Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
KP out to the left arm spinner again! GEEZE.
Considering playing Ojha in the test series now..
Considering playing Ojha in the test series now..
Sri Lanka in England 2011
- Thread starter Lassana Dias
- Start date
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
not good at all. and it wasn't as if the bowling was outstanding either.
----------
and something that has been bugging me for a while. shehzad is in neither limited over squad. do woakes AND dernbach both deserve to be included while someone with international experiences who had bowled well in the past and is much better with the old ball is somehow excluded. doesn't make sense.
----------
and something that has been bugging me for a while. shehzad is in neither limited over squad. do woakes AND dernbach both deserve to be included while someone with international experiences who had bowled well in the past and is much better with the old ball is somehow excluded. doesn't make sense.
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
Shahzad has had a horror start to this season, has been whacked at over four an over in First Class matches and even higher in the shorter stuff. Fair call to leave him out as far as I'm concerned.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
And surprise, surprise - we get whacked by Sri Lanka in the ODI. We've got it nailed in Tests, how can we be so far behind in the 50 over game?
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Are you from the future or were you just watching an entirely different game than the rest of us?
lewissaffin
Club Cricketer
I'd like to think that Surrey beat Sri Lanka today, what with Dernbach's wicket and Pietersen's catch and innings of 40-odd. 
This isn't just another pop at Wright, but if he isn't going to bowl then should he be in any side batting seven?!?!?! In the T20 World Cup he made 45no first match batting six, 20 second match and then 25 runs total in the rest of the competition - he bowled just ONE over.
I looked at the World Cup winning side to see how much, if anything, Wright contributed then. It isn't so different to what got slaughtered yesterday
Lumb
Kieswetter
Pietersen
Morgan
Bopara
Wright
Broad
Swann
Yardy I guess is unavailable, Sidebottom and Collingwood out of the equation and the only other absentee was Bresnan who I'm sure will be back.
Why did we lose? Poorly executed shots from the openers, inadequate batting below Bopara with 16 runs off the bat between Patel, Wright, Woakes, and Broad for which they faced 27 balls at a strike rate of 59.26 when you really want it to be over 125.00. Maybe if England had made those extra 18 runs or so then it might have been a close contest.
And I'd argue we went in a bowler light as well, Patel and Bopara probably got off lightly because Sri Lanka were cruising. Didn't think much of Broad's captaincy either, we needed wickets early after they got off to a flier and when we got one he took the bowler off! And our by far and away best bowler also didn't bowl his allocation, methinks the captain was too busy focusing on the basics more experienced captains don't need to focus on as they are second nature.
Still, the proper cricket begins Tuesday. I had my doubts about Dernbach but he did enough to make the XI for me. There ain't much scope for tactical selections with a squad as small as 14
Cook
Kieswetter
Trott
Pietersen
Morgan
Bell/Bopara
Bopara/Patel
Swann
Broad
Dernbach
Anderson
That leaves Finn, Woakes, and whoever you leave out from Bopara, Bell and Patel. I want to give Patel a chance as he can add to the bowling options and would have been handy in the World Cup. Not sure he is going to cut it at this level though
I'm not convinced by England's balance, the keeper is a given so that leaves seven batsmen and six bowlers with Bopara and Patel able to bowl but not really full bowlers. You need five bowlers, all good enough to bowl their allocation most times and take wickets while not being too expensive very often.
The batting isn't that strong among the bowlers so the whole side is going to be understrength either in batting or bowling. Swann, Broad and Woakes can all bat a bit, but could also be run through rather quickly. If you include Patel or Bopara as an "all-rounder" it may work, but I'd only count either of them as half a bowler with the likelihood that we'll have several options making up the fifth bowler allocation and making up for whichever bowler or bowlers is/are expensive.
I suspect England will go with Bopara and Patel to 'cover their options' for the 5th bowler, that will mean one of Bell or Trott making way surely? One thing I wondered yesterday as Morgan was taking apart the Sri Lankans, albeit not for long enough, was why he isn't opening - especially in T20.
I think we'll lose the ODI series due to inadequacies in our bowling which Sri Lanka will exploit. And again we're using so many Test players that I don't know how Flower and his gang think we'll ever avoid 'fatigue' since Trott, Cook/Strauss, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Bell and Pietersen are playing in Tests and ODIs. When your two squads comprise mostly the same players when exactly are they going to rest?!?!? Even some of those not mentioned like Finn, Bopara and Morgan are reserves so play some Test cricket.
For me NOW is the ideal time to experiment, to try and find that number seven that will make the difference in ODIs and maybe see us move forwards in ODIs. That's not to say it is the only problem area, but it is perhaps the most pivotal. Picking the same old same old and hoping that it will click is just stupid, those players are about as good as they are going to get and so are the results in World Cups if we keep picking them and sticking to the same tactics. Whether we win is down mostly to how individuals perform and luck, we don't make full use of tactics and we certainly don't use ANY opportunity to r-e-b-u-i-l-d. Pah, it's the same with football, get humiliated in a major competition or don't qualify and we send out the same f in footballers next time, and the time after that, and the time after that.
