England v West Indies, 2nd Test - Trent Bridge

First topic message reminder :

England unchanged. Rampaul and Shillingford in for the Windies.

Windies win the toss and will bat. A great toss to win - runs galore today.

Mike Selig wrote:I agree entirely with Jeff about Bairstow. If people thought he wasn't good enough BEFORE he played a test that's fine, they're entitled to that. People who have changed their mind based on one innings against a bowler who when he bowled fast short and straight troubled Ricky Ponting earlier in his career should remember how knee-jerking selections in the 90s didn't particularly do any good.

On Taylor: I rate him highly, but England clearly feel he's more a top-order batsman than middle-order, and based on his one weakness which is his nudging skills against spin (he nudges very well against medium pace) I think they are right. I am worried he is a bit too limited for international T20s (his scoring areas are perhaps a bit limitted), but he surely has a role to play in the other 2 forms: it will be interesting to see if England pick him as an opener to replace KP.

Taylor may be talented, but does he have the technique and discipline needed to cope at a test match level? He could go the way of Graeme Hick and struggle to establish himself in the England test team.

taylor is the best english talent we have and he seems to have a level head, he has the best record and averages out there of the youngsters and is allready captaining the lions. So if he doesnt have whats required then its sort of tough luck england- because he is the best we have!!

His only problem(if its a problem) is that he is tiny!!!

mystiroakey wrote:taylor is the best english talent we have and he seems to have a level head, he has the best record and averages out there of the youngsters and is allready captaining the lions. So if he doesnt have whats required then its sort of tough luck england- because he is the best we have!!

His only problem(if its a problem) is that he is tiny!!!

Having a level head is the same as having the proper technique for batting at a test match level.

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:taylor is the best english talent we have and he seems to have a level head, he has the best record and averages out there of the youngsters and is allready captaining the lions. So if he doesnt have whats required then its sort of tough luck england- because he is the best we have!!

His only problem(if its a problem) is that he is tiny!!!

Having a level head is the same as having the proper technique for batting at a test match level.

Presumably you mean "not the same"? I agree, a level head is far more important than "proper" technique: Tendulkar (and to an extent Barry Richards) aside, most of the all-time great batsmen haven't had what most would consider (at least at the time) "proper" technique.

I think here is a good case for 5 bowlers


http://www.forwarddefensive.com/2012/05/29/five-bowlers/

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I think here is a good case for 5 bowlers


http://www.forwarddefensive.com/2012/05/29/five-bowlers/

Thanks Shanky. In about 500 less words, and 500 time less eloquently, this is what I've been saying all along. Doesn't make me right, but it's nice that at least someone agrees with me......

Douglas- loads agree with you,including myself. He has tried to outline it in detail and it looks as though he has used the correct stats correctly.

"England have nothing, or at lease very little, to lose by playing a fifth bowler."

because

"England are clearly not gaining anything by playing a sixth batsman and looking at the actual results of matches backs this up"


and that has allways been our argument in playing the 5th bowler.

This argument is also so much more valid when preparing to play the best side in the world, because if we say winning is prime importance - why waste a spot.

I think it's a compelling point, but the question I'd ask is when was the last time we failed to take 20 wickets in a test?

The first test vs Pakistan was one occasion, but batting first we didn't give our bowlers a chance in the 4th innings, with Pakistan reaching 15/0 to win the test.

There were a couple of times in the rain-effect home series against Sri Lanka, but there's not that much you can do with an extra bowler when your time is cut short by the weather.

There was the Brisbane test when the pitch turned to a road and Cook and Trott batted to 517/1 and the eventual drawing of the test match, with the bowlers not given a real chance to bowl Australia out a second time.

So twice since (and including) the Ashes have we failed to bowl out the opposition in non-rain effected games, and both times there was never a realistic prospect of getting the 10 second innings wickets. Do we need a fifth bowler? I suppose in some of the matches where we have had big totals put on against us a fifth bowler could have helped, but I think a proper sixth batsman would have been many times more useful in the recent whitewash to Pakistan, for example, the only series we've lost since 2009.

And no, our number 6 batsman hasn't been working out recently, but it's a question of finding the right man for the job. If this is how good we are carrying someone at 6, imagine how good we'll be when we find the man who can come in and score @ 40+!

robbo277 wrote:I think it's a compelling point, but the question I'd ask is when was the last time we failed to take 20 wickets in a test?

