Australia v England: 5th ODI, Adelaide

First topic message reminder :

Australia:
AJ Finch, SE Marsh, SR Watson, MJ Clarke*, GJ Bailey, GJ Maxwell, MS Wade†, JP Faulkner, CJ McKay, NM Coulter-Nile, XJ Doherty

England:
AN Cook*, IR Bell, BA Stokes, JE Root, EJG Morgan, RS Bopara, JC Buttler†, TT Bresnan, SCJ Broad, CJ Jordan, JC Tredwell

Wright won't be a bad option really. He has to play the T-20s, that too most likely at the top. And if they are to do away with the services of Ravi Bopara, Wright would provide a handy additional bowling option along with Root.

lol, England lost, again. it's like 2004-2011 never happened

I enjoyed Nasser's half hour monologue around the 140-3 mark where he went on to praise the tremendous resilience of England and how they'd turned the corner and would now go into the t20's with so much confidence, and how he kept trying to insist that Australia hadn't really rested any players.

It's just. So. Funny.

Hilarious.

He's a Master of Denial and epitomises the definition of the term "laughing stock".
He was a hopeless captain and very, very average player. I honestly don't know how or why he got the gig with Sky.

Maybe they can turn the corner in the Caribbean but it wouldn't surprise me if they received some more shock treatment there.

Let's face it; the back of the team has been well and truly broken, player's morale shot to bits. They are about as resilient as the shadow of mystiroakey I'd suggest.

I'd like to see England come out and be aggressive in the West Indies. One of the criticisms I've had of England lately is their passiveness. Inevitably young players will come in with a rebuild needed and Cook (and prob a few more veterans) given a rest, let them play without fear

GSC wrote:I'd like to see England come out and be aggressive in the West Indies. One of the criticisms I've had of England lately is their passiveness. Inevitably young players will come in with a rebuild needed and Cook (and prob a few more veterans) given a rest, let them play without fear

as long as even shadow of Flower looms on Eng....all of that is unlikely

they need an Australian coach or at least Vaughan

At the same time you can't suddenly retroactively turn around and say Flowers approach has no merits. They've won 3 of the last 4 Ashes series, won in India, reached #1 in the world.

He has his flaws but he's a world class coach. In any case it's Giles' show in WI

GSC wrote:Anyway from rock bottom there's only one way to go thankfully

Down under?

GSC wrote:At the same time you can't suddenly retroactively turn around and say Flowers approach has no merits. They've won 3 of the last 4 Ashes series, won in India, reached #1 in the world.

He has his flaws but he's a world class coach. In any case it's Giles' show in WI

If what they did once upon a time still mattered then Botham and Kapil Dev would still be playing for their countries

a good strong coach with a clean slate and his ideas does take the team forward.....

Flower did with his organized , disciplined, safe, slow percentage cricket,  getting optimal out of a band of many average and a few star cricketers delivering " whole greater than the sum of parts"..and taking the team from a lowly ranking to the Top or near the top.

But strong minded people if not evolving with time......can have their strengths turned into their blind spots and in Flowers case:

1)he did not know when to progressively move from the safe/ steady/defensive gear progressively into the next higher gears of positivity and aggression in approach
2)he did not know when to move away from under performing players ( because of mental, physical fitness or form limitations), who had by now over the years turned into favorites.

3) and worst he drilled into the head of these core player of Eng specifically and on English cricket in general...that ODIs a remarkably less serious and T20s a meaningless form of cricket.

Being the overall performance director or whatever his even shadow on English cricket keeps intact overall negative approach and overall dilution of the limited over formats.

KP_fan wrote:

GSC wrote:At the same time you can't suddenly retroactively turn around and say Flowers approach has no merits. They've won 3 of the last 4 Ashes series, won in India, reached #1 in the world.

He has his flaws but he's a world class coach. In any case it's Giles' show in WI

If what they did once upon a time still mattered then Botham and Kapil Dev would still be playing for their countries

a good strong coach with a clean slate and his ideas does take the team forward.....

