I’m going to be honest here. I have no idea what England’s best ODI team is. Fortunately however (or should that be unfortunately?) I’m not alone. Nobody knows what England’s best XI is. Not even Peter Moores and the selectors.
Consequently I think we should give them some ideas. As Moores, Cook, Whitaker, Fraser, Newell and even Downton are all avid readers of TFT – or at least I can’t think of a single reason why they shouldn’t be (wink, wink) – this post will surely lay the foundations for an unlikely World Cup triumph. Or alternatively hammer another nail into our coffin.
You’ll find my suggested team below. Needless to say it comes with eleven caveats. There’s little point asking me why such and such is preferred to so and so. The answer is ‘I don’t really know’. It’s just gut instinct. Equally good cases could be made for all the players I’ve left out. Anyway, here goes …
Hales
Moeen
Bell
Root
Morgan (capt)
Buttler (wkt)
Bopara
Stokes
Broad
Plunkett
Anderson
The first thing that will strike you is that my favourite cricketer of all time, Alastair Cook, isn’t in my team. Much as we worship the ground he walks on, and much as our hearts flutter every time we see his angelic face, he simply doesn’t merit a place in the side.
Put it this way, if Trott doesn’t get in the team there’s no justification whatsoever for picking Cook. They both score their ODI runs at a strike rate of 77, but Trott averages 51 and our beloved leader just 37.
If we’re going to pick a steady batsman to hold the innings together while everyone else goes berserk, it should be Trotty. So there.
However, as we all know Cook is going to play regardless of how poorly he performs, for however long, in every format of the game he wants to play in, until he breaks all the records he’s supposed to break, then we’re stuck with him. Therefore, simply replace the word ‘Hales’ with ‘Cook’ at the top of my list.
You’ll notice that I’ve gone for Moeen as ‘the other’ opener. This is for three reasons (a) he opens in List A cricket for Worcestershire, (b) he averages 37 in ODIs with a strike rate of 96 (which is as good as anyone we’ve got), and (c) it means we don’t have to pick a spinner later on, thus giving us more options in the middle and late orders.
Will The Beard To Be Revered perform well as opener? I have no idea. But I don’t know if anyone else will do any better, and I’m not convinced that Cook and Hales is a good combination.
Bell survives at number three in my team simply because he’s a personal favourite (I told you I had no real rationale for some of these picks). I know Belly’s record is ever so slightly underwhelming, but he’s still a class player and I’m not convinced that Ballance, Vince or Taylor would do any better. My side also looks quite green so Bell’s experience works in his favour.
I’ve gone for Root at four because in theory he should be quite versatile. He has a decent technique should he need to bat properly, but he’s also very much a modern batsman capable of playing all the ramp shots and reverse sweeps required. He also played well at the end of last summer.
The middle-order basically picks itself. Morgan and Buttler are potential match-winners, and because we’ve already got a spinner in the side there’s room for Bopara at seven. Ravi has done well accelerating at the end of innings and his bowling provides a change of pace and some much needed insurance.
Stokes gets the nod at eight because he’s too talented to leave out. Sure he’ll go for a few runs, but he’ll take a few wickets too. I fear both Jordan and Woakes will go for a few runs but take no wickets to compensate. Stokes is also a classier batsman and a more than useful number eight. My team bats deeeeeep.
Broad and Anderson are automatic picks so the only name left to discuss is Plunkett. This is a controversial selection, but hear me out.
I’ve chosen Plunkett because his bowling should suit Australian wickets. He’s tall, strong, and the fastest bowler available. I think his muscular and aggressive style will suit the Australian venues. In fact, he reminds me a little of Andy Bichel: not express pace, but always in the batsman’s face.
As Finn was nowhere near his best last summer, and was well down on pace in the September ODIs, I don’t see him as a genuine wicket taking threat. That left a shoot-out between Plunkett and Jordan. My hunch is that the former will trouble top batsmen more; their domestic economy rates are identical.
So what do you think? Obviously my side’s about as likely to take the field together as the ECB explaining anything to the great unwashed, but stranger things have happened. Albeit not very often.
