Future of English cricket ??
- Thread starter Haarithan
- Start date
P
pcfan123
Guest
So what if he wants to support another team?
TanVeer7
Club Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2011
- Location
- MumBai
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox 360
even kallis is not going to play forever for sa ..2more years maximum...and about beating england?india already won test series in eng last time they visited..if you want more then just wait and watch talk to me on this after this ind-en series after wrld cup..vll see
----------
this is what called consistency which is required to be best in the world..yes eng team is talented but they miss that consistency
----------
india have best bench strength specially for tests and i think not only india but aus ,africa both going to suffer with great players retirements like kallis,hussey,ponting,lee..only player india going to miss after retirement is zaheer khan ..yeah..but still you never know after zaheer retirement sreesanth could be next zaheer..same thing happened after retirement of sreenath zaheer looked different bowler with added responsiblity
Last edited:
STLIndian
Club Cricketer
Hahaha. This.
----------
That's funny. We've climbed to #1 with this very same bowling attack, but we can't stay there because of it? Sehwag can't bat outside the sub-continent? So what? Once again, we've risen to the top with him being less-than-great outside the SubCon, why can't we stay at the top the same way?
And I also love the notion that India will collapse once Tendulkar, Laxman, and Dravid retire. First of all, Dravid has already fallen off a cliff, and we're fine without him (as much as it pains me to say it). Secondly, it's not like we don't have any other batting prospects. Pujara and Kohli have world-class potential, and there's plenty of other batting prospects in the waiting.
Lee1981
International Coach
Funny thought this thread was about the england team, not for more indian team gang banging.
Allow me to get it back on track with some random thoughts 
The obvious difference between Australia and England right now is balance, and it's mainly due to Shane Watson. Having an all-rounder you can build your team around is massive because it gives you heaps of options. For example, Australia could play a limbless soldier at #7 and it wouldn't matter much - it's a bonus position since he's the 7th best batsman and the 6th best bowler.
In saying that, the Collingwood, Yardy and 4 bowlers balance should be working, especially since Swann and Broad can bat. The main weakness in this series has been the lack of a 4th quick bowler that keep the pressure that the pace trio have built and exploit any good conditions. Watching Luke Wright when Australia toured in '09 I thought he might be the answer as he was doing a very 'Watson-y' job with the ball. He might still be the answer I dunno, but even if he is, Strauss hasn't shown the faith in him when he's in the side.
That's just the balance issues. The individual form of players and the batting positions needs addressing too. I'd get rid of Strauss and move Trott up to the top. Bell up to #3, then KP, Morgan, and then at #6 either your keeper or a new middle order guy to replace Collingwood, maybe a Ravi Bopara type who can be the 6th bowler.
The obvious difference between Australia and England right now is balance, and it's mainly due to Shane Watson. Having an all-rounder you can build your team around is massive because it gives you heaps of options. For example, Australia could play a limbless soldier at #7 and it wouldn't matter much - it's a bonus position since he's the 7th best batsman and the 6th best bowler.
In saying that, the Collingwood, Yardy and 4 bowlers balance should be working, especially since Swann and Broad can bat. The main weakness in this series has been the lack of a 4th quick bowler that keep the pressure that the pace trio have built and exploit any good conditions. Watching Luke Wright when Australia toured in '09 I thought he might be the answer as he was doing a very 'Watson-y' job with the ball. He might still be the answer I dunno, but even if he is, Strauss hasn't shown the faith in him when he's in the side.
That's just the balance issues. The individual form of players and the batting positions needs addressing too. I'd get rid of Strauss and move Trott up to the top. Bell up to #3, then KP, Morgan, and then at #6 either your keeper or a new middle order guy to replace Collingwood, maybe a Ravi Bopara type who can be the 6th bowler.
Bang on. We've got some exciting players coming through, like James Taylor. But there aren't a huge swathe of all-rounders coming through, though the obvious candidate is Adil Rashid, if we blood him in well, he will be a huge player for us. The notion that we don't have strength in depth is wrong imo. Only got to look at some of the bowlers who have come through in this series who were on the verge, Shahzad, Finn and Tremlett in particular. Throw in the likes of James Harris, Chris Woakes and Nathan Buck and there's some good players coming through. In the batting stakes, well for starters I think England aren't always ruthless enough with batting picks and that causes issues, but the likes of Carberry, Lyth, Hildreth, Jimmy Adams, James Taylor, Moeen Ali, Bopara and Chris Nash are all talented players coming through the system. Nash would be a very useful bowling option as a batsman as would Ravi.
STLIndian
Club Cricketer
Don't blame us. It was "Mark" who started talking about the Indian team:
TnVr made the first comment about India, but his was a secondary comment in a post that was mostly about the England team.
P
pcfan123
Guest
fantastic Indian logic works miracles again.
The reply to the 1st India comment is what really matters, not the ridiculously off topic and subjective India ass kissing comment itself.