Flower did with his organized , disciplined, safe, slow percentage cricket,  getting optimal out of a band of many average and a few star cricketers delivering " whole greater than the sum of parts"..and taking the team from a lowly ranking to the Top or near the top.

But strong minded people if not evolving with time......can have their strengths turned into their blind spots and in Flowers case:

1)he did not know when to progressively move from the safe/ steady/defensive gear progressively into the next higher gears of positivity  and aggression in approach
2)he did not know when to move away from under performing players ( because of mental, physical fitness or form limitations), who had by now over the years turned into favorites.

3) and worst he drilled into the head of these core player of Eng specifically and on English cricket in general...that ODIs a remarkably less serious and T20s a meaningless form of cricket.

Being the overall performance director or whatever his even shadow on English cricket keeps intact overall negative approach and overall dilution of the limited over formats.

Agree with all but one point there KPF. Flower was what England needed in 2009, his approach helped them come together ane evolve back into a top side. But he failed to evolve with the needs of the side, he has been proved a poor man manager with his stubbornness.
But the lethargy with limited overs cricket is an English problem really. If anything, Flower tried to change that in his initial years and they began to treat limited overs cricket with greater seriousness. The results were there, they won the World T-20, and then produced some quality performances in the 2011 WC. But again, like most things with Flower, even that initial initiative got lost somewhere and the old Englishism seems to have found a way back in.

I have to say, the stumping of Bopara was one of the luckiest pieces of cricket I have witnessed on a cricket pitch.

The only one luckier than that was Pat Symcox in a test against Sri Lanka, he was clean bowled except for the ball that went harmlessly between two stumps without dislodging a bail or even feathering a stump.

Not quite sure how a discussion of an ODI series can lead to yet another attack on Flower by Guess Who ; but...

As has been acknowledged , both by Flower himself and some sensible posters on here , the current England team and surrounding staff/squad etc are in need of a fresh start - and , obviously , some changes in approach.
This does not however mean that all their recent shortcomings are down to a fundamentally flawed method - or , as some people seem to imply - that their previous success was despite rather than because of the game plan employed at the time.

In fact the characterization of England as a dour , boring team who only won matches through wearing down their opponents is itself a gross oversimplification at best , and seems to owe more to a backward projection of recent events than any actual observation of their play during the period in which they rose to head the ICC rankings in all formats.
There was nothing dull and boring about England's batting in , say , 2011 as they demolished Australia and India ...the strike rates of batsmen like Pietersen , Bell and Prior were well up there , and the intent to crush the life out of the opposition extended through the bowling and fielding as well...not many draws around then. They were in good form , individually and collectively ; and the only boring aspect was that they were winning a bit too easily    If you want to be picky.

So whence came the dour approach of 2013 ? The approach that enabled them to string together a good undefeated run , but didn't win any friends ? Well I do not think it came from any desire on the part of the management to deliberately bore the fans and the media...more that it happened as a reaction to increasing frailties in the batting. First seen in the UAE , when pretty well all the batsmen were strangled in their creases by the Pakistani spinners on those dusty decks (and I do believe that the effect of that reverse on the confidence of the England batsmen as a group has had an ongoing influence) ; and taking a firm grip on that very disappointing tour of NZ early last year , where any attempts at aggression seemed to end in disaster - except for Prior. I think a decision was made to play with a safety first attitude , building a strong foundation by the top order with the intent of unleashing the like of Pietersen and Prior later on the innings...unfortunately the top order never built anything in the home season , and Prior mysteriously lost all his form somewhere on the flight home from NZ .
The intent to try and ginger up the batting if possible was shown by the risky decision to dispense with the solid but rather passive Compton and bring Root up the order , making space for another aggressor in Bairstow in the middle order. The fact that these moves didn't work should not obscure the fact that it was clear Flower was not simply sitting back and waiting for something to happen. But his critics don't seem to want to look at anything that doesn't accord with their theories.
The post above speaks of not moving away from underperforming players , and there may be some truth in that criticism . Several players had poor returns over a number of Tests , and whenever that happens there is a case for making a switch. I am not sure that it is fair to suggest Trott should have been left at home for the Australian trip on the grounds of mental fragility , as I am not privy to the details of his condition and the dialogue between him and the England management. However his form during the summer had been ordinary...might he have been left out ? Perhaps: but he had a lot of credit in the bank. You could make a similar case re Cook : but did anyone seriously consider dumping the captain who had been so brilliant three years earlier in Australia , and who had himself performed well and led his team to a rare victory in India just months ago ?
Swann , we now know , was having more trouble with his injury than had been evident . I suspect he wasn't letting on to the team management either , even if he was already nursing his own doubts. And he was coming off a very successful series...
Truth is , there was no clear case for moving on from any one individual player , even after the home Ashes. Especially as the new players were anything but bedded down. Flower may well have had his concerns ; but doing anything about them was by no means as easy as it is for an armchair expert with the benefit of hindsight.
Different now : with some players gone , and others struggling - and a series lost heavily - it is obvious that things should have been done differently (though we can never know whether any nominated change would have actually caused any improvement). Still I don't think anyone on here or anywhere else predicted what was going to happen before the Brisbane Test...

