Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Cricinfo has England lining up with five seamers and one spinner tomorrow.

Which would be a shame.

Why so, AC?

I must say, I think the scheduling has been better than usual this summer. I prefer having the ODI series before the tests, I don't know why they stopped doing that - provides a nice appetiser. And lining up Ireland and SA in advance of the CT just makes sense.

Still, they're reverting to form next summer with Pakistan arriving in early May to clash with the IPL, and no doubt freeze themselves to death somewhere Oop North (I swear they schedule games in Leeds and Durham in May on purpose to mess with visiting teams from hot climates).

To me loading the team up with pace options is the big tell of English cricket's insecurity and reflex traditionalism. They always do it when unsure what to do, and it rarely works. They don't need five pace options. Wood, Willey and Plunkett don't all demand places, and can easily be cut down to two with little loss. The ODI side has been doing well enough lately to not need to seek comfort in conformity. This is what England did in the WC in India in 2013 and we thought never again. Four pace bowlers is already a pace heavy attack. Five is neurosis.

Just remembering Mumbai last winter when England took the field with four pace bowlers on a pitch with nothing for them. And pace on either side took 3/30 wickets.

Having both Moeen and Stokes does open up the options a bit. But I take it you'd prefer three pacers, Stokes, Moeen and Rashid? That's probably a fair call.

Just stirring the pot a bit, you could go in with three pacers, Stokes and one of Moeen/Rashid, to make room for Bairstow (or Billings), and rely on the five bowlers to send down 10 each, with Root as backup. But that seems unnecessary given the strength in depth of the batting already and the availability of so many allrounders.

Bit odd taking five quicks into a game ...if they actually do. I agree with Arthur it does seem like severe overkill and I'd be astonished if they were to persist with such a plan when the serious stuff starts.

However I guess the other point to remember is that these games are essentially practice matches for the Champions - and as such they are likely to do a bit of experimenting to try and work out the best combination of bowlers. Sure it is a serious set of matches against a top class opponent ; but honestly , will anyone care in a years time who won a three match ODI series as against success or otherwise for England in the CT ?

alfie wrote:However I guess the other point to remember is that these games are essentially practice matches for the Champions - and as such they are likely to do a bit of experimenting to try and work out the best combination of bowlers. Sure it is a serious set of matches against a top class opponent ; but honestly , will anyone care in a years time who won a three match ODI series as against success or otherwise for England in the CT ?

Fair enough but England do have a settled side and there's not much to learn about it other than current form. Maybe Wood needs a game. Last summer when they wanted to try another pace bowler, they left out a pace bowler, usually Willey.

bigfluffylemon wrote: But that seems unnecessary given the strength in depth of the batting already and the availability of so many allrounders.

I think I remember among the lessons learned from previous ODI disasters that having bowling options is a big advantage. And an advantage England have in particular because of the all rounders- Woakes and Rashid have done well with the bat in ODIs, as well as the improving Stokes. This feels to me another conditioned response. I'm certain that as soon as England get bowled out for a low score the Sky commentators will be calling for a batter in for a bowler. I can hear Hussain saying it. Get Johnny Bairstow in. Whereas the problem will have been that the batters they did pick, failed. And another batter picked is no guarantee of a different outcome.

If England do think they need more batting (they bat down to 10 or 11 and have recognised bats down to seven) they could look at Mo who bowls economically, but hasn't made the runs. Though he did ok in India. So they could either promote Woakes to seven and see Mo as more of a spinner-batter, or look for another orthodox spin all rounder, like Dawson or even Livingstone (I think he no longer bowls leg spin?). But that's for the future.

SA have put us in.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote: But that seems unnecessary given the strength in depth of the batting already and the availability of so many allrounders.

I think I remember among the lessons learned from previous ODI disasters that having bowling options is a big advantage. And an advantage England have in particular because of the all rounders- Woakes and Rashid have done well with the bat in ODIs, as well as the improving Stokes. This feels to me another conditioned response. I'm certain that as soon as England get bowled out for a low score the Sky commentators will be calling for a batter in for a bowler. I can hear Hussain saying it. Get Johnny Bairstow in. Whereas the problem will have been that the batters they did pick, failed. And another batter picked is no guarantee of a different outcome.

having another bowler is also no guarantee of a different outcome

England going in a pace bowler light.

to me this is our best team with the possible argument that Willey is unlucky to miss out

6 genuine bowling options and 7 frontline batsmen, cant ask for much more than that

Me also, give or take any two from Wood, Willey and Plunkett. I'm not sure any two are ahead of the other.

Very surprised Willey isn't playing.

Aidan11 wrote:Very surprised Willey isn't playing.

me too tbh, for ages we talked about wanting a left arm seamer in the limited overs team and we find one that takes regular wickets up front but there seems to be more of a focus on his limitations late in the innings than what he does with the new ball