England's tour of India - 2021

[LiveLoveABD]

Dhawan has to go! Our template is a decade old.

 

[Bigby Wolf]

Youre basically saying the same thing two ways, if that makes sense, whatever floats your both.

ODI will remain the pinnacle of cricket once the Indians are interested and theyre up in the top 4, they take a nose dive and ODI gonna be hailed as the worse format.

Thought you were making sense but the Indian bandwagon at it again.

Time to put on the list.

Thankyou.

 

[Satan666]

Thought you were making sense but the Indian bandwagon at it again.

Time to put on the list.

Thankyou.

You know you gonna hit the ‘show ignore’ button anyway.

Youre welcome.

Post automatically merged: Mar 26, 2021

Might not be the worst thing in the world. I would love India to do bad at ODI's and if that kills ODI's, I am all for it. Look how cricket was interesting before T20 came along. Now with change in times, we need to preserve cricket. T20 and Test matches are the format to go for. Look at todays match. Both teams were playing like its T20. If we will see score of close to 400's why elongate? Just play T20's and let ODI's die already.

I feel ODI's if has to be played, should only be played for World Cups and Champions Trophy. Watching bowlers getting smashed for 100 overs is no fun and with T20, things wont change.

Well said. Thats the reality of the sitution.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Rohit Sharma
Ishan Kishan
Virat Kohli
Surya Kumar Yadav
Rishabh Pant
Hardik Pandya
Krunal Pandya
Bhubaneshwar Kumar
Mohammad Shami
Rahul Chahar
Jasprit Bumrah

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Rohit Sharma
Ishan Kishan
Virat Kohli
Surya Kumar Yadav
Rishabh Pant
Hardik Pandya
Krunal Pandya
Bhubaneshwar Kumar
Mohammad Shami
Rahul Chahar
Jasprit Bumrah

New day. New line ups.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

New day. New line ups.

That's mumbai indians lineup, but Localised

 

[wasteyouryouth]

That's mumbai indians lineup, but Localised

I was wondering what the aeroplanes were for

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

I feel that just let Dhawan go, I know he scored 96 in the last match, but let him go, have someone like Pant, Shaw open the inning who can fire straight away and we should be good. Although Krunal batted well in the last game, his bowling does not give me confidence. Yes it adds to our bench strength and that is good but he will be easily replaced with Jaddu.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

I feel that just let Dhawan go, I know he scored 96 in the last match, but let him go, have someone like Pant, Shaw open the inning who can fire straight away and we should be good. Although Krunal batted well in the last game, his bowling does not give me confidence. Yes it adds to our bench strength and that is good but he will be easily replaced with Jaddu.

I think they should give Shaw (or whoever) a proper run, and back him for 10-20 matches. Even come out and publicly and say 'Shaw will be our opener for the foreseeable future,' just to settle the chatter if he has a few bad matches.

Both matches England have been almost 10 overs ahead comparatively. India seem to be content if they score 300+ whereas I think that's a minimum for England. If they bat first I'd not be surprised if they scored 400.

 

[CerealKiller]

Might not be the worst thing in the world. I would love India to do bad at ODI's and if that kills ODI's, I am all for it. Look how cricket was interesting before T20 came along. Now with change in times, we need to preserve cricket. T20 and Test matches are the format to go for. Look at todays match. Both teams were playing like its T20. If we will see score of close to 400's why elongate? Just play T20's and let ODI's die already.

I feel ODI's if has to be played, should only be played for World Cups and Champions Trophy. Watching bowlers getting smashed for 100 overs is no fun and with T20, things wont change.

I agree to an extent, but abolishing ODIs would raise the question of still having 50-over World Cups, which are still the biggest events on the calendar. Play T20Is for 4 years, and then play a 50-overs trophy?

 

[wasteyouryouth]

I agree to an extent, but abolishing ODIs would raise the question of still having 50-over World Cups, which are still the biggest events on the calendar. Play T20Is for 4 years, and then play a 50-overs trophy?