The first test vs Pakistan was one occasion, but batting first we didn't give our bowlers a chance in the 4th innings, with Pakistan reaching 15/0 to win the test.

There were a couple of times in the rain-effect home series against Sri Lanka, but there's not that much you can do with an extra bowler when your time is cut short by the weather.

There was the Brisbane test when the pitch turned to a road and Cook and Trott batted to 517/1 and the eventual drawing of the test match, with the bowlers not given a real chance to bowl Australia out a second time.

So twice since (and including) the Ashes have we failed to bowl out the opposition in non-rain effected games, and both times there was never a realistic prospect of getting the 10 second innings wickets. Do we need a fifth bowler? I suppose in some of the matches where we have had big totals put on against us a fifth bowler could have helped, but I think a proper sixth batsman would have been many times more useful in the recent whitewash to Pakistan, for example, the only series we've lost since 2009.

And no, our number 6 batsman hasn't been working out recently, but it's a question of finding the right man for the job. If this is how good we are carrying someone at 6, imagine how good we'll be when we find the man who can come in and score @ 40+!

But if we bowl out the opposition quicker in the first innings (by having a top notch 5th bowler), we then have more chance to get those 10 2nd innings wickets?

mystiroakey wrote:Douglas- loads agree with you,including myself. He has tried to outline it in detail and it looks as though he has used the correct stats correctly.

"England have nothing, or at lease very little, to lose by playing a fifth bowler."

because

"England are clearly not gaining anything by playing a sixth batsman and looking at the actual results of matches backs this up"


and that has allways been our argument in playing the 5th bowler.

This argument is also so much more valid when preparing to play the best side in the world, because if we say winning is prime importance - why waste a spot.

Yes Mystir, sorry, you have been there all along!!

Its a massively biassed article trying to prove a point. Patel is in there as an example of a 6th batsman who was a waste of space, when he was only selected because he offered a 5th bowling option (which proved to be largely useless as well). The article also claims england have been making huge totals, which aus tour side isnt really the case.
Theres also plenty of examples of 5th bowler being a waste of space. Last time the windies came here Bresnan didnt bowl in the first innings and 7 overs for no wickets in the second. Englands first innings had fell apart and relied on Broad to post a reasonable total. Second innings of the second test he finaly took some wickets but Broad, Onions and Swann hardly bowled any overs .. theres nothing to suggest the 3 of them wouldnt have rolled the windies over with ease as well.
Next up was Aus, Panaessar as the 5th bowler...took 1 for 115. Now hes famous for batting out he game but you wouldve expected England to have been ain a better position if it had been Trott in the side in his place.
4th test of that series England scored 365 over 2 innings...would Trott or another batsman have been useful there?
The5th test was won in the first innings were only 4 bowlers were required. although the fifth did take wickets in the second england won comfortably, and couldve had another 50 runs on the board with an additional batsman (the middle order collapsed in the first innings).
Its only the 3rd test of that series that the 5th bowling option made a real positive difference, and England had a genuine all rounder in flintoff then which they dont have now. Broad Bresnan and Anderson have also improved immeasurably to players who regularly take wickets in any conditions. Part of that has been put down to scoreboard pressure and sides knowing england have batting depth. the weakness with the set up is if a player gets injured and the lack of a variation bowler in the batting line up who can average in the 40's.

Now ideally Id argue England ideally be playing an all rounder at 6/7, if Samit Patel was any good hed be an excellent addition to the side offering a genuinely different bowling option. In the absence of Flintoff theres the choice between picking a Roni Irani who cant bat or bowl, a specialist batsman, or a specialist bowler. Theyve chosen the batsman.

Now I get the argument, Englands 6th batsmen are questionable. There 5th bowler (Finn) is the greatest thing since sliced bread....so if its a choice between going bat heavy and bowl heavy then go with the stronger player.
Its quite clear england are desperate to avoid falling into the trap of picking a player just because he can bowl a bit in the batting order, and in the absence of even Bopara it does leave a real lack of support for the front 4....not that theyve needed it. That for me is the strongest argument for finn as a 5th bolwer, not cherry picking facts to make it sound like picking Trott was a waste of time.

