Bangladesh tour of England, May-July 2010

[AngryPixel]

As much as i hate to say this i agree with King Pietersen. Freddie feeds on the crowd and occasion. He just raises his game to a unbelievable level and can change the momentum within a few minutes. He can lift any side.

 

[Dutch]

Well Ravi has done his utmost to put himself back in the spotlight here. Well done that man! If you are given an oppertunity you have got to grab it! Sign of quality.

 

[Sureshot]

How do you know with any degree of certainty that Flintoff won't be able to play more than a few games before getting injured again? With Test matches that's true, but if the surgery was as successful as it's been claimed, and Fred's recovery has been as good as rumoured then he should be capable of being a mainstay of this ODi side. He won't be able to bat in the Top 5 like he used to, we've moved on from then, but as a pure bowler, he's still better than anyone else in England with the white ball. If he does manage to get himself fully fit, and proves that fitness with Lancashire, then there is no question in my mind as to whether we get him in or not. Luke Wright might be one for the future, but Flintoff's more likely to bowl a match winning spell in a WC final. He might be past his prime, but he proved in the Ashes last summer that he's still one hell of a bowler.

Do you think surgery will correct the ugly action which has caused his succession of injuries? Do you think surgery can improve someone's in-built resistance to injury?

You're right, he is more likely to bowl a match winning spell, I'm not saying he's not good enough, I'm saying what can he bring to a side when he's going to be in and out of the side every other series? That is assuming that he ever gets fit enough again.

He's 32, will be 33 at the world cup, if he makes it, and that's a massive if, it will be his last. He's already announced the end of his test career. His form pre-injury with the bat meant he no longer brought the balance to the side he once did.

It disrupts the make up of the side as we move forward without him. Don't get me wrong, excellent player and still good enough, but he won't hold up, like with Harmison, we must blood the new players, like Shahzad, Wright, Bresnan, etc. They've got the talent, even if they aren't producing the results, like Flintoff in his first few years.

 

[barmyarmy]

It's good to know that we've gone from being the best team in the world (after 3 games against Australia) to the worst team in the world (2 days ago) and back to the best again.
I wonder what's next?

 

[King Pietersen]

Do you think surgery will correct the ugly action which has caused his succession of injuries? Do you think surgery can improve someone's in-built resistance to injury?

You're right, he is more likely to bowl a match winning spell, I'm not saying he's not good enough, I'm saying what can he bring to a side when he's going to be in and out of the side every other series? That is assuming that he ever gets fit enough again.

He's 32, will be 33 at the world cup, if he makes it, and that's a massive if, it will be his last. He's already announced the end of his test career. His form pre-injury with the bat meant he no longer brought the balance to the side he once did.

It disrupts the make up of the side as we move forward without him. Don't get me wrong, excellent player and still good enough, but he won't hold up, like with Harmison, we must blood the new players, like Shahzad, Wright, Bresnan, etc. They've got the talent, even if they aren't producing the results, like Flintoff in his first few years.

No it won't, but Shaun Tait has proven that you can build a career by playing exclusively LO cricket and stay fit. Fred's not going to be needed to back-up and bowl 3 days in a row, he'll generally have 1 day of bowling followed by 2 days off, which should be ample time to keep his body in good condition.

I'm all for building for the future too, but we should still be picking the best players available, and if Flintoff is fit and has some overs behind him for Lancs then he walks into this side. He might be 32, but he proved in the Ashes he's still capable of bowling genuinely quickly, and once he gets rid of any rustiness he'll be back to being one of the premier fast bowlers in England. Ultimately that is the key, we should be picking the best players available, and there is no doubt in my mind that Flintoff is one of the best OD bowlers we have, and probably the best death bowler available. He could still do a fantastic job in the ODi and T20 sides, and not put too much strain on his body.

You're right, he won't be able to walk back into his old number 5 spot in the batting line-up, but he could very easily bat 7 or 8, more likely 8 and still be a key part of the team for a good couple of years. I personally think his body would hold up to playing ODi cricket, and I'm sure he does too, or else he wouldn't bother trying to come back. He's still a miles better all-rounder than Wright or Bresnan, and if he gets fit he should be picked. He might not be a long term option, but he's one of the best options available, Harmison isn't. Harmison hasn't been discarded because they're looking to the future, he's been binned because he's not good enough. Flintoff is more than good enough.

 

[McLOVIN]

Last time Eng scored this much run, it was all about Ashraful to do something. And he did. 94 of 60. I was hoping he would do something again. But no, this time it's all about Tamim. I don't get it. Why? I get why it was all about Ashrafool 5 years ago. But why is it all about Tamim now? There is Shakib, Siddique, Riyad, and the fool is there too. Why put everything on Tamim, and put extra pressure on the guy? Look what happened to Ashraful because of that. Few months ago, it was all about Shakib, all that pressure. Now he lost his form. Why not Shakib now? He is still #1 ALR. Why pick and choose players like that? It's a team sports.

As soon as the game started commies kept going on and on, how it's all about Tamim, blah blah.

McLOVIN added 6 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...

And well bowled Mashrafe. Hope this is a new beginning for you. Just stay out of injuries now.

