A Right Shellacking: ODI Series Review

England cantered to victory in the 5th ODI at Cardiff on Saturday. Despite losing the toss and batting first on a pitch that helped the seamers, we still posted an imposing 324. Sri Lanka never looked like chasing the total and stuttered to a pretty dismal 202 all out.

It was an all too familiar story. The Lankans haven’t really been competitive all summer. England have completely dominated them from start to finish. So much so that cynical old gits (like me!) have wondered how much we’ve actually learned from the inaugural Super Series – other than the fact that nobody gives a rat’s whatsit about the Super Series anyway.

With just a solitary T20 left to go (at the Rose Bowl tomorrow evening) Sri Lanka will be itching to get on the plane home. I’ve put a few quid on England at 1/3 by using these sports betting tips. I’m confident because the tourists look completely shot to me. England, on other hand, seem determined to put the boot in. I wonder whether some of our players still hold a grudge from the Jos Buttler mankad incident a couple of years ago?

Although England have won this ODI series easily – some might say too easily – a couple of players have really cemented their place in the side. After a somewhat disappointing run, Jason Roy is finally beginning to show the consistency we all wanted to see. I was waxing lyrical about him this time last year, only to have my faith eroded by a few flaky performances. He looks on top of his game now though, has worked on his technical frailties, and is maturing into a very dangerous player indeed.

Some might say ‘it was only Sri Lanka’, and they’ve got a point of course, but I’m not worried about Roy in the same way that I worry about Alex Hales. Roy has a sensational eye and always looks like he’s got plenty of time to play the ball. I certainly think he has the pure natural talent to adjust to any standard of bowling.

It was also good to see James Vince make a pleasant half-century at the weekend. He’s a very attractive player and spending some time at the crease will do him the world of good. The fact he was bowled twice during the test match at Lord’s suggests to me that nerves have been getting the better of him (after all, there doesn’t seem to be much wrong with his method). If that’s the case, let’s hope these runs make him feel more at ease in an England shirt.

The other stars in this series have been Jos Buttler – as if we expect anything less from him these days – and Chris Woakes. Although the latter didn’t take that many wickets he bowled tidily and might end up keeping his place when the more spectacular, but equally more erratic, Ben Stokes returns to the fold.

Adil Rashid has also come on leaps and bounds over the last couple of weeks – although the claim that he’s a wicket-taker is a bit of a fallacy. Adil only took 6 wickets in the series, and has actually only taken 33 wickets in 30 ODIs (at an average of 43!) overall. Encouragingly however, Rashid seems to be developing a bit more control. His career economy rate of 5.65 isn’t bad and obviously he helps the team enormously by adding variation to the attack.

We should also applaud two of England’s somewhat unheralded heroes: David Willey and Liam Plunkett. Although I’m a sucker for bowlers with pace, and I believe medium-pacers usually need something a bit special to succeed in international cricket (think Chaminda Vaas), David Willey is doing just fine. He’ll never be Mitchell Starc or Mitchell Johnson, but he’s certainly better than the hapless Harry Gurney.

What’s more, it’s impossible not to like Willey’s aggression and enthusiasm. His slightly over-the-top celebrations when he takes a wicket – he looks like a footballer who’s just scored the winning goal in the World Cup final – are infectious. I can see him turning into a cult hero for England.

Liam Plunkett can also be pleased with his series. He’ll never have the most natural bowling action in the world, but he’s strong, aggressive and makes the attack more robust. He’s often the first bowler to be dropped when things go wrong (so we’ll have to wait and see if this is a turning point in his career) but I like him as a cricketer and hope he plays more for England.

Finally we move on to those who didn’t quite reach the heights over the last couple of weeks. After a sensational test series, Jonny Bairstow didn’t really make the impact expected. A top score of 29* in three inns was a bit disappointing. It’s far too early to give up on Bairstow as an ODI player, but it’s interesting that his domestic list A record is nowhere near as impressive as his first class average. Maybe there’s something in that? Time will tell.

