England World T20 squad

First topic message reminder :

At the moment, I'd go with

Craig Kieswetter(wk)
Luke Wright
Ben Stokes
Eoin Morgan
Jonny Bairstow
Jos Buttler
Samit Patel
Stuart Broad(c)
Graeme Swann
Danny Briggs/Steven Finn
Jade Dernbach


Steven Finn/Danny Briggs
Stuart Meaker
Ravi Bopara
Chris Nash


I will write a blog about England's limited overs sides and will explain more in detail there.

Thoughts?

chrisss wrote:Am I the only one who thinks Kieswetter is overrated as a twenty20 cricketer? Sure he was the man of the match in t20 world cup final, but he's got a career strike rate of 115 along with a low average, which for me isn't good enough.

Im with you on this. I think he has to open or not at all. Hes good against the hard ball with pace, but as soon as there is pace off it he struggles to get it off the square and is utterly frustrating to watch.

Buttler and Bairstow MUST be good enough to take the gloves in T20.
I heard that Buttler doesnt keep for Somerset when CK is in the team, despite being a better WK is because he's far superior in the field. Bairstow keeps for Yorkshire in 20/20's also. Both of the B's are much more dynamic batsman and are able to manoevre the ball and manipulate the ball but CK seems to be limited to 1 shot. the 'in to out' shot or straight and seems very rigid in his stance and movement.

For these reasons i would give Bairstow or Buttler the gloves and have them around 5 & 6 respectively.

One day cricket is going much more down the route of having proper batsman opening the innings so I would be comfortable with either Bell or Cook opening the innings, probably Bell IMO.

A nudger and nurdler is needed i feel at 3, to keep rotating the strike and picking up the odd boundary so id go with Bopara/Taylor but Bops just nudges it for me for his ability with the ball to bowl a few dibblers.

Therefore my starting XI

1.Bell
2.Hales
3.Bopara
4.Morgan
5.Bairstow (wk)
6.Buttler
7.Patel
8.Bresnan/Dernbach/Anderson
9.Swann
10.Broad (c)
11.Finn

12.Davies
13.Stokes
14.Bresnan/Dernbach/Anderson
15.Briggs

Havnt quite made my mind up on Mr Jade Dernbach so it would be between him Bresnan and Anderson for the opening bowling slot alongside Finn.

Bit of a leftfield choice but has anyone ever wondered about Graham Napier of Essex?
I wonder how close he has been to selection? It must of been hard not to recognise his ability after that monsterous innings of 152, albeit at Chelmsford, it was pretty special.

Ive followed his exploits ever since then and he is a big player for Essex. Opens the bowling and bats 1/2/3 in 20/20. He bowls at a fair lick 90mph+ with those yorkers being his key ball and great for the death.

is he another Luke Wright and have we moved on from the times of having a bowler that can get quick runs up the order? I think he is better than Luke Wright, much better bowler and his 152 with the bat speaks for itself.

Very interested to hear peoples opinions because his name never seems to be banded around, even in fantasy XI's and not our picks of ECB pre-selected squads.

rwalton - I understand why Napier has caught your eye but just don't think he's a viable option.

He suffers from back trouble which means there has to be a doubt about him lasting the tournament. In any case, is he good enough? I don't think so. Yes, he can be spectacular with the bat but more often he's out cheaply. A lot of his big scores have been at small outgrounds (eg Whitgift School last year) where mis-hits can sail over the boundary. On a larger outfield, such strikes are more likely to end up in a fielder's hands.

I do recall he was picked for an England T20 squad a little while back but never played. Sorry but his time has gone.

Napier only passed 50 with the bat once in 85 T20 games...I think that and his average of 15 says more about his true ability than the one freak score. Hes a big hitter but not really effective, England had a look at him (he was in the 09 squad but never played) but didnt seem to see much they liked. Should Gillespe have moved to opening the Aussie batting after his double century?
As a bowler his record is decent enough. But with his age taken into acount to whilst he may have been on the list of possibles for the 30 Id be amazed if hes in contention for any future England squads.
Despite the 150 Id seen him in limited overs as very much a bowler who can hit a few quick runs, rather than Wright who is an agressive batsman who can weigh in with a few overs now and then. if Napier were to ever be on the radar it would have to be because England wanted a medium pace right arm seamer bowling 10 overs regularly...to be frank they have more than enough right arm seam options as it is.
Flip that though and look at one of the likely starts in Bresnan ...his T20 international record is poor and his domestic bowling record worse than that of Napiers. If we were going purely on stats then Napier should be in ahead of him.
Compare his bowling to that of Dernbach to, he perhaps would fill that role in the squad/side .. mixing up the pace and used to frustrate batsmen at the close with variety. Again Napier has the better record, and even discounting the 150 is the better batsman.