Many of you don't know this, but this man had 7 surgeries in his knees. And for that he dropped at least 10-12mph.

 

[Mota Aloo]

bit of a come down from Bristol.

 

[angryangy]

I know he just got a 100, but I really am not a fan of Trott in ODI cricket. I just feel he is too slow, I mean how often will he push on and get 60/70+? Not very often I feel to justify how long it takes him to get going.

Sure, but how often are you concerned with how long everyone else takes to get going?
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Obsession with batting strike rate and bowling economy is what keeps players like Wright in the side. How long it takes is less important than how many were made, even in ODIs. In Trott, you've got a guy who has made more one day hundreds than anyone else in the team and equally as many as Pietersen. If he doesn't know how to go on with it, then nobody will.

 

[khalek]

What a comeback by Bopara, his bowling has been terrific in recent times. For Bangladesh, Shakib Al Hasan's in pretty dead batting form atm, Mahmudullah is too slow to be batting lower down the order, Imrul Kayes is not a cricketer and their bowling on flat wickets needs a lot of work.

 

[Owzat]

A good win for England, shows what happens when Strauss doesn't get out when he's got in, and how a properly built innings is possible in ODIs (Trott) The rest applied a slog approach and only Bopara executed it with any effect. Five wickets for 32 runs in the middle was silly and nearly cost England a really big score, batsmen who are set are more dangerous than batsmen coming to the crease and slogging from the off

Bangladesh were bound to crumble trying to chase down that total. Would have taken a much better side than Bangladesh not to lose that badly so no disgrace. I wonder if Bangladesh would want my favourite trio in their side.......................

England reached 347-7. I was expecting that kind of total when Trott and Strauss were batting. But Bopara had to hit some balls in order to reach that.

The figures of Shafiul Islam: 2-97. It's among the worst ever ODI bowling.

Middle order fell apart - again! Wright (0), Bresnan (10) and Yardy (8no) doing feck all to justify their bits n pieces inclusion. They picked up two wickets between them, given the massive target and two wickets were down, and Bangladesh were going for everything, it is no great surprise they might bag a wicket or two between them. BUT 18 runs and 2/93 off 18 overs between them under the circumstances of 347/7 vs 203 is pretty poor

As for Bopara, some useful lusty blows and he was only eight runs short of being the fourth top England runscorer in the series in just ONE innings!

The best of England vs Bangladesh

Strauss 237 runs @ 79.00 (HS 152)
Trott 204 runs @ 102.00 (HS 110)
Shazhad 5 wkts @ 13.00
Bell 84 runs @ 84.00 (HS 84)
Bopara 45no & 4 wkts @ 9.50

It's sad that Bopara played just one ODI and Bell played only one good innings and still make it in.

The worst of England vs Bangladesh

Morgan 25 runs @ 8.00
Kieswetter 52 runs @ 17.33
Yardy 28 runs @ 28.00 & 2 wkts @ 40.50
Anderson 3 wkts @ 40.00
Wright 15 runs @ 7.50 & 0 wkts for 77 runs off 16 overs

Yardy's batting average is boosted by two not outs, Collingwood could have gone in that list for his 17 average but bowled tidily at an ER of 3.43 albeit for only one wicket.

Laughably TMS were and probably still are talking up Morgan to fill Bell's boots for the Test series, not on this showing and that when he made his Test debut. Anderson was allegedly rested, but he is very hit and miss as I've said for a long time. When on song he is great, otherwise he is just expensive with the odd wicket. Bresnan did enough in this series to avoid being in the worst list, I trust he's done little enough to avoid being picked for the Test series

 

[Mota Aloo]

Bopara just carried on from his 20/20 innings against Somerset.

Bowled well enough, i know it was only Bangladesh but he's developing into a genuine all rounder, of which England have plenty now.

 

[Owzat]

Bopara just carried on from his 20/20 innings against Somerset.

Bowled well enough, i know it was only Bangladesh but he's developing into a genuine all rounder, of which England have plenty now.

I think it is a bit far and way too early to describe Bopara as a genuine all-rounder. And this "plenty" England have, I sincerely hope you are joking. There is a world of difference between a "genuine all rounder" and the bits n pieces cricketers usually end up playing for England who 'can bat' and 'can bowl' but normally come up short in one of the two disciplines.

Collingwood - useful bowler, no way an all-rounder
Wright - not good enough with bat or ball
Bresnan - has done much better with bat than ball
Yardy - economic but not a wicket taker, not really done enough batting yet
Broad - not doing it with the bat in ODIs, odd bearing in mind he is a converted batsman to all-rounder
Bopara - picks up a few wickets and is a "genuine all-rounder"

That's just this series' selection, but if England had "plenty of genuine all rounders" then Wright and Bresnan wouldn't be anywhere near the side and neither would Yardy. Swann and Broad are as close as we have, Swann lacks a little in batting while Broad is unable to sustain both disciplines at a high enough level - more in Tests than ODIs where his batting isn't called upon so much

 

[riz7khan12]

bopara would be a great all-rounder for t20 cricket just like d.hussey but his batting is what he's in the team for. although his bowling has improved alot i guess he tricks people with his short run-up :laugh

 

[Owzat]

Obsession with batting strike rate and bowling economy is what keeps players like Wright in the side. How long it takes is less important than how many were made, even in ODIs. In Trott, you've got a guy who has made more one day hundreds than anyone else in the team and equally as many as Pietersen. If he doesn't know how to go on with it, then nobody will.

