Bopara - what exactly is the point of him?

Is it just me, or is anyone else increasingy puzzled by the latitude granted to the Essex man? He averages 30, thanks to lots of red ink, at a very ordinary strike rate & has only passed 60 once in 70 innings! Why is he still in the team? It certainly can't be because of his fielding, which is pretty ordinary. Do they really need his bowling now with 5 specialists in the side? Are the alternatives so utterly awful? Can anyone enlighten me?

I'm not convinced by him either, but he's in the team because he had a great series against India last summer and scored 2 fifties in 2 innings against Pakistan in the UAE, and one of the reasons England have been successful is their consistency in selection.

(in the past year he's averaged 33 at a strike rate of 83- not great but not awful either)

England need a second slower bowling option who can be relied upon to regularly contribute, if not always really be needed every game . The other choice is Fatel if its more spinning than swinging conditions. Both have pretty much identical ODI figures, although in theory Bopara is the btter bat and Patel the better bowler so I guess in a 5 proper bowler attack Bopara makes more sense to try and bolster the batting. Trott just isnt a good enough 6th option, nor was KP but his bowling hits englads variation even more..they dont have much of a plan B as it is.

Look at the batsmen england have tried recently....Bairstow is a ginger keeper whos averaged 22 at .87 and cant bowl, stokes is another ginger who averages 10 at 0.57, and Joe Butler is a closet ginger who cant even spell his own name ...hes not scored a run in ODIs (only faced two balls) but has a woeful record in T20s averaging 7.5. James Taylor managed to get out for 1 in his sole ODI, he isnt ginger but also isnt a real bowling option.

Why do England play Bopara?
Because Luke Wright (23 bat, 57 ball) finally got dropped and Collingwood got too old and is yet another ginger.

Or in other words, the other options have made him look good.

I dont mind him playing in this ODI series. But if he fails, I'd bring in Stokes against the Saffers in the ODIs.

I have seen a few people saying that Bopara should bat at 6 in the Test series against SA. That IMO is utterly ludicrous. He is not Test class. He is there in the ODIs because of his bowling, something which wont be required during Tests.

whats the point in smith for aus.

bits and pieces.

england can get to no.1 in the 50 over format. But we might as well just use a test side and switch one position due to conditions. forget the bits and pieces bowler.

i want to see taylor in the side- but i am hopeing for woakes because he could become our all rounder. but both should be able to get into test and limited overs formats

Another Bopara bashing thread

He seems, much like early career Bell, to get no credit for his good performances. Going back a year we have 3 50s including a wonderful 90-odd at Lord's which during a game I attended in the series against India, two important 50s in support of Cook in the UAE, and a crucial innings in support of Hales in the T20 just last week. He also played two Tests in which he did very little wrong, and was 50-odd not out when England declared at The Oval. His bowling has been useful on occasion, including a match-winning 4 for practically nothing in a T20 against WI last summer.

His form for Essex this season has been better than that of any other candidates for number six, with the exception of Bairstow.

Of course, playing against SA will be a last chance to play Test cricket if he doesn't go well. For the winter Morgan may well be back in the picture, and Taylor and Bairstow, along with Patel would have to be considered ahead of him for the tour of India.

well he is gonna keep getting bashed unless he puts in consitant performnaces shelsey,

this england team is all about consitancy

mystiroakey wrote:whats the point in smith for aus.

bits and pieces.

england can get to no.1 in the 50 over format. But we might as well just use a test side and switch one position due to conditions. forget the bits and pieces bowler.

i want to see taylor in the side- but i am hopeing for woakes because he could become our all rounder. but both should be able to get into test and limited overs formats

Its different with Aus, they only have 4 frontline bowlers. Youd be replacing Smith with a bowler really, although in English conditions Watson can pretend to be a genuine 5th Id point to him bowling 10 as one of the key factors in England winning comfortably. Also bear in mind Aus dont really trust their frontline spinner in the way England do Swann. They feel further variety is required if they are having sticky patches in the middle overs. England would really be missing a trick to play in home games without a medium pace swinger.
But lets say they did decide that Trott was good enough back up for the 5 and said right we want a specialist batsman. Again we get back to what exactly have any of these options done to suggest they could displace Bopara and do a better job purely as a batsman? Bring back Strauss? Theyve tried 4 other players recently and none has made any case to be retained as a batsman, apparently being a top order ODI batsman isnt that easy.

