England v New Zealand, 5xODI + 1xT20, 9-23 Jun, 2015

taipan wrote:Great series. Probably the best since the 438 series.

ODI number 438? It didn't look that good.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64306.html

taipan wrote:Great series. Probably the best since the 438 series.

May be a case of NSR, but i wouldn't have this series much better or worse than the odi series between India and Australia a couple of years ago when everything was chased down, and I thought that was shit.

Really good innings by Bairstow.

I'm struggling to think of a better ODI series.

taipan wrote:

merlin wrote:D/L is the best system ever invented.

+

Shame the game was decided by the Duck. Would have been a cracker of a finish if it went full term.

Yes, a great shame.

Swings and roundabouts, but yes, would have rather start off with the two D/L and finished with 3 non reduced matches. Amazing that even with two rain reduced matches it still had the highest aggregate runs scored in a 5 match series.

Unbelievable, even Jonny B Crapp joined the party... maybe his England career has some mileage in it yet.

Shame for it to be decided with an unbalanced D/L chase, would rather they'd come back on a reserve day or just called it an honourable draw if they can't get say 35-40 overs in when the other side had the full 50. Still, an impressive fightback after Bill Shatner took out the top order, and a series that hopefully sets the tone for this summer and England's future ODI efforts for a long time to come.

A great series. I think everyone wishes these Kiwis could stay for longer.

Some real positives for England. The batting looks better than the bowling, however.

The one negative was Jason Roy- I'm starting to think he's a bit out of his depth, which has surprised me as he's always looked a good player in County cricket. Reminds me a bit of when they promoted Luke Wright to open- Lots of big swipes for little result. Minimal footwork and composure.

He needs 20 or 25 games to prove it one way or the other, though, like everyone else. Would be a massive backward step to just replace him with an "orthodox" opener at this point.

beamer wrote:He needs 20 or 25 games to prove it one way or the other, though, like everyone else. Would be a massive backward step to just replace him with an "orthodox" opener at this point.

But maybe another batsman who plays in a similar way? Vince? Northeast? Or maybe Billings or Barstow could be promoted to open.

Well, there's plenty of options. Just think 5 games is nowhere near enough to judge someone on, or to give them a chance to find their feet at this level - obviously some players hit the ground running whereas others take a while to adapt and settle.

We're so far from the next World Cup that I think all the new players in the ODI setup deserve a year to prove themselves, even if they try out a few different combinations out of a core squad of 14 or 15. On the bowling side, injuries and workload management will make that necessary anyway. With the batting we want players to have defined roles and not be batting at 7 one game and opening the next, but a bit of fine tuning to find the best setup is fair enough.

Henry wrote:A great series. I think everyone wishes these Kiwis could stay for longer.

Some real positives for England. The batting looks better than the bowling, however.

The one negative was Jason Roy- I'm starting to think he's a bit out of his depth, which has surprised me as he's always looked a good player in County cricket. Reminds me a bit of when they promoted Luke Wright to open- Lots of big swipes for little result. Minimal footwork and composure.

Oh NOOOO! Trev turns into Mick Vaughan.

And Roy's cheque is in the post.

taipan wrote:

merlin wrote:D/L is the best system ever invented.

Henry wrote:

beamer wrote:He needs 20 or 25 games to prove it one way or the other, though, like everyone else. Would be a massive backward step to just replace him with an "orthodox" opener at this point.

But maybe another batsman who plays in a similar way? Vince? Northeast? Or maybe Billings or Barstow could be promoted to open.

Pom fans are funny.

We have just had our best ODI series in living memory, Sow let's fark around with the batting line up.

Roy could be a bit like Finch.

On his day could be seriously destructive - yet at other times could look a bit hit and miss.

But he needs to be given time to show what the can do.

As others have commented, great series. I too thought we'd get whipped - and couldn't envisage such a rapid and successful conversion of mindset and approach. As it transpired I think we may even have won it 4-1 had it not been for the rain in the game when Rashid and Plunkett were biffing it about. Flipside to this, so that I don't get hopes up too high - perhaps NZ were slightly jaded, and a few injuries got in their way? But all in all we've got to be happy with where we're going.

England are always good at ODI cricket immediately AFTER another World Cup disaster. Think of Adam Hollioake's side in 1997-8,  Vaughan's side in 2003-04, and Strauss's team in 2008-09, then Cook's side in 2012-13. They were all pretty decent sides as we looked to pick up the pieces of another World Cup shambles, but they didn't last because after a couple of failures, the selectors chickened out and went back to the players and tactics that had failed them before.

Let's hope this time everyone holds their nerve when (inevitably) things go a bit wrong now and then.

I think this World Cup failure was spectacular enough to prove there's no going back to the old model. No more excuses, it was just so obvious that our Jurassic cricket couldn't be defended any longer. About four World Cups too late, mind you, but it's happened. Thanks Bangladesh, for making sure the cracks were far too big to paper over.

