England A in South Africa 2015.

[Dr Cricket]

David Willey was out injured for most of the season last year got one of those injuries where it can take 18-24 months to really heal and get back into proper bowling long term.
I believe England get most players test each year on lots of things and his injuries and probably other information stopped him getting picked just in the same way Spinners in England are picked on the Rev meter and not Stats or County performances well that what the guy in Loughbouragh said in the Lunchtime feature on Sky Sports.

David willey is probably not fit enough to bowl lots of overs for England or England lions.
Good talent though can hit quick runs, bowl good pace and left arm but he probably more number 8 especially considering england don't really have a strong/settled top 6 to take a risk on Willey, Woakes, Broad, Finn, Anderson lower order.
Number 7 is always a problematic spot since you want it to be Full time bowler but if he can't bat well batting becomes weak and collapse can happen like recent india batting scorecards.

[rich1uk]

David Willey was out injured for most of the season last year got one of those injuries where it can take 18-24 months to really heal and get back into proper bowling long term.
I believe England get most players test each year on lots of things and his injuries and other information stopped him getting picked just in the same way Spinners in England are picked on the Rev meter and not Stats or County performances.

David willey is probably not fit enough to bowl lots of overs for England or England lions.
Good talent though can hit quick runs, bowl good pace and left arm but he probably more number 8 especially considering england don't really have a strong/settled top 6 to take a risk on Willey, Woakes, Broad, Finn, Anderson lower order.
Number 7 is always a problematic spot since you want it to be Full time bowler but if he can't bat well batting becomes weak and collapse can happen like recent india batting scorecards.

injuries aside , and I don't know how he is atm, he is more the type of player you want coming in at #7 and scoring quick 30s and 40s than bopara will ever be and he wouldn't be bowling 10 overs every game anyway

but if he isn't 100% fit then its a moot point

[Arthur Crabtree]

Willey often opens in T20 for N'hants, with good results. He batted and bowled last season, but if not fully fit, then England were right to wait before giving him a chance. He might have been useful as a left armer and an all rounder. He wouldn't get in the England side without playing for the Lions first.

[Making_Splinters]

Yes they would.
Watson would be in the team,
maxwell would still be in it.
Mitch marsh probably not but then again he is the 5th bowler in the team.

The fact is if you haven't got 6 or 7 bowlers that can still provide strong batting then you don't pick them quite simple really.
Got a point on the bowling abilities since most batsman in Sri lanka, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, West indies can bowl and probably England batsman not got the same ability especially if Cook Bowling is too go by anything.

My point was Team sticking with a batsman on bad form or not being good enough because he can bowl overs when he probably not gonna bowl at all or many overs probably makes it easier for other teams since most teams have 2-3 batsman or replacement that can all bowl.

Although not sure conditions is the big factor since bowling in First class cricket shouldn't make batsman turn to bowlers, I got a theory it is between 16-21 the difference many batsman in England probably specialize and stop bowling if their bowling is average or decent whereas in other countries they continue to bowl far longer into their career and only specialize when their reach first class or early twenties.
Sub C Heat, Pitches and because the number of games their will play means all 11 or at least 7-8 bowlers are used in games or in Nets so batsman are probably far more ahead in bowling then english counterparts.
Australia generally in Club Cricket and youth cricket most people are still bowling.
Not sure on SA but they generally got batsman bowling decent Spin so they must have had lots of overs under the belt during those years.


My Argument wasn't on 6-7 bowling options but on Teams making the batting order weaker to accommodate 6-7 bowling options.
Very silly to have many bowlers if batting is getting weaker as a result.
I find the argument to pick a batsman in the team because he can bowl 1 or 2 overs silly.

Sorry, but I simply can't agree with that. Which major team does not play at least 6 bowling options? In England most batsmen don't bowl when they hit their professional career, it's a big issue. You have to have players who can bowl one or two overs, otherwise you get very stuck when one of your bowlers has a bad day. If you don't have a couple of batsmen who fill that role then you need to pick a player who can do it. I'm willing to be corrected, but I can't think off the top of my head of a first choice ODI side that only plays five bowling options.