Bopara is a weak link in the side, but you have to pick someone. Dropping him creates new problems, till theres an option that covers his role in the side he will stay in. Stokes may seem the obvious one, but he hardly bowls at county level..his list A figures perhaps a touch misleading) and doesnt exactly have batting stats that scream "include me".
Root is the other golden boy isnt he. Another ginger, decent bat, offers a few overs of spin ( what happened to all the part time medium pacers in CC?) Vince isnt a ginger but doesnt bowl. Same with Hales, or at least hes only a very occasional bowler (after his T20 innings may have stuck his head out as the next ODI pure batting specialist)
Go evven furtehr down the pecking order theres Compton who is highly suspect as a ginger, decent bat doesnt really pretend to be a bowling option.

But the pool of talent we got so over excited about last year hasnt really kicked on. Carberyy is top of the Pro 40 rankings, do England need a 31 yr old opener who doesnt bowl? Vikram Solanki (35) is hardly a viable option. Stephen Moore (31) is well up this years PCA table too.


Interesting as TMS were slagging the Aussie batting depth.

Shelsey93

The knock against India should have won that match, not drawn it. As for the others (ODI), they were supporting innings at best - that's not good enough for someone coming in at four with as much experience as he has. Your attempt to compare him with early Bell doesn't stand up either - the Warwickshire man had a comfortably better record.

For me at least, Bopara hasn't amounted to much internationally & isn't really going anywhere - 1710 runs in 70 innings is a poor return for the amount of time invested in him.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:what happened to all the part time medium pacers in CC?

This is an interesting issue which perhaps Mike, with his coaching knowledge, could help with if he reads this thread.

At my club, in Hertfordshire, we have a number of young players who have been involved in the junior county and area structures. Many of them have been very successful seam-up bowlers in the junior leagues, as well as being good batsmen. Of the four that come to mind, three were genuine opening bowlers at club level, and one was taking hatful of wickets as an opening bowler - the other was more of a first or second change seamer.

What seems to happen is that as soon as the county coaches (led by Jamie Hewitt, a former pro player) get their hands on them, they turn them into spinners unless they are really tall. The one that I was talking about who took lots of wickets was a 10 year-old who was short for his age, but bowled very effective skiddy medium pace, which would surely have developed into genuine pace over time. This seems a major waste of seam bowling talent to me as even though some of them (including the example I have talked about) become very effective spinners, they mostly inevitably become batsmen-who-bowl, particularly when they play at county level.

I assume that this happens in other counties too.

Shelsey93 wrote:Another Bopara bashing thread

He seems, much like early career Bell, to get no credit for his good performances. Going back a year we have 3 50s including a wonderful 90-odd at Lord's which during a game I attended in the series against India, two important 50s in support of Cook in the UAE, and a crucial innings in support of Hales in the T20 just last week. He also played two Tests in which he did very little wrong, and was 50-odd not out when England declared at The Oval. His bowling has been useful on occasion, including a match-winning 4 for practically nothing in a T20 against WI last summer.

His form for Essex this season has been better than that of any other candidates for number six, with the exception of Bairstow.

Of course, playing against SA will be a last chance to play Test cricket if he doesn't go well. For the winter Morgan may well be back in the picture, and Taylor and Bairstow, along with Patel would have to be considered ahead of him for the tour of India.

And why the facepalm, Shelsey? You only have to look at his record to see why people dont want him in the Test side.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:Another Bopara bashing thread

He seems, much like early career Bell, to get no credit for his good performances. Going back a year we have 3 50s including a wonderful 90-odd at Lord's which during a game I attended in the series against India, two important 50s in support of Cook in the UAE, and a crucial innings in support of Hales in the T20 just last week. He also played two Tests in which he did very little wrong, and was 50-odd not out when England declared at The Oval. His bowling has been useful on occasion, including a match-winning 4 for practically nothing in a T20 against WI last summer.

His form for Essex this season has been better than that of any other candidates for number six, with the exception of Bairstow.

Of course, playing against SA will be a last chance to play Test cricket if he doesn't go well. For the winter Morgan may well be back in the picture, and Taylor and Bairstow, along with Patel would have to be considered ahead of him for the tour of India.

And why the facepalm, Shelsey? You only have to look at his record to see why people dont want him in the Test side.

Right, they also dont want him in the ODI side, but someone has to play. If Bairstow can pass the 18 runs mark at least once in the SA series he may stake a claim to keep Ravi out of the test team for the winter.
For ODIs youd be looking at a fundamental rethink of the whole structure of the side (which keeps winning) and end up with a collection of bits and pieces players in the middle order. Until Paul Collingwood (remeber when we couldnt wait to see the back of him?) gets younger England are lumbered with an average player in that role.

