England - Are we witnessing the greatest ODI batting side of all-time?

[CricFan2012]

I don't think there has ever been a more explosive and dynamic ODI batting side than that of Englands.

They have:

Hales
Roy
Root
Bairstow
Morgan - dip in form but will pick up in ashes
stokes
butler
Ali

that is proper batting all the way till 8 if they play this team, but at a single given time there will be 7 of these players on the field.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Calling it the greatest batting side of all time is an overstatement. Calling it the greatest ODI batting side is an overstatement too but less however, this could very well be the most dynamic batting unit of all time. And the fact that they have guys like Woakes as their tailenders, it is pretty solid.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Maybe on those dreadful english pitches, but as time will evidently prove they will choke again and again when it really matters.

 

[CricFan2012]

Maybe on those dreadful english pitches, but as time will evidently prove they will choke again and again when it really matters.

Mate you're thinkin of saffers, to be fair to England this side only chances in T20 2016 final and champions trophy 2017 semis. Saffers have choked way more.

 

[bujhee kom]

Powerful line up. The ARs give them balance.

 

[troodon]

They could not beat any team when it matters.

Lost to WI in the T20 WC. Then got mauled by a supposedly weak Pak team in CT.

The problem for England is, their batting is good against pop gun attacks. The moment there is some turn or reverse for pacers, their batting collapses. Bowling is pretty ordinary too. Too many one dimensional bowlers.

England got a very good ODI/T20 team. But not a championship material one.

 

[Gubol123]

I don't think there has ever been a more explosive and dynamic ODI batting side than that of Englands.

They have:

Hales
Roy
Root
Bairstow
Morgan - dip in form but will pick up in ashes
stokes
butler
Ali

that is proper batting all the way till 8 if they play this team, but at a single given time there will be 7 of these players on the field.

That is a pretty average team when put under pressure. It will crack if there is a bit of pressure, hint swing or seam movement or even a bit of turn. They are all explosive when they get gun barrel straight pitches... Current Indian, Australian, Pakistan will more clutch matches that the above team...

 

[srh]

I don't think there has ever been a more explosive and dynamic ODI batting side than that of Englands.

They have:

Hales
Roy
Root
Bairstow
Morgan - dip in form but will pick up in ashes
stokes
butler
Ali

that is proper batting all the way till 8 if they play this team, but at a single given time there will be 7 of these players on the field.

Agreed. I dont remember any ODI team having this much (1) firepower in their batting lineup and so (2) deep. This (1) + (2) combination is never heard of.

 

[TestMatch]

These guys look good today, but will lose - like they did in the Champion's Trophy - when faced with decent bowling.

 

[Asif khan]

The all-conquering Aussie side of the early noughties say HI!

 

[HitWicket]

They could not beat any team when it matters.

Lost to WI in the T20 WC. Then got mauled by a supposedly weak Pak team in CT.

Chasing 230 in what was near definitely a knockout game against SA in the wt20 (featuring notorious pop gun bowlers Rabada, Steyn, Abbott and Tahir)? Heck, the way the champions trophy is set up nearly every game is quite possibly a knockout and there they walked over another popgun attack lead by Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. Even in the wt20 they still effectively got up to what was a respectable total that as seen should have been defended.

 

[Madplayer]

Agreed. I dont remember any ODI team having this much (1) firepower in their batting lineup and so (2) deep. This (1) + (2) combination is never heard of.

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Lehmann
Bevan
Symonds

This is the team that Australia played against India in 2003 final. This is what you call an explosive line up and every single player, EVERY single one of them is a match winner. And it is explosive as well. Perhaps you ca make a case for lehmann being the inferior one among these.

 

[New Yorker]

They could not beat any team when it matters.

Lost to WI in the T20 WC. Then got mauled by a supposedly weak Pak team in CT.

The problem for England is, their batting is good against pop gun attacks. The moment there is some turn or reverse for pacers, their batting collapses. Bowling is pretty ordinary too. Too many one dimensional bowlers.

England got a very good ODI/T20 team. But not a championship material one.

Pakistan mauled everyone in the CT. They were the best team of the tournament.

To their credit, England didn't loose by 180 runs.

If you have the benefit of hindsight, use it.

 

[TheRock]

Pakistan mauled everyone in the CT. They were the best team of the tournament.

