England squad for India set to be announced

First topic message reminder :

England announce the squad for India at 11 tomorrow.

The rumour currently going round is that it will be: Cook, Root, Trott, Bell, Morgan, Bairstow, Bopara, Prior, Kieswetter, Swann, Patel, Tredwell, Broad, Anderson, Bresnan, Finn

A few surprises in there and I'm not sure I can agree with some of the decisions if this is true - no Monty, no Taylor, Ravi in despite his form, Morgan back in despite no FC runs in yonks.

I like Root but at this time, following the loss of two experienced batsmen, I reckon we need to unearth a Mike Hussey type who can slot straight in and score heavily - I reckon Carberry or Compton are more likely to do that.

The one position that is a bit up in the air is the Bopara one - some people think Compton will go and I'd assume it must be in place of Bopara.

Compton and Morgan make it ahead of Bopara and Taylor. Compton possibly also with a view of being a possible opening candidate. Bopara doesn't make the Lions tour either, so suggests the management aren't convinced he's over whatever problems he had, although (more on the Lions squad later) perhaps not too much should be read into that. I understand the reasoning, but feel Taylor is unlucky.

Root makes the trip. I maintain it may be a year too soon, but it will certainly be a good test of his temparament.

Panesar gets the 2nd spinners slot ahead of Tredwell. Probably just about right, given how he performed last winter, but I don't think England will play two spinners.

Patel also gives them that option, but can't see him doing much against the Indians, and he's surely not in the top 6 as a batsman. As I said, Root offers some reasonable off-spin, and Trott's medium pacers could be useful on the slow wickets.

As expected no reserve keeper and all 5 seamers make the trip.

Onto the Lions squad: it seems it is more a "young up and coming players" squad than an England A side, with the exception of Kieswetter who is surely there partly as cover for the test squad, or at least this is what the omissions of Tredwell and Bopara would tend to indicate. Chris Woakes is another surprising omission, perhaps the management feel he's beyond Lions experience now?

The bowling looks exciting: 4 very promising spinners in Borthwick, Kerrigan, Briggs and Raffiq. Pleased for Raffiq who looks a fine cricketer, and I will be very interested to see how all of them go. Harris, Meaker and Rolland-Jones are deservedly on the trip, they join Dernbach (I wouldn't actually see Dernbach as a potential test bowler right now), Coles (who tailed off at the end of the season, but I think has a bright future) and Wright (who I didn't rate very highly at middlesex - any Warwickshire fans seen anything special). Pleased that Boyd "I'm so Irish my aim is to play for England" Rankin has finally been jettisoned.

The batting is more interesting. I've never really seen Chopra as a potential international cricketer, but he has come back well this year after a few poor seasons. Ben Foakes has only played 5 first class matches - it is practically unheard of for England to give someone international experience at that stage! Interesting. Buttler, Taylor and Stokes are all familiar faces - Buttler and Taylor surely have a future in international cricket, but Stokes I admit has never really convinced me.

The other two batting slots are taken up by Balance and Ben Foakes (reserve keeper also), who has only played 5 first class matches - it is practically unheard of for England to give someone international experience at that stage! Interesting. I'm not convinced by Ballance's test credentials - if I am honest I am disappointed IMO better players like Malan and Vince haven't made the trip. Either England just don't see them as international potential (I would disagree) or they feel they need to work harder and have a breakthrough season, but I would rank both above half of the batting talent taken (with the caveat that I've never seen Foakes play, so can't comment.

Please note the EPP is not the Lions Squad. that will be selected in December. However the people going on this training camp will be at the front of the queue.

LondonTiger wrote:Please note the EPP is not the Lions Squad. that will be selected in December. However the people going on this training camp will be at the front of the queue.