James Morgan
Hales, Root, Bell, KP, Morgan (capt), Buttler (wkt), Bopara, Stokes, Broad, Plunkett, Anderson
Hales, Roy, Bopara, Root, Morgan (C), Ali, Buttler(WK), Stokes, Broad, Finn, Anderson
We need to play with more power at the top and less worrying about wickets in hand therefore. Hales, Kieswetter, Bell, Morgan, Buttler, Ali, Bopara, Rashid, Woakes, Broad, Anderson though I may gamble and put in Billings for Bopara though some of you may state having 3 keepers in the side is a bit of a luxury. Maybe for balance have Trego in for Bell to up the bowling options without lowering the batting class.
Not Cook, Please Not Cook, Just Not Cook, Not Cook I’m begging you, Definitely Not Cook (capt), Not Alastair Cook, Anyone but Cook, Someone who’s not Cook, Certainly Not Cook, Indubitably Not Cook, Absolutely Not Cook.
Otherwise, I’m as all at sea as you are :)
I do have an attachment to Ian Bell. But I don’t like to talk about it publicly.
On the bowlers to suit Australian wickets angle, there are no WC matches at all at Perth and England don’t have a game at the Gabba. We play one Pool match each at the MCG, SCG and Adelaide and the rest are in New Zealand. In other words, we’re playing at the most ‘English’ style wickets Down Under and should just pick the best bowlers rather than ‘horses for Australian courses’.
That’s a very good point, although the MCG can be hard(ish) sometimes. Maybe woakes will play in the NZ games. I’m not a particular fan of horses for courses though. Variation in any attack is important, and I think the team I’ve picked should be effective as a unit on most pitches. I hope!
No KP? England’s doomed!
Looking at your list it is so obvious that we need KP.We will never score fast enough or get enough runs with this team.Oh dear, ECB and Andy, what have you done???
If Bell is in the team, he has to be at 1 or 2. He is best in ODI’s as an opener.
Agreed that is the ‘only’ spot he can play in with the extra hardness on the ball. Otherwise there is a strong chance he comes in against the slower bowlers and gets more than a little stuck. Even the most stringent Belltards admit that he can only really open.
Bell is a very special player and I’m sorry to leave him out, but I agree.
Another go at the team:
Cook, (c) Hales, Ali, Morgan, Root, Bopara, Buttler, (w) Stokes, Broad, Plunkett, Anderson.
I think Bell is a fine example of a player who reveals a either fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of batting on the part of his supporters, or alternatively that aesthetic concerns have a very significant cricket value simply in and of themselves, and perhaps even worthy of trumping actual effectiveness as a selection criteria.
For me personally, the correct criteria for selecting batsmen comes down to two issues : the range and frequency of deliveries he can likely score off, and the range and frequency of deliveries likely to dismiss him.
I can’t imagine anyone would argue that Bell merits selection on the first criteria, and I don’t think he especially merits selection on the second either.
If I had to define a criteria on which he does merit selection, it would be that when he does score he does so with sublime touch and beautiful execution beyond that of the other potential candidates, and I would speculate that when people suggest that he ought to be picked on the basis of “class”, this is exactly what they mean.
I can sympathise but it nevertheless troubles me, because I can’t shake the feeling that someone who is actually better at batting has to miss out.
You have put the Bell dilemma in a nutshell. I will never forget the first time I saw him play. Elegant and graceful with perfect touch and flow. It’s hoping for more of that, that makes him so difficult to leave out.
In the ODI format I think Ballance with his youth and versatility would be a better bet. However, I would still play Bell in a test match. There is the time for others to compensate should he go, ‘Bell like’. I think he is worth the risk in tests and his experience should also count for more.
Ballance is an excellent counterpoint because he bats like he’s shovelling coal, and I can recognise that as a result he’ll have to play a lot better to convince me he’s world class than he would if he hit the ball like David Gower.
And on the other hand maybe I’m overly sceptical of Bell’s true level of effectiveness on the basis that his photoshop perfect strokemaking just looks too good to be true.
Ballance can shovel as much coal as he wants. He is there to get the job done and I believe he can do it. In spades… !
I think you are being a bit harsh on Bell. He is strong off the front foot and back (he drives and cuts magnificently) and he’s equally good on both the off and leg sides. He’s a complete batsman, with a very good test record, and a decent ODI average of 37 with thirty four scores of 50+. He is, therefore, a proven performer who has a decent record.