To their credit, England didn't loose by 180 runs.

If you have the benefit of hindsight, use it.

Yep. A team which did not lose to pakistan by 180 runs in ICC Champions Trophy has to be the greatest ODI batting side of all time.

ROFL, England would have most likely lost by even bigger margin had they batted 2nd instead of batting 1st.

 

[Justcrazy]

England batting has depth , no doubt about that , but they need to leave a legacy and win a tournament or two .

 

[Ab Fan]

No. This is similar to some of the Saffers side who destroy teams in bilaterals but struggle in ICC tournaments.

Australia of 2003 was arguably the greatest side of all time.

 

[Ab Fan]

I don't think there has ever been a more explosive and dynamic ODI batting side than that of Englands.

They have:

Hales
Roy
Root
Bairstow
Morgan - dip in form but will pick up in ashes
stokes
butler
Ali

that is proper batting all the way till 8 if they play this team, but at a single given time there will be 7 of these players on the field.

India's best XI with the bat currently> this England side

 

[Bubby]

Hi everyone, this is my first post on pakpassion, I think as most members pointed out, yes they have a pretty dynamic batting lineup, but to say they are the greatest is an overkill, the batting lineup of Australia 2003, India 2011,south Africa 2015 are more clutch and have a better bowling lineup especially Australia, if you include Warne in that lineup than it is unbeatable

 

[Bubby]

India's best XI with the bat currently> this England side

Nah, there are way too many passengers in Indian lineup, Kedar , Rahane, Pandey can't hit big to save their lives and Dhoni is a pale shadow of himself, with Jadeja and Axar or Bhuvi they can score 10 ball 15 or 20 ball 25 but they can't blast attack it puts too much pressure on Rohit, Kohli and Pandya of which Pandya is new and Rohit consumes a lot of deliveries need to bring Iyer, Pant, Rahul, Shankar, Hooda ASAP in this lineup.

 

[Chrish]

LOL!

Although I would have never previously predicted them to become as good as they are atm.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Greatest ODI team? against West Indies? I remember ABDV scored like 101 runs in 31 balls against West Indies lol

 

[Bilal7]

Then that makes the current Pakistan ODI attack the best bowling attack of all time.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Indian team between 2008 to 2012 had a far superior batting line up and I won't even compare it to the GOAT Aussie team.

 

[Ab Fan]

Nah, there are way too many passengers in Indian lineup, leaf, rahane, pandey can't hit big to save their lives and Dhoni is a pale shadow of himself, with jadeja and axar or bhuvi they can score 10 ball 15 or 20 ball 25 but they can't blast attack it puts too much pressure on rohit, kohli and pandya of which pandya is new and rohit consumes a lot of deliveries need to bring iyer, pant, Rahul, Shankar, hooda ASAP in this lineup.

Rahane,Axar and Pandey won't be in India's best XI.

India's lineup will be:

Rohit
Dhawan
Kohli
Rahul
Dhoni
Pandya
Jadhav
Jadeja

It's definitely close now.

 

[Bilal7]

Rahane,Axar and Pandey won't be in India's best XI.

India's lineup will be:

Rohit
Dhawan
Kohli
Rahul
Dhoni
Pandya
Jadhav
Jadeja

It's definitely close now.

Combined XI with an emphasis on batting would be:

1) Hales
2) Rohit
3) Kohli
4) Root
5) Dhoni
6) Stokes
7) Moeen
8) Pandya

4 each so yeah, it's pretty close. Depends where the batting has to be done.

 

[Hasan123]

No it isn't.

 

[Robert]

I think they have won 11 out of their last 13 or something.

Makes that collapse in the semifinal against Pakistan baffling.

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

Not till they win something

 

[ToeCrusher2]

They certainly have the x-factor at the top of the order, the explosive power at the top is something which India is missing, we are still stuck with pathetic rahane instead of grooming an explosive hitter like pant. Pandya and Pant in the same team would be amazing but one can only dream

 

[hadi123]

A far way off from being the best ODI batting side of all time but it is one of the most aggressive. Even the players who are in for their bowling such as Plunkett, Woakes & Rashid are more than capable with the bat. I still remember that ODI England played against Sri Lanka last year where England looked dead and buried but then the likes of Woakes and Plunkett played a big part in rescuing the game to tie the match from a position where it looked like it would be an easy win for Sri Lanka. Plunkett hitting that last ball six.

