Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26th May 2015, 18:58   #41
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieh View Post
Taylor is a fine player, and given he captained in Ireland, seems destined for good things in the future. I think the feeling is, right now, he is not the iconic ODI player around whom to pin our hopes for a vastly improved World Cup showing in 2019.

Who is that player? The worrying thing is we don't have that answer, after the shambles the ODI squad became post World Cup. That will be Bayliss' most important first assignment, I would suggest. Candidates would be Stokes after his latest exploits, Buttler though he may need to give up keeping because of wear and tear, and Joe Root, although he is more in the mould of a test player than an ODI specialist.
I don't think we need an "iconic player", or someone in particular to "build our team around". It's blarney. We just need a really good team -- which will require strength in all departments.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 19:20   #42
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
No, I'm saying the side should be built around someone like Stokes, not someone like Taylor.

If you want to look at something (and judging someone on highlights might explain how the **** Bell-ended up opening as his shots that go for 4 look lovely and they don't show the preceding five balls all hit straight at fielders) then look at the scorecard from the domestic semi-final last year when Taylor and Stokes faced almost exactly the same number of balls.

And then look at who was man of the match again in the final.

And then get a wet fish and slap yourself round the face repeatedly until you stop coming up with such lunacy.

This team needs to be built around matchwinners like Stokes and Buttler and Hales and Roy. If that means Taylor doesn't make the cut, so be it.
I said to watch the highlights because there would be no point watching the whole game, just when Taylor was batting. If you want to be pedantic then I'll put it another way. Watch the next Notts game and watch Taylor's innings.

If you think that every player in an ODI team needs to be able to go mad from ball one then it is you who is being 'stupid' and talking 'lunacy.' If we learnt anything from the World Cup it is that we need explosive players, but we also need players like Taylor who can build an innings if he comes in with England 0-1.

If you have a team with Hales, Roy, Stokes and Buttler etc. then England will occasionally post 350 but they will be out for less than 150 just as many times.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 19:44   #43
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,665
I would agree with GBG here, whether or not you attach a label, such as iconic. It is like filling a barrel with rocks and stones. You have to put the big rocks in first, and then add the smaller ones to fill it up completely.

England have suffered from "needing" to include all the role players. Cook, was the captain, though he was not the "from the front" type of leader England require in ODIs. Ian Bell, similar story, and the way ODIs are now played, he is a luxury we probably can no longer afford. Even Broad and Anderson, fine bowlers that they are, may not be the ones we should be building around right now. Maybe they still fit around the core of the team.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 19:50   #44
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I don't think we need an "iconic player", or someone in particular to "build our team around". It's blarney. We just need a really good team -- which will require strength in all departments.
Your opinion is fair enough, but it is how you get to the "strength in all departments" that we may disagree on. England have to do a tear down and rebuild after the World Cup fiasco. Incremental change from the rubble of the ruins is not going to be the way forward. Maybe you dislike the word "iconic", misused and overused as it often is. Call the type of player in question an ODI specialist, if preferred.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 19:53   #45
Hector
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Southampton
Team(s): Deportivo Finance, Hampshire, Berkshire
Age: 38
Posts: 2,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieh View Post
Your opinion is fair enough, but it is how you get to the "strength in all departments" that we may disagree on. England have to do a tear down and rebuild after the World Cup fiasco. Incremental change from the rubble of the ruins is not going to be the way forward. Maybe you dislike the word "iconic", misused and overused as it often is. Call the type of player in question an ODI specialist, if preferred
Yes, the idea of strength in all departments is amusing because England obviously has a conveyor belt of talent that they conveniently ignored for the World Cup.
__________________
www.yahooovercowcorner.wordpress.com


@YahoooverCC
Hector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 19:57   #46
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,607
I probably would have Taylor in the team but yes, I would have Stokes' name on the teamsheet first. Slightly off topic here now, but I think the "Taylor should captain the ODI side" ship might have sailed. Morgan will do so for the time being, replaced by Root if and when the time is right.

I guess with the Moores' Laptop Captain's Form Annihilation Factor now removed, one hopes Morgan can return to the ODI side with less of a muddled head, so perhaps deserves a few more games to regain his mojo. If not, he should be discarded for good.

