New Zealand tour of England - May/June 2015

[MUFC1987]

He's hardly 'down the order'. He's batting at 5 or 6, not at 7 or 8. He's in the right position because he has time to come in and play himself in, before unleashing towards the end. His temperament is perfect for that, because he's so cool under pressure. No matter what the rate is, he'll back himself. You can't buy that.

And why can't Bopara do it? Because he's not good enough. It's a specialist role. We have two guys who can do it, in Morgan and Buttler. Now we have Billings showing potential. What's wrong with the likes of Hales and Ali to open? What is Hales doing wrong? He's not exactly plodding along at a strike rate of 50, so what do you expect?

There are plenty of people who can score quickly at the start. Because it's the easiest time to bat in the innings.

 

[Deleted member 149013]

He's hardly 'down the order'. He's batting at 5 or 6, not at 7 or 8. He's in the right position because he has time to come in and play himself in, before unleashing towards the end. His temperament is perfect for that, because he's so cool under pressure. No matter what the rate is, he'll back himself. You can't buy that.

And why can't Bopara do it? Because he's not good enough. It's a specialist role. We have two guys who can do it, in Morgan and Buttler. Now we have Billings showing potential. What's wrong with the likes of Hales and Ali to open? What is Hales doing wrong? He's not exactly plodding along at a strike rate of 50, so what do you expect?

There are plenty of people who can score quickly at the start. Because it's the easiest time to bat in the innings.

Hales hasn’t done anything wrong I would open with Hales and Buttler. Roy further down the order to gain some confidence as he doesn’t look fluid enough to open yet he was static and sweeping way too much. Ali maybe at 3 or 4. With Morgan and Billings its more than enough to finish off lower down.

 

[IceAgeComing]

To be honest there's no need to fiddle with England's batting order significantly - we've scored over 350 in two straight ODIs, scoring runs isn't the problem. We have at least three talented ODI openers near the team (Hales, Roy and Ali) and there'll be others in the county setup, so there's no real point to try and turn a very good lower order player into an opener, it rarely works. Messing players around like that is a very good reason why England have ruined so many players recently.

Bowling is the real concern: Finn is somehow still taking wickets although he's very expensive, Jordan looks like turning into a bit of a Ramprakash (player that looks very very good in domestic cricket but doesn't show that talent in internationals) which is a shame but he still has time, PLunkett's good and has helped England with the bat a bit twice in two games. Still undecided about Rashid; he got wickets in the first game but struggled a bit in the Second one but again he's a very good number 8. I don't think you can fit Willey in the team; unless you put him at 8 which would hurt the bowling a lot or take out Stokes - we don't need five seamers in an ODI. Stokes has surprised me; I rated him off after the West Indies series and last year but he's played very well against New Zealand, and I hope that it continues. Considering where we are in the international season not playing Wood and Broad makes sense because its an Ashes summer; and it demonstrates that we have a surprising amount of depth in seam bowling which is nice!

Is that the highlight of the Scottish calendar year then go home and watch Braveheart on DVD.

ha what a funny joke, i've totally not heard that a million times before

you also don't seem to understand the unique dynamics of being a scottish cricket fan: its socially acceptable to like the england cricket team as a scot in scotland for some reason, while it isn't so much for other sports

 

[Deleted member 149013]

To be honest there's no need to fiddle with England's batting order significantly - we've scored over 350 in two straight ODIs, scoring runs isn't the problem. We have at least three talented ODI openers near the team (Hales, Roy and Ali) and there'll be others in the county setup, so there's no real point to try and turn a very good lower order player into an opener, it rarely works. Messing players around like that is a very good reason why England have ruined so many players recently.

Bowling is the real concern: Finn is somehow still taking wickets although he's very expensive, Jordan looks like turning into a bit of a Ramprakash (player that looks very very good in domestic cricket but doesn't show that talent in internationals) which is a shame but he still has time, PLunkett's good and has helped England with the bat a bit twice in two games. Still undecided about Rashid; he got wickets in the first game but struggled a bit in the Second one but again he's a very good number 8. I don't think you can fit Willey in the team; unless you put him at 8 which would hurt the bowling a lot or take out Stokes - we don't need five seamers in an ODI. Stokes has surprised me; I rated him off after the West Indies series and last year but he's played very well against New Zealand, and I hope that it continues. Considering where we are in the international season not playing Wood and Broad makes sense because its an Ashes summer; and it demonstrates that we have a surprising amount of depth in seam bowling which is nice!



ha what a funny joke, i've totally not heard that a million times before

you also don't seem to understand the unique dynamics of being a scottish cricket fan: its socially acceptable to like the england cricket team as a scot in scotland for some reason, while it isn't so much for other sports

See your point with Jordan I would see people putting him in a fantasy 11 or talking him up then see him playing and wonder what planet they were on. Of what I have seen I can’t say I am impressed but like you say there is time and I want him to prove me wrong I would accept that.