 

[pakistani pride]

Yes when it comes to JAMODIS.

 

[Bubby]

Rahane,Axar and Pandey won't be in India's best XI.

India's lineup will be:

Rohit
Dhawan
Kohli
Rahul
Dhoni
Pandya
Jadhav
Jadeja

It's definitely close now.

I am not sold on jadhav and Jadeja, while rohit and dhawan are not long time solution, we need to find their replacements ASAP.

 

[Ab Fan]

I am not sold on jadhav and Jadeja, while rohit and dhawan are not long time solution, we need to find their replacements ASAP.

Why do you think Rohit and Dhawan aren't long time solutions??

Jadeja is all ok for 8 position. Yes Moen is a much better bat no doubt but then England overall batting or lower middle order isn't all that clutch too.

 

[CricFan2012]

Then that makes the current Pakistan ODI attack the best bowling attack of all time.

4 matches doesn't make us all time great, but our attack is the second best in the world CURRENTLY, second to Australias crazy pace attack.

England has been posting scores of excess of 350-400 with this batting line up for almost 3 YEARS now. They also scored 444 against our bowling line up.

 

[CricFan2012]

I am not sold on jadhav and Jadeja, while rohit and dhawan are not long time solution, we need to find their replacements ASAP.

bro rohit is 30 and dhawan is 31, one of them can play next 2 world cups, but yeah, rahul can replace an opener and a big hitter like pandya can be introduced.

 

[Syed1]

Any batting will look ATG infront of this Windies attack


#just saying

 

[New Yorker]

Yep. A team which did not lose to pakistan by 180 runs in ICC Champions Trophy has to be the greatest ODI batting side of all time.

ROFL, England would have most likely lost by even bigger margin had they batted 2nd instead of batting 1st.

The claim that England is the best batting side ever is I think ludicrous. But let's at least not pretend that England lost to a weak side in the CT, "supposedly" being the weasel word of the week. Pakistan was the best side of the tournament and England did better against them relatively speaking than did India in the final.

 

[CricFan2012]

Any batting will look ATG infront of this Windies attack


#just saying

umm bro, did you not watch the series where they trashed our very own bowling scoring 444? They made 300+ on all occasions IIRC? Does that mean our bowling is worse than windies because they did not concede over 400?

Fact is that englands dynamic approach to batting since 2015 has reaped them dividends, and they might possibly be the best ODI batting ever, once they win a world cup with their battting then it'll be irrefutable.

 

[Syed1]

umm bro, did you not watch the series where they trashed our very own bowling scoring 444? They made 300+ on all occasions IIRC? Does that mean our bowling is worse than windies because they did not concede over 400?

Fact is that englands dynamic approach to batting since 2015 has reaped them dividends, and they might possibly be the best ODI batting ever, once they win a world cup with their battting then it'll be irrefutable.

That was a while back and Pakistani bowling is alot different now than it was back then. Pakistani bowling was head and shoulders above all other bowling sides in the CT.


Also I do not appreciate the fact that you switch your allegiance from India to Pakistan and vice versa based on situation. Say no to false flagging.

 

[CricFan2012]

That was a while back and Pakistani bowling is alot different now than it was back then. Pakistani bowling was head and shoulders above all other bowling sides in the CT.


Also I do not appreciate the fact that you switch your allegiance from India to Pakistan and vice versa based on situation. Say no to false flagging.

bro that was jinxing, did all of us a favour. You're welcome

 

[lehen]

India's best XI with the bat currently> this England side

Indian team themselves don't think they feature in the top 4 batting line ups in the world as long as rahane, Dhoni,Pandey, Jadhav play/don't bring consistency.

Rahane and Dhoni do not merit selection anyways

 

[Pak_lover6]

Yes it is England's greatest ODI batting line up of all time. England never had this kind of batting line up before.

 

[ExpressPacer]

It is beyond hilarious that some Indian fans are actually suggesting that the Indian batting is superior to that of England's. ) Or even that good in itself. The Indian batting solely revolves around Virat Kohli firing or not outside of India. Rohit Sharma is an extreme liability these days who hits a lot of sixes and looks good but accumulates too many deliveries for there to be any sort of dominance.

