England - the winter tours thread

[Gooseberry]

First topic message reminder :

No Jofra then

Turns out he doesn’t actually qualify until March - so couldn’t make the West Indies tour

...and Smiths being more guarded about him for the world cup than the press hype has been.

But he is eligible for the T20s on this tour, for which the squad hasnt been named yet if he pulls out of the BBL. Aside form that theres just the 5 match warm up series against Pakistan for him to be capped before the world cup.

Smith does seem to think Denly can make a case for inclusion in the world cup squad, so despite him not getting much cricket in sri lanka, struggling with the bat, and only being a replacement for Dawson in the ODI squad he must be doing something right.

Of the two though you'd think Archer had more potential to improve Englands first XI on home pitches.

[Gooseberry]

Not bad for a guy who's career was done 4 years ago

[Duty281]

His longevity is remarkable.

England five away.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Not bad for a guy who's career was done 4 years ago

ClOuDeRsOn
CaN’t BoWl AwAy FrOm HoMe

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Horrific drop from Burns off Moeen - club cricketers would be ashamed to drop that

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

https://twitter.com/cricprof/status/1095406403781578752?s=21

[king_carlos]

Jennings with the face of a man who knows his test career may have just ended due to a big stroke of bad luck.

An innocuous leg side ball catches the underside of his thigh pad, takes a horrible diversion and hits the stumps.

Hi Carlos - sure, very unlucky to be bowled by that ball. However, an in form batsman would have glanced it firmly to the rope or left well alone.

Meanwhile, Denly seeming to be making the most of his good fortune after a bad miss at slip by Hetmyer off Gabriel. The fielder's legs and body seemed all wrong as he attempted to take the catch side on and then unsuccessfully snatched at it. As mentioned above, the bowler did not appear overly chuffed. Denly was on just 12 then and has now advanced to 40 odd at lunch. A half-century should keep him in contention at least for the Ashes. Fine margins sometimes. If that catch had been held, that could have been it for Denly in Tests.

Hi guildford - Hope you are well?

Agreed on Jennings needing to clip that ball away. I can't see him being picked in English conditions to face Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood but other options need to stand-up.

Discarded openers: Jennings, Stoneman, Lyth, Robson, Hales, Hameed

Yet to be tried: Gubbins, Duckett (as an opener), Roy, Browne, Mitchell

Discarded middle order batsman: Duckett, Malan, Vince, Westley, Ballance, Bell

Yet to be tried: Pope (only given two tests), Hildreth, Clarke (seems unlikely in the near future)

There are a lot of names there who to differing extents will be thinking that runs early doors this summer could give them a chance. Denly looking mildly solid against the quicks could see him pushed to opening if a middle order player scores runs early in the summer whilst the openers struggle.

Trying Roy as an opener has been mentioned by a few punters but I don't think he's a red ball opener personally. His desire to come at the ball hard and reliance on getting early runs by clipping through the leg side can lead to an early downfall against good pace bowlers. Starc particularly would relish a duke ball and Roy trying to work the ball to leg.

[Duty281]

Stokes takes the final wicket in addition to his 100+ runs in the test. Karma, innit.

No doubt the Windies deserved the series win. England have learnt very little, save that certain players aren't much good or are out of form. I worry that this third test victory will have papered over some of the cracks; the Irish game won't inform England of much, either.

Australia will be favourites for the Ashes.

[CaledonianCraig]

Australia will be favourites for the Ashes.

No I don't think so. Form suggests otherwise. England comfortably beat India at home. That same Indian side then went to Australia and comfortably beat them. Says a lot to me.

[Duty281]

Australia will be favourites for the Ashes.

No I don't think so. Form suggests otherwise. England comfortably beat India at home. That same Indian side then went to Australia and comfortably beat them. Says a lot to me.

England's test series win over India was immensely flattering and fortunate. Plus, Australia will have the two cheats back for the Ashes, which will turn their average batting line-up, which they had against India, into a strong one. And Starc/Cummins/Hazlewood are going to annihilate the English top order.

