Rebuilding for the next World Cup.

[Dr Cricket]

I don't think England can just pick their "Best Team" because we have no idea what that is. We need to be taking chances, getting guys like Roy, Billings and Vince into the side and seeing what they can do at the top level.

Of course that is why England did bad in this World Cup they had no idea of their best squad let alone team.
But I really was talking in generic terms since it really shouldn't take more than 6-10 months to find the best team or squad of players.
Just winning games and series would solve that.
My comment was more based on test match players missing far too many odi because of resting or not playing away odis.

This causes so much problem since the players that are supposedly in the best team 2 years ago or generally the experienced test players are usually so inexperienced in the one day game.
Broad, Anderson, even Bell hardly played much in the last 3-4 years in odi compared to other players.
Bowlers in particularly were very inexperienced guessing broad and Anderson just couldn't bowl effective odi lengths since they just hardly play the format and are more use to test match length.

Also they seem to be so undroppable and picked on test form, even now broad and Anderson are not even gonna get dropped.

[bigfluffylemon]

Guardian has an article about who could be in the England ODI set-up going forward. Vince, Roy, Billings, Rashid, Footitt, etc. The question is whether the England management will do what they should do and jettison the dead wood now, and use the next few ODI series to blood some new players, or keep hanging on to the old guard just to try and prove that they were right all along.

Out of the current players, Root, Taylor, Buttler, Jordan, Moeen, Woakes and Hales should form the nucleus of the side going forwards, as they all have clear potential.

Bell has flattered to deceive since being promoted to opener, much as he has throughout his entire ODI career. The stats will show that since being promoted to open he's had a pretty decent average, but his strike rate hasn't been good enough, and more importantly when the innings are placed in context they just aren't good enough. Against Bangladesh he may have got 50, but it was a slow, painful innings and he got out at a terrible time. He will be too old to go to the next World Cup, so we should move on from him now.

Sad to say, Anderson's time should also be up. It will be very tempting to keep picking him in England, and in 2011-2012 he was one of the best ODI bowlers going, but his workload is clearly dragging him down. We need to save him for tests. He will also be too old to go to the next WC.

Broad can still come back and undoubtedly has the talent to do so, but he seems jaded. He really needs time away from the England set up.

Bopara has been brought to three world cups and has been in and out of the England set up for eight years without ever making a place his own. It's time we recognise that he's just not international class.

Morgan's position is untenable too.

A team for the future could be:

Hales
Roy
Taylor
Root
Ali/Rashid
Stokes
Buttler
Woakes
Jordan
Finn - in the absence of better options
Footitt/Gurney - need a leftie

With Billings and Vince as other possible batsmen, and Broad as a possible comeback kid.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think that Guardian team was for the Ireland match, given the Test players will be unavailable. As others are suggesting, I think we should look at a big squad, which gets a good chance over the next two years. I'm not that convinced by the old argument that you have to play hundreds of ODIs to be any good. As was said of Monty (probably erroneously) some will play the same game many times. Great players just happen to have played lots of games for obvious reasons.

You often hear that Luke Fletcher is the best county finisher with the ball, so shouldn't he be tried? As well as proper pace options. Was he not considered because no one wanted to photograph him in his pants?

[bigfluffylemon]

I think that Guardian team was for the Ireland match, given the Test players will be unavailable. As others are suggesting, I think we should look at a big squad, which gets a good chance over the next two years. I'm not that convinced by the old argument that you have to play hundreds of ODIs to be any good. As was said of Monty (probably erroneously) some will play the same game many times. Great players just happen to have played lots of games for obvious reasons.

You often hear that Luke Fletcher is the best county finisher with the ball, so shouldn't he be tried? As well as proper pace options. Was he not considered because no one wanted to photograph him in his pants?

I agree that we should look at a big squad. I was just considering the immediate future. I think we should be identifying 20-30 players over the next two years who have the potential, and then ensure that they each get the chance at home and away. It will require a different way of thinking:

Acceptance that results in short term bilateral ODI series don't matter than much
Related to the above, the possibility that we won't pick our 'strongest' XI for every game, but are picking with an eye to the future
Player rotation becoming the norm - a player who is not in a particular squad is not necessarily 'dropped', but rotated. This means that there needs to be much greater integration of the Lions and England squads, so that players are rotating between the two and getting that experience.
Giving the identified players the chance to play in IPL or BBL and the like would also be advantageous.

[Arthur Crabtree]

It can't be ignored that people spend £70 to watch ODIs. Presumably not just to get drunk with people from work. I used to watch the home ODI every year, and you'd get a bit of a sinking feeling when you'd hear a favourite player wasn't playing. Freddie was that sort of player, or KP. These are players people pay to see. And Sky expect competitive teams to be put out.