Right. Thanks for clarifying. Hence omissions of Woakes (enough international experience), Bopara, and Tredwell explained easily enough. Kieswetter is there obviously as cover for Prior. Omissions of Vince and Malan for me still wrong.

squad announced

Squad Alastair Cook (capt) James Anderson, Jonny Bairstow, Ian Bell, Tim Bresnan, Stuart Broad, Nick Compton, Steven Finn, Graham Onions, Eoin Morgan, Monty Panesar, Samit Patel, Matt Prior, Joe Root, Graeme Swann, Jonathan Trott

Morgan is the Rohit sharma / raina of Eng......keeps getting back into the test squad on the basis of bilateral low pressure ODI shows

Bresnan and Patel the bits and pieces guys is symptom of problematic mindset for Eng.
woakes, Jade D and anotehr specialist spinner should have been in.....

Taylor gave a give account of himself against the pace of SA.....should have been retained

Bresnan - bits and pieces?

A little unfair.

Foakes is very highly rated. I've read a few interviews with England U19 players and they all seem to think Foakes is the one who'll go on to big things.

Interesting as Bell-Drummond, Topley, Kapil and the Overtons have all had far more FC exposure.

The actual squad is much betyter.

KP Fan is a long time baiter of Bresnan, he used to same the same about Broad. Both have excellent test records of course. Indeed the idea that England pick their bowlers purely on batting ability seems a bit odd when you look at the continued inability of Woakes to get anywhere near the test side.

Yet claims Taylor "gave a good account of himslef" with 48 runs from 3 innings
He may be unlucky to miss out but england dont feel short middle order options, and has done nothing at this level to suggest he will add anything in the short term that Bairstow or Morgan couldnt.
Of course you could make the argument Morgans done nothing to deserve a place too, but really hes missed out because England have taken 2 contenders for the openers spot...which doesnt seem that unreasonable. Theres 4 guys whove been tried for what , if they go with 5 bowlers, will be one middle order place ....noone has been given a shout at opener in years, there is a real need to give players opportunities to stake a claim which they are doing. Morgans gone as he adds a bit of experience and leadership to a young side, and as the spin playing specialist ( even if he was terrible last time). I guess he mustve done things to show the coaches hes fixing his technique.

Thank go the initial speculation was wrong, Panessar is a good attacking option, whilst Patel gives the option of a 5 man attack. No Bopara, I could really see the wailing for Taylor had he gone, he hasnt.

PSW...there are lies, damned lies and statitsics...

What Taylor showed in that one inning of 30 odd in a 100+ partnership against a hostile bowling attack on a seaming pitch......subjectively tells us he has technique and temperament....and merits an unbroken run of 5 tests.

Bresnan and Broad......are gentle medium pacers......who have fattened their stats against visiting medicore sides on seam friendly English pitches.

If only stats were a measure of a cricketers abailities.....a good computer program would runs scenarios and auto list squads of 15.....
stats cannot be ignored...but is one of the several parametes requiring evaluation.

however we do selectors....for judgement of technique, temperament and a no. of subjective qualities that mere mathematical stats cannot asses

Really don't rate Patel.... just not good enough in any of the three departments.

Shelsey93 wrote:Really don't rate Patel.... just not good enough in any of the three departments.

I agree - yet as I said a few times on an earlier thread he will play in (at least some of) the tests.

unless there is an injury to Swann, I bet we see Patel play more tests than Monty on this tour.

As an XI I hope they go Cook, Compton, Trott, Bell, Morgan, Bairstow, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn/ Panesar (preference for Finn, unless we need two spinners when Bresnan can replace a batsman and Monty plays).

Once Morgan's in the squad I think he must play. I'd like Root to wait a bit unless he's very good in the warm-ups.

given the state of pitches in India....where a spinner opens from one end......let's see how Flower fits in 2 spinners in the side......

ideally: they should play anderson+Finn+Swann+Monty

But: Broad is a favourite and cannot be left out

So: to put Broad in...they would have to drop Finn......on form and pace the most potent English bowler currently...

Or: they would have to drop Monty...whihc means the box of 2 spinner is uncheked.

therefore: compromise formula will be to play 3 seamers in finn, anderson, broad......and have Patel and Swann as spinners

Disagree that pitches in India lend themselves to two spinners for touring teams. India play spin well, and few pitches actually turn that much.

