODI arena... where they are exacerbated by the added pressure that comes with the shorter form of the game: a 'don't die wondering' mentality hits fear as folk think 'oh my god we need to score HUGELY'... and instead of batting properly and trusting that they can defend a modest total they play as if each and every one of them were in the class of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar and Inzi... which they ain't!

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Foster

Just to pick up one one. I doubt Foster in County cricket comes that close to Read. Read is quite possibly proof of the difference between county cricket and ODIs. Foster doesn't score at the pace Read does for Notts, he's certainly not one I'd back to hit the ball out of the ground (which is what Ready does at Trent Bridge).

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Bell and Vaughan aside, they all have notable technical failings..

Vaughan's only problem is he tends to miss fairly stright balls occasionally, which result in him walking back to the pavillion. The guy is not a God, in fact he is a very average Test batsman who performed amazingly well for a while and has since performed very averagely. Were it not for his captaincy no-one would be bothered about him missing.

PS: he has always been rubbish at ODIs.

[flanflinger]

NE,

With you on Read, I would prefer him in the ODI's to Foster.

As for Vaughan, as you pointed out he has never really added much value to the ODI team, so the fact that he is missing is not (for me) a key factor in our current failure to do well.