Champions Trophy - England and Wales 2013

First topic message reminder :

We have had a few prediction/ speculation type threads but this will be the discussion thread for matches in the Champions Trophy which starts this morning.

The first game is India v South Africa at the Swalec Stadium, Cardiff.

What a low-scoring thriller. New Zealand almost messed up in the face of some spirited bowling from Sri Lanka, but in the end 138 proved just not good enough, only just.

What a finish, what a game, and what a tournament this is shaping up to be. Well done Kiwis.

Unlucky SL

Tense stuff that.

What a fantastic game, shame it ended in poor style

Pakistan vs South Africa next

1 week in and its already more entertaining than the last 2 world cups.

England's group looks wide open.

I'd be really disappointed if England didn't make it out of the group on the showing of these first round of games

trebellbobaggins wrote:England's group looks wide open.

That run rate calculation seems grossly unfair. NZ above England despite England's much more convincing win. I don't think England need be unduly worried about either NZ or SL. They'll need to be extra careful with Malinga though.

teassoc wrote:

trebellbobaggins wrote:England's group looks wide open.

That run rate calculation seems grossly unfair. NZ above England despite England's much more convincing win. I don't think England need be unduly worried about either NZ or SL. They'll need to be extra careful with Malinga though.

Eh, it is what it is. No system will be perfect and England shouldve finished the job.

Think it will be 2 from 3 of England, NZ and SL. Can finish the job next game.

"That run rate calculation seems grossly unfair"

I admit it seems strange.

The reason NZ have the better RR is due them having so many overs spare due to bowling SL out for such a small target. This RR was rated out of the amount of overs batted yet SL's was rated out of 50.

However they only had 1 wicket left and if they had batted on would have been lucky to score another 10 runs. Which would have made there true Net RR to be much lower than it actually was..

Anyway either way we are splitting hairs. If England don't get out of this group top they only have them selves to blame..

There could be a case for suggesting a DL type rating system. Which would take the amount of wickets(resources) in to acount. But that could also pose a few issues. As GSC says no system will be perfect.

A few years ago, in tournaments in which I was involved at least, they used to use some sort of system which took into account number of wickets lost and taken (very primitively, it was something like you runs x your wickets taken / their runs x wickets lost); however the downside of this was that it was better for a side to score 260/3 in 50 overs batting first than 290/9 - whilst obviously the latter is the better score.

I agree that the limitations of the current system is that New Zealand's win over SL gains more value than England's over Australia; it is also much easier to make big changes in your NRR by batting first (once you have played a few games). There is probably a better system out there somewhere, but I don't think the problem is that important that people care too badly.

England should top their group comfortably TBH if they play anything close to 100%. I wouldn't rule Australia out of 2nd place just yet - if anything they have a similar team to the likes of NZ and SL nowadays (workmanlike with a few class players).

Yep a simple calc wouldnt work due to the problem you mention Mike. It cant just be about wickets

get Duncan lewis on to it though and we would probally have a better system

I think we can appreciate the value of players like Bell and Trott after yesterdays game.

The problem isn't them. Its the collective them... basically together

yeah because at 174-2 after 35 overs England were really poorly placed

The problem is that England don't have a Gayle or a Watson or an Amla (in the absence of KP) hence they play to what their strengths are. It's not particularly exciting, but since the two new balls have been brought in it's been very effective.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2013/content/current/story/639969.html

sums it up rather nicely I think. Comments like "England were bailed out by their world-class bowling attack" are silly. England's plan is as it is precisely because they have a world class bowling attack, and thus they feel confident defending 270-280 rather than needing 320. If they had India's bowling attack they probably wouldn't... Yes it's a rather limited gameplan, and indeed it may not always work (particularly if they do come up against Gayle, Watson, Amla etc. in form who blast off) but more often than not it does, and unless people have a better option (which I haven't seen proposed yet) then I would suggest they should stick to it.

Certainly England have looked comfortably the best team in the tournament so far, they really only had 10 overs where things went wrong for them (overs 35-45), apart from that they would have been happy with pretty much everything.

Rubbish M4theC.

almost all of it. nd the hyperboyle that we have comfortable looked the best. We have not looked better than India..

NZ and SL looked as good bowling, India looked better batting.

Yes we should be the favs and rightly so , we are a very good team.,. And yes we have the best bowling attack. And the best combo of batting and bowling attacks!