Different for India. Their best bowlers are spinners and some touring teams, England included, feel uncomfortable when bombarded with spin early on in their innings.

I think the 5 bowlers formula is the most likely england will go for. I really cant see England going with just two seamers against a bat happy attack in the heat when the nearest thing to a support option they have is Trott.
No part time KP or Bopara really makes 5 bowlers much more attractive, and justifies the inclusion of Fatel. Picking Panessar and Swann as part of a 5 man attack would be very aggressive, but leaves the batting massively exposed.

2 spinners rarely works for touring teams in India, for the reasons Shelsey said. The teams who have done well in India recently have on the whole used 3 seamers and a spinner. The slow and low natures of the pitches makes it easier for flatter spinners (such as J. Patel) than those more inclined to toss the ball up (such as Swann, or previously Warne) - Swann should take note and be prepared to bowl a bit quicker than usual. They also make it conductive to wicket-to-wicket bowling, so Onions could be useful, but realistically you can't pick Onions, Anderson and Finn (much as I agree that bowlers are there to bowl, there is no doubting that tail-end runs are vital in the mood of a match beyond the mere numbers, and make a difference).

England's best 4 bowlers are Finn, Anderson, Swann and Broad. Happily that makes a reasonable combination.

I don't rate Patel that highly either, but realistically he did a decent job in SL, and was always going to make the squad to give that extra option.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Picking Panessar and Swann as part of a 5 man attack would be very aggressive, but leaves the batting massively exposed.

They have had Broad/ Bresnan at 7 before though. And this is India, where the conditions should be in the batsmen's favour.

Prefer 3 seamers/ 1 spinner to start with, but on a real turner we'll need Monty.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Picking Panessar and Swann as part of a 5 man attack would be very aggressive, but leaves the batting massively exposed.

They have had Broad/ Bresnan at 7 before though. And this is India, where the conditions should be in the batsmen's favour.

Prefer 3 seamers/ 1 spinner to start with, but on a real turner we'll need Monty.

1) Seamers can be just as effective on a real turner because of the uneven bounce and there will be reverse swing early in the innings on a bunsen.
2) Swann would be even more effective on a bunsen.

Don't see why we need 2.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

Don't see why we need 2.

We quickly found in the UAE that having Swann and Monty worked. India are not Pakistan, and you'd expect them to play the spin better, but some times you need the second spinner.

Certainly not my Plan A but you have to have some flexibility...

those who have two good spinners should play two good spinners in India....in recent times SL and Pak have done that .

Monty is a good test match spinner.

but If we were to go by the popular perception on th board....Eng would rather go with 2 notional bowlers in Patel and Broad to get a list upto 5 who can bowl......and to not weaken the batting.....


and India would like them to do that......and it's this mindset that is seeing England slipping.

bear in mind a walloping here and depending on how other international results go...Eng are in a realistic risk of dropping to No. 4 or worse even nO. 5

His supporters will attribute the diffrence between No. 1 and 5 within a span of 5 tests to the one missing factor.....KP

KP_fan wrote:those who have two good spinners should play two good spinners in India....in recent times SL and Pak have done that .

Monty is a good test match spinner.

but If we were to go by the popular perception on th board....Eng would rather go with 2 notional bowlers in Patel and Broad to get a list upto 5 who can bowl......and to not weaken the batting.....


and India would like them to do that......and it's this mindset that is seeing England slipping.

bear in mind a walloping here and depending on how other international results go...Eng are in a realistic risk of dropping to No. 4 or worse even nO. 5

His supporters will attribute the diffrence between No. 1 and 5 within a span of 5 tests to the one missing factor.....KP

But the one Test England did win last winter in the UAE or SL, they won with no Monty and only Swann in the side and that is the way I think they should and will go in the First Test at least, unless it is an absolute raging turner. Play to their strengths and go with their seamers. Probably will have to go with 5 bowlers though, and then it comes down to between Onions, Bresnan and Patel who gets the final place. I would go with Patel to play the holding role and add extra batting.

