Why England have cracked the one-day code

Mostly expansion on themes I have written about in various other threads. But written up here for my blog, and the v2 journal.
------------------

England’s recent improvement in one-day cricket has been met with surprise by some of those who have watched the team’s often dismal showings in the 50-over format of the game. But it shouldn’t be the slightest bit surprising. In Andy Flower the team are directed by a man who genuinely achieves almost everything he sets out to achieve. His CV, both in cricket and the wider world, is already incredible - number one batsman in the world whilst ‘keeping and playing for Zimbabwe, coach of the number one Test team in the world, and who can forget that black armband protest at the 2003 World Cup. And next on the checklist must be one-day success with England, which, with the regulations as they currently are, requires the type of dedicated planning that Flower and his backroom staff specialise in.

One area of the one-day game which England have finally understood is the top of the batting order. For most of one-day cricket’s history it goes without saying that the most successful teams have had a strong top order. For evidence of that look at Hayden, Gilchrist and Mark Waugh for Australia during their golden period of three consecutive World Cup triumphs; Sehwag, Tendulkar and Gambhir also fit the bill, and there can have been few more daunting top threes than Greenidge, Haynes and I.V.A. Richards. The common theme is that, however aggressive, all nine of those mentioned were or are hugely successful Test players. The need for a solid technique has become ever more important with the introduction of a second new white ball last October. Cook, Bell and Trott certainly have that attribute and, with 15 overs of powerplay in the first 20, the run rate takes care of itself when batsmen of their quality are at the crease. Once the new balls are seen off regular hundreds are the inevitable consequence, as lesser bowlers are brought on, the batsmen become set and runs continue to flow. A lack of hundreds has been a notable issue for England’s ODI side in the past - Marcus Trescothick, with 12, remains England’s leading centurion, whilst six players from other countries have 20 or more and Sachin Tendulkar 49. But with six in the last six matches the problem finally seems to have been solved. They have worked out that hundreds come more regularly from quality players, rather than supposed ‘dashers’ like Craig Kieswetter and Luke Wright that will make quick 30s, but rarely bring up three figures.

The advent of Twenty20 has seen teams realise that almost anything is possible over a 15 over period of batting. Combined with the batting powerplay, usually taken from overs 36-40, this allows teams to go at upwards of nine runs per over in the last 15. The key to making best use of this is to have numbers 5, 6 and 7 at the crease rather than 9, 10 and 11. Therefore, keeping wickets in hand as England’s top three have done in the last two series becomes key to setting a platform for the likes of Eoin Morgan, Craig Kieswetter and Tim Bresnan to enjoy themselves down the order.

It is not only in the batting department that England have benefited from the new regulations. The two new balls play perfectly into the hands of Test match bowlers like James Anderson, who ran rings around Lendl Simmons with the moving ball on Tuesday, Stuart Broad, and Tim Bresnan. In English conditions this makes is possible to expose the middle order quickly, whilst in the sub-continent England should be well placed to take best advantage of any swing which is available. The other thing which England do well is to play five specialist bowlers. This ensures that there is no let up for the batsmen, meaning that they have to target bowlers that they might not when all-rounders and part-timers are used to make up the overs.

Like in Test cricket, conquering the sub-continent remains a major challenge. The series in India last winter was lost 5-0, whilst the matches against Pakistan in the UAE were not played on typically Asian surfaces. However, there is no reason why this side won’t make a success of the sub-continent when they next visit for ODIs in January. Scores of 300+ are easily attainable with this batting line-up, and Ajmal, Afridi and Hafeez were well combated in the latter part of that UAE tour. Meanwhile, we have an excellent spin attack of our own in Graeme Swann, who despite recent inconsistency remains a very difficult customer, and Samit Patel, who is an under-rated performer with the ball in the 50-over game. Some observers might suggest that Cook, Bell and Trott are too pedestrian a top three for the sub-continent. But Cook and Bell, and to a lesser extent Trott, in fact score their runs at a good rate - Cook’s strike rate since returning as captain last year is almost identical to Kieswetter’s. And the impact of the batting powerplay means that it is unnecessary to score at 6 an over throughout the innings.

