England v New Zealand ODI Thread

[LondonTiger]

First topic message reminder :

Fixtures

Tuesday 9th June 2015
14:00 Edgbaston

Friday 12th June 2015
13:00 The Kia Oval

Sunday 14th June 2015
10:30 The Ageas Bowl

Wednesday 17th June 2015
14:00 Trent Bridge

Saturday 20th June 2015
10:30 Emirates Durham ICG


New Zealand Squad

Brendon McCullum (c)
Corey Anderson
Trent Boult
Grant Elliott
Martin Guptill
Matt Henry
Tom Latham (wk)
Mitchell McClenaghan
Nathan McCullum
Adam Milne±
Luke Ronchi (wk)
Mitchell Santner
Tim Southee
Ross Taylor
Ben Wheeler
Kane Williamson


England Squad

TBC

[king_carlos]

Carlos - I hope you realise at least someone else is singing from your hymn sheet. I said much the same about another slow bowler amongst my comments yesterday morning on this thread about the second ODI.

I've seen a few people mention similar thing guildford. I just feel that this chase is making it even more evident.

Finn and Wood as strike bowlers, Tredwell to keep things tight in the middle overs, Rashid to attack in the middle overs and Willey/Stokes to change things up. That looks a reasonably balanced attack to me.

Hoggy - As a Surrey fan I could be blamed of bias with Roy but I think he's worth persevering with. Not least because this is the first series in a long time in which we have two genuine one day openers opening for our ODI side! That top 6 has an excellent look to it for me and I'd like to persevere with that set up. Especially when we have Vince as a another option opening, James Taylor for the middle order and Billings showing up well today to display a back up to Buttler.

[guildfordbat]

JD - great minds or easy cliches! Sorry hadn't seen your post!

[Hoggy_Bear]

Squeeky bum time for New Zealand

[king_carlos]

Elliot gone as well now caught at slip off Rashid.

Right back in this.

[JDizzle]

Another one gone, this time Taylor for a fantastic ton. We're all over them now.

[NickisBHAFC]

Good effort, but basic errors have cost us. More positive signs though.

[KP_fan]

i think i remarked this "100 meter dash" approach of Eng is not appropriate. ODIs are like a 800m race and tests like a marathon.

and today....they comitted the cardinal sin of not batting out their overs and fell short by 5 overs....that actually a big sin.
that's where strong sides score upto 75 runs in last 5 overs.

they need inning builders, anchors..to hold the innings together and keep wickets in hand....the likes of rahane, smith, amla, Taylor, sangkkara....

where is Taylor ?

[king_carlos]

We were discussing 'innings builders' during the second ODI as well KP_fan.

Whilst this line-up can feel light on them I think a key point made was that not many sides have more than a couple.

England have that in Root and Morgan, New Zealand has 2 in Williamson and Taylor. One issue with this is that it puts a lot of pressure on Root and Morgan, however both are experienced players with very good temperaments.

Personally I like the look of this batting line-up. I agree that better understanding of how to build an innings is needed from Roy, Hales and Stokes. However this is something that all three have the talent to develop with experience.

[KP_fan]

Morgan is not an innings builder.....he is a finisher.....and Eng needs one more builder type.

I agree each side can afford at most two and yes I would count Root as a pretty good innings builder...just that he is forcing himself to bat a bit faster than he should and he can.
he should calm down and normalize and Eng add one more builder and they'd be fine

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Yep it'll come with time, they didn't play well today but will have learnt some valuable lessons.

Actually didn't think we bowled too badly - let down by some very poor fielding. Wood looked lively, Willey bowled lovely first up, Finn a bit of an off game and actually thought that Rashid's figures were harsh on him (arguably for me he bowled nicer here than at Edgbaston).

Hats off to Williamson and Taylor however - magnificent partnership

Eoin Morgan is not a finisher btw

[king_carlos]

I disagree on Morgan and feel that him being used as a finisher is one reason why he struggled for so long.

He has all the shots to finish a chase absolutely, but he's a guy who needs a chance to play himself in before opening up. When he has tried to go for broke from ball one he has often struggled. His best position is 4 where he can get a chance to do build a foundation then kick on.

[KP_fan]

well unless hehas changed his stripes since I last saw him and that was at the wold cup......Morgan ain't a innings builder.

Innings builder are your typical test match technique batsmen...but the stroke player version of good test match batsman...and not the dead defensive type.

so Rahane, Sangkara, Amla Williamson, smith etal......fall in that category.

Can Morgan get into your test team ?