Bopara's performances in the ODI team over the last 12 months are easily good enough to justify continued selection.

LondonTiger wrote:Bopara's performances in the ODI team over the last 12 months are easily good enough to justify continued selection.

Exactly.

GG wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Bopara's performances in the ODI team over the last 12 months are easily good enough to justify continued selection.

Exactly.

Not in Test cricket sorry.

GG wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Bopara's performances in the ODI team over the last 12 months are easily good enough to justify continued selection.

Exactly.

Average 33 with the bat and 1 wicket for 209 runs, 1 catch every 3 games and no run outs?

Hardly the new Kallis is he. Nothing better than OK.

For me its a case of someone has to put their hand up to replace him, not a case that hes earned untouchable status.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

GG wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Bopara's performances in the ODI team over the last 12 months are easily good enough to justify continued selection.

Exactly.

Not in Test cricket sorry.

I assumed it was ODI's we were talking about.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

GG wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Bopara's performances in the ODI team over the last 12 months are easily good enough to justify continued selection.

Exactly.

Not in Test cricket sorry.

Last time England lined up, he wasn't in the test side.

England don't really have enough quality batsmen to disregard a guy who's flashed talent.

For all his talent at domestic level and his usefulness as a batsman who can be a credible bowling option, Bopara's international career has been a repeating story of "one step forward, two steps back".

England will play him against South Africa. I think that they need to play him to see, once and for all, if he's good enough. You can't keep using him as the next man in if you have question marks over him.

His form in ODIs over the past year has been better. His rate of scoring fifties has increased as has his strike rate. But there have been a few cases of him not finishing games off and there's also the India tour where he averaged roughly 18. He still doesn't convince.

I think that if he couldn't bowl, he'd be gone by now. We have the likes of Taylor, Bairstow and Buttler - three young talents with strong domestic records. Compton's in ridiculous form, Carberry is still highly thought of whilst Hildreth also supporters.

Instead, he's benefiting from a lack of credible alternatives of batsmen who can offer a solid bowling option. Wright was likeable but didn't perform well enough in either discipline. Stokes gets injured whenever he runs into form. Patel's fitness still isn't fully trusted and I don't think England are comfortable playing him as a frontline batsman and sixth bowling option (rather, he bats at 7 usually). The rest are either bowlers who can bat well or bits-n-pieces players.

To get the Aussie captain out in his first over?

Carrotdude wrote:To get the Aussie captain out in his first over?

As Carrot will also appreciate, it's always good to have someone like Bopara up your sleeve if Dernbach is one of your main bowlers.....

well it would appear that he has demonstrated so far with the ball the advantage of having him in the team as a part-time bowler to bowl a few overs when conditions or match situation dictate. However, he is selected first and foremost as a batsman, and so should be judged primarily on that. I believe I am correct in saying that his recent record hasn't been too bad. I think there is another person in the team whose position should be under more scrutiny than Bopara.

amanuensis wrote:Is it just me, or is anyone else increasingy puzzled by the latitude granted to the Essex man? He averages 30, thanks to lots of red ink, at a very ordinary strike rate & has only passed 60 once in 70 innings! Why is he still in the team? It certainly can't be because of his fielding, which is pretty ordinary. Do they really need his bowling now with 5 specialists in the side? Are the alternatives so utterly awful? Can anyone enlighten me?

Which is still more than what Bairstow averaged in the test series V West Indies. Also, Bopara can add something to England's 4 man bowling attack, unlike Bairstow. Now I would like to ask what is the point of Bairstow?

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Carrotdude wrote:To get the Aussie captain out in his first over?

As Carrot will also appreciate, it's always good to have someone like Bopara up your sleeve if Dernbach is one of your main bowlers.....

Brilliant! Just don't peak too early, chaps. Save something for the 12th!

Well his truely stuck his finger up the bum of this theory so far today.

"Ah yes but he didnt win the match single handedly"

yeah lol- great game !! true allrounder today

Ha what a t1t, ran out, drop him

amanuensis wrote:Is it just me, or is anyone else increasingy puzzled by the latitude granted to the Essex man? He averages 30, thanks to lots of red ink, at a very ordinary strike rate & has only passed 60 once in 70 innings! Why is he still in the team? It certainly can't be because of his fielding, which is pretty ordinary. Do they really need his bowling now with 5 specialists in the side? Are the alternatives so utterly awful? Can anyone enlighten me?

