England A in South Africa 2015.

[rich1uk]

My view is that Ravi offers a useful option with the ball, and I see him as being a bit more robust than Rich does, but his batting doesn't justify a place in the squad.

if, and its a big if, he is consistently being expected to share to share 10 overs with another batting all-rounder I could see the logic in his selection, even if I still don't think he is good enough

but when you have 5 guys all going to be bowling 10 overs more often than not then he becomes nothing more than an insurance policy as a bowler and he doesn't add enough as a batsman for that

[Arthur Crabtree]

Ideally you'll have a bowler who can offer an alternative is someone is struggling, or just to offer variety. Bopara has provided that, but just not contributed enough runs. It's a Justin Kemp or Lance Klusener or Jacob Oram sort of role. Obviously that's at the top end.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe it's a case of not being able to pick one if you haven't got one.

Above was response to Bhaves.

[Dr Cricket]

My view is that Ravi offers a useful option with the ball, and I see him as being a bit more robust than Rich does, but his batting doesn't justify a place in the squad.

if, and its a big if, he is consistently being expected to share to share 10 overs with another batting all-rounder I could see the logic in his selection, even if I still don't think he is good enough

but when you have 5 guys all going to be bowling 10 overs more often than not then he becomes nothing more than an insurance policy as a bowler and he doesn't add enough as a batsman for that

If Bopara is an insurance policy why can't Root do the job.
I just don't see how Bopara being dropped for a batsman makes a difference to the balance of the team especially if the person only expected to bowl 2-3 overs.

[rich1uk]

My view is that Ravi offers a useful option with the ball, and I see him as being a bit more robust than Rich does, but his batting doesn't justify a place in the squad.

if, and its a big if, he is consistently being expected to share to share 10 overs with another batting all-rounder I could see the logic in his selection, even if I still don't think he is good enough

but when you have 5 guys all going to be bowling 10 overs more often than not then he becomes nothing more than an insurance policy as a bowler and he doesn't add enough as a batsman for that

If Bopara is an insurance policy why can't Root do the job.
I just don't see how Bopara being dropped for a batsman makes a difference to the balance of the team especially if the person only expected to bowl 2-3 overs.

because it does involve an element of risk

I doubt moores wants to be in a situation where a bowler picks up an injury early in his spell, like Faulkner did yesterday, and then have to have root bowl 7 or 8 overs

not saying I agree with that mentality but I would be fairly confident betting on it being the rationale

[m@tt]

Is Flower there. I didn't think he was named among the coaches.

He isn't head coach, but he is definitely there or had been there for part of the tour at least.

These articles mention him:
http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/articles/lion ... -town-stay
http://www.espn.co.uk/cricket/sport/story/389477.html

[Dr Cricket]

Ideally you'll have a bowler who can offer an alternative is someone is struggling, or just to offer variety. Bopara has provided that, but just not contributed enough runs. It's a Justin Kemp or Lance Klusener or Jacob Oram sort of role. Obviously that's at the top end.

Yes but they don't get picked because their can bowl few overs their all got picked because of batting, Lower order hitting abilities.
None of them would be guaranteed a spot if one of their main disciplines failed or wasn't good enough for international cricket.

New Zealand/SA always had all rounder so their generally would have top end quality all rounders in their team and if any of them fails generally one or two players are waiting in the wings.
Although this is probably SA first world cup without a genuine all rounder in the team or Squad a rarity for them also a sign that you only pick All rounders if their are good enough.

You can't pick/defend bopara for his bowling if he is the 6th bowling option is batting has to be the main consideration and you don't keep him in the team because you don't want root to be the 6th bowling options.
If bopara is being picked for his bowling he either plays as a 5th bowler and competes with Ali or he gets picked for his batting and competes with Hales/Ballance for a spot in the team.

In both scenario Bopara is not in the best 11 at the moment.

[KipperJohn]

I think it's more a case of England needing strong players, with strong minds, able to play the situation that they find themselves in. Ballance fits that bill -and as Arthur has alluded to, Bopara isn't in that mould.

