How can England start to take ODIs seriously?

First topic message reminder :

As per usual, in the series directly before the World Cup, England decide we had better try and get the approach to ODIs right. This is a proven recipe for failure and we have seen it all before. Here's a few suggestions:

1) Pick a captain from players who merit a place in the side. Vaughan and Cook are examples of poor ODI players who captained the team because they were Test captain

2) Give form domestic players a chance. Taylor had a great summer but had to initially carry the drinks in this series whilst proven failure Ian Bell added to his list of failures

3) The ODI game is not an audition for the Test team. Give more limited overs specialists a chance. They might develop into Test players anyway

4) Give fringe players a run in the side so they are under less pressure to perform straightway. Rather than dance with joy when they fail, so the favourites can easily be placed back into the team

I could write more but will leave it there for now!

Nothing wrong with calling a man a clown, in this context. Didn't realise Mike ran the cricket section, anyhow? Downton does of course have more knowledge on the game than us, but his words are indeed making him look like a bit of a prat.

ps

I'm sure he's not a prat

Get Taylor, Hales, Roy and Vince in the team for a start and give them a good run. Players like Bell, Morgan, Cook have had more than enough chances.

Simon, I would have Woakes ahead of both Jordan and Stokes at the moment. He's added a bit of pace and has proved he's handy with the bat too. Treadwell is steady every game but will we need a spinner in Aus? Moeen and Root can do a job IMO. Woakes, Broad, Jimmy, Finn would be my bowlers.

Didn't realise you had to run a section to make a request... Also, at the risk of being pedantic, it was said more than once.

Anyway the point I was making was that such hyperbole runs the risk of obscuring your actual arguments and lowering the tone of the debate.

There is plenty of interesting debate around Downton's role: whether it is necessary or even useful, whether Downton is the right person and how he has conducted himself in his role up until now.

Of what I understand Downton is effectively acting as some kind of link between the "political" wing of the ECB (Giles Clarke et al) and the performance side (international sides, accademies, apparently some of the leading universities as well). Why this role was set up is not 100% clear, but it is known that there were mutterings even during England's successes about "public image" and other such stuff (the urinating on the pitch incident, a couple of drink-driving/speeding issues, Monty Panesar, excessive on-field aggression); a hypothesis is that after the disastrous Australian tour, this was somehow used to give the role of managing director (which had previously existed) a much wider scope, and this corresponded with Downton's arrival.

On this I am kind of ambivalent. I think people do need to understand that sport globally has become much more politicised over the years, both internationally and internally; cricketers are paid a lot more, and are now fully fledged professional athletes who are expected to behave publicly as such. We have seen every board struggle with this increased politicisation, and on the whole the ECB have done a much better job than most (well, certainly compared with the BCCI, the PCB, SLCB, WICB, without even mentioning Zimbabwe).

HOWEVER... I do think Downton seems to have too much influence for a role which essentially should just be liaising. Stories of him sitting on selection committees for example are worrying, and he had far too big a say in KP's sacking (not that I'm saying KP's sacking was wrong; please let's not reopen that "debate") - that kind of decision should have been made by selectors with strong input from the coach and captain. I don't like the way we are apparently increasingly (and this is by no means restricted to the ECB by the way) seeing politics meddle with the make-up of national teams. I understand and back fully the arguments about image etc. but that can be managed by the coaching and management team. Having a "go between" person may not be the worst idea, but limits have to be given to his role and stuck to.

I feel it is only fair to point out (if nothing else to declare my subjectivity) that here in France this year a similar position was set up, and perhaps at times people who maybe shouldn't have been were weighing on or trying to influence my choices as national junior team coach. And on that I probably shouldn't say any more publicly, people are welcome to contact me privately if they want more details.

The other thing I would say is that as a liaison man, part of Downton's job (a big part really) ought to be communication, and at this at least externally I think it's fair to say he's been pretty hopeless so far.

Well you would expect an organisation such as the ECB to have an MD, its pretty standard of course.

The scope of the role seems worrying though, and is a position of some power where the incumbent can shape the role into what they want. I wonder if Downton, as an ex-cricketer, feels he has something to add to the selection side of things. His comments backing Cook are worrying - surely he should toe the line i.e. "we will conduct a thorough review" rather than publicly back the captain.