I guess England either see him as too old or where unimpressed by him when they had him in the squad previously, as well as their continued policy of backing players who are already in the side

i agree his time has come and gone too, was just wondering what peoples opinions were of him and whether he could of added anything to the England T20 side.
I agree with the small ground point but not many people have put together innings like that Chelmsford.
Too few and far between nowadays. but a very handy cricketer for Essex all the same.

Well my answer would be yes clearly hes a good county cricketer, and maybe he couldve had Dernbachs place/role for England has he not been injured at the wrong time...adding some power runs as a bonus.

rwalton9 wrote:Bit of a leftfield choice but has anyone ever wondered about Graham Napier of Essex?
I wonder how close he has been to selection? It must of been hard not to recognise his ability after that monsterous innings of 152, albeit at Chelmsford, it was pretty special.

Ive followed his exploits ever since then and he is a big player for Essex. Opens the bowling and bats 1/2/3 in 20/20. He bowls at a fair lick 90mph+ with those yorkers being his key ball and great for the death.

is he another Luke Wright and have we moved on from the times of having a bowler that can get quick runs up the order? I think he is better than Luke Wright, much better bowler and his 152 with the bat speaks for itself.

Very interested to hear peoples opinions because his name never seems to be banded around, even in fantasy XI's and not our picks of ECB pre-selected squads.

Im an Essex boy, huge essex fan and Napier fan...I have seen a lot of him, but he wont play for england.....He hasnt done anything with the bat since that 152..also chelmsford is tiny...not to take away from the innings....Yes he bowls 90mph+ when we wants to and has a devastating yorker, however he isnt consistent enough for international cricket.

CF wrote:

Im an Essex boy, huge essex fan ... .

Never knew that, you should have said ....

The only way is essex

Napier? Seriously? There are at least a dozen better bowlers around in England, and his batting is that of a number 9 at international level.

Cook may be ok, but we shouldn't read too much into his domestic T20 record: at international level he has rather limited scoring options and the quality of the bowling may mean he just can't score at the required rates. of course mysti is wrong in insisting that the best players play all formats: the greatest ever one-day side included Bevan, Symonds and Bracken as integral parts - none of whoom were cut out for test cricket.

Like Shelsey I'm not sure wickets in hand and seeing off the new ball is such a worry in T20 - very rarely do you have slips in place, so you can afford to be a lot looser outside off than in 50 over cricket. I do think Bell could be a good T20 opener though.

yeah yeah yeah.. Trust me Mike the best can put there hand to anything

Mike Selig wrote:Napier? Seriously? There are at least a dozen better bowlers around in England,

Theres 15 bowlers in the current 30 man squad so if theres only 12 better shouldnt he be in there ?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Napier? Seriously? There are at least a dozen better bowlers around in England,

Theres 15 bowlers in the current 30 man squad so if theres only 12 better shouldnt he be in there ?

I wasnt bemoaning the non-inclusion of Graham Napier in the provisional squad, just purely putting it outthere to gauge the consensus of the 606 forum, as I thought previously he might of been considered for selection. It seems that was in 2009.
Although very interesting to compare his stats with current crop of 'favourites'

Bres:
T20Is 20 20 388 479 14 3/10 3/10 34.21 7.40 27.7 0 0 0
List A 200 8861 7545 224 5/48 5/48 33.68 5.10 39.5 5 1 0
Twenty20 70 69 1389 1712 63 3/10 3/10 27.17 7.39 22.0 0 0 0
Napier:
List A 214 7303 6346 243 6/29 6/29 26.11 5.21 30.0 9 1 0
Twenty20 85 85 1820 2225 106 4/10 4/10 20.99 7.33 17.1 1 0 0


May be i such change my tack, from an inquisitive ask, and start a campaign of Napier in the squad (tongue firmly in cheek)

mystiroakey wrote:yeah yeah yeah.. Trust me Mike the best can put there hand to anything

Explain Bevan to me then...

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Napier? Seriously? There are at least a dozen better bowlers around in England,

Theres 15 bowlers in the current 30 man squad so if theres only 12 better shouldnt he be in there ?

