Be Excellent To Each Other

I was watching Sky last night as the abandonment news came through, and I thought this, having listened to the rants by Nick Knight and Bumble, and their various solutions - Short run ups, no fast bowlers, bowl one end, and would have agreed with this view.

Then I had a rethink this morning. The fans get their money back with this solution - Ok they bought booze, food, travel costs which are lost but they got their money back for the game they didn't see. If the teams had put on some sort of rehashed version of the game so that something happened, there would have been many accusations that the fans had been ripped off by paying for something that they didnt get to see (as they got some second class replacement), and not getting refunds.

The blame has to lie at Lancashires door. Yes, it rained a hell of a lot, but 95% of the ground was covered and fine to play, yet they somehow neglected the most crucial 4 square metres (either through poor covers or a fault in the new drainage). Amateurish, and given their need to rebuild themselves as they have a ground in urgent need of rebuilding and no tests coming until it has been, foolish.

So, we're terrible at one day cricket.

Bopara seems to think he's playing in a Test match. Shah seems to think that running is an optional extra. Strauss seems to think that Jimmy Anderson batting against Brett Lee is the best time to use the batting powerplay.

Solutions?

Hmmm... not sure.

First off, recall Ali Cook and get him opening. He's completely changed his game, scored a bucket of runs at high pace in the T20 Cup and has two back to back Pro40 centuries.

Pick more freaking batsmen. It's fine having eight players who can bowl... how about picking just six, trusting them and letting us have some specialist batsmen?

Don't drop your arguable MotM (Rashid) even if you think it might not spin that much. Spinners have been very effective in ODIs and T20s in recent years, and both Swann and Hauritz did well enough.

Also, hit Strauss around the head and make him use the powerplay when we have some freaking batsmen out there!

Ironic, seeing as Bopara seems to think he's playing T20 in a Test match. I'd agree with Cook opening; it might help him get back into form in the longer format, too.

Going with loads of all-rounders seems to be very popular at the moment, as you can see from the Aussie side. I can understand why, but I'd rather have perhaps just two or three (Broad, Colly and Rashid, arguably) and have a couple more specialist batsmen, too.

I agree.

That said, I'm quite a fan of Luke Wright. Ho hum.

I wonder who would be in my team:

Cook
Strauss
Wright
KP/Trott
Key/Shah
Colly
Prior
Rashid
Broad
Swann
Anderson/Sidebottom

Not sure about my batsmen, to be honest. Any two from KP/Trott/Key/Shah (I really want Shah to sort out his running and then he'd be very good indeed) or perhaps some others.

Wright can play up the order if we're behind on run rate and need some boshing done during the PP overs.

10 overs to be bowled by the two seamers and the two spinners, leaving 10 more from Wright/Colly. Given Colly's recent success with the ball, there's a chance you could get 15-20 from those two if the others aren't performing.

Also, I'd hit Strauss with a plank of wood until he understands the point of the batting powerplay.

Friday and yesterday were perfect examples as to why this version of the game is dead in the water.

Friday, no-one gave a shit (players, spectators) until the last 5 overs. Thats 30 balls of a 600 ball match. Just dragged on through the whole day with nothing happening.

Yesterday, not so turgid but both sides were just bereft of ideas. In both cases there was a determination to use the powerplay as late as possible (as on Friday) with absolutely no regard as to who was batting. You don't give Luke Wright five overs to get his eye in to use a powerplay. He comes out the blocks and blasts it or gets out regardless as to the circumstances (see his T20 performances in the summer). Its a nice idea batting him down the order though.

And yes, we should have played Rashid.

Also, controversially, I think we should drop Swann and Anderson for a few games. Anderson looks spent at the moment and we need him on form in SA. Swann needs to be taken down a peg, it would be useful to bring Rashid on during this pointless series to remind him that he isnt indispensable - this is largely due to reading a few of his tweets over the weekend that (in my opinion) aren't becoming of an england cricketer and that maybe he should stop sucking up the fame for a while - both him and Andersen wound Agnew up at the weekend which hints at something going on under the surface.

Oh, England were a bit on the blah side tonight, eh?

That (non) catch near the end - don't know the fella's name but he's rather chubby and clearly awful at catching.

I'm just tempted to copy Riles's last post and alter the days.

Did you watch it last night?

We took two good wickets in the opening overs, then shut up shop and restricted them from scoring. Restricting them from scoring appears to mean giving them a 100+ partnership with a powerplay in hand when they are chasing a low target. The last ten overs were a stroll.

We were about 50-60 runs short of a decent total.

Our team has one decent batsman of note, and we always rely (as we did in the Tests) on our lower order contributing as much as the top order (Strauss excepted).

And YET AGAIN we waited on using our batting powerplay until we had specialist bowlers at the crease. Will they ever learn?

Sideshow should be moved up the order.

I genuinely believe that they should change the rules about being stumped off a wide. I'm not bothered about this match (other than, guess what, Strauss is refusing to use the batting powerplay until we have no batsmen!!!), but it just seems counter-intuitive. You bowl an 'illegal' ball that the batsman cannot legitimately hit. He might try his best and in doing so become unbalanced and fall out of his crease (as just happened). I really don't think that poor bowling should be rewarded like that. And I'd say the same if it was Ponting getting out.

But seriously, Strauss, you have several times had two batsmen in, with their eye set, and refused to take the Powerplay. Why? There is not one single logical reason why not. I cannot even begin to comprehend even a fraction of what he is thinking. He genuinely believes it benefits the team to wait until our bowlers are at the crease before moving the field in. It shows a distinct lack of belief in his batsmen, and that he believes the powerplay is something that benefits the bowling side instead of the batting side. Every team that are half decent at ODIs plays this entirely differently. How can nobody have told him this? It beggars belief.