What I think you’re missing, if you don’t mind me saying, is the mental side of batting. Most guys are extremely talented at the top level. What separates them is mental attributes: concentration, resilience, bravery, ability to handle pressure, and shot selection.
If Bell has a weakness it’s probably in this area. People expect more from him simply because he is so talented, irrespective of style. However, he is still a respected international batsman.
You say he’s taking the place of a better batsman, but who? Taylor is unproven at international level, having looked very hesitant on his test debut, while Vince is also an unknown quantity. Meanwhile, Roy averages less than 30 for Surrey.
The career of England’s new batting coach shows that weight of runs at county level doesn’t necessarily lead to success in internationals. Given that England are a poor ODIs side, I don’t think we should discount guys like Bell (who have performed well enough over the years) easily.
“Most guys are extremely talented at the top level. What separates them is mental attributes: concentration, resilience, bravery, ability to handle pressure, and shot selection.”
Well we could go into some detail on this, but I’ll keep it brief by suggesting I’m factoring mental attributes into my estimation of what deliveries are likely to result in runs or dismissals. Admittedly we’re still left with a pretty sketchy selection policy, but it’s only the internet after all.
I’d also say that picking players less on talent and more on the basis of superior professional craftsmanship, so to speak, is exactly the sort of coaching mentality that produces Alastair Cooks, and surely neither of us wants more of that.
Equally, bearing in mind how absolutely massive a factor experience is in producing a finished international cricketer, picking the guys with the most experience on the basis that they’re the most finished is another a policy that I have some reservations about, although maybe this is incompatible with the pragmatic concerns of selecting a side to win a major tournament.
While I’d agree that raw talent doesn’t separate batsmen to the same degree as it does bowlers, the ability to see the ball early and get it in the middle of the bat and off the square is surely the truest mark of batting ability, and if you think this is evenly distributed amongst international batsmen then I’m not sure we’re watching the same game.
As for who the better players than Bell are, I haven’t watched enough recent domestic cricket to have a very good idea, and I’m happy to concede that I can’t really mount a very strong argument against him without one.
I would like to think, however, that I know enough about the game to spot a guy that isn’t going to scare any bowling sides in one day internationals when I see one, and if I do then surely such a player is Ian Bell.
Ian Bell is all the things you say he say he is, James. That is understood.The problem, as you highlighted, lies more in mental discipline and in particular shot selection. When in form and his game is flowing he is superb but he is so often out unaccountably.His form has not been good of late.
We have a problem with Cook and Hales opening. Both are unpredictable, with Cook being more predictable than we might like.
If that goes belly up, one way or another, we need someone at 3 who can dig in with fortitude and take the game forward. I do not have the most confidence in Bell, in that role. Ballance might not have the experience but he has shown both the aptitude and the mentality. I have to say, the selectors don’t seem to agree with me.
You make a very strong case for Bell in terms of his statistics and his supreme ability, talent, and experience. Much stronger than mine. I watch the games and follow my nose. I did have a lengthy re-think based on the evidence you supplied but still, i would not play him in the ODI. I would prefer to see those who can take the game by the scruff of the neck and go forward. I cant see Bell doing that.
There is not the room for both Cook and Bell in the same ODI team.
We have got Cook and barring a major upheaval, that is an unassailable fact. Please do tell me if I am going wrong. Always like opinions from all sides and mostly open to a mind change!
I understand your reasons for Moeen opening, but I fear his lack of experience opening in ODIs may make him too cautious to get the quick starts we’ll need. Bell is a better bet to open – he’s done it before and can score quickly enough.
Stokes is mainly a batsman and needs a bit of time to play himself in – hence he’d be wasted down at 8 where he’ll have to attack from the start. Plunkett is way too expensive for ODIs so I wouldn’t pick him.
My XI: Hales, Bell, Root, Morgan (c), Stokes, Bopara, Buttler (w), Moeen, Broad, Finn, Anderson.
