England vs West Indies Second ODI Debate

First topic message reminder :

The backdrop to the 2nd ODI between England and the West Indies is a rather sad one, with the tragic death of Tom Maynard.
But the cricket nevertheless has to go ahead. For England, the massive win in the first ODI, with every part of their game working in decent order would give them extra confidence. Ian Bell has started his new innings as ODI opener in some style, now the greater challenge is to keep it going consistently. It is unlikely England would make any change in the team that won the first match, but the possibility of some spin might bring some thoughts about Samit Patel.
As far as the WI goes, they were kind of being built up as the favorits in some sections of the press, but at that point itself I had my doubts, although they have a far better side to challenge the English in this format unlike the case was during the test series.
The West Indies are forced to make at least one change, as the injured Darren Bravo is out of the series and has gone back home. The big question is whether Chris Gayle is fit to come into the side. If he is fit, then he would walk in for Bravo and either Simmons or Dwayne Smith, who had decent success in the first match opening, would bat down the order.
There is a questionmark over Andre Russell's fitness as well. If he is not a hundred %, then Tino Best might get a game.
cricinfo reports that the weather is good for the match, and that the pitch had taken a bit of turn during the domestic season.

this is rubbish from Best. Just get bat on ball and get SOME runs, but nope, keeps swinging and missing. eventually Narine chances a bye to a tumbling Kieswetter but he picks himself up and hits, so Narine on his way. Two balls left, 237-9.

excellent last five overs from England, WI managed just 19 runs from them. Best ends the innings with, predictably, a huge swing and a miss. 238 feels below par to me on this pitch, I'd have thought you needed 250 to be competitive. England still need to get the runs though.

So 238 it is, England will have to get 239 to take a 2-0 lead in the series. The pitch looks pretty good, so unless there is a fabulous spel of bowling from someone, they should get there without a lot of trouble.

Good pitch. Apart from 8 overs or so during the Bravo-Pollard partnership (can someone explain why when the batting PP is taken every captain automatically stops trying to save singles?) England bowled well.

Fielding was below par, a couple of missed chances and some cheap runs given away.

238 should be an easy chase for England (about 45 overs, but they may pace it) if they bat properly; not much turn out there, so Narine won't be much of a threat, and the rest of the bowling is pretty pedestrian.

Cook C Gayle b Rampual.

My prediction.

Best breaking 90 mph regularly but also spraying a few loose ones in there. Like I said, looks a cracking pitch this one.

MFC, responded to you on the holidays thread.

Steady start from the England openers.

Holding is starting to annoy me with his "benefit of the doubt" line. I've seen the replay and honestly I'm pretty sure it's pad first, you can see the pad move a bit before the ball squeezes onto the bat. Great decision IMO.

I do wonder about Best in one-day cricket. He gets up to good speeds, but I always feel that he will go at more than 6 an over, which is not good enough. I remember him playing for Yorkshire in T20 a couple of years ago, where he bowled some good deliveries, but was dropped after a few games because he couldn't keep the run rate down.

As a Test bowler the margin between him being a good, hostile, impact bowler and a waste of space is narrower. But in one-day stuff he can struggle.

WI's final total was a fair way below par I thought. A good final few overs from England, after WI's recovery had been on track up to that point.

Tino hasn't been at his Best thus far but early days.

trebellbobaggins wrote:Tino hasn't been at his Best thus far but early days.

His best days came at Edgbaston on a Sunday.

yup, in the twilight of his career after that peak.



Be annoying for your one innings to have meant nothing in a dead rubber so he no doubt will itch to do it when it matters but he needs to bat better than today if he's ever going to.

Bell has fallen to Sammy, caught Gayle.

Another fine innings, and they've broken the back of this run chase. Well played.

Bell gone and getting cloudy.

Advantage Windies?

Maiden from Best. It's slowed way down since Trott arrived. Its hard to watch him early on.

Good ton from Cookie.

Where's Tino?

Pollard looks overweight and unfit.

LondonTiger wrote:Pollard looks overweight and unfit.

Gayle also looks overweight. Ohh wait a minute, that's the way he looks with his big dreadlocks!

All a bit of an easy win in the end.

You felt they obviously should have set 280 to put on good pressure. England had more than enough balls to get there even plodding along.

so even with Gayle and the Best they didn't really provide any more competition. Maybe they can improve with Gayle having some more time before the next game? Best just doesn't seem very good.

trebellbobaggins wrote:All a bit of an easy win in the end.