However, as it stands, the bookmakers agree with you and have England 4/5 favourites to win the series. Recent history suggests England will win as well (four consecutive home series victories over Australia). But I'm far from convinced.

[CaledonianCraig]

Australia will be favourites for the Ashes.

No I don't think so. Form suggests otherwise. England comfortably beat India at home. That same Indian side then went to Australia and comfortably beat them. Says a lot to me.

Plus, Australia will have the two cheats back for the Ashes, which will turn their average batting line-up, which they had against India, into a strong one. And Starc/Cummins/Hazlewood are going to annihilate the English top order.

However, as it stands, the bookmakers agree with you and have England 4/5 favourites to win the series. Recent history suggests England will win as well (four consecutive home series victories over Australia). But I'm far from convinced.

There is no guarantee whatsover that Smith and Warner will be welcomed back into the side straight away. And even if they are then they need to re-acclimatise to the side and test cricket. In any case both were in the Australian touring side that last toured and it did not make a difference to the end result of that series. The claim about annihilating the English top order says more about the top order than the bowlers in all honesty. England's top order has had issues for a good few years but it hasn't stopped them winning home series in tests.

[Gooseberry]

Disappointing winter overall after a promising start, notably when Jennings made runs. If anything England are further from looking like they have a top 3 than they were in September.
Jennings is absolutely beyond last chance now. Burns has struggled, he still deserves time but the hope he would convert county runs to tests is yet to be realised, and he must be feeling the pressure now.
Denly wasnt ever going to be the answer, and one half decent score only really muddies the waters there. Just a decent county player at D2 level might be the best we can do but that doesnt make him good. As an ODI squad member he has a lot more potential, but competition for the first XI is intense.
The player who did the most in the top 3 of anyone in recent years (Bairstow) got moved out of it to a position he wont always bat from. The same confusion reigns as always over what his role is, and whether or not Stokes and Buttler are genuine test 5/6 material (spoiler ...only in a side bereft of good batsmen). Those two have remained wholly inconsistent. Buttlers continued to score 50s fairly regularly but doesnt look like the sort of player whos ever going to score a big century.
Moeen too has remained incredibly frustrating. Its hard to know if hes going to turn up with the ball, but has shown he can be a force anywhere, since his recall hes Englands leading wicket taker. His batting though has largely been awful again, even hiding down the order. Horribly unpredictable, inconsistent and mentally fragile. He clearly has more about him than certain people give him credit for though, Chase mightve had the sort of freakish innings that Moeen dreams about but hes taken 44 wickets in the 8 tests since being bought back at 23 with a REMARKABLE strike rate of 40. Just one 5 wicket haul in that shows that more often than not this iteration of Moeen has turned up, and at least taken wickets even when bowling poorly. Hes still struggling to bowl maidens, but you can forgive him that if hes taking wickets.
Foakes was a bit of a happy accident and dropped for his trouble. One of the few bright spots though, he seems to be treated as a luxury player but has given England other options when they look to balance their side. We could see him back and Bairstow at 3 again in the summer.

Bowlers wise Curran has just shown what anyone should have already known. Hes not skilled enough to make up for his lack of pace away from home, and his heroics with the bat flattered to deceive. He has time to get better, it took Broad years to really convince people he was any good, and shouldnt be discarded altogether but he was made to look ordinary. More importantly the way Root used (or rather didnt use) him suggests that the captain has little faith in his ability.
England still rely on Anderson. Broad still looks better than most when he turns up switched on. Woakes hasnt had a chance to work on his game away from home so we have to assume hes still a home ground specialist. Leech has been pretty unfairly treated, but still remains a handy reserve if they want a second spinner. Rashid has shown again that hes not quite good enough in tests and that English leg spinners are rare for a reason, he must be getting utterly exasperated in regard to his ambitions and T20 paychecks. I hope England dont break what hes good at.
The unexpected positive has been one innings from Wood where he showed he can bowl with the sort of pace England (and he) have desperately lacked away from home. Worryingly he was noticeably slower in the second innings, and faded badly in the first. If hes going to be a legitimate option for England then they will have to use him as a luxury and sparingly. But its a huge positive that they have that pace and someone other than Broad they can chuck the new b all to.

