England's domination or India's revenge

First topic message reminder :

Bell dropped, great chance for Bairstow. England to bowl.

India leave out Aaron Varun and play Vinay Kumar???? strange

TBH we all knew England were on a hiding to nothing coming here, don't really get the point of this tour at all, but I guess you could say it's a good learning curve for the youngsters. If we win one match we'll have done OK...

Trott has a similar SR and a better average than the following:

Clarke
Jayawardene
Dravid

not bad for a guy who isn't an ODI player...

shooter gets Swann, this has been a right proper thrashing, even though England looked in a decent position until Cook got out...

MfC, the players you mention actually take the attack to the bowlers alot. I have rarely seen Trott do that. Thats where i think the difference is.

A great test player but i just dont think that he is a great ODI player.

great, no. Good enough to make this ODI side, a hundred times yes.

Patel misses out on his third (at least) two because he can't run, so exposes Finn

Mad for Chelsea wrote:TBH we all knew England were on a hiding to nothing coming here, don't really get the point of this tour at all, but I guess you could say it's a good learning curve for the youngsters. If we win one match we'll have done OK...

nothing but money as India wanted a reciprocal tour.
pointless and greedy. the players don't seem to want to be there either.

i say lose the lot badly and send a message to the greedy gits in charge.

But do you think that he is an attacking player then MfC?

I thought that a player in his position needed to atack the bowlers and get the bowlers under pressure. He just prods and pokes most of the time. Sure he has an ok SR and an excellent average but there is more to ODI cricket than that.

I hate it when England lose, but it is only one match, imagine how millions of Indian fans felt throughout the English summer.

it'll be 5.

we don't look up for it. India do at home as you'd expect.

it isn't revenge for the pasting they took here though. Barbie cricket won't cut it. Thrash us in tests then it's revenge.

Patel clean bowled going for what can only be described as an ugly heave

billy, I've seen Trott play plenty of attacking innings, and score at over a run-a-ball a few times. He won't do it all the time, because he's an accumulator rather than a dasher, but with pretty much the rest of our top 7 (with Morgan in place of Bopara) being able to dash I don't think it matters much, we need that solidity that means Morgan can come in at 120+ for three rather than <50 for three...

Not a great display sure but well played India, especiall Jadeja

Trott reminds me of Tendulkar, in the fact that they will try anything not to get out, whether it is to the detriment of the team or not. Sometimes selfish. Scoring slowly by Trott as lost England a lot more odi,s than they have won. ie when Trott has got some sought of a score.

Have to agree to disagree on this then MfC.

show me a list of ODIs where Trott's slow scoring has cost England the game skyeman...

all over. Well played India. England need to re-think their approach against the spinners, they looked clueless at times.

Well thats that then. Well played India

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Patel is still not fit enough for International cricket IMO...

the only debate about Trott is on these boards msp, people who understand the game know he's an invaluable member of the team

MFC, Trott has scored runs consistently, at a decent enough strike rate overall. But the problem with him is that of adapting to the situation. Don't 26 of 42 was what England needed from him when the target is 3001. It put additional pressure on Alastair Cook, who himself had to reinvent his game to adapt to the demands of the ODI game.
Trottmanaged to keep the questions away by gitting runs consistently, the moment he failes to do it, Questions are bount to come up against him, particularly as Ian Bell is out.
Personally, I think Trott has scored enough runs to give him an extended run, not at 4, he just can't bat anywhere other than at 3. The bowling PP will now be taken after the 15th over, and Kevin Pietersen, coming in later, can take advantage. At the same time, Trott would do well to reevaluate his ODI game a bit more.

Good to get that winning feeling again, a 126 run thrashing is a good way to start the series.

I have seen it numerous times when Trott has scored 40,50,60,70 and England have lost the match, of course not all down to Trott, but if he had scored even a small amount quicker, it would mean more runs and more balls, and thus tight matches might go more in England,s favour. In odi,s, i think his average covers up a lot of deficiencies in the odi format. He is still a class act though, and i hope he work,s on it.

I agree that he needs to adapt better, that would make all the difference.

eirebilly wrote:Well thats that then. Well played India

yup.

england can't play spin to save their lives.