I'd probably not pick him again, but that decision has already been made.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 20:03   #47
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
If you think that every player in an ODI team needs to be able to go mad from ball one then it is you who is being 'stupid' and talking 'lunacy.'
I haven't said this at all.

Quote:
If we learnt anything from the World Cup it is that we need explosive players, but we also need players like Taylor who can build an innings if he comes in with England 0-1.
And my first choice for that role would be Joe Root not James Taylor.

Anyway, the only time Taylor has come in with England 0-1


Quote:
If you have a team with Hales, Roy, Stokes and Buttler etc. then England will occasionally post 350 but they will be out for less than 150 just as many times.
Like World Champions Australia were regularly out for less than 150 because their team had Warner, Finch, Watson and Maxwell batting in their top 6?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 20:25   #48
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Like World Champions Australia were regularly out for less than 150 because their team had Warner, Finch, Watson and Maxwell batting in their top 6?
They also had Clarke and Smith, both in the Taylor mould. Cast your mind back to England's first match of the WC campaign.

England need players like Stokes in the side, but they also need ones like Taylor.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 20:32   #49
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
They also had Clarke and Smith, both in the Taylor mould. Cast your mind back to England's first match of the WC campaign.

England need players like Stokes in the side, but they also need ones like Taylor.
England currently has Root and Morgan in the side, does it need Taylor at the expense of a Hales or Stokes?
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 20:33   #50
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Stokes definitely plays for me, although that doesn't necessarily mean no room for Taylor. A side of:

Roy
Hales
Taylor
Root
Stokes
Morgan
Buttler
Ali
Some bowlers

looks fine. Taylor can sod off down the order if we get a good start and Stokes can jump up. Taylor doesn't necessarily look like a man who's going to hit international attacks all over the place but he has an amazing list A record and has done fairly well as a top order batsman in ODIs so would be a little harsh to drop him at this stage.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 20:36   #51
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
They also had Clarke and Smith, both in the Taylor mould. Cast your mind back to England's first match of the WC campaign.

England need players like Stokes in the side, but they also need ones like Taylor.
Clarke's ODI place is in question and he's not that much of a slouch anyway. Smith is nothing like Taylor. It's insulting one of the best batsmen in world cricket even to suggest the comparison.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 21:14   #52
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Stokes definitely plays for me, although that doesn't necessarily mean no room for Taylor. A side of:

Roy
Hales
Taylor
Root
Stokes
Morgan
Buttler
Ali
Some bowlers

looks fine. Taylor can sod off down the order if we get a good start and Stokes can jump up. Taylor doesn't necessarily look like a man who's going to hit international attacks all over the place but he has an amazing list A record and has done fairly well as a top order batsman in ODIs so would be a little harsh to drop him at this stage.
It doesn't necessarily mean there's no room, but if chosen he'd very much be the 6th batsman chosen and not the person you construct an order around.

Personally, I'd keep Ali opening and have Hales at 3. You could even keep that left-right combination going all the way down the order with Stokes and Morgan both lefties.


It's early days but Taylor's ODI record is underwhelming so far - ave 35 at a strike-rate of just 75 - and it's not as if he offers a bowling option or is a gun fielder. Whilst his list A average is very impressive his strike-rate isn't.

With Ali, Stokes, Buttler and possibly Woakes England have probably unrivalled all-round depth in international cricket at the moment. Utilised correctly, that could make us incredibly dangerous. Or we could just get excited about a complementary piece like Taylor going at a run a ball, whilst more destructive players wait in the dressing room.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 21:20   #53
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
They also had Clarke and Smith, both in the Taylor mould. Cast your mind back to England's first match of the WC campaign.

England need players like Stokes in the side, but they also need ones like Taylor.
The one when Smith was out for 5 and Clarke didn't play?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 21:26   #54
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
It doesn't necessarily mean there's no room, but if chosen he'd very much be the 6th batsman chosen and not the person you construct an order around.

Personally, I'd keep Ali opening and have Hales at 3. You could even keep that left-right combination going all the way down the order with Stokes and Morgan both lefties.


