England v New Zealand, 3rd ODI, Trent Bridge

First topic message reminder :

Last ODI of the series, and the last ODI for both these teams before the Champions Trophy. Led by Guptill, New Zealand have an unassailable 2 nil lead in the series and this is just a dead rubber. England have made 4 changes - Broad and Finn are back from injury, whilst Tredwell and Bopara ( ) are also in. Dernbach, Woakes, Anderson and Swann are the outgoing names. For New Zealand, Southee comes back from injury and replaces Bracewell, while Munro is in for Elliot.

England 1 Alastair Cook, 2 Ian Bell, 3 Jonathan Trott, 4 Joe Root, 5 Eoin Morgan, 6 Ravi Bopara, 7 Jos Buttler (wk), 8 Tim Bresnan, 9 Stuart Broad, 10 James Tredwell, 11 Steven Finn.
New Zealand 1 Luke Ronchi, 2 Martin Guptill, 3 Kane Williamson, 4 Ross Taylor, 5 Colin Munro, 6 Brendon McCullum, 7 James Franklin, 8 Nathan McCullum, 9 Tim Southee, 10 Kyle Mills, 11 Mitchell McClenaghan.

New Zealand have won the toss and will field.

"Having Trott in the top 3 is a key part of this success because he is so reliable and so regular that the others know what he's going to do so can play around him.
"

you have missed the point Mike. it's about bell and Trott next to each other.

Balance is needed.. by the way England have had no success in one day cricket.. International odis are like football friendly's.. We have world cups to play for.. It's not about constantly bashing out 250 every game. Its about doing enough to win and gauging the situation ahead. Bell takes to long to get in. and Trott doesn't accelerate quick enough when in the position he can.. He always plays the anchor role, you need to be able to become the aggressive when needed. There is no I in team..

Trott and bell would be much better players if they played a few more deliveries..

If Trott had an average like KP of 42 with a SR of 88 he is a much better ODI player . that is 14 runs olf 100 balls!! If bell had an average of 35 and an RR of 84 again he would be much better in this form of the game..

But as I stated is more about them playing together.

I have no problem playing Trott at 3- but we can't have cook and bell in front- No way is that using our resources well enough.

Yesterday the commentators made me laugh.

They said England had control over the whole of the kiwis innings bar their first 10..

No the problem was - our first 10 was under scored!!

And don't kid yourself we are successful.. I will analyse England. and I have a funny feeling we could face the most balls out of the top odi team's out there- yet have a lower RR.

mystiroakey wrote:"To say "50 over cricket is turning in to t20 more and more" shows that you haven't watched (or understood) recent 50 over cricket "

get over yourself Mike.. I watch it and understand it..

I will produce my analysis soon. Be sure to read it and think!!

now off you Trott

So long as your analysis is based only on ODIs played under the current regs...

I don't personally need statistics to tell me what is quite clear: England's current gameplan revolves around Cook and Trott in the top 3; and when they get it right, it works.

I'm sorry, but there's no way you can have watched recent ODI cricket, and concluded it is becoming more like a lengthy T20. In some ways T20 is becoming more like 50 overs, in that teams are looking for a stable start over smashing it in the PP, knowing they can easily score 120 off the last 10 with wickets in hand.

T20 has changed since it first came in, that's clear. I still hate it, and can't bring myself to watch it.

But 50 over tactics have evolved, there used to be a dreadful lull in the middle of the innings. It's now a dreadful lull from 1-40 overs, then a T20 smash fest!

So you are trying to tell me that i havent watched odi cricket..

I watch every game. pal. Dont patronize me.

Start of by cutting out the BS then we can discuss.

Sadly from your above point of view. When bell and trott get in and this 'game plan' works we underscore!!

Which is the whole point..

Azzy Mahmood wrote:T20 has changed since it first came in, that's clear. I still hate it, and can't bring myself to watch it.

But 50 over tactics have evolved, there used to be a dreadful lull in the middle of the innings. It's now a dreadful lull from 1-40 overs, then a T20 smash fest!

Only England do this..

mystiroakey wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:T20 has changed since it first came in, that's clear. I still hate it, and can't bring myself to watch it.

But 50 over tactics have evolved, there used to be a dreadful lull in the middle of the innings. It's now a dreadful lull from 1-40 overs, then a T20 smash fest!