Rahane is a joke for the ODI team. I actually laughable every single time I watch him walk out to bat. Rahul is ten times the player that Rahane will ever be in ODI's but he is made of glass and needs to be breathed on to get injured.

Then come Jhadav, Pandey and MS. And as we all know, Jhadav is an home trakc bully and even then he needs to feast on below average bowlers to get going. Pandey is better than Rahane and Jhadav but not even close to being World Class. And as we all know, MS is only a shadow of his former self. He can't hit the ball hard to save his life.

Now comes the turn for everyone's favorite, Pandya. Now I know I'm going to be igniting a lot of spark here but to seriously don't see the big deal there is for this guy. Yes, he's a good hitter but that is it. He cannot play quality pace bowling and deep down most Indian fans realise that is a FACT. I don't see what the big deal is in hitting rookie spinners for a bunch of sixes. He's a strong and confident guy but for him to held as someone who can be the answer to India's batting woes is ironic and hilarious. I can guarantee you that he cannot survive a single spell of quality fast bowling in foreign conditions. Heck, even in Indian conditions.

Indian's batting is nothing but a slow but good looking opener who plays swing like a two year old girl, a bunch of hacks, a has been and ONE world class batsman. The only thing is, that one world class batsman is one of the greatest batsmen to have walked on the pitch and therefore, he makes an other pathetic Indian batting side look marginally better.

To compare Indian and English batting is hypocrisy, let alone hold it better.

 

[Ab Fan]

It is also a bigger hypocrisy to keep mentioning Rahane and Pandey who might not make it to India's XI when Dhawan and Rahul gets fit.

And it's quite funny the way England OdI batting is overrated after the usual WI bashing which is honestly terrible to say the least as that side is filled with lots of hacks and other players who don't have the ability to win big games for their team. Their best player,Joe Root is good for 50s only and can't win games for his team even in big tournaments at home.

And I am no Indian cricket big fan who unnecessarily overrates Indian player. Lets not assume that Rahane is our first or second choice opener.

It's tough to make people understand these things when it has clearly been stated in previous posts.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

I don't think there has ever been a more explosive and dynamic ODI batting side than that of Englands.

They have:

Hales
Roy
Root
Bairstow
Morgan - dip in form but will pick up in ashes
stokes
butler
Ali

that is proper batting all the way till 8 if they play this team, but at a single given time there will be 7 of these players on the field.

They bat till 11.

The whole point and why they all play this way. Even Plunkett, Rashid, Willey are excellent hitters.

 

[TheRock]

It is beyond hilarious that some Indian fans are actually suggesting that the Indian batting is superior to that of England's. ) Or even that good in itself. The Indian batting solely revolves around Virat Kohli firing or not outside of India. Rohit Sharma is an extreme liability these days who hits a lot of sixes and looks good but accumulates too many deliveries for there to be any sort of dominance.

Rahane is a joke for the ODI team. I actually laughable every single time I watch him walk out to bat. Rahul is ten times the player that Rahane will ever be in ODI's but he is made of glass and needs to be breathed on to get injured.

Then come Jhadav, Pandey and MS. And as we all know, Jhadav is an home trakc bully and even then he needs to feast on below average bowlers to get going. Pandey is better than Rahane and Jhadav but not even close to being World Class. And as we all know, MS is only a shadow of his former self. He can't hit the ball hard to save his life.

Now comes the turn for everyone's favorite, Pandya. Now I know I'm going to be igniting a lot of spark here but to seriously don't see the big deal there is for this guy. Yes, he's a good hitter but that is it. He cannot play quality pace bowling and deep down most Indian fans realise that is a FACT. I don't see what the big deal is in hitting rookie spinners for a bunch of sixes. He's a strong and confident guy but for him to held as someone who can be the answer to India's batting woes is ironic and hilarious. I can guarantee you that he cannot survive a single spell of quality fast bowling in foreign conditions. Heck, even in Indian conditions.

Indian's batting is nothing but a slow but good looking opener who plays swing like a two year old girl, a bunch of hacks, a has been and ONE world class batsman. The only thing is, that one world class batsman is one of the greatest batsmen to have walked on the pitch and therefore, he makes an other pathetic Indian batting side look marginally better.