Last but not least, Eoin Morgan disappointed yet again with the bat. What are we going to do with the skipper? I’m afraid a top score of 43 won’t silence the critics. A few months ago I argued that Morgan’s England career can be separated into two clear halves: his first three years as an international batsmen were prolific but his last three have been quite underwhelming.

If one excludes runs made against associate nations, Morgan averages just 30 in ODIs since 2012. It’s a real shame. He should be at his peak right now, but instead his career graph shows long-term decline. Although the retirement of James Taylor has eased the pressure on the skipper’s place somewhat, and he continues to perform well as a pure captain, he desperately needs some runs.

I just worry that Eoin isn’t the same player anymore. The swagger that characterised his early career has been missing for a long time. Although his prodigious talent must still be lurking under the surface somewhere, I’m beginning to worry that he’ll never recapture his best form. Whereas his method used to be simple and his mind clear, he now looks consumed by doubts. Perhaps he’s thinking too hard about his game?

James Morgan
Written in collaboration with GamblingSitesOnline

15 comments

  • “I wonder whether some of our players still hold a grudge from the Jos Buttler mankad incident a couple of years ago?”

    Seems unlikely as only four players from that match are still playing for England (Root, Morgan, Buttler, Jordan).

    ” I’m not worried about Roy in the same way that I worry about Alex Hales. Roy has a sensational eye and always looks like he’s got plenty of time to play the ball. I certainly think he has the pure natural talent to adjust to any standard of bowling”.

    And yet Hales has the better f/c average (38.5 to 36.3) and has batted most of his career in the top three in D1 whereas Roy has often batted at No.5 in D2. Roy also only has six f/c centuries. I’m not saying that to be anti-Roy (I expect he will get a chance in the Test team middle order) but just that it’s case ‘not proven’ IMO.

    • When I watch Hales against extreme pace (e.g. Pat Cummins last year) he was late on nearly every delivery and looked really shaken. I’ve seen Roy play against genuine quicks and he rarely seemed rushed. Of course, he does have other issues though.

      I’m not saying that Roy is a better player – particularly when it comes to first class cricket (and there’s much more to batting than reactions of course) but I think in terms of pure talent Roy is definitely up there.

      I recall playing a school match when I was 18. The opposition had a young fast bowler who went on to play for Worcs a few times. He was far too quick for most of our team (including myself) but a youngster making his first appearance for the first XI seemed to have no problems – even though he was coming in at No8 and had never made a 50 before at any level.

      This young guy wasn’t the most highly rated player in his year at the time (we had a few really promising players) but after watching him we all knew he had the talent (in terms of his pure eye) to become really, really good. His name was Mark Hardinges and he went to make over 150 appearances for Gloucestershire. The next year he broke all school records. You can’t teach / coach a brilliant eye. I think Roy has this rare talent … more so than Hales imho.

      • I suspect Hales was simply out of touch in that Australia series (plus Cummins is a very good bowler – hope he can get fit as world cricket needs quality bowlers). I’d certainly agree that f/c averages don’t prove ability against pace as there is so little of it in the CC.

        Hales and Roy may both be players who go on very hot streaks when they look absolute world beaters – but who also suffer slumps when they look awful. Roy looked terrible in the ODI series in SA.

        • Yes he did look poor. He developed a flaw whereby he wasn’t defending with a particularly straight bat (at least I recall that’s what the issue was). I just think that a good measure of a player’s potential is how much time they have to play (very) quick bowling. It doesn’t always work out, as Ramprakash always looked pure quality but never did much for England, but I do have high hopes for Roy. He might always been a streaky player, as you rightly say, but I think he has a high ceiling.

  • For a long time, other nations have worked out that the middle overs of an innings need wrist spin or pace. Rashid and Plunkett have provided this to England and kept more pressure on opponents.

  • To be fair, Morgan had a good summer in 2015 against the two World Cup finalists, but before then and since then his form has been poor. He deserves an extended run but he needs runs between now and the Champs Trophy.