You felt they obviously should have set 280 to put on any pressure. England had more than enough balls to get there even plodding along.

West Indies should have used Tino Best as a pinch-hitting opener to partner Chris Gayle.

haha. classic.



or a bench warmer.

Did I say 45 overs or what?

Didn't catch any of the England innings, but seems they just batted according to the pitch and the West Indian attack bowled enough loose deliveries?

Mike Selig wrote:Did I say 45 overs or what?

Didn't catch any of the England innings, but seems they just batted according to the pitch and the West Indian attack bowled enough loose deliveries?

And the West Indies batted as if it were a T20 match. Hardly surprising considering that many of their senior players are T20 specialists!

gboycottnut wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Did I say 45 overs or what?

Didn't catch any of the England innings, but seems they just batted according to the pitch and the West Indian attack bowled enough loose deliveries?

And the West Indies batted as if it were a T20 match. Hardly surprising considering that many of their senior players are T20 specialists!

what nonsense.

The West Indian batting's problem was not scoring enough singles, not being proactive enough, and losing wickets at key times, but only one of these (Pollard) could really be attributed to an ill-thought out shot. Had Simmonds scored say 35 off 50, Pollard and Bravo not started quite so slowly, and the tail shown a bit more of a brain, they could have got 40 or 50 more runs...

Had to go out and missed out on the chase, but a clinical effort from England, made it look very easy indeed. Alastair Cook's transformation as an ODI batsman has really been superb, his 3rd ODI ton of the year, and he even hit a 6 today!.
Ian Bell played another assured hand at the top, and has he really turned a corner in his ODI career at last? Has England found lasting answers to their opening problems? The early signs are good, to say the least. Trott got runs again, well as Trott does, could do with a bit more pace in run scoring though in the larger context. The bowling unit as usual, had a fine day in office, very well led by James Anderson and Graeme Swann. Broad also bowled superbly and the 3 covered well for Steve Finn and Timm Bresnan who were not at their very best today, although they also bowled alright.
One concern though is the ground fielding, gave away a few easy runs and missed out on a couple of run out chances as well.

For the West Indies concerns are plenty. England in England, in any format, is a tough propsotion for any side. But the West Indies didn't even put up a fight worth noting, despite ODIs being a format they are better at and England not so great either.
Gayle at the top showed his class, power and temprament. He yet again showed there is a functional brain to match the power, had he not been at the receiving end of a rather harsh call, may be things would have been a bit more interesting to say the least. Wonder why did he not have a bowl, is it due to the niggle that he was carrying? Lendel Simmons has been very disappointing in his comeback in both the matches. Today his innings was downright dreadful. Other than Gayle and Bravo Pollard to some extend none of the WI batters could make any real impact. The Last 5 overs they just lost their way.
The bowling looks pretty average. Rampaul bowled well. Narine hasn't been finding going easy in England. Best didn't do anything special, we all know he can bowl fast, but not much else. Bringing him in for Russell, if it is the case that the latter was dropped and not unavailable due to injury has in fact backfired if anything. Russell could have potentially biffed a few runs in the end overs where Best despite his best efforts hardly connected bat on ball. And he would not have been too bad with the ball either.
They should bring Barath in for Simmons for the next match, and bring Russell back for Best as well.

msp83 wrote:For the West Indies concerns are plenty. England in England, in any format, is a tough propsotion for any side. But the West Indies didn't even put up a fight worth noting, despite ODIs being a format they are better at and England not so great either.
Gayle at the top showed his class, power and temprament. He yet again showed there is a functional brain to match the power, had he not been at the receiving end of a rather harsh call, may be things would have been a bit more interesting to say the least. Wonder why did he not have a bowl, is it due to the niggle that he was carrying? Lendel Simmons has been very disappointing in his comeback in both the matches. Today his innings was downright dreadful. Other than Gayle and Bravo Pollard to some extend none of the WI batters could make any real impact. The Last 5 overs they just lost their way.
The bowling looks pretty average. Rampaul bowled well. Narine hasn't been finding going easy in England. Best didn't do anything special, we all know he can bowl fast, but not much else. Bringing him in for Russell, if it is the case that the latter was dropped and not unavailable due to injury has in fact backfired if anything. Russell could have potentially biffed a few runs in the end overs where Best despite his best efforts hardly connected bat on ball. And he would not have been too bad with the ball either.
They should bring Barath in for Simmons for the next match, and bring Russell back for Best as well.