To compare Indian and English batting is hypocrisy, let alone hold it better.

Absolutely. England batting is much superior to that of India. There is no comparison.

That's why England have won too many World Cups and also ICC CTs recently by virtue of their flawless batting alone, whereas India have never won any major WC nor ICC CTs recently.

Moreover, India have never defeated England recently in any bilateral series in England, and also they have lost way too many bilateral series to England at home, (which is a shame) , thanks to the SUPERIOR england batting. ROFL

 

[ExpressPacer]

Absolutely. England batting is much superior to that of India. There is no comparison.

That's why England have won too many World Cups and also ICC CTs recently by virtue of their flawless batting alone, whereas India have never won any major WC nor ICC CTs recently.

Moreover, India have never defeated England recently in any bilateral series in England, and also they have lost way too many bilateral series to England at home, (which is a shame) , thanks to the SUPERIOR england batting. ROFL

I don't know if you're mentally inept but I think there's certainly more to my post than what you've picked out. Firstly, I've CLEARLY stated that this is a comparison for the CURRENT squads. Do you know what that means?

That means that the English squad in 2017 is superior to that of India's squad in 2017.

Your logic is false on so many levels that I find it embarrassing. The West Indies have won 2 ODI World Cups, 2 T20 World Cups, a champions trophy and dominated the game for decades but are in a poor state and have been for the last decade so does that mean that we start rating them over other classy teams (for example New Zealand) because of their successes in the past but New Zealand not having a WC win?

Write thing's like 'ROLF' when you start making sense. As of now, the only thing you're making is a fool out of yourself.

 

[TheRock]

I don't know if you're mentally inept but I think there's certainly more to my post than what you've picked out. Firstly, I've CLEARLY stated that this is a comparison for the CURRENT squads. Do you know what that means?

That means that the English squad in 2017 is superior to that of India's squad in 2017.

Your logic is false on so many levels that I find it embarrassing. The West Indies have won 2 ODI World Cups, 2 T20 World Cups, a champions trophy and dominated the game for decades but are in a poor state and have been for the last decade so does that mean that we start rating them over other classy teams (for example New Zealand) because of their successes in the past but New Zealand not having a WC win?

Write thing's like 'ROLF' when you start making sense. As of now, the only thing you're making is a fool out of yourself.

Yes. England squad of 2017 is so much stronger than that of India, that they lost the bilateral ODI series 1-2 to India in the year 2017 alone.

Now, go and whine somewhere else.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Yes. England squad of 2017 is so much stronger than that of India, that they lost the bilateral ODI series 1-2 to India in the year 2017 alone.

Now, go and whine somewhere else.

WOW. What an achievement! Beating an under-strength English side is such an achievement! And that too at home.

Also, just by the way, to make myself more clear, I never compared the English and Indian teams on the whole, just the batting - which is 1 million times superior to that of India's. Refer to my original post.

Go and whine somewhere else? Sir, you're the one who initially quoted MY post and you're telling me what to do? I'm afraid you don't understand you don't have conversational skills because you're the one who needs to "go somewhere else" because I'm ready to give you a reply with concrete evidence for everything you say, unlike yourself. Good day.

 

[TheRock]

WOW. What an achievement! Beating an under-strength English side is such an achievement! And that too at home.

Also, just by the way, to make myself more clear, I never compared the English and Indian teams on the whole, just the batting - which is 1 million times superior to that of India's. Refer to my original post.

Go and whine somewhere else? Sir, you're the one who initially quoted MY post and you're telling me what to do? I'm afraid you don't understand you don't have conversational skills because you're the one who needs to "go somewhere else" because I'm ready to give you a reply with concrete evidence for everything you say, unlike yourself. Good day.

Sir, I was also referring to the batting of both sides. Refer to my original post.

India beat England 2-1 in the ODI series in 2017 purely by virtue of their batting (and not because of their bowling, which traditionally has been weak).

Don't understand what makes you think that the current England batting lineup is million times stronger than that of India.

It seems that you are judging England batting line up after watching their batting versus 9th ranked West Indies in the recently concluded ODI series.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Sir, I was also referring to the batting of both sides. Refer to my original post.

India beat England 2-1 in the ODI series in 2017 purely by virtue of their batting (and not because of their bowling, which traditionally has been weak).