Only England do this..

That's what I was getting at

mystiroakey wrote:So you are trying to tell me that i havent watched odi cricket..

I watch every game. pal. Dont patronize me.

Start of by cutting out the BS then we can discuss.

Sadly from your above point of view. When bell and trott get in and this 'game plan' works we underscore!!

Which is the whole point..

You complaining about people's posting style... pot and kettle... To be frank you never discuss anything. You simply repeat your points ad infinum without ever bothering to reply to the precise points the person you are "discussing" with is making.

England have had success in ODIs since the change in regulations - there has not been any major tournaments since then, so talking about world cups in the context of England's current gameplan is irrelevant.

Aside from that it is perfectly clear that once Pietersen is fit again he will replace one of Trott and Bell - probably the latter. Until that happens what do you suggest? Root is ideal at 4/5 where he can nudge and nurdle and hit the odd boundary - I'm not sure top 3 in ODI cricket is his game. England tried aggressive players at the top of the order (before Pietersen) - it didn't work that well, mainly because if ODI cricket has taught us anything it is that if you want aggressive players at the top, then they need to be genuine international batsmen (like Watson, Gayle, Pietersen, Kohli). At the moment, apart from Trescothick, there is no one that I see on the English scene who is of that kind of quality. Vince in future perhaps.

I am complaining about your BS Mike..

You havent replied to any of the points I have made and I think you struggle to understand them. You have a very simple view of cricket(very old skool!!) and that is proved by your need to try and get personal and discredit me by trying to make the foolish assement that I dont watch 50 over cricket., even though I am a regular poster that posts on every single game!!

Now on to your points.

Root is an opener. He is also the brightest talent we have.. He can mix things up , has a good head game on him and seems to do what ius needed. Your crazy assement based on one game is simply that!!(crazy!!)

Yes I agree that KP will take bells spot and the balance is there.. Bell and trott do not work as a 2 and 3 especially with cook at 1..

Now i will never in a million years discredit Cook. he does mix the game up when needed in all forms of the game.. He is the solid base we need. Trott is the next solid base we need.. I am a massive trott fan. But not when we have another slowbie inbetween

I think Bell and Trott showed yesterday they work fine as 2 and 3. They started off slowly, due to the early loss of Cook, but they built up the run rate as they went on, and Bell saw most of the innings through, whilst Trott got a very close LBW against him.

They set the platform for Buttler to come in and play without any pressure of seeing out time, so he could just smash it like he does.

I'd keep Root in the middle order for sure. He's ideally suited for that position I think

I never said you didn't watch it... only that you either didn't watch it or you don't understand it. Clearly the latter then.

The one point you seem to have made is that Trott and Bell bat too slowly and Trott can't change pace. To back up that point you gave 6 batsmen with higher SRs than Bell and Trott, or which 4 were lower middle-order players and the other 2 were openers now (but it would be interesting to see their stats purely as openers - I suspect Watson's at least are even more impressive).

I countered that with the CURRENT regulations, having a stable base is more important than smashing it from the off. With only 10 PP overs up front (it used to be 15 or 20 at times) and with no quality batsman opening up from the get-go (even the likes of Gayle and Watson play themselves in for a bit) the risk-reward in going hard at the start against 2 new balls when the ball won't really reverse at the end is not in favour.

I am certainly not old school - I spent years criticising England's approach to ODI cricket and having the likes of Cook and Trott in the top 3... until now, when the game has caught up with England (I suspect it is very much this rather than England catching up with the game), and the regulations mean that solidity at the top of the order has much to recommend it.

There is perhaps an argument that this approach needs to be adapted on slow subcontinental style wickets, but there is no doubt that in England (where after all England play most of their cricket), Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, when they get it right, it works.

If you can point out one example where having Trott and Bell bat through has cost England a match under the current regulations (2 new balls) I'll be impressed. On the other hand, a quick look at the wins against South Africa last year and Australia previously shows how effective it is when they do get it right. By "bat through" I mean one of them needs to score an 80+ and the other a 50; I'll even relax that to 30 for you.

The problem with England's innings yesterday was Root getting out when he did, and Bopara's innings which was 10-15 runs short. This was compensated by Buttler's innings thankfully, so that England ended up with the score they'd have been aiming for.

I really hope he gets moved to opener for the ashes test..