England have not won a 50-over World Cup, and it surely won’t be long until the media start jumping on the planning for 2015 bandwagon. But the best way of reversing their recent World Cup disappointments is to create a one-day team, which like the Test team, becomes regarded as amongst the very best in the world. To do that they need to ensure that they keep winning, by selecting a team which will win now rather than in three years time. If that happens the team will, again like the Test team, start to largely pick itself come the World Cup and prevent the panic decision making which has blighted the last five tournaments.

I’ll finish with a word of warning. England thought they had cracked the one-day code two years ago, when a series of victories, including the run to the 2010 World Twenty20 title, created widespread optimism. But performances soon tailed off on that occasion. This time they need to ensure that success is maintained, and cherished almost as highly as Test victories.

But England haven't really cracked the one-day code yet as they have yet to beat the really big guns in that format such as Australia, South Africa and India. We have only beaten an average West Indies team which has been throughly poor in both of the first 2 ODI matches this summer.

We are actually unbeaten in numerous (six?) series at home in ODI's, Gboycott.

We also walloped South Africa 4-0 in ODI's last time they visited.

However, we all know we are good at home. It is abroad where the problems lie.

gboycottnut wrote:But England haven't really cracked the one-day code yet as they have yet to beat the really big guns in that format such as Australia, South Africa and India. We have only beaten an average West Indies team which has been throughly poor in both of the first 2 ODI matches this summer.

Our last one-day series against each opposition, home and away:

Australia Home - Won 3-2; Away - Lost 6-1
South Africa Home - Won 4-0; Away - Won 2-1
India Home - Won 3-0; Away - Lost 5-0
Sri Lanka Home - Won 3-2; Away - Won 3-2
Pakistan Home - Won 3-2; Away - Won 4-0
New Zealand Home - Lost 3-1; Away - Lost 3-1
West Indies Home - Won 2-0*; Away - Won 3-2
Bangladesh Home - Won 2-1; Away - Won 3-0

So a pretty good record overall. I think that England are now giving themselves a much better shout to avoid the aberrations in that list - Australia and India away, New Zealand at home and away, and of course the World Cup.

Fists of Fury wrote:We are actually unbeaten in numerous (six?) series at home in ODI's, Gboycott.

We also walloped South Africa 4-0 in ODI's last time they visited.

However, we all know we are good at home. It is abroad where the problems lie.

Exactly. In India we were completely outplayed by the home side in all the ODI matches, and we did struggle for a while V an Australian team including the likes of pacemen Brett Lee during the set of ODI matches after the 2009 ashes test series had finished.

England are still poor when facing spinners on low, slow tracks.

BUT

The next world cup is in Australia so should be conditions we do well in (yes we showed up poorly in the ODIs after the last Ashes series, but one team was hungry that series). Plus the whole two new balls puts an emphasis on having proper bowlers and proper top order batsmen.

We have not cracked ODIs but we are improving.

why are we better at one day?

because we have great cricketers- any team that is good at one format is a flase dawn- if your good at test its just about good selectors,attitude,preperation and tactics and your good at all formats- you also need the core to play in all

we havent cracked one day cricket, and to say we have at this stage is premature IMO

Yes we are improving and getting better, but we havent cracked it just yet..

we are no.1 in the other two formats- so we have the potential to be the best and I have no doubts about that. so lets concentrate on being the best rather than patting ourselves on the back for being competitive..

I wont say we have cracked it just yet. But I'd be shocked if we dont reach at least the semi finals of the Champions Trophy next year at home. Thats really our best chance of winning an ICC ODI trophy. I'd like to see us go to the WC with the monkey off the back.

in fairness at home we will be favs in the champs trophy. i wont be happy with a semi

Absolutely!
Thats why I said "at least" Semis. Anything less than that would be a disaster IMO.

Some good commentary and interesting thoughts - it seems that the 50 overs ODI game has evolved in a way that has brought it closer to England's strengths:
1 - Two new balls has negated the power-hitting opener at least in English conditions (Sehwag excepted, but then he's a proper batsman as well as a hitter).
2 - Fielding restrictions that allow our 'correct' batsmen at the top of the order to score at a healthy rate for the first half of an innings without having to take many risks.
3 - T20 batting tactics that have shown retention of wickets to be more important than fast scoring until the final 10 overs of a innings, at which point 100+ is possible if you still have the batsmen to come.

