England Ashes Squad announcement today

msp83 wrote:A very interesting squad from England. Cook, Root, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn pick themselves.
I would have liked Garry Ballance to play international cricket for Zimbabwe rather than England, but unlike say Trott, he has developed a lot of his formative cricket in English school system and so fair enough, perhaps Zimbabwe's loss would be England's gain, the lad is certainly talented, and has a good attacking game that could suit the number 6 position. Between him and Bairstow, I would like Ballance to get the go ahead for that first test. A bit harsh on James Taylor, but Ballance has earned his chance.
Think there is place for Chris Tremlett in a 17 man squad. There is Finn and there is Rankin in case Tremlett isn't quite up to the demands of a test match, but a Chris Tremlett on form is certainly a match-winner.
Rankin bowled very well in the ODI series against Australia, and besides not having a standout First Class record, there are some fine attributes for a test bowler in there.
I would even see a logic to the axing of Graeme Onions. Onions has evolved into a first choice backup for James Anderson, and he would be getting some match time with the A side and could always come in if he is really needed.
Very happy to see Ben Stokes in there. He had a decent ODI series, is a terrific potential as an all-rounder. I would say England should promote Matt Prior up to 6, he's more than capable of doing the job at 6, and bat Stokes at 7. India did something recently, the all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja batted at 7, with the skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni promoting himself up to 6 and that provided the side with a much better balance. Anderson, Broad and Steven Finn could then constitute the core of the seam bowling unit with solid support from Stokes, who does look capable of picking wickets at the international level. Being one of 5 man attack would suit Finn better than being part of a 4 man unit, and the Finster is a wickettaker of terrific quality.
Panesar is the 2nd best spinner in England, so he rightly gets his chance.
Bairstow's abilities with the gloves makes him a decent pick in a 17 member squad, don't think Buttler's longer format game is developed enough to be a serious challenge for Bairstow as the backup keeper, and Jos is anyways available with the performance squad.
Don't think I like too much the selection of Michael Carberry. He's at the wrong side of 30, and doesn't have a Chris Rogers like record that demands selection, neither are England struggling like Australia, just that young Joe could have been given more time to evolve into the classy opener that he can become. If England needed a backup, they should have gone for Nick Compton or Varun Chopra, the former has a pretty decent FC record and often managed to see out the new ball even though he didn't produce the big scores as often as was needed in international cricket. The latter has shown considerable signs of improvement over the last 2-3 seasons, and is younger as well. Carberry's FC record isn't great, and he did look a rather limited player as far as his range of shots are concerned.

GSC wrote:I'd have to seriously question the value of performing in county cricket and earning your chance. Seems you have to fit into a certain physical criteria. Carberrys form in no way warrants a place.

ShankyCricket wrote:

msp83 wrote:A very interesting squad from England. Cook, Root, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn pick themselves.
I would have liked Garry Ballance to play international cricket for Zimbabwe rather than England, but unlike say Trott, he has developed a lot of his formative cricket in English school system and so fair enough, perhaps Zimbabwe's loss would be England's gain, the lad is certainly talented, and has a good attacking game that could suit the number 6 position. Between him and Bairstow, I would like Ballance to get the go ahead for that first test. A bit harsh on James Taylor, but Ballance has earned his chance.
Think there is place for Chris Tremlett in a 17 man squad. There is Finn and there is Rankin in case Tremlett isn't quite up to the demands of a test match, but a Chris Tremlett on form is certainly a match-winner.
Rankin bowled very well in the ODI series against Australia, and besides not having a standout First Class record, there are some fine attributes for a test bowler in there.
I would even see a logic to the axing of Graeme Onions. Onions has evolved into a first choice backup for James Anderson, and he would be getting some match time with the A side and could always come in if he is really needed.
Very happy to see Ben Stokes in there. He had a decent ODI series, is a terrific potential as an all-rounder. I would say England should promote Matt Prior up to 6, he's more than capable of doing the job at 6, and bat Stokes at 7. India did something recently, the all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja batted at 7, with the skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni promoting himself up to 6 and that provided the side with a much better balance. Anderson, Broad and Steven Finn could then constitute the core of the seam bowling unit with solid support from Stokes, who does look capable of picking wickets at the international level. Being one of 5 man attack would suit Finn better than being part of a 4 man unit, and the Finster is a wickettaker of terrific quality.
Panesar is the 2nd best spinner in England, so he rightly gets his chance.
Bairstow's abilities with the gloves makes him a decent pick in a 17 member squad, don't think Buttler's longer format game is developed enough to be a serious challenge for Bairstow as the backup keeper, and Jos is anyways available with the performance squad.
Don't think I like too much the selection of Michael Carberry. He's at the wrong side of 30, and doesn't have a Chris Rogers like record that demands selection, neither are England struggling like Australia, just that young Joe could have been given more time to evolve into the classy opener that he can become. If England needed a backup, they should have gone for Nick Compton or Varun Chopra, the former has a pretty decent FC record and often managed to see out the new ball even though he didn't produce the big scores as often as was needed in international cricket. The latter has shown considerable signs of improvement over the last 2-3 seasons, and is younger as well. Carberry's FC record isn't great, and he did look a rather limited player as far as his range of shots are concerned.

