Flynny Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 I hope they mix it up a bit for this game. Give Strauss a game, they might as well cos I doubt we will see much from the top 3 again this game. I would change it quite a bit. As much as I like Bell he just hasn't been playing well enough to justify his inclusion.I would try: Vaughan Strauss Bopara (give him a try at 3, he plays up the order for Essex and he's not really had a good go with the bat yet) KP Collingwood Flintoff Dalrymple Nixon Plunkett??? (not sure whether I would prefer him or give Lewis a go, sometimes he does ok) Anderson Panesar If you're going to stick an agressive batsman up the order, why not KP? It's silly having the World No.1 at 4. A waste. I wouldn't play Bopara and Dalrymple at the same time either, really. I'd probably go for: Vaughan - Can't drop the captain Bell/Joyce - If Bell needs to play himself in to get going, opening gives him more time, and gets it over with if he's out. Can't decice which one's better, but playing both is stupid. I don't like either of them as one day cricketers, really. Pietersen - More time further up the order. He either needs to be a little lower so he can finish the game with big hitting, or higher so he can play for longer. No. 4 is no-mans land. Strauss - Normally he'd open, but while he rebuilds his confidence he's best not to be so exposed. Collingwood - Works perfectly where he is. Flintoff - Gotta have some batting form sometime. Bopara - Decent/Good at everything. Nixon - Swaps with Bopara if close to the end, as they did in the Ireland game. Lewis - Safe and tidy. Panesar - Class act. Anderson - Takes wickets early. If I had to stick another fast bowler in I'd take Plunkett ahead of Mahmood. They're both inconsistant but Plunkett's good balls are better, and his batting, if needed, is also better. Is it just me who thinks Mahmood uses his slower ball way too much?
Samu Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 If you're going to stick an agressive batsman up the order, why not KP? It's silly having the World No.1 at 4. A waste. I wouldn't play Bopara and Dalrymple at the same time either, really. I'd probably go for:Vaughan - Can't drop the captain Bell/Joyce - If Bell needs to play himself in to get going, opening gives him more time, and gets it over with if he's out. Can't decice which one's better, but playing both is stupid. I don't like either of them as one day cricketers, really. Pietersen - More time further up the order. He either needs to be a little lower so he can finish the game with big hitting, or higher so he can play for longer. No. 4 is no-mans land. Strauss - Normally he'd open, but while he rebuilds his confidence he's best not to be so exposed. Collingwood - Works perfectly where he is. Flintoff - Gotta have some batting form sometime. Bopara - Decent/Good at everything. Nixon - Swaps with Bopara if close to the end, as they did in the Ireland game. Lewis - Safe and tidy. Panesar - Class act. Anderson - Takes wickets early. If I had to stick another fast bowler in I'd take Plunkett ahead of Mahmood. They're both inconsistant but Plunkett's good balls are better, and his batting, if needed, is also better. Is it just me who thinks Mahmood uses his slower ball way too much? I see what you are saying but at the moment, the top 3 are out so quickly that KP is batting within the first few overs anyway so it's like having him at number 3 anyway! I do think we should give Bopara a go up the order, he hasn't really had a big chance to have a bat and I'm sure he would be more aggressive than Bell and Joyce
Flynny Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 I see what you are saying but at the moment, the top 3 are out so quickly that KP is batting within the first few overs anyway so it's like having him at number 3 anyway! I do think we should give Bopara a go up the order, he hasn't really had a big chance to have a bat and I'm sure he would be more aggressive than Bell and Joyce I've no problem with him batting higher particularly, just with him batting higher than KP. I think the plan at the moment is for one of the top 3 to make a century, to score at about 4-4.5 an over whilst losing as few wickets as possible, and then, dependant on the amount of wickets lost, begin to accelerate between overs 35 and 45. If/when it works, it's effective, it's just not coming off for us at the moment. They've either got to start making it work, or change. I don't see us sticking with it past today if the top 3 fall over like dominoes again. And Bell doesn't seem to be able to get his strike rate above 50 whatever the situation. He should stick to test cricket at the moment.