They should move Tino Best up the order to open the batting with Chris Gayle.

Sounds like it was all West Indies fault that England won in a canter. They are just too good. Full stop.

Whats with this continued Tino Best rubbish?
Look at his record. You wouldnt open a test match with Jason Gillespe, one freak innings doesnt suddenly make him anything better than a place sitter. He isnt a very good bowler and certainly not an all rounder by any stretch of the imagination....it should hardly be a surprise when he plays at the level of the majority of his previous performances.
Hes a number 10 batsman on a good day.

Mike Selig wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Did I say 45 overs or what?

Didn't catch any of the England innings, but seems they just batted according to the pitch and the West Indian attack bowled enough loose deliveries?

And the West Indies batted as if it were a T20 match. Hardly surprising considering that many of their senior players are T20 specialists!

what nonsense.

The West Indian batting's problem was not scoring enough singles, not being proactive enough, and losing wickets at key times, but only one of these (Pollard) could really be attributed to an ill-thought out shot. Had Simmonds scored say 35 off 50, Pollard and Bravo not started quite so slowly, and the tail shown a bit more of a brain, they could have got 40 or 50 more runs...

I think losing wickets at key times was the critical thing. There were two ways for West Indies to get to a competitive score (and by that I mean 260+, although even that may not have been enough on this occasion).

1/ Gayle goes on with it and makes a ton. Gayle's dismissal was by no means a terrible shot, but it was a bad time to get out - before he had really either created a strong base or scored enough runs himself.

2/ Make use of the last 15 overs big-time. The loss of wickets, particularly Pollard and Sammy, came at the wrong moment.

msp83 wrote:Has England found lasting answers to their opening problems?

I think, since the UAE, they have realised that, particularly with the current regulations (two new balls, batting PP btwn 36 and 40) a proper batsman is infinitely more effective at the top of the order than a pinch-hitter who will very rarely score a century. If a batsman is good enough to see off the new balls, then the early powerplays give them a chance to get in, after which if they are the quality of Pietersen, Cook or Bell regular centuries are the likely result.

The other thing in favour of putting your best players at the top is that in one-day cricket most hundreds come from the top three. For a long time England lagged behind in getting ODI hundreds as they put poorer versions of Gayle, Sehwag or Gilchrist at the top who, unlike those three, very rarely made genuinely match-winning scores.

For that reason I'm delighted they went for Bell instead of Kieswetter, Davies, Hales or Hamilton-Brown. And if an injury popped up, or one of the openers was to be rested, I would go with Carberry who would similarly score 100s.

msp83 wrote:the West Indies didn't even put up a fight worth noting, despite ODIs being a format they are better at and England not so great either.

I personally am actually of the belief that West Indies are better at Tests. In Test cricket they have a pretty good bowling attack, much better than Sri Lanka and New Zealand, and arguably better than India. They also have some resilience in their batting and are not a million miles off being a pretty competitive outfit. The top three needs some work, but Kirk Edwards and Darren Bravo are better cricketers than they displayed on this tour, and with Gayle coming back, Chanderpaul still going and Samuels looking a reborn man they will be favourites to beat New Zealand.

In one-day cricket they lack bowling that will make life difficult for the batsmen on good, and particularly fast, pitches. Against Australia in the Caribbean the pitches were painfully slow, and the Aussies really struggled to get any of the bowlers away. But in England, and in some other countries around the world, it is hard to see how they will stop the flow of runs. This is only exacerbated by the absence of Kemar Roach in this series. Narine seems an easier proposition on faster pitches, whilst Dwayne Bravo, Pollard and Dwayne Smith can't be considered front-line wicket takers in England. Tino Best doesn't have the control for ODI cricket.

The batting at 5, 6 and 7 - the 'finishing' positions - is pretty strong. And the efforts of Pollard and co. really made the difference in the matches WI won against Australia. But at Nos. 1, 2, and 3 they are very reliant on Gayle and totally lack somebody who can bat through and make a composed century like Cook and Bell can. Part of the problem is that they have five very similar cricketers - Dwayne Bravo, Dwayne Smith, Pollard, Sammy and Russell. None are devastating with the ball, though all can be effective on their day, whilst, with the bat, it is difficult to see them all firing. And ideally they are all players you want in in the last 15 overs. If they're all going to play, then some are going to have to go in too early.