Key words in bold...

Mike Selig wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Napier? Seriously? There are at least a dozen better bowlers around in England,

Theres 15 bowlers in the current 30 man squad so if theres only 12 better shouldnt he be in there ?

Key words in bold...

A squad of 30 is so massive - almost 3 teams! - that I couldn't really get excited by it. Sure, there was the odd surprise inclusion like Gareth Batty. However, for me, there were no surprising exclusions*. As always, someone else could have been legitimately sneaked in but nobody was left out who had an overwhelming case to be included. Certainly, no one was omitted who could reasonably have expected to make the final 15.

All in all, selectors doing their job soundly and sensibly.

* Pietersen was old news by the time the squad was announced so I'm not counting him.

Mike Selig wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Napier? Seriously? There are at least a dozen better bowlers around in England,

Theres 15 bowlers in the current 30 man squad so if theres only 12 better shouldnt he be in there ?

Key words in bold...

Is Bresnan in the top 4 bowlers in Britain? Youd think not, his figures say otherwise.

Except in T20 where Napiers are far better.

Look atht was just a cheeky remark, and as I said originaly I dont think Napier was ever a realistic target and I agree on your assesment of his batting, he built a reputation on one innings. oddly In first class hes probably a better batsman than bowler, perhaps backing up your other point that the best (or in this case fairly dcent) cant always turn their hand to everything. Hes a low order banger.

What I would say with him though is that hes one of the best "variation" seamers in the country. Would we say that Dernbach is one of the top 7 bowlers? yet he has a very strong chance of making the squad. If you wanted someone who could fill a similar role in the squadyou might look to Napier, and Dernbach only got his chance when Napier was injured so who knows maybe they wouldve tried him. They didnt, so it was always unlikely he was goign to get selected for this group let alone the final squad.

I think we all agree theres noone we wouldve had in the final 15 thats missing from the 30, except KP.

Yes, Bresnan and Dernbach are clearly in the top 5 (T20) bowlers in England.

Figures only tell you so much.

The danger with looking at the domestic T20 records of Cook and Bell (and Trott) is that, as international players, they damn well should be doing well against county bowlers in all forms of the game. The real question is whether they have the options to score quickly against on-song international bowlers. I think Bell could, but not playing much domestic T20 counts against him, but I reiterate that I'm not sure Cook does.

Remember that Lumb and Kieswetter did very well in the last T20 to always score quickly up front, setting a platform (without using many overs up) for KP, Morgan and Colly to play the really decisive knocks.

shelsey i am not sure about this bell yes and cook no- its rubbish. bells domestic t20 record is much slower than cooks! its the only thing we can match them against- and cook is just simply the better player.

the reason why cook would be such a great 20/20 player is because 1. he is a top level batsman, two he is the most unselfish player we have and 3 the most intellegnet reader of the game- he can and will score quick enough, he will not pride his wicket like others may in t20 unless we can pace the win batting second, he will allways play for the team.. Thats why we need him- I cannot understand this bell can do it but cook cant- wtf is anyone basing this on!

btw - bell is also a very good team player as well so nothing wrong with him as a shout(but i would put cook above him in the list). Trott is not a 20/20 option in my mind and never ever will be, he doesnt understand how to adapt his style to a situation

Shelsey and I both feel that Bell has a wider range of scoring areas.

Shelsey has explained at length why their county figures should count for little - the difference in standard of bowlers is huge.

Put simply, at county level Cook will get on average a ball in his areas (either on his pads or short and wide) every 5 balls, whereas at international level he'll be lucky if it's 1 in 10. Like Shelsey I feel the best international attacks will be able to restrict Cook by covering his zones and bowling outside his comfort zone; in ODI cricket you can get away by hitting a boundary every 10 balls in the PP, particularly with the 2 new balls. In T20 you need a boundary per over (at least).

I would be happy for Cook to have a chance to prove us wrong, but I'm not sure the WC is the time for experimenting.

Trott is similarly limited in his scoring areas, but has had a lot of success at domestic T20 (which you conveniently ignore).

bell doesnt though- cook can do it all

You are talking alot of nonsense in fairness(no disrespect) by banging on about the county averages- the fact is its the only thing we can base them on at the moment- it is how we rate players before they have played international cricket- look at them like bairstow and woakes not cook and bell- becuase neither have played a significant number at international level. The proof is in the pudding..