Abolishing ODI seems an overreaction to me. I still think it's a great format and I think it's a more equal playing field than tests or T20.

I would like to see bowlers given more of an advantage. Dinesh Karthik suggested using the pink ball, they could be allowed to have one more bouncer, not being so harsh on leg side wides. Apparently Dukes has a white ball that can last 50 overs; that might mean reverse swing comes back into the format.

I'd say the big problem is the pitches though. We saw in the World Cup, when pitches were prepared to be 'neutral', there was more in it for the bowlers.

 

[Aislabie]

I would like to see bowlers given more of an advantage.

Yeah, that'd certainly be nice That said, you look at the England attack today - SCurran (6 wickets @ 44.00), Topley (19 wickets @ 25.84), TCurran (30 wickets @ 40.40), Stokes (73 wickets @ 41.04), Moeen (85 wickets @ 51.52) and Rashid (156 wickets @ 32.30) - were England even trying to put bowlers on the park?

Harking back to my post from earlier, I wouldn't mind if the full-strength side looked like this:

1. Jason Roy
2. Jonny Bairstow
3. Joe Root
4. Ben Stokes
5. Eoin Morgan
6. Jos Buttler
7. Liam Livingstone
8. Chris Woakes
9. Adil Rashid
10. Jofra Archer
11. Reece Topley? Maybe?

I've by no means made my mind up that that is the team - the biggest question mark being on that number eleven spot, because that has to be someone who's willing and able to bowl ten wicket-taking overs.

 

[ddrap14]

the biggest question mark being on that number eleven spot, because that has to be someone who's willing and able to bowl ten wicket-taking overs.

Topley is a decent shout, but what about Mark Wood?

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Yeah, that'd certainly be nice That said, you look at the England attack today - SCurran (6 wickets @ 44.00), Topley (19 wickets @ 25.84), TCurran (30 wickets @ 40.40), Stokes (73 wickets @ 41.04), Moeen (85 wickets @ 51.52) and Rashid (156 wickets @ 32.30) - were England even trying to put bowlers on the park?

Harking back to my post from earlier, I wouldn't mind if the full-strength side looked like this:

1. Jason Roy
2. Jonny Bairstow
3. Joe Root
4. Ben Stokes
5. Eoin Morgan
6. Jos Buttler
7. Liam Livingstone
8. Chris Woakes
9. Adil Rashid
10. Jofra Archer
11. Reece Topley? Maybe?

I've by no means made my mind up that that is the team - the biggest question mark being on that number eleven spot, because that has to be someone who's willing and able to bowl ten wicket-taking overs.

I thought Livingstone did well and would like to see him get more chances. But, my 7-11 would be:

Woakes, Rashid, Archer, Wood, Topley.

Sam Curran will always be around but Tom Curran needs to go away. They need to start looking at some other bowlers as back up though. Jake Ball has been hanging around so it seems like he's top of the list. Olly Stone could be worth a shot too.

I can see Morgan dropping himself to six permanently, or more frequently, after Stokes' performance.

 

[Ed Smith]

Yeah, that'd certainly be nice That said, you look at the England attack today - SCurran (6 wickets @ 44.00), Topley (19 wickets @ 25.84), TCurran (30 wickets @ 40.40), Stokes (73 wickets @ 41.04), Moeen (85 wickets @ 51.52) and Rashid (156 wickets @ 32.30) - were England even trying to put bowlers on the park?

Harking back to my post from earlier, I wouldn't mind if the full-strength side looked like this:

1. Jason Roy
2. Jonny Bairstow
3. Joe Root
4. Ben Stokes
5. Eoin Morgan
6. Jos Buttler
7. Liam Livingstone
8. Chris Woakes
9. Adil Rashid
10. Jofra Archer
11. Reece Topley? Maybe?

I've by no means made my mind up that that is the team - the biggest question mark being on that number eleven spot, because that has to be someone who's willing and able to bowl ten wicket-taking overs.

Wood or put Willey at 8 and move everyone down?