My view is that Chanderpaul should still be in the one-day side. He's a better bet that Dwayne Smith, who I see as the weakest of the all-rounders I have named. I know he had a good innings on Saturday, but I think he's a 1 in 7 or 8 man, which isn't good enough. In T20s 25 off 10 balls is a good job, but in ODIs you have to have some players who can go on with it, and I don't think Smith's your man.

Lendl Simmons looked to have turned a corner when he got a succession of 50s in ODIs against Pakistan last year. But he seems to have regressed, to the point where he isn't doing his job. He needs to get 100s, like Cook and Bell have, but at the moment doesn't look like getting close. But he deserves another shot at Headingley.

missed the chase after the first ten overs or so but seems a very easy one for England. I said all along that on this pitch 250 was an absolute minimum (I reckon par was somewhere around 280 or maybe higher) and once they'd failed to get that or take early wickets it was only ever going to end one way. The new regs with the two new balls really help England I feel, both bowling (allows their top quality seam attack to bowl with a ball in better condition for longer) and batting (balls stay harder for longer and they can have a top 3 made up of conventional batsman).

I think Shelsey makes a good point about WI's ODI side. Everyone seems to say they're better at ODIs but really you look at the side they put out today and only Gayle and Rampaul are IMO really good enough (too early maybe for Narine but he's struggling at the mo). Sammy doesn't do as good a job in ODIs as in tests and I don't think he's good enough to be in the team. Their batting line-up is horribly unbalanced, consisting only of hitters, hence their total inability to rotate the strike (painfully obvious today). Ramdin is the closest they have to a "nurdler" type but he's not really that good a batsman. Bowling-wise, only Rampaul looks like being threatening and offering control.

The problem of lack of strike rotation is one I mentioned in the test series already. In tests you can just about get away with it (though it will built pressure) but in ODIs it's just not possible.

Mike Selig wrote:Good pitch. Apart from 8 overs or so during the Bravo-Pollard partnership (can someone explain why when the batting PP is taken every captain automatically stops trying to save singles?) England bowled well.

Fielding was below par, a couple of missed chances and some cheap runs given away.

238 should be an easy chase for England (about 45 overs, but they may pace it) if they bat properly; not much turn out there, so Narine won't be much of a threat, and the rest of the bowling is pretty pedestrian.

I would assume that, if you have proper batsman in during the batting powerplay, you'd be happy with them just milking singles. If you push your fielders up to stop the singles then they are more likely to hit over the top which, with less protection on the boundaries, could be very productive for the batsmen. Better to let them have 30-odd then back them into a corner and have them come out swinging.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Whats with this continued Tino Best rubbish?

It's just gboycottnut with his usual playing devil's advocate/wumming for some attention. I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up by the mods yet as its ruining the best part of this website IMO. He's been at it for a while.

Great posts by MFC and Shelsey btw. Very interesting.

That was the 6th match in a row in which an England opener has scored a hundred - a record apparently.

Ally this to a proper test quality bowling lineup (and two new balls) and we can see why England are unbeaten in 2012 ODIs.

It will get harder - but there is no reason thi steam shoul dnot do well in the WC in Aus.

Shelsey
It is an interesting theory about WI ODI side. Although I don't agree they are better at test relatively speaking, I would agree in parts with your analysis of their ODI side. The batting, other than Gayle and Samuels to some extend, is too one dimensional.
Bravo, Pollard, Russell, Sammy and Smith are all hitters and average to decent bowlers. Russell is the best of the lot with the ball, Bravo is the best with the bat. Pollard has to be in there due to his overall all-round package. Don't think Sammy who is pretty average with both bat and ball in ODIs and Smith who is seriously inconsistent with the bat and very average with the ball could play in the same side. Smith, despite his freak little burst in the first game, is just not good enough to play ODI cricket for West Indies.
May be they should bring Barath, not the most solid of batters himself to open along side Gayle, before the WICB's troubles with Gayle, the Gayle-Barath opening partnership was showing some promissing signs in different formats. May be the younger man would flourish in Gayle's company. Samuels should bat 3 and Russell should be back for Smith or Best.
When everyone is fit and available, I'd go with this side.
Gayle
Barath
Simmons (WK)
Samuels
Dwayne Bravo
Pollard
Russell
Sammy
Rampaul
Roach
Narine.

robbo277 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Good pitch. Apart from 8 overs or so during the Bravo-Pollard partnership (can someone explain why when the batting PP is taken every captain automatically stops trying to save singles?) England bowled well.