You are talking about experimenting with bell!!! that is the bigger experiment in my opinion. Pick the better player(cook)end of story.

You have also completly forgot about cooks attitude- thats his plus- t20 is chips to these lads. You like to pigioen hole players i feel. England have re written the way to play odis- and we also will in the t20's..

You lot were saying the same about cook before he got in the odi team about odi's! its never ending

I dont think Jimmy has played a single T20, even domestically since being dropped at the 2010 World T20. So I dont understand how he can be picked but Cook and Trott be ignored because they havent played enough domestic T20.

Mike Selig wrote:Shelsey and I both feel that Bell has a wider range of scoring areas.

Shelsey has explained at length why their county figures should count for little - the difference in standard of bowlers is huge.

Put simply, at county level Cook will get on average a ball in his areas (either on his pads or short and wide) every 5 balls, whereas at international level he'll be lucky if it's 1 in 10. Like Shelsey I feel the best international attacks will be able to restrict Cook by covering his zones and bowling outside his comfort zone; in ODI cricket you can get away by hitting a boundary every 10 balls in the PP, particularly with the 2 new balls. In T20 you need a boundary per over (at least).

I would be happy for Cook to have a chance to prove us wrong, but I'm not sure the WC is the time for experimenting.

Trott is similarly limited in his scoring areas, but has had a lot of success at domestic T20 (which you conveniently ignore).

btw trotts RR of is 114 to cooks 130 domestically!!

He also possibly has to high an average for t20 with that RR- yes you may think that sounds nuts but i dont- his is 37 to cooks 34, cook could easily have abetter average than trott if he played less deliveries like trott!! as i said before cook plays for the team- something people dont think enough about..

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I dont think Jimmy has played a single T20, even domestically since being dropped at the 2010 World T20. So I dont understand how he can be picked but Cook and Trott be ignored because they havent played enough domestic T20.

I would say (and it might come across as clutching at straws), that bowling in T20 is less different from bowling in other forms of the game than batting is. Of course you need to have some additional skills in your armory but the adjustment is less for Jimmy (who I would bowl through up front unless he gets hit, should he need to play) than for Cook. Also, Jimmy has been in the squads as a reserve throughout that time so he's clearly been in England's thinking.

Bell has already opened in international T20 and done reasonably - hence less of an experiment.

To suggest that we can only base ourselves on county records is what is nonsense - use your eyes and your judgement. When I see Bairstow play county T20 I see someone who can hit big and hard at the end of an innings. When I see Cook play county T20 I see someone who is a good player, but who gets by because bowlers stray too often in line and length. I am not sure that I see someone who can score at the 130 required SR at the top of the order in T20 internationals.

As a coach I frequently am required to make judgements based on what I see, rather than stats alone. You may rate players based on county stats prior to international cricket - I certainly do not. Neither does anyone I know who's ever been involved at the upper echelons of the game in any country.

Pray how are England going to change the way T20s are played? Solid base? Don't forget it's one new ball, and in the subcontinent to boot. The best time for batting is with the new ball.

I have always said Cook is a good ODI player if you are looking to score between 250 and 280 rather than 300+; it so happens that the changes in playing conditions have played into Cook's hands.

Personally I quite like the idea of Bell opening in T20.

I am told that Wright has improved a lot but I havent watched him bat often enough this season. If he hasnt improved, then dont see the point of taking him as he was fairly rubbish last time around.

Mike Selig wrote:Bell has already opened in international T20 and done reasonably - hence less of an experiment.

To suggest that we can only base ourselves on county records is what is nonsense - use your eyes and your judgement. When I see Bairstow play county T20 I see someone who can hit big and hard at the end of an innings. When I see Cook play county T20 I see someone who is a good player, but who gets by because bowlers stray too often in line and length. I am not sure that I see someone who can score at the 130 required SR at the top of the order in T20 internationals.

As a coach I frequently am required to make judgements based on what I see, rather than stats alone. You may rate players based on county stats prior to international cricket - I certainly do not. Neither does anyone I know who's ever been involved at the upper echelons of the game in any country.

Pray how are England going to change the way T20s are played? Solid base? Don't forget it's one new ball, and in the subcontinent to boot. The best time for batting is with the new ball.

