Yesterday I wrote about the men who were in England's ODI squad, and the immediate direction they can take. And before the World Cup even started, I named a potential team for the next summer of ODI cricket (which still doesn't look too unlikely).
However, while the short term can be looked at, the facts remain that England haven't been a top-level ODI side since reaching the final in 1992. We've consistently underperformed, citing the same reasons time after time. Ultimately, England's failures in ODI cricket aren't due to tiredness or injuries, it's a much deeper problem. Put simply, we aren't producing enough ODI quality players - or if we are, we aren't picking them. Test cricket and ODI cricket are very different disciplines - while key skills can be used in both, for players to be the very best in ODI cricket, there are other elements needed. It's widely recognised that England have a very good test side, and not such a good ODI side. But the ODI team is basically the test team without Alastair Cook. So the players who clearly have the aptitude for test cricket patently don't have the X Factor in ODI cricket needed to win World Cups.
Much of the reason must be looked at in county cricket, where the One Day competition is put in as an afterthought. And the fact that it doesn't even take the same format as international cricket doesn't suggest players are learning the skills required for ODIs. The nature of ODI selection is also wrong. Of yesterday's England side, Strauss, Bell, Trott, Prior and Tremlett were given ODI chances (or reprieves) almost exclusively on the back of test form. While this doesn't mean they are bad One Day players, it shows that selectors are only looking at the pool of international players rather than those who are proving themselves consistently in domestic List A cricket.
And even when young guys are being selected, they're given very little margin for error before being discarded. Think Davies, Kieswetter, Denly, Rashid, Woakes. These are the players who have been performing well in domestic List A cricket who are removed for those with iffy One Day records but have performed well in tests. The selection of Prior over Davies is a case in point.
Another thing - English players don't play enough One Day cricket. I'm not talking about ODI cricket, where the 400 cap club is becoming increasingly unexclusive; but one day cricket of any sort. Once a player is picked for England, the only List A cricket of any type will be ODIs, as he is very rarely released to his county for one day games which are crucial for his development. Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad didn't play any One Day games for Notts last year, and Ian Bell has played double the ODIs than domestic One Day games. England are taking the view that international cricket is a place where players have to learn skills quickly, but it's also a place where flaws are exposed and we've already seen how keen the selectors are to dispose of those who don't swim immediately after being thrown straight into the deep end. England would be far better off using the domestic One Day tournament as a breeding ground for international cricket, where players can hone their skills and learn about the ways of One Day cricket, before picking players when they're ready for international action and sticking with them.
England's failures in ODI cricket are deeper than immediately meets the eye, but they can be rectified. There are some players who have been consistently performing at county level, and the selectors shouldn't be afraid to pick them. And if they are to pick them, faith needs to be shown in them. And England's established players should be given the opportunity to go and play One Day cricket for their counties, where they can develop their game away from the glare of ODI cricket, and learn the appropriate skills for ODI cricket, rather than recycling the very different skill set needed for test cricket. England flattered to decieve this World Cup, and while cosmetic changes could be made from small short term successes, a much deeper set of decisions need to be taken if England are ever to win a World Cup.
Showing posts with label Rash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rash. Show all posts
Sunday, 27 March 2011
Friday, 11 March 2011
Scared Selections
England's selectors are notoriously conservative. They just don't like to make brave calls. Obviously I don't want them to make high risk selection decisions every week, but a calculated gamble would be nice every now and again.
I'm not just talking about the current World Cup. England just don't make big, surprise decisions. The lack of any young, exciting batsmen who've played well at county level in this England ODI side (perhaps excluding Morgan) who've played in the last few years is testament to the fact that they don't like to mess around with the status quo. Prime example - Steve Davies; a player who could be a fantastic attacking wicket-keeper but was unproven, was dropped to make way for Matt Prior, a man who wouldn't be such a gamble, but wouldn't pay off spectacularly as much as Davies could.
If we look at this game (v Bangladesh), England had some big decisions to make. England needed a new opener and a new fast bowler, and could mix the spin-bowling options about. I touted Swann to open - a school of thought that was gathering pace. Opening with Swann would be a gamble, but it could pay off spectacularly. South Africa and a few other nations have had success with three spinners, and there were rumours that England could go that way. However, instead of bringing in Tredwell, England bizarrely brought in Collingwood, a man who is horribly out of form with the bat but is part of the establishment, and as such, is worth playing as he can be "relied upon".
England's scared selections annoyed me. This was a genuine chance to do something bold and exciting, yet the team that was put out was a cowardly choice. Prior, who has failed many times as an opener, was promoted, just because it was the least risky thing for the selectors to do. And Collingwood coming in (and batting at number eight) suggests that they knew Yardy needed to go, but were too scared to pick the mercurial James Tredwell. It seems that the selectors would prefer England to fail miserably (as they have done many times) with a stable eleven, than to roll the dice and risk being attacked for making bad decisions.
Well here's my message to the selectors. Don't be scared. Don't be scared to open with Swann, play Tredwell, or finally put Collingwood out of his misery. Don't be scared to call up Adil Rashid, Jimmy Adams, James Hildreth or even Samit Patel. England may win this game v Bangladesh with Collingwood at 8 and Prior opening, but it's a formula that has been proven to not work against the bigger teams. England will not win this World Cup with this team. Albert Einstein said that the "definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". So selectors. Do something different. Roll the dice. We'll thank you for it when we win the World Cup.
I'm not just talking about the current World Cup. England just don't make big, surprise decisions. The lack of any young, exciting batsmen who've played well at county level in this England ODI side (perhaps excluding Morgan) who've played in the last few years is testament to the fact that they don't like to mess around with the status quo. Prime example - Steve Davies; a player who could be a fantastic attacking wicket-keeper but was unproven, was dropped to make way for Matt Prior, a man who wouldn't be such a gamble, but wouldn't pay off spectacularly as much as Davies could.
If we look at this game (v Bangladesh), England had some big decisions to make. England needed a new opener and a new fast bowler, and could mix the spin-bowling options about. I touted Swann to open - a school of thought that was gathering pace. Opening with Swann would be a gamble, but it could pay off spectacularly. South Africa and a few other nations have had success with three spinners, and there were rumours that England could go that way. However, instead of bringing in Tredwell, England bizarrely brought in Collingwood, a man who is horribly out of form with the bat but is part of the establishment, and as such, is worth playing as he can be "relied upon".
England's scared selections annoyed me. This was a genuine chance to do something bold and exciting, yet the team that was put out was a cowardly choice. Prior, who has failed many times as an opener, was promoted, just because it was the least risky thing for the selectors to do. And Collingwood coming in (and batting at number eight) suggests that they knew Yardy needed to go, but were too scared to pick the mercurial James Tredwell. It seems that the selectors would prefer England to fail miserably (as they have done many times) with a stable eleven, than to roll the dice and risk being attacked for making bad decisions.
Well here's my message to the selectors. Don't be scared. Don't be scared to open with Swann, play Tredwell, or finally put Collingwood out of his misery. Don't be scared to call up Adil Rashid, Jimmy Adams, James Hildreth or even Samit Patel. England may win this game v Bangladesh with Collingwood at 8 and Prior opening, but it's a formula that has been proven to not work against the bigger teams. England will not win this World Cup with this team. Albert Einstein said that the "definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". So selectors. Do something different. Roll the dice. We'll thank you for it when we win the World Cup.
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
How important is is that Broad (might) be coming home?
So yet another injury has hit England's ODI side. After being decimated in the Australian ODI series, this England World Cup squad is now dropping like a medieval village after a plague rat wanders into town. The latest victim to England's injury curse is Stuart Broad.
This injury is annoying rather than anything else. In the past few years Broad has grown into a very fine One Day bowler with a variety of tricks and is a genuine threat to opposition batsmen. His 4 fer against South Africa the other day underlines his importance to this England team, as a 'pressure' bowler (ie bowling at the death, or being thrown the ball in tight situations) which emphasises the trust that Cap'n Strauss places in him.
Bearing in mind that England's bowling has been distinctly poor thus far, the fact that Broad has so far come out in some credit does show he will be a big loss if he is to leave the tournament. We don't know how severe his injury is, but a side strain for a fast bowler often isn't a trivial issue, so chances are he's played his last at this tournament.
So if he is to go home, who should replace him in the squad? Well, in the short term, Ajmal Shahzad will likely come in for the Bangladesh game on Friday. Chris Tremlett has been sitting on the bench waiting for the inevitable fast bowling injury as the 16th man in the squad, so we'd assume Trem would be selected to the squad. However, given the fact England clearly lack an all-rounder (something every other nation has in abundance), it would be worth thinking outside the box rather than the 'safe' option of picking Tremlett to carry drinks with Wright and Tredwell.
