Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes

That is not an allegation that the team is faction-ridden or fighting amongst themselves – they at least appear to be a harmonious bunch – but that the cogs of the machine rarely mesh together and produce something more than a bunch of independently-spinning axles.

But I am convinced that each individual in the England team is a good enough player. Changing the personnel is unlikely to have much effect (although I have no idea at all why Alastair Cook is in the one-day squad). The selectors should now leave well enough alone and let them work out how to win a game which is not at Chester-le-Street or The Oval.

The one possible exception is Monty Panesar, who is now in India but not officially part of the squad.

However, I don’t see him providing any useful answers. That he cannot bat is not the problem: at worst we end up with a tail of Harmison, Anderson and Monty. That he is feeble in the field is something of a problem, but it ought not to be beyond the wit of the rest of the bowlers not to bowl lines and lengths which encourage the batsmen to hit it in his direction all the time. The real problem is that he is so slow to learn anything.

In Kanpur, Harbhajan effectively throttled England’s middle order by bowling differently to the way he had at Indore, and he will no doubt bowl yet differently in Bangalore because he will be able to read the pitch and the situation when he bowls and produce something appropriate. The chance of Panesar being able to emulate that is zero. At least Swann has some chance of doing so, even if he is much less of a bowler to start with.

So what hope is there for the line-up we saw today? Some, if you ask me, though I don’t claim to know anything much about 50-over cricket.

KP chose not to follow the advice I proffered in my last post but did the next best thing by promoting Bopara to open. He may have no experience of it at county level, but anyone who can get a double hundred in a 50-over game has to be worth a go, and today’s effort makes it a good move. But Bell seems to have taken some notice, so I will desist from sharpening the axe I was threatening to bring down on his neck.

I am agnostic about the captain dropping Shah to six and going in at three himself. I’m not sure how much more Pietersen offers than Shah: Owais is a faster starter than KP and would do more to keep up momentum when a wicket falls early, but KP would be the first to 70 assuming either of them get there.

I suppose there’s enough evidence that improvement is possible to make it worth watching on Sunday. At least it’s on at a less unsociable time.

I get the feeling that Pietersen is going to be a captain who'll play his favourites no matter what, even if there isn't that much justification for it. He likes Shah, therefore he'd keep him in the team at either three or six, despite the fact that a player of Shah's experience should have done a lot better than he has. He likes Patel, therefore he'll play him at Swann's expense, despite the fact that Patel really isn't good enough to be a frontline spinner. It works great when the players perform, but when they don't then it does seem a little hard-headed on the captain's part.

@Pochard - while there is no formal word-limit on DS posts, examining the Anderson issue, which I agree is worrrying, would have made my piece excessively long. I have no doubt that I shall want to discuss him at greater length in a future post.

@Marcus - This year, Shah has 350 ODI runs whereas Pietersen has 430, but they have almost identical strike rates. I'm deeply suspicious of Shah's credentials for Test cricket, but he is a success in this team, at least compared to the others.

@D Rat - We already have Bell and Collingwood who can do the accumulation thing. The only reason that Cook is anywhere near the ODI team that I can see is that it would be awkward if he isn't an ODI fixture when KP stops being captain, since he seems to be the preferred successor.

I believe Trescothick is one player whom England seem to miss in One day Cricket. I think he was their best One Day batsmen in the last decade (barring Petersen, of course). And what set him apart was his ability not to get bogged down. He normally scored at an impressive strike rate and regularly scored hundreds at the top of the order (which is where I believe the current England team is missing a trick or two-- in onedayers you play your best batsmen in the top 4). So much more than in tests Trescothick's departure has hurt England ODI Team. Though Nick Knight's average was slightly better I think Trescothick was far more the better player because of the no. of games he singlehandedly won or threatened to win for England. Average aint the biggest thing in ODI cricket otherwise Bevan and Hussey will be considered the only great ODI players and players like Jayasuriya a very ordinary one, contrary to the fact he is one of the greatest ever.

One reason I find ODI's boring and very limited in imagination is the fact that England's best spinner is not playing in India. Instead of genuine talent, bits and pieces players are preferred, instead of genuine openers, second rate wicky batsmen are preferred to open the innings. I think Shah has a lot of potential. I cannot wait for the Test series, and for the 7 ODI's to be over. Let's watch cricket where the best players play, and concerns about 'bat a little bit','bowl a little bit' are out the window. Flintoff, Broad, Anderson and Harmison seem, on paper, slightly more formidable than Australia's pace attack, considering Brett Lee's form. I hope to see some reverse swing from the pacers and of course I hope to see Monty Panesar after the second rate Aussie spinners got hammered by the Indians.