I have always said Cook is a good ODI player if you are looking to score between 250 and 280 rather than 300+; it so happens that the changes in playing conditions have played into Cook's hands.

gonna admit mike- i really think cook is fooling you because he is so good at playing test cricket and then became so good at odi cricket(from day one on his return) that you believe he is limited(its actually almost laughable) because he has self control and knows how to pace and judge formats and innings and leave balls, but in t20 he isnt gonna do that. You couldnt be furthar from the truth pal. Sorry if i sound harsh but your miles off mate

shanky why dont you try and make some points rather than just copying others- form your own opinion for once dude

Re : Cook vs Bell

Bell, despite an inferior domestic T20 record, looks a more rounded player with a full range of strokes than Cook.

mystiroakey wrote:shanky were dont you try and make some points rather than just copying others- form your own opinion for once dude

Err.. dont see the point in repeating the same stuff again and again. I doubt you'd have been saying this if I was agreeing with your opinion. Grow up.

I just tend to agree from listening to ex-pros on the subject that Bell has the bigger range of shots and more scoring options than Cook.

Don't think that Cook will make the final 15 because of this.

the domestic record is only part of it, thats clear as day.
Not sure how anyone could think it was!
What about the fact that cook isnt limited, and is just the better batter, has the better head, is becoming a true champion captain, has nerves of steel, is a true winner,has better average sin all forms of the game , and can adapt when needed.

The only reason he wasnt picked for certain forms of the game is because he is that good at test and there is this ridiculas concept still floating about that t20 will dillute true test players skills

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:shanky were dont you try and make some points rather than just copying others- form your own opinion for once dude

Err.. dont see the point in repeating the same stuff again and again. I doubt you'd have been saying this if I was agreeing with your opinion. Grow up.

grow up yourself , form an opinion

mystiroakey wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:shanky were dont you try and make some points rather than just copying others- form your own opinion for once dude

Err.. dont see the point in repeating the same stuff again and again. I doubt you'd have been saying this if I was agreeing with your opinion. Grow up.

grow up yourself , form an opinion

As I said, if my opinion has already been conveyed by another, I dont see the point in repeating it. Anyways, why am I debating this with you?

skyeman wrote:I just tend to agree from listening to ex-pros on the subject that Bell has the bigger range of shots and more scoring options than Cook.

Don't think that Cook will make the final 15 because of this.

well its rubbish and i havent heard one pro mention that either. but you need to try and also form your own opinion- dont just agree with what people tell you- watch the game and make your own judgements

OK. What balls would you back Cook to hit for 4? I'll give you two: clip off his pads or square cut. He can also cover drive very well, but a deep point will block that off. When the spinners come on, he can slog-sweep, sweep, reverse-sweep or again cut through point. Of those, only the reverse sweep is a boundary option in international T20 outide the PP.

So he's batting the first over, the field is deep point, deep forward square leg, everything else classical. The bowler is bowling just back of a length off-stump. Where is Cook scoring a 4? His two options are:
- down the track and down the ground (it is not one of Cook's shots)
- accross the line pick up which he plays occasionally in ODIs, but tough on slow pitches (plenty of cutters being bowled) and the sort of shot you will hit once every 2 times you attempt it.

Cook needs a boundary. Where's it coming from?

To put Bell in there, Bell comes down the pitch a lot easier than Cook and also has the late cut. That's 2 more options than Cook does. The late cut in particular means that you have to have a 3rd man in there, so you've either got no deep point (so Bell can go inside out over cover - again not one of Cook's shots) or everyone is up on the onside, so Bell can bat on off-stump - he can still go down the ground, or step down and accross a la McCullum and go over the onside.

cook will just whack it like every other t20 player out there that plays the game mike!!

Stop over analysing what you see him do in the test arerna- he is just a very disciplined batter in that envioroment. But put him in t20 and trust me you will clearly be very surprised. Stop over analysing this- I know you were one of the odi doubters an all- just admit it

mystiroakey wrote:the domestic record is only part of it, thats clear as day.
Not sure how anyone could think it was!
What about the fact that cook isnt limited, and is just the better batter, has the better head, is becoming a true champion captain, has nerves of steel, is a true winner,has better average sin all forms of the game , and can adapt when needed.