Funny how the Indian guys on tv now had Fletcher as genious plotting the downfall of each and every English player with great genious.

They must have pretended this summer never happened. Deluded.

msp83 wrote:
MFC, Trott has scored runs consistently, at a decent enough strike rate overall. But the problem with him is that of adapting to the situation. Don't 26 of 42 was what England needed from him when the target is 3001. It put additional pressure on Alastair Cook, who himself had to reinvent his game to adapt to the demands of the ODI game.
Trottmanaged to keep the questions away by gitting runs consistently, the moment he failes to do it, Questions are bount to come up against him, particularly as Ian Bell is out.
Personally, I think Trott has scored enough runs to give him an extended run, not at 4, he just can't bat anywhere other than at 3. The bowling PP will now be taken after the 15th over, and Kevin Pietersen, coming in later, can take advantage. At the same time, Trott would do well to reevaluate his ODI game a bit more.

I agree with most of this, except the slight typo in the second paragraph. If we were chasing 3001 I'd be seriously worried about our bowlers The point is that Cook has reinvented his game and now scores at a run a ball regularly, so we can have Trott and Cook together without getting stuck. I thoroughly agree about Trott being better at three, with KP at four. KP is a far better player of spin, so should play the spinners (missing Moggsy again)

england were better against India back in the WC.. doesn't bode well.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

msp83 wrote:
MFC, Trott has scored runs consistently, at a decent enough strike rate overall. But the problem with him is that of adapting to the situation. Don't 26 of 42 was what England needed from him when the target is 3001. It put additional pressure on Alastair Cook, who himself had to reinvent his game to adapt to the demands of the ODI game.
Trottmanaged to keep the questions away by gitting runs consistently, the moment he failes to do it, Questions are bount to come up against him, particularly as Ian Bell is out.
Personally, I think Trott has scored enough runs to give him an extended run, not at 4, he just can't bat anywhere other than at 3. The bowling PP will now be taken after the 15th over, and Kevin Pietersen, coming in later, can take advantage. At the same time, Trott would do well to reevaluate his ODI game a bit more.

I agree with most of this, except the slight typo in the second paragraph. If we were chasing 3001 I'd be seriously worried about our bowlers The point is that Cook has reinvented his game and now scores at a run a ball regularly, so we can have Trott and Cook together without getting stuck. I thoroughly agree about Trott being better at three, with KP at four. KP is a far better player of spin, so should play the spinners (missing Moggsy again)

You know winning after some time can do things to you!!. Wish they'd scored those additional 2700 runs during the English summer!!!!.
Eoin Morgan? England are most certainly missing the man!.
Should we refrace the Bell vs Bairstow question into Bell vs Patel? Could have done it, had Trott, KP and Pietersen not been the only realistic choices for the 5th bowler's job.

May be England should make better use of Tim Bresnan the batsman by batting him at 7, going for the real additionall spinner or young Chris Woakes who is a fine bet at 8 wih the bat.

Bresnan is nowhere near a good enough bat to bat at 7.

Bell is simply too good to leave out, bring him in for Trott, in my opinion. Key in India is hitting through the line of the ball, and Trott just doesn't have this particular string to his bow. Bell at 3, KP at 4.

Overall though, and I said this before this nonsensical series, why did we even bother going over to India for these pointless ODI's? The BCCI were clearly just trying to regain any ranking points they lost when we drubbed them in England, and our players should have been using this time to recoup and regroup ready for the winter tour.

I thought the series was planned before the English summer?

No, not as far as I'm aware msp, though of course I'll happily be proved wrong if that is indeed the case.

FF, I remember the series was indeed schduled for this year, spiltting the ODI and test legs, with the latter to be played next year.
Think its part of the atempts among the big teams to play each other as much as possible.
Don't think too much of 2 teams playing is a good idea.

comparing trott to jayawardene and co is extremely daft.they started off in an era in which a s/r of 70 was perfectly acceptable.Would anyone compare their s/rates since trott's ODI debut?

Precisely, MSP. They must be sick of the sight of each other, though India will obviously be looking to gain some revenge.

