Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
Do we need a 50 over comp thought ? If someone like Brooke is a gun in T20’s and Test matches then logically he will be fine in the 50 over game. England play 50 over matches like T20’s , not sure that it will be a sustainable format going forwards.Addick Addict said:
The point I was making is that we have always had a perfectly good 50 over domestic competition to ground those players but because of The Hundred the England batsmen can't even play in that hence Brook only having batted 19 times in that form of the game. When will Brook ever play more 50 over games all the time that is happening? Shupman Gill is the same age as Brook - he's batted 83 times in 50 over games and 29 times in ODIs. Equally, the Aussies have the 50 over Marsh Cup - they don't put on another domestic comp to usurp that.Cafc43v3r said:
All the other countries haven't been playing ODIs either, you can't really blame the ECB for that?Addick Addict said:
I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if a player can dominate at the speed and record the scores Brook has in both Test and T20 then he can do it in 50 over cricket. I totally agree that we play too few 50 over games but, there again, when the domestic competition is treated as a 2nd XI tournament I'm not sure that we should be that surprised. And it's the reason that Brook has only ever played 19 club or country 50 over matches. One hundred balls is more important than 300 balls to the ECB.Cafc43v3r said:
Why does the number of T20 and Test matches he has played effect the selection for the 50 over world cup?Addick Addict said:Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Moeen - 36
Curran - 28
Buttler - 24
Duckett - 23
Woakes - 22
Stokes - 21
Wood - 17
Livingstone - 12
Crawley - 11
Root - 11
Bairstow - 10
Broad - 9
Anderson - 8
Robinson - 8
Archer - 7
Pope - 7
Leach - 6
Foakes - 3
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
So not only haven't we given Brooke a chance to establish himself in the team, we haven't given Roy or Mallan a chance to play themselves out if it either. Like I said Roy scored 2 100s in his last 6 ODIs.0 -
Australia have played only 4 ODIs this yearCafc43v3r said:
All the other countries haven't been playing ODIs either, you can't really blame the ECB for that?Addick Addict said:
I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if a player can dominate at the speed and record the scores Brook has in both Test and T20 then he can do it in 50 over cricket. I totally agree that we play too few 50 over games but, there again, when the domestic competition is treated as a 2nd XI tournament I'm not sure that we should be that surprised. And it's the reason that Brook has only ever played 19 club or country 50 over matches. One hundred balls is more important than 300 balls to the ECB.Cafc43v3r said:
Why does the number of T20 and Test matches he has played effect the selection for the 50 over world cup?Addick Addict said:Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Moeen - 36
Curran - 28
Buttler - 24
Duckett - 23
Woakes - 22
Stokes - 21
Wood - 17
Livingstone - 12
Crawley - 11
Root - 11
Bairstow - 10
Broad - 9
Anderson - 8
Robinson - 8
Archer - 7
Pope - 7
Leach - 6
Foakes - 3
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
So not only haven't we given Brooke a chance to establish himself in the team, we haven't given Roy or Mallan a chance to play themselves out if it either. Like I said Roy scored 2 100s in his last 6 ODIs.1 -
We need a 50 over comp to sustain county cricket and to give our players experience of it. I've already said that I think Brook can adapt to play 50 over cricket but he does need to get the experience of doing so from somewhere and equally the argument seems to be that you can't get him in the squad because he hasn't proven himself in that discipline. In which case, he will have to wait at least 'til he's 28 before he gets to play in it. And that seems crazy for someone who is a match winner in all forms of the game he plays and who might feel that his allegiance to England is being tested given the various franchises around the world wanting to pay top dollar for his services. Why play in egg and spoon T20 or ODI series for England if they don't want you to be in the squad let alone play in one of the biggest international competitions in the world? Let's not forget that it was only four years ago that we all went mad and proud for winning it so it can't be considered a nothing event, can it?billysboots said:
Do we need a 50 over comp thought ? If someone like Brooke is a gun in T20’s and Test matches then logically he will be fine in the 50 over game. England play 50 over matches like T20’s , not sure that it will be a sustainable format going forwards.Addick Addict said:
The point I was making is that we have always had a perfectly good 50 over domestic competition to ground those players but because of The Hundred the England batsmen can't even play in that hence Brook only having batted 19 times in that form of the game. When will Brook ever play more 50 over games all the time that is happening? Shupman Gill is the same age as Brook - he's batted 83 times in 50 over games and 29 times in ODIs. Equally, the Aussies have the 50 over Marsh Cup - they don't put on another domestic comp to usurp that.Cafc43v3r said:
All the other countries haven't been playing ODIs either, you can't really blame the ECB for that?Addick Addict said:
I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if a player can dominate at the speed and record the scores Brook has in both Test and T20 then he can do it in 50 over cricket. I totally agree that we play too few 50 over games but, there again, when the domestic competition is treated as a 2nd XI tournament I'm not sure that we should be that surprised. And it's the reason that Brook has only ever played 19 club or country 50 over matches. One hundred balls is more important than 300 balls to the ECB.Cafc43v3r said:
Why does the number of T20 and Test matches he has played effect the selection for the 50 over world cup?Addick Addict said:Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Moeen - 36
Curran - 28
Buttler - 24
Duckett - 23
Woakes - 22
Stokes - 21
Wood - 17
Livingstone - 12
Crawley - 11
Root - 11
Bairstow - 10
Broad - 9
Anderson - 8
Robinson - 8
Archer - 7
Pope - 7
Leach - 6
Foakes - 3
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
So not only haven't we given Brooke a chance to establish himself in the team, we haven't given Roy or Mallan a chance to play themselves out if it either. Like I said Roy scored 2 100s in his last 6 ODIs.
