England bowling options for limited overs cricket?

Well, I think everyone agrees on Dernbach now, except for Gashley and Willy Wonka perhaps, and it's somewhat flattering to Bresnan to give him the status of second worst bowler in the England team. We're unlikely to see much more of Jimmy in ODI or T20I colours, and perhaps not Sturat either. Which leaves... well, Jordan's shown some promise even if still somewhat expensive, he gets wickets anyway. But we need to find at least a couple of seamers to bowl in the opening powerplay, and of course those last two or three overs. We'll ignore spin for now, as that's a much discussed issue in all formats!

So, who comes into the picture? Ideally we need another strike bowler, plus someone who can keep it tight. There must be players in the county game who are potential improvements on what we've got?

It depends. Do we pretend that we actually give a f*ck about JAMODIS and T20s? Or do we use them as an introduction for youngsters with the potential to step into the test side? To be honest, I'd prefer it if they did the latter. It worked pretty well for both formats around 2011-12, and I think they publicly said that they were using the ODI side as an 'audition' for the test team, until Gashley came in and had to try and prove himself as a coach.

We just don't naturally produce young bowlers who are good at bowling in limited overs cricket. They all come in having been taught to bowl line and length and let the pitch do the rest, and slower balls and yorkers have to be learnt later.

I'd say they'll give Harry Gurney a go. He's looked ok whenever I've seen him. It might be my Somerset bias but I'd like them to give Jamie Overton and Lewis Gregory a go. Jordan yeah, stick with him, unless he plays a lot of test cricket, in which case he should get a rest from most of the ODIs and T20s. It was only two years ago that Steve Finn was (I think?) ranked in the top two or three ODI bowlers in world cricket. If he can get back to that form in 2014 then he should get a gig.

Spinning-wise, Tredwell is probably the best we have, with Moeen for support. 

Broad
Jordan
J.Overton
Gregory
Gurney
Finn
Stokes
Tredwell

Would be the bowlers I would choose to make up the ODI and T20 squads for the next series.

As I always say, really good cricketers should be able to play all formats. De Villiers with the bat and Steyn with the ball for example are equally at home playing the long game in a Test or with an explosive burst in a T20.

England on the other hand produces one-dimensional players who only know one way to bat or bowl. Is it over-coaching or over-specialisation at a young age, I'm not sure, or perhaps seam-friendly pitches that encourage a passive approach where the pitch rather than the players will make things happen.

Anyway if we're not going to try and be competitive in these formats and win World Cups there's no point bothering, just arrange more Lions matches and don't charge people £60+ for the privilege of watching a second string England team. By all means try out certain players in JAMODIs first to see if they've "got it" in terms of temperament at the highest level, but we should be playing our best team wherever possible, and probably around half of that best team should be consistent across all three formats.

While it's true in many cases a good player should be able to give a decent account of himself across formats (though - as a counter-example - Sachin always looked horrible when reduced to the slogging required of him in the last overs of a T20), I'm not sure esp T20 in particular is a great utilisation of - one hopes - still developing talent.

I'd rather they worked on their techniques and deeper psychological resources first. They can chug and slog away at high-profile T20 techniques when they have arrived, and achieved something hopefully at Test level, or at the very least least at the slightly less priapic 50 overs.

That's why I thought it was probably a blessing in disguise Stokes broke his hand, and Root too (I still think he's likely to make it if not ruined by Giles).

David Willey's a good bet, I think. Very Nathan Bracken-y.

But sadly England have ruined him already - he suffered a stress fracture of the back during the ECB's infamous "Strength and Conditioning Programme" that has cobbled many a young bowler (Overton has been another victim this winter), and he's unlikely to make the first couple of months of the season at least.

You want a serious answer? Well, I'd start off by excluding Lewis Gregory. I like my bowlers to bowl. Lewis Gregory? Doesn't bowl.

'What do you mean he doesn't bowl'?

Well, random question asker, he doesn't bowl.

'Yes he does'.

Ok, you've got me. He bowled 19 overs in List 'A' last year.

'Twenty20?'

No. No, he didn't bowl. So, yeah, sticking some lad into the full international side having only bowled 19 limited overs in the previous year? No. No.

You want a serious answer?

I wouldn't look much further than Azharullah. He's a strike bowler. He's a death bowler. He takes his wickets incredibly cheaply. We won the Twenty20 on the back of him. We narrowly missed a semi-final spot in the List 'A' competition on the back of him.

If you want other options, Steven Crook, Ajmal Shahzad, Graham Napier, Graham Onions. If three of those are too old, because you're 'planning for the future', like we always do, because it never works, then you'd have to bite the bullet and go for some possible shitheap like Chris Liddle or Toby Jones, simply because they keep performing.

