Englands Test XI for SL?

First topic message reminder :

Wondering what the current thoughts are on Englands first test series post Flower.

Cook
Robson
Root
Ballance
Bell
Stokes
Ali
Prior
Jordan
Broad
Anderson

I imagine England might end up lining up like this. Would prefer Buttler in for Prior given his lack of match practice behind the stumps, not sure I'd be rushing back Broad either with his injury history. Not sure theres a genuine spin option worthy of test cricket yet. Bats deep at least

How has Prior got back in there?

Still jobs for the Boys me thinks!

Cook is a weak captain imo, how do you expect Buttler to gain Test match experiance when he still selects his mates who have proven their form in 'umm' one game!  

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Prior seems a huge risk to me. Have England gone with him due to lack of options? They obviously want a keeper who'll score significant runs at Test level, which rules out Foster, Read and Wood. And they feel Buttler isn't ready yet (I'm not sure I agree with that). That leaves Bairstow, who hasn't looked up to scratch, and Prior. Prior at least has been scoring a few runs this season, and will surely do a better job against the not-so-hot SL bowling, but like many on here I'm concerned about the fitness.

Moores seems to be a fan of Woakes, I'm not really, don't feel he'll get good batsmen out, but that's my opinion, which is worth considerably less than those of the England selectors.

Mad - a good and thorough post.

Just to follow up on the two paragraphs above.

Foster and Read are the best two glovemen on the county circuit in my book. I also think they've been ruled out too quickly on batting grounds. They have near identical Championship stats this season. Around 400 runs each from 10 innings, 8 completed, at an average of 49 (Foster) and 50 (Read). I can understand the selectors not wanting to go back to the past (they are admittedly nearing veteran stage) but Prior's selection and recall is anything but groundbreaking.

Like you, I'm not convinced that Woakes will be penetrative enough at Test level. However, he might be a useful foil in blocking up an end. I discussed previously with Mike that he could just be the ying to Stokes' wicket taking but more costly yang. No Stokes in this squad but you might read Jordan instead. I have though been very impressed by Woakes' batting. He wouldn't be out of place in a Test side at 7 and if he does play in this team it looks as if he'll bat lower down the order than that. His fielding is also very good, something which hardly ever gets a mention.

Woakes' main rival for a starting place is surely Plunkett. I haven't seen him much at all in recent years but considered him to be punching above his weight when first called into the Test side. I do feel the improvement in his play (which several commentators have mentioned) will need to be considerable for his place now to be justified.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:So Hoggy Bear's campaign proves successful as he gets his man Woakes into the twelve. Quite what Hoggy has in mind to get him into the eleven I don't know but I suggest Plunkett keep one eye over his shoulder!   

I'd give a more detailed answer to that, but I'm rushing to get my train to Durham!!  

 

Btw, hope he still lives in Durham!

guildfordbat wrote:


Like you, I'm not convinced that Woakes will be penetrative enough at Test level. However, he might be a useful foil in blocking up an end. I discussed previously with Mike that he could just be the ying to Stokes' wicket taking but more costly yang. No Stokes in this squad but you might read Jordan instead.

Think this might be why Woakes may have a decent chance of playing (all joking aside). Haven't seen Plunkett this season, but from what I've read it seems to me that he has been bowling a little quicker than in the past. Does this mean that he has sacrificied a little bit of accuracy? Can England go into the test with two 'part-time' spinners and two attacking 'debut' seamers? Would they want to rely on Anderson or Broad to plug up an end if the spinners or the new seam bowlers were proving expensive?
Woakes, while he might not offer the attacking, wicket taking option of Plunkett or Jordan, is probably more likely to offer control, which would take the pressure off the other, newer bowlers, and allow Anderson and Broad to attack more.

Like Kerrigan, the memories of that 5th test may count against him (to a lesser extent). With him and Ali do you pick 2 players that do an alright job at both batting and bowling at test level.

guildford. nice reply.

I actually think Michael Bates is the best keeper on the circuit at the moment from what I've seen. But obviously his batting just isn't good enough. Re Read and Foster, I get that, but Read has always done well at County level, but never looked like scoring enough runs at Test level, much as I loved his keeping. Not so sure about Foster, but I suspect England feel that boat has sailed.

If Prior is fit I think it's absolutely the right call. A couple of bad series do not turn him into a bad player, and he's still young enough to play another 5 years or so. No problem with that selection IF he's fit (for which we'll have to wait, hope and see).

Thanks, Mad.

Yes, Bates is an extremely good keeper. I sung his praises on here a few weeks back after I saw him in a seconds match at Guildford. Just needs to get more first team experience which now appears to be happening. As Shelsey and Jimbo flagged then, his batting is actually better than he's generally given credit for.