Don't understand what makes you think that the current England batting lineup is million times stronger than that of India.

It seems that you are judging England batting line up after watching their batting versus 9th ranked West Indies in the recently concluded ODI series.

Firstly, thanks for a more reasonable post.

I think I indulged in hyperbole by claiming England to be a million times better, but I'm pretty sure the gulf is evident nonetheless. However, this by no means says that India is a weak batting side. I would be hypocritical for saying that but I find the English side stronger as of now.

With Dhawan coming in and having dead weights like Dhoni/Jhadav/Rahane replaced, India will obviously get stronger.

 

[Bubby]

Why do you think Rohit and Dhawan aren't long time solutions??

Jadeja is all ok for 8 position. Yes Moen is a much better bat no doubt but then England overall batting or lower middle order isn't all that clutch too.

Coz they both are 30 plus, more importantly consumes a lot of deliveries especially rohit, Jadeja is too inconsistent even for no 8 as far as odi is concerned, his odi bowling has regressed a lot

 

[MMHS]

Again, going back to last 2 years, with this ATG batting line-up, ENG's ODI glory is 7-0 against WI, 7-2 against Azhar's PAK, 4-0 against recent SRL & a DWL assisted 3-2 win over NZ at home. Actually, their best achievement is winning 2-1 against SAF & in BD.

This actually tells me a BIG time minnow basher - hammers the underdogs & run away from contest when chips are down. They have to run long, long, long miles to come remotely close to justify the title - may be losing 2-4 (or 2-3, I don't know how many ODIs are there) against AUS in AUS can be a great start.

 

[squarecut]

Let England bat against some quality spin. The same greatest batting line up of all time will struggle to put on decent scores.

 

[Princejain191]

This batting line-up is totally not 'dynamic'. It is actually pretty one-dimensional. It looks really good on flat pitches because each of them can, on their day, score big and score fast. The deepness allows more freedom to each.

But if they are taken out of their comfort zone, then they can struggle. Like they did vs Pakistan on a slow pitch. India, I am sure, has a more diverse batting lineup. And is also better at chasing and under pressure in general. India has been consistent now for the past 2 years on all types of pitches. And Virat, Kedar and Pandya can bat quick and score well on all types of pitches - like we have seen this year. (Kolkata match had a slow and seaming wicket and Chennai a bouncy one)

 

[James]

A good lineup but they actually need to win some silverware before we can seriously laud them.

But yes they have the talent to win a Champions Trophy and / or World Cup, particularly at home.

 

[Convict]

1. Gilchrist
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. Symonds
6. Clarke
7. Hussey

 

[ToeCrusher2]

1. Gilchrist
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. Symonds
6. Clarke
7. Hussey

Virender Sehwag
Sachin Tendulkar
Gautam Gambhir
Virat Kohli
MS Dhoni
Yuvraj Singh
SK Raina

 

[CricketAnalyst]

A far way off from being the best ODI batting side of all time but it is one of the most aggressive. Even the players who are in for their bowling such as Plunkett, Woakes & Rashid are more than capable with the bat. I still remember that ODI England played against Sri Lanka last year where England looked dead and buried but then the likes of Woakes and Plunkett played a big part in rescuing the game to tie the match from a position where it looked like it would be an easy win for Sri Lanka. Plunkett hitting that last ball six.

But this is where a side can be great.

The difference between top-class batsman won't be huge, but the difference in 8 to 11 can be massive. No matter how good, 7 batsmen lineups of past can't compete with 11 batsman line-ups of present. When you have a guy who opens in T20 blast regularly and has scored centuries there coming at 11, England are a complete batting side. The difference between good batsman at 10 and 11 vs total bunnies for past or other present sides is massive.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

1. Gilchrist
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. Symonds
6. Clarke
7. Hussey

This misses the point. Even if man for man they are better, the absence of 8 to 11 is kind of the point. Having someone who used to open at No.8, a guy who can come in at 219/6 and score 100 in 60 balls...

It doesn't matter if 1 to 7 are slightly better when the other side has 8 to 11 who aren't much worse than their top 7 and you have bunnies.

 

[hadi123]

But this is where a side can be great.

