The selectors have made their decisions about who will play in the World Cup and, as per usual, much has been made about our squad. It’s too late to offer suggestions on who should be in the squad, but it’s worthwhile looking at how this team should play.
The following table compares the teams I think will represent England, Australia and India, assuming all players are fit and in form.
| England | Australia | India |
|---|---|---|
| Hales/Roy | Aaron Finch | Rohit Sharma |
| Jonny Bairstow | Warner/Khawaja | Shikar Dhawan |
| Joe Root | Warner/Khawaja | Virat Kohli |
| Eoin Morgan | Steve Smith | MS Dhoni |
| Jos Buttler | Glenn Maxwell | Kedar Jadhav |
| Ben Stokes | Alex Carey | Hardik Pandiya |
| Moeen Ali | Stoinis/Coulter-Nile | Bhuveneshwar Kumar |
| Woakes/Plunkett | Jhye Richardson | Jadeja/Chahal |
| Sam Curran | Pat Cummins | Mohammed Shami |
| Adil Rashid | Mitchell Starc | Kuldeep Yadav |
| Mark Wood | Adam Zampa | Jasprit Bumrah |
Much has been made about England’s resurgence in ODI cricket after their poor showing in 2015. They have an attacking batting line-up and their approach is to be aggressive from ball one.
This approach can be both spectacular and a complete flop as they displayed in the West Indies, with scores of 413 and 113 in the same series.
(AP Photo/Ricardo Mazalan)
The obvious reason for their success is the depth of their batting, with Adil Rashid at ten and quite capable of scoring at a run a ball. They also have a number of players with strike rates over a hundred and they have created the aura that no score is too big for them to chase down.
The trade-off for such a long batting line-up is a lack of a quality ODI attack. This problem was highlighted when they played Scotland last year. The Scots faced four of the bowlers mentioned in the list above and managed to score 371, with the best of the Englishmen going for 6.6 runs per over. England could not run this score down, even though they had nine of their best team playing that game.
India’s ODI team has also been successful in recent years. During the recent ODI series in India, I recall commentators saying Virat Kohli’s men had won over 70 per cent of their recent games (versus a 23 per cent win rate for Australia at the same time).
Their batting is dominated by an experienced and talented top four, who regularly make a lot of runs very quickly. These players are complemented by a very strong bowling attack, including four bowlers who rate in the top 15 of the current world ODI rankings. This combination gives the Indian side much more balance than England’s, as well as far more variety in attack.
They do have one weakness which Australia exploited in their series victory last month. They depend so heavily on the top four making scores and batting the majority of the overs, that if they are dismissed cheaply, the rest of the side struggles to recover.
Who, then, should Australia try and emulate?
(Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)
In recent weeks, there have been lots of articles suggesting Australia needs to emulate England, but the reality is we can’t hope to match up with them with the squad that’s been chosen. The table makes it clear our batting depth is okay, but nowhere near theirs.
We match up much more readily with India, where our top five, while not as explosive, have learnt how to make enough runs to win games without putting huge pressure on the lower order.
This should mean that in an Australian score of 350, our top five has scored at least 280 of those, leaving the other six guys the task of scoring 70, which should be readily achievable.
Listen as The Roar’s new podcast, Game of Codes, breaks down the Australian World Cup squad.
This also means our top five taking fewer risks early on than either England or India, getting away to solid rather than spectacular starts, but maintaining around five or six an over until the last ten overs then accelerating.
We don’t have the explosive hitters down the order, so it’s up to the top order to score enough runs, so the bottom four isn’t faced with the prospect of trying to go at ten an over for ten overs in order to make a decent score. That simply won’t happen. At best, they should be asked to get a run a ball and anything on top’s a bonus.
We also need to have faith in our bowlers to get sides out, or restrict their totals so we win games. Pat Cummins showed he’s world-class in both India and the UAE, Adam Zampa has them coming out of his hand nicely, Nathan Coulter-Nile and Jhye Richardson will be a handful in England with the Dukes ball and Starc could be the explosive wild card, assuming he’s bowling with rhythm and purpose.