[Dr Cricket]

http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.uk/Cr ... story.html
it was bad injury So he probably managing his workload, I don't remember him having a great season last year was quite average with the ball when he did bowl and didn't really score runs with the bat.
Got potential though but understandable if he didn't get picked.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think he got a ton opening in a T20 game, from memory.

Agree with Splinters on a sixth bowler. It was something that exposed England for a long time. But like any other selection, it's to do with judgement and resources. In my view, England stuck with Ravi too long. But as I suggested earlier, he was just one of many underachievers, and to some extent he was like a body hidden on a battlefield.

[rich1uk]

what you are saying is fine in theory M-S, and a theory I actually agree with, but in practice we are selecting a guy who does not justify his spot with his batting alone just to have a 6th bowling option that we aren't even using given we are also picking 5 frontline bowlers , and yes I am classing ali as a frontline bowler based on what he has done over the last year in tests and ODIs

[Arthur Crabtree]

Moeen is still an allrounder though, so he does influence what other decisions are available to balance the side. Like Flintoff did. He more or less gets in as a batter and a bowler. He should really allow for some bowling variety. In a way, his ability is being squandered if he doesn't.

[rich1uk]

Moeen is still an allrounder though, so he does influence what other decisions are available to balance the side. Like Flintoff did. He more or less gets in as a batter and a bowler. He should really allow for some bowling variety. In a way, his ability is being squandered if he doesn't.

not arguing with that AC , more that his bowling has been to a standard that he is going to be bowling his full ten overs more often than not , and with him + 4 specialist seamers it reduces the need for a 6th bowler, especially a 6th bowler who isn't adding anything with the bat

[Dr Cricket]

Yes they would.
Watson would be in the team,
maxwell would still be in it.
Mitch marsh probably not but then again he is the 5th bowler in the team.

The fact is if you haven't got 6 or 7 bowlers that can still provide strong batting then you don't pick them quite simple really.
Got a point on the bowling abilities since most batsman in Sri lanka, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, West indies can bowl and probably England batsman not got the same ability especially if Cook Bowling is too go by anything.

My point was Team sticking with a batsman on bad form or not being good enough because he can bowl overs when he probably not gonna bowl at all or many overs probably makes it easier for other teams since most teams have 2-3 batsman or replacement that can all bowl.

Although not sure conditions is the big factor since bowling in First class cricket shouldn't make batsman turn to bowlers, I got a theory it is between 16-21 the difference many batsman in England probably specialize and stop bowling if their bowling is average or decent whereas in other countries they continue to bowl far longer into their career and only specialize when their reach first class or early twenties.
Sub C Heat, Pitches and because the number of games their will play means all 11 or at least 7-8 bowlers are used in games or in Nets so batsman are probably far more ahead in bowling then english counterparts.
Australia generally in Club Cricket and youth cricket most people are still bowling.
Not sure on SA but they generally got batsman bowling decent Spin so they must have had lots of overs under the belt during those years.


My Argument wasn't on 6-7 bowling options but on Teams making the batting order weaker to accommodate 6-7 bowling options.
Very silly to have many bowlers if batting is getting weaker as a result.
I find the argument to pick a batsman in the team because he can bowl 1 or 2 overs silly.

Sorry, but I simply can't agree with that. Which major team does not play at least 6 bowling options? In England most batsmen don't bowl when they hit their professional career, it's a big issue. You have to have players who can bowl one or two overs, otherwise you get very stuck when one of your bowlers has a bad day. If you don't have a couple of batsmen who fill that role then you need to pick a player who can do it. I'm willing to be corrected, but I can't think off the top of my head of a first choice ODI side that only plays five bowling options.

Well India since none of the batsman are picked on Bowling not even Raina.
Like I said I doubt many teams even think about batsman bowling overs since for many nations most of the batsman can bowl overs so it is quite easy to find overs might not be the case with England but still silly to weaken batting for few overs that are never really going to be bowled and if they were no guarantees their would have been less expensive than front line bowlers.
Sri lanka got Dilshan, Mathews both picked on batting.
Australia literally the entire team/squad can bowl apart from Haddin.
SA only really duminy been picked because of his bowling but even then he would get in because of his batting, Faf can bowl over.