The difference between top-class batsman won't be huge, but the difference in 8 to 11 can be massive. No matter how good, 7 batsmen lineups of past can't compete with 11 batsman line-ups of present. When you have a guy who opens in T20 blast regularly and has scored centuries there coming at 11, England are a complete batting side. The difference between good batsman at 10 and 11 vs total bunnies for past or other present sides is massive.

Agreed. Hard to argue with this. But I don't really rate England's bowling that much apart from Woakes. Wood is always injured, Plunkett is okay but I can't see him ripping through some of the better batting line ups; Willey is only good with the new ball and Jake Ball can be very expensive at times. Rashid is a very good spinner but their pace bowling attack needs to be improved.

 

[Bilal7]

This misses the point. Even if man for man they are better, the absence of 8 to 11 is kind of the point. Having someone who used to open at No.8, a guy who can come in at 219/6 and score 100 in 60 balls...

It doesn't matter if 1 to 7 are slightly better when the other side has 8 to 11 who aren't much worse than their top 7 and you have bunnies.

*100 off 50. Moeen Ali is beast.

 

[Convict]

This misses the point. Even if man for man they are better, the absence of 8 to 11 is kind of the point. Having someone who used to open at No.8, a guy who can come in at 219/6 and score 100 in 60 balls...

It doesn't matter if 1 to 7 are slightly better when the other side has 8 to 11 who aren't much worse than their top 7 and you have bunnies.

If you have to depend on your 8-11 then you're top seven isn't good enough.

 

[Abdullah719]

If you have to depend on your 8-11 then you're top seven isn't good enough.

It's not so much about depending on the 8-11 as it is about having the freedom to tee off due to batting deep.

The biggest concern with the England batting is how they perform in pressure situations and in crunch matches. They don't have a good track record in that regard.

 

[Convict]

It's not so much about depending on the 8-11 as it is about having the freedom to tee off due to batting deep.

The biggest concern with the England batting is how they perform in pressure situations and in crunch matches. They don't have a good track record in that regard.

So for all these alledged benefits from having all these gun tailend batsmen its never once actually done anything for them when it mattered?

A guy like Glenn McGrath faced on average less than one ball per ODI.

Have a strong top seven and hopefully have an 8 or 9 who are good enough to rotate the strike and hit some boundaries and you have the batting lineup you need.

 

[jnaveen1980]

It's not so much about depending on the 8-11 as it is about having the freedom to tee off due to batting deep.

The biggest concern with the England batting is how they perform in pressure situations and in crunch matches. They don't have a good track record in that regard.

Yes. on the outset they might look more equipped to handle collapses than other teams. But just to include a guy who can bat at no.9,10,11 if you pick an average bowler then it can be counter productive. At one point Australia had Faulkner at 9.

 

[Abdullah719]

So for all these alledged benefits from having all these gun tailend batsmen its never once actually done anything for them when it mattered?

A guy like Glenn McGrath faced on average less than one ball per ODI.

Have a strong top seven and hopefully have an 8 or 9 who are good enough to rotate the strike and hit some boundaries and you have the batting lineup you need.

Well it's all relative. Having players with a few FC hundreds probably allows England to select maximum number of stroke-makers in their XI which is really the ideal way to go about it on the modern day flat tracks.

I still don't think they're anywhere close to being the greatest ODI batting side of all time. The WC 2003 Australian batting lineup would be monstrous in modern day cricket; plus, Hogg, Bichel and Lee were pretty decent batters in their own right.

 

[Abdullah719]

Yes. on the outset they might look more equipped to handle collapses than other teams. But just to include a guy who can bat at no.9,10,11 if you pick an average bowler then it can be counter productive. At one point Australia had Faulkner at 9.

I think England are doing OK in that regard with Plunkett and Rashid usually batting around #8/9. I don't think there's too many who would be ahead of them on bowling merit.

 

[Bilal7]

So for all these alledged benefits from having all these gun tailend batsmen its never once actually done anything for them when it mattered?

A guy like Glenn McGrath faced on average less than one ball per ODI.

Have a strong top seven and hopefully have an 8 or 9 who are good enough to rotate the strike and hit some boundaries and you have the batting lineup you need.

Agree with this. I'd take six great batsmen over eight good ones.

 

[jnaveen1980]

So for all these alledged benefits from having all these gun tailend batsmen its never once actually done anything for them when it mattered?

A guy like Glenn McGrath faced on average less than one ball per ODI.