Really the same questions remain though. All the talk of wanting a settled top 3 from this tour was empty.

[king_carlos]

The player who did the most in the top 3 of anyone in recent years (Bairstow) got moved out of it to a position he wont always bat from. The same confusion reigns as always over what his role is, and whether or not Stokes and Buttler are genuine test 5/6 material (spoiler ...only in a side bereft of good batsmen). Those two have remained wholly inconsistent. Buttlers continued to score 50s fairly regularly but doesnt look like the sort of player whos ever going to score a big century.

That there stands out for me as an issue with many of this England side. Poor conversion rate and a lack of big centuries. Out of Root, Buttler, Stokes, Bairstow and Moeen the best conversion rate is Stokes having passed 100 on 6 of the 20 occasions he's passed 50. Moeen is just behind with 5 centuries from 19 occasions passing 50.

I think it was noticeable that Stokes batted much better in this test whilst bowling less. All rounders need looking after and Stokes has got through a lot of overs.

The spine of the England side that rose to top of the rankings all had good conversion rates for turning fifties into tons.

It's one of the things I think Ian Bell could have going for him if he gets runs at the start of the summer. Last summer he passed fifty 7 times and made 5 centuries. If he can get big, match winning hundreds early then the door could be wide open for an experienced batsman.

[Duty281]

Australia will be favourites for the Ashes.

No I don't think so. Form suggests otherwise. England comfortably beat India at home. That same Indian side then went to Australia and comfortably beat them. Says a lot to me.

Plus, Australia will have the two cheats back for the Ashes, which will turn their average batting line-up, which they had against India, into a strong one. And Starc/Cummins/Hazlewood are going to annihilate the English top order.

However, as it stands, the bookmakers agree with you and have England 4/5 favourites to win the series. Recent history suggests England will win as well (four consecutive home series victories over Australia). But I'm far from convinced.

There is no guarantee whatsover that Smith and Warner will be welcomed back into the side straight away. And even if they are then they need to re-acclimatise to the side and test cricket. In any case both were in the Australian touring side that last toured and it did not make a difference to the end result of that series. The claim about annihilating the English top order says more about the top order than the bowlers in all honesty. England's top order has had issues for a good few years but it hasn't stopped them winning home series in tests.

I'd rate Australia's bowling attack above England's. England are certainly not average in that department, but Australia have a very settled, very dangerous all-round bowling unit which will devastate the English batting.

The 2015 iteration of England is a heck of a lot stronger than the 2019 edition and they only won narrowly. The 2019 edition is probably the weakest England have put forth to a home Ashes series since 2001.

[VTR]

I'm with Duty on this. England's win against India was a close run thing, largely thanks to some unexpected batting from a young swing bowler. That won't happen every time. Also Warner and Smith are surely certain to play, and that immediately makes their top 6 very good

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

I think Smith is a certainty to play, but I very much think Warner's place in the side is much more up in the air - simply because he's been hung out to dry a bit, not only by Smith/Bancroft but also other Aussie teammates. Hard to see them wanting to reintegrate him in my eyes...but we'll see.

I think it's another very tight series, similar to the India one. Which is good, because the cricket should be entertaining at least!

[Gooseberry]

England have had at least one swing bowler stand up in pretty much every home series in recent years. Woakes has an even better home record than Currans. Broad and Anderson also exist. More has an excellent home record too and if there's a spinners wicket in the series then England have a massive advantage in being able to field two. Woods transformation adds another option again, and there's plenty of other Currans and overtons in reserve.
I don't have a problem with their bowling attack at home, it's a strength for Australia too of course.

