Will we ever win the world cup?

[pie_chucker]

As we have been runners up in three world cup finals, do people think we will ever have "our day"?

We had our chances to win two of the finals but alas it wasnt to be.

In 1979 fair enough we were probably playing against one of the finest teams ever.

In 1987 we should habe won and i believe, would have won had Gatting not played that shot.

In 1992 we should have won, we were the best team by a mile and again would have won had it not been for a poor umpiring decision and Gooch dropping Imram.

Times have changed, we are still persisting with "bits and pieces" players whereas the rest of the world ditched them years ago. We fail to make good use of the power plays, the rest of the world have mastered the art. We dont have the players (except Colly) who can bat in the middle overs knocking the ball around at 5 an over - again the rest of the world tkae this for granted.

Why cant we adapt to the game? Its not as if our players never play the one day game domestically. I guess either the coaches arent in tune with the modern game or our players arent the brightest bulbs in the box.

[Nostromo]

Not this time, you won't. As for those 'if onlys' there would be such instances every other team would quote as to why they would have won a particular encounter or even the Cup itself. In 1992 for instance, England might never have made it to the final if South Africa were not scuppered by the then utterly ridiculous precursor of the Duckworh-Lewis system.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

As we have been runners up in three world cup finals, do people think we will ever have "our day"?

Indeed - and it could be this time, I think this is one of thee most open od World Cups ever, no team stands out and says "We will win the worlf Cup".

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

Not this time, you won't. As for those 'if onlys' there would be such instances every other team would quote as to why they would have won a particular encounter or even the Cup itself. In 1992 for instance, England might never have made it to the final if South Africa were not scuppered by the then utterly ridiculous precursor of the Duckworh-Lewis system.

Is there still any need for sour grapes about SA v '92? Even if the game hadnt been ruined, i still feel that we would have won anyway. If the game hadnt been rain interupted SA would have needed 21 off 12 balls. In those days that was the fielding team 99 times out of a 100 and on the 100th the Saffers choke .

This thread wasnt about "if onlys" it was about how our players keep losing their heads when it matters, i.e Gatting in 1987 and Gooch in '92.

After all we have been in 3 finals and lost them all. Only the Aussies have appeared in more (and at least they have won it).

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Times have changed [...] We fail to make good use of the power plays [...] We dont have the players (except Colly) who can bat in the middle overs knocking the ball around at 5 an over [...] Why cant we adapt to the game?

I'm inclined to answer that powerplays only matter to poor players (as scoring opportunities exist no matter how the field is set, and only the folk who lack the control and placement struggle when the powerplays end)... that the knack, in the middle overs, is nurdling the ball around at 4 and over rather than 5... and that England's batting line up is as good as most on this front.

Sure, the bar is set pretty high when you see a partnership of Inzi and Yousuf, or Ponting and Clarke... but Vaughan, Joyce, Bell, Strauss and Collingwood all play that part of the game well... and Pietersen's arguably even better - Flintoff's the only first-choice England batsman who sucks on this front (though Loye DID make Flintoff look positively exceptional in his brief - but hopefully concluded - career).

There's a distinct possibility that the new WI wickets will not have fully settled in time for this tournament... and may play as the new Hampshire ground did before it turned into being another bowler's graveyard: we may see a bit of uneven bounce on two-paced strips and lots of big hitters coming a cropper as they succumb to the temptation of the stupidly short boundaries. If so.. I suspect England will be well placed to capitalise.

No side is ideally suited to all pitches and conditions... but the moment 250 totals start looking competitive, England start looking a better bet than most opponents: what remains to be seen is whether England's bowlers can consistently restrict opponents to that sort of score.. but if everyone stays fit I don't think that is out of the question.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

that the knack, in the middle overs, is nurdling the ball around at 4 and over rather than 5... and that England's batting line up is as good as most on this front.

Sure, the bar is set pretty high when you see a partnership of Inzi and Yousuf, or Ponting and Clarke... but Vaughan, Joyce, Bell, Strauss and Collingwood all play that part of the game well... and Pietersen's arguably even better - Flintoff's the only first-choice England batsman who sucks on this front (though Loye DID make Flintoff look positively exceptional in his brief - but hopefully concluded - career).

In the middle overs the knack of batting sucessfully is definately knocking the ball around. I'm inclined to think on a big ground 5 an over is the way to go but i will concede in the windies, only smaller grounds 4 an over will suffice as i dont think there will be many 2's or 3's out there.

I'm still not convinced that the likes of Vaughan or Struass are good at knocking the ball around. Bell is improving but i have still seen him get bogged down or get himself out when set. Joyce looks like he could do it but we cant judge him yet as he's only played a few games and has batted all over the place.

I know your views on the powerplays but other teams make use of them (or try to).

[Rachael]

This is relevent: England must deliver a sting in their tail

the last 10 overs of icing-on-cake are going to be the real challenge, especially if neither of the big men is around to "finish off". Where is the sting in England's tail - a sting like the world-class piece of finishing by Brendon McCullum last week, when New Zealand's wicketkeeper came in at number seven against Australia and won the game by one wicket with an unbeaten 86 off 91 balls?

I think the whole article is misguided... in that the key to high strike rates in the closing overs is wickets in hand... and England are building their entire strategy about getting 2-3 big innings from the top order so that everyone has a license to slog at the end.

Sadly, this seems to have escaped Scyld Berry's notice!

[pie_chucker]

To be honest i've never rated Scyld Berry. How can someone who has no ability to play the game think he is such an authority on it!

If England are to go with that plan then two of the top order need score and at 4 an over. Its no goos them plodding along at 2 an overs wasting 30 overs and then expecting the middle and lower order to get 200 from 20 overs.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

If England are to go with that plan then two of the top order need score and at 4 an over.

That's a strike rate of greater than 66/100.. and all of England's specialist batsmen have shown themself more than capable of sustaining such a rate: I'd back any of them to hit 80/100 if the pitch was suited to that sort of scoring.

Edit:

Bell recently sustained 85 in a 60-ball half-century. Joyce sustained a strike rate of 75 in his century in that game.

Joyce did even better in this game: 66 off 82. Bell sustained an acceptable 31 off 42 in this game.

Vaughan managed it here: 59 off 65 balls. Also here, and here.

Strauss managed it in the first innings I looked at: 100 off 116 balls. Also here.

I trust no question marks hang over Pietersen's strike rate... or that of Collingwood or Flintoff.

[darksideofthemoon]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

As we have been runners up in three world cup finals, do people think we will ever have "our day"?

We had our chances to win two of the finals but alas it wasnt to be.


Why cant we adapt to the game? Its not as if our players never play the one day game domestically. I guess either the coaches arent in tune with the modern game or our players arent the brightest bulbs in the box.

I thought Nixon was brought in as the new ODI coach. He did say that Vaughan and Fletcher have been asking his advice.