I have gone on too long perhaps so if anyone is still reading thanks for your patience. I think what I am saying is basically just a reiteration of past comments ; essentially that Flower is not The Devil ; has a good record despite the attempted downgrading of past accomplishments by some who just don't seem to like him ; and is probably a good choice to try and make a fresh start with a necessarily rebuilt England team.

Not everyone will agree. Which is OK - it is a free Internet   

I think confidence is the reason alfie. After such a drubbing in the test series, I doubt there were any English players left with enough confidence to beat the Aussies.

alfie wrote:  I think what I am saying is basically just a reiteration of past comments ; essentially that Flower is not The Devil ;  

I am not so sure....if you peel the hair at the back of his head you might see a 666 carved on the skin there  

Oh I agree there Biltong. You mean why they faltered in the run chase last night , I assume ?

Undoubtedly the confidence , or rather lack of it , was a factor. As indeed was the converse when Australia pulled off that remarkable heist in Brisbane .

With a lot of different t20 players , unscarred by recent events , lining up now it will be interesting to see how that pans out. I think the fresh ODI players helped make these matches more competitive than the Tests , so perhaps that trend will continue ? Hope so - nothing more of a damp squib than a one sided t20.

NOt just last night.

Australia is a very hard place to tour once their confidence is up, intimidation of the test players have seeped through the English squad, I suspect the effect will be similar in the T20 squad.

Only difference in my view is T20 can be won by one player, where as the longer formats one brilliant performance isn't enough to cover for an under performing team.

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:  I think what I am saying is basically just a reiteration of past comments ; essentially that Flower is not The Devil ;  

I am not so sure....if you peel the hair at the back of his head you might see a 666 carved on the skin there  

  

 Sometimes I like your sense of humor , KP_fan. This is one of them   

Biltong wrote:I have to say, the stumping of Bopara was one of the luckiest pieces of cricket I have witnessed on a cricket pitch.

The only one luckier than that was Pat Symcox in a test against Sri Lanka, he was clean bowled except for the ball that went harmlessly between two stumps without dislodging a bail or even feathering a stump.

Quite, although ultimately it did happen becuse bopara missed his shot.
You could say te same for many fine nicks where had the batsman been marginally worse they actually wouldve stayed in.
It's the ones that come of the middle on a well placed stroke that are taking y a leaping salmon that you can feel really sorry for the batsman, in this case aus caught a break caused by bopara swinging and missing.


Did nerves play a part through the chase? Quite possibly. Were some batsmen afraid to play their natural strokes because they don't want to get out batting aggressively? Quite possibly.

It does seen a case of a team creating their own pressure, partly based on the cumilative affect of 3 months hell.

Focus on the positives ... Cook and root both got what for this tour for them were good scores.

Having slept on it I am still blaming Bopara. 2 off 20 was just unacceptable factoring in that he came in during the powerplay. He was so nearly out during the powerplay as well, and it was entirely predictable that the big shot when it came would be less than good (a more mobile fielder than Watson would probably have caught it)

I know Root and Buttler didn't play the best shots, but if Ravi had done anything (anything!) in those first 20 balls they would have not been pressurised into taking the risks.