The difference comes in the batting. Smith and Warner will be back, that's not even a question. But their middle order is still dodgy, and they struggle to put a genuine 5th bowling option in. That's bad news for the quicks over a long series. Paine isn't a great batsman by any stretch and not an exceptional keeper. If they play their best bowlers there is a long tail, and without a proper all rounder they have the exact opposite problem to England. Whilst the top 4 might well make some big scores it's hard to see the rearguard standing up, and if the new ball nips around like it did against India last summer it doesn't matter if it's Smith Warner and Chuck Norris batting, the soft underbelly can get exposed early.
Beating Sri Lanka at home would be been welcome relief and showed signs of improvement, but they are an awful side at a low ebb and were missing even more players than when England faced them. Given the weakest part of a weak team is their seam bowling it's not any surprise that Australia found batting a long easier against them.
The potential for Smith and Warner to cause friction in the team is also a thing.

Hangovers from the world cup could also play a part ( literal and metaphoric).

It has to be a very open series. Australia performed beyond expectation in 2015 with their senior bowlers staying for for the first time ever and guys like Rogers raising their game. England are in some areas weaker now, but so are Aus.

As for Bell, it's being seen as yesterday's man that's going to stop him getting picked. He certainly isn't one for the future, but also shows just how poor the standard of batting has become in the county game.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

England have had at least one swing bowler stand up in pretty much every home series in recent years. Woakes has an even better home record than Currans. Broad and Anderson also exist. More has an excellent home record too and if there's a spinners wicket in the series then England have a massive advantage in being able to field two. Woods transformation adds another option again, and there's plenty of other Currans and overtons in reserve.
I don't have a problem with their bowling attack at home, it's a strength for Australia too of course.

The difference comes in the batting. Smith and Warner will be back, that's not even a question. But their middle order is still dodgy, and they struggle to put a genuine 5th bowling option in. That's bad news for the quicks over a long series. Paine isn't a great batsman by any stretch and not an exceptional keeper. If they play their best bowlers there is a long tail, and without a proper all rounder they have the exact opposite problem to England. Whilst the top 4 might well make some big scores it's hard to see the rearguard standing up, and if the new ball nips around like it did against India last summer it doesn't matter if it's Smith Warner and Chuck Norris batting, the soft underbelly can get exposed early.
Beating Sri Lanka at home would be been welcome relief and showed signs of improvement, but they are an awful side at a low ebb and were missing even more players than when England faced them. Given the weakest part of a weak team is their seam bowling it's not any surprise that Australia found batting a long easier against them.
The potential for Smith and Warner to cause friction in the team is also a thing.

Hangovers from the world cup could also play a part ( literal and metaphoric).  

It has to be a very open series. Australia performed beyond expectation in 2015 with their senior bowlers staying for for the first time ever and guys like Rogers raising their game. England are in some areas weaker now, but so are Aus.

As for Bell, it's being seen as yesterday's man that's going to stop him getting picked. He certainly isn't one for the future, but also shows just how poor the standard of batting has become in the county game.

Goose - you make a good point about the world cup, but I would say from a workload perspective for the Aussie seamers. You'd figure Cummins, Starc and maybe Hazlewood will feature heavily for Australia, and with it being a long long tournament, it certainly increase the chance of injury/fatigue before we even get to the 5 tests. Especially with them all having a long list of injuries on their records.

England will have Woakes/Stokes in their ODI side - but crucially Broad/Anderson won't be involved, so you'd think will be relatively fresh all going well. Could be a factor

[alfie]

Watched a lot of the final day in the Caribbean but had no device free to post... so just my thoughts on the consolation win :

