England A in South Africa 2015.

[rich1uk]

and its that sort of attitude that we should pick someone who clearly isn't good enough just because he fulfils some theoretical role in the team is why we suck at ODIs

if you don't have the personnel to give yourself 7 bowling options then don't just pick someone who isn't good enough so you can tick a box on a strategy document

and certainly don't then exacerbate the problem by picking a squad with no other options so if they guy who has constantly underperformed in that theoretical role is even worse than usual you cant even replace him if you wanted to

[Arthur Crabtree]

I quite like the parameters Bhaves (I think) mentioned before of an acceptable all rounder. Someone who is one of the best ten batters and best ten bowlers. Unfortunately, Ravi qualifies on neither account. I quite like that flexibility for one position though, rather than just the old thing about being to get into the side for one of the disciplines.

[rich1uk]

I quite like the parameters Bhaves (I think) mentioned before of an acceptable all rounder. Someone who is one of the best ten batters and best ten bowlers. Unfortunately, Ravi qualifies on neither account. I quite like that flexibility for one position though, rather than just the old thing about being to get into the side for one of the disciplines.

I like that flexibility too AC , what I cant understand is when you have a player who has been as underwhelming as bopara in an England shirt why you don't pick at least someone else in the squad who can also give you that flexibility and as a result become committed to carrying him or compromising the flexibility you wanted in the first place

[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.

[Arthur Crabtree]

When Ravi was dropped/rested last summer there was a bit of an uproar. When everyone in the side pulls up just a little short, it becomes used as a reason to criticise any change. Why drop this man when that man is failing? There will be some performance or other that justifies selection in among the failures. And when the player is dropped, it becomes a reason why the team loses for the 'it's beyond me' crew when the team inevitably does no better. Much as I'd like him to have been successful, dropping Bopara was one of the things England got right. Others could have made way too.

Stokes was potentially one of those who may have been among the ten best at either discipline. But to be fair, he was unselectable after SL. Though (no one would have called this) he might have been better going to the Big Bash than the tour to SL.

[rich1uk]

I think when a guy has played 170 times at international level across all three formats the time to keep picking him based on what you think he is capable of rather than what he has actually contributed is long past

[Aidan11]

All I ask of the England management is that when they do select Stokes they play him in the right position.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Not sure Watson or Mitch3 get in for their batting. But they nearly get in for either discipline, which means having one of them is handy. Not sure the Aussies often pick both.

[rich1uk]

All I ask of the England management is that when they do select Stokes they play him in the right position.

and what is that ?

I still don't see how he can bat higher than 5 and even then you end up having to bat morgan and buttler at least one spot lower than I think they should be batting to accommodate him

[Dr Cricket]

I quite like the parameters Bhaves (I think) mentioned before of an acceptable all rounder. Someone who is one of the best ten batters and best ten bowlers. Unfortunately, Ravi qualifies on neither account. I quite like that flexibility for one position though, rather than just the old thing about being to get into the side for one of the disciplines.

I really said this for Test cricket since in Odi cricket Bit and pieces cricketers can be useful if their perform their role although if they get into bad form like Bopara is now it can be problematic for the balance of the side.
ODI cricket I would probably increase it to 20 especially with Team having to have at least 5 bowlers where as in test 4 is common.

Tough choice for the All rounder spot in ODI
Bopara (bad form, inconsistent)
Samit Patel should have played far more games rate him highly in ODI deserved more games for england
Stokes shocking year but not sure Cook/Selectors managed him well
Woakes probably not in the top 20 in the batting would be in the top 20 in Test but his batting is not suited for lower order batting and he not a kallis to bat at top 4 for England.
That all I can really think of in the team, all the rest are more suited to 8 than 7.

[Arthur Crabtree]

All I ask of the England management is that when they do select Stokes they play him in the right position.

As others have said, if you show a little in the small chance you get, you may get a better chance. Stokes wasn't offering enough. Though Samit made something of a minor role and was never promoted.

[rich1uk]

I quite like the parameters Bhaves (I think) mentioned before of an acceptable all rounder. Someone who is one of the best ten batters and best ten bowlers. Unfortunately, Ravi qualifies on neither account. I quite like that flexibility for one position though, rather than just the old thing about being to get into the side for one of the disciplines.

I really said this for Test cricket since in Odi cricket Bit and pieces cricketers can be useful if their perform their role although if they get into bad form like Bopara is now it can be problematic for the balance of the side.
ODI cricket I would probably increase it to 20 especially with Team having to have at least 5 bowlers where as in test 4 is common.

Tough choice for the All rounder spot in ODI
Bopara (bad form, inconsistent)
Samit Patel should have played far more games rate him highly in ODI deserved more games for england
Stokes shocking year but not sure Cook/Selectors managed him well
Woakes probably not in the top 20 in the batting would be in the top 20 in Test but his batting is not suited for lower order batting and he not a kallis to bat at top 4 for England.
That all I can really think of in the team, all the rest are more suited to 8 than 7.

david willey is the guy I cant understand why he hasn't at least been considered , not sure if he is injured but thought he should at least have been in the lions squad

[Arthur Crabtree]

[
I really said this for Test cricket since in Odi cricket Bit and pieces cricketers can be useful if their perform their role although if they get into bad form like Bopara is now it can be problematic for the balance of the side.
ODI cricket I would probably increase it to 20 especially with Team having to have at least 5 bowlers where as in test 4 is common.

.

Fair enough.

[Dr Cricket]

Not sure Watson or Mitch3 get in for their batting. But they nearly get in for either discipline, which means having one of them is handy. Not sure the Aussies often pick both.

Watson an odd one now because Watson doesn't want to be an all rounder/Bowl overs. Warne always said he was reluctant bowler never wants to bowl, Good handy bowler though sadly injuries have stopped him caring/wanting to bowl.
Selectors are supposedly happy to let him be a batsman but did say that his bowling performance won't be considered and he would have to perform with the bat one reason he been under pressure for his spot all summer in Test.
ODI I suspect the same things is being said to him especially with other bowlers and most aussies batsman can bowl Finch, Warner, Clarke actually only haddin can't bowl.

Mitch Marsh was seen as a Watson replacement and he been in good form with the bat and had good couple of tours/series with Australia A so he was picked so Watson didn't bowl many overs and batting stocks are not exactly high in Australia at the moment.
Not sure Mitchell marsh will play much Test cricket should play ODI not sure he in the top 10 bowlers in Australia or Top 10 batsman in Australia he might be in top 15 in batting but Bowling quite average.
But then again Australia are quite happy with a batsman averaging 35 so he might just do enough to be in the Team like Watson did for many years.

[Arthur Crabtree]

david willey is the guy I cant understand why he hasn't at least been considered , not sure if he is injured but thought he should at least have been in the lions squad

Yes, a bit mysterious. I wonder if England shouldn't have looked at a few more players. When Moores took over with the ODI side, the usual ECB friendly journos said that major changes were coming. But it was Moores that hung on to the failing players, especially Steely.

People say Luke Fletcher is the best death bowler in CC, but doesn't fit the body image. Maybe it would have been worth a try.