2 -
NZ win by 8 wickets with 26 balls to spare. The result is a lot narrower than the nature of the defeat with none of our bowlers looking at all threatening and too many struggling to land the ball in the right areas. Expect a number of changes for the next one on Sunday.0
-
Pretty embarrassing performance from England today IMO.
Taking on board & agreeing with AA's comments from someone who really knows what's what in cricket, I'd venture that the sport is in quite a mess which appears to worsen every summer.
And The Hundred ( spit!) has compounded the already fragile state of county cricket in all its formats.
The common denominator in both the summer sport and football in this country ?
I'll leave my fellow Lifers to hazard a guess.2 -
Where did speaking complete sense on this issue ever get anyone?!Addick Addict said:
The point I was making is that we have always had a perfectly good 50 over domestic competition to ground those players but because of The Hundred the England batsmen can't even play in that hence Brook only having batted 19 times in that form of the game. When will Brook ever play more 50 over games all the time that is happening? Shupman Gill is the same age as Brook - he's batted 83 times in 50 over games and 29 times in ODIs. Equally, the Aussies have the 50 over Marsh Cup - they don't put on another domestic comp to usurp that.Cafc43v3r said:
All the other countries haven't been playing ODIs either, you can't really blame the ECB for that?Addick Addict said:
I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if a player can dominate at the speed and record the scores Brook has in both Test and T20 then he can do it in 50 over cricket. I totally agree that we play too few 50 over games but, there again, when the domestic competition is treated as a 2nd XI tournament I'm not sure that we should be that surprised. And it's the reason that Brook has only ever played 19 club or country 50 over matches. One hundred balls is more important than 300 balls to the ECB.Cafc43v3r said:
Why does the number of T20 and Test matches he has played effect the selection for the 50 over world cup?Addick Addict said:Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Moeen - 36
Curran - 28
Buttler - 24
Duckett - 23
Woakes - 22
Stokes - 21
Wood - 17
Livingstone - 12
Crawley - 11
Root - 11
Bairstow - 10
Broad - 9
Anderson - 8
Robinson - 8
Archer - 7
Pope - 7
Leach - 6
Foakes - 3
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
So not only haven't we given Brooke a chance to establish himself in the team, we haven't given Roy or Mallan a chance to play themselves out if it either. Like I said Roy scored 2 100s in his last 6 ODIs.1 -
But their players do play in their 50 over comp, the Marsh Cup and Australia have won 11 of their last 13 ODIs.Chizz said:
Australia have played only 4 ODIs this yearCafc43v3r said:
All the other countries haven't been playing ODIs either, you can't really blame the ECB for that?Addick Addict said:
I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if a player can dominate at the speed and record the scores Brook has in both Test and T20 then he can do it in 50 over cricket. I totally agree that we play too few 50 over games but, there again, when the domestic competition is treated as a 2nd XI tournament I'm not sure that we should be that surprised. And it's the reason that Brook has only ever played 19 club or country 50 over matches. One hundred balls is more important than 300 balls to the ECB.Cafc43v3r said:
Why does the number of T20 and Test matches he has played effect the selection for the 50 over world cup?Addick Addict said:Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Moeen - 36
Curran - 28
Buttler - 24
Duckett - 23
Woakes - 22
Stokes - 21
Wood - 17
Livingstone - 12
Crawley - 11
Root - 11
Bairstow - 10
Broad - 9
Anderson - 8
Robinson - 8
Archer - 7
Pope - 7
Leach - 6
Foakes - 3
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
So not only haven't we given Brooke a chance to establish himself in the team, we haven't given Roy or Mallan a chance to play themselves out if it either. Like I said Roy scored 2 100s in his last 6 ODIs.