If Prior was considered fit he was always likely to play , just to add some experience to a batting lineup that already includes two new caps and one man playing his second Test.  And that is just in the top six ! Woakes and Jordan make five players with two caps between them...
Buttler is one for the future ; though he really needs to improve his keeping before he is brought into the Test side. Which I hope he will , as he would then make a very good replacement for Prior.

Not complaining about all the new caps , by the way. It was more or less inevitable with all the retirements etc...might as well get a few young ones in straight away rather than mess about keeping on older players who haven't quite convinced after a handful of matches. (Carberry, Compton, Morgan...they might all feel a little unlucky not to have had another chance ; but it seems the selectors meant what they had hinted at before and have really looked to the future.)
Not exactly the team I'd have picked but I am not going to complain : it looks like a reasonable choice. Wish them all luck.

So Prior in, Stokes out. Plunkett the radical pick. Ali the led spinner. Woakes in, perhaps in for Stokes. Robson nailed on for England eventually.
Now, Matt Prior, at the peak of his game, has to be the obvious choice for the England wicketkeeper spot. But he struggled with the bat for a good year before he was dropped, and though he scored a First Class hundred at the start of the season, he has been hampered by injuries, and has kept in oonly one game. Jos Buttler should have been given an opportunity in the Brave New Era, but England are obviously trusting Prior, hope its not one of those Old Boys Club pick.......
The fitness concerns that did not apply to Matt Prior has applied for Ben Stokes, the one and only bright spark in an utter disaster of a tour in the winter. Stokes has played more games after returning from injury. Stuart Broad, returning from injury, has played less, and Broad is battling certain long term injury concerns. But perhaps without Graeme Swann and no other experienced 3rd seamer, they thought that they should take a bit of a chance with Broad.
Moeen Ali as the led spinner. Not sure I really like that much. Every test side, including South Africa with Dale Steyn and Vernon Philander, are better off with a regular spinner. England do not have a great seam attack, and Joe Root wasn't able to make any impact as a spinner in Australia in the winter, and the county parttimer who was picked to be the led spinner showed that the selectors were stupid in doing what they did. I have heard from learned posters that Ali is a bit more than a county parttimer, and he even bowls the doosra that is considered blasphemous in English cricketing circles. So lets give him a chance, since Panesar is not showing any intent to reclaim his place in the side.......

Hoggy makes a fair point about Woakes v Plunkett above.

( I had originally assumed Woakes was in and Plunkett was the spare ; but on reflection , if Ali bats at six then the choice is fairly open ; so the issue of attack/control is pertinent )

The only snag is that I don't recall Woakes offering much control at The Oval last year ? Perhaps this pitch will offer more to the seam bowlers ; but if it is flattish then there is a nagging feeling that Woakes isn't quite fast enough or varied enough to stop good batsmen at Test level...
I think he is worth a try , on balance. But like a few of these selections , he will need to make an early mark , as I doubt England have the luxury to offer long term try outs to too many players at once , and there are a few others in the mix.

Now for the actual make up of the batting order (presuming the final place is between Woakes and Plunkett)

What do we reckon?

Cook
Robson
Bell
Root
Ballance
Ali
Prior
Woakes
Broad
Jordan
Anderson

(If Plunkett plays slot him in at 10, move Broad/Jordan up)

Bell at 3 I think would be the way to go, with Moeen at 6. Need two experienced heads in that top three with so many inexperienced guys. 

But boy does that side bat deep!!

I suspect England might want to split the debutant Moeen and the quasi-debutant Ballance in the middle-order. Given that Root has generally done better down at 5-6 and that Ballance has been batting up the order in the ODIs I fancy England will go in with Ballance at 4 and Root at 5.

alfie wrote:Hoggy makes a fair point about Woakes v Plunkett above.

( I had originally assumed Woakes was in and Plunkett was the spare ; but on reflection , if Ali bats at six then the choice is fairly open ; so the issue of attack/control is pertinent )

The only snag is that I don't recall Woakes offering much control at The Oval last year ? Perhaps this pitch will offer more to the seam bowlers ; but if it is flattish then there is a nagging feeling that Woakes isn't quite fast enough or varied enough to stop good batsmen at Test  level...
I think he is worth a try , on balance.  But like a few of these selections , he will need to make an early mark , as I doubt England have the luxury to offer long term try outs to too many players at once , and there are a few others in the mix.

From what I've heard Woakes has put on an extra yard of pace since last summer, although Hoggy will be in a better position to confirm whether that is true or not?