England need to find better players, a better mentality and approach, and most of all some tactical nous - in selection and in game.
What did they do when on top in the 7th ODI? They had the aussies 73/3 and 103/4 but from the 20th over through to and including over 35 - a full 15 overs - they used second string/rate bowlers like Yardy, Wright and Trott and the aussies went from a run-rate of around 3.5 and in trouble, to a run-rate of 5.0 and in a position to build a total.
So for one England have too many Wrights and Yardys around, the captain seems too focused on muddling through the middle overs - even when England are on top! It never really occured to him two more wickets and the aussies could be skittled or simply allow his muddle through bowlers to bowl far more economically
The batting is another issue, and the Wrights and Yardys don't help there either. England are OBSESSED with wicket-keeper pinch-hitters, and when they found one who might just do a job they dropped him in favour of someone who had already failed there! The batting is often either too pedestrian or too gung ho, they never seem to get the pace right. They go in with four main bowlers and then bat first
England also have a tendancy to throw away good batting positions as well as good bowling ones. In batting all too often they get off to a flier, are well positioned with maybe 1-2 wickets down by the 20th over or thereabouts at 100 for whatever then lose a few wickets carelessly and don't have the capacity for recovery like the aussies have shown.
I quite like Strauss as a Test captain, but as a ODI captain he's another whose tactical failings are exposed all too often.
Strauss
OPENER/Morgan/Bell
Trott
Pietersen
Collingwood (bowler 6)
Prior (wk)
ALL-ROUNDER (bowler 4/5)
Swann (bowler 4/5)
Broad (bowler 2)
Shahzad/Woakes (bowler 3)
Anderson (bowler 1)
Reckon there are the makings of a decent side there, of course this series we've been without Broad and Swann which makes a difference. As I've long been saying number seven in the order is the key to both batting and bowling. Yardy and Wright should be nowhere near the side, we need someone there and I had feint hopes that England might pursuade Flintoff to play the ODI series/World Cup, but then he retired.
Collingwood is a useful bowler, but after him there isn't much bowling in the batting and it is wise to have a 6th bowler who is as good as him.
One glaring problem became evident when I was chalking up an XI was that we have too many middle order players who have a case for inclusion and make it hard to include all of them - Trott, Pietersen, Collingwood and Bell. It's great in Tests as you only need four bowlers, but either one opens or makes way. Bell and Trott are two of our better batters, Collingwood is a top fielder and good bowler, and how could you leave out Pietersen - or could you......................?
Hasn't Morgan kept wicket in the past? If he could then perhaps the solution is open with him and give him the gloves. That would take Prior out, but as long as a makeshift keeper was tidy and didn't drop clangers then he wouldn't get that many chances that were crying out for a specialist.
Regardless, England need to address that all-rounder issue and bit part, "bits n pieces" cricketers like Wright and Yardy aren't good enough
What did they do when on top in the 7th ODI? They had the aussies 73/3 and 103/4 but from the 20th over through to and including over 35 - a full 15 overs - they used second string/rate bowlers like Yardy, Wright and Trott and the aussies went from a run-rate of around 3.5 and in trouble, to a run-rate of 5.0 and in a position to build a total.
So for one England have too many Wrights and Yardys around, the captain seems too focused on muddling through the middle overs - even when England are on top! It never really occured to him two more wickets and the aussies could be skittled or simply allow his muddle through bowlers to bowl far more economically
The batting is another issue, and the Wrights and Yardys don't help there either. England are OBSESSED with wicket-keeper pinch-hitters, and when they found one who might just do a job they dropped him in favour of someone who had already failed there!
The batting is often either too pedestrian or too gung ho, they never seem to get the pace right. They go in with four main bowlers and then bat first England also have a tendancy to throw away good batting positions as well as good bowling ones. In batting all too often they get off to a flier, are well positioned with maybe 1-2 wickets down by the 20th over or thereabouts at 100 for whatever then lose a few wickets carelessly and don't have the capacity for recovery like the aussies have shown.
I quite like Strauss as a Test captain, but as a ODI captain he's another whose tactical failings are exposed all too often.
Strauss
OPENER/Morgan/Bell
Trott
Pietersen
Collingwood (bowler 6)
Prior (wk)
ALL-ROUNDER (bowler 4/5)
Swann (bowler 4/5)
Broad (bowler 2)
Shahzad/Woakes (bowler 3)
Anderson (bowler 1)
Reckon there are the makings of a decent side there, of course this series we've been without Broad and Swann which makes a difference. As I've long been saying number seven in the order is the key to both batting and bowling. Yardy and Wright should be nowhere near the side, we need someone there and I had feint hopes that England might pursuade Flintoff to play the ODI series/World Cup, but then he retired.
Collingwood is a useful bowler, but after him there isn't much bowling in the batting and it is wise to have a 6th bowler who is as good as him.
