Cricket World Cup 2015

[cheshirevaliant]

Because we can barely bat with 6 batsmen plus Buttler, let alone if we take one of them out.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Because we can barely bat with 6 batsmen plus Buttler, let alone if we take one of them out.

 

But there are regular failures so taking one of them out won't make too much difference, ceertainly not Ballance at the moment.

[cheshirevaliant]

If there are regular failures, then weakening our batting line up won't help.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

If there are regular failures, then weakening our batting line up won't help.

 

But it won't make much difference either will it? What would you do given the choice?

 

The ones missing out at the moment are Hales, Bopara, Jordan and Tredwell.

[cheshirevaliant]

But it won't make much difference either will it? What would you do given the choice?

 

The ones missing out at the moment are Hales, Bopara, Jordan and Tredwell.

 

I think this is probably our best 11, though I'd like to see Taylor at 3. It's just not a very good 11.

[cheshirevaliant]

I'd leave out Broad or Anderson before Finn.

[valiant_593]

I certainly don't think this is our strongest 11. Taylor is wasted at 6 and is a very good number 3. Balance isn't a one day batsman, he's far to slow and dosent dare to hit the ball, he's very happy to prod it around for the odd single. For me hales has to play, whether in form or not he can smash the ball and every other side has players that can do that. For me having hales around the middle order with buttler and Morgan is very powerful and can be destructive in the final overs. As I say for me buttler is wasted at 7, looks class every time but never has enough time at the crease. Bowling wise broad is the weak link, not taking wickets and not looking very threatening, not to mention his terrible batting at the minute. I'd maybe give Jordan a go as again he can play the big shots.

[cheshirevaliant]

Broad there's definitely an argument as he's been poor, but it would leave a fairly long tail of Tredwell, Finn and Anderson.

 

I'm not sure it's any worse than India's or South Africa's tail, TP. If the top 7 do their job, then the tail should be an irrelevance in limited overs cricket (easier said than done I know). The other alternative is to bring in Tredwell for Broad and Jordan for Anderson, that way you vary the attack and do not weaken the batting.

 

Hales can't bat, so he isn't the answer to any question.

[valiant_593]

You haven't seen hales bat if you don't think he can bat... He is extreme destructive and far more useful than balance. I've seen hales play many times and been very impressed more often than not

[cheshirevaliant]

You haven't seen hales bat if you don't think he can bat... He is extreme destructive and far more useful than balance. I've seen hales play many times and been very impressed more often than not

 

As have I, both in county cricket and international, live and on tele. He is out of his depth at anything more than T20. His record backs that statement up, hence why he was sent out on loan by Notts to Worcestershire at the start of last season.

[Bycarsbill]

Hales is still very raw, but watching the likes of Ballance and Bell struggling to hit it off the square belongs to another era. It's all about getting off to a good start and finishing off powerfully to consistently get 300 or more and he will do that (might only be 1 in 4 innings but for me he needs the chance to gain experience and prove he's up to the job) Roy from Surrey is the other option but he's obviously one for after the World Cup....

 

I have to agree that Ian bell was clearly struggling with his timing last night. Having said that, he did of course still manage to score 54 and the mark of a good player is that they can still score runs when out of touch. Bell is undoubtedly one of the most technically able batsmen in the England set-up and can be destructive with a much higher run-rate than he managed last night. Gary Ballance is IMO more of a Test Match batsman than a one-day player, but it would still be a gamble introducing Hales at this stage in the tournament--arguably, he should have been utilised in some of the warm-up games!

[cheshirevaliant]

Just as a point of comparison, if we assume that neither Hales nor Ballance have played a sufficient number of ODIs to properly judge them (Ballance has played 15, Hales 7) then we have to judge whether they are good enough on their county record. Hales averages 35 with a strike rate of 98 over 88 matches. Ballance averages 49 over 72 matches with a strike rate of 88. Picking Ballance over Hales is a no brainer.

[valiant_593]

Just as a point of comparison, if we assume that neither Hales nor Ballance have played a sufficient number of ODIs to properly judge them (Ballance has played 15, Hales 7) then we have to judge whether they are good enough on their county record. Hales averages 35 with a strike rate of 98 over 88 matches. Ballance averages 49 over 72 matches with a strike rate of 88. Picking Ballance over Hales is a no brainer.

 

It's not a no brainer. Balance is better technically hence why he's so good in test matches. But in one day cricket with the way the game is evolving we need big hitters. Not another batsmen who if he makes 50 it comes off 80 balls. We need someone like hales, as said earlier 1 in 4 times it will come off but that's much more useful than a slow innings from balance. For me it's important to look at how well hales has done in twenty 20 cricket for England and go from there. We need big hitters, we have enough that prod it around. Hales should be playing and if he hits runs then they will come fast. If he dosent then I don't think we would be in a weaker position.

[valiant_593]

As have I, both in county cricket and international, live and on tele. He is out of his depth at anything more than T20. His record backs that statement up, hence why he was sent out on loan by Notts to Worcestershire at the start of last season.

 

Maybe so, but he has the shots to be destructive. If hales is used correctly and in power play situations then he could be key, get him in and let him take some pressure off the others

[valiant_593]

Seen him bat many times. I'm agreeing that he should open and is far more destructive than Ballance so I think you must have misunderstood me??

 

I was merely making the point that he's inconsistent at the moment but even if he performs 1 game in every 4 he'd still make more of a contribution than someone like Ballance

 

Sorry I meant quote cheshire, wasn't aimed at you. I do agree with you entirely.