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 > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th November 2015, 22:18   #121
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,384
Jock loves his five fers in tests. How do moeen's stats as a opener add up vs a combination of Roy and hales?

Innings/ average/ 50s/ 100s and of course strike rate

My phone is being crap so can't see it.

I am guessing moeen is best on all those measures. I am staggered he does not open. Odd.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 22:46   #122
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,272
Interested to read the posts being critical of Hales for the Rashid long hop that got hit very hard over and wide of his position and that in some way Rashid may have been upset that he didn't get an lbw when the ball hit the bat first. Difficult to see how he did anything much other than get smashed all over the place for bowling pies (and get out playing a soft shot). There were a very few good balls in there but far outweighed by all the long hops. Sadly it was the same in the tests too.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 23:00   #123
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 5 SCurran 0 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Bring back Anderson.
Not while Morgan is captain.

s/r under
Cook 30.1
Morgan 40.0
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 23:03   #124
Summer of '77
World Class
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 7,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeAreKent View Post

I like the idea of Moeen. But the sad reality is he's not good enough for international cricket as either a batsman or a bowler. A bit like a spinning version of Derek Pringle...
If that means Moeen will play in a World Cup Final and produce the best figures of the match, bring it on !
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 23:11   #125
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
...England also miss Ravi Bopara for the middle overs.
The problem was that they habitually did that even when he was in the side -- and that's true for our own innings as well as the oppo's -- and so in the end there wasn't really any reason to select him.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 23:12   #126
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,645
Very disappointing today from England. They seemed to really miss Stokes, and Roy didn't provide his customary rapid start.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 01:42   #127
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,743
Morgan was being a little economical with the truth, or just forgetful, when he claimed that this was the first time the batting had failed in two series. Things went well v NZ when we won 3-2. But in the Aus series Eng lost 2-3. In the three Australian victories, England failed to bat out the overs - 246ao, 245 ao and 138 ao in 33 overs. And that was the last ODI game that England played before yesterday.

The mantra since the start of the new positive thinking, up and at 'em regime has been go after the opposition and it doesn't matter if you fail in the attempt. We lost five out of ten ODIs last summer, a tally that was regarded as a success, simply because we played more entertaining cricket. There comes a time when you have to be winning consistently. Entertaining cricket generally involves your side winning. Obviously it was a lot better than the dour World Cup and England have seemed to be moving in the right direction, but hard fought wins can also be enjoyable and certainly the 'win' part is. I think England acknowledge this but there are only so many times they can say that they are making progress and 'getting there'.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 07:52   #128
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Moeen has been slightly harshly treated in terms of his role in the side in both forms of the game. In tests he's been batted too low a lot of the time, giving him less chance to be effective in his primary skill and then too high, as he's clearly not an opener. In ODIs he showed a fair bit of promise as an opener, albeit by no means a consistent success but now appears to be playing as a bowler and batting miles down the order, when he's capable of real destruction higher up and is probably a better opener than either Roy or Hales. At least in the ODI format his bowling seems to have been reasonably effective, although if you're comparing with Rashid...
The problem is that his bowling really has seemed to regress, especially in the test arena. The England management now doesn't know what seems to do with him. He probably should get another go at opener in ODIs and be around no.7 in tests. The problem is that both should only be dependent on him doing decently with the ball. He definitely got a pass mark in the Ashes overall but much of his other work this year in either form of the game doesn't pass make the grade.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 08:00   #129
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,523
I'm glad Strauss has come out and said England must focus more on ODIs and even about having a 'specialist' team rather than mish mash. However, I do doubt England have enough quality and will often shoot themselves in the foot with their tictacs.

Ali as 5th bowler, and combinations that involve Ali, Root and/or Bopara have 'featured' in 18 ODIs of which England have won just 6 - 2 of them against Scotland.

He's a very tidy bowler, but England need wickets from their bowling unit, when England bowl the opposition out they win over 4/5 of their full 50 over ODIs, when they take 9 wickets they win around 2/3 but less than that and they lose 5/6

I don't expect Ali or the bowler who could replace him to take 4-5 wickets but Ali has taken 0-1 wickets in 20 of his 27 bowls in ODIs, and his only 3 wicket haul 3/32 against the aussies in the summer.

Of course Rashid did nothing so whilst I may seem to target Ali that is because England include him all the time on the basis he can bat and can bowl, but he's not quite/really an all-rounder and the last thing I ever like seeing in an ODI side, or Test side for that matter, is bits n pieces.