Can Taylor get into your test team ? to me the answer to this one is definitely yes

[Hammersmith harrier]

well unless hehas changed his stripes since I last saw him and that was at the wold cup......Morgan ain't a innings builder.

So you're commenting on games you haven't even watched then?

[Hoggy_Bear]

I disagree on Morgan and feel that him being used as a finisher is one reason why he struggled for so long.

He has all the shots to finish a chase absolutely, but he's a guy who needs a chance to play himself in before opening up. When he has tried to go for broke from ball one he has often struggled. His best position is 4 where he can get a chance to do build a foundation then kick on.

Agree with this. It's the reason Morgan's t/20 record isn't great IMO.

[guildfordbat]

As Surrey regulars know, I really like Roy and have done for several years. At the moment he looks a bit too anxious. A conundrum. A good score can rid the anxiety but the anxiety can prevent a good score. I feel he just needs a quiet word of reassurance and a touch of luck although I can appreciate others showing less understanding.

[KP_fan]

well unless he has changed his stripes since I last saw him and that was at the wold cup......Morgan ain't a innings builder.

So you're commenting on games you haven't even watched then?

I follow in CI and watch highlights.
that's enough for me to comment...yes

[Stella]

I've never seen Morgan as the type of of player who can bat for 40 - 50 overs, which is what I think KP_fan is alluding to. Taylor might be that man?

[king_carlos]

kp_fan

The issue with Morgan for close to two years has been the way he's been used. For a time he was the only man England had who was finishing pressure chases off with 360 degree hitting, as such he was given the tag of finisher and pushed down the order. The problem was that those chases he finished off were almost always at the end of innings in which he had the chance to play himself in then kick on.

When pushed lower down the order and playing in a side which rarely laid a foundation anyway he didn't get the chance to play himself in and struggled.

If kept at 4 in this line-up with a guy like Root at 3 and 2 openers capable of giving a strong start I feel he can again flourish and build an innings as wanted.

[KP_fan]

if you see how Indian team plans its batting....
the 11 should have

--2 inning builders( as defined earlier).....ideally in top 3....at worst stretchable to no 4

--accelerators... at 4 and 5.....at worst stretchable to 6. These are the guys who don't throw their bats wildly...can take their time to settle but keep stepping up the tempo....and go flat out if they are in the last 5 overs....

--finishers...the out and out hitters...at Nos 7 and 8...the deeper you bat with finishers the better it gets for the side

I stand corrected.....Morgan ain't a finisher only  but rather an accelerator type

[king_carlos]

KP_fan - It sounds like you'd prefer this sort of line-up with Vince opening alongside Roy or Hales. Vince is more the sort of opener to look to play through 30 overs at a good rate then really accelerate, rather than go ballistic from early on.

1.Hales or Roy
2.Vince
3.Root
4.Morgan
5.Stokes
6.Buttler (wk)
7.Billings
8.Willey
9.Rashid
10.Wood
11.Finn

With your template that would give:

- Hales or Roy to offer a real attacking threat at the top to go after the opening bowlers.

- Vince and Root as 'innings builders'.

- Morgan and Stokes as 'accelerators'.

- Buttler, Billings and Willey as finishers or out and out hitters, although I'd argue that Buttler is more than that he can certainly fulfill the role.

- Rashid offering real depth to the batting order.

It's not the line-up I'd go for at the moment personally as I feel that Roy and Hales are worth persevering with. However I can see your logic and I do rate Vince highly so can see what he could add.

[KP_fan]

I haven't watched Roy, Vince, Billings and Willey in real time to form any impressions of them.

but I must say Eng side must be very talented to leave out Taylor.

[king_carlos]

Roy is up there with the best ball strikers I've ever seen and if he gets going can dismantle any attack and win you a game in 10 overs similar to Buttler. I've already admitted bias as a Surrey fan but I believe he is something special and worth persevering with.

Vince is more of a traditional ODI opener I guess you could say. He looks to bat 30 overs at a good rate and then kick on and start playing his shots. Early on he will look to punish the bad balls and keep the board ticking to build a foundation.

Billings is another in the mould of Buttler who can really get after the bowlers from the off and can strike a very long ball all around the park. I'll confess to not knowing a huge amount about him myself however.

Willey as a batsmen is someone who's game has developed in the T20 arena. He can strike some mighty shots but personally I wouldn't back him to do it with regularity against top ODI sides and as such would keep him in the lower order. Him and Rashid could be rotated quite well between 7 and 8 depending on the situation.