Some nations have been playing four spinners, some three, most two. England have fielded one (Graeme Swann) and someone bowling darts (Mick Yardy). To say Yardy has been ineffective may be putting it mildly, so there is a real need for England to send for a spinner who actually tries to turn it. Adil Rashid would be an obvious choice - he has topped bowling lists in county cricket over the last however long, and has a couple of FC hundreds to his name, which shows he knows which end of the bat to hold. But is he good enough to bat in the top seven (where he'd need to be)? Someone who would be a better batsman (more than able to bat as a specialist, as well as offering spinning overs) would be Samit Patel. He's obviously international class, as his ODI five-fer suggests, but the obvious fitness issue means it would be a massive climb down from the selectors to pick him. Despite repeated warnings to sort himself out he hasn't bothered, which hardly suggests a brilliant attitude. Both would be options, and I'd be happy with either.
But may I proffer another name? Broad is a fast bowler, and England will want to go in with three seamers into any given match. England need a genuine allrounder who can turn games with the bat or ball. He may have never played internationally, but step forward Peter Trego. The Somerset allrounder can absolutely dominate attacks with bruising strokes - and the nice flat pitches being used would be right up his street. While his bowling may not quite be there, I reckon he'd be good to chip in with a couple of handy wickets along the way. He may be unproven internationally, but his performances in big games for Somerset suggest he has the mental fortitude to step straight into a World Cup and perform.
I'd like to see Trego in the England side (and hope it happens anyway post-World Cup) as it would give a lot more balance, and some big-hitting down the order. However, whoever I endorse is irrelevant, as Chris Tremlett will get selected. So there we are.
This injury is annoying rather than anything else. In the past few years Broad has grown into a very fine One Day bowler with a variety of tricks and is a genuine threat to opposition batsmen. His 4 fer against South Africa the other day underlines his importance to this England team, as a 'pressure' bowler (ie bowling at the death, or being thrown the ball in tight situations) which emphasises the trust that Cap'n Strauss places in him.
Bearing in mind that England's bowling has been distinctly poor thus far, the fact that Broad has so far come out in some credit does show he will be a big loss if he is to leave the tournament. We don't know how severe his injury is, but a side strain for a fast bowler often isn't a trivial issue, so chances are he's played his last at this tournament.
So if he is to go home, who should replace him in the squad? Well, in the short term, Ajmal Shahzad will likely come in for the Bangladesh game on Friday. Chris Tremlett has been sitting on the bench waiting for the inevitable fast bowling injury as the 16th man in the squad, so we'd assume Trem would be selected to the squad. However, given the fact England clearly lack an all-rounder (something every other nation has in abundance), it would be worth thinking outside the box rather than the 'safe' option of picking Tremlett to carry drinks with Wright and Tredwell.
Some nations have been playing four spinners, some three, most two. England have fielded one (Graeme Swann) and someone bowling darts (Mick Yardy). To say Yardy has been ineffective may be putting it mildly, so there is a real need for England to send for a spinner who actually tries to turn it. Adil Rashid would be an obvious choice - he has topped bowling lists in county cricket over the last however long, and has a couple of FC hundreds to his name, which shows he knows which end of the bat to hold. But is he good enough to bat in the top seven (where he'd need to be)? Someone who would be a better batsman (more than able to bat as a specialist, as well as offering spinning overs) would be Samit Patel. He's obviously international class, as his ODI five-fer suggests, but the obvious fitness issue means it would be a massive climb down from the selectors to pick him. Despite repeated warnings to sort himself out he hasn't bothered, which hardly suggests a brilliant attitude. Both would be options, and I'd be happy with either.
But may I proffer another name? Broad is a fast bowler, and England will want to go in with three seamers into any given match. England need a genuine allrounder who can turn games with the bat or ball. He may have never played internationally, but step forward Peter Trego. The Somerset allrounder can absolutely dominate attacks with bruising strokes - and the nice flat pitches being used would be right up his street. While his bowling may not quite be there, I reckon he'd be good to chip in with a couple of handy wickets along the way. He may be unproven internationally, but his performances in big games for Somerset suggest he has the mental fortitude to step straight into a World Cup and perform.
I'd like to see Trego in the England side (and hope it happens anyway post-World Cup) as it would give a lot more balance, and some big-hitting down the order. However, whoever I endorse is irrelevant, as Chris Tremlett will get selected. So there we are.
Sunday, 6 March 2011
How important is it that KP's coming home?
Kevin Pietersen has apparently had a "dodgy hernia" for a while, and yesterday it was announced that it would be operated on after the World Cup. But now the news is that he's not going to make it that far, and will travel home for surgery tomorrow.
KP has had an up and down time of it in ODIs over the past two years. He had a bad injury in the 2009 summer, which he took a long time to really recover from and become the Kevin Pietersen of old (arguably until the double ton at Adelaide during the Ashes), and while he showed signs of improvement in tests, he hasn't scored runs in ODIs for so long that I'm struggling to remember the last time he batted well in 50 over cricket.
England have tried to get him going. He was dropped completely from the Pakistan ODI series, and has been pushed up to open for the World Cup, in an attempt to get him scoring runs again.
England have had mixed success without KP firing - up until the Australia debacle and start to this World Cup they've actually been pretty good. But Kevin Pietersen for all of his flaws is a class batsman, and it would be too simplistic to say "England have done well when he did nothing, so it doesn't matter whether he plays or not", as England are clearly much stronger with him in the team than without. However, it can't be ignored that the fact England have attempted to boot him into life suggests that part of the problem with KP is an application issue, rather than ability. If reports are to be believed, he's to quit ODIs anyway after this World Cup, which suggests that he can't be 100% bothered with playing 50 over cricket anyway. So how big a loss would a disinterested Kevin Pietersen be?
KP possesses the ability to dominate the middle overs of an ODI, and dictate the pace (in what is often a stalemate period of gearing up for later onslaughts). While he has opened with relative success, I feel that he should be used in those middle overs, rather than up top facing the new ball. On his day (if he is to have any more of his days in ODIs for England) Kevin Pietersen is perhaps the best in the world - certainly one of the best limited over batsmen around. So for him to go home would obviously be a big loss.
But KP's importance can only be measured by who replaces him. If England have a ready made world class batsman ready to step into the side, then the loss of Kev won't be as keenly felt. Which is where Eoin Morgan comes in.
The issue of replacing KP is a conundrum in itself. England could go for Morgan, as he is a proven brilliant ODI player. However, Morgan is nursing a broken finger, and after a poor Australian series, there's no guarantee that he'll be fit, ready, or able to score runs. And if they do go for Morgan, it will mean that the balance of the team will need to be shifted, with someone going up to open with Strauss to make space for Morgan in the middle order. And (today aside) the middle order has been what's kept England competitve in this World Cup - so changing it drastically could be disastrous.
This is where the clamour for a like-for-like opener comes in, and Craig Kieswetter (who's been scoring runs for fun) has already been touted highly by some. Craig can be a real 'pinch-hitter' on sub continental tracks, and could rack up some big scores in the powerplay overs - the reason KP's been opening in the first place. But he was dropped after a poor English summer and replaced by Steve Davies, so it would be a turnaround surprise. And if Kiesy did get in, it would open a can of worms with Matt Prior, as to who should keep or whether someone could play as a specialist bat.
Other specialist openers who could get the call are Alastair Cook and Jimmy Adams. Cook is now the golden boy of English cricket following a mercurial Ashes, but his ODI form isn't brilliant (hence why he hasn't played since Bangladesh last year, and that was just because he was captain). And as good a season as Jimmy Adams had last year - he is unproven at international level, and the latter stages of a World Cup is a pretty deep end to discover whether someone can sink or swim.
After putting this out there on Twitter, I had some other random names back. There is clamour (as there often is) for Adil Rashid, and even Samit Patel - mainly to help bolster a spin bowling attack that has been weakened by the inclusion of Mick Yardy. But adding another spinning all-rounder to the squad isn't what England need, as the batting would be horrendously weak.
Were I making the decision, I'd pick Eoin Morgan. While it does require a rejig, Morgy is a world-class batsman, and exactly what England have been missing in later overs, where innings have ground to a halt. His inventive hitting can be England's X Factor, and the difference between an ignominous group stage exit, and a trip on the rollercoaster to wherever it takes us. Ian Bell always bats well with Strauss, and would be a great bet to open, so there would be no problems there. While KP will be a big loss to this England team, getting Morgan in can be the shot in the arm that this team (who have already shown massive signs of complacency) need, and while it will be at the expense of a great ODI batsman, the addition of a better ODI batsman can see England to great things.