Agree with a lot of that post but not sure why you'd start with Finn ahead of Rankin? Rankin comfortably outbowled him in the recent ODIs and in the county season. Also don't agree that Finn "picks himself". For me, he's a contentious selection. I'd definitely have Rankin and Onions ahead of him but with Bresnan injured, I'd prefer Finn to Tremlett on the latter's current form.
Also, Onions isn't in the A squad, he's going to play FC cricket in SA. I'm flabbergasted that Finn and Tremlett are picked ahead of him.

Don't agree with you about Buttler. His FC record isn't great but IMO has a much better technique than Bairstow (who doesn't? unless you are Hughes and Khawaja) and is a better keeper. I think he'd have been a better pick than Bairstow though I may have gone for Steven Davies over both.

Agree with you about the Carbs vs Compo vs Chopra situation. Also agree about Ballance deserving his chance and that he should play at 6 over Bairstow. Also agree about Stokes.

Mike Selig wrote:Msp makes some valid points, but I disagree on Stokes. I liked his bowling a lot during the ODIs and would have no issue with him playing as part of a 5-man attack, and the point that Finn may be a better bowler in a 5 man attack is an interesting one (although Anderson and Broad are certainly more effective when used in longish spells so a 4-man attack suits them better). My issue is that I don't think Stokes is good enough to bat at 7 (yet?) in tests. He strikes me as very similar to an early version of Flintoff; 8 is fine, but 7 a slot too high particularly with England's lately somewhat fragile batting. Whilst you could argue that Stokes, Broad and Swann collectively are good enough to make up 7, 8 and 9, that kind of reasoning has seldom worked.

The comparison with India is flawed, because the two sides have very different make-ups - India needed some control from a spinner because their 2nd spinner was underperforming, whilst you never really feel England need another wicket-taking option, which is what Stokes provides. Also, Jadeja for all his perceived flaws was technically a far better batsman than Stokes is currently. If England are after some control (which is what they may miss due to Bresnan being injured, particular if Broad has an off-day and/or Swann gets attacked) then I'm far from convinced Stokes is the solution, and in fact then Woakes may have been the better option all along.

One thing which nobody seems to have said about Stokes yet is how brilliant he is in the field.

I think England very much see Buttler as the long term replacement for Prior; as such it is best that he gets game time rather than hanging around the fringes - he already has enough experience of the HP environment with the ODI side. I don't think Bairstow is a serious option to keep in tests, but his being there means that if Prior breaks a finger on the morning of a match there is at least another option there.

Mike Selig wrote:I'm not sure Onions has been so hard done by. Whilst I would have picked him ahead of Tremlett, it strikes me that Onions is one of those players who improve a lot in the eyes of the fans when he's not in the side. In his last test against a perfectly hopeless West Indian team he wasn't all that great... I certainly can't see how he would have displaced Finn in the pecking order.

Olly wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:I'm not sure Onions has been so hard done by. Whilst I would have picked him ahead of Tremlett, it strikes me that Onions is one of those players who improve a lot in the eyes of the fans when he's not in the side. In his last test against a perfectly hopeless West Indian team he wasn't all that great... I certainly can't see how he would have displaced Finn in the pecking order.

Totally agree with this. Suffering from Kagawa syndrome (for you football fans amongst us)

Mike Selig wrote:How he bowls (not necessarily his figures) in one test match is IMO more relevant than his figures over 2 first class season...

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Forgot about Onions. A somewhat harsh exclusion, maybe. Ranking looked very good in the ODIs, and is surely a real prospect. The debatable one is Tremlett, so I'll appeal to the Surrey fans there...

I've voiced concerns about Tremlett throughout this season whenever he's been named in an England squad.

He's never looked properly fit for Surrey this year and, other than the CC match at Durham, hasn't been much effective. He's been left out of some games to rest and when he has played he's often been handled with kid gloves by his county. Anything but a leading bowler to get us out of trouble, let alone put us on top. His bowling spells have (nearly) always been in short bursts of between 3 and 6 overs. He tends to only bowl around 15 to 17 overs in a full day; that has been a significant problem for Surrey playing only four front line bowlers, resulting in the ordinary de Bruyn having to fill in too much with predictably poor returns - I fear similar problems for England if Tremlett makes the starting eleven. He's also a poor fielder and wonder how much that has been taken on board.

