Conceded too many runs as the management were too stubborn. No good having that theoretical extra batting when you've left yourself too much to do.
Tredwell, Root and Bopara conceded 150/1 off 20 overs, you ain't gonna win many games when you concede like that. From 48/3 we let the aussies get away, wickets win you ODIs as much as runs, not "bowling tidily" or "tightly"
10 overs : AUS 48/3
30 overs : AUS 202/3
No wickets, 154 runs at 7.52 runs per over, zero control. Make that a more reasonable 110 runs for say 1 wicket and the aussies are much more beatable. Lessons learned will be none.
Buttler again scored some runs in support of Bopara, but as I must stress until he scores them in a variety of scenarios and not just ones tailored to him then he's proven nothing - yet. Another "nothing to lose scenario", that's two out of three. And again, as if I should need to, I stress I would not blame him for us losing, I have no "agenda" or "hate" or anything, just pointing out that he's making most of one scenario which he won't always get (to come in at). He still needs to get runs in a variety of situations (not every time obviously). I think he's in box seat for the time being, not convinced he's the best keeper solution but then batting slots are precious and some batsmen are "undroppable"
Sorry to have to dumb it down (apology aimed at most posters), some/one will just twist words if I don't try and make it untwistable
No doubt one person will reply, please don't bother I get your angle/bias/agenda and don't agree so replying with it won't change that and I won't probably even read it, this series is done.
It was a second string, but that shouldn't really matter as the first string are hardly world beaters. We still wouldn't solve the biggest issue of the 4th/5th bowler and attempt to bowl through Bopara or make do.
Both matches we lost came about because of heavy scoring off the 4th and 5th bowlers, 150/1 off 20 in this match (Root/Bopara/Tredwell) and 139/1 off 20 in the other loss (Stokes/Tredwell/Root) Noone would want that off the first 20 overs let alone not from the off, until England address their tactical/selection issues it won't matter who else is selected outside of this 4th/5th bowler issue.
As I've said before, Bopara can be handy, but he's not really suited to bowling 10 overs every match so should really be the 6th option. We won the 4th match by doing enough early damage that the aussies couldn't recover, we can't rely on that - especially not in one-off knockout games in the World Cup.
I'm unconvinced by Carberry either, I wonder if he will be picked for the Ashes tour or if someone like Hales will get a chance. Despite reputation his SR for England is a paltry 62.79 and average only 21.60, at nearly 33 I am still annoyed more than surprised at his selection - surprise at what selectors do went out the window years ago.
I thought we'd got over scattergun selection approaches, but still we go from selecting Childs, Mallender, Newport, Stephenson, Igglesden, Neil Williams, Blakey, Curtis, Chris Cowdrey, Paul Taylor and Reeve, to Min Patel, McCague, Lathwell, Ilott, Hamilton, Adams, Simon Brown, Maddy, Mike Smith, and that lot, then Ormond, Hegg, Foster, Udal, Habib, Nixon, Franks, Ed Smith, Saggers, Giddins, Ward, Grayson, Batty, and Afzaal, and these latter days the likes of Carberry, Shazhad, Pattinson and Compton
It's not necessarily they were wrong to select them initially, some not all, but then to just discard them quickly or them have limited shelf life anyway. They may not be grouped perfectly, and it seems we are less prone than in the past, but it still happens. Some I can't include simply because England persist with them longer because they want them to work, the likes of Shight, Woakes, Dernbach, Patel and Yardy, Kieswetter opening the innings, and others, not so much a great selection as a persistence through stubbornly refusing to see it isn't working
It still pains me that we didn't select Bicknell again after a disappointing debut until he was in the twilight of his career. But for the fact that the present is ongoing, I could maybe add some more names like Borthwick, Briggs, Ballance, Jordan, Meaker, Kerrigan and James Taylor, who knows how many times they will play from now.
----------
I personally was waiting to see how Stokes bowling would fare @ international level after watching him on skysports for his county this year.
He is the all-rounder ENG have been looking for post Flintoff, not Woakes, Bresnan or Rikki Clarke. His batting was never in question for me, but his bowling can clearly cut it at international level bowling in the high 80 mph range.
I'm wary of him as an all-rounder, not sure he can be more than the 4th bowler but saying that back when he played before I thought he was our most likely new all-rounder and a far better option than hoping to get through overs with players like Bopara and Root
The idea of KP opening term is also pretty tempting. Fact is sometimes the ODI top 3 of Cook/Bell/Trott although they bat well, lack a true classy hitter in the power play overs.
It isn't about ability, all of them are capable of hitting and attacking, they just seem to settle into coasting mode. It is about mentality. I'd keep KP away from the new ball, I wouldn't expose the bigger hitter early on but just encourage those who are better opening to take more risks than they do.
I mean if you subscribe to pinch hitting, I guess KP is the wham, bam, thank you mam kind of batsman you'd want in there, but I think you also need to consider the need to not lose too many wickets in the quest for a big start which might gain you an extra 10-20 runs early doors, but you lose momentum later on. If KP were in the middle order then those middle, or "muddle", overs could be a lot more energetic and perhaps we might make better use of that odious latter powerplay