It was just a consolation : series already gone. But that doesn't mean it has no value.  Holder's absence hurt the home team (Paul's injury didn't help either but the game was basically decided before then , just the margin and timing affected) They still won the toss , put England in at a tricky time - the result was well earned.
Wood's selection and excellent first innings burst was a huge factor. And may be big for the future. True he wasn't as quick yesterday ; but he still hit 90 a few times ...not too shabby.  Will see where that all leads in the summer.
One very big influence in this match was the catching. The locals dropped some important ones : how might the England first innings have fared had Buttler been held before he scored ? And Denly missed second time around... By contrast England caught pretty well (Buttler excepted ...Doesn't the ball follow you when you're having a 'mare in the field!) I hear Burns also missed one badly though I didn't see it ; but I did see him take a really good one earlier and have some hopes he will prove a decent close catcher - which they could really do with. The best teams always seem to have a settled and efficient cordon.
Great to see Stokes back with the bat. Down to six , a good move  ? I think so.  Helped that he didn't have to bowl so much perhaps - but the first innings was the significant one anyway.  He won't fire every time but England need him to supply his own brand of batting dominance a few times in a series and I reckon these knocks will have helped his confidence.
And good also to note that Moeen continued to show his value as a spin bowler : even if his batting is ailing I think he is nailed on as the first choice with the ball. Last year down south was an aberration. Nathaniel won't agree , I'm sure

Don't think anyone would suggest all is rosy because of the win ; but then neither should it have been all doom and gloom because of the first two losses.  Just shows this is a team with ability but also weaknesses and as long as they take the real lessons from the defeats (selection , from the limited choice they had in the squad , for the last match hints that perhaps they have ? ) then this tour might yet prove to be a step forward following a slip back , if you see what I mean ...

[alfie]

Looking forward now : First off I disagree somewhat with Goose re his dismissive comments about the Australian tail. Cummins is becoming quite a serious number eight ; and Starc , though he has slipped somewhat with the bat , is far from completely useless. They - like their top order teammates - will probably struggle if they encounter typical "English" conditions of swing and seam ; but they are well capable of scoring runs if the late summer pitches are a bit more batsman-friendly.

Australian batting altogether remains a bit uncertain. The big scores against Sri Lanka's third choice bowling attack can be largely disregarded , I think ; so although Smith and (probably ) Warner will be back there are question marks on the others : Burns presumably will be first choice opener and Head will bat five/six : not sure either (or Patterson , despite his excellent debut) will strike terror into the hearts of England's bowlers - at least in advance. How they all adapt to the conditions will be key...as will the conditions themselves.

England haven't solved all their selection problems , of course. In fact they might have muddled them further ? The top three remains almost complete guess work. Burns and Denly are in the frame but certainly not written even in pencil just yet , though I'd expect one of them to play . Jennings - for whom I have a little more time than some as he does try to battle it out (and catches well!) simply doesn't handle pace bowling well enough to be considered. I also suspect they are not keen to prolong the Bairstow at three experiment : arguably abandoning it a little early ? And sending him back to seven with the gloves is a little hard on Foakes but it does look as if that is the intention...if in fact they are planning to reintroduce any sort of consistency in selection !
Good to see Buttler making a fist of number five : his logical position. As Olly mentioned earlier he has averaged very well since coming back into the team ; but if that is actually to be of real value to England he has to score his runs in the top five rather than artificially positioned as a "specialist bat" at seven - which displaces too many other players to their detriment. May need to see how he handles the Aussie pace men ; but these two innings offer a deal of promise that he can do a job. And as I said earlier , allows Stokes to bat in a more natural all rounder spot at six.
The bowling has plenty of choices. Add Wood to the mix

[alfie]

Ha. Nearly forgot Root. Hundred - even second innings slightly devalued runs - will give him some confidence back. I don't expect him to move from four no matter what a lot of people would like. Captaincy does seem to have weighed his batting down but it is still relatively early to conclude that it is killing him.
He needs to have a good summer. At least he has apparently earned some points on social media with his comment to Gabriel...

[Mad for Chelsea]

Gabriel banned for first four ODIs. His run-in with Root has handed him demerit points which tip him over the ban threshold.

[VTR]

The exchange of words per Gabriel's statement doesn't make any sense. I heard he'd used the term "Batty boy". Which to be fair either makes him a homophobe or a huge Ali G fan

[Duty281]

Utterly stupid ban for a nothing offence. Still, the ICC had to be seen to act otherwise they would have been pilloried in the media.