Fielding was below par, a couple of missed chances and some cheap runs given away.

238 should be an easy chase for England (about 45 overs, but they may pace it) if they bat properly; not much turn out there, so Narine won't be much of a threat, and the rest of the bowling is pretty pedestrian.

I would assume that, if you have proper batsman in during the batting powerplay, you'd be happy with them just milking singles. If you push your fielders up to stop the singles then they are more likely to hit over the top which, with less protection on the boundaries, could be very productive for the batsmen. Better to let them have 30-odd then back them into a corner and have them come out swinging.

I understand that, but if you think about it in the middle overs, your backward-point, extra-cover and mid-wicket are almost always saving the single, yet in the PP they retreat to the edge of the circle. Whilst it does make things fractionally harder to hit over the field, it makes it easier to hit through the field (far more angles to cover) and of course means your good balls still go for 1. It seems to be that by conceding at least a single a ball you are conceding 40 because they'll always be the odd boundary, wide etc.

For a while Australia were very good in the batting PP because they looked to score off every ball, and frequently got 40-45/0 or 1 during it, whilst other teams were either waiting for the last 5 overs (in which case you score runs anyway) or going too hard and ending up with 35 or 40/3.

I just think there is more to be gained by having at least 2 or 3 fielders saving the 1. If you force the batsmen to take a risk to score you are giving yourself a chance.

msp83 wrote:Shelsey
It is an interesting theory about WI ODI side. Although I don't agree they are better at test relatively speaking, I would agree in parts with your analysis of their ODI side. The batting, other than Gayle and Samuels to some extend, is too one dimensional.
Bravo, Pollard, Russell, Sammy and Smith are all hitters and average to decent bowlers. Russell is the best of the lot with the ball, Bravo is the best with the bat. Pollard has to be in there due to his overall all-round package. Don't think Sammy who is pretty average with both bat and ball in ODIs and Smith who is seriously inconsistent with the bat and very average with the ball could play in the same side. Smith, despite his freak little burst in the first game, is just not good enough to play ODI cricket for West Indies.
May be they should bring Barath, not the most solid of batters himself to open along side Gayle, before the WICB's troubles with Gayle, the Gayle-Barath opening partnership was showing some promissing signs in different formats. May be the younger man would flourish in Gayle's company. Samuels should bat 3 and Russell should be back for Smith or Best.
When everyone is fit and available, I'd go with this side.
Gayle
Barath
Simmons (WK)
Samuels
Dwayne Bravo
Pollard
Russell
Sammy
Rampaul
Roach
Narine.

Is Simmons a good 'keeper? Remember that stumpings can be crucial in one-day cricket.

I'm not sure Gayle-Barath would work, as they really need somebody who can stay in and do the Cook/Bell job if Gayle fails. It is hard to identify who that might be at this stage.

I have a question to anyone who may have watched Bairstow at Yorkshire: what's his keeping like? Is he potentially good enough to keep at international level (ODIs at least). He strikes me as a more natural n°6 than Kieswetter TBH.

Shelsey93 wrote:

msp83 wrote:Shelsey
It is an interesting theory about WI ODI side. Although I don't agree they are better at test relatively speaking, I would agree in parts with your analysis of their ODI side. The batting, other than Gayle and Samuels to some extend, is too one dimensional.
Bravo, Pollard, Russell, Sammy and Smith are all hitters and average to decent bowlers. Russell is the best of the lot with the ball, Bravo is the best with the bat. Pollard has to be in there due to his overall all-round package. Don't think Sammy who is pretty average with both bat and ball in ODIs and Smith who is seriously inconsistent with the bat and very average with the ball could play in the same side. Smith, despite his freak little burst in the first game, is just not good enough to play ODI cricket for West Indies.
May be they should bring Barath, not the most solid of batters himself to open along side Gayle, before the WICB's troubles with Gayle, the Gayle-Barath opening partnership was showing some promissing signs in different formats. May be the younger man would flourish in Gayle's company. Samuels should bat 3 and Russell should be back for Smith or Best.
When everyone is fit and available, I'd go with this side.
Gayle
Barath
Simmons (WK)
Samuels
Dwayne Bravo
Pollard
Russell
Sammy
Rampaul
Roach
Narine.