    The rest of the batting looks fine – Roy has answered questions about contributing more than just breezy 20s and 30s, albeit against a fairly friendly attack. Stokes has to come back in, and at the moment it’s probably for Bairstow. Difficult to assess Bairstow because of the strength of the top order.

    Not convinced by either Jordan or Plunkett. Particularly disappointed in Jordan because I thought his performance in T20 World Cup might be the start of something a bit better than what we got. To be honest, never seen anything in Plunkett to get excited about. Quick but not express and minimal variations to speak of.

    All in all, a pretty solid series all round against a mediocre opposition. Pakistan will be interesting!

    • “Pakistan will be interesting!”

      Much more so in the Tests I think – Pakistan have been a poor white-ball side for some time and are ranked as low as 9th.

      • Absolutely in the tests, but I think their bowling attack will ask a great deal more questions of England’s top order in the ODIs than Sri Lanka did. England’s ODI strength is by far their batting, so if Wahab and Amir etc get into them, then the series will be open.

        • Agreed. Although England bat deep it will be interesting to see how we recover if Wahab / Amir make early inroads. I’ve always been surprised that Pakistan aren’t further up the ODI rankings. They have some good players.

          • Pakistan’s problem is their batting – their ODI SR this decade is 79.1 which is the worst of the ‘big eight’ (five of whom have SRs over 85). Their batsmen have been left behind by the T20 revolution where they didn’t have their own franchise and have been largely excluded for various reasons from others (I think I’m right in saying they could play in the first season of the IPL but haven’t played since). Now they have their own franchise, hopefully they’ll catch up but it isn’t going to happen in one year.

            Their ODI spin bowling is also an issue since the decline of Ajmal. Yasir Shah hasn’t yet show he is as good an ODI bowler as he is in Tests (one demolition job on Zimbabwe excepted).

    • Why would Stokes have to come back into the one day side? He’s hardly set the world alight with bat or ball there. Test cricket – one of the first picked for sure – but one day cricket, he’s not a necessity. The team looks organized and balanced as it is.

  • I thought this tweet was rather OTT

    Michael Vaughan @MichaelVaughan
    This @englandcricket one day side are fantastic to watch .. The best ODI side I have seen us have by a country mile

    We’re doing well, but let’s wait until we beat a proper side before claims like that are made

  • I worry about the praise for Jos Buttler in white ball cricket, not because he does not deserve it but because it always seems to be followed (in the press) by calls for his return to the test side. His weaknesses against the red ball have been ruthlessly exposed by decent bowlers and the suggestion he should take the gloves (with Bairstow as a specialist bat) can only be a joke. He has to be the worst keeper in an England test side in the 50 years I have watched test cricket. It is a real conundrum; his role in the white ball team is holding back Sam Billings, and Billings is the only one of the keepers in favour with the selectors who can both bat and keep at an acceptable level. I would like to see Buttler recognised purely as a white ball player, Bairstow as a specialist bat and Billings coming into the test team, perhaps in place of Compton, as the keeper batsman.

    • I agree re: Buttler’s batting at test level. I’m hoping to write about this in the coming days when thoughts turn to the upcoming tests.

      There are some quotes from Bayliss today (I saw them on cricinfo) saying that Jos and Stokes could easily play as specialist batsmen in test cricket. I really don’t understand the thinking there. Jos looked technically poor against Australia, is too bottom handed imho, and hasn’t yet proved he can play the short ball in test cricket.

      This is all my opinion of course, and players have the ability to improve and work at their game, but it struck me as particularly odd for Bayliss to talk-up Buttler as a test batsman at the current time because he hasn’t played a single first class match since October last year!

    • In my view Buttler’s a better keeper than Bairstow and no worse than Matt Prior was at the start of his Test career. Richard Blakey was awful, too, though only played a couple of Tests. Unlike Bairstow, he looks like he could become a decent keeper. He just needs to put in the hours that Prior and Alec Stewart both did.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting