England's ODI Batting

God, it's shit. Paul Collingwood averages most out of the current lot and he wouldn't get in a few of the other sides. He scores a hundred every couple of years which is only good because it's more often than any f*cker else whose name is not Kevin Pietersen. Every statistical analysis you could think of would portray all of this current lot as being utter dog-shit. They really are a bunch of useless f*ckers. Apparently, the batsmen we've used in this tournament have 9 100s to their name in nearly 500 ODIs - shit. Total f*cking shit. They average between 24 and 35 - uber shit. You'd think for all that they might at least score at a decent rate - the highest s/r is 78! 70 f*cking 8 averaging 30. Rubbish. Total and utter bollocks. Every single one of them apart from Collingwood (all-rounder, don't ya know?) should be dropped. They're wankety wank wank wank.

An England batsman hasn't scored a century in 16 ODIs. Since Jan 1st 2008 there have only been five scores of 90 or more (none over 111), and Kevin Pietersen unsurprisingly has three of those as well as two of the three hundreds. So basically, we score slowly, we don't score big, and big hundreds simply don't exist. It's a combination that leads to total shitness.

Since Pietersen debuted, not a single Englishman apart from him has averaged more than 35.47. Not a single one.

So, what's the answer then? Are there six world-beaters lying hidden in county cricket (or South Africa) who are being ignored by the selectors?

In terms of the current lot:
Strauss - has to stay I think. ODI record is ordinary but provides a bit of stability at the top, no sensible alternatives as captain either.
Denly - too early to judge. No big score yet but still think there's potential there, needs 20-25 games to make a judgement.
Shah - on his day he's as good as anyone but those good days are increasingly rare. Awful runner between the wickets of course. He's 30 or 31 so time to move on perhaps.
Collingwood - always answers his critics when his place is questioned, brings more than just his batting so certainly worth his place.
Morgan - a bit of a mystery, he's been either brilliant or awful with little in between. Another one who has to be given 20-25 matches I think.
Bopara - form and confidence shot to pieces, needs a year or more out of the international scene.
Prior - not a one-day player. Let Davies and (before long) Kieswetter battle it out for his place.

Obviously KP comes in for one of the above, Trott has to be a strong candidate and there's debate about the keeper-batsman position. But there's no great depth of talent to call on, and we've effectively given up on the game at county level so I can't see a lot more coming through. There needs to be a clear strategy for the one-day team, OK individuals who don't perform have to go but the players who stay need to know their roles rather than being moved up and down the order every series.

Alex Hales...

(Fark, this messageboard is sloooooooooooooooooooow)

Well, I compiled a list of players who are worth bearing in mind on 'another forum' earlier:

Jonathan Trott - bit of a 'well, duh!' selection, but England's selectors f*cked it.
Craig Kieswetter - qualification pending.
Eoin Morgan - not a 'Gus favourite, but deserving of consideration now.
James Vince - young lad, has talent.
Alex Hales - ditto, can hit a big ball.
Ed Joyce - good, solid opener. Has a blot against his name having failed already but still has something.
Ian Bell - lower order accumulator. Has an okay ODI average.
Graham Napier - all-rounder, an under-rated bowler.
Sajid Mahmood - wayward, but fast. Big question marks, but worthy of consideration.
James Taylor - similar mould to Bell, high price on his wicket.
James Adams - decent opener at Hampshire.
Michael Lumb - already on the radar but a good hitter. Probably not good enough but still, another name.
Samit Patel - all-rounder, obviously already on the radar, questionable fitness and attitude.
Chris Benham - a 'Gus favourite - a OD specialist who can score hundreds.
Liam Dawson - all-rounder, very good OD sla, can bat more than adequately.
Ian Blackwell - fat, ugly, but a very good all-round cricketer.
Steve Davies - another duh selection, should have opened yesterday, should open in SA.

They're not all necessarily good enough, but I think the likes of Vince, Hales, Dawson, Patel, Kieswetter and Morgan all have something to offer with plenty of years left in the bank. Blackwell might be worth another go. Joyce is a good player, Bell has the highest average of any Englishman bar Pietersen in the past 5 years. I think Napier's been really unlucky not to get in somewhere as fourth seamer. He's a decent bowler, faster than you'd think, and could be used as a floater for England's batting power play. It wouldn't come off very often, but he strikes me as being our equivalent to the Afridi all-rounder. Pencil him in at 7 or 8 and see what happens.

