I've long maintained that scoring off the highest possible percentage of deliveries is the way to contribute most consistently at the top of the order in ODI cricket: sure, bad balls should be put away (as they should be in any form of cricket)... but I've always rated those who nudge and scurry off a lot of deliveries more highly than those who look to open their shoulders but end up failing to find the gaps.

The difference between the classy Ian Bell and the more agricultural Luke Wright at the top of the order in the recent Twenty20 between England and New Zealand suggests this is just as true in the new-fangled "blink and it's gone" format of the game.

The short answer is, you need both Rachael. You cannot form a firm decision based on what you saw (or read about) yesterday. It's interesting to note that both Bell and Wright were on exactly the same score when Wright got himself out, that means they were scoring at the same rate, just achieving it differently.

England denied New Zealand what they do best - chasing down a target and forced them to set one instead, whilst bowling very well at them. This is what resulted in a very under par score. Bell simply batted as you should in that situation, rotating the strike and putting away the bad ball, and they cruised home.

When setting a score, or chasing a score over 200, meaning you need 10 and over from the outset you need a different mindset and you need to bat differently.

You NEED a pinch hitter up there to accellerate the run rate shilst protecting your better batsmen - in this instance Bell. Wright went in and did his job.

A more interesting discussion would be, who should that person be, rather than do they need one.

Nice to see the system working as I'd expect in the ODIs...

LJ Wright 6* (28b)
IR Bell 28* (28b 3x4 1x6)

Even if you leave out Bell's boundaries... he still kicked off the innings better than Wright (off the same number of balls)

I've voted for On a horses-for-courses basis because a batsman who threatens to score boundaries may put the bowler under pressure and force the fielding captain to set defensive fields. If the bowler becomes slightly wayward due to pressure from the "attacking" batsman the nurdling batsman may capitalise by finding the gaps more regularly. The other reason some batsmen get away with attacking from the outset is that usually a spell of an opening bowler only lasts about 4 overs.

So, because it didn't work as it should that means we shouldn't play a pinch hitter right? I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion from one game I'm afraid.

As I said earlier, I'm not sure Luke Wright is the right person for that position, primarily because he only seems to be able to bat one way - slog everything. If they deny him 'slog' opportunities, he's not good enough to score runs with conventional cricket strokes, where someone like Bell is and will.

What England need is someone like Trescothick, who can score both ways - conventionally, when he can't go over the top and over the top when he gets the opportunity, as Trescothick isn't available, the next best option in my opinion is Key as I said earlier.

Key has done phenominally well in T20 playing in just that way, he has vast experience in that format now and Kent just keep on winning, so why isn't he in that squad?

The question, again as I said earlier, is who should it be, not whether they need anyone.

Even though I am not keen on pinch hitters - I voted the same way as you. It would have been hypocritical to have voted any other way after I supported Mal Loye who was responsible for England taking the ODI series against Australia in 2006.

He came in the side as a pinch hitting opener, he was effective but not a player to be copied by youngsters.

__________________
Ern

So Bell's a better opener in power plays than Luke Wright. Big deal. This goes no way to forming any argument for the inclusion of genuine opening batsmen in one day cricket.

Ganguly, Jayasuriya, Tendulkar, Gilichrist, Mark Waugh (many of the best one day openers) are all by definition 'pinch hitters', players who are sent in to open the one day innings when their accustomed batting position is lower down the order. They all score at very healthy run rates. Obviously one shouldn't consider sending in someone who can't bat to open the innings, but if we had an Ian Botham in the England side he would clearly be better utilised in today's limited overs game at an opening batsmen. Do you remember the 1987 world series cup? His elevation to opening batsman began the idea.

Bell's returns as an opening batsman are still not good enough - nowhere near as effective as someone like Trescothick who scored at over 80 runs per 100 balls. This is one of the many reasons we have not featured at world level in 50 overs for many a year. Given that England are devoid of genuine talent throughout the side, we are struggling to find openers and this is why we have had a terrible job trying to find an opener who is going to try and bring up 100 off the first 15 overs. Wright, Mustard, Geraint Jones and Prior are not the answer. What next? Phil de Freitas and Darren Gough?

But he's better at it than the others mentioned so probably worth persevering with, and he'll only improve at it given time.

The difficult question is what to do at the other end. Wright doesn't do it in 50 over matches. As others have said, his game plan appears to be difficult to implement in english conditions. It all shows how much we miss Tresco, Knight and Stewart before them.

I do not disagree with you - given who England have, he should open. I was merely suggesting that Bell's performance is not that impressive to conclude that pinch hitters are not required in one day cricket, which was the point of Rachael's thread.

If England had the middle order choices we had throughout the mid 80s/mid 90s (Lamb, Smith, Fairbrother, Thorpe, Hick, Gower) there would be a huge argument for sending Pietersen in first up (as Australia did with Mark Waugh).

So Rachael's theory is disproved then today as Bell got 0 and Wright got 52 off 38 balls.

The joys of cricket.