What is the point of Bopara?

Well I asked this before & was mocked by some, but I'm going to ask it again - how much more rope can they afford to give him in ODIs? He clearly isn't good enough to bat in the top 4 (1046 runs @ 29.89 against teams which play tests) & he probably isn't quick enough to bat any lower in the order. His bowling is decent, but nothing more - he certainly can't be considered good enough to be a specialist.

This is your previous thread on the subject - https://www.606v2.com/t31851-bopara-what-exactly-is-the-point-of-him

Became a bit embarrassing for some posters when he had a stunner against the Aussies.

Of course he is a good player. He can bat well, and unlike most England batsman, offers something handy with the ball. In ODIs that makes him crucial to our balance.

We all also know that he has mental issues, particularly once he gets on a poor run. This makes his Test place questionable although I'd argue that he's at least worth a squad place in India - he may have regained form by then and his confidence won't be boosted by leaving him out.

Shelsey93 wrote:This is your previous thread on the subject - https://www.606v2.com/t31851-bopara-what-exactly-is-the-point-of-him

Became a bit embarrassing for some posters when he had a stunner against the Aussies.

Of course he is a good player. He can bat well, and unlike most England batsman, offers something handy with the ball. In ODIs that makes him crucial to our balance.

We all also know that he has mental issues, particularly once he gets on a poor run. This makes his Test place questionable although I'd argue that he's at least worth a squad place in India - he may have regained form by then and his confidence won't be boosted by leaving him out.

Stunner? He had a good series, but it was the weakest Australian team in a generation.

I am in this camp, but i have done enough Bops bashing recently.

When on form he looks worthy of a spot, but his stats in all formats suggest that he is not a great or even quite good talent.

But Flower and the coaches feel they see something, but it is time to even question them.

For Essex he is good, but a consistent International - NO.

amanuensis wrote:
Stunner? He had a good series, but it was the weakest Australian team in a generation.

Still a stunner whoever it was against, and they were ranked 1 in the world before the series started. Johnson, Lee, Cummins, Hilfenhaus, Pattinson, McKay not the worst pace attack around either.

Shelsey93 wrote:

amanuensis wrote:
Stunner? He had a good series, but it was the weakest Australian team in a generation.

Still a stunner whoever it was against, and they were ranked 1 in the world before the series started. Johnson, Lee, Cummins, Hilfenhaus, Pattinson, McKay not the worst pace attack around either.

Strong with the new balls, less so later on, when Bopara typically came to the crease.

The thing is, that his bowling can be very occasionally useful, if it were not for that he would surely not be playing.

skyeman wrote:The thing is, that his bowling can be very occasionally useful, if it were not for that he would surely not be playing.

How often does he take wickets when the team actually need him to, like yesterday?

amanuensis wrote:

skyeman wrote:The thing is, that his bowling can be very occasionally useful, if it were not for that he would surely not be playing.

How often does he take wickets when the team actually need him to, like yesterday?

Oh i agree on Bops, but you have to tell Flower and Co that.

You can only give chances for so long.

skyeman wrote:The thing is, that his bowling can be very occasionally useful, if it were not for that he would surely not be playing.

Not necessarily. His batting is why he is in the side first and foremost (and has come off in the 3 of the last 5 ODI series), but his bowling certainly gives him a little more margin for error.

His bowling is particularly useful when the pressure is on. He can't be expected to bowl the wonder ball that breaks an Amla/ AB partnership very often, but when the pressures on he's very difficult to get away.

Shelsey93 wrote:

skyeman wrote:The thing is, that his bowling can be very occasionally useful, if it were not for that he would surely not be playing.

Not necessarily. His batting is why he is in the side first and foremost (and has come off in the 3 of the last 5 ODI series), but his bowling certainly gives him a little more margin for error.

His bowling is particularly useful when the pressure is on. He can't be expected to bowl the wonder ball that breaks an Amla/ AB partnership very often, but when the pressures on he's very difficult to get away.

