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

Slipstream wrote:

Alviro Patterson wrote:Vaughan's bowling attack is one spinner too many and one fast bowler too short. especially with Anderson and Broad being injury prone. Need a Rankin or Plunkett type figure in that 15 to accompany Finn.

Anderson isn't injury prone. His last injury was a side strain May 2011, missed 1 Test. Plunkett was injured in the summer and Rankin only played in 7 cc games last season.

Anderson seems to be picking up injuries in the last year, playing with a broken rib in The Ashes as well as his recent injury. Plunkett was close to playing County Cricket in September but wasn't risked.

The Anderson/Broad injury prone comments were more in reference to Vaughan's selection policy with only 5 pace bowlers selected, as opposed to player reliability. One injury to those bowlers and the bowling attack is considerably weakened, especially when half of England's bowlers in the 2011 World Cup got injured mid-tournament.

I doubt anyone will take more than five pace bowlers to the WC.

Vaughan isn't taking a left armer which was briefly considered de rigueur about six months ago.

Five plus Ravi in that squad.

Rankin would be a good pick. Apparently Ireland want to have him back for the WC.

South Africa have six pace bowlers in their ODI tour to Australia, which is probably the required number for Australia and New Zealand. Ideally five frontline bowlers are required in an ODI match, with two part-time options.

Ravi Bopara should never be considered as a bowling option other than to get rid of a few overs, like Joe Root and Moeen Ali.

Ravi has about as much a right to be called a bowler as a batter, based on his performances. But I'd probably argue he's neither.

You need two spinners. You might get a pitch where winning and losing depends on the spinners. And one spinner can get injured as easily as two spare pace bowlers. But it depends whether Moeen is seen as a full time spinner.

Anyway, Vaughan's squad is as likely to go as the one at the head of this thread.

Alviro Patterson wrote:Ideally five frontline bowlers are required in an ODI match, with two part-time options.

Add in a keeper and that only leaves 3 spots for batsmen only. On current selectorial thinking those would be: Cook, Hales and Morgan

Cook
Hales
Part-time (Ali/Root?)
Part-time (Ravi/Stokes?)
Morgan
Buttler
Bowler (Woakes/Jordan?)
Tredwell
Broad
Finn
Anderson

Even at a stretch, and mixing up the options, I cannot see us faring too well with that XI.

Although without recourse to KP and Swann, I couldn't pick a side that would give me any hope of reaching the semi-finals.

Stokes is an all-rounder, he can slot in at 7 nicely.

Cook, Hales, Ali, Root, Morgan, Buttler, Stokes, Broad, Tredwell, Finn, Anderson is relatively balanced.

Alviro Patterson wrote:Stokes is an all-rounder, he can slot in at 7 nicely.

Cook, Hales, Ali, Root, Morgan, Buttler, Stokes, Broad, Tredwell, Finn, Anderson is relatively balanced.

can see stokes being a real wicket taking threat in the middle overs aswell

i would maybe consider gurney for finn for that left arm variation and better death bowling

Alviro Patterson wrote:Stokes is an all-rounder, he can slot in at 7 nicely.

Cook, Hales, Ali, Root, Morgan, Buttler, Stokes, Broad, Tredwell, Finn, Anderson is relatively balanced.

That looks good to me.

backfootpunch wrote:

Alviro Patterson wrote:Stokes is an all-rounder, he can slot in at 7 nicely.

Cook, Hales, Ali, Root, Morgan, Buttler, Stokes, Broad, Tredwell, Finn, Anderson is relatively balanced.

can see stokes being a real wicket taking threat in the middle overs aswell

i would maybe consider gurney for finn for that left arm variation and better death bowling

yet Finn is in the top ten of the ODI rankings

England have few enough players in the top 10 of anything, to just discard one of them, I would have thought.

If you wanted Gurney as a leftie option, then Broad who doesn't even feature in the top 50, would have to make way, surely?

Durhamfootman wrote:.

If you wanted Gurney as a leftie option, then Broad who doesn't even feature in the top 50, would have to make way, surely?

although in fairness, leaving Broad out is probably a capital offence.

Durhamfootman wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:.

If you wanted Gurney as a leftie option, then Broad who doesn't even feature in the top 50, would have to make way, surely?

although in fairness, leaving Broad out is probably a capital offence.

broad , when fit, has been one of our better ODI bowlers, not sure his ICC ranking really reflects his place in our side given hes played fairly intermittently over the period the rankings reflect and has been carrying an injury during that time too

for me if he is 100% fit he is the first bowler on the team sheet

good answer. The NKVD wing of the ECB won't be knocking on your door in the middle of the night

Gurney doesn't get to play until he learns how to bat better than Stokes

or Broad bats better than Stokes

Durhamfootman wrote:good answer. The NKVD wing of the ECB won't be knocking on your door in the middle of the night

Gurney doesn't get to play until he learns how to bat better than Stokes

or Broad bats better than Stokes

my issue with gurney is I am not sure he is one of our best 5 or 6 bowlers , he just is seen to be the best option as a left arm seamer and for awhile now the England management have been fixated on having that option in our ODI sides

if they are so keen on a left arm seamer why not have a look at david payne , took 17 wickets @ 16 in the one day cup last year and a decent economy rate

Willey was in a squad once, before he got injured.