I looked at the World Cup winning side to see how much, if anything, Wright contributed then. It isn't so different to what got slaughtered yesterday
Lumb
Kieswetter
Pietersen
Morgan
Bopara
Wright
Broad
Swann
Yardy I guess is unavailable, Sidebottom and Collingwood out of the equation and the only other absentee was Bresnan who I'm sure will be back.
Why did we lose? Poorly executed shots from the openers, inadequate batting below Bopara with 16 runs off the bat between Patel, Wright, Woakes, and Broad for which they faced 27 balls at a strike rate of 59.26 when you really want it to be over 125.00. Maybe if England had made those extra 18 runs or so then it might have been a close contest.
And I'd argue we went in a bowler light as well, Patel and Bopara probably got off lightly because Sri Lanka were cruising. Didn't think much of Broad's captaincy either, we needed wickets early after they got off to a flier and when we got one he took the bowler off! And our by far and away best bowler also didn't bowl his allocation, methinks the captain was too busy focusing on the basics more experienced captains don't need to focus on as they are second nature.
Still, the proper cricket begins Tuesday. I had my doubts about Dernbach but he did enough to make the XI for me. There ain't much scope for tactical selections with a squad as small as 14
Cook
Kieswetter
Trott
Pietersen
Morgan
Bell/Bopara
Bopara/Patel
Swann
Broad
Dernbach
Anderson
That leaves Finn, Woakes, and whoever you leave out from Bopara, Bell and Patel. I want to give Patel a chance as he can add to the bowling options and would have been handy in the World Cup. Not sure he is going to cut it at this level though
I'm not convinced by England's balance, the keeper is a given so that leaves seven batsmen and six bowlers with Bopara and Patel able to bowl but not really full bowlers. You need five bowlers, all good enough to bowl their allocation most times and take wickets while not being too expensive very often.
The batting isn't that strong among the bowlers so the whole side is going to be understrength either in batting or bowling. Swann, Broad and Woakes can all bat a bit, but could also be run through rather quickly. If you include Patel or Bopara as an "all-rounder" it may work, but I'd only count either of them as half a bowler with the likelihood that we'll have several options making up the fifth bowler allocation and making up for whichever bowler or bowlers is/are expensive.
I suspect England will go with Bopara and Patel to 'cover their options' for the 5th bowler, that will mean one of Bell or Trott making way surely? One thing I wondered yesterday as Morgan was taking apart the Sri Lankans, albeit not for long enough, was why he isn't opening - especially in T20.
I think we'll lose the ODI series due to inadequacies in our bowling which Sri Lanka will exploit. And again we're using so many Test players that I don't know how Flower and his gang think we'll ever avoid 'fatigue' since Trott, Cook/Strauss, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Bell and Pietersen are playing in Tests and ODIs. When your two squads comprise mostly the same players when exactly are they going to rest?!?!? Even some of those not mentioned like Finn, Bopara and Morgan are reserves so play some Test cricket.
For me NOW is the ideal time to experiment, to try and find that number seven that will make the difference in ODIs and maybe see us move forwards in ODIs. That's not to say it is the only problem area, but it is perhaps the most pivotal. Picking the same old same old and hoping that it will click is just stupid, those players are about as good as they are going to get and so are the results in World Cups if we keep picking them and sticking to the same tactics. Whether we win is down mostly to how individuals perform and luck, we don't make full use of tactics and we certainly don't use ANY opportunity to r-e-b-u-i-l-d. Pah, it's the same with football, get humiliated in a major competition or don't qualify and we send out the same f in footballers next time, and the time after that, and the time after that.
Last edited:
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
They looked okay while KP and Morgan were there, but once they had smashed those full tosses away, perhaps the team mentally lost control of the game. Even when those two got out, the team should have been able to find a way to get to 150, or ideally 160. I guess they didn't score much before or after that Perera over, but there's more good things to be said of a pensive start than a fading finish.
The key to that WT20 side was the roles that were played, particularly with the bowling. In a fairly low scoring tournament, it was bowling that got them there, otherwise they were probably not the best batting unit. Yardy and Bresnan were vital cogs, just through bowling defensively. They weren't wicket takers, but it's not surprising that run-rate pressure is important in T20. I guess the rationale is that Woakes and Dernbach might benefit from the experience, but they weren't really ideal selections for the team.
I also think having both left and right arm seamers becomes quite important, because the angle can alter a player's scoring potential. Sidey was effective, as was Nannes for Australia. Even Mitchell Johnson is economical in T20. I think that has to prove something is going on.
