England v New Zealand, 4th ODI, The Oval, 25th June

Bell doubtful for the game
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7471734.stm

to be replaced by Cook, FFS

Nice. A bit of dynamism.

I reckon the current set-up's definition of dynamism is "Who haven't we picked from Sussex yet?"

Oh dear. Cook opening up is just Magic!

You've got to fancy your chances of getting England Diddly for 2 in that case. Although the same could be said for NPB!

Zat wrote:

Dello wrote:It'd be quicker to list the sides that haven't owned England in ODIs for as long as anyone can remember.

Zimbabwe.
Bangladesh.

There we go.

I still remember England losing to Zimbabwe at the 92 WC. I was there. Good times.

At least we got to the final.

Cook is a marvellous player but unsuited to JAMODIs unless in an anchor role on a nightmare track. He could be a very unlucky player if the 20/20s prove to be the source of all the money in the game.

In five years he could be the Test captain and not selected for the ODIs (if they even exist) and no where near the 20/20 side. Despite being captain he could well be lowest paid member of the side...

It's all a bit all and nothing the opening partnership. How about just two fairly attacking opening batsmen who aren't ridiculous sloggers? Raw as anything long handle merchant and a fine but defensively minded player are not the recipe for consistent/any success at the top of the order. They really haven't got a scooby.

As long as they don't start picking Shaggy Udal, I don't really care.

I wish they'd pick a bespectacled lesbian.

Vettori's not available for England.

Dello wrote:Vettori's not available for England.

Bollocks, literally. I saw his scrot one time went he bent down to pick up the ball. I hate scrots.

Eric Air Emu wrote:It's all a bit all and nothing the opening partnership. How about just two fairly attacking opening batsmen who aren't ridiculous sloggers?

Perhaps because we just don't have any available? Blocker plus slogger seems to be the nearest thing we can get to a "balanced" opening partnership. Although there must be someone out there worth a try I suppose.

I'd rather have Strauss than Cook or Bell though, while he's not a big hitter at least he's in form and has shown he can play a few improvised shots. He dropped out of the one-day picture more due to his run of poor form than any particular unsuitability for the shorter format.

Can you believe the odds for this?

Eng 1.57
NZ 2.68

JKLever wrote:Can you believe the odds for this?

Eng 1.57
NZ 2.68

Even better than the odds that nearly tempted me into a dabble on the Kiwis earlier.

11/8 I think they were in 'old money'.

JKLever wrote:Bell doubtful for the game
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7471734.stm

to be replaced by Cook, FFS

England's leading ODI run scorer in the last two series.

MidnightCowboy wrote:

JKLever wrote:Bell doubtful for the game
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7471734.stm

to be replaced by Cook, FFS

England's slowest ODI run crabber in the last two decades.

Fixed.

Sidebottom's back is starting to worry me. I think we'll need him against South Africa.

Eric Air Emu wrote:I wish they'd pick a bespectacled lesbian.

I actually worked with a bespectacled lesbian when I was last in the UK in 2006. She liked cricket.....

Sidebottom replaces Tremlett - Bell is fit to play.

Strange - NZ win toss and put ENG in.

Wright needs a score today, otherwise he's gone (from the top of the order at least) imo.

Won't have better conditions to make a big one than today....

JKLever wrote:Sidebottom replaces Tremlett - Bell is fit to play.

Got to feel sorry for Tremlett - he bowled better than Anderson at TB, but they wouldn't dream of dropping him.

England 'motoring' along.

Sarky barsteward. Get behind our team. Rejoice for Belly. Go jubilant for Lukey.

If Wright is going to play like a batsman then we have better options than him IMO

I might agree with you there. Even Bobby.