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

robbo277 wrote:I think it's a compelling point, but the question I'd ask is when was the last time we failed to take 20 wickets in a test?

The first test vs Pakistan was one occasion, but batting first we didn't give our bowlers a chance in the 4th innings, with Pakistan reaching 15/0 to win the test.

There were a couple of times in the rain-effect home series against Sri Lanka, but there's not that much you can do with an extra bowler when your time is cut short by the weather.

There was the Brisbane test when the pitch turned to a road and Cook and Trott batted to 517/1 and the eventual drawing of the test match, with the bowlers not given a real chance to bowl Australia out a second time.

So twice since (and including) the Ashes have we failed to bowl out the opposition in non-rain effected games, and both times there was never a realistic prospect of getting the 10 second innings wickets. Do we need a fifth bowler? I suppose in some of the matches where we have had big totals put on against us a fifth bowler could have helped, but I think a proper sixth batsman would have been many times more useful in the recent whitewash to Pakistan, for example, the only series we've lost since 2009.

And no, our number 6 batsman hasn't been working out recently, but it's a question of finding the right man for the job. If this is how good we are carrying someone at 6, imagine how good we'll be when we find the man who can come in and score @ 40+!

But if we bowl out the opposition quicker in the first innings (by having a top notch 5th bowler), we then have more chance to get those 10 2nd innings wickets?

meh .. 4 seamers just means longer till swann gets his obligatory first over wicket.
But this is the important point, if youre playing 5 bowlers they have to be bowlers he demand a place. And I cede your point that England currently do. Of course because of that they have thrived with just 4, gone are they days when they picked 5 because they didnt trust the first 4.

The thing is, I don't think a 5th bowler will result in getting wickets more cheaply, because England aren't struggling to get wickets cheaply - it will just mean one of the 5 doesn't bowl very much at all.

I completely understand the argument which says that a 6th batsman who is not scoring runs is essentially useless so we may as well pick a bowler who we're pretty sure will take wickets. But IMO it is built on a false premise: the 5th bowler will indeed take wickets, but those wickets would have been taken at very much the same cost by one of the other 4 had he not been there. So the benefit to the team is very little, if any.

On the other hand the potential gain by having a 6th genuine batsman is illustrated by the number of times in the winter when our batting failed. Had our number 6 been say a Hussey and saved the day the results in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka may have been different.

A lot of people look to the retirement of Warne and McGrath as the beginning of Australia's decline, but actually they won a few test matches in the immediate aftermath - IMO another important factor was that whoever they picked at number 6 wasn't doing the business (first Symonds went off the boil, then North was given a while and despite a good start showed he wasn't good enough, then they had Steve Smith, etc.). Yes, a lot of their recent success is built on a rejuvinated bowling attack, but having Hussey at 6 can't have harmed the cause too much (think back to the 2nd innings against India at the MCG - from 27/4 Hussey and Ponting turned the match back in Aus's favour).

There are those including I think Mystir who are arguing for short-termism: in effect we shouldn't be trying out a new number 6 against SA. But surely that was the point of picking Bairstow in this series in the first place? OK, so it hasn't worked out so far, but with one test to go let's back him and see what happens. Certainly there is no point going for 5 bowlers in the next test if this is your argument. If he doesn't perform then you have Bopara and Morgan who have decent international experience.

To sum up, England may not be gaining much from playing a 6th batsman, but IMO they would gain no more from a 5th bowler. That being the case, the potential gains from a 6th batsman are clearly far more than from a 5th bowler (even accepting that 5 bowlers does mean you bowl sides out more cheaply): 6 batsmen it is.

Jeff is of course quite right to say that Bairstow should not be jettisoned after one failure - or even two or three : if he was good enough to pick in the first place he is worth a decent trial.
In any case we are going to get a pretty good idea whether or not he has what it takes fairly quickly : after the way he struggled against Roach at Trent Bridge he is likely to be peppered with short stuff by both West Indies next week and the pretty handy South African pace attack , assuming he starts that series.
I suppose the tricky decision would come if he looked really bad in this next Test against a barrage of short stuff...the selectors might then become a bit nervous about exposing him to Steyn and Morkel. Hopefully he will do enough next week to justify their faith in his potential.

Absolutely do not want to go back to 90's theories of merry-go-round selection ...