That Oval pitch was an absolute road, and Woakes is known for being more effective when its nibbling around. So I'd expect him to be quite effective early summer if selected. I'm a fan of his, I'd like to see him given a real go in the side myself

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I suspect England might want to split the debutant Moeen and the quasi-debutant Ballance in the middle-order. Given that Root has generally done better down at 5-6 and that Ballance has been batting up the order in the ODIs I fancy England will go in with Ballance at 4 and Root at 5.

Agree with that.

On a small point, I would also have Jordan in before Broad. Looks a strong batting line up - just a shame we can't play on paper!

Plunkett has a highest score of 86 this season, i wouldn't imagine that he would bat as low as 10.

Prior
Ali
Broad
Plunkett
Jordan
Anderson

I don't think we've had a tail that had so much talent in the batting department.

Ali

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I suspect England might want to split the debutant Moeen and the quasi-debutant Ballance in the middle-order. Given that Root has generally done better down at 5-6 and that Ballance has been batting up the order in the ODIs I fancy England will go in with Ballance at 4 and Root at 5.

Agree with this. In a perfect world I'd sooner Bell wasn't going in at three , because I like a bit of experience later in the order in case you find yourself 30/3 ; but given the available choices that lineup looks best.

Pity Stokes got injured when he did ; but I support the idea of bringing him back carefully. As a fast bowler batting in the top six he faces a big workload when he does return , and the last thing we want is to crock him again through putting too much strain on his body any earlier than necessary.

The part time spinner option seems fair enough for me , at least in early June. Not as if any of the pure spin bowlers have presented a huge case for selection. So happy to see what Moeen Ali can do (though I'd have preferred Borthwick myself - a minority view I know)

With all those changes at least no one can complain about the selectors being too conservative   

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I suspect England might want to split the debutant Moeen and the quasi-debutant Ballance in the middle-order. Given that Root has generally done better down at 5-6 and that Ballance has been batting up the order in the ODIs I fancy England will go in with Ballance at 4 and Root at 5.

Very much agree with that. It has to be Bell at 3 and Root, who proved himself to be a very solid middle order bat, at 5.
It is time for the clowns to stop messing Root around, and for Bell to come out of his comfort zone and front up.......

Something that may well be an option is Moeen Ali batting at 3. It is, after all, where he bats for Worcestershire and it is where he has scored the runs that have forced him into the side. However, the pressures of batting 3 as well as being the number 1 spinner in the side may be seen as too much for a debutant, so I would too like to see Bell at first drop, but Moeen is there is something to consider.

Really surprised Stokes isn't in. Incredibly exciting cricketer and whilst I can see the argument that he needs more cricket under his belt to regain match fitness, but I'd be less worried about throwing him in with a dodgy finger than a wicketkeeper with a dodgy groin. And now you are left with the dilemma of what do you do if Ali or Woakes/Plunkett perform well and the Stokes is fully fit for the India Tests.

I quite like Woakes, think he is a good, solid pick if you are considered about both Ali's bowling and Ali's batting (as well as Ballance/Root). He is a safety net at 8 with the bat and as fourth seamer with the ball. Hope to see him do a job. Haven't seen Plunkett bowl this year, so can't really comment!

Woakes at 8, if he can hold his own with the ball, will be the best number 8 batsman in the world, after the best ever, Dan Vetori. He really has class with the bat and he can play very much like a proper batsman. But the question is about his bowling, he didn't look quick enough for an international seamer in his limited game time with England, and he doesn't have a great deal going for him otherwise, that could make him a serious threat in conditions that do not offer serious help.

From the few times I've seen him, it just looks like he'd lack the X-factor with the ball at International level. He's no slower than an Anderson or Philander, but he lacks their unerrring accuracy or ability to nibble/swing the ball both ways and he doesn't hit the pitch particularly hard. The last time I saw him bowl was at the Oval last year, so he may have improved and I hope he has because with his batting (and fielding, as highlighted earlier on this thread) he would be a brilliant addition to the side.

Definitely some similarities between the Plunkett selection now and the Sidebottom selection in Moores is first era. If he can do a job similar to what Sidebottom did, then it's a good pick.

1. Cook
2. Robson
3. Root
4. Bell
5. Ballance
6. Ali
7. Prior
8. Broad
9. Jordan
10. Plunket
11. Anderson

Why Woakes has been called up is beyond me.

Alistair wrote:Plunkett has a highest score of 86 this season, i wouldn't imagine that he would bat as low as 10.

Prior
Ali
Broad
Plunkett
Jordan
Anderson

I don't think we've had a tail that had so much talent in the batting department.

Ali

Hi Ali - a warm welcome to the cricket boards.

Yes, certainly a tail that should be able to wag and more!