At the moment, I think Buttler is the only player England have with that sort of attraction (Moeen is probably just me), though local players will be popular. But in time, new stars will emerge. And it's difficult to justify withholding these players from the public. And we know, after a defeat, the Botham/Boycott tendency will be using a long term strategy to criticise short term failure. Inevitably, a balance has to be found.

[ianp1970]

I think I paid £75 at Birmingham for the ODI versus Sri Lanka last summer. I would suggest that at least half the seats were taken up by blocks of schoolkids from the surrounding area (at least one such group was from 25 miles to the east)

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'd still go to ODIs. The reason I stopped was a sort of protest against the ECB taking Tests off SA to award ODIs to Australia. Subsequently, I lost my feeling of goodwill generally. Now, Downton is talking about prioritising ODIs even more. I think it's a blind alley. You need a smart team, more than a weary team with more JAMODIs in them.

[ianp1970]

Why not play home ODIs before the tests, or in a tri-series with both touring parties. That would also allow some of the peripheral grounds to stage matches each year...

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think the schedule is determined by maximising profit, mainly.

Grounds don't want to put on the neutral games you get in a tri-series.

[ianp1970]

I think the schedule is determined by maximising profit, mainly.

I think they have ODIs second as it takes a lot less time for a couple of warm up one day matches, rather than having a fortnight gap to fit in the same amount of first class games.

Grounds don't want to put on the neutral games you get in a tri-series.

Fair enough, seems to happen elsewhere though. Maybe the ECB should 'encourage' the grounds...

[bigfluffylemon]

It can't be ignored that people spend £70 to watch ODIs. Presumably not just to get drunk with people from work. I used to watch the home ODI every year, and you'd get a bit of a sinking feeling when you'd hear a favourite player wasn't playing. Freddie was that sort of player, or KP. These are players people pay to see. And Sky expect competitive teams to be put out.

At the moment, I think Buttler is the only player England have with that sort of attraction (Moeen is probably just me), though local players will be popular. But in time, new stars will emerge. And it's difficult to justify withholding these players from the public. And we know, after a defeat, the Botham/Boycott tendency will be using a long term strategy to criticise short term failure. Inevitably, a balance has to be found.

So stop bloody charging so much. I got in to Australia-England at the MCG for $60 AUD (about £35 at the current exchange rate), and smaller grounds or lesser teams I can get a general admission ticket for $20 (£12). Australian grounds and the team don't suffer (although grounds like the MCG make up for individual ticket price with quantity, Perth, Hobart, Canberra and the like are a similar size and capacity to Edgbaston and Trent Bridge). And bugger Sky. Cricket should be on free-to-air anyway. Again, it is in Australia, and New Zealand, and their team doesn't seem to suffer from the presumably lower revenue.

It's the bottom line mentality. Short term profits over long term health of the team and the game. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a significant proportion of England's problems in the last few years are due to player burnout from a relentless schedule designed to squeeze as much money out of the punters as possible and justify an enormous contract with Sky. How exactly has all this money benefitted the England team? Where does it all go, anyway? Grass roots, shareholders, Downton's bonus?

[bigfluffylemon]

I think the schedule is determined by maximising profit, mainly.

Grounds don't want to put on the neutral games you get in a tri-series.

Too right it is.

Grounds shouldn't get the choice. If they want England in international games, they have to pay their dues with other fixtures.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Well, of course I agree with your post bfl I'm just saying, these are the counter pressures. The ECB deals in the short term.

[bigfluffylemon]

Well, of course I agree with your post bfl I'm just saying, these are the counter pressures. The ECB deals in the short term.

Thanks Arthur, sorry to have sounded a bit aggressive. It's my frustration with the way English cricket is run. You are quite right that the ECB deals in short term, and short term profits.

[sussexpob]

Cricket should be on free-to-air anyway. Again, it is in Australia, and New Zealand, and their team doesn't seem to suffer from the presumably lower revenue.

It's the bottom line mentality. Short term profits over long term health of the team and the game. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a significant proportion of England's problems in the last few years are due to player burnout from a relentless schedule designed to squeeze as much money out of the punters as possible and justify an enormous contract with Sky. How exactly has all this money benefitted the England team? Where does it all go, anyway? Grass roots, shareholders, Downton's bonus?

I think much of the money is divided up to keep the county system from collapsing into financial ruin, and its easy to see why England are unique in this system... 12 extra teams compared to Australia, that's a lot of extra mouths to feed, coaches to pay, grounds to keep running. I doubt without ECB handouts many counties would survive a summer, simply isn't enough money generated from 4 day cricket, so much more money is needed to be ploughed into the game.

It actually makes me laugh that, only 3 years ago there were fierce critics of the Australian state system being a crap model, and I remember at the time laughing and thinking "yeah, the model that has produced the consistently best teams when protracted over a long time is terrible"...... reactive rubbish, especially when an English system that had failed for decades in comparison had two good years and was suddenly being trumped as the best thing since sliced bread.

Sky's money is overrated too.... I think Sport England put more funding into the pot then Sky