Taylor missing out is a case of not fitting the current make-up of the side. He isn't an opener and as such is battling with Root and Morgan for a top order spot. Given those two are excellent players, now both in good form and offering much of this sides experience it is a tough ask for him to break in. If Root or Morgan were injured or lost form drastically he definitely looks like the next in line however.

He would be wasted batting as low as 7 where Billings is much better suited.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Saw someone say that this was England's 32nd highest ODI score today - not bad considering they failed!

This approach and team will do for moi

[KP_fan]

@king carlos...many thanks for sharing a brief on these guys ...I look forwarding to watching them sometime soon

[king_carlos]

KP_fan - No worries!

Olly - The batting wasn't the issue today. Yes we should have scored closer to 350 but the collapse cost us that. However the fielding was poor and the bowling again erratic at key moments. Taylor and Williamson batted well but at times when we needed to tie them down and build pressure wayward balls allowed them release. No one bowled terribly but other than Wood, and perhaps Willey, none of the attack stayed right on the money consistently enough.

The pitch wasn't doing lots but offered a bit of pace, bounce and the odd touch of seam movement for the quicks. This coupled with swing early on and some turn for Rashid. 300 was less than we should have got but certainly defendable with some better fielding and more consistent bowling.

[Liam]

At this moment, its about the performance and that has been very encouraging so far. Great to see the changes that have long been needed finally have been implemented this series. My only criticism, which i'm sure they'll address as time goes on, is knowing when to slog and when to keep the scoreboard ticking over. They need to realise that there are plenty of overs left where they can build a partnership, knock it around for 4/5 overs and still be able to post 350 or so at the end, and stop these needless collapses. Other than that, i'm enjoying the new approach and the new faces also.

[LondonTiger]

I did not see the England bowling as out with my kids.

The fielding has been an issue in the two games I have seen fully, and by all accounts was poor yesterday. This is something we really need to work on, but it is a worry that players hailed as quality fielders at county level are making some realy quite poor mistakes.


I would like us all to see the results of all 5 games before we rush to making decisions on who has the ability and temperament needed. I woudl like to see an additional bowling option in the line-up - though that would be sorted by having Ali back to open post Ashes.

[alfie]

Well now it seems I missed another exciting finish...ah well a man has to sleep sometime , and I did think it was all done about the time England missed their first opportunity to break that partnership. I suppose it was , in the end ; but given they apparently dropped a couple more and still took it to the penultimate over perhaps we can say that poor fielding decided the game ?
More so than not batting the last five overs , anyway : I am with Morgan on this one. Yes it is better to use all your resources ie face all the balls possible . But at the same time being too careful and ending up say four down at the close might be failing to use them in another way ... Of course we cannot say with certainty whether a slightly more selective approach might have resulted in a better score : in this particular case obviously Stokes will concede he'd have done better to just tap that ball away for one instead of swinging at it ; and presumably England would have made a few more . But you can't very well say " play without fear " , and applaud as they monster the bowlers for forty overs ; only to turn round and say " should have been careful for those few overs after a couple of wickets fell" . It really is , like all cricket , a matter of personal judgement of each ball as it comes : and sometimes they'll get it wrong.
302 wasn't a bad score , I think. Better bowling , better fielding , and it might very well have been a winner.

Whatever , I am pleased to see England playing this way. One comfortable win and two narrow losses against a very good Kiwi outfit is a decent return for a team containing a few newcomers and none of the experienced bowlers.
Hope the last two games are as good.

[dummy_half]

Positives:
England looking to play the right way with the bat
Had batting contributions from just about everyone in the line-up

Negatives:
A tendency to lose wickets in clusters, and particularly for both well-set batsmen to go a few balls apart. Sometimes we just need to rein things back a little so that each partnership has a chace to develop.
Fielding has not been of the highest quality (then again, neither has NZ's other than the Southee and Boult double act the other evening).

Alfie
Failing to bat the 50 overs yesterday was clearly a big issue - we were well set at 40 overs, something like 280-5. Batting through even at only a run a ball would have been 340, whereas we attempted to hit too much and perished. My impression was that it wasn't as easy a wicket to hit on as the first two, and particularly for new batsmen.

The other issue regarding the batting is the openers, in particular Roy, looking to hit the ball too hard early in their innings. Better to take a couple of overs to play yourself in before looking to smash everything, especially as the result in the last two matches have been a lot of swing and miss shots in the first three or four overs.

I'd be tempted to look at moving Root up to open alongside one of the hitters - Joe's busyness and ability to nick 1s and 2s would keep the scoreboard ticking over while Hales or Roy finds their range.