<removed> or is 81 and 1 for 15 not good enough these days

Doubt he had a time machine to check what would happen today when he wrote this yesterday CF

I think now is the first time I haven't asked the question raised in the OP. He finally seems to have settled and got some consistency - being at number 4 for a good while now must have helped and his bowling is more useful than often appreciated. Personally I would be happy with him at 6 for the SA series ahead of Bairstow who I think would be badly trouble by the short stuff from Morkel and co.

your being abit harsh, easy to say after that performance

well its clearly wumming

many of us agreed with him. it really clearly isnt wumming

i have a different opinon to you, so therefore i thought it was wumming.

is that like an ironic post....?

my point is not fussed what others think, i post what i think, and if u dont agree then, i couldnt care less...i could try but i would be unsuccessful.

basically i am happy to say i was wrong and bop proved many of us wrong today. But come on he has been abit of a weak link in the past

because he hasnt had a settled role in the side, constantly being moved around...

he looks settled at 4 and its good to see!

CF wrote:i have a different opinon to you, so therefore i thought it was wumming.

So what about all your all time XI threads with Stephen Fleming in it? I think almost everyone disagreed with those. So were you wumming?

CF?

are you cricketfan "only way ISNT essex"

yes mysti

thats a shame then..............


nah jus kidding

What's the point? Includes bowling tidily and taking the occasional wicket, especially in helpful conditions....

Bowling quite superbly today.

Yes conditions are made for him , but still you have to put the ball in the right place at the the right angle , and he is doing that , and really working these batsmen over. And they are no mugs.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:what happened to all the part time medium pacers in CC?

This is an interesting issue which perhaps Mike, with his coaching knowledge, could help with if he reads this thread.

At my club, in Hertfordshire, we have a number of young players who have been involved in the junior county and area structures. Many of them have been very successful seam-up bowlers in the junior leagues, as well as being good batsmen. Of the four that come to mind, three were genuine opening bowlers at club level, and one was taking hatful of wickets as an opening bowler - the other was more of a first or second change seamer.

What seems to happen is that as soon as the county coaches (led by Jamie Hewitt, a former pro player) get their hands on them, they turn them into spinners unless they are really tall. The one that I was talking about who took lots of wickets was a 10 year-old who was short for his age, but bowled very effective skiddy medium pace, which would surely have developed into genuine pace over time. This seems a major waste of seam bowling talent to me as even though some of them (including the example I have talked about) become very effective spinners, they mostly inevitably become batsmen-who-bowl, particularly when they play at county level.

I assume that this happens in other counties too.

I have now caught up with my 606v2 reading...

There are a couple of things which perhaps have played a role:

1) England is probably experiencing the hangover of the Fletcher years where pace was deemed a requirement to be a successful international bowler. From say 2002 there was a noticeable move by the England management to look for genuine quicks (88+); this probably filtered through to the county and then club coaches in the following 3 years, so that the then age-group players are probably starting in their county teams now (if you think of someone who was 13-15 in 2005). Given that one of Fletcher's major achievements was getting all coaches on board with a common vision, I would think it very likely that the lack of medium pacers we are seeing now is because England decided about 10 years ago that medium-pacers couldn't be successful international bowlers. In 5 years time or so we should see more.

2) the second thing is that what we call medium-pace (say 75-82) is actually bl00dy quick if you've ever faced it, and certainly faster than most people will ever bowl! And there is no doubt you need to be that quick to become a pro. As science has become more sophisticated there are ways of working out with decent probability whether someone will have the ability to bowl even that quickly (for example shoe-size plays a part, and as Shelsey says height obviously). As cricket has become more professional people are having to make choices earlier in their lives (so that it is unlikely that you could make a style change at the age of 17 say, when it becomes clear you won't have the required pace - here I am talking 80 rather than 90 mph - to become a successful cricketer, and switch to spin; by that time it is probably too late). Of course some will slip through the net, but probably fewer than would have been the case without "screening". I am not altogether surprised by Shelsey's report.

Mike Selig wrote:As science has become more sophisticated there are ways of working out with decent probability whether someone will have the ability to bowl even that quickly (for example shoe-size plays a part ....

Probably helps explain Angus Fraser's success. Any spies in the children's shoe department could have easily spotted his massive paws and passed on the intelligence to the appropriate quarters....

taken a wicket with his first ball today

2 wickets!!

And an excellent performance with the bat....