England vs India ODI series

First topic message reminder :

Well Kohli got some runs with 71 vs Middlesex, but India promptly lost 7 wickets for 74 runs when he departed

Steven Finn no matter how many good balls he bowls, seems he will forever take wickets with rancid horrible wide balls

If he takes wickets. It's all that matters.


Decent last game from England.

3-1 is pathetic overall.

But you are only as good as your last game

Chris Woakes isn't an international standard bowler. Someone like Stuart Meaker should be in the side.

Indian just didn't want to humilate English oneday team and hence decided to gift a free game.

Yes that's what happened..

Today was the worst thing that could've happened cos it'll convince them to stick with Cook in the side and this approach 

Sigh

I don't think he would have gone either way. Cook has the WC whatever. After that we will change it up...

mystiroakey wrote:I don't think he would have gone either way. Cook has the WC whatever. After that we will change it up...

Go to the only meaningful ODI tournament and man sausage up and then change is what we will do

We should change before the tournament to give ourselves a little hope

I agree. But we know England too well.

Unfortunately Mysti indeed so far behind in ODI cricket, games moved on massively since the champions trophy final we reached but we refuse to. And by the time we do it'll have probably done so again

I thought Root's knock (and to a lesser degree Buttler's which was important in changing the momentum of the innings) papered over the cracks TBH. Everybody seems much happier because England got a score and won, but the approach for the first 30 overs was still all wrong - barely 4 per over.

It is all well and fine understanding that you can go from 150 after 35 to pretty much 300 (it is after all what India did in the first ODI and nobody was criticising them for their approach) but in reality that is not the ideal blueprint, and sides like Aus, SA, India (more often than not) will give themselves the option of scoring 150 in the last 15, but that will push the score up towards 330-350 rather than towards 300 as is the case with England's approach.

The reason being that if Aus and co get the last 15 slightly wrong they still end up with 280-300 and give themselves a chance. If Eng get it wrong then they're stuck around the 230-250 mark and don't have a chance.

So all this talk of "keeping wickets to give yourself a chance" is really nonsense. It should be "scoring at a sufficient rate (early on) to make sure you give yourself a chance even if you don't quite get the last few overs right". In this respect Australia showed the way after the previous ashes in England, when they played positively throughout even if they lost wickets along the way.

Note that all this is with the caveat that the pitch allows strokeplay (e.g. in the current tri-series with Aus, SA, Zim there have been plenty of lower scores due to slow and low pitches). However the pitch yesterday spun yes, but the bounce was even and there was plenty of pace. You could play your strokes.

England were fortunate that Dhoni had his worst game as captain (too inflexible, too slow to adapt when Root started taking Jadeja apart, deep mid-wicket should have gone out for one), and that India batted poorly (albeit that England bowled well as a unit). I'm not convinced at all by Rayudu's technique against the seamers either.

As for the debate over England's personnel, it is well worn by now.

Morgan has had a tough couple of series, but not so long ago he was head and shoulders above everybody in Aus, and is clearly still amongst the top ODI players in England. If he continues to fail then Taylor comes into it, but for now I'd stick with him.

Moeen Ali I think has shown his limitations with the bat as a top 3 - too loose outside the off-stump really, he might get away with it on subcontinental style pitches but anything with pace and he's going to struggle there. He has also shown he is well capable of coming in at 7 and pushing on.

Root has cemented the number 4 slot where I think he fits in quite naturally, for exactly the reasons shown today. He is versatile, generally plays spin well, can nudge and nurdle effectively and then shift through the gears. It is unfortunate for Taylor that at the moment he is competing for middle-order places where England have options.

Buttler is clearly a shoe-in at 6, although given Billings's recent efforts he'd do well not to get too comfortable.

The top 3 is the issue, and views on Cook and/or Bell's effectiveness there have been well versed. Hales hasn't quite had the start he was hoping for, but must be stuck with. I'd still like to see Roy Hales and Vince, but I think we have to accept now that that won't happen. the mad thing for me is that playing ODIs harms Cook's test game in that he starts playing at balls he shouldn't (in tests, but has to in ODIs) outside off.

As for the bowlers, I'm not sure Tredwell will be particularly effective in Aus, so England may as well go in with Moeen as main spinner (with Root as decent back-up) and the 4 seamers. Plenty of options there, it's clear that England (and Moores) rate Woakes quite highly (and in fairness he has had a decent series, he bowled better than his figures show for it today) so I'd expect once Broad is fit that the final seamer will be between Stokes and Finn, and Stokes will probably get the nod. I'd probably go with Finn, but not too fussed TBH (unless Finn suddenly rediscovers his form from a couple of years ago).