In short we should never hear his opinions on selection matters, and there is no way the selectors can do their jobs properly with their boss breathing down their necks all the time.

So, from what I understand from Mike's post, the role has changed and developed from when Hugh Morris held the role? As I was going to make the observation that it probably was a sign of the good job Morris did that he was rarely seen or heard, and did most of his good work behind the scenes. That is to be expected if Downton is required to communicate to the public more though, but it can't be argued that he is doing this very well. 'Right sort of family' and 'outside cricket' (although that may have been Clarke) have been the lowlights so far...

Brilliant. Hang a hapless captain out to dry then fire him so close to the World Cup that no successor - less still a woefully out of form player - has time to establish a new regime. If a mischievous Australian had wanted to mismanage Alastair Cook's career to render him impotent in one day internationals and even possibly shatter his confidence for the longer form of the game, they could scarcely have made a better job of it.

Still, at least we now have a confident established one day opening pair of ... erm ... hang on a sec

Take a bow, England selectors.

Well they've finally reached the decision that is best for everyone, Cook needs to go away and work on his game so he can get to form in test matches where we need him most.

Downton now looks even more of a clown, but it seems the selectors have overridden him thank god.

guildfordbat wrote:At a Surrey forum meeting tonight, Alec Stewart was asked about England's preparation and chances for the World Cup.

As Surrey regulars will know, I like Stewart. Unless there are contractual issues involved, he'll normally give you a straight answer and, although he'll often throw in a bit of humour, he won't worry too much if it's not the answer you wanted.

Anyway, he was of the view that there was ''no need'' for the selectors to have named Cook as captain when they announced their 30 man squad and considered that by doing so they ''had backed themselves into a corner''.

He stated that the approach of the selectors was ''strange'' and emphasised that their first priority, above choosing the captain, should be to ''find out what is the best fifteen and the style to play''. Thereafter, they needed to be ''brave'' in selecting a captain.

Stewart added that if England were to win the World Cup, ''it would be down to pot luck rather than good planning by the selectors''.

Stewart acknowledged in fairness that the current issues were hardly a new thing as poor World Cup planning had dogged England for the last two decades. He joked that when he captained England at the World Cup in the late '90s, ''we were knocked out before we had recorded the team song!''.

Mark Butcher representing the Surrey Mafia on Sky Sports a few minutes ago and voicing near identical comments to Alec Stewart. Whilst critical of the timing being so near to the World Cup, Butcher regarded Cook's sacking as ''the right decision'' and considered it gave England ''a puncher's chance''.

Apparently Bell is going to open at the WC

Because that experiment has failed about 50 times

A punchers chance is a rather kind description. The format of the world cup is such that England could with results going their way conceivably make Semi finals. Is that what he meant?

I think England have half a chance, in fairness.

If they win the games that they are favourite for - Scotland, Bangladesh and Afghanistan - then they will be in the quarter-finals. From there, if two, maybe three, English batsmen are in good form, complimented by an already-decent bowling attack, then they might just go all the way, such is ODI cricket.

A squad that contains Anderson, Broad, Morgan, Taylor, Root and Buttler should not be greatly underestimated; plenty of match-winners in the fifteen-man squad.

The conditions are more to England's liking as well, so they have a better chance than in 2011.

The bookmakers have priced them at 9/10/11s, which I think is a touch overpriced - I would perhaps say 6/7s would be more reflective.

I think quiet, understated optimism is the order of the day: it's Euro 2012 all over again!

To be fair, if you get a subcontinental team in the Quarters, you'd have to back yourselves. South Africa have never won a knockout match either, even though I believe we are 110% the better side, if we do get pressured I have no doubt we'll fold like a cheap camp chair. Think the bookies have it right though. You're definitely not too far off, but realistically, it's gonna take a perfect storm for you to win the world cup.

At the risk of stating the obvious , the nature of this tournament dictates that any of the major teams have a reasonable chance of reaching the semi finals : given that anyone can win a one off game against anyone else.
However winning three knock out games in a row is likely to be beyond a few teams ... probably including England ; though we may have a better idea as to that after the warmups and early skirmishes are all done.
Perfect Storms do happen sometimes...