Buttler has found out that sometimes it's a 'dig in and keep going role' that's needed, as much as a last 10 over smash or chase. We need batsmen who can do both - not easy. I'd like to see Bopara bowl more but if it's not going to happen then what's the point of him playing if there is a more reliable and confident bat available.

[Dr Cricket]

My view is that Ravi offers a useful option with the ball, and I see him as being a bit more robust than Rich does, but his batting doesn't justify a place in the squad.

if, and its a big if, he is consistently being expected to share to share 10 overs with another batting all-rounder I could see the logic in his selection, even if I still don't think he is good enough

but when you have 5 guys all going to be bowling 10 overs more often than not then he becomes nothing more than an insurance policy as a bowler and he doesn't add enough as a batsman for that

If Bopara is an insurance policy why can't Root do the job.
I just don't see how Bopara being dropped for a batsman makes a difference to the balance of the team especially if the person only expected to bowl 2-3 overs.

because it does involve an element of risk

I doubt moores wants to be in a situation where a bowler picks up an injury early in his spell, like Faulkner did yesterday, and then have to have root bowl 7 or 8 overs

not saying I agree with that mentality but I would be fairly confident betting on it being the rationale

Well tough luck Injuries happen Literally only 2 teams are obsessed with 6-7 bowlers in ODI Pakistan and this new England team.
No one else even thinks about it.
Aus/NZ are lucky since they got so many all rounder but even then most of the all rounder are picked for batting not bowling and I can guarantee you if M Marsh/Watson/Maxwell all have a bad few series with bat or even couple of games in M Marsh case they will be dropped.

India don't have anyone other than Raina that can bowl but you never see them saying Yuvi, Sehwag, or any batsman that can bowl should be in the team so they can supposedly cover for an injury that strikes during a game even when picking the batsman that can bowl weakens the team if their batting is not good enough for the first team.

[rich1uk]

Well tough luck Injuries happen Literally only 2 teams are obsessed with 6-7 bowlers in ODI Pakistan and this new England team.
No one else even thinks about it.

i'm not disagreeing with that bhav , just saying I think that's why he keeps getting picked

[Arthur Crabtree]

In both scenario Bopara is not in the best 11 at the moment.

I think most are saying that. But most sides would like a sixth bowling option. Just one that more or less gets in the side for the batting anyway. Potentially Stokes or Patel for example. Most England batters offer no bowling at all. Other sides have a few batters who can at least bowl a little.

[Making_Splinters]

Well tough luck Injuries happen Literally only 2 teams are obsessed with 6-7 bowlers in ODI Pakistan and this new England team.

Nonsense, Australia played 7 bowlers against England last match, infact most teams have at least 6 players who can bowl in the side.

[rich1uk]

Well tough luck Injuries happen Literally only 2 teams are obsessed with 6-7 bowlers in ODI Pakistan and this new England team.

Nonsense, Australia played 7 bowlers against England last match, infact most teams have at least 6 players who can bowl in the side.

they are not really picking anyone who is a liability with the bat to give them those options tho

[Dr Cricket]

Well tough luck Injuries happen Literally only 2 teams are obsessed with 6-7 bowlers in ODI Pakistan and this new England team.

Nonsense, Australia played 7 bowlers against England last match, infact most teams have at least 6 players who can bowl in the side.

yes but is the 6th bowler picked in the team for his bowling No.
Australia only got 7 bowlers because the All rounder get picked for their batting.
Watson Batsman first, Doesn't even bowl any more unless a major crisis.
Maxwell Batsman first, bowls a few over if needed.
M Marsh he the 5th bowler and is the all rounder pick.
Like I said before If any of the player above batting or main role in the team fails their will be out of the team.

I don't understand how anyone can say bopara should be in the team because of his bowling when in the current team he won't bowl and he isn't picking him self on the batting either right now.

In ODI you pick a team that can bowl 55 overs not 60 or more.
5 main bowlers and 1 part time bowler that can bowl few overs when needed.
or 4 main bowlers and 2-3 all rounder that can give the other 10 overs.
It is ridiculous to say Root can't be the 6th bowler.

I don't know any team that picks the batsman on bowling ability, I certainly never heard people say we need 6-7 bowlers just in case injuries happens.