The only reason he wasnt picked for certain forms of the game is because he is that good at test and there is this ridiculas concept still floating about that t20 will dillute true test players skills

This is just your opinion. Dont try to pretemd as if its an universal fact. The idea that players should picked solely based on their domestic numbers is rather ludicrous. Of course, numbers are important but you have also got to watch a player and try to visualise that player facing a certain international attack in certain conditions and think whether he can cope with it. In case of Cook, as has been said, despite his success at domestic level doesnt look like the sort of player who'd succeed at international T20 as he doesnt really have a power game nor is he an innovative player. Bell plays with soft hands which should stand him in good stead in the SC.

b tw mike did you not realise that cooks RR in odis is 80 and bells is 74..

Please do yourself a favour- you are gonna have to back up real proof with your opinions- because the realities dont add up that cook has less shots- he simply scores faster mate

mystiroakey wrote:

skyeman wrote:I just tend to agree from listening to ex-pros on the subject that Bell has the bigger range of shots and more scoring options than Cook.

Don't think that Cook will make the final 15 because of this.

well its rubbish and i havent heard one pro mention that either. but you need to try and also form your own opinion- dont just agree with what people tell you- watch the game and make your own judgements

That is my opinion

Bell will be better in IT20's than Cook, which is i think what you will look silly about when the selectors omit Cook from the final 15.

mystiroakey wrote:b tw mike did you not realise that cooks RR in odis is 80 and bells is 74..

Please do yourself a favour- you are gonna have to back up real proof with your opinions- because the realities dont add up that cook has less shots- he simply scores faster mate

Just a few minutes ago, you said "watch the game and make your own judgements" and now when Mike is giving you his judgements based on what he has "seen", you are quoting stats to prove him wrong. Somehow seems inconsistent.

Shanky why dont you try and add to this debate rather than being this cheerleader pal

mystiroakey wrote:cook will just whack it like every other t20 player out there that plays the game mike!!

That is not an answer. Nobody at that level "just whacks it" - they pick an area they know they can score if the ball's in a certain place, and then back themselves. You really don't understand anything about the higher forms of the game if you think otherwise. Take any other international T20 opener in that situation:
- Gayle: can pull from that length, or come down the wicket and hit over the top.
- Shewag: naturally stays inside the line so can hit that through extra-cover - bowl a bit straighter and it's well known to be his problem ball
- Watson: murderous pull shot from that length, anything fuller and he can drive in a variety of areas
- Warner: either his short arm jab, or stay inside the line and through extra
- Dilshan: tendancy to stay inside the line, but with deep point and third-man that's a problem ball for him. Pull shot not a strength early on.
Etc...

I am not basing my analysis on Cook's test cricket - go and watch him play domestic T20, how often does he come down the wicket and hit the bowler back over his head?

I dont have any intentions to "debate" with people who do nothing but insult others who disagree with them and try and portray their own opinions as universal facts.

skyeman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

skyeman wrote:I just tend to agree from listening to ex-pros on the subject that Bell has the bigger range of shots and more scoring options than Cook.

Don't think that Cook will make the final 15 because of this.

well its rubbish and i havent heard one pro mention that either. but you need to try and also form your own opinion- dont just agree with what people tell you- watch the game and make your own judgements

That is my opinion

Bell will be better in IT20's than Cook, which is i think what you will look silly about when the selectors omit Cook from the final 15.

i have made the point that he will be omitted and that it will be a mistake and i feel they are gonna make the same mistake as they did by not selecting him before the 50 over world cup- and that if we gave him a chance he would perfomr(and much better than bell )

But the most important pasrt in this is that i dont think it will dilute his test game becusue he has the all round cricket brain that is so few and far between- that is why certyain players cant play more formats rather than ability

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I dont have any intentions to "debate" with people who do nothing but insult others who disagree with them and try and portray their own opinions as universal facts.

I am the only one counter arguing others opinons- that is debate. If you cant take abit of ribbing then get out.

mystiroakey wrote:b tw mike did you not realise that cooks RR in odis is 80 and bells is 74..

Please do yourself a favour- you are gonna have to back up real proof with your opinions- because the realities dont add up that cook has less shots- he simply scores faster mate

Oh for heaven's sake.

1) First you say don't judge Cook based on other formats now you're saying no let's.
2) Bell until recently (like England) was rubbish in ODIs because he didn't know how he was meant to be playing them.
3) Bell has played a lot of ODI cricket lower in the order, where it is usual for SRs to be lower (e.g. Clarke has a SR of 77 IIRC?)
4) If you proved an opinion it would no longer be an opinion. Unlike you I have backed up my opinions with saliant observations. All you have done is quoted statistics. Which shots does Cook have which Bell doesn't?