Root, Cook, Trott, Bell, Bairstow, Prior, Patel, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

KP_fan wrote:those who have two good spinners should play two good spinners in India....in recent times SL and Pak have done that .

Monty is a good test match spinner.

but If we were to go by the popular perception on th board....Eng would rather go with 2 notional bowlers in Patel and Broad to get a list upto 5 who can bowl......and to not weaken the batting.....


and India would like them to do that......and it's this mindset that is seeing England slipping.

bear in mind a walloping here and depending on how other international results go...Eng are in a realistic risk of dropping to No. 4 or worse even nO. 5

His supporters will attribute the diffrence between No. 1 and 5 within a span of 5 tests to the one missing factor.....KP

Really.
OK

JDizzle wrote:But the one Test England did win last winter in the UAE or SL, they won with no Monty and only Swann in the side

there was a super batting performance in that game( about 200 runs at a SR of 100%) from he-who-they-claim-they-won't-miss...that overrode the mortal parameters surrounding......was the diffrentiating factor between an unlikely England win and a par for the course defeat

Even though the pitches tend to be slow and low, India I believe will struggle against a pace attack of Finn, Anderson and Broad. Finn will bring the extra pace and we saw how well Anderson and Broad did in the UAE and Sri Lanka.

I personally wouldn't have Patel anywhere near the Test arena. He hasn't gone away and worked on his fitness, despite him believing he has, he doesn't offer a great deal with the ball and imo will get walloped by the Indian spinner and has yet to play a meaningful innings I can remember in an England shirt.

Monty did well but is god awful in the field and with bat in hand.

I would go with Finn, Anderson, Broad and Swann and then Trott to fill in with the dibbly dobbly stuff. I believe that England should use their seamers in short sharp bursts in order to maintain their energy. Have Finn bowl flat out for 4 overs, Anderson slightly longer and just keep a nice rotation theme going.

Monty did well but is god awful in the field and with bat in hand

.

Eng dropped 12 catches against SA...without Monty having a hand in any one of them

Sri Lanka playing two spinners in India is different: their seam-bowling stocks are exteremely poor and anyway their spinners are brought up on those types of pitches, so much more likely to be effective there.

Outside other teams from the subcontinent, 2 spinners has rarely, if ever worked for touring India. South Africa, Australia and West Indies have all had degrees of success there on the base of 3 or 4 seamers, with any spin being more the containing than attacking variety. England are blessed in that Swann can do either. England's strength is their seam-bowling.

Pakistan are notoriously poor players of spin, mainly due to lack of patience (Warne had an amazing record against them, but even Hauritz got 2 5-fors in consecutive tests) so using Panesar's success in the UAE is a bit off. I just don't see Panesar being as effective as a 3rd seamer.

KP_fan wrote:

Monty did well but is god awful in the field and with bat in hand

.

Eng dropped 12 catches against SA...without Monty having a hand in any one of them

Would have been about 20 with Monty then In all seriousness, its not just his catching is it. You don't think Monty is a good fielder do you?

the only two teams that have eitehr won or not lost a series in India are:

SA won around 1999-2000 under Cronje....express pace but Boje picked a bucketful of wickets

SA drew in 2009-10 on the back of express pace

Heck even Flintoff won a test as a captain with his off- spinner in India ( can't remember who it was.....mavbe Tredwell)

Aus won on the back of Warner, McGrath, Gilespie and Lee......one of the finest balance of pace and attack.

Fast bowlers can win tests in India.....if they are world class........express paces......not like 120 something Braod and Bresnan.......and scaringly Anderson has shown tendecy to drop to 130ish.

If Eng have 3 Finns....yeah they could play them....

but given the conditions....Finn follwoed by Monty are their top two bowlers.