Just to note, the list above doesn't include established international players like Pietersen, Strauss, Collingwood or Prior. The debates as to whether they're good enough are for another post - personally, I would have only Pietersen and Collingwood of those two If I thought Denly or Bopara were good enough, they'd be in the list. Just a note on Flintoff, I don't think he's worth persevering with when he comes back. He's a top, top player, but you'll never get a full series out of him. He hasn't got much left in the tank and is a renegade now, so I'd leave him well alone. Just my opinion, like.

So if you're discarding Strauss, I guess it's Colly as "default" captain again? (i.e. not because he's necessarily a very good captain, but there's nobody else even approaching the status of being a credible candidate!)

Pietersen would be my captain, always. He's the only player who will never be dropped.

Given that the events of earlier this year have probably made that out of the question for a few years at least though, who else would you choose?

Pietersen said he was asked about the Twenny20 captaincy, so I don't know. After him it would have to be Colly, wouldn't it?

Or James Anderson

Did I see Gus just put forward Graham Napiers name?

Worse - he big-upped Ian Bell.

And no mention of Cook who has had an excellent one-day season with Essex. Didn't look a natural ODI player in the past but made some big scores at a decent rate this year when back from Test duty.

Looking at the list it's the old problem of too many counties, too many candidates - not too many stand out as obvious picks. So the selectors just take the easy option and mostly stick with what they've got.

There has been a lack of continuity with the one-day side as long as I can remember though - times when they've used it as a trial for the Test side, spells when they have packed it with bits-and-pieces players who would never get near Test cricket, etc. They need a strategy, a core of players they believe can carry it out and then experiment a bit with the remaining places.

Dello wrote:Worse - he big-upped Ian Bell.

Bell - A lower order accumulator.

Gus - cheaping 'big ups'

Well, it's more of a big up than the usual "TAYPOC" or "FFS"...

The one stand-out thing about Gus' list for me is the lack of specialist bowlers - that sums up the weakness in our domestic game - the paucity of young bowling talent is scary.

Basil wrote:The one stand-out thing about Gus' list for me is the lack of specialist bowlers

That's because it's a thread about the batting, I guess... I know he's included a few bowlers and the current attack isn't the best but it's making competitive totals on a consistent basis that is the big issue.

To be fair - it's both isn't it?

Both batting and the lack of wicket taking bowling options. Not got a lot going for us then have we?

Fark me sideways if Ian Ronald Bell is the saviour of our ODI side!

Seriously Gus, Seriously, have you gone stark raving bonkers?

Of the list you mention, Hales and Vince are too young, the rest are going to be ash gash as out current lot, bar Trott whom knows he can score runs at the top level now!

We're basically farked in ODI cricket as the county system for ODI cricket is gash...

So, you're ruling out Colchesters finest then?

Of the list you mention, Hales and Vince are too young,

Why? They've clearly got talent. What have we got to lose by giving a couple of young guys a go?

JKLever wrote:So, you're ruling out Colchesters finest then?

Who would that be?

Henry wrote:

Of the list you mention, Hales and Vince are too young,

Why? They've clearly got talent. What have we got to lose by giving a couple of young guys a go?

Very much so, In fact I think Vince is the best of the lot of the Young ones I have seen in Pro40 this season, however 6 or 7 Pro40 games is not enough IMO.

A full season, where they perform in ALL disciplines of the game, then we can have a look.

holcs wrote:

JKLever wrote:So, you're ruling out Colchesters finest then?

Who would that be?

Napier!

And it was only a half serious question!

JKLever wrote:

holcs wrote:

JKLever wrote:So, you're ruling out Colchesters finest then?

Who would that be?

Napier!

And it was only a half serious question!

He actually should be better than he is. Bowls 85+ and whacks it nicely straight! And yet he's pump, so indeed I am!!

Well at least they seem to have decided that going out and having a swing is the way to go- about 17 years too late mind you. Maybe they were waiting for the ODI cricket to go full circle and teams would come back round to the old Sunil Gavaskar in the 1975 world cup way of batting eventually.

Whoever they pick from now on - they've got to be slap happy unorthodox dashers who play like they're Pakistani or Windian- so yes to Shah and Morgan and a big fat eternal no to Ian Bell.

Shah hasn't been the same batsman since you gave him a masterclass, Tom.

Ruined him, you have.