Ten tips for improving England's ODI chances

4. Biff It, Don’t tap it! “Whack it!” is the slogan of a well-known fruit-shaped chocolate product, but it could equally be applied to England’s top order. We don’t, at present, have someone who can hit the ball a very long way from a good length, striking fear into the hearts of opposition bowlers and rousing the love of the crowd. Freddie and KP are the obvious exceptions, but (a) they’re never fit and (b) they always bat too low. Get them in at No. 1, start the innings at 7-an-over in the first Powerplay and the opposition are on the back foot from ball one. Look at the likes of Dilshan and Jayasuriya, Afridi, Ryder and McCullum, Sehwag, even David Warner.

5. Don’t Get Rid of Domestic 50-Over Cricket If you’re not playing it regularly, how do you expect to get good at it. That said, how often do England players actually play for their counties anyway?

6. Play Domestic 50-Over cricket on Uncovered Pitches: This has the effect of: encouraging young bowlers, spinners in particular (of whom there are not enough); weeding out the men from the boys when it comes to batting (no more flat-track bullies); challenging the captaincy nous of the prime candidates, as it adds an extra dimension to their game-planning, suggesting who might have the vision to think outside the box in international games.

7. Don’t Conform: At first glance, England look like they follow this instruction rather too well already. They don’t have a power-hitter; they employ dibbly-dobblers for at least 40 overs every innings; from 2010, they won’t practice the game they play most often. The list goes on. But what I really mean is: think outside the box, when you’re on the field. Try different field placings. Get the keeper to stand up to the seamers (see my next point). Don’t play into the opposition’s hands by being wholly one-dimensional and predictable. Find players like Sohail Tanvir who bowl of the wrong foot, or slinger-Malinga, or mystery spinner Ajantha Mendis, who doesn’t “wheelie-bin” down six stock balls per over; Philip Hughes whose stance is a little too open; Shiv Chanderpaul even more so.

8. Pick James Foster: For goodness sake. He’s the most tidy gloveman around. Probably in the world. He can stand up to all of the seamers, except perhaps for Anderson, and put extra pressure on all those big-hitters who like to dance up and down the track. And he can bat very nicely too, thank you very much. Do you not remember the World Twenty20 tournament - he was pretty much the only positive to be drawn from the whole competition, from an England perspective.

9. Pick Dimi Mascarenhas: I know this is one of my bug-bears. But I’ve got to say it again. The man is an excellent one-day cricketer. He has played in the IPL. He has led a cup-winning side for Hampshire. He, like KP, has learnt a lot from Warney. He hit Yuvraj for five sixes in the last over of an ODI; his economy rate is excellent (4.24 in domestic cricket, as against Broad’s 5.12); he fields well; he’s a character (which England as a unit seem to lack).

10.Put the Football Away: Seriously, guys. We don’t see David Beckham warming up for a World Cup qualifier in Zagreb by chucking down a few doosras to Rio Ferdinand in the nets. It’s just a constant source of ridicule and injury, and I was pleased to see the comments from Andrew Strauss on Cricinfo that suggest this might be a thing of the past.

On point 1 why is Ryan Sidebottom playing? Why is Ravi Bopara playing? Eoin Morgan should be given back to Ireland. How are they going to reach test status if we nick their best players? Why is Rashid playing? Rashid is overrated and not ready for international cricket. Even Owais Shah has had a quiet season.

None of those have had spectacular seasons.

As was mentioned in the article England need positive intent. Too often with England it reaches the 30th over and the 100 is barely up. We need bowlers who are accurate, bowl straight and can mix up what they bowl. A team line-up like this perhaps:

1. Michael Lumb
2. Kevin Pietersen
3. Andrew Strauss (c)
4. Jonathan Trott
5. Paul Collingwood
6. James Foster (w)
7. Andrew Flintoff
8. Dimitri Mascarenhas
9. Stuart Broad
10. Graeme Swann
11. James Anderson

One has to wonder what the selectors do.

Great article...I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made. Especially regarding the trying out of new players, again and again we hear the same old tired names mentioned when changing the side. If you just look at stats Ian Bell will always be mentioned but we all know he is mentally fragile...and remeber our best one day batsmen of recent times marcus trescothick would never have been picked based on his stats but Fletcher knew he had something about him. With so many meaningless ODI's this is a perfect tinme to start seeng who has got what it takes.
Here's a squad I would like to see tried out.