[Gooseberry]

Utterly stupid ban for a nothing offence. Still, the ICC had to be seen to act otherwise they would have been pilloried in the media.

It wasn't for that offence alone. He was only given 3 demerit points for it, but hes had multiple sanctions and it pushed him over the limit to get an automatic 4 match ban after already having served a one match ban following 2 recent sanctions for making physical contact with other players. It also wasnt the only altercation he got into in this match. hes hardly a good boy whether you like him or not.

On top of which he was due to be rested anyway.

So whilst it appears that the authorities have dealt with this firmly all hes had to do is a bit of cap doffing.

[Gooseberry]

Easy work put for England in their first 50 over game. Centuries for Bairstow and Root.
The line was pretty much the standard first choice team except Bairstow kept wicket and Hales batted in Buttlers place ( making 0). Woakes appears to be fully fit again.
Doesn't look like anything's going to change on their standard template, assume Buttler will come back for the proper ODIs with Games taking the turn to be the batsman left out.
Wood has a good chance to further press his case for a starting spot at the world cup but as it has for some time now the side largely picks itself.

[LondonTiger]

Roy got the ton I thought, rather than Bairstow.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Yeah Roy and Root got the hundreds - nothing for Morgan/Hales, Bairstow 40 odd and others 20's

All bowlers chipped in with a wicket or two too

[VTR]

Well it's practice but not sure about the quality of the opposition. The name of them makes it sound like a youth team!

[Gooseberry]

Sorry yes Roy.

Yeah the opposition was the usual junk, but still a good loosener and reminder of Englands approach to score as many runs as possible then bowl the opposition out. Such tactics

[Mad for Chelsea]

Yeah the opposition was the usual junk, but still a good loosener and reminder of Englands approach to score as many runs as possible then bowl the opposition out. Such tactics

A tactical masterclass I'm sure we can all agree

Anyway, England's best ODI XI. I think Roy Bairstow Root Morgan Stokes Buttler Moeen Woakes Rashid Plunkett are all in, which really only leaves the third seamer position up for grabs. The contenders seem to be T. Curran, Stone, Willey and Wood. Curran offers an excellent death option, but not sure he's such a good option with the new ball. Willey offers variety of left-arm option, and swing up front if there is any, but less effective later on. Stone and Wood offer a good new ball option, and the possibility of their extra pace forcing wickets through the middle-overs, but are not so good at the death. There are arguments to be made for any of them TBH.

Are WC squads still 15 players? If so, you'd think England will pick Hales as a spare batsman (decent option to have there ), probably a spare spinner (Dawson? maybe Denly?), and two spare pace bowlers, which means one of the above 4 wouldn't make the squad. Can't help thinking Stone's injury, coupled with Wood seemingly finding an extra bit of pace, has happened at a really bad time for the lad.

[king_carlos]

That third seamer role is where Archer has a decent chance of being fast tracked once available. He offers pace as well as a death option. Two for the price of one.

It's a side set-up very well for a world cup. Right down to something as simple as Bairstow and Buttler both being first choice players. That means that a reserve gloveman doesn't need to take a spot in the squad, hence an extra place for a different tactical option.

[Gooseberry]

Yeah the only player not on this tour with a strong chance of making the squad is Archer, pending injuries of course. I would say though that hes hardy ever played 50 over cricket, and his limited overs record is nothing special with the ball. Hes never scored a 50 in list A or T20 game either. Hes playing in the BBL at the moment and returning OK figures, but nothing that makes him stand out as someone who will make a crucial difference to England. Right now Wood is bowling as fast as Archer can, wheras Archer has been bowling most of his balls in BBL in the mid to high 80s..down on the top pace he showed in last years IPL.

Denly is much more deserving of a place in the 50 over squad than the test one, but it really shows the difference in depth of talent that hes only the 6th choice of 4 batsmen places and 2nd choice all rounder spinner, whereas hes not even the worst player in the test side.