Australia needs to forget about playing an English style ODI cricket and focus on our strengths. We’ve shown we can beat the number two side in world cricket on their home turf and if we play to our strengths, there’s no reason why we can’t beat the number one side either.
sdhoneymonster
Guest
Worth pointing out that there is no white Duke ball - the Kookaburra is the standard one used across the world and is what will be used during the World Cup. Interestingly too the red Duke may not be so alien either anymore - the ECB asked them to tighten the seam up a touch so that it was less pronounced, which has lead to less exaggerated movement both in the air but especially off the pitch so far in the County Championship.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Spot on Paul, no need for Australia to emulate anyone. Our WC trophy cabinet is overflowing because we played tournament cricket based on our own plan prior to the start and adjusted as necessary according to the tournament format. It works. England have been declared WC favourites countless times in the past - 12 months out - but spend the finals soul searching and answering recriminations while the Aussies played finals. Invariably they'd then use the winning Aussie formula for the next tournament, but the Aussies had moved on to the next step.
Graham
Guest
given how many matches are affected by rain or chasing low totals perhaps a fairer picture is to look at the percentage of times each team has scored 6/7 an over or won with 3/5 overs remaining excluding matches a team is bowled out for less than 300. India's batting mostly looks worse because they have had to chase more modest totals because their bowlers have dominated England have played 74 matches with results and scored over 7 and over or won with 5 or more overs to spare 27 times. They have scored 6 and over or won with more than 3 overs to spare 46 times. They dominate with the bat nearly every other game Australia have played 75 matches and have only dominated with the bat 13 times. 29 times they have scored 300+, 6 an over or chased a score with 3 overs to spare India have played 84 matches and have dominated 26 times. Another 47 times they have scored a run a ball, 300+ or chased a total with 3 overs to spare
Graham
Guest
By my count each team has played around 75 times since the last world cup. So England will probably post two 350+ totals. Hopefully not against us!
Graham
Guest
At the very least an in between option would be to drop one of our million fast bowlers for turner and play him just against England where we might need a bit of extra firepower 320 is probably a consistent winning score against south africa, new zealand and india if our bowlers are in form and perhaps this squad can consistently get there
Graham
Guest
Its true we can't emulate England but we can be a fraction more balanced and having 2 lower order hitters achieves that. If you replaced marsh and carey with handscomb and turner you break even on list a averages (29.38+43.97 vs 37.48+36.12) but gain a lot in terms of strike rate (78.87+80.71 vs 88.67+97.63). Against England when we played our full strength team and lost 4-1 but would have won 4-1 if we could eek out just 20 odd more runs a game. List A statistics seem to suggest that the above replacement would do the job so long as Handscomb can break even with keeping and they can reproduce their list A averages. Amazingly only Marsh has a better List A average than ODI record and I haven't seen anything to suggest that we gain a lot with Carey keeping/ Having said all that if Warner plays like he is in the IPL, Cummins and Starc fire and Smith returns to his 2015-2016 ODI form then I pity any team facing us.
JayG
Roar Rookie
Archer is a slogger but no #11 with the bat. Curran (Sam - since he has 2 brothers also playing professional cricket) has not been playing ODIs for England on any regular basis - he has played 2 ODIs for 17 runs. Safe to say he aint making the team.
Paul
Roar Guru
I can understand Woakes as he fits their approach - okay to ordinary bowler who can bat well as a lower order player. I thought Curran fitted that same mold, so I was surprised when you suggested these other guys. I've not seen Archer bat. Is he any good?
JayG
Roar Rookie
Archer if he does well in the Pakistan series would be my guess. Alternatively, they will choose 2 out of Woakes/Plunkett/Willey
Paul
Roar Guru
who will replace Curran, Jay?