Get him blooded in that spot now - That is a big position England must fill soon..

Everyone high up in the game realise that is where he will end up anyway!!

I dont see the point in playing him mid order for to long. He will never move. Do it now - give him the next two years in that position before we change it. And then once he is set for test- off course he can also open in Odi's/..

Even Boycott is advocating it!!

As much as I love Ravi, being an Essex fan, he's more there for his bowling than is batting. We need someone to come in at 6/7 who is a Flintoff-type all rounder, which Ravi will never be anywhere near. Maybe:

Cook, Pietersen, Trott, Bell, Root, Buttler, ALL-ROUNDER, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Finn

"I never said you didn't watch it... only that you either didn't watch it or you don't understand it. Clearly the latter then"

I wont bother reading the rest of your post tbh Mike.. that was a waste of your time wasnt it..

Azzy Mahmood wrote:As much as I love Ravi, being an Essex fan, he's more there for his bowling than is batting. We need someone to come in at 6/7 who is a Flintoff-type all rounder, which Ravi will never be anywhere near. Maybe:

Cook, Pietersen, Trott, Bell, Root, Buttler, ALL-ROUNDER, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Finn

We need to work on Woakesy.

And cross our fingers!

I don't think just because Boycott is advocating it means its gospel Mysti. I'd be all for Root opening after the Champions Trophy, and after the Ashes. I agree long term he is probably gonna end up there. But as for now, I would keep the pressure off him and in the middle order whilst he finds his feet in international cricket!

Agree Azzy we really do miss a Flintoff like all-rounder in there. And you've missed out Jimmy Anderson in your team

mystiroakey wrote:

Root is an opener. He is also the brightest talent we have.. He can mix things up , has a good head game on him and seems to do what ius needed. Your crazy assement based on one game is simply that!!(crazy!!)

Well a year ago it was Taylor and a few months ago Bairstow, but I'm glad it's Root now... I'm not sure what assessment you're referring to - if it's the one he's ideally suited to the middle overs, then that's backed up by the likes of Thorpe and (it would seem) Flower, so I don't think that's that crazy. He's very good against spin, nurdles very well, plays the odd cheeky shot and can accelerate when well set - ideal for the middle-order. He is not however a strong batsman in the mould of KP, Watson, Gayle, Kohli etc. who are what I would say the successful aggressive opener template.

Olly

My point was that even someone as old skool as Boycott can see the future of cricket. the opening position is about flexibility. Its time to forget about slow scoreres that only true job is to see off the new ball!(like compton seems to be)

Azzy Mahmood wrote:As much as I love Ravi, being an Essex fan, he's more there for his bowling than is batting. We need someone to come in at 6/7 who is a Flintoff-type all rounder, which Ravi will never be anywhere near. Maybe:

Cook, Pietersen, Trott, Bell, Root, Buttler, ALL-ROUNDER, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Finn

Bell can't bat 4 IMO. Doesn't nurdle well enough, and won't score the boundaries to catch up the dot balls he'll play out. Surely Root at 4 and Morgan 5 is ideal.

Agree about Bopara, and the need for an all-rounder, because Bresnan at 7 looks vunerable.

Not sure Woakes is that all-rounder. He need to find a bit more pace, bulk up and bowl a heavier ball. Stokes or Matt Coles (the latter now out of the picture for the time being though) possibly - although Stokes hasn't convinced me from what I've seen.

Yeah I'd also have Bell out of your side for Morgan Azzy and have Root at 4.

If KP was fit I think Bell would be the one to go. I think everyone is pretty agreed on that

In English conditions Bell/Trott should open

With two new balls Pietersen is too loose.

Mike -Root has a head game.. He also has all the shots.. And he isnt afraid to play them.. HE HAS SCORING options and isnt afraid of using them!!

Off course he isnt a power hitter like KP or watson.

Kp and watson are actually similar to Trott in the way they approach the game(they play best when they play there way!!)-- please dont mistake that for playing the same type of cricket!!!


Trott plays one way. fine as long as you have others that can play shots around him.. Not if you have bell there wasting the resource's(overs) in ODI cricket

My prefered batting line up

Cook
Root
KP
Trott
Morgan
Butler
Problem position!!! I would personally just stick to woakes- we can also utilse Root as a bowler if he doesnt perform

Compton hits a 139 no today . He can not do much more than that in fairness!!