Monty is a Strike bolwer.......who can set up match......while Swann is a clever support bowler who does well when seamers have made some inroads

Liam wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Monty did well but is god awful in the field and with bat in hand

.

Eng dropped 12 catches against SA...without Monty having a hand in any one of them

Would have been about 20 with Monty then In all seriousness, its not just his catching is it. You don't think Monty is a good fielder do you?

Monty's limittations are well exposed because of his gawky clumsiness...on the field....

In fact Eng may be dropping just as many catches on an average even when he is not playing...in fact against SA I saw them more catches than they have ever done in a series in recent times...from the stylish catchers like Swann and Anderson.

But no one made any noise about Anderson dropping the series.....like they did when Monty dropped Mahela in Lanka

KP_fan wrote:the only two teams that have eitehr won or not lost a series in India are:

SA won around 1999-2000 under Cronje....express pace but Boje picked a bucketful of wickets

SA drew in 2009-10 on the back of express pace

Heck even Flintoff won a test as a captain with his off- spinner in India ( can't remember who it was.....mavbe Tredwell)

Aus won on the back of Warner, McGrath, Gilespie and Lee......one of the finest balance of pace and attack.

Fast bowlers can win tests in India.....if they are world class........express paces......not like 120 something Braod and Bresnan.......and scaringly Anderson has shown tendecy to drop to 130ish.

If Eng have 3 Finns....yeah they could play them....

but given the conditions....Finn follwoed by Monty are their top two bowlers.

Monty is a Strike bolwer.......who can set up match......while Swann is a clever support bowler who does well when seamers have made some inroads

Lee didn't play, it was Kasperwicz. That would be 2 wicket-to-wicket tall medium pacers (McGrath, Kasperwicz) and one a bit quicker but by no means express.

South Africa did well thanks to reverse-swing and pace.

Udal was the off-spinner who cleaned up the tail for England, but it was Anderson who made the decisive contribution by enducing the top-order collapse.

You think Monty is a more attacking bowler than Swann?

All this shows how much you know about cricket.

I am not a fan of two spinners just because it is the sub-continent. As has been pointed out , the win in Sri Lanka was achieved with three seamers , and this is England's strength , so they should play to it.
The other thing is that the Swann/Panesar combination doesn't have a great record. Sure Monty took wickets in UAE , but I rather feel he took them instead of Swann , more than complementing his attack. In fairness they haven't played together all that often , but so far the matches they have played together have all ended in defeat or draws so it is hard to get too excited about the prospects of that plan of attack. I prefer to see Monty as a capable replacement if Swann should suffer an injury. Patel is there if England feel they have to have a second spin option , and he can bat. Pleased to hear young Root is considered a useful off spinner : a bit of bowling talent among the top six is something England might find quite handy.
Taylor is perhaps a bit unlucky , but with Strauss retired and KP still in the sin bin you can see why the selectors preferred the experience of Morgan. Compton seems a sensible pick as he might cover the opening spot or middle order.
And very pleased to see Onions hasn't been overlooked. If he gets a chance he might do pretty well on some Indian pitches.
Overall I think the selectors have done a decent job. How it works in practice we'll have to wait and see.

You think Monty is a more attacking bowler than Swann?

Monty is almost in the class of Herath and Oja as an attacking SLA who can set up a match......in helpful conditions.

Swann remians a support bowler in any conditons who with is celverness knows how to get wickets when seamers have built initial press

All this shows how much you know about cricket

OK.......you know much more about cricket....I can only say what I see

KP_fan wrote:

You think Monty is a more attacking bowler than Swann?

Monty is almost in the class of Herath and Oja as an attacking SLA who can set up a match......in helpful conditions.

