Will push for all-rounders instead of genuine spinners hurt England team future performances in Asia?

[Trichromatic]

Aussies showed that no matter what you need genuine bowlers to compete out of your comfort zone. Lyon and O'Keefe were their FC?Int performers and they got chances above anyone else. They may have faiiled massively, but I believe your genuince bowlers have more chances to succeed no matter how good opposition is against particular type of bowling.

 

England has been pushing for all rounders in county cricket. From very lower level of cricket, those who can bat a bit are given preference and now probablyy situation is that they are grooming only bits and pieces to county and international level. 

 

They fielded Rashid and Moeen against India. They got some success with bat but that was not enough. Although Moeen destroyed Indian team in England, but no way he is your frontline spinner. 

 

It's such a shame that a top team fields a bowler who averages 40+ in FC as their front line bowler. I don't see this strategy working for them in long run and it's better to sacrifice batting strength for best bowlers.

[sandeep]

8 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Moeen is picked because there's no one significantly better than him with the ball right now so it makes sense to pick him being the best available spinner with the bat. Mason Crane is one I'd say to keep and eye out for as the future of England's spin right now.

England should look at how Nathan Lyon has been persisted with, and developed by Australia.   Look at how South Africa valued and used Imran Tahir for their team.  Proteas didn't make excuses saying "Duminy is bowling decent spin, so we have no choice but to keep Tahir on the bench".    Given the fact that the pitches in England domestic cricket don't give spinners opportunities to hone their craft - if you have prospects, you need to manage them properly and get the best out of them.  

 

Unfortunately for England, their selection and thinking with spinners is always muddled.   In ODI cricket, Rashid should play ahead of Moeen, but its often the other way around because of Ali's batting.  Is England so desperate in need of Ali's batting down that powerhouse order?  Or does it desperately need a wicket-taking spin option in the middle overs?  Its an obvious answer, but England keep resorting to Ali's spin being "good enough".  When reality is that Ali is at best a holding spinner who takes wickets when a batsman makes a mistake.  England's chances would be so much better if they played Rashid consistently in ODIs - not to say that Rashid is a great bowler.  He isn't, but in ODI cricket he's more than useful.  And far more likely to get you wickets than Ali.  

 

But obvious facts apparently don't matter.  The India tour showed us how England keeps boxing themselves into corners due to "conventional" thinking on selection.  A team blessed with a high quality batting 'keeper, and a genuine allrounder in Stokes, keeps screwing up selection just because of a stubborn refusal to think clearly when it comes to spin and team balance.  

[G_B_]

so basically we need to start grooming Pandya for tests? Cant think of any other allrounders.

[BCCI]

12 minutes ago, G_B_ said:

so basically we need to start grooming Pandya for tests? Cant think of any other allrounders.

What about his batting though.It needs enormous improvement.

[Cricketics]

1 hour ago, G_B_ said:

so basically we need to start grooming Pandya for tests? Cant think of any other allrounders.

He is not good enough currently, can't be trusted. Need to groom him for a long time then in India A team and not the national team because currently he should be no where near India's test side. 

[Cricketics]

1 hour ago, BCCI said:

What about his batting though.It needs enormous improvement.

Both need improvement for test level. As an ODI bowler he has gotten better but as an all rounder in test, he might have to learn to bowl long spells, and less said aboutt his batting the better. Need to play a lot more for India A, before he can even be thought of playing for Indian Test team. 

[sandeep]

27 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Both need improvement for test level. As an ODI bowler he has gotten better but as an all rounder in test, he might have to learn to bowl long spells, and less said aboutt his batting the better. Need to play a lot more for India A, before he can even be thought of playing for Indian Test team. 

Pandya is so unready for test cricket that just watching Mitch Marsh ply his wares in the latest series made him get injured.

 

Before some posters lose their shyte, I'm a big believer in backing Pandya, and getting the most out of one of the rare allrounder type prospects we have.  

