Learn from England

Some blog posts contain unedited fan-submitted content — Create an account to start your own blog

Many years ago,England were just a test team only ,their one day game was pathetic as the current srilankan team. Some how they wanted to improve their limited over game. Morgan was selected as the captain and new striking batsmen changed their approach and achieved what they wanted. Now their ICC ranking is high. They have the highest ODI score.
That gives a simple truth. Their first three batters and even the captain ,all are aggressive batters. ODI means aggressive. Nothing else. That is the simple rule you have to follow. Look at the history of ODI champions. Clive loyd's Westindies team,ricky ponting's team,arjuna's Srilankan team,Dhoni's indian team,michael clark's 2015 australian team. Every team had dashing batters. Captain is aggressive attacking.
So just follow the rule. Dasun shanaka,thisara perera just have to be aggressive as they do. Openers should be aggressive as well. Tharanga should come to middle order just like michael bevan. He has to play like roshan mahanama did in 1996.dikwella and kusal janith can open. Danushka gunathilake can open as well. Kusal mendis should be aggressive as well. Angelo is normally aggressive. So he can attack as upul tharanga is handling the low middle order. Thisara ,shanaka can up the run rate at the late overs. Our bowlers number 10,9,11 should learn to make huge aggressive runs as well.
Also just learn from England ,joes buttler, jason roy, alex hales,bairstaw and joe root all are attacking batters. They are not defensive batters.
Their test team is excellent as well. This tour they play ODI first then the test matches . That means they can get adjusted to the srilankan pitches and whether prior to the test series. So we cannot expect them to fail to spin just like south african team.
Hope our players make their approach currectly for ODI series and take the positive from the opposition.

Comments

Cricfanus's picture
Member since:
20 January 2018
Last activity:
1 week 15 hours

Could not agree more with u. This exactly the mindset we need, and everyone should be given a role to play. And there should be an aggressive captain as well. I thought, ideally Dikka should have been made the captain with a long-term vision. May be his lack of form resulted in giving the role to Chandimal. Hopefully we will find a good team 4 WC19, although chances at this point of making even to final eight are slim :(

(Last edited by Cricfanus on September 29, 2018 - 13:24)
Stormy's picture
Member since:
15 January 2011
Last activity:
2 days 2 hours

Having the Talent England has does help this but yes it's a good example. It goes further back, remember where Eng was in say 2000? That's right they were floundering at the bottom of the pan with very little talk about two tiers etc. Then they changed their first class county set up which had some impact but their one day game was still ancient.

Then they identified what the winning formula would look like and simply chased it. Of course it helped when you have talent to back up but the important part was to follow a plan, if successful, would be a wining one.

Anonymous's picture

There is a basic problem in your analysis.

It is true England have turned a corner & follow an aggressive course. But they are mostly on flat batting friendly pitches. What you advocate exactly what our team adopted at the Asia cup & came a cropper. It should be horses for courses policy & the SL team should have taken a slow wicket saving policy at the start to attack at the death end. All other teams who won went that way. So the management had a fault here & I'm surprised, after having a coaching stint in the UAE, Hathurusinghe still did not realize it. Your assessment is incorrect because our biggest, I say biggest problem is losing wickets at the start going bang bang (unless you are a mole!).

delan82's picture
Member since:
18 October 2009
Last activity:
11 hours 6 min

Well the first thing England did was remove Alastair Cook, although the timing of it on eve of the WC probably wasn't ideal. Since then under Morgan they have built a good side of attacking players.
They bat deep and very flexible, and enough variety in the attack to keep opposition troubled..bit like the model SL had for 96

Anonymous's picture

Yes, should be aggressive but also need to identify how to aggressive. needs to be more smater than aggressive.

RohanMarkJay's picture
Member since:
3 November 2012
Last activity:
4 days 2 hours

@Delan82 Alastair Cook was an excellent test cricketer ie opening test batsman. But was never suited to limited overs cricket. He himself admitted he disliked playing limited overs cricket. Showed the muddled thinking of England in the last 25 years that they thought just because you are good at test cricket it means your suited to limited overs cricket. Alastair Cook contributed to England being a good test team but was not cut out for the shortened format.