Batsmen

Joe Denly
James Taylor
Kevin Pietersen
Andrew Strauss
Jonathan Trott
James Hildreth
Peter Trego

Wicket Keepers

James Foster
Steven Davies

Bowlers

Dimitri Mascarenhas
Stuart Broad
Adil Rashid
James Anderson
Graham Napier
Chris Woakes
Greame Swann
Mark Davies

how about 11 points to improve Englands ODI chances:

Strauss (c)
Mustard (wk)
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Blackwell
Rashid
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson

I agree entirely that the tried and trusted failures in the ODI format (Bopara, Shah, Prior, Collingwood, Bresnan, Wright) need to take a bow and exit stage left. I think the selectors have a decent handle on selection for the Test team but have become very confused with the ODI team. Selection for this series seems to have been based on (batsmen at least) giving a go to those who missed out on the test series so that their confidence isn't too low. What we really, really need is power hitters who can clear the boundary. Phil Mustard had a reasonable start to his international career (av 22, sr 92) but was then dropped and hasn't been seen since. He continues to do well for Durham and is highly rated by Shane Warne. I think Blackwell deserves ago too, he might be fat but he sure can hit it.

some sensible points. Problem is that a lot of this has been tried before. We've tried a hitter at the top of the innings (Mustard) and it hasn't really worked. When we bring our young players in (Bopara, Rashid) they frankly don't look up to the job. We then get people calling for them to be dropped. Pick James Foster, well maybe but he was only a qualified success in the Twenty20. Keeping was good, batting not up to it. Pick Mascarenhas, well look at his ODI record, a batting average of 23 and a bowling average of 48.5 aren't very good really are they? People remember that one over against India but that's the only time he's done it with the bat. With the ball top batsmen on decent pitches will simply take him to the cleaners as Chris Gayle showed.

The only time England have had a decent-ish ODI side in the last 10 years was during 2004 -2005 when it was the test team plus Collingwood. If your test players are your best players they should be in all form, KP is after all.

Nice one. I feel like adding a eleventh which says "give up the game' or "get the women"s team in "but that would be over the top. Yet watching these four games and several others over the years, I feel that England is always looking to a KP or a Flintoff to do some big hitting or some outstanding bowling. Otherwise the team, the captaincy, the tactics are all so predictable and mundane that there is nothing exciting or different happening. The results too are predictably depressing. Win the toss bat, make a decent if not electrifying start,lose your way, field and bowl badly and lose by a mile. Or win the toss and fail to chase down after sticking the opposition in. India has managed to get lots of youngsters in, some of whom have made it. England first needs to recognise that this is an important aspect of the overall game {still} and if they wish to compete they must give their best. They just have not turned up in the one days this summer. Sridhar

Thanks for the comments guys. Just thought I'd come back on a couple of them:

@Bayard: I guess I probably meant "the kind of team who are held in similar esteem to England" -- no sleight on NZ, who're obviously better in the ODI format at the moment. Indeed, I reckon England would struggle against pretty much everyone apart from Zimbabwe at the moment; even Bangladesh are a canny one-day outfit, with Shakib-ul Hasan at the helm.

@Richard S / Mark: Mark Davies is a quality player, who has suffered from being struck down with more than his fair share of injury, at inopportune moments. He's particularly useful in the first-class format, in my opinion, but I'd love to see him in the national set-up.

@Jacob: True, Dimi's stats aren't that strong in the wicket-taking department at ODI level. What the stats don't say is how many batsmen he has strangled in his one-day career: he may not get the wicket, but the guy who affords the batter more room at the other end generally does!

English players have great potential and they can beat any team in world. Imagine full strength English Team. Players like KP,Freddie,Strauss,Collingwood,Anderson are world class players. Also, they have very very strong backup players line up. If they have to improve their chances of wining World Cup, first they have to setup correct team lineup. Take a toll of Ravi Bopara,Owais Shah give them break. Where are players like, Mascerhanens? If he would have given as many chances as Bopara, he could have won, game or two single handedly with his bowling and batting for england. Also, they have to stop altering the positions of the players much, Luke Wright is such a exciting talent, he must play at opening spot. My full fledged English team would have this line up. 1.Andrew Strauss 2.Luke Wright 3.Kevin Pietersen 4.Paul Collingwood 5.Andrew Flintoff 6.Matt Prior 7.D'mitri Mascerhanens 8.Stuart Board/Tim Bresnan 9.Adil Rashid 10.Greame Swann 11.James Anderson

Foster IS by far and away the best gloveman, but as things stand, Prior is allegedly the 'big hitter' at the top of the order. I don't see Jimmy F getting a go until a 'new' Tresco is found: that's in terms of strike rate and consistency. A 'proper' opening bat, rather than a pinch-hitter might be the best bet: I'm surprised none have mentioned Carberry as an option (current injury notwithstanding). I'm pleased Denly is being given a try out.

I'd also like to echo support for Ian Blackwell. Since his move north, his game has improved no end. He offers big hitting as well, now, as a mature approach when the team are under the kosh. And his bowling is much improved. Colly looks tired, too tired, and his bowling has been better than his batting of late. I'm sure he'll come good though

For me, our strongest ODI team is (when fit):
Strauss*
Carberry/Denly
Pietersen
Shah/Trott
Collingwood
Blackwell
Flintoff/Wright (depending on fitness)
Foster+
Broad
Swann
Anderson

first i would like to contratulate u on writin such a good article . ben u talked about chop and change of late 80's and early 90's but we all know that right from 1971 when odis were started till 1992 world cup england were one of the best sides . Giving that they reached in 3 of first 5 w/c finals. but since 1992 england have lost way back not becuse they dont have talent but becuse fisrt of as international viwer i think they dont have as much intrest in 50 over game than test matches . Secondly the way of cricket has changed since then a lot evry team in last 17 years has some explosive players westindies has gayle , zimbabwe has flower , s.frica has many , pakistan has afridi ,india has sewhag and many more etc even nz had astle and cairns . England lacked that firepower thats why they have failed . then they are having bits and pice of cricketrs these days . i think they should have 5 best batsman , 1 all rounder , i keeper like dhoni , macculum or sngakarra or even boucher will

