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

Another very one sided win. The openers rarely fail. Except against Scotland. Looks like JB2 was in a hurry.

Only one change today with Overton making his debut. A bit surprising as Ball has been in the squad the whole time, and one of the Currans has too.

So Arthur....which of bairstow, Roy or Hales are you dropping ?

I have no clue

Hales. A weak link in the field which is a fair decider. And he's last in, and in the side covering for injury.

Easily the nicest of the three to watch, in my opinion.

When he's in touch I agree that Hales is an elegant player to watch, but when he's struggling he looks absolutely terrible, like he doesn't know what a bat is for.

Can't we just go Stokes and Woakes for Willey and Wood? Doesn't half give us a strong batting line up with Rashid at 11.

Feels like your weakening the bowling at the expense of the batting, when it's the bowling that is weaker. But, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they do.

I guess the thinking is that if you score big who needs front line bowlers, and Stokes and Woakes at their best are probably a better pair of bowlers that Willey and Wood in any case.

You can only bat two at a time, and mostly the balls faced by the middle order will be squeezed by the more of them there are... Bowlers can be match winners too and a sixth option gives you flexibility. There's no right way, I accept. Woakes is arguably England's best ODI bowler, but I don't agree about Stokes being better than Willey and Wood. Stokes has a very bad ER and an unimpressive SR. If he was just a bowler he wouldn't be in the side. There's enough batting to accommodate a better bowler.

Woakes for Wood, Stokes for Root.... thats the changes Id make.

Think we bat so deep, we dont need a player who averages 50 at a lower SR. I honestly think Root might cost England runs in the long run when we have capable bats coming in all the way down to 11

Root's average and SR are about the same as MS Dhoni, just as a benchmark. Averages of 50+ in ODIs almost never happen.

Leaving out Root might seem attractive if you just look at run rates. But it is quite likely there will be times when a couple of early wickets go down and if that happens I want Root there to prevent a complete collapse ...plus he's a handy spare bowler and a damn good fielder...

Agree with Arthur that there is enough batting as it is : having a full set of bowlers is probably more important than letting Rashid move down to eleven ! What weaknesses they have are surely on the bowling side.

The question of which pace men should be selected remains open , I think. I'd certainly like Stokes in there ; but I'm not so sure I'd want him as one of just three quicks.

Must admit I'm a bit conflicted as I also like this 1-2-3 that are demolishing all bowlers at the moment...but you can't have everything. Suppose it comes down to a choice between Stokes at six or Hales at three ; probably doesn't matter too much whether Morgan and Buttler are one spot higher or lower - indeed many would prefer Buttler in as early as possible.

Whichever way they go it looks strong. Might be variations at the WC depending on pitches and opponents anyway...to say nothing of possible injuries.

A nicer selection problem to have than the usual

Not sure I would setup a team based on apparent failure of those around Root. We did that for years, and all we did was pick negative players who didnt have the capacity to play top level scoring. When England lose, Roots SR is in the 70s. That probably says a lot, if people fail and he plays an anchor innings, we lose anyway. And without looking at all those games to get a feel of it, that is probably the most positive interpretation. A more obvious conclusion would be that when Roots slightly inferior scoring ability comes to the fore, England lose.

The anchor role doesnt mean a great deal in ODIs anymore. Ok, you are chasing a small score on a bad wicket and you lose the top order, its ok to consolidate for a bit and try to grind down a target. If you are targetting 350, not matter what situation you find yourself in, you have to attack. There is no point coming in at 4 with 40/2 on the board in 10 overs and saying "damn, need to keep wickets in hand". You bat out 10 overs without a wicket and take the score to 80/2 in 20, you've basically batted yourself out of the game. Of course, the argument is then that you set a platform for your late hitters and back them to score 250 in 25 overs or someting in that region. Wouldnt you just be better to back scoring 310 in 40 overs?

I think once you calculate a teams combine average, and that combine average works out into a very positive number, you can forget an individuals contribution to that overall score. England's combined 11 probably average somewhere in the region of 350 when added together, but in striking ability it means you arent going to get there on average. You probably find that for 350 runs, you need about 400 balls on team average.

So the question then must be, how can we get those players to add their quick scoring for efficiency purposes? If Root scores 135 in 150 balls, approximately half an innings, with Plunkett (100 SR), Rashid (105SR), Stokes/Buttler not having batted to the point of getting out, then all he has achieved is creating an inefficiency.

But thats my idea on the game. Id literally send out people like Plunkett on 10 ball suicide missions. I want my team to lose wickets if it means all my batsman who can slog a few balls have gone out and done a job.

The obvious compromise would be to drop Morgan.

Root doesn't score 135 in 150 balls. He scores faster than that when he makes a big score. He has only three tons at under a run a ball. One was chasing a small target, one was with Hales who scored a hundred at the same rate, one didn't stop his side get to 300+ and a win. The old Trott case doesn't apply here. Root isn't batting England to defeats.

I suppose that having so many bowling options means that England can manage their workload. They don't all have to play all of the time, in fact it's probably quite rare that all of them are completely fit at the same time.

Not sure we need to be doing too much with the batting to try and fit them all in

I accept completely that if all were fit, Willey would be behind both Stokes and Woakes in the all-rounder pecking order