Up until today, England had not played a single ODI in the last six months, have won 4 of their last 13 ODIs and our players do not play in their domestic 50 over competition. During the same period, India have played 8 ODIs, NZ (8) and Pakistan (11).
Now it might be that in this series against NZ we can turn it on or at least once we get to the WC but, at the moment, it is difficult to see exactly what our team is likely to look like. There appears to be a lot of experimentation going on in terms of batting order and also the roles that players are being asked to fulfil with the ball. That wasn't the case in 2019 where 10 of the side virtually picked themselves. We were better prepared on the back of a number of series' wins and given that there was no Hundred with players taking part in the Royal London prior to the WC.2 -
We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
1 -
Nail on head, AA ...mind you I know NOTHING !Addick Addict said:
But their players do play in their 50 over comp, the Marsh Cup and Australia have won 11 of their last 13 ODIs.Chizz said:
Australia have played only 4 ODIs this yearCafc43v3r said:
All the other countries haven't been playing ODIs either, you can't really blame the ECB for that?Addick Addict said:
I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if a player can dominate at the speed and record the scores Brook has in both Test and T20 then he can do it in 50 over cricket. I totally agree that we play too few 50 over games but, there again, when the domestic competition is treated as a 2nd XI tournament I'm not sure that we should be that surprised. And it's the reason that Brook has only ever played 19 club or country 50 over matches. One hundred balls is more important than 300 balls to the ECB.Cafc43v3r said:
Why does the number of T20 and Test matches he has played effect the selection for the 50 over world cup?Addick Addict said:Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Moeen - 36
Curran - 28
Buttler - 24
Duckett - 23
Woakes - 22
Stokes - 21
Wood - 17
Livingstone - 12
Crawley - 11
Root - 11
Bairstow - 10
Broad - 9
Anderson - 8
Robinson - 8
Archer - 7
Pope - 7
Leach - 6
Foakes - 3
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
So not only haven't we given Brooke a chance to establish himself in the team, we haven't given Roy or Mallan a chance to play themselves out if it either. Like I said Roy scored 2 100s in his last 6 ODIs.
Up until today, England had not played a single ODI in the last six months, have won 4 of their last 13 ODIs and our players do not play in their domestic 50 over competition. During the same period, India have played 8 ODIs, NZ (8) and Pakistan (11).
Now it might be that in this series against NZ we can turn it on or at least once we get to the WC but, at the moment, it is difficult to see exactly what our team is likely to look like. There appears to be a lot of experimentation going on in terms of batting order and also the roles that players are being asked to fulfil with the ball. That wasn't the case in 2019 where 10 of the side virtually picked themselves. We were better prepared on the back of a number of series' wins and given that there was no Hundred with players taking part in the Royal London prior to the WC.
@killerandflash posted that we have too many options & as such are experimenting....sounds worryingly familiar to what's been happening recently in SE7.
Maybe it will take an early exit for the ECB to re- evaluate the current modus operandi.2 -
I think we are stuck in a bit of a pickle because we have an exceptionally good T20 team (when we actually play it), we have the most aggressive test match batting line up in the world and are the reigning ODI world champions.killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
You can't have Livingstone bat at 6 in a 50 over match. It's fine in t20 where you probably only expect him to face 20-30 balls. He could face a 100 odd in an odi. He hasn't had an innings lasting more than 50 balls, in any format for over 2 years.
If Stokes could bowl, even of it was only 3 or 4 over a match it would make a massive difference. Is he worth a place in the side as a batsman? In 50 over yes, especially how good he is in the field. I think 4 is a place to high for him though.
I suspect we will end up going with a man seam attack, Mo, Rashid and Root as the 6th bowler and Brooke will bat at 4.