I will say this again no teams picks batsman because their can bowl it just happen to be that they can bowl and most times their will never bowl even if bowlers are having shockers.
Never seen Tendulkar, Ganguly, Sehwag, Yuvi ( early days) bowl overs when one or two indian pace bowlers were having a shocker and I got to be honest can't exactly remember many injuries in odi games where india had to cover 7-10 overs.
Most of the time when bowlers get hit the captain will never bowl part time bowlers since they probably get whacked for more runs especially at the death overs.

When was the last time a front line bowler bowled less than 10 overs so rare at best a front line bowler will never bowl less than 7 overs in a full completed 50 over innings.
Captain/Dhoni mights bowl a few overs of part time in quiet overs so BK or Ishant doesn't have to bowl in the death which he often does in India or pitches that are flat overseas or to give Captain more options at the death and Batting team not expecting/knowing the death bowlers.

You really don't need the 6th or 7th bowling option to bowl more than 3 overs and in most cases Team only have one 6th bowler with the 7th or 8th never being used.
Aus never use Warner, finch, Clarke, Smith because they happy with Watson/Mitch/maxwell being the part time bowlers.
India never use Rohit Sharma, or the batsman mentioned above were stopped being used when Yuvi become a decent bowler.

Fact is I be totally surprised if Captains/Selectors pick front line batsman on Bowling, the 7th or 6th batsman might get bowling abilities considered but if his batting is not good enough or in bad form he will be dropped and replaced by someone else.

Having 7 bowling option is too much especially if having them makes batting weaker.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Moeen is still an allrounder though, so he does influence what other decisions are available to balance the side. Like Flintoff did. He more or less gets in as a batter and a bowler. He should really allow for some bowling variety. In a way, his ability is being squandered if he doesn't.

not arguing with that AC , more that his bowling has been to a standard that he is going to be bowling his full ten overs more often than not , and with him + 4 specialist seamers it reduces the need for a 6th bowler, especially a 6th bowler who isn't adding anything with the bat

I don't really go along with the view that bowling has always to be pared back to the advantage of the batting. I know it's less of an issue than in Tests, but having options with the ball is useful in some situations, especially with no prior knowledge whether you'll be batting first or second, and when different options are useful across the life of the ball... On some pitches, in bowling friendly conditions, five main bowlers are enough. But not always, especially on a good batting pitch. In Perth, or a cloudy day in Nottingham, having more than five could be pointless.

[Making_Splinters]

Yes they would.
Watson would be in the team,
maxwell would still be in it.
Mitch marsh probably not but then again he is the 5th bowler in the team.

The fact is if you haven't got 6 or 7 bowlers that can still provide strong batting then you don't pick them quite simple really.
Got a point on the bowling abilities since most batsman in Sri lanka, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, West indies can bowl and probably England batsman not got the same ability especially if Cook Bowling is too go by anything.

My point was Team sticking with a batsman on bad form or not being good enough because he can bowl overs when he probably not gonna bowl at all or many overs probably makes it easier for other teams since most teams have 2-3 batsman or replacement that can all bowl.

Although not sure conditions is the big factor since bowling in First class cricket shouldn't make batsman turn to bowlers, I got a theory it is between 16-21 the difference many batsman in England probably specialize and stop bowling if their bowling is average or decent whereas in other countries they continue to bowl far longer into their career and only specialize when their reach first class or early twenties.
Sub C Heat, Pitches and because the number of games their will play means all 11 or at least 7-8 bowlers are used in games or in Nets so batsman are probably far more ahead in bowling then english counterparts.
Australia generally in Club Cricket and youth cricket most people are still bowling.
Not sure on SA but they generally got batsman bowling decent Spin so they must have had lots of overs under the belt during those years.


My Argument wasn't on 6-7 bowling options but on Teams making the batting order weaker to accommodate 6-7 bowling options.
Very silly to have many bowlers if batting is getting weaker as a result.
I find the argument to pick a batsman in the team because he can bowl 1 or 2 overs silly.

Sorry, but I simply can't agree with that. Which major team does not play at least 6 bowling options? In England most batsmen don't bowl when they hit their professional career, it's a big issue. You have to have players who can bowl one or two overs, otherwise you get very stuck when one of your bowlers has a bad day. If you don't have a couple of batsmen who fill that role then you need to pick a player who can do it. I'm willing to be corrected, but I can't think off the top of my head of a first choice ODI side that only plays five bowling options.