Overkill, if you ask me, and a thoroughly unnecessary series, really.

i think what today's beating showed us was that in india you need 5 frontline bowlers. india went for kumar, kumar, yadav, ashwin and jadeja. england went for bresnan, finn, dernbach, swann plus patel & bopara. all you need to do is look at australia(and they all ways won the odi series in india), pick 5 proper bowlers. india didn't go after swann as they knew they could get after patel, finn etc

Issac Watson wrote:i think what today's beating showed us was that in india you need 5 frontline bowlers. india went for kumar, kumar, yadav, ashwin and jadeja. england went for bresnan, finn, dernbach, swann plus patel & bopara. all you need to do is look at australia(and they all ways won the odi series in india), pick 5 proper bowlers. india didn't go after swann as they knew they could get after patel, finn etc

Is Finn not a 'proper' bowler?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Issac Watson wrote:i think what today's beating showed us was that in india you need 5 frontline bowlers. india went for kumar, kumar, yadav, ashwin and jadeja. england went for bresnan, finn, dernbach, swann plus patel & bopara. all you need to do is look at australia(and they all ways won the odi series in india), pick 5 proper bowlers. india didn't go after swann as they knew they could get after patel, finn etc

Is Finn not a 'proper' bowler?

look at my post where i listed finn with bresnan etc. i said that india knew they could get after finn, that doesn't mean he's not a proper bowler.

So you're not only saying that England should pick 5 bowlers, but that they should also pick different bowlers?

on a side note, i'm hoping msp can answer this, does this guy varon arron like carrying the drinks? he's been with the squad for 6 weeks now, yet dhoni never picks him.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:So you're not only saying that England should pick 5 bowlers, but that they should also pick different bowlers?

i think woakes would be a better pick than finn, but finn was unlucky. you often see guys with pace get hammered in india. i think borthwick should replace patel

Don't know if Woakes would be a better bet with the ball than Finn.
But if you were to replace Patel with Borthwick, Woakes in place of Finn would help bolster the batting.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Don't know if Woakes would be a better bet with the ball than Finn.
But if you were to replace Patel with Borthwick, Woakes in place of Finn would help bolster the batting.

you often see line bowlers do well in india, as they can frustrate india's dashing batsmen, just look at how rahane was forced to go after swann and got out. finn is fast, but bowls the wrong length for india. borthwick is more attacking than patel, and will often something different.

Borthwick's batting is probably worse than Patel's though, so if that is the only change it would unbalance the side. If Woakes were to go in for Finn, then I would understand Borthwick for Patel. But Woakes shouldn't come in for Finn. Finn may be a bit errant at times, but he will take wickets. Woakes's medium pace will be hammered without a swing. I hope I am proved wrong but I view him as absolutely nothing special with the ball when it isn't moving as he isn't quick enough to cause any other problems.

we were awful yesterday, and deserved to get battered, i watched the game, and the only thing that was worse than our performance, was having to listen to dermot reeve's commentary

Issac Watson wrote:on a side note, i'm hoping msp can answer this, does this guy varon arron like carrying the drinks? he's been with the squad for 6 weeks now, yet dhoni never picks him.

Well, Varun Aaron can bowl fast, and not a lot in India do that. So, there is a lot of excitement and hope about him in India. But the problem with him though is that his bowling, other than the pace bit, is just evolving. He doesn't do much in the air or of the pitch with the ball now. On flat pitches with not a great deal of bounce and carry, He may go for quite a few.
It seems the team management is hoping time with the squad would help Aaron.
Personally, I would like him being given an opportunity ahead of R Vinay Kumar. Vinay is a domestic star, but his lack of pace and the absence of PK like swing cannot make him very effective.
In this series, its likely Aaron will get his chance. As Sourav Ganguly said, he doesn't learn by sitting in the dressing room.

Samit Patel wasn't able to make a huge impression on the Indian batters. They see him as the weaklink in their attack. Steven Fin with his pace can always be a threat, but his lack of experience is an issue.
I would have Borthwick in place of Patel, and have Bresnan batting at 7.

msp83 wrote:

Issac Watson wrote:on a side note, i'm hoping msp can answer this, does this guy varon arron like carrying the drinks? he's been with the squad for 6 weeks now, yet dhoni never picks him.