The good thing is the world cup is such a long tournament you can change it mid tournament, as we did in 2019 and in 2022.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
0 -
What's the point of a Willey if he doesn't take the new ball?Addick Addict said:
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
I might be miss remembering but before the world cup in 2019 he used to bowl about 5 overs up front then Stokes and Root would normally bowl the other 5.
Morgan said on TV the other day that the reason they picked Archer, over Willey, is he could bowl at the start, in the middle, and at the end. He never mentioned Willey by name though.
I can't see him playing in the world cup tbh.1 -
But I think he should have been given the new ball and that he might in preference to Woakes if he plays on Sunday as the latter doesn't need to open and is effective at other times. That said, if we do want to go in with Rashid, Moeen and Livingstone then he would almost certainly be the sacrificial lamb. It's difficult to envisage us having Rashid plus Moeen or Livingstone with Root as back up but if early season decks dictate that we need four seamers then one of Moeen or Livingstone has to go. Topley was appalling today and that might have been a blip and Atkinson probably wasn't utilised to the best of his ability either but having Wood and him with the new ball would just be too similar imo.Cafc43v3r said:
What's the point of a Willey if he doesn't take the new ball?Addick Addict said:
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
I might be miss remembering but before the world cup in 2019 he used to bowl about 5 overs up front then Stokes and Root would normally bowl the other 5.
Morgan said on TV the other day that the reason they picked Archer, over Willey, is he could bowl at the start, in the middle, and at the end. He never mentioned Willey by name though.
I can't see him playing in the world cup tbh.0 -
I really hope you're wrong and we don't decide to ditch Brook. That would be a wrong-headed and substantial error in my view.Addick Addict said:
But I think he should have been given the new ball and that he might in preference to Woakes if he plays on Sunday as the latter doesn't need to open and is effective at other times. That said, if we do want to go in with Rashid, Moeen and Livingstone then he would almost certainly be the sacrificial lamb. It's difficult to envisage us having Rashid plus Moeen or Livingstone with Root as back up but if early season decks dictate that we need four seamers then one of Moeen or Livingstone has to go. Topley was appalling today and that might have been a blip and Atkinson probably wasn't utilised to the best of his ability either but having Wood and him with the new ball would just be too similar imo.Cafc43v3r said:
What's the point of a Willey if he doesn't take the new ball?Addick Addict said:
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
I might be miss remembering but before the world cup in 2019 he used to bowl about 5 overs up front then Stokes and Root would normally bowl the other 5.
Morgan said on TV the other day that the reason they picked Archer, over Willey, is he could bowl at the start, in the middle, and at the end. He never mentioned Willey by name though.
I can't see him playing in the world cup tbh.0 -
The problem is over 50 overs it is difficult to know what is a good score and it can depend really on you taking wickets at the right times.0
-
That is certainly not what I want. It's not my side. It's the one based on the squad they've picked and he only played yesterday because of Bairstow's shoulder niggle and Roy's back spasm. If we play him on Sunday then that is indicative that we are trying to get him into the final squad but to do that would be a massively embarrassing admission that we got it wrong in the first place. Which we did.Chizz said:
I really hope you're wrong and we don't decide to ditch Brook. That would be a wrong-headed and substantial error in my view.Addick Addict said:
But I think he should have been given the new ball and that he might in preference to Woakes if he plays on Sunday as the latter doesn't need to open and is effective at other times. That said, if we do want to go in with Rashid, Moeen and Livingstone then he would almost certainly be the sacrificial lamb. It's difficult to envisage us having Rashid plus Moeen or Livingstone with Root as back up but if early season decks dictate that we need four seamers then one of Moeen or Livingstone has to go. Topley was appalling today and that might have been a blip and Atkinson probably wasn't utilised to the best of his ability either but having Wood and him with the new ball would just be too similar imo.Cafc43v3r said:
What's the point of a Willey if he doesn't take the new ball?Addick Addict said:
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
I might be miss remembering but before the world cup in 2019 he used to bowl about 5 overs up front then Stokes and Root would normally bowl the other 5.
Morgan said on TV the other day that the reason they picked Archer, over Willey, is he could bowl at the start, in the middle, and at the end. He never mentioned Willey by name though.