There will be setbacks along the way and it's possible they might reintroduce one or two more "traditional style" players at some stage, not forgetting the possibility of rule changes in the one-day game to redress the balance between bat and ball, if that happens at all. But there's surely no going back to the old approach completely.

I can see Broad maybe getting back in to the ODI side - it would be foolish to write him off at 28, but in all honesty it's curtains for Bell and Cook.

Moeen should get back in, maybe as a replacement for Billings as he offers another bowling option and you can't have enough of those.

Here's a thought.

Morgan has been lauded for lifting this ODI side to the dizzy heights it has achieved. He is also credited with having bound them all together with a specific focus on beating the opposition by attacking and attacking. He has attracted high praise for his leadership qualities which show in his handling of the players and for thinking outside the box (a la Macca) when setting fields, changing the bowling etc ... .He clearly also gets on famously with Root - the present backbone of the Test squad.

He therefore ticks all the boxes.

So ..... why not draft Morgan into the Test team to replace the cumbersome or is it lumber-some Ballance with a view to replacing Cook as captain, should the Chef fail by the third test, with Morgan taking over until such time as Root finally ascends to the throne.

The Kiwis did something similar when dumping Taylor and opting for Macca ...

Yeah, I know .... it won't ever happen.
Morgan isn't as nice a chap (or indeed from a decent Essex family) as Cook is ...
Case closed!

How many test hundreds does Ballance under his belt?

What are Morgans's first class stats Like?

It's not going to happen - I think Strauss has been quite cute in having an ODI captain who is no threat to Cook. Now if Root had been ODI captain............

In any event, if Ballance, or Bell for that matter, failed to cut the mustard, I'd either promote Moeen up the order and play Rashid, or slot Hales in

Yeah, Morgan has to get some major FC runs if he has any ambitions of playing Test cricket again. In the past he hasn't taken those chances, either through form or prioritising IPL, since his spell in the side a few years ago.

His name will probably at least be on the radar again if there is a spot up for grabs, but it seems like greater separation of the formats is the modern way which might count against him.

TBH, with the amount of international cricket we're playing now, a fair degree of separation between formats is the obvious thing to do. In recent years with so many back to back tests, half the ODI side have been jaded when facing 5 ODIs & a T20 in 17 days or so following 4 or 5 tests in 6 weeks.

Yes, have 3 or 4 of the Test XI playing short stuff, especially if still fresh, playing well and full of confidence - but generally use 50 over games to blood new players, and let them establish themselves in international cricket. Also, when we get another case of "stage fright" so to speak (eg Simon Kerrigan) - it isn't necessarily going to be a total disaster (or flogging to death of other bowlers) as it will be in tests. If its plain after 3 or 4 overs he's not coping, there are a handful of overs to be covered rather than a possible 20+.

In between ODIs, the youngsters can then play FC cricket for their counties, thus improving their technique for Test cricket - both bowlers and batsmen. We really don't need young players learning & perfecting their trade in international matches, where they never get a chance to iron out any technical issues due to lack of time off between games.

Merlin wrote:Here's a thought.

Morgan has been lauded for lifting this ODI side to the dizzy heights it has achieved. He is also credited with having bound them all together with a specific focus on beating the opposition by attacking and attacking. He has attracted high praise for his leadership qualities which show in his handling of the players and for thinking outside the box (a la Macca) when setting fields, changing the bowling etc ... .He clearly also gets on famously with Root - the present backbone of the Test squad.

He therefore ticks all the boxes.

So ..... why not draft Morgan into the Test team to replace the cumbersome or is it lumber-some Ballance with a view to replacing Cook as captain, should the Chef fail by the third test, with Morgan taking over until such time as Root finally  ascends to the throne.

The Kiwis did something similar when dumping Taylor and opting for Macca ...

Yeah, I know .... it won't ever happen.
Morgan isn't as nice a chap (or indeed from a decent Essex family) as Cook is ...
Case closed!

Haha - I touted a similar idea Merlin (hadn't taken it as far as Morgan taking on the skipper's job though - that is truly radical) - either in this thread or on the Ashes one. And like you I realise it is nothing but a pipe dream.

Going along with Beamer's and Basil's thoughts maybe its best that Morgan is kept away from the negativity of the test batting approach (unless that is in line for a shake-up as well) as that could potentially be hugely detrimental to his ODI/T20 form. Perhaps that is what contributed to his decline in the shortened formats previously?

Well, the Test line-up wasn't that negative in the NZ series. Cook will always play his way, but when he's making centuries we won't complain about that. Lyth seems to have more positive intent than most of the other recent openers we've tried. Obviously we've got a couple of out of form players in there, but Root always makes things happen then we have an exciting axis at 6-7-8 developing.

There's perhaps an opportunity for an aggressive player in the top 5, someone to take over the KP role long term, but sticking the one-day line-up into the Test side might be going a bit far. Still, rather that than the approach we've generally had the last couple of years - maybe England could lead the way in scoring 500 in a day in Test cricket!