Root
Ali
Broad
waokes
Finn
Anderson
is enough bowlers if Bopara batting form improves then he can be added to the list but he should not be guaranteed a spot in the team if he is not guaranteed to bowl overs.
Absolute ridiculous argument to defend Bopara inclusion in the side on the basis of his bowling just so he can be the 6th or 7th bowler in the team if he not performing with the bat.

I see no reason why England need's 7 bowlers in the team or the 6th bowler being defend because he can bowl.

No team ever picks an odi team with 6 bowlers in mind, if 6-7 bowlers happen that is because the batsman being picked can either bowl or are All rounders never in my life have I seen a team pick a batsman because he can bowl few overs as a 6th or 7th bowler if injuries happen.
Literally if bowling was crucial Yuvraj singh would have never been dropped considering india needs a bowler in the top 6 barring raina of course.

I will say it again if Bopara being picked/defended for his bowling then he need's to bowl more overs.
If he batting at 6 and not bowling he get picked/Attacked on his batting stats is bowling ability is irrelevant.

So crazy that people want 7 bowling options in a team that can only happen if you got 2-3 quality all rounders like Aus/NZ.

[Making_Splinters]

Well tough luck Injuries happen Literally only 2 teams are obsessed with 6-7 bowlers in ODI Pakistan and this new England team.

Nonsense, Australia played 7 bowlers against England last match, infact most teams have at least 6 players who can bowl in the side.

yes but is the 6th bowler picked in the team for his bowling No.
Australia only got 7 bowlers because the All rounder get picked for their batting.
Watson Batsman first, Doesn't even bowl any more unless a major crisis.
Maxwell Batsman first, bowls a few over if needed.
M Marsh he the 5th bowler and is the all rounder pick.
Like I said before If any of the player above batting or main role in the team fails their will be out of the team.

I don't understand how anyone can say bopara should be in the team because of his bowling when in the current team he won't bowl and he isn't picking him self on the batting either right now.

In ODI you pick a team that can bowl 55 overs not 60 or more.
5 main bowlers and 1 part time bowler that can bowl few overs when needed.
or 4 main bowlers and 2-3 all rounder that can give the other 10 overs.
It is ridiculous to say Root can't be the 6th bowler.

I don't know any team that picks the batsman on bowling ability, I certainly never heard people say we need 6-7 bowlers just in case injuries happens.

Root
Ali
Broad
waokes
Finn
Anderson
is enough bowlers if Bopara batting form improves then he can be added to the list but he should not be guaranteed a spot in the team if he is not guaranteed to bowl overs.
Absolute ridiculous argument to defend Bopara inclusion in the side on the basis of his bowling just so he can be the 6th or 7th bowler in the team if he not performing with the bat.

I see no reason why England need's 7 bowlers in the team or the 6th bowler being defend because he can bowl.

No team ever picks an odi team with 6 bowlers in mind, if 6-7 bowlers happen that is because the batsman being picked can either bowl or are All rounders never in my life have I seen a team pick a batsman because he can bowl few overs as a 6th or 7th bowler if injuries happen.
Literally if bowling was crucial Yuvraj singh would have never been dropped considering india needs a bowler in the top 6 barring raina of course.

I will say it again if Bopara being picked/defended for his bowling then he need's to bowl more overs.
If he batting at 6 and not bowling he get picked/Attacked on his batting stats is bowling ability is irrelevant.

So crazy that people want 7 bowling options in a team that can only happen if you got 2-3 quality all rounders like Aus/NZ.

If none of Australia's batsmen could bowl would they pick the same side? No.

In an ODI side you need a minimum of 6 bowling options, ideally 7. It would be plain daft to go into an ODI with only 5 bowling options, because if anyone has a bad day you're stuffed. England are in a bit of an odd position because unlike most of the major sides, our batsmen tend not to bowl. This is mainly because in English conditions you rarely need to go to back up plan 2 or 3, it's been a big issue in the Test side in the post Flintoff years.

Bopara, or a player like him, is a necessity in the England team, as we simply don't really have batsmen you can throw the ball to and expect a decent 6 balls most games.

When most, if not all, major teams have 6 or 7 bowling options in them, I'd suggest your argument doesn't hold much water.