I can't see him playing in the world cup tbh.1 -
I hope they decide against taking RoyAddick Addict said:
That is certainly not what I want. It's not my side. It's the one based on the squad they've picked and he only played yesterday because of Bairstow's shoulder niggle and Roy's back spasm. If we play him on Sunday then that is indicative that we are trying to get him into the final squad but to do that would be a massively embarrassing admission that we got it wrong in the first place. Which we did.Chizz said:
I really hope you're wrong and we don't decide to ditch Brook. That would be a wrong-headed and substantial error in my view.Addick Addict said:
But I think he should have been given the new ball and that he might in preference to Woakes if he plays on Sunday as the latter doesn't need to open and is effective at other times. That said, if we do want to go in with Rashid, Moeen and Livingstone then he would almost certainly be the sacrificial lamb. It's difficult to envisage us having Rashid plus Moeen or Livingstone with Root as back up but if early season decks dictate that we need four seamers then one of Moeen or Livingstone has to go. Topley was appalling today and that might have been a blip and Atkinson probably wasn't utilised to the best of his ability either but having Wood and him with the new ball would just be too similar imo.Cafc43v3r said:
What's the point of a Willey if he doesn't take the new ball?Addick Addict said:
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
I might be miss remembering but before the world cup in 2019 he used to bowl about 5 overs up front then Stokes and Root would normally bowl the other 5.
Morgan said on TV the other day that the reason they picked Archer, over Willey, is he could bowl at the start, in the middle, and at the end. He never mentioned Willey by name though.
I can't see him playing in the world cup tbh.0 -
We didn't look like taking wickets at any time yesterday bar Rashid's first ball which was superb. Much of the rest of the time we were distinctly average and we never managed to create any scoreboard pressure even though the view of both captains and commentators was that our score was a competitive one. But then Wood, Archer and a fit and able Rashid might have made it look like one.MuttleyCAFC said:The problem is over 50 overs it is difficult to know what is a good score and it can depend really on you taking wickets at the right times.0 -
Even if they did, they will probably play Malan instead. There is only room for four non full time bowlers in their side of which Root, Bairstow and Stokes will be three of them.Chizz said:
I hope they decide against taking RoyAddick Addict said:
That is certainly not what I want. It's not my side. It's the one based on the squad they've picked and he only played yesterday because of Bairstow's shoulder niggle and Roy's back spasm. If we play him on Sunday then that is indicative that we are trying to get him into the final squad but to do that would be a massively embarrassing admission that we got it wrong in the first place. Which we did.Chizz said:
I really hope you're wrong and we don't decide to ditch Brook. That would be a wrong-headed and substantial error in my view.Addick Addict said:
But I think he should have been given the new ball and that he might in preference to Woakes if he plays on Sunday as the latter doesn't need to open and is effective at other times. That said, if we do want to go in with Rashid, Moeen and Livingstone then he would almost certainly be the sacrificial lamb. It's difficult to envisage us having Rashid plus Moeen or Livingstone with Root as back up but if early season decks dictate that we need four seamers then one of Moeen or Livingstone has to go. Topley was appalling today and that might have been a blip and Atkinson probably wasn't utilised to the best of his ability either but having Wood and him with the new ball would just be too similar imo.Cafc43v3r said:
What's the point of a Willey if he doesn't take the new ball?Addick Addict said:
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
I might be miss remembering but before the world cup in 2019 he used to bowl about 5 overs up front then Stokes and Root would normally bowl the other 5.
Morgan said on TV the other day that the reason they picked Archer, over Willey, is he could bowl at the start, in the middle, and at the end. He never mentioned Willey by name though.
I can't see him playing in the world cup tbh.0 -
Now I might have this wrong as I heard them mention on Sky how long it is since Livingstone faced 50 balls in a match but, by my calculations, it is 136 games and goes back to 17th June 2021. As the saying goes, why be there for a long time when you can be there for a good time!!!0
- Sponsored links:
-
I imagine Buttler would put forward a strong case for selection too, no?Addick Addict said:
Even if they did, they will probably play Malan instead. There is only room for four non full time bowlers in their side of which Root, Bairstow and Stokes will be three of them.Chizz said:
I hope they decide against taking RoyAddick Addict said:
That is certainly not what I want. It's not my side. It's the one based on the squad they've picked and he only played yesterday because of Bairstow's shoulder niggle and Roy's back spasm. If we play him on Sunday then that is indicative that we are trying to get him into the final squad but to do that would be a massively embarrassing admission that we got it wrong in the first place. Which we did.Chizz said:
I really hope you're wrong and we don't decide to ditch Brook. That would be a wrong-headed and substantial error in my view.Addick Addict said:
But I think he should have been given the new ball and that he might in preference to Woakes if he plays on Sunday as the latter doesn't need to open and is effective at other times. That said, if we do want to go in with Rashid, Moeen and Livingstone then he would almost certainly be the sacrificial lamb. It's difficult to envisage us having Rashid plus Moeen or Livingstone with Root as back up but if early season decks dictate that we need four seamers then one of Moeen or Livingstone has to go. Topley was appalling today and that might have been a blip and Atkinson probably wasn't utilised to the best of his ability either but having Wood and him with the new ball would just be too similar imo.Cafc43v3r said:
What's the point of a Willey if he doesn't take the new ball?Addick Addict said:
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
I might be miss remembering but before the world cup in 2019 he used to bowl about 5 overs up front then Stokes and Root would normally bowl the other 5.