Come on, with his mental state and the recent awful batting,and without the option of his bowling he would surely have been dropped.

skyeman wrote:

Come on, with his mental state and the recent awful batting,and without the option of his bowling he would surely have been dropped.

But how recent is recent? He had a big score in the last Australia game, and has only played 4 ODIs since.

Sure, he is in awful form, but in ODIs there is no need to chop and change a team that much.

T20 is a different beast as I've been saying. Out of form players can cost you big time.

Shelsey93 wrote:

skyeman wrote:

Come on, with his mental state and the recent awful batting,and without the option of his bowling he would surely have been dropped.

But how recent is recent? He had a big score in the last Australia game, and has only played 4 ODIs since.

Sure, he is in awful form, but in ODIs there is no need to chop and change a team that much.

T20 is a different beast as I've been saying. Out of form players can cost you big time.

But the big question should be, despite the odd good series, do you give a player with such awful stats in all formats, more chances, {and the next series he is just as bad}. Or do you cut your losses now.

skyeman wrote:
But the big question should be, despite the odd good series, do you give a player with such awful stats in all formats, more chances, {and the next series he is just as bad}. Or do you cut your losses now.

Its a good point. I'd say that he offers enough in ODIs to be persisted with - his performances at home v India, in the UAE and at home v Australia show that, and he is pretty important to us as a bowler too, given our lack of batsmen who bowl.

The other formats are more debatable as I say. I've argued that he should at least be in the squad for India and stand by that - he hasn't had a chance to answer any questions about his Test place, and having been a spare batsman and next in line for a while, probably deserves that. He might also be in better form by then. But that's not me saying that he necessarily has a long Test future - give him a go for 2-3 Tests and if he fails that would probably be him done as a Test cricketer.

The point is hes got the stroke playing ability of bell. Well in theory anyway. And then offers a 5th/6th bowling option, which has to come from somwhere in the side.

The issue with him is he rarely lives up to his potential with the bat and is very very flakey.
On paper England sides without him lack balance, the unfortunately most England sides with him are sh1te at batting.

The reasons why hes picked are pretty obvious, theres a clear point to him. The problem is he doesnt deliver too often.

And his batting records better than Du Plesiss' who bowls far less. Maybe we should start saying its trotts fault for not being as good as Amla then getting injured to cap it all.

Shelsey93 wrote:

skyeman wrote:

Come on, with his mental state and the recent awful batting,and without the option of his bowling he would surely have been dropped.

But how recent is recent? He had a big score in the last Australia game, and has only played 4 ODIs since.

Sure, he is in awful form, but in ODIs there is no need to chop and change a team that much.

T20 is a different beast as I've been saying. Out of form players can cost you big time.

1) The last Australia game was a dead rubber.
2) In terms of turning his arm over, his job is to make an impact when others aren't - that basically means taking wickets, as he typically operates during the overs when opposition teams milk the bowling.
3) As for his batting, he averages under 35 against test teams since the start of the WC & that's basically the best period of his ODI career. Sorry, but that's nowhere near good enough for someone coming in at 4.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:The point is hes got the stroke playing ability of bell. Well in theory anyway. And then offers a 5th/6th bowling option, which has to come from somwhere in the side.

The issue with him is he rarely lives up to his potential with the bat and is very very flakey.
On paper England sides without him lack balance, the unfortunately most England sides with him are sh1te at batting.

The reasons why hes picked are pretty obvious, theres a clear point to him. The problem is he doesnt deliver too often.

And his batting records better than Du Plesiss' who bowls far less. Maybe we should start saying its trotts fault for not being as good as Amla then getting injured to cap it all.

Fair assessment --- he is crap, but the best crap available.

skyeman wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:The point is hes got the stroke playing ability of bell. Well in theory anyway. And then offers a 5th/6th bowling option, which has to come from somwhere in the side.

The issue with him is he rarely lives up to his potential with the bat and is very very flakey.
On paper England sides without him lack balance, the unfortunately most England sides with him are sh1te at batting.