The People's Hero Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 If you're going to stick an agressive batsman up the order, why not KP? It's silly having the World No.1 at 4. A waste. I wouldn't play Bopara and Dalrymple at the same time either, really. I'd probably go for:Vaughan - Can't drop the captain Bell/Joyce - If Bell needs to play himself in to get going, opening gives him more time, and gets it over with if he's out. Can't decice which one's better, but playing both is stupid. I don't like either of them as one day cricketers, really. Pietersen - More time further up the order. He either needs to be a little lower so he can finish the game with big hitting, or higher so he can play for longer. No. 4 is no-mans land. Strauss - Normally he'd open, but while he rebuilds his confidence he's best not to be so exposed. Collingwood - Works perfectly where he is. Flintoff - Gotta have some batting form sometime. Bopara - Decent/Good at everything. Nixon - Swaps with Bopara if close to the end, as they did in the Ireland game. Lewis - Safe and tidy. Panesar - Class act. Anderson - Takes wickets early. If I had to stick another fast bowler in I'd take Plunkett ahead of Mahmood. They're both inconsistant but Plunkett's good balls are better, and his batting, if needed, is also better. Is it just me who thinks Mahmood uses his slower ball way too much? He doesn't overuse it. If you want Andrew Hall/Sean Pollock and a few others, they all ball a slower ball and sometimes twice an over, particularly when being charged. The difference is that Mahmood's slower ball (like Flintoff's) is ridiculously easy to pick. I don't rate Mahmood/Plunkett or Anderson very highly. Broad would be there for me. Ideally, Hoggard too. As a Leicestershire fan though, perhaps I'm biased.
Flynny Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 He doesn't overuse it. If you want Andrew Hall/Sean Pollock and a few others, they all ball a slower ball and sometimes twice an over, particularly when being charged.The difference is that Mahmood's slower ball (like Flintoff's) is ridiculously easy to pick. I've seen him use it 4 times an over on more than one occasion. Twice an over is fine. And yeah, it is dead easy to pick. Anderson seems better every match to me though?
The People's Hero Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 I've seen him use it 4 times an over on more than one occasion. Twice an over is fine. And yeah, it is dead easy to pick.Anderson seems better every match to me though? Mahmood really needs to work out his bowling. The potential has been obvious for a while. His stock delivery is so-so, but his variations balls are easy to pick and often wayward. Watch him play and take 5 wickets today now....
Manwell Pablo Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 England to bowl.. Thats good, isn't it? Sri Lanka like to chase don't they? EDIT: Nope other way round Manwell
Milky Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 That has to be one of the weirdest pitches i've ever seen. It looks like a Zebra! We really don't play enough one day cricket. The Sri Lanka team have over 900 caps, we have 550 ish
Flynny Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 That has to be one of the weirdest pitches i've ever seen. It looks like a Zebra! We really don't play enough one day cricket. The Sri Lanka team have over 900 caps, we have 550 ish Worse. BBC sport: 2nd over: 4-0 Sri Lanka have 1,912 one-day caps to England's 541, my colleague informs me. Wow.
Milky Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 Worse.BBC sport: 2nd over: 4-0 Sri Lanka have 1,912 one-day caps to England's 541, my colleague informs me. Wow. wow indeed. It's not just Sri Lanka though, every team has played much more than us. Our country seem to treat the one day game as if it's just a bit on the side.
Brainy Posted 4 April 2007 Author Posted 4 April 2007 Don't get confused people, this happened about 15 minutes ago
The People's Hero Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 Trust Mahmood to take a wicket.He's still shit. His stock delivery is okay. We have better to select from mind. Sounds like our opening bowlers haven't been TOO tight but I suppose it's not an awful start.
Manwell Pablo Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 His stock delivery is okay. We have better to select from mind.Sounds like our opening bowlers haven't been TOO tight but I suppose it's not an awful start. 48-1 off 12, I'd say it's a pretty good start.
The People's Hero Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 4rpo with 2 batsmen now well set. Good start for the Sri Lankans. Next ten overs could be key, we need to pick up another wicket before they pick up the rate.
Flynny Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 Just pointed out in the sky commentary that they hit 43 off the Windies final powerplay, but that was mostly Jayasuriya. And our bowling is probably a bit better than theirs. But they'll probably still be looking to attack it, especially with two batsmen well in.
Manwell Pablo Posted 4 April 2007 Posted 4 April 2007 He's just lucky, Good wicket, Sangakkara is dangerous. Very happy with this!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.