I think the key points to this topic is the lack of imagination the ECB are willing to try.
We can all list a solid group of 15 players from the domestic level, yet the same names keep appearing. What would be wrong in trying a few new names, especially those who were playing in the IPL/ICL, independant teams selecting the players who will shine and the business, yet England don't seem to want to give these guys a go.
Strauss is an option for ODI's and has proven it against the Aussies, and I would be happy with him continuing at the top of the order & skippering. The main problem is England middle order and lack of "Postivie" hitters.
For me Collingwood has been a great servant for England, but surely it must be time to stand aside, bring in the like of Napier, Mascarenhas, Fosters glove work is top notch, give him a go. Rashid should be playing where possible, the One day game can be influenced by good spinners, Rashid&Swann could be a different outlook for England.
EXPERIMENT!

All the ten points by Ben Tanner are very good and valid. Sometimes I cannot understand the English selection process. Adil Rashid played excellently and almost won the first ODI against Australia for England. What was his reward? He was dropped for the next two games!
As long as you don't pick match winners, you'll never win matches, simple as that.

@Bumble:
I've heard bad excuses in my time, Bumble, but that one takes the biscuit! How is it that the Australians, the Indians, the Sri Lankans and the Pakistanis, all of whom play more cricket than England, are so much better than the English? You get better at a game by playing it more, not by sitting on the sidelines.

So wait, you want to play the exact same cricket that is played at international level but you are in favor of having uncovered pitches? Surely that would be even more of a difference than playing 10 less overs? Plus whilst you might not have "flat-track bullies" with your uncovered pitches you will end up with a lot of bowlers who are "seaming-pitch superstars". Great when the pitch offers something but when they get to flatter pitches in ODIs they will be mererly cannon fodder.
And whilst you want England to give it a whack in the opening overs your suggestion of uncovered pitches is the one thing that would discourage domestic batsmen from hitting through the line at the start of an innings, and are they really going to suddenly start whacking it around when they get to the international level having spent their whole careers palying safety first in the opening overs on uncovered wickets?
I'm sorry but a lot of these tips seem really confused in their reasoning.

My team as an imaginary England selector, assuming full squad availability (fitness), one qualification issue (resolved in Feb 2010??), and one special contract!...
Wright
Tresco - award him an 'at home' only limited overs contract
Napier
Carberry
Kieswetter (Mustard until he qualifies early next year)
Blackwell
Pietersen
Flintoff
Broad
Rashid or Schofield
Mascarehnas (captain)

In an era where batting friendly wickets are dominant, these guys have the potential to rip any attack apart. Plus there's quality bowling available and some more than useful 'part timers'.

Is this the most attacking side England can muster?

Excellent article - well thought out & composed. Ben you clearly are a lover of cricket round the world, picking appropriate examples from all the main teams - nice one.

Foster - what is wrong with England? As if 20/20 was not enough - personally I have felt for years he should have been no. in the more established forms of the game - Tests & 50 overs.

Trescothick. What is wrong with picking him for matches in England and forget about touring him? After all - its not illegal is it? Is it only me who feels this way? Still lets hope the fella sorts out his illness in India next month. More for himself than for England - would hate that on anyone.

Why on earth do the selectors persevere with the failures of Bopara and Shah (whose running and fielding is a disaster)? Surely Bell and Trott would give us greater strength, with Bell opening with Strauss, and Trott at No. 3. Then Denly should be given the chance to cement his place (or Wright), followed by Collingwood (if he has regained his timing and confidence?) With Prior coming in at No.6, Broad at No7 (All-rounder!), Swann, Sidebottom, Anderson and Onions to complete the squad. Then surely we would have a squad which can compete with most teams, with the additional bonus of Pietersen when he is fit?
The booing of Strauss by some sections of the crowd after the last game was a disgrace after his recent performances. Also his last two dismissals have been shown to be incorrect which must be so frustrating for him!

Wielding the axe may not necessarily be the best approach we have done it time and time again, however there are several players who I think have had enough chances (Shah, Bresnan, Morgan, Sidebottom) and should be discarded, I would select a squad of about 15 and depending on form, fitness and pitch conditions give them a run for next 12 months, then re-asses then. This gives players an adequate chance and 'continuation of selection'. My first XI would be:
1. Strauss - Captain
2. Denly
3. Pietersen
4. Trott
5. Flintoff
6. Collingwood
7. Prior
8. Mascarenhas
9. Swann
10.Anderson
11. Onions

12. Bopara or Bell - Batting reserve
13. Foster - Keeping reserve
14. Rashid - Spinning reserve
15. Broad - Bowling reserve

I would also try whenever possible to get both spinners in at expense of either Onions or Mascarenhas. If Flintoff is not fit then a last chance should be given to Luke Wright!