Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

I guess people might ask why England's fortunes have reduced since they won the WC in 2019, but running the 50 over cup alongside the 100 tournament is a clear snub of the format as most of the top players are away, and as a result lets face it - scoring runs don't mean anything in the 50 over cup. The selectors pick the 50 over side exclusively on T20 franchise cricket.

So, weirdly we have James Bracey smash the 6th best limited overs score ever recorded (224*) a couple of weeks ago, and despite him averaging nearly 50 at a SR of 110, he's not even got a sniff of a mention to making the squad. And yet, they pilot in Brooks, who has a terrible ODI record, then pilot in Atkinson who had only played 1 x 50 over game before last week.... and we expect these guys to do well?

I get the sense with Brook, he is a face that fits kind of guy. But they gave him a chance touting his extremely good form, he then produced as close to nothing as you could expect (at a 54 SR), and he is replacing one of England's best players ever??

Ok, if he banged a couple of 50s, then lets discuss Roy's bad back and the fact he aint played a lot.... 4 innings under 10 and a 25 in his 5 internations in September? Sorry, Brooks form disappeared. The fact he averages 27 in OD cricket maybe indicates a turn of form was to be expected , because lets face it... his 50 over record is rubbish.

Jason Roy has more ODI 100s than Brook has OD career innings...averages 13 more, has a higher strike rate.

As for the widespread claim Roy aint on form... he has 2 centuries in 6 ODIs this year, and an average of 46.... hardly end of the world stuff, is it?

As I said, I think Brook is just the man of the moment for the team. The new golden boy

I don't see Roy given a chance against Ireland now. The three reserves to be named tomorrow should play against Ireland or they will get no game time at all.

Slipstream wrote:I don't see Roy given a chance against Ireland now. The three reserves to be named tomorrow should play against Ireland or they will get no game time at all.

With Brooks form, and the squad officially not needing to be announced till after the series, it made sense to have the two play and fight for the place. It would look very stupid if Roy scored runs after Brook has failed 3 times..... but I guess for that reason, like you, they will not pick him to make them then look foolish.

sussexpob wrote:

Slipstream wrote:I don't see Roy given a chance against Ireland now. The three reserves to be named tomorrow should play against Ireland or they will get no game time at all.

With Brooks form, and the squad officially not needing to be announced till after the series, it made sense to have the two play and fight for the place. It would look very stupid if Roy scored runs after Brook has failed 3 times..... but I guess for that reason, like you, they will not pick him to make them then look foolish.

Root is now going to play v Ireland and Brook will be rested. Roy was given the choice to play Ireland. Can't make head or tail of the thinking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66842724

Roy in India 6 matches 55.83
So Roy still has the choice to play v Ireland. I think he will be furious and won't bother.

I take all those points, SP and agree with them by and large, but England don't look further than T20, now that they play almost no ODI's and have reduced the value of the domestic 50 over cup to nothing. Yes Roy has 2 ODI centuries, but he couldn't buy a run in either the dribble or the nonsense and that's all England look at. I think they've decided that the skill sets are the same. I only partly agree with that, btw, which is why Malan and Root might turn out to be very important in this campaign, because they aren't just bish, bash, bosh merchants.

It's odd, the Brook decision, because his white ball stats (no point talking about his 50 over stats) have been pretty poor this year and his IPL stats are absolutely awful.... so thank goodness the WC isn't being being played in India...... oops! I can only come to the conclusion that England have been brow beaten into selecting Brook by the media, especially given that they didn't know a damned thing about the secret agreement with Ben Stokes to come out of retirement and so were mortified when Brook, quite rightly.... it was his place Stokes took, was asked to make way.

It might turn out to be an inspired choice having Brook in the squad. Malan has probably done them a favour by performing so well as an opener, because they might now be able to move Stokes to 4 and let Brook slot in between him and Buttler.

It's worth reminding ourselves, while everyone carps on about Roy's back spasms turning him into an unsafe bet, that England put themselves in a whole world of trouble when Roy picked up an injury halfway through the tournament 4 years ago. Seemingly he came back and played while still carrying the injury that ruled him out for 2 or 3 games and despite that, scored a shed load of runs and scored them damned fast too. Now it rather looks as though his England career is over

I don't think it's unreasonable for England to leave him out if they're worried about his back it's only a 15 man squad, after all, but England can't be certain about Bairstow's fitness, particularly in the field with that limp, or Stokes' knee. Rashid and Wood aren't playing because they have niggles too. A 5th injury risk might be too much for them to contemplate

Durhamfootman wrote:It's worth reminding ourselves, while everyone carps on about Roy's back spasms turning him into an unsafe bet, that England put themselves in a whole world of trouble when Roy picked up an injury halfway through the tournament 4 years ago. Seemingly he came back and played while still carrying the injury that ruled him out for 2 or 3 games and despite that, scored a shed load of runs and scored them damned fast too. Now it rather looks as though his England career is over

not forgetting his role in the field during that super over where the ball kept following him around. He might have fumbled a couple of stops, but when it came down to the final ball and NZ needed 2 runs, Roy's throw came in like a sidewinder missile with the kind of accuracy that would seem like fantasy to the Russian military

I feel for Roy ; but I do think the decision is largely because his fitness is obviously questionable - and Malan has surely booked the opening spot with his recent form. This leaves a choice between a player who is not just short of match play and something of an injury risk , but also only really an option as opener , against one who can - up to a point - cover any batting position. I take the point that Brook has no great white ball credentials as yet ; but he does look like a player who has a lot of upside. Don’t think he plays in the first choice XI anyway :

Bairstow Malan Root Stokes Butler Livingstone Moeen/Curran Woakes Rashid Wood Topley/Atkinson ? Something like that…

alfie wrote:I feel for Roy ; but I do think the decision is largely because his fitness is obviously questionable - and Malan has surely booked the opening spot with his recent form. This leaves a choice between a player who is not just short of match play and something of an injury risk , but also only really an option as opener , against one who can - up to a point - cover any batting position. I take the point that Brook has no great white ball credentials as yet ; but he does look like a player who has a lot of upside

Of course, there is truth in the fact that Roy has some questions about fitness; but I can't really get passed the idea that he has been singled out for form or fitness for a while now, while other players in the team are not, so for me this is just a classic case of the management deciding early on that the face didn't fit, and that Brooks is the new golden boy.