Well India since none of the batsman are picked on Bowling not even Raina.
Like I said I doubt many teams even think about batsman bowling overs since for many nations most of the batsman can bowl overs so it is quite easy to find overs might not be the case with England but still silly to weaken batting for few overs that are never really going to be bowled and if they were no guarantees their would have been less expensive than front line bowlers.
Sri lanka got Dilshan, Mathews both picked on batting.
Australia literally the entire team/squad can bowl apart from Haddin.
SA only really duminy been picked because of his bowling but even then he would get in because of his batting, Faf can bowl over.

I will say this again no teams picks batsman because their can bowl it just happen to be that they can bowl and most times their will never bowl even if bowlers are having shockers.
Never seen Tendulkar, Ganguly, Sehwag, Yuvi ( early days) bowl overs when one or two indian pace bowlers were having a shocker and I got to be honest can't exactly remember many injuries in odi games where india had to cover 7-10 overs.
Most of the time when bowlers get hit the captain will never bowl part time bowlers since they probably get whacked for more runs especially at the death overs.

When was the last time a front line bowler bowled less than 10 overs so rare at best a front line bowler will never bowl less than 7 overs in a full completed 50 over innings.
Captain/Dhoni mights bowl a few overs of part time in quiet overs so BK or Ishant doesn't have to bowl in the death which he often does in India or pitches that are flat overseas or to give Captain more options at the death and Batting team not expecting/knowing the death bowlers.

You really don't need the 6th or 7th bowling option to bowl more than 3 overs and in most cases Team only have one 6th bowler with the 7th or 8th never being used.
Aus never use Warner, finch, Clarke, Smith because they happy with Watson/Mitch/maxwell being the part time bowlers.
India never use Rohit Sharma, or the batsman mentioned above were stopped being used when Yuvi become a decent bowler.

Fact is I be totally surprised if Captains/Selectors pick front line batsman on Bowling, the 7th or 6th batsman might get bowling abilities considered but if his batting is not good enough or in bad form he will be dropped and replaced by someone else.

Having 7 bowling option is too much especially if having them makes batting weaker.

But, batsmen like Raina can bowl respectable overs. You seem to be missing the point here, no team goes in to an ODI without at least 6 players who can bowl, in fact I'd say the majority go in with 7.

You can't simply say, oh well we'll just pick five bowling options and to hell with it. For the umpteenth time, English batsmen don't keep their bowling up, so unlike most sides we don't have front line batsmen who can fill in the overs. This means in order to have enough bowling options in the side we have to fit in an additional all rounder. If we had a couple of batsmen who could bowl to a respectable standard then we wouldn't be picking players like Bopara.

[rich1uk]

Moeen is still an allrounder though, so he does influence what other decisions are available to balance the side. Like Flintoff did. He more or less gets in as a batter and a bowler. He should really allow for some bowling variety. In a way, his ability is being squandered if he doesn't.

not arguing with that AC , more that his bowling has been to a standard that he is going to be bowling his full ten overs more often than not , and with him + 4 specialist seamers it reduces the need for a 6th bowler, especially a 6th bowler who isn't adding anything with the bat

I don't really go along with the view that bowling has always to be pared back to the advantage of the batting. I know it's less of an issue than in Tests, but having options with the ball is useful in some situations, especially with no prior knowledge whether you'll be batting first or second, and when different options are useful across the life of the ball... On some pitches, in bowling friendly conditions, five main bowlers are enough. But not always, especially on a good batting pitch. In Perth, or a cloudy day in Nottingham, having more than five could be pointless.

but the part I have bolded there isn't what we are doing

we aren't making a conscious choice to weaken the batting to give us a stronger bowling lineup as bopara is nothing more than an emergency bowler

[Arthur Crabtree]

But that is why he is there. They've maybe lost faith in the selection plan. No one thinks Ravi gets in the team for the batting alone.

[Making_Splinters]

If we got someone like Vince into the ODI side then we could easily not play the likes of Bopara, it's not about having someone who is a batting allrounder, but having someone who is better than being a part timer.