Can't altogether agree with you on that , Mike.   I thought the approach by the early batsmen had changed in this match ; more urgency , looking for singles , preparedness to take risks (all pretty obvious I know , but areas where they have been falling down lately ) .  Seventy five after fifteen , despite losing the two naturally aggressive batsmen quite cheaply ; that was a decent platform in my book.
Yes they got a bit bogged down then against spin.  Root was still in lower gear - and I am glad he didn't get too cute and throw his wicket away like last week - while Cook battled to sustain his scoring once the pace came off and duly lost his wicket pressing...But the biggest problem was actually Morgan .  We know he can play this game ; but he looked horribly out of touch , as he has throughout this series.  So fourteen overs yielded just 42 : but I'd put that down to failure to execute rather than wrong attitude.

Of course Buttler and the blossoming Root did the job from there , really well.  Has Buttler not lost his bearings completely and run himself out they may have surpassed 300 , and may not even have needed Stokes...

Certainly not suggesting all is well , or that one (dead rubber) match changes everything.  But I view this as a - small - step in the right direction.  And I note that the character of this pitch probably had more in common with those they will meet in Australia than the earlier pitches used in this series ; so the fact that England seemed to prefer it could be taken as a good sign.

As for the team : it seems clear they are committed to Cook for the WC. Which to be quite honest was always likely once he was reappointed after the Ashes disaster in Australia - surely that was the time to split the captaincy if they'd been minded to do so ?  And in fact since then two home series against Sri Lanka and India were unlikely to change their plans.  I do agree it might be better for both England and Cook had he stuck to the form that suits his game , and he it ; but once the choice was made I wouldn't have expected Cook (who is either determined or stubborn , depending on your taste) to quit in the short term.  And probably not to be removed either : less for reasons of "losing face" as the severest critics maintain , than from a fear that the resulting upheaval might make things worse in the short term...and not enough time to spare before January. One can disagree with the choices without assuming everyone involved is crazy...

So we are looking at something like :
Cook
Hales
...........
Root
Morgan. (or Ali ?)
Buttler
Ali/Bopara/Stokes
Broad
............
Finn ?
Anderson.

Number three is a problem as Bell is no more ideal there in ODI than Cook is as opener.  Trott probably can't come back , Ali doesn't look suited there.  Shuffle the pack ? I suspect Bell by default.
The other bowling spot has Woakes /Tredwell as front runners ...would like a leftarm bowler , but Gurney doesn't look quite good enough ; though I'd like to have seen a little more of him.  Perhaps he'll go to Sri Lanka (surely Anderson won't ?)

One last point : for all those suggesting anyone would do a better job than Cook at the top of the order : the last reliable quick scoring opener England had in ODI was Marcus Trescothick.  So the chances of grabbing an instant success off the shelf is perhaps not as high as we might hope !  I just hope Hales settles in to his role. If he can fire in Australia , the pairing may do a passable job at least.

Nobody thinks they can win the Cup. But I remain hopeful they may perform better than is generally expected. After the way everything fell apart last year in Australia , getting a team back into shape was never going to be done overnight. Much as fans might wish it could be so.

Add to the above : Forgot Taylor.   I know he has a lot of support on here.  But I just haven't seen enough of him to make a judgement.  

I am quite prepared to accept the opinions of those whose judgement I respect that he is worth a look ; and I rather hope England give him a try .  Just wondering if they are going to do so , with a limited number of trial games left ?

I don't understand why Ballance/Taylor aren't in the team personally, both average over 50 in one day stuff and in Ballance's case he's shown he can play at international level, whereas Taylor in the last three years has scored the most runs in one day stuff in England.

Mike is spot on with the thing about the limitations of England's approach. We'll never reach 330-350 playing this way because simply it'd require a freak innings in the last 15, the best we ever do is 280-300.

The problem with Cook, much like with Bell is that they can score fine in the power play with the fielding restrictions and be 20 off 20. However they simply don't have the game (well I think Bell does but never does it) to keep that up once the field goes out, often end up 40 off 60 and then get out trying to hit a boundary. Something Trott was so good at was making sure he rotated the strike and hit the odd boundary so he'd always be near a run a ball, Cook/Bell don't do that.

I'd quite like to see Morgan go up the order to three in ODI's. I always think he's better once he's got more time to build an innings and contrary to popular belief I don't actually think he plays spin as well as pace. 