The reasons why hes picked are pretty obvious, theres a clear point to him. The problem is he doesnt deliver too often.

And his batting records better than Du Plesiss' who bowls far less. Maybe we should start saying its trotts fault for not being as good as Amla then getting injured to cap it all.

Fair assessment --- he is crap, but the best crap available.

Here's a novel idea - pick 5 (actual) batsmen, 1 batsman/keeper & 5 (actual) bowlers, forgetting all this 6th bowler nonsense. Let the top 6 carry the burden of scoring the runs & the the bottom 5, that of taking the wickets. If any of the batsmen happen to bowl a bit, then so much the better, but don't pick a joker on the basis that he can turn his arm over.

I feel Bopara has been given enough chances, and barring a couple of decent series against India and Australia he has been very inconsistent throughout his career. I don't think his bowling is as good as that of Paul Collingwood who was a far better bat and fielder than Bopara ever was.
Investing in Ben Stokes and Chris Woakes in my view is more likely to pay better for England. Both are young, the former is pretty decent with the bat and is improving with the ball, the latter has been a potent first class bowler with a batting ability that is improving all the time. Admitedly he needs more work on both aspects of his game, but giving both Stokes and Woakes might just be more productive than a further extension to Bopara.
When all fit and available, I would go with
Alastair Cook
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Ben Stokes
Jonny Bairstow(WK)
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Steven Finn
James Anderson
Tough on Jonathan Trott, but Bell is doing a fine job opening along side Cook, and Pietersen on form and if available has to play. Trott can't bat anywhere other than the top 3.
Trott has to be the first batting reserve, along with Samit Patel, James Tredwell and Jade Dernbach?

But this is the dilemma, how could anyone leave out Trott. Who is pivotal and whose stats speak for themselves. Never gonna happen.

msp83 wrote:I feel Bopara has been given enough chances, and barring a couple of decent series against India and Australia he has been very inconsistent throughout his career. I don't think his bowling is as good as that of Paul Collingwood who was a far better bat and fielder than Bopara ever was.
Investing in Ben Stokes and Chris Woakes in my view is more likely to pay better for England. Both are young, the former is pretty decent with the bat and is improving with the ball, the latter has been a potent first class bowler with a batting ability that is improving all the time. Admitedly he needs more work on both aspects of his game, but giving both Stokes and Woakes might just be more productive than a further extension to Bopara.
When all fit and available, I would go with
Alastair Cook
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Ben Stokes
Jonny Bairstow(WK)
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Steven Finn
James Anderson
Tough on Jonathan Trott, but Bell is doing a fine job opening along side Cook, and Pietersen on form and if available has to play. Trott can't bat anywhere other than the top 3.
Trott has to be the first batting reserve, along with Samit Patel, James Tredwell and Jade Dernbach?

Bairstow had a great test against SA, but what has he done in ODI or List A cricket to suggest he deserves to picked ahead of Kieswetter as wk? For me, assuming the issues get sorted out, KP has to come in for Bopara and Bresnan or Woakes need to bat 7 and we need to back the 5 bowlers to bowl all the 50 overs.

So for me:

Cook(c)
Bell
Trott
KP
Morgan
Kieswetter(wk)
Woakes/Bresnan
Swann
Broad
Finn
Anderson

chrisss wrote:

msp83 wrote:I feel Bopara has been given enough chances, and barring a couple of decent series against India and Australia he has been very inconsistent throughout his career. I don't think his bowling is as good as that of Paul Collingwood who was a far better bat and fielder than Bopara ever was.
Investing in Ben Stokes and Chris Woakes in my view is more likely to pay better for England. Both are young, the former is pretty decent with the bat and is improving with the ball, the latter has been a potent first class bowler with a batting ability that is improving all the time. Admitedly he needs more work on both aspects of his game, but giving both Stokes and Woakes might just be more productive than a further extension to Bopara.
When all fit and available, I would go with
Alastair Cook
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Ben Stokes
Jonny Bairstow(WK)
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Steven Finn
James Anderson
Tough on Jonathan Trott, but Bell is doing a fine job opening along side Cook, and Pietersen on form and if available has to play. Trott can't bat anywhere other than the top 3.
Trott has to be the first batting reserve, along with Samit Patel, James Tredwell and Jade Dernbach?