Have a strong top seven and hopefully have an 8 or 9 who are good enough to rotate the strike and hit some boundaries and you have the batting lineup you need.

When inform Hayden was equal to two batsmen Many Aussies were at that time.

 

[Convict]

Yes. on the outset they might look more equipped to handle collapses than other teams. But just to include a guy who can bat at no.9,10,11 if you pick an average bowler then it can be counter productive. At one point Australia had Faulkner at 9.

Both Willey and Hazlewood have played 30 odd ODI games.

Willey faces on average 6 balls per match and he has a strike rate of 69 so we'll say on average he scores roughly 4.2 runs per match from those 6 balls.
His economy rate is 5.8 and Willey is selected to bowl a full quota of 10 overs every match so thats 58 runs conceded.

Josh Hazlewood actually faces less than one ball per innings (rendering his really bad batting near completely irrelevant) but if he did face the 6 balls that Willey faced at his strike rate of 63 he'd score roughly 3.7 runs per match.
His economy rate is 4.7 and he is selected to bowl a full quota of 10 overs every match so thats 47 runs conceded.

So Willey's superior batting is worth a grand total of 0.5 more runs per match and even if we ignore Hazelwood's superior wicket taking ability (strike rate of 30.5 compared to 36) Willey is net 10.5 runs behind Hazlewood in run contribution.

Aka selecting your number 10 or 11 based on his batting is stupid.

 

[Convict]

Well it's all relative. Having players with a few FC hundreds probably allows England to select maximum number of stroke-makers in their XI which is really the ideal way to go about it on the modern day flat tracks.

I still don't think they're anywhere close to being the greatest ODI batting side of all time. The WC 2003 Australian batting lineup would be monstrous in modern day cricket; plus, Hogg, Bichel and Lee were pretty decent batters in their own right.

That is another good point. Hogg had a first class batting average of 35, Bichel scored 9 first class centuries and both averaged over 20 with a strike rate of roughly 80 in ODIs. Lee and Warne were useful enough.
McGrath of course wasn't but as stated earlier he faced on average less than one ball per game so its literally irrelevant in his case.

 

[jnaveen1980]

That is another good point. Hogg had a first class batting average of 35, Bichel scored 9 first class centuries and both averaged over 20 with a strike rate of roughly 80 in ODIs. Lee and Warne were useful enough.
McGrath of course wasn't but as stated earlier he faced on average less than one ball per game so its literally irrelevant in his case.

Bichel saved the day for Austrlaia in 2003 world cup against England both with bat and ball.

 

[CricFan2012]

So for all these alledged benefits from having all these gun tailend batsmen its never once actually done anything for them when it mattered?

A guy like Glenn McGrath faced on average less than one ball per ODI.

Have a strong top seven and hopefully have an 8 or 9 who are good enough to rotate the strike and hit some boundaries and you have the batting lineup you need.

Also something else to consider, Aussies didn't get to play against their ATG bowling, while this England team doesn't get to bash its own pathetic bowling.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Sure they score 300 regularly. But they also allow opposition to make 300


http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-England-1st-ODI-england-in-india-odi-series/
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-England-2nd-ODI-england-in-india-odi-series/
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-England-3rd-ODI-england-in-india-odi-series/

 

[Convict]

Also something else to consider, Aussies didn't get to play against their ATG bowling, while this England team doesn't get to bash its own pathetic bowling.

Would the English bowling be so bad if they picked their 4 best bowlers based on their bowling?

With McGrath you could claim that he batted so rarely because he played from the greatest ODI team of all time but even Hazlewood averages less than one ball faced per match.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Would the English bowling be so bad if they picked their 4 best bowlers based on their bowling?

With McGrath you could claim that he batted so rarely because he played from the greatest ODI team of all time but even Hazlewood averages less than one ball faced per match.

Who can they select based on their bowling that's not already selected?

 

[Chief Destroyer]

No, we're not. The Aussie team was comfortably better. They had the answer to all types of conditions and bowling.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Also something else to consider, Aussies didn't get to play against their ATG bowling, while this England team doesn't get to bash its own pathetic bowling.

Great point

 

[Thomaskutty]

They can bash weak opposition , in english conditions I'll give them that. I thought they were a very good side but the Champions trophy showed their frailties.