KP has had an up and down time of it in ODIs over the past two years. He had a bad injury in the 2009 summer, which he took a long time to really recover from and become the Kevin Pietersen of old (arguably until the double ton at Adelaide during the Ashes), and while he showed signs of improvement in tests, he hasn't scored runs in ODIs for so long that I'm struggling to remember the last time he batted well in 50 over cricket.
England have tried to get him going. He was dropped completely from the Pakistan ODI series, and has been pushed up to open for the World Cup, in an attempt to get him scoring runs again.
England have had mixed success without KP firing - up until the Australia debacle and start to this World Cup they've actually been pretty good. But Kevin Pietersen for all of his flaws is a class batsman, and it would be too simplistic to say "England have done well when he did nothing, so it doesn't matter whether he plays or not", as England are clearly much stronger with him in the team than without. However, it can't be ignored that the fact England have attempted to boot him into life suggests that part of the problem with KP is an application issue, rather than ability. If reports are to be believed, he's to quit ODIs anyway after this World Cup, which suggests that he can't be 100% bothered with playing 50 over cricket anyway. So how big a loss would a disinterested Kevin Pietersen be?
KP possesses the ability to dominate the middle overs of an ODI, and dictate the pace (in what is often a stalemate period of gearing up for later onslaughts). While he has opened with relative success, I feel that he should be used in those middle overs, rather than up top facing the new ball. On his day (if he is to have any more of his days in ODIs for England) Kevin Pietersen is perhaps the best in the world - certainly one of the best limited over batsmen around. So for him to go home would obviously be a big loss.
But KP's importance can only be measured by who replaces him. If England have a ready made world class batsman ready to step into the side, then the loss of Kev won't be as keenly felt. Which is where Eoin Morgan comes in.
The issue of replacing KP is a conundrum in itself. England could go for Morgan, as he is a proven brilliant ODI player. However, Morgan is nursing a broken finger, and after a poor Australian series, there's no guarantee that he'll be fit, ready, or able to score runs. And if they do go for Morgan, it will mean that the balance of the team will need to be shifted, with someone going up to open with Strauss to make space for Morgan in the middle order. And (today aside) the middle order has been what's kept England competitve in this World Cup - so changing it drastically could be disastrous.
This is where the clamour for a like-for-like opener comes in, and Craig Kieswetter (who's been scoring runs for fun) has already been touted highly by some. Craig can be a real 'pinch-hitter' on sub continental tracks, and could rack up some big scores in the powerplay overs - the reason KP's been opening in the first place. But he was dropped after a poor English summer and replaced by Steve Davies, so it would be a turnaround surprise. And if Kiesy did get in, it would open a can of worms with Matt Prior, as to who should keep or whether someone could play as a specialist bat.
Other specialist openers who could get the call are Alastair Cook and Jimmy Adams. Cook is now the golden boy of English cricket following a mercurial Ashes, but his ODI form isn't brilliant (hence why he hasn't played since Bangladesh last year, and that was just because he was captain). And as good a season as Jimmy Adams had last year - he is unproven at international level, and the latter stages of a World Cup is a pretty deep end to discover whether someone can sink or swim.
After putting this out there on Twitter, I had some other random names back. There is clamour (as there often is) for Adil Rashid, and even Samit Patel - mainly to help bolster a spin bowling attack that has been weakened by the inclusion of Mick Yardy. But adding another spinning all-rounder to the squad isn't what England need, as the batting would be horrendously weak.
Were I making the decision, I'd pick Eoin Morgan. While it does require a rejig, Morgy is a world-class batsman, and exactly what England have been missing in later overs, where innings have ground to a halt. His inventive hitting can be England's X Factor, and the difference between an ignominous group stage exit, and a trip on the rollercoaster to wherever it takes us. Ian Bell always bats well with Strauss, and would be a great bet to open, so there would be no problems there. While KP will be a big loss to this England team, getting Morgan in can be the shot in the arm that this team (who have already shown massive signs of complacency) need, and while it will be at the expense of a great ODI batsman, the addition of a better ODI batsman can see England to great things.