Swann remians a support bowler in any conditons who with is celverness knows how to get wickets when seamers have built initial press

Check out their career strike rates in all formats and I'm sure (I admit I haven't bothered) you'll find Swann ahead, but frankly you shouldn't need to. Monty is a containing spinner who relies on bowling consistent line, length and pace and gets bite off the wicket if it's on offer, or relies on natural variation. Swann on the other hand creates his own wickets with subtle variations of flight and spin. This in itself doesn't make Swann a better bowler (although he clearly is, because he is better than Monty at what each one does). Neither does it mean that Swann will necessarily take more wickets, but to suggest that Monty is an attacking spinner whilst Swann is a support bowler (cos the last time he bowled England to victory was really on the back of the seamers efforts) is rubbish.

Similarly suggesting Herath and Ohja are the same type of bowlers is nonsense - Herath is a containing bowler with Ohja more attacking.

Good to see Panesar, Root and Morgan making it.
Panesar is the 2nd best spinner in England, and so rightly makes the squad. Unlikely he would get many games, as England are likely to go in with 3 seamers and the one spinner in Graeme Swann. But if that elbow gives him any trouble, then Monty is the right one to step in.
Root could be the long term option at the top of the order and is coming into the squad on the back of a solid county season. Moving Bell or Trott up I don't think could be a long term option. India could be a better place to start against the new ball.
At his age Compton's is an interesting selection, particularly considering he attained consistency in FC cricket for the last couple of seasons. But he can double up as a backup opener as well, so I think fair enough.
Morgan's selection too is an interesting one, but I think it is the right call. He's a good player, and I think has it in him to cut it at the highest level in all formats. With Strauss gone and the other interesting call, that batting lineup, with young Jonny Bairstow already in is rather light on experience, and so Morgan, who has scored runs against South Africa in the recent ODI series is a fair pick.
Fair enough on Samit Patel as well, if England think of playing a support spinner then it has to be Patel. That won't cut down on the3 seamers, and he can score a few at 7. His performance in Sri Lanka wasn't terrible by any standards.
In the pace department again fair enough, I would have prefered Woakes over Bresnan though. Shocked not to find Woakes even in the performance squad.
On the most important call, I would say Absolutely Obnoxious. I am sure England will miss Kevin Pietersen big time throughout the tour.

James Taylor not making it, I have to say tough luck.

I think the performance squad is really mainly for those with next to no international experience, which explains Woakes's omission. I certainly wouldn't have Woakes ahead of Bresnan, particularly in India where Bresnan's reverse swing and general consistency could be useful, whereas Woakes will come onto the bat nicely.

After his injury last season, Tim Bresnan hasn't been the same bowler. What makes him click is the nip that he gets at a good pace. But over the summer that pace went down, and as someone who doesn't swing it or get a massive amount of seam movement, Bresnan is less effective with the ball. Bresnan certainly not in the Zaheer Khan league as far as reverse is concerned. In fact Anderson has improved his skills in that department and is better than Bresnan at the moment.
Woakes is a better bet with the bat and can be effective in test matches bowling wicket to wicket. Ideally speaking, a bit more pace would do him a world of good but.......

Woakes doesn't bowl wicket-to-wicket though from what I've seen; he's more of a swing bowler who looks for edges than bowled/LBWs.

Onions is the best bet if they have to have a wicket to wicket type. But at his pace, Woakes can keep things tight and contribute better with the bat. Bresnan was in pretty poor form in the South Africa series.
But Bresnan at his peak could be effective and can bowl long spells in very demanding conditions. He has a good record against India. So well, fair enough.
Mike, for all your absolutely objective positions on the Pietersen Saga, have a look at this as well.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-england-2012/content/current/story/582744.html

I am through with the Pietersen situation, and not much time for George Dobell (who I rate only slightly higher than Derek Pringle, and equally biased). The article you link to is just a statement by Pietersen. My take on the matter is that the onus was on Pietersen to prove his commitment, and show that he is willing to change his attitude, and if he did then he should have been picked. Given that this time we have had no leaks, I have no idea whether he did this or not. All the statements have been fairly much plattitudes.

I don't make any claims to be objective, but I would like to think my experience as a coach as well as player means I understand both sides of the argument better than some, and I think a lot of people oversimplify the issues greatly. They aren't simple, they are extremely complex, and the decision taken to leave KP out won't have been taken lightly, and I imagine will have only been done with the consent and backing of the captain and coach.