That’s a pretty good team and order Harmy
Plunkett’s domestic economy rate is no worse than his rivals for the role (Jordan really). Re: Moeen he’s so attacking for Worcs that he’s almost suicidal. It won’t be an issue. An opening combo of Bell and Cook is too slow. It didn’t really work. I’d be happy for Stokes to bat higher, possibly above Bopara, but he can’t bat above Morgan and Buttler as they are probably the best players and need to face as many balls as possible without being exposed to the new ball. That was my thinking anyway!
England have had the same tactics in ODIs for the last 20 years. Steady start, keep wickets in hand, and then look to accelerate in the last 15 overs. It never changes. They pick the personnel to play in that way.
England have ignored all the innovations in the way the game is played. The SriLanka method of going crazy from the start and look to get 100 off the first 15 overs. That came about in 1996. Then they have ignored the changes that have come about because of 20/20 cricket. England will just plod along as normal. Remember the computer says 230 is the score to get.
Cook, (c) Hales, Ballance, Morgan Root, Ali Buttler, (w) Stokes, Broad Plunkett, Anderson.
Being realistic and barring a disaster, Cook will open, no getting away from it. I would like to see Root remain at 5. Doing very well there and has been messed around too much.
Don’t like leaving out Bopara but can’t find a place for him.
Can’t say I’m confident.
Cook will open. No doubt. He may develop a strategic injury if he fails in the tri-series, but even if he gets couple of thirties or forties, he remains. Hales will open with him, in all likelihood. If not, another dasher… Buttler perhaps? I feel England need to be flexible about their number 3. If Cook goes, and it’s below 15 overs, then Bell. If “dasher” then Moeen should come in at three. Morgan/Bell, Root, Buttler (if not opening) Moeen (if not at 3) Stokes, At least for the matches in Australia, England should have a wrist spinner available. I can’t think of anyone better than Rashid to fit that role, and his batting is a plus. Followed by Jordan/Woakes, Broad, Anderson.
Cook, Hales. Bell (Ali), Morgan (Bell), Ali, Buttler, Rashid, Stokes, Jordan/Woakes, Broad Anderson
For the NZ games, and based on tri-series performance, perhaps replace Rashid with Jordan.Woakes, or even Plunkett.
For the Aussie games, there are 4 faster bowlers, two spinners, yet the team has batting depth. In Hales, Ali, Buttler and Stokes (occasionally Broad) there are players who can hit over the field. In Cook and Bell,you have the anchors, Ali and Morgan have the ability to rotate strike and go for the big hits when necessary. If Bell manages to regain a semblance of form and longevity at the crease (I have no hopes from Cook, but he may be out to prove us all wrong) this is actually a pretty good side.
Sorry to reply to myself… I can’t believe I missed out on Root and Bopara.
Cook, Hales, Bell, Morgan, Root, Ali, Bopara, Rashid, Stokes, Broad, Anderson
with some flexibility about # 3
In NZ, may want to replace Rashid with Jordan or Woakes, and in Australia perhaps Bopara will give way to one of them
Even stronger batting line up, and still 4 seamers and two pretty much front line spinners.
“some flexibility about # 3”.
Look who batted at #3 when we won an ODI in Oz:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/636162.html
Also, there doesn’t seem to be much Tredwell love down here but he has the second best average for an England spinner in ODIs ever (behind Underwood).
Admittedly he seldom runs through sides but he has only gone for over fifty just once in the last sixteen ODIs. England regularly underestimate how effective taking the pace off the ball can be in this format.
Re: Tredwell, I agree he’s a good bowler but finger spinners rarely do that well in Australia and he got pasted in the ODIs down under last year. Therefore I’ve got for Ali as the best all round package. He’s certainly the better test spinner now imho, and possibly just as much of a wicket taking option as Tredders in ODIs. I’d expect them both to go for a few runs though. In my team, the spinner might not bowl 10 overs. More like 6 or 7 depending on circumstances.
Rashid is an interesting case. Wrist spinners usually do better down under, but they have to be good ones. Rashid often goes for plenty in domestic ODIs, isn’t always a front line bowler for Yorks these days, and I’m not sure I trust him entirely yet (although I do like him as a cricketer)
“he got pasted in the ODIs down under last year”.