Bairstow had a great test against SA, but what has he done in ODI or List A cricket to suggest he deserves to picked ahead of Kieswetter as wk? For me, assuming the issues get sorted out, KP has to come in for Bopara and Bresnan or Woakes need to bat 7 and we need to back the 5 bowlers to bowl all the 50 overs.

So for me:

Cook(c)
Bell
Trott
KP
Morgan
Kieswetter(wk)
Woakes/Bresnan
Swann
Broad
Finn
Anderson

That's THE team.

Then KP and trott can chuck a few down instead of no-hoper.

skyeman wrote:

chrisss wrote:

msp83 wrote:I feel Bopara has been given enough chances, and barring a couple of decent series against India and Australia he has been very inconsistent throughout his career. I don't think his bowling is as good as that of Paul Collingwood who was a far better bat and fielder than Bopara ever was.
Investing in Ben Stokes and Chris Woakes in my view is more likely to pay better for England. Both are young, the former is pretty decent with the bat and is improving with the ball, the latter has been a potent first class bowler with a batting ability that is improving all the time. Admitedly he needs more work on both aspects of his game, but giving both Stokes and Woakes might just be more productive than a further extension to Bopara.
When all fit and available, I would go with
Alastair Cook
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Ben Stokes
Jonny Bairstow(WK)
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Steven Finn
James Anderson
Tough on Jonathan Trott, but Bell is doing a fine job opening along side Cook, and Pietersen on form and if available has to play. Trott can't bat anywhere other than the top 3.
Trott has to be the first batting reserve, along with Samit Patel, James Tredwell and Jade Dernbach?

Bairstow had a great test against SA, but what has he done in ODI or List A cricket to suggest he deserves to picked ahead of Kieswetter as wk? For me, assuming the issues get sorted out, KP has to come in for Bopara and Bresnan or Woakes need to bat 7 and we need to back the 5 bowlers to bowl all the 50 overs.

So for me:

Cook(c)
Bell
Trott
KP
Morgan
Kieswetter(wk)
Woakes/Bresnan
Swann
Broad
Finn
Anderson

That's THE team.

Then KP and trott can chuck a few down instead of no-hoper.

If Pietersen is ruled out, surely Morgan can bat at 4, with perhaps Bairstow at 5. Patel would also be an option ahead of Woakes/Bresnan, depending on the wicket.

I know leaving Trott out is very tough, but it is more sensible than playing Bopara for a few overs he might offer from time to time. If Stokes and Woakes are to play in this lineup, then Trott will have to be the one to go.
I don't see it happening though. Pietersen can come back in for Bopara, Bairstow will have to keep and bat 6. Kieswetter has been pretty average behind the stumps, and whenever he got an opportunity to bat long and bat big, he couldn't do so, leaving the job half done. Someone who regularly keeps for his county can't be much worse than Kieswetter is at the moment.
I am not entirely convinced by Woakes the bowler as capable of regular 10 over spels game in and game out at this moment. At his pace, he's likely to have more off days than the other 4, and a couple of overs will have to be covered for. Perhaps Pietersen and Trott can do that job. And on spinning wickets, Samit Patel can come in for Woakes. Having seen Woakes bat yesterday, and even Australia some time ago, I am convinced he's ready to bat 7 for England in ODIs. Just that he needs a bit of something extra, perhaps pace, perhaps more swing and seam to make his bowling more potent particularly on flatter pitches.

If England is looking for someone who can bat in the top 6 and offer some very useful overs, then Stokes has to be the choice. Unlike Bopara, he has more big shots as well. He didn't look quite ready when he played against India last year, but he now has gained more experience, and should in any case be a better bet than Bopara is at the moment.