[BCCI]

28 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Both need improvement for test level. As an ODI bowler he has gotten better but as an all rounder in test, he might have to learn to bowl long spells, and less said aboutt his batting the better. Need to play a lot more for India A, before he can even be thought of playing for Indian Test team. 

There is palpable potential with the ball.I would be happy if he can be an Woakes level all rounder but even for that he needs major improvement in batting.

[sandeep]

4 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Rashid has played more ODIs than anyone except Roy for England in the last 2 years and the joint most T20is in the same period (again with Roy) so I have no clue where this is coming from.

In the India-England ODI series, Pommies benched Rashid and chose to play with Ali as the sole spinner.   I believe they would have won that game if Rashid had played instead.  

[Cricketics]

15 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Pandya is so unready for test cricket that just watching Mitch Marsh ply his wares in the latest series made him get injured.

 

Before some posters lose their shyte, I'm a big believer in backing Pandya, and getting the most out of one of the rare allrounder type prospects we have.  

Yes, and hence we have mentioned to play him for India A, but people and fans don't read the full info at times :) 

[Cricketics]

14 minutes ago, BCCI said:

There is palpable potential with the ball.I would be happy if he can be an Woakes level all rounder but even for that he needs major improvement in batting.

Yes, he bowled better in 2nd innings against Australia in the warm up game. Need to bowl more like that. But still way far from being considered becuse he has to deliver from the bat also if we need to play him as an all rounder. Unless his bowling is extremely good, then it was a different thing, since it isn't at this time, he has to earn his spot by performing well for India A. 

[BCCI]

43 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Yes, he bowled better in 2nd innings against Australia in the warm up game. Need to bowl more like that. But still way far from being considered becuse he has to deliver from the bat also if we need to play him as an all rounder. Unless his bowling is extremely good, then it was a different thing, since it isn't at this time, he has to earn his spot by performing well for India A. 

Cant disagree with that but having seen him bowl(I am sure you too would have too) at Dharamshala against Kiwis,its certain this guy can bowl in tests.I have high hopes of him as a seamer.

Edited March 31, 2017 by BCCI

[maniac]

The only thing that Pandya has a cut above the rest is his

 

FIELDING.

 

Yes his fielding is top notch.

 

His bowling sure is promising-A young kid bowling at 140K's and evolving is always good to see but so far he has shown to be nothing but a hack with the bat.

 

I would claim just for the heck of it that- Umesh Yadav(who has a 90 against Aus in Aus in apparently A tour which is a benchmark for some posters here and has given the ball a mighty whack in IPL and some other games)  ,

 

Ishant Sharma(Who has a pretty tight defense as shown in Mohali in 2010 or even as our designated nightwatchman)  ,

 

Shami(who has a 50 in England vs England)

 

and

Bhuvi(who has 3 50's in England and FC 100's)

 

to be more of an allrounders than him and they clearly have a lot more bowling talent than Pandya.

 

Pandya is a work in progress and good for T20's or ODI cricket but has no space in test cricket right now unless he shows massive improvement in one area...His bowling for what it's worth seems very promising with his pace and the way he is evolving.

 

Still long way to go

[sensible-indian]

India gonna play 3 proper pacers + 2 spinners for most overseas tests. At best 3 proper pacers + 1 spinner on a super seam friendly track.

 

We gotta back our strengths and I see us doing just that.

Edited March 31, 2017 by sensible-indian

[sensible-indian]

The reason why England are apprehensive about Rashid is because he can have good days as well as atrocious days.

 

Moeen Ali stays in the middle ground. Very useful LOI player.

 

Potential wise, Rashid has a lot going for him. If he can get accurate (big if) and learn how to setup batsmen, he will become one of the better spinners in the world. Dude can extract some serious spin out of the surface.

 

 

[sandeep]

2 hours ago, sensible-indian said:

The reason why England are apprehensive about Rashid is because he can have good days as well as atrocious days.

 

Moeen Ali stays in the middle ground. Very useful LOI player.