Stokes on the flip side may only be averaging a few runs less in ODIs, and has played half a dozen more, but has already taken 3-6 wickets on SIX occasions and whilst he takes 0-1 around half the time and is more expensive, he makes things happen which is what you need in ODIs.

Plodding along gets you next to nowhere, tidy wins next to nothing, ODIs may have lots of runs but wickets are important in winning them also.


As for Hales, 20 innings in and he's averaging a fraction under 21. NINE of his 20 innings (45%) have been scores of 0-10 . I'm all for giving players a chance, but 20 innings and nothing to show for it should mean the selectors either go with suggestion on here and try him down the order IF they consider him that good to persist with, or give him 1-2 more chances then discard.

Roy also, as I've highlighted in the past, needs to move up a gear. He had a good series against the aussies but has failed in his last 2 innings. You aren't going to win much from the batting position England found themselves in at 3 down, not when one of your main bowlers (Rashid) is hit and miss, and the other 'main' spinner (Ali) tidy, usually economic enough, but not likely to rip through the order as needed.

Just not enough performers in the side, although fair play to Topley for his efforts. Wonder if England will ever work out what the shortcomings of a number of their selections are or just carry on assuming luck and other factors contribute more to them losing than they do. I mean how crazy was it to drop Buttler in the Tests for lack of batting form then pick him for the ODIs immediately after?!?!?
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 08:09   #130
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
Do Gooder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,049
Hales is the biggest problem, he's just not international quality.

We really miss KP.
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 08:09   #131
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,693
I see many points that you are making Rebelstar but I don't like the idea of having a revolving door. The problem is that a team of seasoned pros, with a couple of exceptions, went to the World Cup and performed abysmally as they had done for pretty much the last 18 months prior to that event. It was rightly the end of th road for many.

I would agree that it is getting close to the last chance saloon for Hales with regards being an opener. He's had nigh on the 25-30 games that most professional pundits reckon a player needs in ODIs to establish themselves. I'd be less inclined to have a go at Roy though as he's played half that number of games. He has a bigger issue in giving his wicket away when he's scored 50+. He had opportunities to kick on v the Aussies and didn't take them.

With regards to Ali, he'd done ok as a support bowler in ODIs but is just not enough a stick on to bowl 10 overs, let alone provide enough of a wicket taking option.

An even bigger issue for me was that the main 'pace' bowling just really lacked enough in the way of threat.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 08:16   #132
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
Hales is the biggest problem, he's just not international quality.

We really miss KP.
Remind me what he averaged in odi for the last 7 years.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 08:29   #133
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
I'm glad Strauss has come out and said England must focus more on ODIs and even about having a 'specialist' team rather than mish mash. However, I do doubt England have enough quality and will often shoot themselves in the foot with their tictacs.

Ali as 5th bowler, and combinations that involve Ali, Root and/or Bopara have 'featured' in 18 ODIs of which England have won just 6 - 2 of them against Scotland.

He's a very tidy bowler, but England need wickets from their bowling unit, when England bowl the opposition out they win over 4/5 of their full 50 over ODIs, when they take 9 wickets they win around 2/3 but less than that and they lose 5/6

I don't expect Ali or the bowler who could replace him to take 4-5 wickets but Ali has taken 0-1 wickets in 20 of his 27 bowls in ODIs, and his only 3 wicket haul 3/32 against the aussies in the summer.

Of course Rashid did nothing so whilst I may seem to target Ali that is because England include him all the time on the basis he can bat and can bowl, but he's not quite/really an all-rounder and the last thing I ever like seeing in an ODI side, or Test side for that matter, is bits n pieces.

Stokes on the flip side may only be averaging a few runs less in ODIs, and has played half a dozen more, but has already taken 3-6 wickets on SIX occasions and whilst he takes 0-1 around half the time and is more expensive, he makes things happen which is what you need in ODIs.

Plodding along gets you next to nowhere, tidy wins next to nothing, ODIs may have lots of runs but wickets are important in winning them also.


As for Hales, 20 innings in and he's averaging a fraction under 21. NINE of his 20 innings (45%) have been scores of 0-10 . I'm all for giving players a chance, but 20 innings and nothing to show for it should mean the selectors either go with suggestion on here and try him down the order IF they consider him that good to persist with, or give him 1-2 more chances then discard.

Roy also, as I've highlighted in the past, needs to move up a gear. He had a good series against the aussies but has failed in his last 2 innings. You aren't going to win much from the batting position England found themselves in at 3 down, not when one of your main bowlers (Rashid) is hit and miss, and the other 'main' spinner (Ali) tidy, usually economic enough, but not likely to rip through the order as needed.

