That's a fair concern.... but my concern would be with HOW Cook is developed... and NOT with developing his game: if the coaching staff develop him as a ODI player by developing his ability to rotate the strike (get him playing with softer hands, get him using the pace on the ball when playing good deliveries) then he'll become a better Test player.

Sure, getting him playing across and through the line is bad news... but he's young enough to master opening the face... and he GOT to learn to play the ball later even for Test cricket!

I'm looking ahead to the ODI series against India. Given that India performed poorly in the World Cup I'd expect England to have a good chance of winning that series. I expect the wickets will suit Panesar and he should be a key weapon for England.

The fuss is about England not having learnt anything from the World Cup fiasco. We played in exactly the same way.

Bell and Cook both made small scores at a S/R of 60ish. Having 2 of your top 3 batting like that will lose you more games than you win. Yes, Gayle scored at that rate but he got 82!

Prior should drop back down to 7ish and hopefully can slog some runs at the end. He's clearly not an opener. As for the batting looking good.... We cant score quickly in the first 10 overs and we always seem to lose early wickets - Diagnosis top order are not doing their job.
We also have the inability to "kick on" in the middle overs, time and again a couple of middle order batsman get in and get to 40-50 then get out at a vital time. To be honest if we had to chase down a score of more than 180 I'd back us to lose. If we are to be successful batting first we'd need a bowling attack of Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Garner and Murali!

Flintoff and Bopara will strengthen the side as would dropping Cook and Bell and playing Trescothick and Benning.

Agreed there, Cooks batting is still too "stiff", but some of the best ODI batsman Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar... never resorted to cross batted hoicks to score runs quickly. That should be left the the lower order sloggers like Prior and co.

__________________
Mark.

You don't need to make drastic changes to personnel especially the batting department.

In fact, that would be detrimental as chop and change never works.

You have the players to make a mark on the Test level but fail in the ODIs.

The first thing that has to change is the English attitude towards ODIs.

If you treat it like a minor game than you'll play it as such.

Secondly, you are going to have to play more games to become better at it.

Barring maybe 2-3 changes max, the best ODI sides are exactly like the Test side because normally these are the best cricket players.

With DR Smith coming in for Ganga, the WI ODI team is more or less the Test side.

I always feel with the English players in ODIs that the players are scared, their team history shows that the turnover of players is way too high.

The guys know that even one series of poor performance and they will be out the door for the next player.

Every single defeat is evidence of "a need to have a deep look at the make up of the side" etc....

That can't be good for team chemistry.

Contrast this with the Test team which is hard to get in to and once you perform you stay in or around.

Highlight your better ODI players and stick with them for a while.

I also don't think the players know their roles.

There's nothing wrong with the personnel or the order in which batted.

Yesterday, you just got beaten by a better side playing good cricket with bat and ball.

You lost your way with the ball in the last 10 overs and once you lost early wickets, then 290 would always be a problem to chase.

Also, I believe there are too much agendas in team selection and criticism of team players.

The level of criticism the likes of Bell gets (especially on this board ) is way over the top.

Cook can make a very good ODI batsman and I see nothing in Prior that tells me he can't be the pinch hitter that gets the innings off to a flier.

The problem with that is if he doesn't get it off to flyer (which happens more often than not) then you have no Plan B.

In short, you guys worry too much.

Try supporting the West Indies and you'll see how rosy you have it

Don't think there's need to panic yet...at all really.

Once Tres comes in (sooner rater than later i hope!!!), they can have a nice balanced line up.

Him and Cook opening, with Bell at 3, then KP-Colly-Fred-Prior, and the 4 bowlers, Monty-Jimmy A-Broad/Plunkett and maybe Lewis/Sidebottom.

Problem with England (it seems in any sport) is that 1-2 key players are always out through injury or something else it seems, therefore the balance and consistency disappears...

__________________
Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy...OI OI OI!!!

Collingwood did have his fair share of Injuries. Flintoff, our best bowler is out. Bopara, one of our top youngsters missed the start through injury. Personally, I believe that we should have gone with Nixon for the Twenty-20 games at least because he does a better job at the end of the innings than Prior does at the start. We do need someone like Trescothick back opening and I personally don't see Cook as a one-day player, sorry.

Our bowling is the main concern. Broad looks like a good upcoming hopeful, Anderson is probably our best choice as opening bowler but I am not sure whether we should go with Panesar yet, or go with plunkett. It is something Moores must decide on.

I would have Lewis over Sidebottom as opening bowler in ODI's.

Well England performed very poorly - I think the only test playing nation they beat was the West Indies, who have since got their revenge.
Will be interesting to see him play against India - a team brought up playing spin bowling, will be a good test for Panesar.

__________________
Ern

Ern, Monty has already played against India - Sachin Tendulkar was his first dismissal, on his home turf.