One glaring problem became evident when I was chalking up an XI was that we have too many middle order players who have a case for inclusion and make it hard to include all of them - Trott, Pietersen, Collingwood and Bell. It's great in Tests as you only need four bowlers, but either one opens or makes way. Bell and Trott are two of our better batters, Collingwood is a top fielder and good bowler, and how could you leave out Pietersen - or could you......................?
Hasn't Morgan kept wicket in the past? If he could then perhaps the solution is open with him and give him the gloves. That would take Prior out, but as long as a makeshift keeper was tidy and didn't drop clangers then he wouldn't get that many chances that were crying out for a specialist.
Regardless, England need to address that all-rounder issue and bit part, "bits n pieces" cricketers like Wright and Yardy aren't good enough
Allow me to get it back on track with some random thoughts
The obvious difference between Australia and England right now is balance, and it's mainly due to Shane Watson. Having an all-rounder you can build your team around is massive because it gives you heaps of options. For example, Australia could play a limbless soldier at #7 and it wouldn't matter much - it's a bonus position since he's the 7th best batsman and the 6th best bowler.
In saying that, the Collingwood, Yardy and 4 bowlers balance should be working, especially since Swann and Broad can bat. The main weakness in this series has been the lack of a 4th quick bowler that keep the pressure that the pace trio have built and exploit any good conditions. Watching Luke Wright when Australia toured in '09 I thought he might be the answer as he was doing a very 'Watson-y' job with the ball. He might still be the answer I dunno, but even if he is, Strauss hasn't shown the faith in him when he's in the side.
That's just the balance issues. The individual form of players and the batting positions needs addressing too. I'd get rid of Strauss and move Trott up to the top. Bell up to #3, then KP, Morgan, and then at #6 either your keeper or a new middle order guy to replace Collingwood, maybe a Ravi Bopara type who can be the 6th bowler.
Wright is a useless bowler, all he does is charge in and try to bowl fast. Problem is he runs in faster than he bowls. He is useless, if England get a 1-50 off 8 overs out of him they sigh in relief knowing it could have been a lot worse.
Why would Strauss show faith in him when he rarely if ever goes for below 6 an over? And rarely if ever takes more than 1 wicket.
He has no idea how to even bowl, and has zero variety, he does not seam or swing the ball at all, and all he has is a misdirected slower ball which usually gets whooped for 4.
Bopara is a better option as a bowler, yes, he is expensive, but at least he takes wickets, and at least he has variety, and at least he actually knows how to bowl.
Wright has not worked out the mind side of bowling yet, and probably never will, and he lacks the variety anyway, no point trying to follow 3 outswingers with an inswinger if you don't even have an outswinger or an inswinger.
Strauss was carrying the England batting in ODIs until recently, I wouldn't be too quick to turf him. Maybe after the World Cup he should go, seeing as he won't be around for the 2015 one.
He is a better option than Cook, and real openers are far better than "pretend" openers who can't even survive the first 10 on anything less than a belter.
England will not win this World Cup, and it is not because of one or two weak players, it is also because their "good" players (matchwinners) just aren't good enough (compared to those in opposition teams).
That 20/20 rubbish in the West Indies proved nothing, England just got lucky, you can win that thing because of one 40 Not Out from one player, it is hardly a team sport, and hardly indicative of any "strength" or ability as a team.
I think the problem is that he's trying to talk like he's British (Jog on fella isn't a phrase you'd hear in India...at all) Which is rather offensive as he's implying being Indian isn't good enough and/or he finds talking like an Indian person to be embarrassing.
It's also funny as he is so clearly faking it and is Indian.
But yea. I think Wright + Yardy and Collingwood all together is much of a muchness. All three very similar bowlers doing very similar roles, letting themselves be milked at 4-5 RPO without taking wickets. They're all fill in bowlers, and too many overs of them just lets the batsmen settle in to attack at the end, which has been happening repeatedly.
One, maybe two of them in an attack is fine. But building your attack around them isn't going to work no matter how much you score; because once the batsmen are set, they'll just launch into the attack, as Aus have shown.
An attack of, say, Anderson/Broad/Shehzad/Swann, with Collingwood and Trott/KP for support, sounds decent.
Fitting Yardy into that lineup will be difficult unless you play Colly as the third seamer. Yardy shouldn't be batting higher than 8 in this current England side, he just isn't reliable enough at 7 (Although some might argue that flat pitches + Swann and Broad to follow can justify that move).
But FTR, I just think the England side was tired, missing some key players, and weren't at the ideal balance for that ODI series. They're capable of better. Won't be totally writing them off yet.
And who knows, Morgan's injury could be a blessing in disguise. Gives Bopara a chance to play, and his medium pace along with Trott and Colly could be the game-breakers on slow Sri Lankan tracks or when defending a score with dew playing a role.