But none of this makes the reality of trott and bell playing together stuning our potential total and wasting resources because they take up to much time at the crease. When playing together both play the anchor role.. One will not step up and mix the game up when needed..

but they weren't anchoring, they had us scoring at 5 runs per over (for 35 overs) when Trott got out, that's quicker than any TEAM other than India and SA have scored throughout their innings so far. I think way too much was made of the flatness of the pitch too, Bell himself said it was much on the slow side, particularly when the ball got old.

I actually thought Bell and Trott did a fine job, the main problem was that it was a bit boring (ie there's nothing exciting about watching Trott shuffle across and clip a single to wide mid-on, but it is effective).

I stand by my assessment that England have looked comfortably the best side so far (with the caveat the I didn't watch yesterday's game, but going by the scorecard SL's batting was awful and their bowling relied on Malinga, while NZ produced a good effort with the ball but were very poor with the bat): India's batting was good but they were helped by shocking SA bowling up front (something England didn't benefit from), their bowling looks average at best, SA were awful with their bowling, while their batsmen gave it a good go but fell comfortably short.

England, despite their end of innings not coming off, still posted a very decent score, bowled and fielded superbly, and generally look a very well-oiled unit. It might not be enough if they come up against an inspired opponent (Gayle, Malinga, etc.) but at the moment it's doing more than enough.

"and unless people have a better option (which I haven't seen proposed yet) then I would suggest they should stick to it.
"

If you havent noticed the option given by me its root at the opening position. To be honest you and others on here keep neglecting this.. You seem to have selective memory.

If you would like to argue against root at 2 I may be inclined to take a bit more notice of the same tired old arguments for this very limited system!

The problem isn't that trot or bell try to play the anchor role and bat through gradually increasing their strike rate. The problem is that both bell and trott try to play the anchor role. On saturday it worked, my concern is do they have the flexibility to change the strategy if necessary.

"but they weren't anchoring, they had us scoring at 5 runs per over (for 35 overs) when Trott got out"

ok firstly you must understand the prinicple of limited over cricket and resources..

When you are 35 overs old and have 9 wickets remaining you are not in a position to effectively utilse your hitters.. Therefore what any batsman that plays for the team should be doing- is adding extra shot options periodically. Not playing one set way throughout there innings.. You want to increase(accelerate) the RR every 10 or so overs;. for very obvious reasons..

You also need to use the correct figures.. It wasnt 5 an over it was 4.7.

That may not seem a big deal to you but it is... and the differnce between an RR of 78 to 84

mystiroakey wrote:
If you havent noticed the option given by me its root at the opening position. To be honest you and others on here keep neglecting this.. You seem to have selective memory.

If you would like to argue against root at 2 I may be inclined to take a bit more notice of the same tired old arguments for this very limited system!

Actually I have answered this point many times, so to sum up:
- Root is ideally suited to the middle-order. His natural game is to nurdle and improvise, rather than playing big shots (which he can do when well set, as we saw in India). He plays spin better than anyone in this England team. He is a bit like a right-handed Graham Thorpe in that respect.
- I haven't personally seen anything from Root which suggests he'll score much quicker than say Bell as an opener; the lack of gaps in the early overs would mean just as many dot balls, and whilst he has more boundary options, I'm not sure he's comfortable in the situation of "catching up dot balls".
- Moving Root up to open only pushes the problem back to who bats 4; you can't seriously suggest Bell (proven failure down the order) or Trott (will eat up balls to play himself in, without the necessary time to catch them up - which he usually does whilst batting 3, e.g. on Saturday he went from 22 off 38 to 43 off 55 before getting out) should play there. Numbers 4 and 5 needs to be an adaptable player who is adept at nurdling, but can also play the big shots once you get to the final overs. Who in England (apart from Root and Morgan) can do that?

All of our top 3 at the moment have RR's o f 78 and under.

Every other top team have at least two players with RR's of over 80.

We need one player that can periodically accerlerate the rate if the plan works and they stay in!!

Only cook has that ability and he hasnt been in the best form recently so hasnt stuck about!

You make an interesting point about root. You say once in he has a chance of playing the big shots. Correct he does.. But if he only gets a few overs to bat how can he get in.. This was the problem last game.. They come in 20/20 style and have to bash due to the stagnant RR pressure.