I'm a little unsure how to get Ballance/Taylor in probably one or the other. I'd like to see Vince given a go with Hales up top. So without further a due 

Hales
Vince
Morgan
Root
Ballance/Taylor
Buttler
Ali
Woakes
Stokes
Broad
Finn

I don't think Anderson is anywhere near as good in ODI's and personally I'd save him for test matches in his later years. Having the Stokes/Woakes combination is a must for any England team. Finn has done fine since coming back.

I like Ali over Treadwell because I see Ali as a little bit more of a wicket taker, and he offers a different option with the bat

Trouble with Ballance and Taylor is that they're more middle or late-order players and in their positions England have Root, Morgan and Buttler. You could argue Ballance and/or Taylor could do better jobs (I wouldn't) but it's in no way clear cut.

I guess my frustration is that we could all see the limitations of England's one-day plan going back to the last Champions Trophy. After the Aus thing, it was an ideal time IMO for England to throw caution to the wind, admit they weren't getting anywhere in the next WC with their approach and start completely afresh (whilst keeping the core of the middle order and the bowlers pretty much the same). But they didn't.

I would still go for it, what's the worst that can happen? England get tonked in SL and crash out of the WC embarassingly early as opposed to losing heavily in SL and crashing out merely early?

Why on earth would Anderson not go to SL with the WC around the corner? I think that kind of comment as much as anything goes to show how England treat the ODI stuff. England should take an 18-man squad to SL, rotate the bowlers as need-be and sort out whatever places in the squad for the WC still need sorting. No need to rest players entirely, they need the practice!

How much do you get paid by the ECB or Cook, alfie? Your defence of him in this format is bordering on the ludicrous, I'm afraid. I find it hard to believe that anyone would do a worse job than average 30 at a SR of 65.

Totally agree with Mike's assessment on Rayudu btw. Despite the 2 fifties, these 2 innings have, if anything, further confirmed to me that Rayudu is not international standard especially with a WC Down Under on the horizon. He looks ridiculously hurried by "pace" (anything in excess of 135 kph really). He can only really score off spin and the fact that Cook even bowled 2 offies in tandem at once to him just shows how clueless Cook is. Anyways, back to Rayudu, simply not good enough IMO. He may have got the runs here but he is too limited against pace, gets hurried too easily, all those clueless hacks and pulls don't give a good impression either. On quicker pitches, he'd get destroyed by anyone who can bowl 135 kph+ to him. I'm hoping against hope that selectors look beyond numbers and drop him. Someone like Kedar Jadhav or Robin Uthappa (who despite his failure for the A team in Aus, could IMO, be useful if kept away from the moving new ball) would be a much better option, as would Rohit Sharma or Sanju Samson.

For England

Hales
Bell (c)
Taylor
Root
Ali (best player of spin should bat at 5 IMO)
Roy (not convinced by his technique against the new ball but think he could be a game changing hitter down the order)
Buttler
Woakes
Broad
Anderson
Rankin


Finn
Tredwell
Rashid
Morgan

I don't think Ali is really any good at playing spin TBH (he may be better than the others bar probably Root who can actually play spin, but that says more about them than Ali IMO). I thought Ali did well at 7, why the hurry to move him elsewhere?

Besides that the idea to waste 2 out of 4 reserves on spinners including the immensely average Rashid (who is far too slow and will be tonked at international level) for a trip to Aus is just daft IMO. I can just about accept bringing along Tredwell in case something happens to Ali as you don't want to go into a match without a recognised spinner, but Rashid's spot would be better used by a number of others (including most obviously Stokes).

Mike, you've said yourself you haven't seen Rashid play in a very long time so the 'immensely average' opinion is not only wrong but probably ill-informed. If the county system is to be of any use, then he deserves a call-up. Not at the expense of Stokes I agree, but Tredwell.

Taylor has to be picked for the next ODI squad. Don't know how they can continue to ignore him.

Actually I've watched a fair bit of Rashid since then on highlights also (having not realised how good his recent record is I thought I would see what the fuss was about). He bowls too slowly and doesn't turn it enough to trouble international batsmen. IMO anyway. There is a difference between the county system being of some use (which it is) and automatically picking the best performing county cricketers to play internationals. It is a massive step up, and as I explained on the spinners thread a particularly tough one for leg-spinners.