OK, we aren't yet a great side, but we are much better than we were. Also of course there's an element of success breeding success -start winning a few and the confidence rises, meaning you play better and win more. A good virtuous circle to get in to.

dummy_half wrote:OK, we aren't yet a great side, but we are much better than we were. Also of course there's an element of success breeding success -start winning a few and the confidence rises, meaning you play better and win more. A good virtuous circle to get in to.

Exactly. And I don't think we are far off being the best. We beat Pakistan 4-0 in their conditions, and Australia could recently only draw 2-2 with West Indies, who we've dispatched. Of course, that type of logic is flawed, but it would definitely be wrong to say that we are still a weak one-day side. The results, the last World Cup and the odd tour aside, simply don't indicate that. India are a good one-day team, with quality batting all the way through, but contrast to England in the nature of their bowling attack. Will be interesting to see if we can do better in their conditions this winter than last.

The big difference in ODIs for me is that England have started picking a side that looks more like a test side than a T20 one, whereas teams like the windies are still packed with "allrounder stars" who cant bat or bowl. No more Wright/Yardy/Mascheraenarse/Dalrymple the side is now 5 proper bowlers, 5 proper batsmen inclduing a stroke player as an opener rather than a whallop merchant
England have learnt the balance in T20 too, get in a left arm spinner (dont have to be any good) who can bat and make sure you have a strike bowler...taking wickets counts. The wisdom of 5 years ago has been overturned, partly by whats been learnt in the IPL.
England previously were at the forefront of developing stratergies that dont work. Now they teach their best cricketers how to play in ways that work for each format.
That of course briong up Flintoff (what a great time to have a go at him) who has been on record saying he couldnt be bothered to learn new deliveries and relied on bouncer and yorker, the new generation of england bowlers are expected to have a whole variety of bouncers and slower balls in their locker to suit the format and batsman. Arguably these guys dont all have his raw talent and pace, but they make up for it with smart play and subtlety. Guys like Broad bowl very differently in each format, just like youd expect a batsman to bat differently.

Sehwag isnt great in England conditions either, Dummy.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Sehwag isnt great in England conditions either, Dummy.

But he is somebody who can work very well at the top of the order. The crucial thing is that an aggressive batsman has to be able to get regular hundreds, as Sehwag, Gayle and to some extent Warner do, but the likes of Kieswetter cannot.

Shelsey93 wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Sehwag isnt great in England conditions either, Dummy.

But he is somebody who can work very well at the top of the order. The crucial thing is that an aggressive batsman has to be able to get regular hundreds, as Sehwag, Gayle and to some extent Warner do, but the likes of Kieswetter cannot.

Not in English conditions.

PSW your right- for me its all about picking a test style side.. if you good enough at test- your good ebnough at ODI level- we need to cut out them bit part players that arnt good enough at either discipline. just get the best cricketers.

Being a good crickleter is all about responding to a situation. To win games(any variation) you need to mix it up, you need to hit big or you may just need to stay in.

IMO England will be a great One Day team

Whilst I disagree that an an opener primary role is to get centuries (especially in ODI's where even for the top batsmen they are pretty rare) :

Sehwag scores an ODI century roughly once every 16 innings
Cook one every 13
Kieswetter 1 in 28
Gayle in in 12


Passing 50 is probably the better guide to telling contributions really though

kieswetter 1 in every 4.7 games
sehwag 1 in every 4.7 games
cook 1 in every 3 games
Gayle 1 in 3.6


Now Im going to throw this out there and say Cook has been a revelation for England as an opener, and that Sehwag is actually a player who tends to get an occassional monster innings usually on a pancake, and a lot of 30's, but too rarely gives a solid platform. Obviously a far better bat that Kieswetter, but not the kind of opener that hes been touted as above.