We're still lacking a bowler who you could throw the ball to and guarantee going at only 4 or 5 an over - oh for another Flintoff to take that role.

[alfie]

OK , dummy_half ; I hear what you're saying. But the trouble with that assessment at 280/5 is just where you make the decision to throttle back and settle for what you think is an acceptable score ...
It still sounds too close to what Moores was always being slated for doing : getting a (sometimes too conservative) notion of a target score and failing to look beyond that.
At forty overs England were probably thinking 360 minimum , 400 if we can go ballistic at the end ; and they played accordingly. And this time , it failed them. But isn't it better to sometimes overreach and lose a few potential runs at the end , than make quite sure you'll never make an exceptional score by always saying "OK we're in front of the projected score now , let's make sure we don't have a collapse and spoil it " ?
I suppose opinions might differ. As a registered dinosaur , I might be expected to be in the latter camp ; but for the modern 50 over game , I prefer the take risks and go for it approach...it works more often than not ; and as the players gain experience the % of success will rise with their own better judgement.
Plus it's a lot more fun to watch !

[Gooseberry]

At forty overs England were probably thinking 360 minimum , 400 if we can go ballistic at the end ; and they played accordingly. And this time , it failed them.  But isn't it better to sometimes overreach and lose a few potential runs at the end , than make quite sure you'll never make an exceptional score by always saying "OK we're in front of the projected score now , let's make sure we don't have a collapse and spoil it " ?
I suppose opinions might differ.  As a registered dinosaur , I might be expected to be in the latter camp ; but for the modern 50 over game , I prefer the take risks and go for it approach...it works more often than not ; and as the players gain experience the % of success will rise with their own better judgement.
Plus it's a lot more fun to watch !

I think the key point is that England will have to atr some point work out when to hold. It may be dinosaur thinking but its still the case that a score in the mid 300's will win most games even against decent opposition. The notion that 400 is the new par following the wolrd cup is simply false, the 3 teams that conceeded that many runs were Irleand, Ahfghanistan and the West Indies...all against good batting sides.

Im happy that England are currently trying to teach the side to play without fear, and creat an environment where their natural batting styles are able to flourish. It seems to have worked wonders for Morgans form if nothing else...hes unrecognisable from capatin embaressment of a few months ago. Its also going to put opressure on sides batting first against them to take risks knowing they are capable of chasing down 400 (or nearly capable anyway)

The all out batting style though is perhaps better suited to chasing big totals rather than setting targets when there arent wickets in the bag. There comes a point where some level of pragmatism has to take over, you cant rely on Plunkett to score big at number 9 all the time ( especially when he isnt in the side).

The big weakness though seems to be in bowling and fielding. Going for wicket just isnt working (against a good confident NZ side on fairly good batting wickets) and there isnt a plan B for containing.

But yeah at leats they look like they are in the games now and playing the same sport now

[LondonTiger]

Going for wickets is harder when the fielders shell a handful of catches.

We know that trying to contain has not worked in the past, but we are hamstrung a touch by not having any really good fast bowlers atm, who can move the ball at pace and offer some control.

Where we have really struggled is taking wickets in the middle overs. On sunday that was in large part due to dropped catches, but going further back looking at matches we bowled first we see:

9th March 2015 - Bangladesh in some trouble when two wickets down in 3rd over, the 4 down after 20. However the 5th wicket then bats serenely for 25 overs putting on almost 150 runs under no pressure.

14th Feb 2015 - Australia 3 wickets down after 10 overs, Finch and Bailey then bat for 26 overs putting on almost 150 runs under no pressure.

1st Feb - Australia 4 wickets down after 18 overs, then Maxwell and Marsh put on 140 in 23 overs.


These matches followed similar patterns. We took early wickets but then tried to contain through the middle overs, allowing the opposition to consolidate and eventually build totals we were unable to chase down.

The previous two matches we bowled first were against India in the 3Ns tournament. India were really struggling on hard pitches against the short ball and we rolled them over twice.


What I am trying to say I guess, is that you can contain teams in tehg middle overs, especially if they have wickets down, but fail to take any wickets and you allow them to really kick on at the end. even then our "containment" was going at 5rpo+

[jimbohammers]

King Carlos, agree with a lot of that. I might be biased but Vince should be opening with Hales. Roy to replace Billings as the 'finisher'.

Vince was Eng Lions One day captain a couple of months ago, so very surprised by his omission. (Yes poor form in championship but doing well in t20...)