Morgan said on TV the other day that the reason they picked Archer, over Willey, is he could bowl at the start, in the middle, and at the end. He never mentioned Willey by name though.
I can't see him playing in the world cup tbh.
0 -
He would have been a big part of the original selection as Morgan would have been in picking Archer ahead of Willey. Brook was sacrificed for Stokes. A number 4 batsman for a number 4 batsman.Chizz said:
I imagine Buttler would put forward a strong case for selection too, no?Addick Addict said:
Even if they did, they will probably play Malan instead. There is only room for four non full time bowlers in their side of which Root, Bairstow and Stokes will be three of them.Chizz said:
I hope they decide against taking RoyAddick Addict said:
That is certainly not what I want. It's not my side. It's the one based on the squad they've picked and he only played yesterday because of Bairstow's shoulder niggle and Roy's back spasm. If we play him on Sunday then that is indicative that we are trying to get him into the final squad but to do that would be a massively embarrassing admission that we got it wrong in the first place. Which we did.Chizz said:
I really hope you're wrong and we don't decide to ditch Brook. That would be a wrong-headed and substantial error in my view.Addick Addict said:
But I think he should have been given the new ball and that he might in preference to Woakes if he plays on Sunday as the latter doesn't need to open and is effective at other times. That said, if we do want to go in with Rashid, Moeen and Livingstone then he would almost certainly be the sacrificial lamb. It's difficult to envisage us having Rashid plus Moeen or Livingstone with Root as back up but if early season decks dictate that we need four seamers then one of Moeen or Livingstone has to go. Topley was appalling today and that might have been a blip and Atkinson probably wasn't utilised to the best of his ability either but having Wood and him with the new ball would just be too similar imo.Cafc43v3r said:
What's the point of a Willey if he doesn't take the new ball?Addick Addict said:
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
I might be miss remembering but before the world cup in 2019 he used to bowl about 5 overs up front then Stokes and Root would normally bowl the other 5.
Morgan said on TV the other day that the reason they picked Archer, over Willey, is he could bowl at the start, in the middle, and at the end. He never mentioned Willey by name though.
I can't see him playing in the world cup tbh.0 -
You suggested we will pick four non full time bowlers and said Root, Bairstow and Stokes would be three of them.Addick Addict said:
He would have been a big part of the original selection as Morgan would have been in picking Archer ahead of Willey. Brook was sacrificed for Stokes. A number 4 batsman for a number 4 batsman.Chizz said:
I imagine Buttler would put forward a strong case for selection too, no?Addick Addict said:
Even if they did, they will probably play Malan instead. There is only room for four non full time bowlers in their side of which Root, Bairstow and Stokes will be three of them.Chizz said:
I hope they decide against taking RoyAddick Addict said:
That is certainly not what I want. It's not my side. It's the one based on the squad they've picked and he only played yesterday because of Bairstow's shoulder niggle and Roy's back spasm. If we play him on Sunday then that is indicative that we are trying to get him into the final squad but to do that would be a massively embarrassing admission that we got it wrong in the first place. Which we did.Chizz said:
I really hope you're wrong and we don't decide to ditch Brook. That would be a wrong-headed and substantial error in my view.Addick Addict said:
But I think he should have been given the new ball and that he might in preference to Woakes if he plays on Sunday as the latter doesn't need to open and is effective at other times. That said, if we do want to go in with Rashid, Moeen and Livingstone then he would almost certainly be the sacrificial lamb. It's difficult to envisage us having Rashid plus Moeen or Livingstone with Root as back up but if early season decks dictate that we need four seamers then one of Moeen or Livingstone has to go. Topley was appalling today and that might have been a blip and Atkinson probably wasn't utilised to the best of his ability either but having Wood and him with the new ball would just be too similar imo.Cafc43v3r said:
What's the point of a Willey if he doesn't take the new ball?Addick Addict said:
I would suggest that we will try to play our best side, as seen by Buttler and Mott, for the next game that will include Roy, who might now be in a "shoot out" with Malan to open but perhaps resting Rashid who seemed to be really struggling with his fitness today. It could be something like this:killerandflash said:We just have these 4 ODIs to nail down the team and tactics, seeing that a completely different "B team" will play against Ireland, so a bit of pressure on Buttler and the management to get it right. At the moment it seems we have too many options, rather than an obvious first 11 that picks itself.