Saturday, 12 February 2011
England's Future ODI Side
In my earlier post (this one here), I had a look at why Kevin Pietersen could walk away from playing ODI cricket. Assuming KP does decide to give it up, and with the likelihood that Paul Collingwood isn't long for international cricket either (as well as a couple of questions over some of the others), England could easily have a very different looking ODI line-up post World Cup.
The period following the World Cup is historically a time of change. New captains are appointed, the old guard either retire triumphantly or are booted out unceremoniously, and the chaff are discarded in favour of younger, fresher models. Of the 15 men England have picked for this World Cup, it's not inconcievable that at least eight are playing their last lot of ODIs for a number of reasons. So if eight go out, there will need to be a new seven to come in. So who could they be?
Well, to start, I'll show my logic behind the figure of the eight to never again play. While KP has denied he's retiring from ODIs, there's often no smoke without fire, and as I said in the earlier article, chances are that he'll walk away. Paul Collingwood has already retired from tests, and following a disgustingly bad run of form, may either choose to retire from internationals full stop, or be given the heave ho as Team England look to get in a new and improved model. James Tredwell seems to have been picked on the basis that it would be mean to leave him out - and the fact that even Andy Flower was being mooted as being selected ahead of him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the powers that be. And with Adil Rashid knocking on the door, there may no longer be a place for Tredders in the party. Same sort of goes for Mick Yardy, who is probably a better bowler when he has only four overs to be canny, rather than ten, where batsmen are able to eventually score freely off him, and his lack of wicket-taking is fairly glaring. So he could also be on the ODI scrap heap.
Matt Prior has been called up from ODI obscurity for the World Cup, but it wouldn't take much for Davies or Kieswetter to replace him. In fact, chances are Davies would be put back in following the World Cup, and given the chance to bed in and improve in confidence and experience. Ravi Bopara should be in the England team, but for whatever reason, he hasn't been. Some would say this is a personality issue, but the fact that England have been so wary in picking him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the selectors, so when Morgan returns, Bopara could have pulled on the Three Lions for the last time. And maybe they'll have just have had enough of Luke Wright after this World Cup, and if there's any justice in the world, he won't be playing internationally following the tournament.
So that's seven names. And the last one who potentially could play no more ODI cricket could be captain Strauss, as he may want to bow out at the top of ODI cricket (if England win) in order to prolong his test career. And he hasn't been uber brilliant at ODIs anyway.
So here's the fun part. Naming potential replacements. Unless something odd happens, England will have the nucleus of Bell, Trott, Morgan, Swann, Bresnan, Broad and Anderson (with Shahzad also in there to carry drinks) as 100% cast iron available for ODIs over the next few years. So they'll in all likelihood be in there.
Starting with the bowling attack (as the basis is already there), I'll assume that England will want to go with the 3 fast and 2 spin option (of which one of them is handy enough to bat at seven) going forward. Bres, Broad and Anderson are sorted as the three pacers (with Shahzad, Woakes, Finn or Tremlett as alternatives), with Swann guaranteed to play as well. For my other spinner, who I'd also bat at seven, is Adil Rashid. Rashid is easily good enough to bat seven for England, and is developing into a top-class one day leg spinner. We've seen him recently be a big part of the Redbacks winning the Big Bash, and he clearly has the talents readily available to take into international cricket. While there may be an issue about his attitude, I'm sure he'll be fine.
And now batting. For me, Davies should have the gloves, and could open if there aren't any other alternatives. I'd like to see Kent's Joe Denly given another shot internationally as I think he's class. (The Key-Denly dream team opening for England could yet happen...) So Davies to open with Denly, with Trott, Bell and Morgan at 3, 4 and 5. Leaving a batting berth up for grabs.
Yorkshire's Andy Gale has been maturing into a really good cricketer. With some really good one day performances especially (albeit higher up the order), Gale has thrived under the responsibility of captaining the white rose. So I'd get him in. To captain.
OK, seriously, while I think Gale is a FEC, he's not an immediate FEC. So Gale comes in at 6, and I'd give Jimmy Anderson the proverbial one-day armband. Because I think he'd do the best job.
So that would be my England One Day International side, effective the end of the World Cup. And it probably doesn't bode well that I've already written this World Cup off and am planning for 2015...