Please don't think it's just me. There's a lot of damning comments about him on the Surrey Supporters' website. A fair bit there relates to a perceived lack of effort (although I'm inclined to be kinder and link it to a lack of fitness as above). I also saw comments recently on cricinfo from a Somerset supporter saying he should be nowhere near the Ashes squad after he watched him in the CC match at Taunton.

That said, I do believe he's still got ability and know history supports that. I just unfortunately have doubts that it will sufficiently be recovered and certainly not by this November.

guildfordbat wrote:Tremlett has been left out of the eleven for Surrey's final CC match of the season, at the Oval today against Yorks. He has just appeared on the field carrying the drinks.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Tremlett has been left out of the eleven for Surrey's final CC match of the season, at the Oval today against Yorks. He has just appeared on the field carrying the drinks.

Probably good practice for the winter

Stella wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:How he bowls (not necessarily his figures) in one test match is IMO more relevant than his figures over 2 first class season...

Really? Amazing. Everybody in the history of life has off days, Mike. Nobody should be judged purely on one game, especially when they have have had better days at the same level.

Mike Selig wrote:

Stella wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:How he bowls (not necessarily his figures) in one test match is IMO more relevant than his figures over 2 first class season...

Really? Amazing. Everybody in the history of life has off days, Mike. Nobody should be judged purely on one game, especially when they have have had better days at the same level.

Off days sure, but even if someone's bowling badly you can usually make some things out, and the only way of doing that is by watching them, not looking at their statistics. How hard is he hitting the pitch? Is his run-up in good order, is he attacking the crease, getting through it, gliding through it? What's his wrist position like through the action and at point of release? etc. In short, why is he bowling badly, is it because there's something wrong (but correctable) in the action, is it just one of those days (but then he should be better tomorrow, right?) or is it something more serious? You can also tell a lot by how good batsmen are playing his good balls...

Take Stuart Clark in 2009. Did ok in the warm-up match, but reports from those who watched it said he'd lost his nip. That's it, end of game, you can't play test cricket except on a green-top if you're just putting the ball there. So it proved. Clark did well 1st innings at Headingley, got smashed around 2nd innings when the pitch was a bit flatter, and was ineffective at the Oval.

I'm not saying that that's what happened to Onions here, because I haven't seen him bowl for ages. But it is possible to get wickets at FC level without your nip (particularly if you play on helpful seaming wickets as Onions does, but not only, because Bicknell did it for a long long time at Surrey). It is very very difficult to do that at international level. The step up is big and real.

So no you can't judge purely on one game, but you can tell quite a bit. Besides, Onions has been involved in the squad at times this year, so he'll have bowled in the nets; obviously he hasn't convinced people he's good enough anymore - not saying they're right, but the guys making the decisions will undoubtedly have seen more of Onions than most of us...

ShankyCricket wrote:Because it gives them an extra bowling option who can be used if and when Panesar is hit out of the attack by Australians?

ShankyCricket wrote:With regards to Stokes' batting, I have to agree with Mike here. I have only really watched him in ODIs but he clearly isn't good enough to bat at 7 in Test cricket yet. At present, he's more a number 8 although not good enough to play in a 4 man attack. But I like his selection purely because if Swann gets injured and England have to play Panesar as the spinner, then I think they have no option but to shove Prior up to 6 and play Stokes as the 4th seamer/5th bowler at 7 because there's no way Panesar is good enough to play as a part of a 4 man attack on those surfaces, you have to just look at the NZ Tests in February/March earlier this year when Anderson and Broad were overbowled due to Panesar (and Finn's) spectacular ineffectiveness and Panesar was actually heading into that series in much better form and mental state than he is now. If Panesar plays (only if Swann is injured), it has to be in a 5 man attack (4+1) with Stokes playing as the 5th bowling allrounder.

Hopefully though Swann will remain fit and in that case, Ballance should bat at 6. Rankin would be my 3rd seamer unless Tremlett shows that he's back to his very best in the warm ups.

hodge wrote:So do you think Samit will get another chance after speaking to the media about being excluded vs Aus?

guildfordbat wrote:An impressive undefeated 50 today from Ballance at the Oval. Good use of footwork and seizing on anything short or wide. He'll clearly face greater challenges than Surrey's attack but he's still done well.

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:An impressive undefeated 50 today from Ballance at the Oval. Good use of footwork and seizing on anything short or wide. He'll clearly face greater challenges than Surrey's attack but he's still done well.

Fingers crossed that he starts at number 6 in Brisbane - he seems a superb talent.