I predict we will win this whole thing - however this is ironically dependant on one of trott or bell getting out early when against the top teams..

mystiroakey wrote:"but they weren't anchoring, they had us scoring at 5 runs per over (for 35 overs) when Trott got out"

ok firstly you must understand the prinicple of limited over cricket and resources..

When you are 35 overs old and have 9 wickets remaining you are not in a position to effectively utilse your hitters.. Therefore what any batsman that plays for the team should be doing- is adding extra shot options periodically. Not playing one set way throughout there innings.. You want to increase(accelerate) the RR every 10 or so overs;. for very obvious reasons..

You also need to use the correct figures.. It wasnt 5 an over it was 4.7.

That may not seem a big deal to you but it is... and the differnce between an RR of 78 to 84

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2013/engine/match/578616.html?innings=1;view=commentary

after 34 overs (when Trott got out), they were 170 for 2, that's exactly 5 runs per over. After 35 they had 173 so 4.94 runs per over, not sure where you're getting the 4.7 figure from TBH...

I totally disagree with your second paragraph, nowadays with the new regs (balls stay hard and don't reverse + more field restrictions = easier to score big at the end of an innings) wickets in hand are key, it's the way the game's gone. Having 9 wickets in hand is a great position to be in. Root can play both roles to an extent which is why he's ideally suited to the n°4 spot, while Morgan and Buttler are at their most effective at the end of an innings, which is why it's important Buttler is coming in to bat in the last ten overs where he can do real damage rather than with 20 overs to go...

As for your point about low SRs, pretty sure Cook's SR since his return to the side (ie since he became a good ODI player) is a decent shade above 80, while Bell's since being recalled is probably not far off either. I'll look it up in a minute...

I appreciate what you're saying. I think we've all said that England's gameplan is limited, in the sense that if one of the big guns comes off, or the bowlers have an off-day then they're in trouble.

I think what we are saying is that it is at the moment the best use of England's resources, it is coherent with the players they have and allows England to pick essentially the best 11 players in the country. If there was a batsman who could play a serious innings at the top of the order a la Watson or KP (where's Tresco?) then pick him by all means.

I think also Buttler is at his best when he doesn't have time to play himself in, but can swing from the get-go. MfC talks about last 10, but I actually want Buttler in the last 5.

There's also the fact that the recent changes in regs make the plan more sensible (scoring 100 off the last 10, and 60 off the last 5 is now the standard), and the fact that England's bowling attack is (IMO) the best in the world means that the plan can still work even if not functioning at 100%.

But the simple argument is "it's the best plan England have available with this bunch of players".

right, done the research:

since his recall to the top of the order (summer 2012) Ian Bell has averaged 53.85 at a SR of 80

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/9062.html?class=2;spanmin1=28+Apr+2012;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

since his recall to the ODI side against Bangladesh in 2010, Alastair Cook has averaged 44 at a SR of 83

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/11728.html?class=2;spanmin1=28+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting;view=cumulative

there's your two guys with a SR of over 80 right there...

but yes, as Mike says I do get what you're saying, and if KP were fit I would want him in that top 3. As it is, I think Mike sums it up best: with the players England have available this is the best plan they've got, and if they execute it well it will be good enough.

Mfor the C I didnt watch all of this game. But I seem to remember 4.7 on the scorecard at around that point off 35 overs

I agree with you that cook is the player that will accelerate and I will not be suprised if his RR is higher than 80 from his return.. I think if cook starts to out bat Bell we could see a very different England team in the middle

I would have thought the 4.7 was closer to the 30 over mark? I actually thought Bell and Trott were making a decent fist of accelerating after Trott had taken time to play himself in (IIRC they were about 87/1 after 20 overs so that makes it 83 off the next 14, ie 6 runs per over). You could argue that Bell could do a bit more to take the pressure off Trott when he comes in, ie you know Trott will likely score at a SR of 55-60 early on before increasing that to about 80, so if Bell could just play less dots when Trott first comes in that would avoid the drop in the RR.

Other than that, I maintain that England got their gameplan just about spot on for the first 35 overs of their innings, and had either Root, Morgan or Buttler fired they would have ended up with 300 I reckon fairly comfortably. As it happens they didn't, but more often than not you would expect one of those three to come off I'd have thought...