Well, Varun Aaron can bowl fast, and not a lot in India do that. So, there is a lot of excitement and hope about him in India. But the problem with him though is that his bowling, other than the pace bit, is just evolving. He doesn't do much in the air or of the pitch with the ball now. On flat pitches with not a great deal of bounce and carry, He may go for quite a few.
It seems the team management is hoping time with the squad would help Aaron.
Personally, I would like him being given an opportunity ahead of R Vinay Kumar. Vinay is a domestic star, but his lack of pace and the absence of PK like swing cannot make him very effective.
In this series, its likely Aaron will get his chance. As Sourav Ganguly said, he doesn't learn by sitting in the dressing room.

even if aaron bowls with no swing, 95mph is still a handful. india are regularly unable to bowl out tailenders, so aaron should be deployed to blow away the lower order. his list a record is pretty good and he has a couple of 5 fers.

JDizzle wrote:Borthwick's batting is probably worse than Patel's though, so if that is the only change it would unbalance the side. If Woakes were to go in for Finn, then I would understand Borthwick for Patel. But Woakes shouldn't come in for Finn. Finn may be a bit errant at times, but he will take wickets. Woakes's medium pace will be hammered without a swing. I hope I am proved wrong but I view him as absolutely nothing special with the ball when it isn't moving as he isn't quick enough to cause any other problems.

if england play 5 bowlers, the india may not get 300+, and therefore patel's batting won't be missed. regarding woakes, a guy called mcgrath used to torment india, he was only medium pace

Issac Watson wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Borthwick's batting is probably worse than Patel's though, so if that is the only change it would unbalance the side. If Woakes were to go in for Finn, then I would understand Borthwick for Patel. But Woakes shouldn't come in for Finn. Finn may be a bit errant at times, but he will take wickets. Woakes's medium pace will be hammered without a swing. I hope I am proved wrong but I view him as absolutely nothing special with the ball when it isn't moving as he isn't quick enough to cause any other problems.

if england play 5 bowlers, the india may not get 300+, and therefore patel's batting won't be missed. regarding woakes, a guy called mcgrath used to torment india, he was only medium pace

How many runs is playing a proper bowler over getting through 10 overs of Samit/Ravi going to save you? 20/30 at most. So if England are chasing 280 they still need 7 batsmen, not Bresnan at 7. And you cannot honestly be comparing Woakes to McGrath? If Woakes had the control of McGrath he would already be ion the side.

msp, bringing in Borthwick would only make the attack more inexperienced and weaken the batting.
And it's not as if Borthwick has an outstanding domestic limited overs record either. I believe, in fact, that Patel's is far superior.
That's not to say that Borthwick wouldn't be more of a threat than Patel, but it's far from being the given that some people seem to be assuming that it is IMHO.
The thing I want to know is, while it's fair enough to keep bowling Swann when he's exerting a level of control, was it a tactical mistake to bowl him out and leave Patel and/or Bopara to bowl in the last 10 overs?

JDizzle wrote:

Issac Watson wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Borthwick's batting is probably worse than Patel's though, so if that is the only change it would unbalance the side. If Woakes were to go in for Finn, then I would understand Borthwick for Patel. But Woakes shouldn't come in for Finn. Finn may be a bit errant at times, but he will take wickets. Woakes's medium pace will be hammered without a swing. I hope I am proved wrong but I view him as absolutely nothing special with the ball when it isn't moving as he isn't quick enough to cause any other problems.

if england play 5 bowlers, the india may not get 300+, and therefore patel's batting won't be missed. regarding woakes, a guy called mcgrath used to torment india, he was only medium pace

How many runs is playing a proper bowler over getting through 10 overs of Samit/Ravi going to save you? 20/30 at most. So if England are chasing 280 they still need 7 batsmen, not Bresnan at 7. And you cannot honestly be comparing Woakes to McGrath? If Woakes had the control of McGrath he would already be ion the side.

woakes and mcgrath comparison is bowling style only my friend. if india only get 250, do england really need 7 batsmen?

Probably Issac, judging by yesterdays performance!!