Anyway, as I said, I'm not really interested in Pietersen anymore. I'd rather concentrate on the cricket which is actually happening.

msp83 wrote:Onions is the best bet if they have to have a wicket to wicket type. But at his pace, Woakes can keep things tight and contribute better with the bat. Bresnan was in pretty poor form in the South Africa series.
But Bresnan at his peak could be effective and can bowl long spells in very demanding conditions. He has a good record against India. So well, fair enough.

I agree. Onions would be a good option, but it's hard to see a tail of Finn, Anderson, Onions. I think Woakes bowls a bit full and could be too easily drivable in Indian conditions, I prefer Bresnan's length (even if he doesn't have his old nip) as a way of keeping things quiet.

In any case the likely seam attack will be Anderson, Broad and Finn.

If fit, Finn should most certainly play. He did well in India during the last ODI series, more importantly good pace have given the Indians a bit of trouble even in sub-continent conditions.
As far as the KP bit goes, the point is that KP aplogized in public, he apologized to the ECB, he apologized to Strauss in person and had a personal apology to ECB members. He expressed his commitment to England in all formats.
On the other hand the ECB denied him a central contract, did nothing about the parity twitter account, dropped him from the India touring party despite reports that Alastair Cook wanted England's best batsman in the squad.
I do agree it is a complex situation, but not as complex as it is made out to be.
But anyways Pietersen isn't picked and that should be it. hopefully that united and happy change room environment will see England overcome all odds and walk away with the series.

OK, so let's see here:

Root in - Good to see.
Compton in - Had a good season so he's worth a punt.
Taylor out, Morgan in - Very poor selection there.
Tredwell out, Patel in - Read above.
No Bopara - Fantastic.
No KP - Even better.

Very high level of general debate.

Just a few comments on some of those going and not going (not him though, so relax, Mike ).

Root - like several posters, I feel his chance may have come a little too soon. However, it has come and there is no going back on that now. Having been bold in choosing him for the tour party, I hope the selectors will maintain their support of him and pick him for the first Test (unless he completely mucks up beforehand). Besides Cook, he is the only regular opener in the sixteen. This leads me to:-

Compton - as regular posters will know, I'm a great supporter of the county game. However, I fear he'll find it mighty difficult to replicate his Taunton success in India. I wonder if his selection appears less a statement of faith in him and more a question of doubt about Root. If Root can't make a go of opening, it seems that Compton might open instead or possibly take over from Trott if he (Trott) partners Cook up top. Flexibility is a positive thing but it's sometimes a thin line between it and dangerous uncertainty. I'm also not sure that it's fair on Compton or England to contemplate opening with him when he hasn't been doing that role for his county.

Patel - I appreciate some posters are far from taken with him and have some understanding as to why. However, I quite like the guy. I actually feel that over all as a cricketer he's better than the sum of his bowling, batting and fielding parts. For me, he did ok in Sri Lanka. I'm not suggesting he's world class - he's not and never will be. However, he provides a useful option as a supporting slow bowler who could bat at seven. Something else which is relevant and which we can't properly tell from our vantage points (Mike is probably closest but still not close enough - no offence intended at all) is the character and temperament of the players on tour and especially those who are unlikely to play in many of the Tests. [Quick trip down Memory Lane (the Corporal and Alfie at least may recall) - when England won the Ashes down under in '70-'71, captain Ray Illingworth paid great credit to the roles played by Bob Taylor and the late Don Wilson as 'good tourists' even though neither played a single Test.]

Taylor - like others, I feel sorry for him missing out and believe he would have been more suited to the possible ''either or'' role (opener or middle order) being lined up for Compton. Taylor has after all opened for the Lions.