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Livingstone
Moeen
Curran
Woakes
Willey
Wood
Come India, we might have to sacrifice one of the seamers in order to get three frontline spinners into the side but that rather depends on the nature of the early season wickets out there. Stokes not bowling really doesn't help in that respect. The important thing is that they all get time in the middle especially the likes of Root who didn't look like he had the pace of the wicket at all - he has faced less balls in total in the last seven weeks than Devon Conway did today and has also bowled just 39 balls in that time. We know the reason for that.
I might be miss remembering but before the world cup in 2019 he used to bowl about 5 overs up front then Stokes and Root would normally bowl the other 5.
Morgan said on TV the other day that the reason they picked Archer, over Willey, is he could bowl at the start, in the middle, and at the end. He never mentioned Willey by name though.
I can't see him playing in the world cup tbh.
I think Buttler will also be included.0 -
And you can't do that at 6 in 50 over games, you could easily be batting in the 25th-30th over.Addick Addict said:Now I might have this wrong as I heard them mention on Sky how long it is since Livingstone faced 50 balls in a match but, by my calculations, it is 136 games and goes back to 17th June 2021. As the saying goes, why be there for a long time when you can be there for a good time!!!1 -
Personally I think Stokes should have had his knee operation done weeks ago and should now be recovering in time for the winter.
This would have solved the problem of who to leave out .3 -
T20 batting isn't the same as 50 over batting, as in the former centuries are incredibly rare and generally scored only by openers, whereas in 50 over games, you need any of your top 6 to go on and get a big one.
At No 6 in a T20, you generally have a few overs to slog a quickfire 30 or 40, in an ODI you need to be able to construct a major innings if you come in early.1 -
I think it is good to look at the form of the players and make the final decisions at the last minute based on that.0
-
One thing that Canters mentioned is the reluctance of this regime to drop those that have proven themselves as match winners even if form has long since deserted them. That, in itself, does stop natural progression and England appear to have taken that to the nth degree in persuading Stokes to change his mind about not playing in the WC. In not selecting Brook, they have made the decision to prevent one of our most talented all round batsman of all time from appearing in this version of a WC until he is 28. Not many countries wouldn't have had him in their squad for this one.
Broad has retired. He won't be returning but would that stop England asking the question if they feel the need to do so?0 -
Not many countries are the reigning world champions who of consistently been one of the best, if not the best white ball teams for the last 8 years. It reminds me of the players we all remember who couldn't get in Australia's team yet would walk into any other team.Addick Addict said:One thing that Canters mentioned is the reluctance of this regime to drop those that have proven themselves as match winners even if form has long since deserted them. That, in itself, does stop natural progression and England appear to have taken that to the nth degree in persuading Stokes to change his mind about not playing in the WC. In not selecting Brook, they have made the decision to prevent one of our most talented all round batsman of all time from appearing in this version of a WC until he is 28. Not many countries wouldn't have had him in their squad for this one.
Broad has retired. He won't be returning but would that stop England asking the question if they feel the need to do so?
This is clearly the end of the road for half a dozen, if not more, of the core of that team most of which will never play for England again, after this world cup.
Brooke has been incredibly unlucky that he has come to the fore in the last 12 months of a 4 year cycle, in which we have played a unacceptably low amount of ODIs. He isn't the only one either.
It's really unfortunate that to even get him in the squad, let alone the team, you realistically have to drop completely someone who averages 55 or someone that has scored 2 100s in his last 6 matches in this formate and holds a host of England batting records.
You can't pick on format for because no one has any.2 -
WTF - it's raining and a delayed toss as a result. As far as I was aware Southampton is nowhere near Manchester!!!1
