Sri Lanka in England 2011

[Ollie_H]

You'd have to say though that Sri Lanka's strong point is their batting and if England can have one player bat through the innings they should get close. 310 required off 50 is a lot, but remember England chase down more in the WC so they are capable.

 

[ferg512]

Really getting sick of Broads antics tbh. He didn't even appeal for the wicket and then gets angry when its not given.

 

[cricket_icon]

Anderson bowled ok. Swann was consistent as always but once again Broad looked out of place and Dernbach is just an average county bowler. The batting will really have to play beyond good. What an innings by Jayawardene. Pure class.

 

[angryangy]

You'd have to say though that Sri Lanka's strong point is their batting and if England can have one player bat through the innings they should get close. 310 required off 50 is a lot, but remember England chase down more in the WC so they are capable.

Yeah, some teams might be happy with it, some might not be. I think 300 is usually a good score in England when you've got a few wicket-takers, but one suspects Sri Lanka's bowlers will need to be resourceful.

 

[Sureshot]

I think the fielding cost us a good 20 runs today. Swann and Anderson were pretty decent, but not that much from anyone else. That said, the wicket is very flat and I think 300 is about what I expected at the start.

Decent start to our innings and we have a pretty strong line up, but a long way to go.

Edit: Jinx.

This is all getting a bit tame, isn't it?

We really need to think about sending Broad back to Notts to get some form.

 

[Haarithan]

Well well, can someone explain to me as to what exactly Bell is designated to do batting at #6? Finisher? His innings rather looked a stabilizer's than a finisher. Which leaves me thinking about youngsters/pinch hitters like Hales, Buttler, Hildreth - are they ever in the frame to play for England one day or the other? Why can't the selectors bring on fresh faces in the batting department as they have done in the bowling dept. of recent like Dernbach, Finn, Tremlett, etc.?

I did expect Bresnan to star in front of his home crowd though. Rather sad but one has to admit that England rely heavily on Morgan (bat) and Swann (ball) when it comes to the ODIs which I'm afraid is never enough to be one among the world beaters.

 

[sifter132]

^Yeah I see the issue. I guess Morgan would be the best #6, but do you really want him that low? Maybe, I mean Australia gets away with it with Hussey and before that Bevan, so it might be OK. And I can't see Trott, KP or Bell being dropped anytime soon. I think the other important questions are whether Trott and Cook need separating and whether Bresnan cuts the mustard as a #7.

Really getting sick of Broads antics tbh. He didn't even appeal for the wicket and then gets angry when its not given.

Broad seems pretty quick to throw his hands up when anything goes wrong in the field too, which is an annoying trait in my eyes. Probably a lovely bloke, but on the field he looks like a twat. Bit like Shane Watson (although not quite the same symptoms), although he's improved his on field behaviour a lot over the last couple of years.

 

[Owzat]

I think the fielding cost us a good 20 runs today. Swann and Anderson were pretty decent, but not that much from anyone else. That said, the wicket is very flat and I think 300 is about what I expected at the start.

I thought we conceded about 30-40 runs too many, 280 would have been so much more managable. Swann and Anderson conceded at around 4rpo, the other bowlers conceded at around if not 7rpo which isn't good enough - for one it is bad, for three it is poor.

Cook's decision to field looks a poor one, although if some of the half chances had stuck it might have appeared a good one. But once those early chances were gone it was a good one for batting on. He turned to Pietersen and that didn't work, so many called for Collingwood to be dropped but his fielding and bowling add something to the side that is clearly lacking when he's not in it.

England's batting wasn't much better, the usual mix of poor shot (selection), not really knowing how to pace the innings and for me the biggest sticking point is continually sticking with the same names almost as if to say "this team is the best, eventually it will prove it"

We've too many Test batsmen in the side. Cook, Trott and Bell are all good batsmen, but not 'so good' that they are musts for the ODI side. Cook has what captaincy experience? None on the showing so far. Kieswetter is the epitomy of England's poor tactics in they persist in picking a keeper to 'pinch hit' at the expense of a proper opener, it has failed pretty much since forever.

And the side badly lacks that proper number seven. Patel could be a/the solution to our problems, England seem loathe to try him. Why not?!?!? Pietersen is not good enough as a part-time Test spinner let alone in ODIs and we've dropped Collingwood so there is no other decent alternative. If Pietersen had been sent back to his county he could have bowled a bit, but heaven forbid we should leave him out.