Bopara - he's generally taken a battering on here in recent weeks, no question. There have also been some more supportive comments suggesting he's unfortunate to lose his place in the Test pecking order and that not too much account should be taken of his disappointing one day form. I don't want to kick him when he's down but he does seem mentally shot. I think a gamble on him getting his mental and cricketing form back through a trip to India is too big a gamble to take. I know it may be harsh but where he was a few months ago isn't particularly relevant if he's no longer up to scratch.

Carberry - he started off at Surrey a decade or so ago but moved away in the search for a regular first team place. Not too surprisingly, there have been one or two suggestions of our trying to re-sign him in the last couple of seasons. I understand that a particular appeal to the Club was that he was considered an extremely decent county batsman but just short of Test class. I'm sure you can all understand the significance and attraction of that.

Woakes - I've commented before about doubts over him becoming a Test bowler. No surprise to me therefore that he's not in the senior squad. However, I would have thought there was enough there to work with had he been chosen for the EPP. I'll say again that his batting potential should not be overlooked.

guildford, Agree with almost every bit of it. You surely know what I don't agree with right?
Anyways, what do you make of Morgen's selection? What is the 11 you would see at this point taking the field for that first test?
For me it has to be
Alastair Cook
Joe Root
Jonathan Trott
Ian Bell
Eoin Morgan
Jonny Bairstow
Matt Prior
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
James Anderson
Steven Finn.

great post from guildford

I'm interested to see how Compton goes, as at Middlesex he didn't scream "future test player" to me (but then again neither did Strauss). I know Patel has negative reviews on here, but I think he's a useful cricketer in these conditions. Given the balance of the squad, England's team for the first test looks set to be
Cook
Root
Trott
Bell
Bairstow
Morgan/Patel/Compton
Prior
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Finn

I'd go with Morgan at n°6 personally, I think his ability to manoeuvre the field against the spinners could be absolutely crucial. We know Dhoni can switch to pretty defensive fields quite quickly (probably my biggest criticism of him as a captain), so having someone who can knock the ball around will be crucial.

MFC, I don't think England would be batting Kompton at 6, think they would look to him to provide cover for Root and bat in the top order if needed. That could be opening the innings along with Cook, or if Trott or Bell is moved up then bat in their usual position.
Likewise if its Samit Patel, I think Prior should bat ahead of him at 6 with Samit coming down at 7.

If Morgan's picked in a squad without Pietersen or Bopara, then I think he has to play. Unless he has a horrer time during the World T-20I and the warm up match.
Patel might get a game at some point in the series, but I don't see him making it to the starting XI for the first test.

Guilford raises an interesting point about the value of having "good tourists" amongst the likely replacements. Certainly when I think about picking a squad it plays a part, but the guys I coach are essentially kids (well, teenagers anyway), and more to the point few have ever been on any sort of tour, and even fewer have experience of being 12th (or 13th) man. I would have thought that being a "good 12th man" whilst not coming naturally to anyone is something that any decent pro should be able to do without too much trouble, but it is a fairly demeaning role, and a very good 12th man makes a difference. Brett Lee was apparently a fantastic 12th man (at the time when first Kasperwicz then Bichel were picked ahead of him). I wouldn't ever suggest that I know much about the 12th man abilities of this squad (and those missing out) so absolutely no offence is taken - the closest I can come to is knowing someone who knows someone very well who knows very well, but I wouldn't dream of asking and he wouldn't dream of telling if I asked.

Regarding possible starting XIs I would have exactly the same personel as msp, but in that side Bairstow would bat 4 and Bell 5.

I actually think Bairstow may struggle a bit on this tour (which will no doubt lead to the usual knee-jerking suggestions that he was never good enough anyway) - I have said in the past that his technique has a bit of Ponting about it, and am not convinced he will handle the Indian spinners and conditions all that well. With that in mind, I think the higher you can put him up the order, the better. In future I think he'll be a number 4, capable of dominating but also settling down, so you may as well play him there now.

I agree with guilford in that having picked Root, England should go the whole way and put him in the XI, and that probably means for the whole tour, then assess where he's at.