And on that topic, it was frightful how dependent England appeared on getting the ball through the offside. Even KP got out to an awful back-away shot that he need never really resort to. Just ask Ross Taylor; if you've only got one shot, make it a slog to leg
The key to that WT20 side was the roles that were played, particularly with the bowling. In a fairly low scoring tournament, it was bowling that got them there, otherwise they were probably not the best batting unit. Yardy and Bresnan were vital cogs, just through bowling defensively. They weren't wicket takers, but it's not surprising that run-rate pressure is important in T20. I guess the rationale is that Woakes and Dernbach might benefit from the experience, but they weren't really ideal selections for the team.
I also think having both left and right arm seamers becomes quite important, because the angle can alter a player's scoring potential. Sidey was effective, as was Nannes for Australia. Even Mitchell Johnson is economical in T20. I think that has to prove something is going on.
And on that topic, it was frightful how dependent England appeared on getting the ball through the offside. Even KP got out to an awful back-away shot that he need never really resort to. Just ask Ross Taylor; if you've only got one shot, make it a slog to leg
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
Fair point but sometimes it's more than just stats. Woakes is average in my eyes and Dernbach is less so. Shehzad is someone with international experience who had bowled well on the international scene. He has extra pace, swing and can use the old ball really well. Dernbach and Woakes have none of those qualities. In fact in the one Test that Shehzad has played he picked up 4 wickets at an average of 15, and in ODIs, after 11 matches he has 17 wickets at 28.
Dernbach admittedly has a better First class average but only slightly.
Woakes has the best average out of the lot in first class cricket but shehzad is better in List A cricket. So doesn't it make sense to have one of either Dernbach or Woakes in the squad and Shehzad, who has shown himself to be very adapt to the international game?
Owzat - From that team I'd have Bell and Patel. We all know he can bat in the Top 6, it's just a case of how he bowls and if he plays against India, that's two big series for him against good spin playing sides.
I know it's only hit and giggle, but Lumb really isn't worth a spot in any side.
Yesterday was all about the new guys. Dernbach had a certain something about him, Woakes felt really raw, had to agree with Sky about Tremlett though. He's in great form, he's feeling on top of his game and we should be trying to get as much out of him as possible. Patel was a bit clumsy on the running, but don't mind that too much given it's a T20.
Patel needs to be given a chance, leaving him out would be perplexing, Ravi seems to have lost all form. He's a talent, but he needs to step up and get rid of the poor form he seems to get around England talk!
I know it's only hit and giggle, but Lumb really isn't worth a spot in any side.
Yesterday was all about the new guys. Dernbach had a certain something about him, Woakes felt really raw, had to agree with Sky about Tremlett though. He's in great form, he's feeling on top of his game and we should be trying to get as much out of him as possible. Patel was a bit clumsy on the running, but don't mind that too much given it's a T20.
Patel needs to be given a chance, leaving him out would be perplexing, Ravi seems to have lost all form. He's a talent, but he needs to step up and get rid of the poor form he seems to get around England talk!
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I get very concerned how cricket fans & administrators treat T20 these days.
T20 has a world cup now as we all know, and we cant keep talking & treating it like its exhibition cricket. Teams thus have to build tactics just as they do in 50 overs & test cricket to wins world-cups/test series.
So just picking a dumb captain to lead your T20 side & just have one T20 on tour really is not smart cricket logic.
Yea and seriously what more do the selectors expect from Alex Hales to give him a chance to open the innings with CK? And Bopara, seriously? He's playing worse than a fellow in coma and they give him the nod ahead of Bell who's been in the form of his life. Don't know why, but I feel England need Collingwood back if they are to stand a chance defending their crown next year in Sri Lanka.
Last edited:
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
SMH, my friend this is second time you have quite stunning called Napier crap & i have to wonder how much of him you have seen over the years that would make you come to the assertion.
Ollie_H said:
As i told you back then...
me said:
And i even have on those New Zealand posters to comment on Napier...
http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/2112769-post1576.html
Plus other posters on this site such as Englishman King_Pietersen is big fan of Napier ability. So i strongly suggest you check back what you know about Napier, since calling him crap is gross insult sir.
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
But so far, it has been a hit-and giggle format. So far, no team's managed to be a consistent a force. Pak and SA had a golden run in '09 (about 5-6 wins, before they started to fall again), and same goes for England in '10.
While it is definitley exciting, it's hard to say it requires deep tactics, or responsible batting. There's not enough time in a 20 over game. And that's why no-one is going to give 2 cents about exhibition T20 games. They only matter at the WT20. And fair enough.
I'm not arguing that it should be scrapped. Oh no - it's a great way to introduce the game to new comers and new nations. It reduces the skill gap bewteen the teams, which will enhance the reputation of the sport in Associate nations, as their team would do relatively well in global tournaments, as opposed to the 50 over WC.
Similar threads