Paul
Roar Guru
I probably did, Dat, but I took the bowlers from the 5 games India played against Australia, where the only change was Pandiya who didn't play in that series
Paul
Roar Guru
the problem is, we only have the one basket and 2 months ago, we were flat out filling it with anyone good enough to be there. If the WC was in 12 months time, we might have the Shorts, Lynns & Turners to go with Warner & Maxwell, but as the Yanks would say "thems the cards we were dealt". Its now up to Finch & the boys to do what they can
Nick
Roar Guru
I get why you are mocking that B team we sent to England last year, but remember Australia just bullied a B pakistan team and yet everyone is using it as though all form issues have been answered. Hitting 481, even against a weak Australia is just a massive, massive total (They should have got 500 tbh). The fact is that England passed 350 four times in a year, and two of those times 400. That means that they are doing it 1 in 5.5 innings. Australia are putting all their eggs in the 'contain them' basket. It's risky.
Paul
Roar Guru
"but they score 350+ almost for fun these days. I don’t think our selectors have considered that." I'm very sure the selectors have done exactly the same thing I did SM and went back through the England's 22 matches over the past 5 series, to New Zealand in 2018. In that time, they went past 350 twice against the Windies and drew that series two all, once against that great team we sent to England last year and once against Scotland, where they were beaten. That indicates a team that can post big scores, but equally means sides that can contain them, can beat them.
Nick
Roar Guru
It's rare, it's infrequent, but it happens, and it's more likely to happen this world cup than others. England have hit 360+ four times in the second innings. They won one of those games. So Australia would have to hit 370 to really, really be sure England can't chase that down. Can Australia's current line up hit 370? Since the world cup England have passed 350 13 times (and 22 times passed 320). By comparison: Australia 7 times (13 past 320). India 6 times (also 13 past 320). NZ 4 times (12 past 320). South Africa 10 times (16 past 320). And yes, chases are still rare and if you've hit 350 you are likely to win. The problem for Australia is that is England are statistically a better chance of doing it...and knowing Australia aren't a great chasing team, why wouldn't you put in some more firepower?
dat
Roar Rookie
I would feel archer has a better shot to be in the 11 than Curran.
JayG
Roar Rookie
Very few sides can chase 350. India are unlikely to do so and England have a 50-50 chance. England have successfully chased 350+ only 2/5 times in the last 4 years. If you've conceded 350, the chances are you're already on the backfoot.
dat
Roar Rookie
I feel you went with a more bowling heavy unit for India as the 11 seems to be one batsman short. When the squad for the wc was announced, it was revealed that Shankar is going to be batting at 4,with other options such at Virat batting at 4 so Rahul can bat at 3 and Dhoni batting at 4 so Dinesh Karthik can be in the 11 as a finisher also being discussed. Shankar was unluckily run out on 2 occasions when his team was batting on tricky conditions(in Nagpur vs aust and Wellington vs nz) but looked very comfortable in the middle and is quite good at strike rotation as well as clearing the fence if need be.So he looks set to be in the 11. Unless the pitch is favoring swing or seam movement too much india aren’t likely to play all 3 of shami,bumrah and bhuvi in the 11 and even then if they do so, it would be at the expense of one of the wrist spinners, likely chahal.
JayG
Roar Rookie
England will almost definitely not have Sam Curran in the World Cup. India will almost definitely play another batsman and only one of Bhuvi/Shami will play.
Peter Warrington
Guest
we made the bed a while back. we could have looked for players who go at 110 and average 35 but we didn't. Turner the obvious sort. Short. Lynn. so now we have no choice. it may well be good enough. and then I suspect but cannot vouchsafe that there is an undercurrent of "let's get Smith Warner Khawaja Marsh" a lot of crease time in England before the Ashes and even if we don't win the Cup (because England or India have a level we haven't), we are in great shape for the Ashes. and i guess i am ok with that, it's not us who choose to schedule an away World Cup straight before an away Ashes, hasn't happened since the thrown-together Ashes of 75, so we don't have a template for how to juggle those peak demands. it's a managed risk way of thinking. conservative, but maybe good and actual conservative, rather than reactionary.