England won't progress while they are scared to try other options, the side should be built from scratch not slightly altered with some of the inclusions maybe doing ok average-wise but not necessarily the best selections. I'd build on a side including Davies, Morgan, Patel, Bopara, Swann, Anderson, Bresnan and Broad to come back in after he's found some form. I'd include others perhaps like Woakes, Shah and Shahzad. Build a squad around mostly players who don't play Tests, maybe an overlap with the T20 side. If they're not playing so much/any Test cricket then they will be playing for their counties in the domestic one day competition and that's what the Test players probably lack - practice. Their practice is ODIs.

Maybe if Collingwood hadn't been playing all forms of cricket for England he might not have hit such a big rut.

We really need to think about sending Broad back to Notts to get some form.

England have in the past had players "learning their trade" while playing cricket for England. What Broad has done to deserve what appears "undroppability" compared to say Onions, Finn and Shahzad I don't know - except of course Broad 'can bat' and so England are bound to be overimpressed with that factoid.

 

[Owzat]

To be fair to Cook, it was a cloudy day and when he has probably the best swing bowler in cricket today, he thought lets see what Sri Lanka will do against Jimmy.

He is a one dimensional thinker like most England captains, not weighing up the bigger picture. England were gifted early wickets so they got about what they might have done had a few catches been held and conceded over 300 - the final total is the big picture.

As mentioned I think England didn't bowl well, or field that well for that matter, so conceded 30-40 runs too many. Even then they might not have chased that smaller target down as the batting is a joke. We regularly throw wickets away, especially when in good positions.

What makes me laugh is the lack of logic and continuity with England selection. The keeper is a good example, Davies was picked for the ODIs down under and replaced rapidly having done little wrong (42 and 0 in his only innings) with Prior. Prior scored 78 runs in the World Cup at 15.60 so has been replaced with Kieswetter. Kieswetter had a mare last summer, scored 121 runs in eight innings at a 15.125, now he's back It's a non-stop circus, seeking the 'holy grail' of a pinch-hitting keeper-opener.

England keeper-openers

Davies : 7 inns, 239 runs @ 34.14
Kieswetter : 14 inns, 406 runs @ 29.00
Prior : 34 inns, 762 runs @ 23.81
Mustard : 10 inns, 233 runs @ 23.30
Jones : 7 inns, 139 runs @ 19.86

They might give you early pace, but then we tend to lack that later in the innings (middle usually) not the start. They also don't tend to go on to the 100s that proper openers can and will, it isn't all about biff, bash and quick runs. A quick 20-30 is more use in my book later on, I reckon Trott should open personally to lay the foundation.

 

[angryangy]

They're stupid if they've picked a guy averaging 42 to pinch hit. Yes, he has some shots, but you shouldn't bat in one dayers if you don't.

----------

Kieswetter's only failing in his international career is being on the wrong end of some good bowling. He was dismissed in three consecutive games by shaping 90+ mph deliveries; there was a steady supply of pace and he also had the honour of facing a 99.5 mph ball. It's easy to sit in the armchair and complain about the massive gate he showed them, but where else would you learn how to play that?

I mean, if they'd stuck with him, given him maybe twice as many games and then decided he wasn't up to it based on the variety of conditions and bowlers faced, then that's one thing, but what they did and what they've tended to do for most of their keepers is far too flippant, especially given the resources they've pumped into making Stuart Broad a slightly better than average player.

 

[Ollie_H]

We've too many Test batsmen in the side.

I completely disagree and I agree with one of the Sky commentators (possibly Nasser) but in my opinion your best players are the ones in your test side. That's your ultimate XI and if they are your 11 best cricketers in the country then they should be your players in all formats. The problem with revamping the squad so you end up with with almost 3 different XI's and each side has to gel as a unit. You start bringing in new faces every 3 games and the side never has any time to become cohesive as a unit. It's one of the reasons the test side has become so good, they are incredibly tight as a unit and whilst you could say it's possibly become a bit of a clique these are the people you basically have to live with. The players in that national side are basically family and in the end everyone has to get on with everyone else or life can be hell an ruin a lot of the team. It was one of the downfalls with the late Fletcher years and Moores years. The side became a clique and anyone coming into the squad was basically shut out.

I think there is more psychology in International cricket than in any other sport because of the amount played and time these guys have to spend together.