I see you have posted the stats. Yep as I assumed cooks is over 80 recently. Bell has a high average so yes he has got it up to 80 as you would assume he has to accelerate somewhat at the end of his innings. However if it takes him 30 balls to get past a 40 rr and he gets out half the time it doesnt help us out , or if he gets a 100 with a RR of 100 then again that might not help us out in reagrds to winning the game!(but i am not going to blame bell because he has been doing very well recently )

The relationship between RRs and averages in ODI cricket seem to go high with a low averge then lower with a 40 or so scoring ave then higher when you hit the high 40's to 50's

Well bar Trott off course who truely only plays one way. His RR for a 50 carrer ave is criminal in my mind.

mystiroakey wrote:Rubbish M4theC.

almost all of it. nd the hyperboyle that we have comfortable looked the best. We have not looked better than India..

NZ and SL looked as good bowling, India looked better batting.

Yes we should be the favs and rightly so , we are a very good team.,. And yes we have the best bowling attack. And the best combo of batting and bowling attacks!

But none of this makes the reality of trott and bell playing together stuning our potential total and wasting resources because they take up to much time at the crease. When playing together both play the anchor role.. One will not step up and mix the game up when needed..

Where India really that good though? I mean that South African attack was Sunday League standard at points, and then they still only won by 20 odd runs or so...

Indias bolwing is not that good though 6 fingered tractor boy.

They approach a one day game with- "we will score more than you" attitude..

And I think we all know that India on form can smash the best attacks on good form if they are also on top form!

Ha ha - o l ly is the short hand for 6 fingered tractor boy!!

South Africa batting first against Pakistan. The loser will be on the verge of elimination.

Quite a slow start against the pace duo of Irfan and Junaid khan

Alma is possibly the best spin batter out there.. He doesnt seem to be that happy at the moment!

Watch these two batters ACCELERATE!

330 minimum here. With these two. They are in and now they will not stagnate. This is the most dangerous combo in world cricket..

If Pakistan lose this, there out aren't they?

Someone on Cricket AM on Saturday was tipping them to win the whole thing

Whilst South Africa have batted well and calmly. You could argue that there rate isn't' fast enough. Hashim Amla always seems to bat well whenever i watch him play!

NickisBHAFC wrote:If Pakistan lose this, there out aren't they?

If Pakistan lose they'd have to beat India & hope the W Indies beat both SA & India then rely on run-rate.

Well with an average of 56 and a RR of 92, he bats well more often than not!

SA playing like England..

South Africa 165-3 in the 37th. Fine hand from Hashim Amla with a 97 ball 81. good catch from Hafeez to get him.
AB now has to take charge of this innigngs. Duminy, ones set could be dangerous, and Miller could be a tasty proposition in the death overs.
The England gameplan continues to generate lots of debate. In my view one thing that the defenders of the plan seem to ignore is the fact that the England top 3 often get out with in the 35th over mark. Take SA. All their top 6 are capable of playing a fast paced knock. The likes of Amla and du Plessis can take time to get going, but can score at an SR over a hundred ones they are in. Amla usually scores hundreds, and Faf too has the ability to play long innings. AB and Duminy are players with great skills of adaptability.
The problem with the likes of Bell and Trott is that they often get out before the charge starts. So the likes of Morgan has to go for it right away. If either Trott could be there at one and and help the hitters take charge in the later overs, then the current gameplan makes sense, but as of now, they often get out around the 30-35th over mark, often leaving too much for the hitters. Its alright to take time up front, but only if you can make up later, and play long innings. To work on getting more singles, or to work on a few more get free shots won't require you going back to county cricket. So the argument that Bell and Trott plays this way and this way only is not a sound one. If you play 120-125 balls, you certainly have to score close to a run-a-ball. That really is not asking for too much. But if you score 75 of 100 and then get out, that could often place the stroke players under more pressure. Its pointless to suggest that that's their job and they are supposed to do it day in and day out.

Why are South Africa doing an England? They've left the middle order too much to do to get to 300 I feel.

Its been a carbon copy england duty!

Why do they need 300 though?

they have a very weak bowling attack Chriss.

We're reliving England-Australia all over again, they're even playing at the same ground! Here comes a spate of wickets, before some determined lower-order slogging.

Massive wicket. AB de Villiers run out. SA 187-4.

Are these bowlers as good as the commentators are telling us. Alot of there deliveries look like pies and SA just havent taken advantage?

What a meal SA are making out of a decent situation..

Jeas this is poor cricket by them..