A significant improvement on the one that turned out for England in the 1999 Oval Test against New Zealand [England supporters of a nervous disposition might want to look away]. The last five batsmen on that scorecard were -

7. Ronnie Irani (test match average of 17.2)
8. Andy Caddick (10.3)
9. Alan Mullally (5.5)
10. Phil Tuffnell (5.1)
11. Ed Giddins (2.5).
  

Good one, Guildford!!.

--why no Ben Stokes?
He was world class in the difficult Aussie series......and when there is a talent like that and fit enough to play....he should not be kept out.
a case of over analysis / too much strategist.

although Woakes was a good guy who did not get enough chances, when on first view he looked full of potential

--another opener thrown in ? and Root holds his place ?
Compton is the most accomplished looking opener I have seen since the retirement of Strauss....but the English selectors have too big an ego to admit they messed up dropping Compton.

--and what skill has Moeen ali been picked for ?...spinner ?...with a bowling average of 40+ in FC and a SR of barely 1 wkt / FC game ??
so Eng continue to pick their specialist spinner for batting skills??
what happened to the prodigy leggie who was flown into Aus for the last test ?

and the prodigy SLA who was meant to finish Panesar forever a few tests back ?

if it's not Panesar for reasons of discipline / form.....then the next best guy is the bald headed off spinner who I saw do a good job in champions trophy ( sorry name eludes me now).

--Plunket?...wasn't he playing a decade back ?

Eng should not make the mistake of taking this Lankan side lightly

KP_fan wrote:--why no Ben Stokes?
He was world class in the difficult Aussie series......and when there is a talent like that and fit enough to play....he should not be kept out.
a case of over analysis / too much strategist.

although Woakes was a good guy who did not get enough chances, when on first view he looked full of potential

--another opener thrown in ? and Root holds his place ?
Compton is the most accomplished looking opener I have seen since the retirement of Strauss....but the English selectors have too big an ego to admit they messed up dropping Compton.

--and what skill has Moeen ali been picked for ?...spinner ?...with a bowling average of 40+ in FC and a SR of barely 1 wkt / FC game ??
so Eng continue to pick their specialist spinner for batting skills??
what happened to the prodigy leggie who was flown into Aus for the last test ?

and the prodigy SLA who was meant to finish Panesar forever a few tests back ?

if it's not Panesar for reasons of discipline / form.....then the next best guy is the bald headed off spinner who I saw do a good job in champions trophy ( sorry name eludes me now).

--Plunket?...wasn't he playing a decade back ?

Eng should not make the mistake of taking this Lankan side lightly

I can assure England won't be taking this SL side lightly KPF. They know they need to right the wrongs of last winter, it's just more a case of not knowing their best side.

Stokes is out because he's only played one CC game since his return from injury. Not a decision I agree with at all to be honest, but I do see their rationale. It just makes it tough for them when he is 100% fit and Woakes etc. have performed well, who do you drop?

As for the spinning situation, Tredwell (the offie you alude too) can't even break into the Kent 4-day team. Whilst he has some backers, it is tough to pick him in that situation. It should be Kerrigan for me, but they've decided to go the part time route. It might work against SL but long term I don't think it will.

Olly wrote:

alfie wrote:Hoggy makes a fair point about Woakes v Plunkett above.

( I had originally assumed Woakes was in and Plunkett was the spare ; but on reflection , if Ali bats at six then the choice is fairly open ; so the issue of attack/control is pertinent )

The only snag is that I don't recall Woakes offering much control at The Oval last year ? Perhaps this pitch will offer more to the seam bowlers ; but if it is flattish then there is a nagging feeling that Woakes isn't quite fast enough or varied enough to stop good batsmen at Test  level...
I think he is worth a try , on balance.  But like a few of these selections , he will need to make an early mark , as I doubt England have the luxury to offer long term try outs to too many players at once , and there are a few others in the mix.

From what I've heard Woakes has put on an extra yard of pace since last summer, although Hoggy will be in a better position to confirm whether that is true or not?

That Oval pitch was an absolute road, and Woakes is known for being more effective when its nibbling around. So I'd expect him to be quite effective early summer if selected. I'm a fan of his, I'd like to see him given a real go in the side myself

Haven't been to a match yet this season (I live in Ireland so don't get to see Warks live that much), but a pal of mine who's been a couple of times tells me that Woakes seems bigger, stronger and faster than he's ever seen him before.
As for his performance at the Oval, while it's true that he suffered initially when Watson targetted both him and Kerrigan, after those first few overs he was as, if not more, economical than the other seamers IIRC.
I'm not saying that Woakes will, or even should, play, but if they're looking for someone who can contribute with the bat, in the field, and keep things economical with the ball if neccessary, they could do a lot worse than pick him.

