England LOST three games in a row to Bangladesh after winning T20 WC.

Is this the first time it happened?

Bangladesh is a good team but NOT that good to beat England three games in
a row, that too a T20 World Cup winner.

On 15/03/2023 06:11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
>
> England LOST three games in a row to Bangladesh after winning T20 WC.
>
> Is this the first time it happened?

If you mean the first 3 T20 matches after winning the T20 WC, then yes.
In fact, they are the first T20 World Champions not to win their next
T20 match.

The most consecutive T20 matches lost by the reigning T20 World
Champions is 6 (West Indies in 2019).

--
David North

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 20:48:45 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/03/2023 06:11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>
>>
>> England LOST three games in a row to Bangladesh after winning T20 WC.
>>

What, if anything, can we conclude from this rather disappointing
showing? Of that top 6, I'd only expect to see two or three (depending
on where Livingstone bats) in a full-strength England T20 top 6:
Hales, Bairstow, Duckett, Brook/Buttler, Livingstone/Curran/Ali,
Rashid/pace/pace looks about the ticket for me.

I think this is Obi-Wan Kenobi saying "These are not the reserves
you're looking for". At least, not yet.

The ODIs went rather better, and even I've got to acknowledge that
Jason Roy has restaked his claim at the top of the 50-over order.
Malan reminded everyone that he's still a formidable 50-over player.

I can't really find anything to worry about in the bowling attack in
either format. With Rashid as a banker, you've got four spots and
about ten players to fill them in some combination which doesn't
result in Chris Woakes batting any higher than 8 if you can help it: I
worry a little about how bad 8, 9 and 10 are if he's at 7.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <g2m91id3n11jcnk669eojqll88ipd6s466@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 20:48:45 +0000, David North
><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 15/03/2023 06:11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> England LOST three games in a row to Bangladesh after winning T20 WC.
>>>
>
>What, if anything, can we conclude from this rather disappointing
>showing? Of that top 6, I'd only expect to see two or three (depending
>on where Livingstone bats) in a full-strength England T20 top 6:
>Hales, Bairstow, Duckett, Brook/Buttler, Livingstone/Curran/Ali,
>Rashid/pace/pace looks about the ticket for me.

I was a little confused by your use of slashes, but to finish up with
eleven players it looks like they imply "and" rather than "or" as I'd
initially assumed. Batting Buttler so low in the order looks like a bit
of a waste; I'd prefer to have him opening. Depending on conditions, one
might want another pace bowler, in which case I'd probably leave out a
specialist batsman rather than one of the spinning all-rounders. In the
twenty over format, having one of Livingstone, Ali or Curran at seven
rather than eight is unlikely to be a problem. Based on what we saw in
Bangladesh, it looks like one of your two unspecified pace bowlers
should be Archer - fingers crossed that he remains fit.

>
>I think this is Obi-Wan Kenobi saying "These are not the reserves
>you're looking for". At least, not yet.

No doubt there will be some changes before the next T20 WC, which is
still a fair way off. Should Stokes reverse his decision not to play any
England T20s, and be fully fit to bowl as well as bat, the selection of
the best side would become even more challenging.

>
>The ODIs went rather better, and even I've got to acknowledge that
>Jason Roy has restaked his claim at the top of the 50-over order.
>Malan reminded everyone that he's still a formidable 50-over player.
>
>I can't really find anything to worry about in the bowling attack in
>either format. With Rashid as a banker, you've got four spots and
>about ten players to fill them in some combination which doesn't
>result in Chris Woakes batting any higher than 8 if you can help it: I
>worry a little about how bad 8, 9 and 10 are if he's at 7.

That's more of a concern in the fifty over format than in twenty overs,
of course. But with the number of all-rounders that England have at
their disposal when at full strength, it doesn't look like he should
have to bat any higher than eight.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On 18/03/2023 09:49, John Hall wrote:

> No doubt there will be some changes before the next T20 WC, which is
> still a fair way off. Should Stokes reverse his decision not to play any
> England T20s

Has he ruled himself out of T20s? I know that he retired from ODIs.

--
David North

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 10:30:39 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 18/03/2023 09:49, John Hall wrote:
>
>> No doubt there will be some changes before the next T20 WC, which is
>> still a fair way off. Should Stokes reverse his decision not to play any
>> England T20s
>
>Has he ruled himself out of T20s? I know that he retired from ODIs.

No, he hasn't. One can question the wisdom of his playing T20Is with
his dodgy knee, but not his willingness, apparently.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:49:09 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <g2m91id3n11jcnk669eojqll88ipd6s466@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 20:48:45 +0000, David North
>><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 15/03/2023 06:11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> England LOST three games in a row to Bangladesh after winning T20 WC.
>>>>
>>
>>What, if anything, can we conclude from this rather disappointing
>>showing? Of that top 6, I'd only expect to see two or three (depending
>>on where Livingstone bats) in a full-strength England T20 top 6:
>>Hales, Bairstow, Duckett, Brook/Buttler, Livingstone/Curran/Ali,
>>Rashid/pace/pace looks about the ticket for me.
>
>I was a little confused by your use of slashes, but to finish up with
>eleven players it looks like they imply "and" rather than "or" as I'd
>initially assumed. Batting Buttler so low in the order looks like a bit
>of a waste; I'd prefer to have him opening.