 

[_Sam_]

Craig Overton added to the England squad.

 

[MUFC1987]

I was gonna say that it seems kinda pointless with Wood and Willey in the squad, to cover Jordan, but apparently Plunkett is injured as well. Hopefully he gets a game, cos he's been in brilliant form in the Championship so far, his bowling especially. I can't see it though personally. Surely they'll play Wood, even though it means a weaker tail.

 

[bigred]

This talk of Buttler opening is madness. Some dreadful selection ideas on this thread. The top 6 doesn't need to change. Fact. 350+ in two matches.

 

[bigred]

England are one bowler short. This specialist number 7 bat is a luxury we can't afford.

 

[MUFC1987]

Depends how you look at it though really. If we'd batted a bit better, we'd have gotten another 30-40 and it may not have been an issue. And with the squad at the moment, you'd be left with a weak lower order. Rashid looks decent, but Willey or Overton at 8 as well, is a massive risk. And for me, once Moeen comes back in, it's not an issue.

I think Morgan should be bowling Stokes more though, especially early. He seems to leave it far too late to bring him into the attack.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

But surely now, with all the regulation changes and with scores going up, batsmen are going to be scoring more, because it's easier than it used to be. Therefore average players are looking a lot better now, than they did 10 or 15 years ago. That's the difference for me. Much in the same way that bowlers look a lot worse. It's just a much harder game for them.

That's a very dangerous perception to have. A lot of this it's a lot harder game for the bowlers is a whole lot of manure. I wouldn't dare call a good modern day batsmen average.

I think, batting has changed more than anything else. I think, a lot of emphasis is now laid on mindsets. I've noticed an unbelievable change in the outlook of the modern day cricketer. He just doesn't believe in the word impossible. It's like the moment you dangle that carrot, a group of young cricketers see that as an opportunity to shine and not worry about failure. If you just see the scoring areas now, it's unreal in the 90's. I just feel the bowler hasn't evolved as much as the batsman has.

Just to sight out a few things I've heard people mourn about, specially commentators-

Pitches are dead dodo's, they are docile and flat. This isn't true. I think, all the pitches mostly keep their true nature. We've had more results in tests than forever. Yes, there's the odd drop in pitch sometimes that's dull, but there were more 'draws' in yesteryear than there are today. I frankly, love ODI cricket now. If you have a weakness in the team, you will be stripped naked. The only issue I have sometimes is that the boundary is in, which was not the case at the world cup so it was fine. The only rule that needs changing is the fielding restrictions. McCullum will still have fielders in. de Villiers will still hit sixes. Starc will still pick wickets. You just allow a bit more captaincy to come in as well as reward the bowler for accuracy.

There's a lot of nostalgia and romance about the past. Why? Because you can't travel in time. Understandably, a lot of cricketers are termed as legends and rightly so. But, we sometimes under estimate how brilliant the present is. One day, this will be the past and people will remember some of these chaps as legends and miss them. eg. When you talk of legendary fast bowlers, we always hear Malcolm Marshall and Wasim Akram. Yet, when you talk of greats in terms of batsmen everyone in the present is said to have these drop in pitches, flat tracks, BIG BATS etc. etc. Well, if batting is so easy in today's day and age compared to yesteryear, every time all time great bowlers are discussed, Steyn and Anderson should be discussed a lot before Hadlee, Marshall etc etc.

ps: Nothing against your post or you. Just wanted to share myths. Very dangerous to compare eras in sport. Each is unique. And so, we will never know who is average in yesteryear or special.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

England are one bowler short. This specialist number 7 bat is a luxury we can't afford.

I think they're fine. Stokes does a job. Who do you drop for the bowler?

England's problem is that their four specialists aren't special. Willey looked alright yesterday. If he evolves it will be good for them. Left arm bowlers seem to be a menace these days. They seem to be the 'in thing.'

 

[richowebbo]

England are one bowler short. This specialist number 7 bat is a luxury we can't afford.

Not sure I agree we need a specialist bowler. I think Moeen Ali is a decent ODI bowler and will probably be opening in place of Roy, who hasn't really impressed. That gives us a couple of spinners, and four quicks. Mark Wood bowled well and Willeys opening spell yesterday was very encouraging.

Billings did well for his 34, but we needed him to stay at the crease, because when he was out, Ben Stokes felt the pressure and holed out (Granted, Rashid's zero was big part of this as well). In my opinion, there are better players than Billings available.

Taylor and Williamson played beautifully yesterday and punished anything slightly off line and length. That is the way it is in ODI cricket these days, and a large reason why we get bigger scores. Because of T20, players are more comfortable playing shots, so bowling has to be precise. This is why I'd pick Broad, because I think he has a lot more control than the current guys.

Jordan should not be in the squad, let alone the team, as he simply isn't good enough. Yes, he's a great fielder, but when you have a team of 11 to pick, there is no room for a specialist fielder! Saying that, dropped catches by Stokes and particularly Butler, were hugely costly.