Leaving Trott out is a stupid idea - the last two matches showed how important he is.

Potentially bringing KP back in down the line complicates things a bit but I think I'd slot KP in at 4 if at all (I know he's good opening, but he relinquished that position rather than the other way round). I don't want Morgan anywhere other than 5, and if I want my five bowlers which I do, then the 'keeper must bat at 6. The only issue then becomes the lack of part-time bowlers but, as in Tests, we might then just have to do with Trott/ KP.

At the moment KP shouldn't be considered for ODIs really though. He caused England to rethink their batting line-up by retiring, and so he shouldn't just walk back in, causing another rethink.

msp83 wrote:If England is looking for someone who can bat in the top 6 and offer some very useful overs, then Stokes has to be the choice. Unlike Bopara, he has more big shots as well. He didn't look quite ready when he played against India last year, but he now has gained more experience, and should in any case be a better bet than Bopara is at the moment.

I do agree on the JB/Kieswetter trading places position, unlike some, i do not think that he is that inferior to Kieswetter and he is certainly a better bat.

But give Stokes a while longer, as you say he did not have the best of starts with Eng, then had his finger injury and his season with Durham has been very average.

Maybe, not in the too distant future though.

But Stokes can't be any worse than Bopara is at the moment.

If the KP issues are resolved and if he's made available for selection, I would have in all formats, just because he's England's bestt batsman across all formats. He of course didn't handle a lot of things well and is currently serving time for that, but if things are cleared, I don't think holding the past against him would make any sense, as on merit he walks into the side.

msp83 wrote:
... Having seen Woakes bat yesterday, and even Australia some time ago, I am convinced he's ready to bat 7 for England in ODIs. Just that he needs a bit of something extra, perhaps pace, perhaps more swing and seam to make his bowling more potent particularly on flatter pitches.

Msp - I pretty much agree with your comments, especially about Woakes' batting which I've been plugging for a while. However, I suspect you're underestimating how difficult it will be for his bowling to acquire 'a bit of something extra'. I fear another conundrum may be coming and soon after that an abundance of 'What is the point of Woakes?' threads ....

msp83 wrote:But Stokes can't be any worse than Bopara is at the moment.

He isnt as good a bowler, and his brief international career was worse than Boparas. He hasnt bowled a single over and averages 10 with the bat in ODIs (5)
So if he continues in that vein, he actually could be worse than R Bop is.

Stokes was playing with an injury when he played against India wasn't he? That's why he didn't bowl. He seems to be a regular bowler for Durham in all formats. I remember neither Michael Vaughan nor Andrew Strauss trusted much of Bopara the bowler.

Might be instructive to note that Bopara has been used as a bowler only in half of the ODI matches he played. Stokes' First Class bowling record is much better than those of Bopara.

I think Ravi deserves one more ODI series as he is crucial to the balance of the side. However, the batting is way too inconsistent for him to be considered for Tests(where he'll be judged purely on the basis of batting and his bowling won't be a factor). I think he is worth one last chance in Tests(3-4 Tests at most) but that chance should be given to whom only if the likes of Taylor and Bairstow fail after being given extended runs. He should not be allowed to just walk back into the squad for the India Tests without any form to speak of. As I said, he has already been given his fair share of chances and at this stage of his career, he is in last chance saloon. So I'd rather give him his "last chance" when he is actually in form. SA Test series was the ideal series to look at him as he was in rich vein of form in the ODI series against Oz but destiny had something else in store. Picking him for the India Tests when his confidence is shot to pieces could effectively destroy his Test career. Even at his best, he has hardly done well on subcontinental tracks. So to pick him in his current form would be suicidal. And picking him based on an assumption that he might recover form is a sign of desperation. I'm not too keen on that.

But he should be given one more ODI series.

The point of Bopara is to create threads such as this.

Imagine the devastation that could be wrought on the world if all of us geeks did not use up our angst like this.