Is Simmons a good 'keeper? Remember that stumpings can be crucial in one-day cricket.

I'm not sure Gayle-Barath would work, as they really need somebody who can stay in and do the Cook/Bell job if Gayle fails. It is hard to identify who that might be at this stage.

spot on! you look at WI's batting and you think "who's going to score a hundred?" answer: Gayle, maybe (averages a century every 12 innings or so). Samuels, a small chance, given he's in good form. The others just don't look like doing more than pretty 30s. Now pretty 30s rarely win you one-day matches, centuries do (too long England struggled with this concept, hence their obsession with finding a "blaster" for the top of the order). You look at England, and you think the top 3 are all capable of scoring hundreds (Cook for instance has scored 4 in 24 innings since taking over), while of course Morgan has also scored some.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

msp83 wrote:Shelsey
It is an interesting theory about WI ODI side. Although I don't agree they are better at test relatively speaking, I would agree in parts with your analysis of their ODI side. The batting, other than Gayle and Samuels to some extend, is too one dimensional.
Bravo, Pollard, Russell, Sammy and Smith are all hitters and average to decent bowlers. Russell is the best of the lot with the ball, Bravo is the best with the bat. Pollard has to be in there due to his overall all-round package. Don't think Sammy who is pretty average with both bat and ball in ODIs and Smith who is seriously inconsistent with the bat and very average with the ball could play in the same side. Smith, despite his freak little burst in the first game, is just not good enough to play ODI cricket for West Indies.
May be they should bring Barath, not the most solid of batters himself to open along side Gayle, before the WICB's troubles with Gayle, the Gayle-Barath opening partnership was showing some promissing signs in different formats. May be the younger man would flourish in Gayle's company. Samuels should bat 3 and Russell should be back for Smith or Best.
When everyone is fit and available, I'd go with this side.
Gayle
Barath
Simmons (WK)
Samuels
Dwayne Bravo
Pollard
Russell
Sammy
Rampaul
Roach
Narine.

Is Simmons a good 'keeper? Remember that stumpings can be crucial in one-day cricket.

I'm not sure Gayle-Barath would work, as they really need somebody who can stay in and do the Cook/Bell job if Gayle fails. It is hard to identify who that might be at this stage.

spot on! you look at WI's batting and you think "who's going to score a hundred?" answer: Gayle, maybe (averages a century every 12 innings or so). Samuels, a small chance, given he's in good form. The others just don't look like doing more than pretty 30s. Now pretty 30s rarely win you one-day matches, centuries do (too long England struggled with this concept, hence their obsession with finding a "blaster" for the top of the order). You look at England, and you think the top 3 are all capable of scoring hundreds (Cook for instance has scored 4 in 24 innings since taking over), while of course Morgan has also scored some.

Tino Best perhaps? That is of course he can make contact with the ball from all his wild slogs.

MfC

No he's probably not. He's definitely a batsman first and his keeping requires a bit of work to be international quality. Yorkshire were undecided about which role he should play originally, and it wasn't helped by the fact his mother was pressuring the Yorkshire board and coaching staff to rid him off the gloves. At the start of his Yorkshire career he would be in the team as batsman only, with Gerard Brophy keeping wicket.

Since the beginning of last season though, if Bairstow is available he keeps (although rarely in T20). To be fair to him, he had come on leaps and bounds since his debut a few years ago but he still has a bit to go yet. I've seen him stand up to the wicket with Sidebottom bowling which is no mean feat, especially with Ryan likely to throw a fit if anything goes down.

Presumabley part of the reason why England have him around the Test team is to learn from Prior experience as his keeping required a lot of work earlier on in his career.

Mike Selig wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Good pitch. Apart from 8 overs or so during the Bravo-Pollard partnership (can someone explain why when the batting PP is taken every captain automatically stops trying to save singles?) England bowled well.

Fielding was below par, a couple of missed chances and some cheap runs given away.

238 should be an easy chase for England (about 45 overs, but they may pace it) if they bat properly; not much turn out there, so Narine won't be much of a threat, and the rest of the bowling is pretty pedestrian.

I would assume that, if you have proper batsman in during the batting powerplay, you'd be happy with them just milking singles. If you push your fielders up to stop the singles then they are more likely to hit over the top which, with less protection on the boundaries, could be very productive for the batsmen. Better to let them have 30-odd then back them into a corner and have them come out swinging.