In the early 1990s. Around 1990 to 1992 England did have a good odi side. In the 1992 world cup. They came up with the idea of a pinch hitter in the openning overs. It was revolutionary thinking back then. They used an ageing Ian Botham for the job. They couldn't find another pinch hitter like him as England did not have fast scoring players except for Botham at the time in 1992 World Cup. They managed to reach the final with those tactics. But a mercurial talented Pakistan side led by Imran Khan managed to knock them over in the final. However Sri Lanka looked closely at what England did in 1992 wc and Ranatunga knew he had better players excellent pinch hitting strikers of the ball than anybody else in world cricket and the Kalu Jayasuriya partnership was born for the 1996 world cup, after they experimented with it in Australia to great success.
What England did with Botham as pinch hitter was adopted and improved upon by Sri Lanka around late 1995. So that was definitely one occasion where Sri Lanka learned from the England side of the early 1990s. As for learning from this England side. I think England are just copying what Sri Lanka did from 1996 to 2011. Also England are copying a bit of Australia did too, but mostly they Sri Lanka's successful limited overs strategies from 1996 to 2011. So Sri Lanka shouldn't be learning anything from England. Because England these days is adopting Sri lanka's own successful strategies. Its upto Sri Lanka to re discover what made them successful between 1996 to 2011 and thought the world a new exciting way to play limited overs cricket which became the Sri lankan way started by Kalu,Jayasuriya, Ranatunga, De Silva,Vaas Mahanama etc in the mid 1990s. Sri Lanka need to rediscover what made them successful in the first place.

delan82's picture
Member since:
18 October 2009
Last activity:
11 hours 6 min

@RohanMarkJay Ok thanks but what does 1992 WC have to do with this? In that case why not talk about 1979 and 1987 WC too where they made the final.

I'm just talking about the since last WC 2015 but since you brought this up...England lucky rain rule against SA IN SEMI...then again so was Pakistan in group game against England which would have knocked them out.
England not the only one to use pinch hitters..NZ did it better and were more consistent team in the tournament.
Botham was really at end and nowhere else to put him...his only contribution with bat came against Australia otherwise he was poor and S/R in the 50s was he not???

After that you had leaders like Atherton, Hollioke, Stewart, Hussain then to recent ones like Vaughan, KP, collingwood, Strauss, Cook. Only a few positive leaders amongst that lot.

Their team per se has never been bad it has been their attitude and tactics.
The selectors in both formats played safe with selections...dibly dobly medium pacers instead of match winners with x-factor or bits and pieces "all-rounders" You look at someone like Malcolm yes he sprayed ball but if handled better would have been much more successful. And his handful of ODI stats not too bad either.
Then there is the attitude of the board...played 55 overs at home for sometime when everyone one else switched to 50, then not focused on shorter format...good example of this is you look at how long Alec Stewart played and how long it took him to reach milestone like 100 games compared to other sides.

I thought this post was to do with recent times not 25 years ago. They removed a inconsistent captain whose position in the XI was questionable and replaced with someone who was. They have a long batting line up and good variety in attack.

Was interesting to here Morgan say last week everyone is accountable and he would drop himself if not performing...finally the attitude change, positive, attacking cricket. And they have given the players picked a decent run whilst those same players know their is replacements and competition waiting in the wings but they won't be chopped and changed after one bad performance, it would take several for that to happen....Yes conditions and circumstances sometimes help and room for improvement but much better than in past.

Interesting point for them is can they handle expectations and pressure at home for next WC, and have they peaked to early? But right now they are clearly best ODI side around with good squad and leader...can't say the same for their test side which has actually struggled in last couple of years!

Post new comment

Note
All anonymous comments are moderated.
  • Avoid abusive remarks and personal attacks.
  • Avoid posting unrelated links.
  • Avoid vulgar or obscene language.
Already a member? Log-in now. Not a member? Sign up for a new account.
CAPTCHA
This step helps us prevent automated submissions from spammers.
1 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.