Also I imagine that Taylor's 100 will increase the calls for him to be given a go. I am a big fan of Taylor and do think he should have been given a go in this ODI series, but if I weren't a fan, or rather if I was concerned about his limitations I'm not sure the innings today would have done much to allay my concerns. It was amassed mainly against medium pace (of which he won't face much at internationals) and very leg-side centric. That's not to be critical, he hit some very good shots, paced his innings very well and clearly knows his game inside out, but the way he played shows him more to be a Bailey/Collingwood type batsman, i.e. play in the middle-order, rather than at the top. I would still have concerns about him against genuine pace if the ball is moving up top. Plays spin pretty well though.

Rashid is verging on the territory of earning another shot, whether he can make the step up is a different question but he's close to earning the chance. Maybe a backup to Ali in Sri Lanka and get a few games.

Taylor simply has to get a shot. Been the best list A batsman in the county game not just this season but for a long time. Its baffling that England seem to have cast him aside (seemingly because of a few things KP said back in 2012, and as sad as I think it is, maybe because they think he's too small)

The squad still needs a ot of work, is get Michael Lumb in, to get us off to a faster start

180 off 20 for England today. Morgan back into form with an stunning 71 off 31 balls. The first 15 balls he got 15 runs then 56 runs off his final 16 at a strike rate of 350. Mental.

Good cameos from Hales and Ravi Bop too

That could have been dire if it wasn't for Morgan. Good timing to come back into form

Ravi also allways scores a few at the end. and also helped out.

Competitive total.

As mysti says, a competitive total.

Felt Dhoni should have used at least a sixth bowler. Karn bowled his first 3 overs well but I thought it was always on the cards that Morgan would get after him in his last and so it proved. Might have looked odd only giving Karn 3 (successful) overs but so much of t20 is about when to stick and bank things.

Disappointed Roy didn't score more. Hope he at least gets the chance to show what an excellent fielder he is.

India 105-2 after 12.. Kohli 49*

Olly wrote:180 off 20 for England today. Morgan back into form with an stunning 71 off 31 balls. The first 15 balls he got 15 runs then 56 runs off his final 16 at a strike rate of 350. Mental.

Good cameos from Hales and Ravi Bop too

Nice to see Morgan getting a few runs, fantastic player.

I think he should be batting 3 in the ODI's really, and probably captain the team as well. Agreed with the team you posted the other day, Taylor over Ballance for me and I'd probably have Stokes above Woakes in the batting order but that's it really.

Not easy having to win away games in what used to be a home ground but there you go, England managed it. Well played.

I think dhoni blew that . took the resposibilty on board to much when he should have just taken every possible run..

But still good win england..

IPL..what IPL.

Craziness towards the end from Dhoni...Rayudu can clear the ropes....but at least we finished the summer with a win!!

trebellbobaggins wrote:Not easy having to win away games in what used to be a home ground but there you go, England managed it.  Well played.

Yes, like previous game Ali getting booed by a section of the Indian support is a disgrace. At least Bumble had the courage to mention it on commentary.

Booing a player for his race, religion or colour is not just unacceptable in cricket it's unacceptable in society, thankfully. Hopefully those responsible are identified.

Agreed Mantooth, the booing of Ali was a joke again. Lowlifes

To be fair, they could be booing his brother's actions, who is in the middle/has just finished a 4 game ban for headbutting* someone. But I doubt it, poor stuff all round.

*allegedly.

Was playing cricket today so missed the game, so ahve only seen some highlights, inbetween NFL and golf, but gutted Taylor didn't get a game (although I don't know why he was in the T20 squad anyway), it does show he is in their thoughts and I expect/hope him to go to SL. Shame Roy didn't get a big score, hope he isn't discarded now. How did Finn bowl? Figures looked decent.

Disappointing to see Dhoni defend the boos and compare them to the Anderson/Jadeja stuff. He knows perfectly well that the comparison is misplaced and there is something more sinister going on here, but happy not to rock the boat. Have lost a lot of respect for Dhoni because of that.

Let's be perfectly clear, Moeen Ali was booed because he is a British Asian who is a muslim of Pakistani descent, who has made it clear how proud he is of all aspects of his heritage. I'm not a fan of any type of booing (I made this point when Ponting was for whatever reason cast as a pantomine figure, or the Aussies gave Pietersen then Broad similar treatment) but this is particularly vile - comparisons with other instances of booing are disingenuous and suggestions (as I have seen on twitter) that Moeen Ali was being booed because he had so harmed India in the test series are ridiculous; George Dobbell, with whoom I do not always (often) agree has it spot on in this instance: http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2014/content/story/778919.html

Didn't watch much of the game but caught up on some highlights. Agree with guildford about Sharma's 4th over. Also thought India went full and straight too often as a default in the last few overs, and kept missing their yorkers. They'll have to work on their death bowling plans between now and the WC, need more variation (or to hit the yorkers a lot more regularly).