I understand that, but if you think about it in the middle overs, your backward-point, extra-cover and mid-wicket are almost always saving the single, yet in the PP they retreat to the edge of the circle. Whilst it does make things fractionally harder to hit over the field, it makes it easier to hit through the field (far more angles to cover) and of course means your good balls still go for 1. It seems to be that by conceding at least a single a ball you are conceding 40 because they'll always be the odd boundary, wide etc.

For a while Australia were very good in the batting PP because they looked to score off every ball, and frequently got 40-45/0 or 1 during it, whilst other teams were either waiting for the last 5 overs (in which case you score runs anyway) or going too hard and ending up with 35 or 40/3.

I just think there is more to be gained by having at least 2 or 3 fielders saving the 1. If you force the batsmen to take a risk to score you are giving yourself a chance.

Agree with this. If you push all your fielders back as far as allowed you reduce the bowler's options for achieving a dot ball down to one - beating the edge , which really does put all the eggs in one basket. So much so that most bowlers are virtually bowling for a single , which can so often become a four anyway.

As a bowler , I absolutely hate having no close fielders in a run chase situation. It takes away an opportunity to exercise one's skills to restrict a batsman , with the extra benefit that every dot ball really does rachet up the pressure on the batsman. I guess it can also leave a bowler wondering just how much his captain trusts him...

I understand it is human nature to try to protect yourself as far as possible against the more expensive scores , but in truth if a batsman gets hold of the ball he isn't going to have much trouble clearing the "middle ring" anyway. Won't always work , but I suspect with good bowlers the singles saved would outweigh the extra boundaries , over a sequence of games.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I have a question to anyone who may have watched Bairstow at Yorkshire: what's his keeping like? Is he potentially good enough to keep at international level (ODIs at least). He strikes me as a more natural n°6 than Kieswetter TBH.

His keeping improved significantly last season - with no impact on batting. By the end of the season I reckon he was at the same standard Prior was when he first entered the England set-up. Yorkshire were delighted to have him back briefly behind the stumps during the T20 match with Leicester.

If we are looking for a keeper to play in ODIs and bat in the middle of the order, I reckon Bairstow is a better option than Kieswetter - though really we need him up at Headingley.

I think Kieswetter looks more solid with the bat than Bairstow, in honesty. Not sure why his role is constantly questioned, he hit an important 38 or so in the first ODI, and made one mistake behind the stumps.

Fists of Fury wrote:I think Kieswetter looks more solid with the bat than Bairstow, in honesty. Not sure why his role is constantly questioned, he hit an important 38 or so in the first ODI, and made one mistake behind the stumps.

He did a good job on Saturday and deserves some persistence - at least for the rest of this current block of ODIs. He can't be missing that type of stumping regularly though, at this level.

No, I agree. However, his keeping in the main has been pretty solid, with some good catches.

Those that go under the bat are never easy, according to every keeper I know, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, though as you say it needs to be a real rarity.

I don't think Kieswetter has done anything to be dropped.
Hower said that, the Kieswetter vs Bairstow is an interesting one. Haven't really seen Bairstow keep, but he, regardless of his recent struggles in test cricket, seems a batsman with lots of shots and a fine temprament to match that ability. Kieswetter hasn't done badly, but I feel Bairstow is a better bat. So if Bairstow's keeping is not too bad, may be giving him the gloves is something that could be tried at some stage.

On Simmons keeping wickets for West Indies, I do agree he's not a regular keeper, and the keeper needs to be good enough. But said that, the current WI side seems quite out of balance. Ramdin isn't the greatest keepers playing the game at the moment, in fact he's just above average. His batting isn't his strong point either, he doesn't have the big shots of a Bravo or a Pollard, neither has the kind of stickability needed at this level. Simmons despite his recent struggles with the bat, is a much better bat than Ramdin ever could become, and if he could do a decent job with the gloves, then West Indies should certainly consider that. That would give the side greater balance, and some more solidity in the batting that otherwise has lots of power hitters who often don't have a platform to work with. If Simmons doubles up as a wicket keeper, Rampaul, Roach and Narine can offer frontline bowling options, and Russell is a pretty good 3rd seamer. Sammy, Bravo, Pollard, Gayle and Samuels can easily offer 10-15 decent overs as well.