Would you play Cook for ODI's?

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Trescothick's Footwork

Has Tresco made himself available for the series?

Don't think so, and unless he is feeling 100% I wouldn't have him back, despite how important a player he is. Can you imagine what the effect could be if he came back to early, it would have exactly the same effect as last year, one big hundred and then a shadow of former self turned up for the rest of the season.

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Trescothick's Footwork

i'd have him opening with Prior and KP coming in at 3. Collingwood 4, Cook 5, and Bell 6.

Cook and Bell at 5 and 6 would be a completely pointless exercise. At those positions, the batsman has to score quickly almost invariably - something I can't see see Bell or Cook doing without wasting 5 overs playing themselves in.

[flanflinger]

Quite right, you would need to split those two up...

I would say the top five should look like this

Prior
Cook
Pietersen/Bell
Collingwood

with Bell coming in if either batter is out very early (one or two overs), or if a good opening partnership develops in place of Cook, while Pietersen comes in if Prior is out to continue some momentum.

[Rachael]

I've long thought that a good ODI side should be flexible about the batting order: there's no point in opening with Prior and Bopara against classy bowlers in helpful conditions... but there's no harm opening with Prior and Bopara on a track that looks good for 300+ runs.

I don't see the problem with selecting a side for now though: the first four should surey include Cook, Bell and Pietersen.. and Joyce surely needs to be given more opportunities in the spot freed up by Vaughan.

The middle of the order is opened up with Flintoff's absence and Bopara's absense... so Collingwood and Dalrymple fill 5 and 6, with whoever gets the gloves (let's not pretend it will be a "wicket-keeper) at 7.

Down at the other end of the order.... the time has surely come to give Hoggard and Sidebottom an extended opportunity to demonstrate the virtues of high class line and length bowling with the new ball. The only tricky bit (with Anderson so out of form) is finding a death-bowler to compliment Panesar in the closing overs - Bresnan might be tried... but it really shouldn't matter too much as whoever plays should be gaining useful experience.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

with Anderson so out of form

From what I have read he is very much back in form

[darksideofthemoon]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I don't see the problem with selecting a side for now though: the first four should surey include Cook, Bell and Pietersen.. and Joyce surely needs to be given more opportunities in the spot freed up by Vaughan.

From Collingwood's column -
I don't see having two England captains as being a problem whatsoever as long as both captains are pointing in the same direction. Obviously there will be two different captains on the field but there should only be one direction off it.

It looks like he would pick Vaughan.

As for Anderson you don't drop a bowler with 66 ODIs and 94 wickets. It is not like batsmen who can have long runs out of form. With bowlers it can change from game to game. His last two one day games and and two CC games shown he is bowling well. It can't be helpful being 12th man and spending hours travelling and going straight into a game not being able spend an hour warming up and bowling in the nets first.

He got Gayle out today.

[adamberry]

In pretty helpful conditions for swing, it must be stressed.

Rachael, you'll like this one; look at this and tell me that the pitch didn't get a bit damp: http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ge/299044.html. You'd have thought the bowlers would be encouraged, surely? For the record, only Marlon Samuels, of all the bowlers, had an economy under 5; Anderson's was 5 exactly.

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

As for Anderson you don't drop a bowler with 66 ODIs and 94 wickets.

If there was someone like Broad or someone else waiting in the wings putting in great performances, I probably would. The problem is there isn't anyone; Broad in particular served up dinner on a plate (so to speak) today. Anderson, to his credit, provides a bit of experience.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I've long thought that a good ODI side should be flexible about the batting order:

... so Collingwood and Dalrymple fill 5 and 6....

The main problem with our ODI batting in the past is that it has been so inflexible. You should send a man in for situation.

Please no, not Dalrymple!! Over the winter and WC he showed he must be one of the worst players ever to play for England - scoring 3 runs and taking 1/50 from 8 overs is not what you want any of your allrounders to contribute. I cant recall him doing much this season so far...

Originally Posted by adamberry

Broad in particular served up dinner on a plate (so to speak) today. .

I've long said that at present Broad is a long way from international cricket. He bowls too many short wide 4 balls. Although he has had some hype (based on NO outstanding performances) he clearly needs to spend a year or two learning his trade (with Mahmood, Anderson, Plunkett and Onions).

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

he clearly needs to spend a year or two learning his trade (with ...Anderson...)

In fairness, how long has Anderson been around? You'd have thought he'd have learnt how to bowl economically in one-dayers and internationals by now, surely!

[pie_chucker]

Anderson has been around for a while but i doubt he's bowled many overs in the last 3 years.

Apparently, he's a very good drinks waiter though.