So my final conclusion is Bopara should never play for England again, enough is enough

VTR wrote:

So my final conclusion is Bopara should never play for England again, enough is enough

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/566945.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/566940.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/566948.html

In most games over the last 6 months hes made a good contribution with bat or ball or occasionally even both.
You can blame him for singlehandedly losing this game but whats the answer? Luke Wright? Samit Patel? Woakes? All tried and failed harder.

England have a problem with their bowling. Aside form a bunch of fast medium seamers they dont really have anyone who demands a place as a frontline spinner/medium pacer/left armer. We have seen a succession of players come and go trying to enable a sixth bowling option in the attack to add some kind of variety. Root can turn his arm a bit (if we now trust him to be in the side?) but doesnt really offer anything different to Tredwells 10 overs. The likes of KP are bit part at best. Boparas bowling is fairly effective, suffienct as a 6th option, he has better figures than some of the specialists (Bresnan) and in this series has outperformed the likes of Maxwell and Shane Watson with bat and ball. Importantly he offers a different challenge to the batsmen.
Theres a lot of hate to him because for the most part hes threatened to be better than he really is, but when I see the likes of Luke Wright touted for a place ( I mean seriously check his ODI record) AGAIN I really wonder what planet people live on.

If we are going to ditch players who are performing "OK" whilst the side as a whole is failing then at least replace them with those who:
Offer some form of balance to the side
Havent already proven to be worse


Is Borthwick a realistic option for ODIs as a 4 over bowler and top 6 bat? His record to date (albeit two games) and list A record says not yet.

So I throw out the challenge ... who could England pick that would give the captain a genuine variety bowling option and be able to average 30+ with the bat?
Or do England just go with four/five fast medium right armers and two orthodox spinners?

Fair challenge. I would ignore the bowling option personally and look for someone who could bat at 6 and make an impact in the powerplay. The 30+ average I don't feel indicates current form, current batting position or the clear inability to cope with pressure (CT final and yesterday).

So I would play 4 bowlers, with Stokes and Root as options (and you would hope for 10 from Stokes). The number 6 is then someone else. I don't watch enough CC to know definitively who, but what about giving Ballance a run or even Alex Hales who clearly has a power game from his T20 performances.

VTR wrote:

So I would play 4 bowlers, with Stokes and Root as options (and you would hope for 10 from Stokes). The number 6 is then someone else. I don't watch enough CC to know definitively who, but what about giving Ballance a run or even Alex Hales who clearly has a power game from his T20 performances.

Option two then, 4 right arm fast mediums and 2 orthodox right arm spinners.

Englands eternal problem ...they can only pick from the players who exist.

Yes well sadly we don't really seem to produce any other types of bowler. Or when we do they don't tend to get into lineups for the 4 day games as they don't offer the control and wicket taking ability of the 80mph swing bowler on most county pitches.

It leaves us with the paradoxical situation of the types of bowlers needed in international cricket not being "good enough" to get into county sides. The only hope is players with potential from their raw attributes (pace, mystery spin, left-armer etc.) are picked up and developed by England. And as we see with Finn that is hardly guaranteed to work.

VTR wrote:Yes well sadly we don't really seem to produce any other types of bowler. Or when we do they don't tend to get into lineups for the 4 day games as they don't offer the control and wicket taking ability of the 80mph swing bowler on most county pitches.

It leaves us with the paradoxical situation of the types of bowlers needed in international cricket not being "good enough" to get into county sides. The only hope is players with potential from their raw attributes (pace, mystery spin, left-armer etc.) are picked up and developed by England. And as we see with Finn that is hardly guaranteed to work.

Mystery spin? England? No, never!. The coaching structure from the ground level actively hates and discourages it with a wild passion.

Wholly agree msp. Dare to return figures of say 8-0-60-1 in a first class match and expect to be asked to work on your batting if you want to make it in the side, as we have someone who can throw darts for 8-3-10-0 whilst the 38 year old seamer trundles away from the other end.