Exactly. It is runs that win matches, not fancy dan strike rates that aren't backed up by volumes of runs.

ODIS

Afridi : SR 113.21, RPI 22.38 = 22 runs off 19 balls per average innings
Wright : SR 93.39, RPI 19.00 = 19 runs off 20 balls per average innings
Trott : SR 75.54, RPI 58.67 = 59 runs off 78 balls per average innings
Collingwood : SR 76.82, RPI 28.96 = 29 runs off 38 balls per average innings

Sure the quick SRs can be useful down the order, but in terms of a batsman you don't want your top order out for 100 or so runs off 100 balls do you?!?!? I've thrown in Collingwood as a more average average, Trott hasn't played enough ODIs to make the point fairly as most batsmen won't average 50 rpi for very long

If everyone batted as long as Collingwood's rate then the team would only make 230 runs if 300 balls were faced and excluding extras, BUT a team of Luke Wrights or Shahid Afridis would be all out by the 36th over for less than a team of Collingwoods!

Agree entirely about the economy rates as well, if one bowler bowls 10 overs at 4.00 ER without taking a wicket, it effectively means the batting side has 40 overs with 10 wickets in hand and a starting score of 40/0. Wickets create pressure in ODIs because wickets in hand rule the roost. England's only ever defeat to Bangladesh came because they didn't have wickets in hand, as the TMS team constantly pointed out, the run rate was never the problem - until late on when a lack of wickets slowed the rate down.

As a batting side I'd take 100/0 off 25 overs a million times before I'd take 105/3 off 15 overs. That wicket loss would slow the rate down, 100/0 you can accelerate from with relative impunity as you'd be playing a 25 over game with 10 wickets in hand which is like T20 and therefore, especially with two batsmen well set, you might get 200+ and therefore 300+ overall. From 105/3 you wouldn't want to lose more wickets for another 10 overs or you would be in trouble.

So the reverse is true as a bowling side, I'd take the three wickets at the higher run rate, I most certainly wouldn't want to be wicketless after 20-25 overs as you never know how much worse it could get. Chances are you wouldn't get 105 off 15 overs if you took three wickets anyway, the wickets would curb the run rate.



Wright certainly is a poor selection, his SR doesn't compensate a lack of big runs and he is batted too low down the order anyway. Add to that his ordinary bowling and he serves no real purpose in the side. If you asked him earnestly what he does in the side, I think his best answer might be "bowl a few overs to help out, score a few runs and field well". It is unlikely he can say "bowl a match winning spell" or "score a match winning hundred" His bests of 52 with bat and something like 2/34 with the ball just show he isn't up to much, a good all-round contribution if in the same match, but not really as career bests Yardy isn't much better, HS of something like 57 and best of 3 for something

Owzat added 4 Minutes and 40 Seconds later...

bopara would be a great all-rounder for t20 cricket just like d.hussey but his batting is what he's in the team for. although his bowling has improved alot i guess he tricks people with his short run-up :laugh

Can't disagree with that. Principle reason some of the wickets fell like they did and made people start talking all-round rubbish is that the batsmen were forced to go for it and therefore any change of pace was going to catch them out. In a more circumspect innings where the target wasn't nearly 7rpo to start with, the slower balls etc might have been picked or at the very least, the batsmen might not have been trying to bludgeon fours and sixes off them. The situation was tailor made for someone like Bopara, but I wouldn't for a minute suggest it makes him an all-rounder.

Certainly in ODIs they medium pacers and/or bits n pieces players do fit in nicely. ODIs is a step up too far for Wright, Bopara remains to be seen. He filled his boots not so many years ago with was it three hundreds in three Tests? Where is his Test career now? Morgan and Trott to name two off the top of my head have debuted since.

 

[King Pietersen]

No-one's claimed he's a geniune all-rounder, but he's been taking wickets on a consistent basis in the last year against a wide range of opposition; when he's been using his slightly longer run-up anyway. The mega short run he uses in T20 cricket doesn't work for him, but with the longer run he definitely bowls better. He's pretty accurate, has an excellent wrist and seam position which allows him to swing the ball and has a very good slower ball. He's not quite as good a bowler as Wright, but he really isn't far off, and he's so much better with the bat, especially down the order. I think he could do an excellent job going back to the role he started in for England, down the order as a finisher. Having Morgan and Bopara to finish off an innings would be superb. Morgan's just been awesome, and I can now name 3 examples of excellent Bopara innings down the order in ODi's. First one was the innings against Sri Lanka in the World Cup where he got us very close to winning the game, then he had a match winning partnership with Broad down the order against India, and the most recent example, the hitting to set a total against Bangladesh. Wright's had his chance, he's done pretty much nothing, and needs to go back to Sussex and put some actual performances in. He's got some serious potential, but there's been very little substance. Time for Ravi to get a chance I think.