I thought it was going to be "he doesn't bowl" in the Murali/Ajmal sense...

Brass Monkey wrote:You want a serious answer?

I wouldn't look much further than Azharullah. He's a strike bowler. He's a death bowler. He takes his wickets incredibly cheaply. We won the Twenty20 on the back of him. We narrowly missed a semi-final spot in the List 'A' competition on the back of him.

If you want other options, Steven Crook, Ajmal Shahzad, Graham Napier, Graham Onions. If three of those are too old, because you're 'planning for the future', like we always do, because it never works, then you'd have to bite the bullet and go for some possible shitheap like Chris Liddle or Toby Jones, simply because they keep performing.

While we have to consider older players occasionally, Napeshit's about 35 isn't he? A bit late to be considering someone who "comes off" spectacularly with bat or ball once in a while, we could have given him a go in 2008.

beamer wrote:I thought it was going to be "he doesn't bowl" in the Murali/Ajmal sense...

He might 'bowl' in the Ojha/Senanayake sense, but no-one knows because he doesn't bowl...

beamer wrote:
While we have to consider older players occasionally, Napeshit's about 35 isn't he? A bit late to be considering someone who "comes off" spectacularly with bat or ball once in a while, we could have given him a go in 2008.

Graham Napier is 34. Which means he'll be 35 by the time the WC is on. If we're talking T20, then he'll be 36. He's averaged 22 with the ball since 2008. Taken 139 wickets. He bowls some tough overs, usually, at the top and back end of the innings. Bowls the bad overs in T20s, goes for 7.5. I, personally, don't see the problem. If he can still pull it off, then that's all that needs to be said. I recognise that the England management don't think that way.

Brass Monkey wrote:You want a serious answer? Well, I'd start off by excluding Lewis Gregory. I like my bowlers to bowl. Lewis Gregory? Doesn't bowl.

'What do you mean he doesn't bowl'?

Well, random question asker, he doesn't bowl.

'Yes he does'.

Ok, you've got me. He bowled 19 overs in List 'A' last year.

'Twenty20?'

No. No, he didn't bowl. So, yeah, sticking some lad into the full international side having only bowled 19 limited overs in the previous year? No. No.

That's Somerset's fault. Not because a lack of ability. They've been overly protective of him. I like my bowlers to be able to bowl 88mph yorkers at the death, and Somerset should like that too. Much more than they currently do.

Well it wouldn't be Somerset's fault if England picked someone who bowled less overs than Brendan Nash last year. He's probably dobbed out now, anyway, tis the way of our people.

Brass Monkey wrote:

beamer wrote:
While we have to consider older players occasionally, Napeshit's about 35 isn't he? A bit late to be considering someone who "comes off" spectacularly with bat or ball once in a while, we could have given him a go in 2008.

Graham Napier is 34. Which means he'll be 35 by the time the WC is on. If we're talking T20, then he'll be 36. He's averaged 22 with the ball since 2008. Taken 139 wickets. He bowls some tough overs, usually, at the top and back end of the innings. Bowls the bad overs in T20s, goes for 7.5. I, personally, don't see the problem. If he can still pull it off, then that's all that needs to be said. I recognise that the England management don't think that way.

In terms of picking older players - I generally don't like it for Tests, because new players over 30 or thereabouts tend to have too many bad habits from the county game which there isn't time to unlearn (or are just county journeymen who have had a good spell of form in late-ish career) and if the player isn't going to hit the ground running you're not getting anything you wouldn't get from a player who has the potential to play 100 Tests. Obviously there are exceptions and if you're lacking senior players then you might want to give a county veteran a go to stabilise a young side, but it should be the exception to the rule.

For limited overs formats there's more of a case for a quick fix player to be brought in, it's not as technical or demanding as the 5-day game and there's probably more chance of an in form county player succeeding. We still should be planning in four-year cycles for each World Cup, but it still seems to end up with a situation of being a few months out and still no clue what the team or strategy will be. So perhaps some of these players should be considered at the right time - not for a JAMODI tour three years from a World Cup they're very unlikely to be part of, but when there's gaps to fill as the event approaches.

Napier should have been picked about five years ago instead of Luke Wright. His time has probably gone now.

I think England have been reluctant to pick him because of his tendency to get injured.

Henry wrote:Napier should have been picked about five years ago instead of Luke Wright. His time has probably gone now.

I think England have been reluctant to pick him because of his tendency to get injured.

He also has a tendency to be shoite when it really matters.

Basil wrote:

Henry wrote:Napier should have been picked about five years ago instead of Luke Wright. His time has probably gone now.

I think England have been reluctant to pick him because of his tendency to get injured.

He also has a tendency to be shoite when it really matters.

Don't tell me he disrupts the dressing room.