Not as critical as some over Dhoni hogging the strike in the final over. Rayudu wasn't set and had 3 off 5 balls, so Dhoni made a gut call about his side's best chance of winning. He failed (just) but I don't blame him for making that call, in fact I admire his supreme confidence and self-belief.

ShankyCricket wrote:How much do you get paid by the ECB or Cook, alfie? Your defence of him in this format is bordering on the ludicrous, I'm afraid. I find it hard to believe that anyone would do a worse job than average 30 at a SR of 65.

Totally agree with Mike's assessment on Rayudu btw. Despite the 2 fifties, these 2 innings have, if anything, further confirmed to me that Rayudu is not international standard especially with a WC Down Under on the horizon. He looks ridiculously hurried by "pace" (anything in excess of 135 kph really). He can only really score off spin and the fact that Cook even bowled 2 offies in tandem at once to him just shows how clueless Cook is. Anyways, back to Rayudu, simply not good enough IMO. He may have got the runs here but he is too limited against pace, gets hurried too easily, all those clueless hacks and pulls don't give a good impression either. On quicker pitches, he'd get destroyed by anyone who can bowl 135 kph+ to him. I'm hoping against hope that selectors look beyond numbers and drop him. Someone like Kedar Jadhav or Robin Uthappa (who despite his failure for the A team in Aus, could IMO, be useful if kept away from the moving new ball) would be a much better option, as would Rohit Sharma or Sanju Samson.

Well if the ECB is paying me the cheques are going astray

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. I wouldn't have had Cook in the one day outfit at all a couple of years back , and I think the aftermath of the Australian tour would probably have been a good time to recast the team with a view to the future. But they didn't ; and it doesn't look as if they are going to do so now. So I can't see the point in banging on about teams that don't include Cook.

If I make the point that any immediate replacement may not turn out to be a great improvement , that is based on recent experience with England attempting to replace Strauss and Collingwood at Test level : count the tried and discarded... I hope Hales is going to prove adept at the fifty over game (so far mildly promising but hasn't produced what I'd hoped in his first few games). Because I'm probably not alone in thinking he's the best prospect to get the team off to a decently paced start. I am not delusional enough to expect Cook to strike at 100 + ...just hoping he is in good enough touch to get back to his (quite reasonable) efforts of 2011/12.

Anyway I'm done with the Devils Advocate bit for now . If you can get them to send those back payments on to me I'd appreciate it ...

Mike Selig wrote:Trouble with Ballance and Taylor is that they're more middle or late-order players and in their positions England have Root, Morgan and Buttler. You could argue Ballance and/or Taylor could do better jobs (I wouldn't) but it's in no way clear cut.

I guess my frustration is that we could all see the limitations of England's one-day plan going back to the last Champions Trophy. After the Aus thing, it was an ideal time IMO for England to throw caution to the wind, admit they weren't getting anywhere in the next WC with their approach and start completely afresh (whilst keeping the core of the middle order and the bowlers pretty much the same). But they didn't.

I would still go for it, what's the worst that can happen? England get tonked in SL and crash out of the WC embarassingly early as opposed to losing heavily in SL and crashing out merely early?

Why on earth would Anderson not go to SL with the WC around the corner? I think that kind of comment as much as anything goes to show how England treat the ODI stuff. England should take an 18-man squad to SL, rotate the bowlers as need-be and sort out whatever places in the squad for the WC still need sorting. No need to rest players entirely, they need the practice!

I wouldn't suggest they send a B team to Sri Lanka ; but I think Anderson is a special case. He is undeniably the most heavily worked pace bowler in the world (look at his stats over the last few years) and quite apart from the danger of overuse injury he often seems to struggle a bit with fatigue late in a series. I can't see the point in having him play a couple of matches in Sri Lanka on pitches which will bear little resemblance to those on which the WC will be played when he could be staying fresh for the Australian tour. After all the matches in Australia prior to the main event should be ample for tuning up.

Rotating the bowlers in Sri Lanka with a view to final selection makes sense ; but I reckon that is easier to manage anyway without Anderson. They will have to get used to playing without him sooner or later , especially if as many people think he will opt out of the limited over game after the WC.