Should be another tight game up next, and I have to say, it was great to see the England guys playing with smiles on their faces.

 

[Markkkkk]

That's a very dangerous perception to have. A lot of this it's a lot harder game for the bowlers is a whole lot of manure. I wouldn't dare call a good modern day batsmen average.

I think, batting has changed more than anything else. I think, a lot of emphasis is now laid on mindsets. I've noticed an unbelievable change in the outlook of the modern day cricketer. He just doesn't believe in the word impossible. It's like the moment you dangle that carrot, a group of young cricketers see that as an opportunity to shine and not worry about failure. If you just see the scoring areas now, it's unreal in the 90's. I just feel the bowler hasn't evolved as much as the batsman has.

Just to sight out a few things I've heard people mourn about, specially commentators-

Pitches are dead dodo's, they are docile and flat. This isn't true. I think, all the pitches mostly keep their true nature. We've had more results in tests than forever. Yes, there's the odd drop in pitch sometimes that's dull, but there were more 'draws' in yesteryear than there are today. I frankly, love ODI cricket now. If you have a weakness in the team, you will be stripped naked. The only issue I have sometimes is that the boundary is in, which was not the case at the world cup so it was fine. The only rule that needs changing is the fielding restrictions. McCullum will still have fielders in. de Villiers will still hit sixes. Starc will still pick wickets. You just allow a bit more captaincy to come in as well as reward the bowler for accuracy.

There's a lot of nostalgia and romance about the past. Why? Because you can't travel in time. Understandably, a lot of cricketers are termed as legends and rightly so. But, we sometimes under estimate how brilliant the present is. One day, this will be the past and people will remember some of these chaps as legends and miss them. eg. When you talk of legendary fast bowlers, we always hear Malcolm Marshall and Wasim Akram. Yet, when you talk of greats in terms of batsmen everyone in the present is said to have these drop in pitches, flat tracks, BIG BATS etc. etc. Well, if batting is so easy in today's day and age compared to yesteryear, every time all time great bowlers are discussed, Steyn and Anderson should be discussed a lot before Hadlee, Marshall etc etc.

ps: Nothing against your post or you. Just wanted to share myths. Very dangerous to compare eras in sport. Each is unique. And so, we will never know who is average in yesteryear or special.

1. Limited overs games have flat pitches so people score more runs and is more entertaining.
2. Big bats really do make a difference. Chris Gayle is nothing more then a gym bunny that can watch a ball. He would score half the runs if he used a bat from the 1990s.
3. Remember a couple years ago, when scoring 250 was a good total in One Days? That doesnt happen anymore. These days people are scoring 350 and it is being chased down.

My best example of medicore batsmen are the Windies T20 players. None of them have technique or anything to show us good batting. They all can just hit a ball with a 15kg+ bat and now they are world class?

 

[grkrama]

Well, if batting is so easy in today's day and age compared to yesteryear, every time all time great bowlers are discussed, Steyn and Anderson should be discussed a lot before Hadlee, Marshall etc etc.

steyn apart form last year would walk into any team even of the past, he can turn matches head on even in the most lifeless pitches certainly . Anderson is the best one trick pony if wind isnt blowing his way he is as docile as FC trundler so despite wickets he isnt going into any legendary teams apart from the england ones.[DOUBLEPOST=1434359423][/DOUBLEPOST]

My best example of medicore batsmen are the Windies T20 players. None of them have technique or anything to show us good batting. They all can just hit a ball with a 15kg+ bat and now they are world class?

i dont think anybody is calling WI worldclass apart from t20s ?

 

[bigred]

Not sure I agree we need a specialist bowler. I think Moeen Ali is a decent ODI bowler and will probably be opening in place of Roy, who hasn't really impressed. That gives us a couple of spinners, and four quicks. Mark Wood bowled well and Willeys opening spell yesterday was very encouraging.

Billings did well for his 34, but we needed him to stay at the crease, because when he was out, Ben Stokes felt the pressure and holed out (Granted, Rashid's zero was big part of this as well). In my opinion, there are better players than Billings available.

Taylor and Williamson played beautifully yesterday and punished anything slightly off line and length. That is the way it is in ODI cricket these days, and a large reason why we get bigger scores. Because of T20, players are more comfortable playing shots, so bowling has to be precise. This is why I'd pick Broad, because I think he has a lot more control than the current guys.

Jordan should not be in the squad, let alone the team, as he simply isn't good enough. Yes, he's a great fielder, but when you have a team of 11 to pick, there is no room for a specialist fielder! Saying that, dropped catches by Stokes and particularly Butler, were hugely costly.

Should be another tight game up next, and I have to say, it was great to see the England guys playing with smiles on their faces.

Exactly. It's fine when Ali plays but he's not available for selection. He'd definitely be in ahead of Roy for me.

In this series I think Willey is good enough to bat at 7. We don't need Billings. You could bring in somebody like Overton then.