He took 9-0-42-0, 5-0-26-0 and 7-0-28-0 which are hardly pastings! You may be thinking of the home ODI series a year earlier? These weren’t very exciting figures admittedly but he was the second or third most economical bowler on each occasion.
Except possibly at the MCG, there is a case for playing both Tredwell and Moeen. A captain who was more confident in his spinners might also help!
I think it was the ease with which they played him that sticks in my mind. He also went for 37 runs in just 3 overs in the T20 at the MCG.
The more I think about this, the more I realize that Bopra/Bell as openers might actually work – sadly though Golden Sweets will captain and open, so I guess that theory is out the door………….
Morgan (c) Root, Broad, Anderson, Plunkett, Ali, Bopara, Bell, KP, Buttler (w), Trott!
I’ve got a different theory about Cook. He’ll play, as we know, and he shouldn’t, as we know – but given that, I think he’s best at 3. That way, you can open with a couple of real dashers when the fields are up and they can go full bore knowing he can (try and) bat through behind them. And for my dashers I’ve gone for a tired and tested partnership that’s scored a stack of runs. Root at 4, for the versatility that James mentioned and Moeen at 6 for the same reason – to play shots or to dig us out of a hole if required.
Hales, Lumb, Cook, Root, Morgan, Moeen, Buttler, Stokes, Broad, Plunkett, Anderson
This side also reflects one of my pet hates about England’s ODI bowling – the best way to slow down the run rate is to take wickets. I want wicket takers in my side – I think England go onto the defensive much too early in ODI’s. I like Plunkett – although if Finn is ready, he would get my vote. Stokes and Jordan is a dead heat but I’m going for Stokes because his best is better, I think, especially with the bat.
Much as I love Ian Bell he just doesn’t score enough runs for the opportunities he’s given and Bopara misses out because Cook plays. Maybe he plays instead of Plunkett in NZ where the pitches are more suited to his bowling, and we’re likely to need more batting because the ball nibbles around more.
All being well, and here’s hoping, Cook’s best value is as an opening bat. I always value the Hales/Lumb partnership because it works so well, but to my mind it’s a non starter with Cook in the side.
Oh, I’ll be astonished if they pick Lumb or bat Cook at 3 – but if Cook plays, you want him away from the first powerplay, surely? Let him be the glue – but not when the field is up.
Just noticed my typo – Hales and Lumb “a tired and tested partnership”!
Find the lack of Taylor in ANY above teams surprising (what more does he have to do with a domestic average of 53 at above 80 strike rate). I have never really “got” Morgan. Seems like a player that plays special shots rather than special innings IMHO. Wouldn’t be in my side after the last 12 months. No Bell either, feel he has had his time as a one day player and never hit the hights. Give Root a chance at showing he can captain.
Hales, Roy, Taylor, Bopara, Root (c), Moeen, Buttler (wk), Stokes, Broad, Anderson, Finn.
Surprised Ballance doesn’t seem to be in the Touring squad. Would be very close to this team for me (competing with Taylor and Bopara). LOVE Billings as a player, and would have him along in the squad as well for the experience. Was tempted by Vince as well. So much batting talent around, which makes Cook’s inevitable selection even more depressing.
Woakes deserves a shot in the squad, and might bring MIlls/Meeker along as something different. Maybe Riley as a squad member too. Well ther is my team and 17 man touring squad. Pretty green, but we are going to get battered anyway so would rather use it as an experience for the younger players.
Is that you as skipper James? You are a tactical genius I suppose!
Pretty much agree with your selection, though I would like to see Ballance in the side as he can anchor an innings if required, but is also more than capable of accelerating quickly. However, as (I think) Maxie pointed out in a post earlier in the week, he has been selected for the Lions tour. This seems odd to me, and I’m not sure what it means for his chances of playing in the WC.
Hi Loz, I rate Ballance highly and would’ve loved to find a spot for him. I just couldn’t pick him ahead of Bell and Root. The latter’s bowling helps his case a little. I’m also quite keen to keep Ballance away from the Aussies for now. I see him as a bit of a not-so-secret weapon for the Ashes. Let’s not give them too much time to develop plans against him. Maybe the selectors think the same, although I doubt they’re that cunning to be honest!
