Go with a leftie, but to be perfectly honest England have been pants mostly in ODIs since 1992 with the occaisional high spot so you could open the batting with Hilfenhaus and still win. England never really recovered from a dreadful WC 96, or come to terms with the fact you need to take wickets and not just 'bowl tight'. Add to that our tendancy to get a good start then struggle around 100, either losing quick wickets or just momentum and you have a losing formula perfectly executed by England.
And of course England are too wrapped up in theories, labelling players one day players and not one day players, chopping and changing the personnel because success in county cricket hasn't translated for the below (and more) into success in ODIs - some because we constantly try them as "pinch-hitters" and others simply don't perform
Samit Patel : 116 runs @ 23.20 & 11 wkts @ 29.00
Ambrose : 10 runs @ 2.50
Mustard : 233 runs @ 23.30
Batty : 30 runs @ 5.00 & 5 wkts @ 73.20
Bresnan : 60 runs @ 15.00 & 6 wkts @ 43.17
Mascarenhas : 215 runs @ 23.89 & 11 wkts @ 48.73
Luke Wright : 229 runs @ 22.90 & 3 wkts @ 52.33
Tremlett : 38 runs @ 9.50 & 9 wkts @ 46.56
Ironically players like Jon Lewis (18 wkts @ 27.61), Cook (702 runs @ 30.52), Bell (2483 runs @ 35.47) etc are overlooked having done little wrong, some deemed to score too slowly, others just part of the scattergun England selection policy. If we picked a squad of say 20 players and stuck with much the same XI out of it, then maybe we'd progress. I still think we should play mostly the Test side, if they're good enough to play Test cricket they should be good enough to play one dayers and any that have excelled in the one day game can only add to that. But England theory is wrapped up in pinch-hitters and "specialists", we went from bits n pieces cricketers around 1999, where players could bat, bowl but very rarely to a high level or at the same time, to specialists to another theory, then another and whatever the next one is.
So basically aussies, have nothing to fear until England get their selections right and then you might have to worry about your's!
And of course England are too wrapped up in theories, labelling players one day players and not one day players, chopping and changing the personnel because success in county cricket hasn't translated for the below (and more) into success in ODIs - some because we constantly try them as "pinch-hitters" and others simply don't perform
Samit Patel : 116 runs @ 23.20 & 11 wkts @ 29.00
Ambrose : 10 runs @ 2.50
Mustard : 233 runs @ 23.30
Batty : 30 runs @ 5.00 & 5 wkts @ 73.20
Bresnan : 60 runs @ 15.00 & 6 wkts @ 43.17
Mascarenhas : 215 runs @ 23.89 & 11 wkts @ 48.73
Luke Wright : 229 runs @ 22.90 & 3 wkts @ 52.33
Tremlett : 38 runs @ 9.50 & 9 wkts @ 46.56
Ironically players like Jon Lewis (18 wkts @ 27.61), Cook (702 runs @ 30.52), Bell (2483 runs @ 35.47) etc are overlooked having done little wrong, some deemed to score too slowly, others just part of the scattergun England selection policy. If we picked a squad of say 20 players and stuck with much the same XI out of it, then maybe we'd progress. I still think we should play mostly the Test side, if they're good enough to play Test cricket they should be good enough to play one dayers and any that have excelled in the one day game can only add to that. But England theory is wrapped up in pinch-hitters and "specialists", we went from bits n pieces cricketers around 1999, where players could bat, bowl but very rarely to a high level or at the same time, to specialists to another theory, then another and whatever the next one is.
So basically aussies, have nothing to fear until England get their selections right and then you might have to worry about your's!