I'd build on a side including Davies, Morgan, Patel, Bopara, Swann, Anderson, Bresnan and Broad to come back in after he's found some form.

You've slightly contradicted yourself here by saying you'd like there to be differences between the two sides but then included 3 guys already in the test squad and 2 on the fringes. But it would be a cardinal sin to leave Trott out. You love stats, so here's one for you: No player in the history of the game as scored as many runs as Trott after playing the same amount of ODI's. And you want to leave him out? Madness. You aren't saying you'll leave him out but I definitely think he's one of the guys who we should be building a team around.

On the Keiswetter issue, I think he has been in far better form than Davies this season (off the top of my head) and C.K did a lot of work of over the summer and to me he's the better option but something the Sky team mentioned as well is that England need to be more dynamic and adaptable. The top 4 works at the moment but Englan need to think on their feet. If Cook gets out than Trott should come in but if Keiswetter is out then KP comes in. Cook batted at a good rate on the last game but when Trott came in their wasn't that attacking instinct.

 

[angryangy]

They started well, better than Sri Lanka, but they got done in the outfield a few too many times. It's one thing when a side digs a hole and then fall apart, but this was digging a hole by falling apart. To throw away a good position is to live in fear of things that might not occur.

Most of Sri Lanka's innings was just Mahela and Sanga gradually increasing the scoring rate as their partnership got stronger. Even at the end, they did so much without hitting sixes. It wasn't just one magical partnership, it's something they a fair bit of and it doesn't require any of them to be Viv Richards. They just have a lot of patience and faith in their own capabilities.

 

[Haarithan]

If Cook gets out than Trott should come in but if Keiswetter is out then KP comes in. Cook batted at a good rate on the last game but when Trott came in their wasn't that attacking instinct.

Spot on here, exactly what I'm wanting too. An aggressor for an aggressor and a driver for a driver. Btw, its Kieswetter.

 

[Sureshot]

Your batting line up should always be flexible to the situation. I think Trott can score quickly if given the chance, he's not going to be a player who creates boundaries like Morgan, but bowl a bad ball on the stumps when the field is up and he is almost certainly going to hit a boundary.

Lord's is going to produce another flat 300 wicket, weather is good, don't know of any cloud in the morning, but I'd still bat. Whether they'll make changes or not I don't know, I want to see Samit given a chance this series, whether that's for a Bresnan/Broad or one of Trott/Bell (I don't see anyone else in the top 6 being dropped.

 

[War]

Well well, can someone explain to me as to what exactly Bell is designated to do batting at #6? Finisher? His innings rather looked a stabilizer's than a finisher. Which leaves me thinking about youngsters/pinch hitters like Hales, Buttler, Hildreth - are they ever in the frame to play for England one day or the other? Why can't the selectors bring on fresh faces in the batting department as they have done in the bowling dept. of recent like Dernbach, Finn, Tremlett, etc.?

Cause they are dumb. Bell shouldn't be in the team period. The best man to come in the team now that Collingwood is gone from the # 5 role for me would be Owais Shah, but for dumb reasons we all know he wouldn't get picked.

But yea i wouldn't mind seeing Hidreth given a try down there as well.

The selectors always need to keep Morgan @ # 6 six all the time for me. Just like how Australia always kept Bevan @ 6. No need to be shuffling him up to 5 even if match situation may suggest it, let him just be the finisher.

----------

Kieswetter's only failing in his international career is being on the wrong end of some good bowling. He was dismissed in three consecutive games by shaping 90+ mph deliveries; there was a steady supply of pace and he also had the honour of facing a 99.5 mph ball. It's easy to sit in the armchair and complain about the massive gate he showed them, but where else would you learn how to play that?

I mean, if they'd stuck with him, given him maybe twice as many games and then decided he wasn't up to it based on the variety of conditions and bowlers faced, then that's one thing, but what they did and what they've tended to do for most of their keepers is far too flippant, especially given the resources they've pumped into making Stuart Broad a slightly better than average player.

Exactly the same thing i was saying when Kieswetter was dropped last summer, when some poster were criticising his technique after his failures vs AUS & pushing for Davies to bepicked.

I dont know of any batsman in the world who could have made runs againts Tait in the world in the bowling for last year. So realistically at the time Kieswetter should have backed. But typical knee-jerk foolish English ODI selection policies prevented that from occuring.