My England ODI team for the summer
Joe Denly
Steve Davies (wk)
Jonathan Trott
Ian Bell
Eoin Morgan
Andrew Gale
Adil Rashid
Tim Bresnan
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson (c)
The period following the World Cup is historically a time of change. New captains are appointed, the old guard either retire triumphantly or are booted out unceremoniously, and the chaff are discarded in favour of younger, fresher models. Of the 15 men England have picked for this World Cup, it's not inconcievable that at least eight are playing their last lot of ODIs for a number of reasons. So if eight go out, there will need to be a new seven to come in. So who could they be?
Well, to start, I'll show my logic behind the figure of the eight to never again play. While KP has denied he's retiring from ODIs, there's often no smoke without fire, and as I said in the earlier article, chances are that he'll walk away. Paul Collingwood has already retired from tests, and following a disgustingly bad run of form, may either choose to retire from internationals full stop, or be given the heave ho as Team England look to get in a new and improved model. James Tredwell seems to have been picked on the basis that it would be mean to leave him out - and the fact that even Andy Flower was being mooted as being selected ahead of him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the powers that be. And with Adil Rashid knocking on the door, there may no longer be a place for Tredders in the party. Same sort of goes for Mick Yardy, who is probably a better bowler when he has only four overs to be canny, rather than ten, where batsmen are able to eventually score freely off him, and his lack of wicket-taking is fairly glaring. So he could also be on the ODI scrap heap.
Matt Prior has been called up from ODI obscurity for the World Cup, but it wouldn't take much for Davies or Kieswetter to replace him. In fact, chances are Davies would be put back in following the World Cup, and given the chance to bed in and improve in confidence and experience. Ravi Bopara should be in the England team, but for whatever reason, he hasn't been. Some would say this is a personality issue, but the fact that England have been so wary in picking him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the selectors, so when Morgan returns, Bopara could have pulled on the Three Lions for the last time. And maybe they'll have just have had enough of Luke Wright after this World Cup, and if there's any justice in the world, he won't be playing internationally following the tournament.
So that's seven names. And the last one who potentially could play no more ODI cricket could be captain Strauss, as he may want to bow out at the top of ODI cricket (if England win) in order to prolong his test career. And he hasn't been uber brilliant at ODIs anyway.
So here's the fun part. Naming potential replacements. Unless something odd happens, England will have the nucleus of Bell, Trott, Morgan, Swann, Bresnan, Broad and Anderson (with Shahzad also in there to carry drinks) as 100% cast iron available for ODIs over the next few years. So they'll in all likelihood be in there.
Starting with the bowling attack (as the basis is already there), I'll assume that England will want to go with the 3 fast and 2 spin option (of which one of them is handy enough to bat at seven) going forward. Bres, Broad and Anderson are sorted as the three pacers (with Shahzad, Woakes, Finn or Tremlett as alternatives), with Swann guaranteed to play as well. For my other spinner, who I'd also bat at seven, is Adil Rashid. Rashid is easily good enough to bat seven for England, and is developing into a top-class one day leg spinner. We've seen him recently be a big part of the Redbacks winning the Big Bash, and he clearly has the talents readily available to take into international cricket. While there may be an issue about his attitude, I'm sure he'll be fine.
And now batting. For me, Davies should have the gloves, and could open if there aren't any other alternatives. I'd like to see Kent's Joe Denly given another shot internationally as I think he's class. (The Key-Denly dream team opening for England could yet happen...) So Davies to open with Denly, with Trott, Bell and Morgan at 3, 4 and 5. Leaving a batting berth up for grabs.
Yorkshire's Andy Gale has been maturing into a really good cricketer. With some really good one day performances especially (albeit higher up the order), Gale has thrived under the responsibility of captaining the white rose. So I'd get him in. To captain.
OK, seriously, while I think Gale is a FEC, he's not an immediate FEC. So Gale comes in at 6, and I'd give Jimmy Anderson the proverbial one-day armband. Because I think he'd do the best job.
So that would be my England One Day International side, effective the end of the World Cup. And it probably doesn't bode well that I've already written this World Cup off and am planning for 2015...
My England ODI team for the summer
Joe Denly
Steve Davies (wk)
Jonathan Trott
Ian Bell
Eoin Morgan
Andrew Gale
Adil Rashid
Tim Bresnan
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson (c)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)