I am sure I made a post here, maybe it was somewhere else, about England and full tosses.

We always get out to full tosses. A more hittable ball you'll never see, and Shah just softly spoons it up to their fielder. We should really practice hitting full tosses, as we're losing at least one wicket per match and about 20 runs to fluffing a simple thwack.

To sum up - England are pants.

Quite.

This loss is actually less demoralising than the others. Lee bowled so very, very well.

Lee was awesome. In the Ashes Cricket game, I can't bat against him at all because of his speed, and it's all I can do to defend the shots.

Yay for England's history-makers!

Right, time to ditch the experiment of having a separate ODI team, as we have too many jack-of-all-trades and masters of none. With a couple of exceptions, I'd have the team that finished the last Test:

Strauss (c)
Cook
Shah
Wright
Collingwood
Bell
Prior (w)
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Onions

Get Ian Bell the fuck away from that team. Why not play Trott, the guy who's actually not shit?

They're both in good form for Warks at the moment, so I suppose there's an argument to include both of them. I can't see how they could do any worse than who's currently playing.

In fact, Wright's injured at the moment, so swap him out for Trott. If I were picking a team injuries not withstanding, it'd be:

Strauss (c)
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Wright
Prior (w)
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson

Can't argue with that team, though Colly needs to get his run-scoring going or he's gonna face the chop. Fielding and occasional bowling ain't enough.

We go through these phases all the time... pick lots of bits and pieces players, realise it doesn't work, pick the proper team, realise there isn't enough flexibility, gradually reintroduce bits and pieces players with initially promising results, go too far with it, realise it doesn't work etc etc. I call it the Dermot Reeve Cycle.

Christ, I'd forgotten these ODI games were still on. I know we're shit and everything, still clearly seven matches was overkill, probably even for Australia who I'm sure could just as easily have stuffed England 4-0 in a four match series.

Bah.. they couldn't even get that right.

We just beat Sri Lanka and South Africa back to back.

How the hell did that happen? We were fantastic in this match!

Bloody Excellent, can't help feeling a bit sad that we didn't let Smith have his runner though, that just seemed petty

Malc

Allow me to offer a counterpoint: Fuck Graeme Smith and his stupid smug face. Go on, limp! Limp, you fucker!

England will really have a decent batting lineup once KP and Prior come back in the side, especially with Trott waiting in the wings. Shame about the bowling, mind.

Well, you certainly make a point, and a rather compelling one.

Malc

There is only one cricketer I hate more than Graham Smith. But I think we should have let him have the runner, especially given that we were taking the piss by having Shah off the field for injury, his injury being that he is shit at fielding.

I thought that once we'd taken the 8th wicket, then we should have given him a runner.

Hang on, why are we suddenly lauding our batting lineup after one good score? Let's not get carried away here.

I'm sure that on 606 everyone is calling for Shah to be knighted by now, we are positively restrained by comparison.

Lauding? I said that once we got two of our three best batsmen back, it'd be a "decent batting lineup".

You're right, I really ought to try and curb this ludicrous unrestrained optimism.

No, you said it'd be a 'really decent batting lineup', there's a subtle difference. I suspect you were playing with your willy at the same time, too.

Nah, the fact it was totally petty, unfair and unreasonable only made his pissed-off little chipmunk face funnier. As did the fact that it'll almost definitely come back to bite Strauss on the arse at some point on the next tour.

[edit] The decision not to allow a runner is the thing that will bite Stauss on the arse, not Graeme Smith's smug-hamster-who's-sucked-a-lemon face, obv. [/edit]

Graeme Smith got cramp because he's fat and unfit is pretty much what Strauss said, reading between the lines.

Yup.

Also, Strauss was saying that the umpires weren't comfortable for someone having a runner if they've just got cramp.

An idea I had.

Why don't sides change after every 10 overs or so. That way if the conditions change it doesn't benefit one side more than another, and also if tain stops play, then you can always round back to the last 10 overs played.

The only downsides I can potentially see is that a side might loose momentum and there would be a slight delay between changes (but that could be minimised if everyone was ready to change)

Thoughts?

Malc

They're already thinking about doing two innings of 25 overs, but I'm not really for it, unless you carry on with the same batsmen that finished the first innings, and if you lose all ten within 25 overs you don't get another bat. The lower order batsmen sometimes don't get a bat as it is.

That's exactly what I mean, you would continue exactly where you were before the change. It would still be one innings of 50 overs each, it's just that you would change every 10.

Malc

It's too often - 25 and then a swap is more feasible, but I still don't know if I agree with it. I'd have to see it in action.

Btw, even though we're doing well at the moment, I still think seven all-rounders is too many.

Well the number of overs was just plucked out of the air by me, and there needs to be a balance between too many changes and equalising the conditions for the teams. 20 overs takes about 90 minutes, so I guess that might be a good number.

Malc

That's what Sachin Tendulkar was calling for recently, and he's better at cricket than you. Probably better at thinking too.

Bloody hell, just glanced over at cric info and it's 14/3

Strauss out for duck, Denly 5 and Shah 3!



Malc

Ah, that's better. I was worried I'd slipped into a parallel universe for a week or so.

27-4

And thus, the balance of the universe is restored.

cric info says 28/3!

Malc

I've got 29-3 here.

Runs and wickets all look alike.

On course for about 150 here - wicked.