Future of English cricket ??

[angryangy]

The all-rounders are a big point. At the risk of bringing the thread into disrepute, you might say that's why India are able to be a powerful team without a lot of bowling firepower. They've still got these players who can actually do both jobs and where they might cost the side with the ball over a better bowler, they back it up with potentially legendary batting.

England did have Flintoff for a while, but the balance then isn't the same balance right now. For that matter, there were times when England did look like they could build an unrivalled team around players like Trescothick, Flintoff and Pietersen. Consistently being able to field something close to your ideal team is another big part of it. As has been said though, if you've got powerful players in your key positions, you can afford to make up numbers. It opens up that definition of 'close' to more possibilities.

 

[Owzat]

Yardy also fantastic.

Since when..............?

It's the attack that is the problem. Leaks runs constantly.

For me it is a lack of wicket taking. I'll bang this drum nice and loud once more, when we take 9-10 wickets (under Strauss) we win 80% or thereabouts. When we take 8 wickets we win around 50-50 while anything less and wins are remote. It is no coincidence, and no surprise with bowling including Wright and Yardy, and inconsistent bowlers. Anderson can take a nice 3-4 wicket haul one match, give away 90 runs off his 10 overs the next (may be an exaggeration, but he is nowhere near consistent enough)

The side lacks balance, batting and bowling. I think the selectors are too short sighted, focus too much on the immediate future with little attention or respect paid to the middle or far future ie pick a player to try and win a series rather than with a long term plan. Examples of this include Doodle (Shaun) and Nixon. Nixon should have been picked years before he was, Udal was never really more than a solid county pro and never a Test player.

That said I do believe we can throw youngsters in at the deep end too soon, there is a balance, but England have not in any way looked forward towards this World Cup soon enough. Tredwell is a fine example, if England had planned ahead then he'd have more ODI experience ahead of the World Cup.

And of course there is always the opposite extreme, England persisting with the likes of Yardy and Wright who are not good enough bowlers and not proved worthy with the bat. I guess it is never helped with them not being one thing or t'other, England playing Wright up and down the order and muddling through a few overs without having a fixed and DEFINED role. Yardy is a batsman in county cricket, without his bowling (through T20s) he'd be nowhere near the side, and while you can get away with that kind of player in T20s, but ODIs is a much different demand.

 

[sami ullah khan]

I know what it not takes and thats Morgan's unfortunate exclusion

 

[Lee1981]

Bell was so overrated this summer

One of the most rediculous things ive heard in a while.

 

[angryangy]

He did well despite scarce opportunities in the Tests, but he may as well have gone home after that. It's a harsh judgement if this was about England being Test number 1, but wholly relevant in the context of this thread.

 

[sifter132]

I think Bell was overrated too. I'm not saying he played badly - I'm saying that the press was much more than his performance. Mark Taylor told us a thousand times what good touch Bell was in, but it didn't mean much scoreboard wise. It tends to be like that for ANY stylish batsman from Sachin Tendulkar downwards. It's because they always seem to be in form and hitting it well, and they get typecast as underachievers.

 

[Owzat]

Pretty ordinary ODI series for Bell, HS of 45 hit off 32 balls, but averaging just 22.00 in the series.

That said, why single him out when EIGHT England players averaged between 20.00 (kerplunk) and 28.00 (Wright)

 

[Sureshot]

Agree with Owzat (no, really ). I think there's also the point that he wasn't particularly needed in the Tests all that much (went past 50 4 times in 6 innings and averaged over 65 (more than any of the Aussies) and played a massive innings in Sydney) but he was still pretty good in the Ashes.

He's a big part of our future, yes he wasn't great in the ODIs, but it happens.

 

[Brook]

Haha literally every time Ian Bell held a bat this summer there was a comment about how amazing his form was.

 

[Collingwood50]

win matches

 

[Haarithan]

Pietersen now being tested as an opener going to the WC . I am personally delighted with the move England have made right now , given the manner in which he dispatched each and every bowler in the World t20 during the Powerplays let alone the middle overs . Man , the best bowler in the world , Dale Steyn , wow that was some treatment that KP gave him at the Carribbean !

 

[pcfan123]

World Champions has some competition now

 

[Haarithan]

A destructive KP in his power play mode

 

[Owzat]

Pietersen now being tested as an opener going to the WC . I am personally delighted with the move England have made right now , given the manner in which he dispatched each and every bowler in the World t20 during the Powerplays let alone the middle overs . Man , the best bowler in the world , Dale Steyn , wow that was some treatment that KP gave him at the Carribbean !

How does 39 off 61 balls against a minnow against whom Strauss, not picked per se as a "pinch hitter", hit 88 off 83 balls, fit into your above statement?

England are capable of COMPETING with any side in the world, but the problem is they are inconsistent, have too many problem areas and too many players who blow hot and cold - Anderson a fine example.

I'd also criticise them tactically, especially the captain, and their approach to the innings when batting can be somewhat lacking in urgency or shot selectivity.

And the bigger picture always shows a lack of foreplanning and sensible selection. Wright is never an ODI quality player, yet he has 30, 40, I give up counting number of caps in which he's done nothing. Yardy is tidy, but same real output issue. England come into the World Cup and players like Tredwell and Shahzad are selected having played few ODIs!?!?!? We play Davies in ODI 1 of 7 against Australia, switch tack to Prior opening and now it's PIETERSEN !!! We've switched between playing the (what I call) bits n pieces all-rounders to using Collingwood as the fifth bowler, there is just no sign of a grand plan. England make it up as they go along, pick players on reputation or because they fit the ideal which they'll never live up to ie Yardy is a left-arm spinner who can bat, but neither scores lots of runs or takes lots of wickets to any great level in reality.

So England are stuck in perpetual change, it always happens before World Cups and they are so worried about winning the piddling series between World Cups that they aren't actually building towards the big event.

 

[ganeshran]

Going by yesterday's match, England need to improve their attitude in the field.

There were some very amateurish mistakes against Netherlands in the field. Especially the no ball against Borren and the second beamer in the over by Anderson.

They certainly have the bowling talent in Broad and Swann, but catching needs to improve to reach the #1 ODI ranking