Ian Chappell was right-

I don’t quite get you there.

You say England played specialists, but specialists batsmen will not have deficiencies vs strong bowling, usually it’s the bits and pieces players that struggle.

comment by JustTrue (U13155)
posted 10 hours, 22 minutes ago
I don’t quite get you there.

You say England played specialists, but specialists batsmen will not have deficiencies vs strong bowling, usually it’s the bits and pieces players that struggle.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Specialist like ODI and t-20 specialist.

England's team is full of players who play in the test team; Bairstow, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Moeen, Woakes, Rashid and Wood. With calls for players like Roy and Archer to also be included.

England picked the squad that has largely been the same for the last 4 years since the disastrous 2015 world cup who have been a force. The issue isn't with the players selected or their techniques. The issue is the mentality, the players aren't performing to their level or ability under pressure and that is a mental problem.

comment by Pakistan till I die (U10140)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Specialist like ODI and t-20 specialist.
=====================================

Oh now I understand you, I agree sometimes you just need your best players to adapt rather than have a completely different ODI, Test and T20 team. The odd player is fine, but if the whole bowling attack changes (like England seem to), then it seems a bit extreme and will cause problems on the tougher pitches.

Pakistan have done this too, in 1999 they had Waqar Younis, Mushtaq Ahmed, Yousuf on the bench and picked ODI players like Razzaq, Mahmood and Afridi for the final of the 1999 World Cup. What did these 3 do in the final? The same as Reeve, DeFreitas and Lewis in the 1992 final. Utility cricketers seldom work in the really big games.

I am not fan of utility cricketers, I would have maximum of 1 of these players in my side.