England dont play Kieswetter as an ODI opener anymore. Quite right. Finally breaking their reliance on "ODI opening specialists", including guys like Lumb, rather than test class batsmen who dont have to be big hitters over the top.
I dont believe thats soley down to the 2 ball English conditions theory (cooks done well away as well), but the likes of Sehwag and Gayle do need to adapt their game like KP did.
Id actually argue that Sehwag is massively overatted in ODIs and certainly isnt the sort of batsman whos regularly laying a foundation, but much more a rapid fire small score merchant. He only averages 35 in ODIs, his reputation being built on a handful of spectacular performances masking repeated failure. Perhaps a dinosaur in the post pinch hitter world? Time to move down the order?


Actually looking at Cooks record since his recall hes scored 4 centuries and 6 other 50s in 25 innings averaging over 54. Funnily enough this coincides with englands change in fortunes as on the win front......

I agree that with the two new balls, a Test style team should work well.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Whilst I disagree that an an opener primary role is to get centuries (especially in ODI's where even for the top batsmen they are pretty rare) :

Sehwag scores an ODI century roughly once every 16 innings
Cook one every 13
Kieswetter 1 in 28
Gayle in in 12


Passing 50 is probably the better guide to telling contributions really though

kieswetter 1 in every 4.7 games
sehwag 1 in every 4.7 games
cook 1 in every 3 games
Gayle 1 in 3.6

100s win games, 50s don't - look at Gayle's innings in the 2nd ODI, and compare its influence to Cook's.

One of the great things about the new ODI rules is that we get to see lots of different skills better tested - new ball bowling, batting against the new ball, finishing/ power-hitting, extracting reverse swing out of a 20 over old ball. Spin will always still play a major part in one-day cricket.

How do we see spin playng a part in Australia? With 2 new balls now the ball isn't going to be gripping much on the pitches down under plus with the fielding restrcitions being tweaked recently spinners may find it tough. Although I suppose so much could change by then. Bowling seems to be evolving all the time.

liverbnz wrote:How do we see spin playng a part in Australia? With 2 new balls now the ball isn't going to be gripping much on the pitches down under plus with the fielding restrcitions being tweaked recently spinners may find it tough. Although I suppose so much could change by then. Bowling seems to be evolving all the time.

Spin very rarely doesn't play a part in one-day cricket, even in Australia. There are plenty of batsmen who don't like pace on the ball, and the rate can be stalled. A skilful spinner will also use bounce to their advantage. I personally advocate having 20 overs of spin in a one-day side most of the time for that reason.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Whilst I disagree that an an opener primary role is to get centuries (especially in ODI's where even for the top batsmen they are pretty rare) :

Sehwag scores an ODI century roughly once every 16 innings
Cook one every 13
Kieswetter 1 in 28
Gayle in in 12


Passing 50 is probably the better guide to telling contributions really though

kieswetter 1 in every 4.7 games
sehwag 1 in every 4.7 games
cook 1 in every 3 games
Gayle 1 in 3.6

100s win games, 50s don't - look at Gayle's innings in the 2nd ODI, and compare its influence to Cook's.

One of the great things about the new ODI rules is that we get to see lots of different skills better tested - new ball bowling, batting against the new ball, finishing/ power-hitting, extracting reverse swing out of a 20 over old ball. Spin will always still play a major part in one-day cricket.

A century only gets scored roughly every 5 games or so. That means only 1 in 5 games decided by a century, except not all of them are won by the side scoring the century. The job of an opener is to lay a foundation, not win a game single handedly. Of course its better if they do, but the main thing is to ensure theres a platform for the big hitters to come in and do their thing at the end...and that may mean blowing their century by keeping the run rate up themselves.

yes in that case cooks innings did more than Gayles, but that was a failure of Gayles colleagues to capitalise on the foundation he layed not a failure of his to win the game singlehandedly. yes a century is better than a 50, but if you cant win games without one you arent going to win that many games, especially since the opposition will sometimes get one as well.

the point still remains anyway that in current ODI world you do need batsmen who can actually bat and who can handle a variety of bowling, fields and conditions. If they are good its inevitable that they will get big scores once in a while...most important is to make sure they contribute regularly though.
Its when openers get out cheaply that things tend to go off the rails a bit (well lets ignore the Eden Gardens game)