It's early days but Taylor's ODI record is underwhelming so far - ave 35 at a strike-rate of just 75 - and it's not as if he offers a bowling option or is a gun fielder. Whilst his list A average is very impressive his strike-rate isn't.

With Ali, Stokes, Buttler and possibly Woakes England have probably unrivalled all-round depth in international cricket at the moment. Utilised correctly, that could make us incredibly dangerous. Or we could just get excited about a complementary piece like Taylor going at a run a ball, whilst more destructive players wait in the dressing room.
At the very least, we need to reassess what we think we know about constructing a team for ODIs and create a new blueprint for the squad. We were so far off the mark at and leading up to the World Cup, the formula we have been using is clearly ten years past its best before date.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 21:30   #55
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,251
Roy, Hales, Root, Stokes, Morgan, Buttler, Ali, Jordan, Woakes, Tredwell, Broad

Batting that keeps on coming at you, plenty of bowling. Simple.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 21:33   #56
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 33
Posts: 18,453
Except Roy is untried, Hales is flaky, Root is in a purple patch that won't last, Stokes is overrated, Morgan is finished, Buttler is okay but can't keep, Ali is neither good enough as a bowler or batsman, Jordan is specialist fielder, Woakes is too slow, Tredwell couldn't even get a game for his county and Broad is a frit bunny who could never bowl.

Apart from that, yeah it's looks good.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 21:34   #57
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
It doesn't necessarily mean there's no room, but if chosen he'd very much be the 6th batsman chosen and not the person you construct an order around.

Personally, I'd keep Ali opening and have Hales at 3. You could even keep that left-right combination going all the way down the order with Stokes and Morgan both lefties.


It's early days but Taylor's ODI record is underwhelming so far - ave 35 at a strike-rate of just 75 - and it's not as if he offers a bowling option or is a gun fielder. Whilst his list A average is very impressive his strike-rate isn't.

With Ali, Stokes, Buttler and possibly Woakes England have probably unrivalled all-round depth in international cricket at the moment. Utilised correctly, that could make us incredibly dangerous. Or we could just get excited about a complementary piece like Taylor going at a run a ball, whilst more destructive players wait in the dressing room.
I'm going to have to agree with you again, largely. That batting line up offers you the option of going hard throughout an innings unless wickets fall in a rush and even if they do, gives you a chance to rebuild before a final push. To do this effectively England need to use the batting order flexibly. There will be occasions when batting Stokes or Buttler at 3 or 4 (or even at 3 and 4) will be the correct call. I'm heartened that we've gone for a coach with a track record of limited overs success as he will probably be prepared to think in this sort of way.

I don't feel very strongly about Ali's position in the order and certainly it looks a bit bent batting him at 8 (which I wouldn't necessarily do, see above) but he's not generally done well against better sides opening. I could see games in which Taylor didn't bat at all and that would mean we'd done well. I can also see the argument that if we're not often going to have him coming in up the order that we may as well not pick him at all but I don't think it hurts to have one less explosive player in there, bearing in mind that Root can score very fast.

Taylor has a SR of 83 in list A. It's not terrible. He's not Ian Bell (although interestingly cricinfo doesn't know Bell's list A SR).
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 21:35   #58
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,409
I would not have morgan near the side so I won't bother picking one as it can't possibly happen.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 21:40   #59
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
I would not have morgan near the side so I won't bother picking one as it can't possibly happen.
Fair enough but you could still give us a side of 10. I don't think I'd necessarily pick Morgan either but nor would I rule him out of our next game without seeing what he'll do between now and then.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2015, 21:44   #60
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebranine Chanderpaul View Post
Except Roy is untried, Hales is flaky, Root is in a purple patch that won't last, Stokes is overrated, Morgan is finished, Buttler is okay but can't keep, Ali is neither good enough as a bowler or batsman, Jordan is specialist fielder, Woakes is too slow, Tredwell couldn't even get a game for his county and Broad is a frit bunny who could never bowl.

Apart from that, yeah it's looks good.
The D/L method of selection. I like it.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org