 

Potential wise, Rashid has a lot going for him. If he can get accurate (big if) and learn how to setup batsmen, he will become one of the better spinners in the world. Dude can extract some serious spin out of the surface.

 

 

Well England need to man up and let the guy play a bunch of games.  If they keep benching him randomly, he's not going to develop the temperament and consistency he needs to.  Its a cop-out to take the "Safe" choice in darter Moeen Ali, especially in bilateral ODIs which are not that important.  But England is nothing if not masters of the "cop out".  Lose in India?  No problem, keep jibbering "in these conditions" until your clueless fans buy it.     Only 2 years to go before the next ODI WC - and the last 2 hosts have won it.   Will England be able to do it as well?  

[Trichromatic]

16 hours ago, Stumped said:

Moeen is picked because there's no one significantly better than him with the ball right now so it makes sense to pick him being the best available spinner with the bat. Mason Crane is one I'd say to keep and eye out for as the future of England's spin right now.

There lies the problem. No way a bowler averaging 40 in FC can be your best  spinner. England is not that bad place for finger spinners. 

 

Even if likes of Moeen are best in county, then it can be said that persisting with AR at lower level ensures that only mediocre ones are being groomed and competing at the top.

 

It's like you are eliminating top young talents at start only on basis of batting and then the international bowler is selected from that bunch.

[sandeep]

14 hours ago, Stumped said:

By "keep benching him randomly" you're still referring to benching him for 2 games after he went at 10rpo in the game before right? More games than any other England limited overs player except 1 in the last 2 years is not a 'bunch of games'?

 

And yes, I'm feeling pretty confident over Englands chances in the next world cup. More confident than I ever have in the past at least.

So will the same yardstick apply to other players and bowlers as well if they have a bad game?  Will a Alex Hales get benched if he gets a couple of low scores?  Will Ben Stokes?   Guy has one bad game, and you make him miss 2 out of 3 games - in India - where he's got an opportunity to bowl against batsmen who play spin welll, and in conditions that help him.  

 

All bowlers get tonked in high scoring ODIs, this is not the way to develop a player.  It only puts more pressure on him the next time he's out there.  And leg-spinners need backing, not pressure.  Try bowling wrist-spin sometime, you'll know how much of a high risk task it is.  Simply put, England have proven that they have no faith in him.  No wonder the guy always plays as if he's got a gun to his head.  He actually does.  

[sandeep]

5 minutes ago, Stumped said:

The guys only ever been dropped for 2 games in limited overs since the 'restart' of his international career back at the start of 2015 and suddenly he's got a gun to his head? And in terms of having no faith in him you're still describing the guy who in his 2nd, 3rd and 4th game of his ODI comeback went for a combined 28 overs, 2-219 (Econ 7.82, average 114.5) and lost it mentally so much at the end of those few games that he was resorting to bowling slow seam-up instead of trying to spin it yet went on to play every single remaining limited overs game that summer?

If he's truly so shot mentally, then he shouldn't even be in the squad.   England need to decide one way or the other - Either invest in him, or discard him.  And when you invest in a spinner, you really cant justify benching him for 2 out of 3 ODIs in India - That was his best chance to learn, he's not going to get better sitting on the bench or apparently playing in England FC.  This half-assed current method is not going to work.  It would be easy and obvious to play a spinner when he's doing well.  Its when he's not, he needs to be managed properly and given the development assistance that's needed.  Instead of taking the easy, "safe" cop out.  

[sandeep]

Alright, let's say England did continue to pick him after he quite arguably lost them the first ODI in India. Would the same logic of investing in a bowler not then apply to Jake Ball who would've been dropped for the returning Plunkett instead despite taking 10 wickets in his last 4 ODIs, all in Asia and the first 4 ODI games of his career?

 

 

No it wouldn't. Because you are not playing in seam friendly conditions. You are in spin country. And you have an assembly line of seamers, while you have ONE spinner that you need to develop for the team bowling to have some balance and wicket taking ability in the middle overs.