If we want to talk form, compare how many critics of Roy's form (which since 2021 has been about his career average, so no sustained evidence of a drop) to that of others. Bairstow has averaged 22 since 2021. Ben Stokes averaged 13 last year then retired. Root is in a deep rut... before the last series, in which the team had already seemingly decided Roy was done, Roy was right at the top of the long term batting averages. So why is Roy the man who is always questioned?

Same with fitness. Until the last series, Roy had played the most games in the last 3 English seasons passed. Until a minor injury, he was England's most reliable player for availability?

And yet Ben Stokes, who is going to have surgery after the tournament and is not going to bowl because his knee wont take it, was piloted in after some horrific form, and people lost the plot about how good it is. Bairstow has missed 16 of the last 28 ODI through injury. Bairstow is an excellent ODI player on form, but anything that applies to Roy applied treble to Bairstow. He's not been fit, nor been anywhere near form for a while. And you could say guys like Bairstow, Root and Stokes are all potential match winners.... Roy has 19 ODI hundreds....Ben has 4.... If you take all players on their day, Roy is absolutely world class and makes a case as well as any. So why is it him who is singled out? All to pilot in a player who is in horrendous form and has a horrendous 50 over record?

For me, its a real lack of respect shown to a player who has been at the forefront of England's ODI awakening. Brook, on every comparable metric, is not fit to lace Roy's boots in the 50 over game

Durhamfootman wrote:I take all those points, SP and agree with them by and large, but England don't look further than T20, now that they play almost no ODI's and have reduced the value of the domestic 50 over cup to nothing. Yes Roy has 2 ODI centuries, but he couldn't buy a run in either the dribble or the nonsense and that's all England look at.

Its a very silly think to do. T20 players can be very useful as ultra aggressive sloggers, but at lower averages. Having the ability to average high 20s at SRs in essence of 140-150 is world class batting in T20, but in 50 over game if your top 6 batters only manage 20 balls each, then you are trading high SRs for lost overs.... so the higher SR is nullified. In 50 over cricket, you need players to average 30-35 at least in the top 6, especially in England's case where hitting the ball lower down the order in quickfire contributions is not a skill they lack.

For me, picking Brook at the top of the order would have a similar effect to moving a Moeen up and asking him to have a cameo. And playing him down the order just puts him into that zone of where Buttler, Livingstone, Moeen and Woakes can already fly over 6 an over to put quick runs on the board at the end.

Brook plays shots, but doesn't middle many of them. He shanks a lot into the outfield. That can be effective, but chances are you'll scoop a chance before making a big total.

sussexpob wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:I take all those points, SP and agree with them by and large, but England don't look further than T20, now that they play almost no ODI's and have reduced the value of the domestic 50 over cup to nothing. Yes Roy has 2 ODI centuries, but he couldn't buy a run in either the dribble or the nonsense and that's all England look at.

Its a very silly think to do. T20 players can be very useful as ultra aggressive sloggers, but at lower averages. Having the ability to average high 20s at SRs in essence of 140-150 is world class batting in T20, but in 50 over game if your top 6 batters only manage 20 balls each, then you are trading high SRs for lost overs.... so the higher SR is nullified. In 50 over cricket, you need players to average 30-35 at least in the top 6, especially in England's case where hitting the ball lower down the order in quickfire contributions is not a skill they lack.

For me, picking Brook at the top of the order would have a similar effect to moving a Moeen up and asking him to have a cameo. And playing him down the order just puts him into that zone of where Buttler, Livingstone, Moeen and Woakes can already fly over 6 an over to put quick runs on the board at the end.

I do tend to agree with that

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Brook plays shots, but doesn't middle many of them. He shanks a lot into the outfield. That can be effective, but chances are you'll scoop a chance before making a big total.

and I agree with this too

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Brook plays shots, but doesn't middle many of them. He shanks a lot into the outfield. That can be effective, but chances are you'll scoop a chance before making a big total.

Brook made a correction to his technique a little while ago that changed his fortunes in the county game. He used to open his hips, which pushed his head outside the line, and made him noticeably weak to anything that moved in the air. He went away with his batting coach and incorporated a trigger movement in his stance, but in order to get his head in the right place, said movement is designed to push his weight forward.

The nature of international cricket means, if you put yourself on the radar, teams are going to linger about how to get you out in team meetings. I personally feel like that tendency to move forward gives him a slight weakness to shorter deliveries, and with it he gets less certain about himself at the crease.

All great batsman face that at some stage in their career and need to adapt... I guess the next 24-48 months will tell us if he is able to

Carse on his way to India. Might miss the Sri Lanka game. If so what will be the team? England like 4 fast bowlers but Livingstone has to come back. Root is not the second spinner but 6th bowler if needed.

Bairstow, Malan, Root, Stokes, Brook, Buttler, Livingstone, Willey, Atkinson, Wood, Rashid