Be fair James. He is a better bet than Bell on current form and he fits the going forward bill. Have to say I do like Bell as much as our dear Leader, but Ballance gets my vote.
James, what have you made of the Aussies performances against Pakistan? Just struggling on slow pitches against a quality batsman, or an ageing team who over-performed against us last winter?
I hardly think giving England a 5-0 pasting is over achieving, it’s far more than that and I think you are giving Australia a bit of disservice with your comment.
However, an aging side I agree with you – I’m quite certain the Australian selectors will move Siddle, Rodgers, Doolen, Lyon and possibly Haddin out for the Ashes, but much depends on the series v India coming up.
Phil Hughes is a great talent and I’m not sure what he needs to do, but I would stick with him.
As I have said many times on the TFT, Steve Smith is the main man, and I think he was being lined upto bat at 3 until Rodgers went for a fish outside off late yesterday. He is going to be the next number 3 for Australia, pretty certain about that. Many people on TFT don’t rate him, but his stats in the last 12 months has been a standout. A good article on Cricinfo from Bryan Coverdale about Steve Smith is well worth a read. He will captain Australia in the not too distant future. He has a big chance today to show what he can do under pressure.
Sadly this series has been dominated by a coin toss, and that’s taking nothing away from what the Paki’s are doing – Younus Khan is simply awesome. I’m heading to the ground now actually, to get a better look at this fast developing Pakistani side, in particular their spinners.
Oh, and to see Steve Smith get a hundred!
Oh dear, what have I said????? Steve Smith out for zip………
I didn’t mean the Aussies didn’t deserve their win, but that I don’t recall anyone (even Glenn McGrath!) predicting a 5-0. So in that sense I thought they over-performed.
Will be interesting to see how Smith gets on in the Ashes coming up next year
I think it’s mainly a reflection of the fact that away teams in general simply can’t win a test at the moment. Home advantage seems to be getting bigger and bigger. The Aussies’ key player agsinst Eng was Mitch, who I imagine is somewhat neutered by the slow pitches, the Pakistani spinners are better than Lyon, and they’ve also got some world class batsmen who are extremely difficult to dislodge. I think the Aussies were flattered a little by the 5-0 because, as we now know, England were in turmoil and divided, but they’re still a good team. Ageing? Certainly, but still very good in familiar conditions.
I don’t get what is going on with Ballance. He is my preferred number 3 for the reasons that you gave. Absence from ODI squad weird in my eyes. He is also very good in partnerships with the younger players. There does seem to be a bit of a crowd possible at 3 but I rate him as the best prospect going forward.!
Hales, Bell, Ballance, Ali, Bopara (c), Patel, Buttler, Plunkett, Woakes, Broad, Tredwell
I dunno.
I can’t help but feel it doesn’t matter what individuals the England ODI side picks, the mindset or approach we take will always be too ‘square’ for us to have any chance of winning anything. That’s why I’ve opted for fat Samit, more for what he embodies than anything else: the ECB would love to have molded him into a honed athlete capable of making 13% more quick singles than before. He’s the anti-Root, and I don’t even dislike Root that much, but instead of looking like the product of a nutritionist’s guide to achieving percentage gains, Samit looks like an actual, real-life cricketer, has a bit of oomph to his mindset, can hit sixes (a minimum requirement for positions 1-8) and often plays in his own zone, nonplussed about what’s going on at the other end. Plus he bowls a bit of left arm, and I’m looking for 10-15 overs from Bopara, Ali plus one other.
As I say, though – it doesn’t really matter. We’ll probably get between 240-270 runs in every match, and win 76% of our matches – losing in the 1/4 final.
[…] Yadda yadda yadda. I don’t really do content over here any more; other people just seem to put things better than I do, or more frustratingly simply get there first. I was going to do a squad review, but in my uniquely lazy way, would I really do any better or offer any other suggestions not already thought up in the article and comments pages of place like here? […]
Rashid had a fantastic season in the Big Bash when he played down under. So maybe he’s worth a shot.
Still, I believe that England destroyed him by making him carry drinks for the best part of a year, in which time he missed out on gaining more experience as a bowler…
Bairstow suffered the same fate. They should have either played him or given him back to Yorkshire.