I would be interested to see your "go for it" squad , Mike. Just replacing Cook and Bell or did you have any other wild cards in mind ?

Be interesting to hear an Indian supporters take on the abuse that Moeen received.

On the Moeen booing issue, I have to agree with Mike, I found Dhoni's comments really quite awful, there is obviously no comparison with the Jadeja situation (or indeed the Indian supporters booing Anderson in the ODIs, England's supporters booing Warner last year, etc.). These were all in response to a specific incident which the supporters objected to, while Moeen has done nothing of the sort.

He was booed because he's of Pakistani descent, playing for England. That is racism, pure and simple, and Dhoni's refusal to condemn it paints him in a very bad light.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/sep/08/moen-ali-family-booing-england-india-edgbaston-police

Reaction from Moeen's family, understandably very upset. Seems Moeen doesn't wish to pursue the matter, which makes it impossible for the authorities to do much about it, which is a shame.

As for the game itself, great knock from Moggs, and useful contributions from Hales at the top and Bops. Would have liked Roy to get more of an innings, but he'll get more chances. India's death bowling was awful: once Bops hit a slower ball from Mohit for four (second ball of the 18th over) they abandonned the slower balls completely and just bowled full and straight (until the final ball of the innings). Missed their yorkers and were hit repeatedly to and over the ropes. Lack of thought process and a perfect example of just how wrong it is to bang on and on about yorkers at the death: batsmen set themselves nowadays and if you miss your mark by even a foot it can disappear. England's death bowling by contrast was vastly superior, mixed it up between hitting the pitch hard, back-of-a-length slower balls, and a few yorkers too. The wide yorker was absent (Gurney tried one, which was wild, but no one else did), has it gone out of fashion? Will let Mike answer that one...

Problem with the wide yorker is that with the new rules, it's really a low risk delivery for the batsman to have a swig at. You can't have a man for both squirts to backward point and third man, while if you're not express pace the better batsman can still lap you to third man or midwicket. And that's if you get it right. If you get it wrong, it's really clubbing practise

Don't think the wide yorker has gone out altogether, but Raf has it right in that it has to be a surprise delivery at least in the 50 overs stuff because of the rule change about the fielders.

If you are going to bowl more than a couple of wide yorkers then you must have point and third-man back, and because that is pretty much the only time nowadays you would have 3rd man back, the batsman will know what you are trying and simply set himself by moving across his stumps. With umpires on the whole still keeping the same wide line, this turns your wide yorker into a straight yorker, and opens up multiple scoring areas which you haven't covered for.

As a surprise tactic it sill has relevance because the batsmen set themselves for the full and straight so if you slip the wide one in and get your length right then the chances are they will have a swipe and miss. Get the length wrong and with 3rd man up they'll probably get something on it and then you're just hoping it goes straight to short 3rd.

Don't think with the right field it's easier to hit than the straight yorker, even when you get the length wrong for both. Just think that it's too predictable to know what the ball is going to be if you set the right field for it.

1 or 2, maybe 3 at most in the last few overs still as a surprise tactic, but probably no more than that.

Our guys use it quite regularly at our level still, but then batsmen don't have the tactical nous to spot third-man back and predict what it will be, and anyway in some cases you would have mid-off up and third-man back even when bowling full and straight at our level.

The one ball I'm surprised we don't see more of is the short of a length ball (or bouncer) at full speed. I think teams will bowl that a bit more in times to come.

Always thought, in reasonable boundaries, Short and wide was a fantastic strategy. Yes, it's a hit me type ball, but unless a batsman really tries to drag them, it's a hit me to one region, and unlike the yorker ball doesn't really have to be telegraphed by the field. At the end of the day, past a certain level, if an in batsman sees it well at the death, there's really very little you can do. So there aren't bad balls as such to bowl at death (what was the difference length wise between Steyn's "clutch" death bowling during the world t20s and his performance when Marsh was clubbing him? probably matter of inches), but there are principles I think you should adhere to. One of the biggest is don't telegraph your bowling. I know that from experience, when it gets late on in the innings, getting an idea of where the bowler is going is really gold dust. As a bowler when I did bowl at the death, as a offfie, my main plan was always to bowl at the base of leg stump, hard flat, and fast with a little leg cutter turn. Not to toot my own horn, I was pretty good at it (Sadly not needed anymore, I really enjoyed the challenge)

Dhoni eats Steyn for break fast in one days and T20's , i have never seen any batsman this confident against Steyn.