Wood seems to be ahead in the race to get that last seamer spot currently, and if he can retain his new top pace consistently gives that extra edge to the attack. Theres some threat to both him and Plunkett from someone like Willey who offers a left arm option, but hes been so consistently below par in the chances hes been given I don't see that unless theres a specific weakness they want to target in a star player. I guess I could contradict myself here and suggest that Sam Curran could still make the squad ahead of Willey as the token left armer, but its unlikely.

Only 6 of the 15 that played in the last world cup are in this squad, and only 2 have retired. About half of them are rejects. The first ODI that got played after that debacle featured 8 of the core players in this current squad, only 3 have fallen out of favour ( Finn, Jordan, Billings). Someone made some very good selections for that series (Morgan was certainly a cheerleader for the approach), 4 years on the side has barely changed with selections more consistent than I can ever remember an England limited overs side having.

[alfie]

As long as they don't get (ill timed) injuries I reckon the squad pretty well picks itself. Think Wood Willey and Curran as well as Woakes and Plunkett for pace , batsmen and spinners as is. Just the reserve spinner to decide ? Dawson lead contender...
Agree with Goose no reason to rush Archer in.

[Gooseberry]

Interesting thoughts in the press about how this series could go.
West Indies have been pretty awful in 50 over cricket under Holder, yet to win a series. they do have a couple of big names back, but Gayle isn't the player he was and has barely played any 50 over cricket in the last few years.
....but look at what they pulled out the bag in the first two tests. Players showed that when they switch on and really produce their best they are good enough. Theres quite a different group making up the ODI side but the same principles might apply.
Also Englands perceived weakness is batting on slow and/or ueneven pitches which make their all or nothing bat first approach very dangerous. The tracks are supposed to look decent, but we've fallen for that one already.
West Indies are not bad value at 11/5 despite the teams relative records since the last world cup.

[Mad for Chelsea]

Wood takes the third seamer spot for the first ODI. WI win toss and bat.

[Duty281]

England will win this series 3-0 or 5-0 or however long it is.

[Mad for Chelsea]

Quiet first hour. WI rather plodding along (especially Gayle). Wood bowled quite well, Woakes was rusty but picked up the only wicket, Moeen started well. Roy dropped Gayle a bit earlier, and Stokes dived over one, but England have otherwise been sharp in the field. WI running between the wickets is poor.

[Duty281]

Dropping Gayle in the field is what I would term a 'good drop'. The man's in the team based on reputation and status, not on actual ability or form. And his continued inclusion in the side until, and during, the World Cup will only drag the Windies back. Yes, he hits the odd good boundary now and then, but his running between the wickets is amateur level. He's faced about 40 dot balls already.

[Duty281]

Stokes gets a deserved wicket - the crucial one of S Hope. He was in splendid touch.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Why hasn’t Rashid bowled yet?

[Duty281]

Why hasn’t Rashid bowled yet?

Odd captaincy.

[Mad for Chelsea]

I can only think England don't want Rashid bowling with Gayle there, but agreed, it's odd.

Wood getting panned.

Pitch is flat, and the cross breeze is making it difficult, but you have to bowl a bit smarter than that.

[wisden]

Horrific captaincy to not have Rashid bowling...the guy's a wicket taker, and the Gayle issue dosen't matter get him on and taking wickets

[king_carlos]

39 years old and Gayle brings up his hundred, blasting the second 50 from 24 balls.

Boy oh boy has Gayle had a strange career.

[VTR]

England at it again conceding endless runs to someone who should barely be making any. Yes, Gayle was an excellent player but he's totally past it now

[Duty281]

England have bowled some rubbish today - but on this pitch, I reckon anything up to 400 is gettable. ODI cricket is bizarre.

[king_carlos]

If England can hold Windies to 350 then this batting line-up should chase it.

Shaping up to be a good start to the series.

[Duty281]

361 to get. England should get this.

[Duty281]

50 up after 34 balls. Batsmen's paradise.

[Duty281]

88/0 after ten overs. Hope the entire series won't be weighted in favour of the batsmen, like this game.

[Sponsored content]