Just not enough performers in the side, although fair play to Topley for his efforts. Wonder if England will ever work out what the shortcomings of a number of their selections are or just carry on assuming luck and other factors contribute more to them losing than they do. I mean how crazy was it to drop Buttler in the Tests for lack of batting form then pick him for the ODIs immediately after?!?!?
Do your first and last paragraphs makes sense? You agree to treat tests and ODI separately but think test form should dictate odi selection. Odd.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 08:41   #134
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Do your first and last paragraphs makes sense? You agree to treat tests and ODI separately but think test form should dictate odi selection. Odd.
More than anything I think the powers that be are finally realising, several years too late mind that our silly itinierary makes it unsustainable for players to be regulars in both formats, let alone all three. As I said yesterday, Cook, Broad and Anderson all look better off in tests for having ditched the white ball game. It may add several years each to their careers whereas this time last year the latter two were injured and the former was in a dreadful state.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 08:51   #135
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,498
I just don't get this idea of completely splitting the test and odi sides. Yes there will be specialists but no other test country puts out a different XI for their ODIs. People that think this is the answer are looking on the wrong place. Few countries are able to fill one XI up with international quality players let alone two. If England were forced to have different squads for each format we'd really be dredging the bottom of the barrel.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 08:51   #136
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
More than anything I think the powers that be are finally realising, several years too late mind that our silly itinierary makes it unsustainable for players to be regulars in both formats, let alone all three. As I said yesterday, Cook, Broad and Anderson all look better off in tests for having ditched the white ball game. It may add several years each to their careers whereas this time last year the latter two were injured and the former was in a dreadful state.
Completely agree. They are different games. This is one reason I get a bit twitchy by the assumption that hales who played a couple of great t20 knocks will score runs in odi but when he doesn't it is assumed he will in tests. What fun.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 09:27   #137
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 678
We are simply not very good at ODI cricket.
We struggle to get the balance right.
Yesterday (despite the poor batting) we were a bowler short. Rashid and Ali are IMO a good fifth bowler combination, but expecting 20 overs from them is not going to win you many matches. In the absence of Stokes, Finn and Wood we should have played Plunkett - wickets win matches and a quick bowler makes a difference.
Batting is very much a work in progress. We have Root and Morgan (surprisingly) who have performed consistently over the last year, the rest is very much a WIP.
The sad truth is that a team of "old lags";
Cook
Lumb
Davis
Vince
Bopara
Stevens
Bresnan
Reed
Broad
Anderson
Tredwell

(Or replace Broad/Anderson with Rushworth/Brookes)

Would give the present team a good run in most conditions!
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 10:24   #138
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
We are simply not very good at ODI cricket.
We struggle to get the balance right.
Yesterday (despite the poor batting) we were a bowler short. Rashid and Ali are IMO a good fifth bowler combination, but expecting 20 overs from them is not going to win you many matches. In the absence of Stokes, Finn and Wood we should have played Plunkett - wickets win matches and a quick bowler makes a difference.
Batting is very much a work in progress. We have Root and Morgan (surprisingly) who have performed consistently over the last year, the rest is very much a WIP.
The sad truth is that a team of "old lags";
Cook
Lumb
Davis
Vince
Bopara
Stevens
Bresnan
Reed
Broad
Anderson
Tredwell

(Or replace Broad/Anderson with Rushworth/Brookes)

Would give the present team a good run in most conditions!
A pretty dreadful batting side there, I'd only take Vince out of that mob. As for the bowling I think that would struggle quite dreadfully after the first few overs with the new ball.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 10:27   #139
Notts Exile
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Berkshire
Team(s): Notts and Forest
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Completely agree. They are different games. .
No, you still have two batsmen eleven fielders of which one will be bowling and one keeping wicket etc etc. The basics of the game are the same and the best players thrive in all formats.

They're so different that Steve Smith plays all three happily and pretty well. Shall I list the rest? Joe Root, Hashim Amla, Kumar Sangakkara ........ sorry, I'm bored.

You have a core group who are capable of playing all three and then you use others as and when you see fit depending on the workloads. It's not rocket science but to claim that the three games are so different is ridiculous and proven to be rubbish by all the other nations who have top players succeeding in all three.
Notts Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 10:41   #140
Summer of '77
World Class
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 7,418
I'd be in favour of having two (three?) different teams on the basis that the limited overs stuff exists only to make money. The fans have always turned up for these games and/or switched on their tellies, regardless of how poor the England ODI side or selections have been, so why not put out a different group of blokes and save the energies of those who play Test cricket?
Summer of '77 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 09:35.



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