[king_carlos]

jimbo - Again accepting my bias to counter your own bias but I would persevere with Roy at the top of the order for now. I really think he can be something very special and hence is worth keeping there. I feel he is a natural opener in the modern ODI game as he likes pace on the ball early to get going but once going can then completely dismantle the spinners and 2nd change seamers we often see in the middle overs.

The other thing I like about Roy is that if he can get going from very early then he can take some pressure of Hales. I feel Hales is a guy who needs that little bit of time to get his eye in before playing his shots. However with all the expectation that has been piled on him it looks a bit to me like he's trying to do too much too early. If an opener such as Roy can get going from ball one it could allow Hales that bit of breathing space to play with slightly less pressure early on and get his eye in.

Finally on the 7 spot I personally feel we need another bowling option more than that 7th batsmen, so I'd like us to pick another spinner and accept the longer tail that comes with it. A bit of horses for courses is necessary in ODIs and if we are playing on a seamers paradise or a burner pick that extra batsmen. However on the roads that we have seen thus far in this series I'd prefer a more balanced attack.

7.Rashid
8.Willey
9.Wood
10.Tredwell
11.Finn

Whilst a long tail that would look a much more balanced bowling line-up to me, especially given Stokes isn't bowling consistently enough to be part of a 5 man ODI attack just yet. Rashid and Willey could also rotate in the order depending on the situation.

[guildfordbat]

To add further bias in support of Jason Roy from both myself and Alec Stewart.

At a recent Surrey members' forum, Stewart was asked if Roy should be opening in domestic t20s after some single figure scores in that tournament this year. He was philosophical about low scores sometimes going with the territory but emphasised, ''If he bats 12 overs, we win the game. Simple as that.''

I appreciate we're discussing 50 over internationals on this thread but I still feel Stewie's point has some relevance. All I would say is that Roy looks to me as overly anxious to get going this year in limited overs games (domestic t20s and international 50 overs). He just needs a bit of extra calmness in his early shot selection which should help him advance to and stay in top gear.

As previously posted, I agree with Carlos' comments about the need for an extra bowling option.

[LondonTiger]

I think most of us want 6 genuine bowling options (with Root being a 7th option).

While I may not have been overly complimentary about Ali's recent red ball bowling, surely he has to be considered both to open and as an extra bowler once the Ashes are over. After all we are talking about a man with two ODI hundreds in his first year of ODI cricket and a decent bowling record so far (21 wickets from 21 innings bowled, 163 overs RPO 4.8).

[liverbnz]

NZ are 64-0 after 10

Solid start. Not watching so not sure how England are bowling.

[dummy_half]

LT

Agree that Ali still has a place in the ODI setup. The problem at the moment is that he got injured in the WC, came back and got rushed back into the Test team prematurely in the Windies and hasn't yet found any real form this year. He's still likely to be the Test spin bowler, so it was important he got some play in longer format games before the Ashes.

Longer term, I think we'll see a side with Finn, Broad and Woakes as the 3 specialist seamers, Stokes as a batting all rounder and two from Rashid, Moeen and Willey depending on conditions (Billings losing out) taking the 7 and 8 spots.

[liverbnz]

McCullum gone trying to cut a short one which wasn't really wide enough for the shot. 1 for Wood. 88-1.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

We really do need to start you know catching the ball

[liverbnz]

Finn duly obliges with an excellent catch coming over his head! Guptil gone for 53.

[dummy_half]

3 drops and 9 wides in the first 15 overs. Fortunately, neither B-Mac or Guptill really profited, but we do need to take more of the half chances.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

It really is a shame that Mark Wood is made of glass - heck of a prospect

[dummy_half]

Another drop, although the description suggests it was one of those that Roy did very well to even reach. Then again, some of our Surrey contingent are on record as saying he is one guy who can sometimes take these worldies at point (a bit like Collingwood used to)

[dummy_half]

This could get messy - NZ pass 200 in the 32nd over for the loss of just 2 wickets. With the likes of Elliot and Ronchi still to come, we could be looking at another 400.

[msp83]

England pulling things back after that Taylor wicket. Hope there won't be another 400+ slogfest.......

[dummy_half]

Perfect platform for Ronchi - Wood bowled out and Finn with one left. 7 overs of the others to come, including some from Rashid or Root. Another 100 available.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Yeah there's a reason why you bowl spinners in the middle overs Eoin...

[CaledonianCraig]

Rashid copped some stick but I agree with Beefy - get him in for the First Test.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

It's windy umps - it'll blow over

[Sponsored content]