Yes, those slashes were "in either order". And I got myself confused.
It's 50-overs when Buttler prefers to bat lower in the order. So swap
Buttler and Bairstow and we're golden.

> Depending on conditions, one
>might want another pace bowler, in which case I'd probably leave out a
>specialist batsman rather than one of the spinning all-rounders. In the
>twenty over format, having one of Livingstone, Ali or Curran at seven
>rather than eight is unlikely to be a problem. Based on what we saw in
>Bangladesh, it looks like one of your two unspecified pace bowlers
>should be Archer - fingers crossed that he remains fit.

Having thought a bit more, I meant 3 of Ali and three pace bowlers,
depending on conditions, with Archer, M Wood, L Wood, Topley, Jordan,
Willey, Stone, Woakes, Mahmood and some other vaguely-possibles to
choose from.
>>
>>I think this is Obi-Wan Kenobi saying "These are not the reserves
>>you're looking for". At least, not yet.
>
>No doubt there will be some changes before the next T20 WC, which is
>still a fair way off.

Well, Buttler and Mott both said that this was nowhere near their best
XI and that they were using the games to have a look at people, so
there's no suggestion that this is a likely WC team.

>Should Stokes reverse his decision not to play any
>England T20s, and be fully fit to bowl as well as bat, the selection of
>the best side would become even more challenging.

I didn't include Stokes because I'm sceptical that he will be able to
play much T20I cricket, despite the fact that he wants to. I think he
will try to preserve his knees for his Test cricket mission and that
he will reluctantly pull out at inconvenient moments.

But, as you say, throwing him into the mix probably ejects Duckett.

>>
>>The ODIs went rather better, and even I've got to acknowledge that
>>Jason Roy has restaked his claim at the top of the 50-over order.
>>Malan reminded everyone that he's still a formidable 50-over player.
>>
>>I can't really find anything to worry about in the bowling attack in
>>either format. With Rashid as a banker, you've got four spots and
>>about ten players to fill them in some combination which doesn't
>>result in Chris Woakes batting any higher than 8 if you can help it: I
>>worry a little about how bad 8, 9 and 10 are if he's at 7.
>
>That's more of a concern in the fifty over format than in twenty overs,
>of course. But with the number of all-rounders that England have at
>their disposal when at full strength, it doesn't look like he should
>have to bat any higher than eight.

I was thinking of a line-up like Woakes, Jordan, Archer, Stone,
Rashid, which is semi-plausible but a huge risk if the top 5 don't do
much.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <k7li6fF4bqmU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 18/03/2023 09:49, John Hall wrote:
>
>> No doubt there will be some changes before the next T20 WC, which is
>>still a fair way off. Should Stokes reverse his decision not to play
>>any England T20s
>
>Has he ruled himself out of T20s? I know that he retired from ODIs.
>

Ah, sorry. I got ODIs and IT20s confused.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

In message <ogcb1i5chh7sj2j09si103hg5jj8tjkl5d@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:49:09 +0000, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
>>
>>No doubt there will be some changes before the next T20 WC, which is
>>still a fair way off.
>
>Well, Buttler and Mott both said that this was nowhere near their best
>XI and that they were using the games to have a look at people, so
>there's no suggestion that this is a likely WC team.

Indeed, but I meant changes from your suggested current best XI rather
than the side that played in Bangladesh.
>
>>Should Stokes reverse his decision not to play any
>>England T20s, and be fully fit to bowl as well as bat, the selection of
>>the best side would become even more challenging.
>
>I didn't include Stokes because I'm sceptical that he will be able to
>play much T20I cricket, despite the fact that he wants to. I think he
>will try to preserve his knees for his Test cricket mission and that
>he will reluctantly pull out at inconvenient moments.

I think you're probably right about that.

>
>But, as you say, throwing him into the mix probably ejects Duckett.

I think if Stokes is unable to bowl, then if they're playing in the
subcontinent I'd rather have Duckett, but otherwise I'd prefer Stokes.

>
>>>
>>>The ODIs went rather better, and even I've got to acknowledge that
>>>Jason Roy has restaked his claim at the top of the 50-over order.
>>>Malan reminded everyone that he's still a formidable 50-over player.
>>>
>>>I can't really find anything to worry about in the bowling attack in
>>>either format. With Rashid as a banker, you've got four spots and
>>>about ten players to fill them in some combination which doesn't
>>>result in Chris Woakes batting any higher than 8 if you can help it: I
>>>worry a little about how bad 8, 9 and 10 are if he's at 7.
>>
>>That's more of a concern in the fifty over format than in twenty overs,
>>of course. But with the number of all-rounders that England have at
>>their disposal when at full strength, it doesn't look like he should
>>have to bat any higher than eight.
>
>I was thinking of a line-up like Woakes, Jordan, Archer, Stone,
>Rashid, which is semi-plausible but a huge risk if the top 5 don't do
>much.

I was assuming that you wouldn't want more than four pace bowlers and
that one of those would be Curran.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"