An okay side in my opinion, Prior shouldnt be in but Buttler is not ready for test cricket yet (needs to play more FC)

No Vince or Patel? Um okay, apparently Root and Ballance to continue to take up valuable space in this side (I rate Root a lot but he's done nothing this season in FC, Ballance on the other hand is IMO not good enough)

No Stokes? Well apparently it has not dawned on people that he could be being punished for losing his cool and punching a locker causing the injury, that is something that until he gets his temper under control could hurt him time and time again. Is he one of our best prospects? Totally. But until the temper is under control I'd be wary of him as a selector

Woakes in? He's been in superb form this season and gives a superb option with the bat down the order and is more than handy with the ball (Nick - please inform me as to why you dont rate him)

Moeen/Robson/Jordan? Yep all three deserve their chance (although I would have gone with Patel over Moeen). Nice to see us pick an actual opener to open with Cook that isn't Carbs!

I feel that for Cook this may well be make or break as far as the captaincy goes, have a poor series against SL and I'd take it off of him. Maybe to Jimmy?

How would I line up?

1) Cook
2) Robson
3) Root
4) Bell
5) Ballance
6) Moeen
7) Woakes
8) Prior
9) Jordan
10) Broad
11) Anderson

Batting down to 10, Anderson a more than capable number 11. Bowling options of Jimmy, Broad, Jordan, Woakes, Moeen and Root.

Now just need to get Patel and Vince in the squad and I think we will have a strong young team (with Bell/Cook/Jimmy/Broad to provide experience)

Lancashire wicketkeeper Jos Buttler says he needs to improve if he is to play for the Test team.

and needs to become better mates with the Captain  

I think the lack of experience with the gloves in long formats is what counted against him. Its why he moved to Lancs this summer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/27730741

Carberry having another whinge. I mean at the end of the day hes 33 and hardly made himself undroppable in Australia.

Carbs really needs to move on now instead of just talking about doing so. He probably should have had more chances for England in ODIs in the past but I think including him in the squad in the most recent series was a mistake and didn't help England or Carberry himself.

The squad for the first test looks OK but it doesn't excite me. It somehow achieves the feat of having a lot of changes and new caps yet still giving me a feeling of same old, same old.

GSC wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/27730741

Carberry having another whinge. I mean at the end of the day hes 33 and hardly made himself undroppable in Australia.

But after being one of the players to come out of that Ashes series with a bit of credit. Being dropped would hurt.

I'm not sure he did come out with any credit. He wasn't the worst, but Stokes and Broad were the only two to return with reputation enhanced for me. And, as has been said, picking a 33 year old who hardly set the world alight doesn't exactly symbolise a near era.

I've likened the Carberry situation to being Norwich's top scorer

Just because you were one of the best of the bad bunch doesn't make you good enough

Not being complete trash meant you came away from that series with some credit.

He didn't score heavily enough to make himself undroppable and at 32 years old, he really had to to retain his place.

Olly wrote:I've likened the Carberry situation to being Norwich's top scorer

...

I know Jimbo won't like it but that's very good!   

At the Surrey AGM a few weeks back, Surrey's failure to develop and bring on players was raised. Whilst this most related to Jordan, Carberry's name also came up (Carberry started his career at Surrey but left a dozen years ago at the age of 22 in search of a regular first team spot). Alec Stewart commented in his opinion upon what would have happened if Carberry had stayed at Surrey ''until he was 24''. I was expecting him to say that if Carberry had shown a bit more patience, he would have become a first team regular and gone on to a fine career at the Oval. However, Stewart's comments couldn't have been more different. He said that if Carberry had remained where he was for another couple of years, his career would have ''stagnated'' in the seconds and he would almost certainly have dropped out of the game.

That may have little bearing on Carberry's current situation but I found Stewart's comments interesting and surprising. Certainly straight talking on his part (as normally the case) and commendable. Also confirmed that Carberry was never automatically destined for stardom. It did though also show that Carberry had correctly sussed the situation then and was right to be impatient and move on. It also made me think that whilst many of us grumble a bit now at Carberry's reaction to being overlooked by England, he might not have had a career at all without his characteristic impatience.

Seems like it will be Plunkett as England look for the Aussie blitz approach

They will also be adopting the play everyone in the wrong order with the batting line up

Ballance at 3 despite making all his runs at 5 abd Moeen at 6 despite making all his runs at 3

Just mind boggling

Its Ballance and not Bell at 3?

What about this for the England XI :-

1 Robson
2 Root
3 Cook (To play the David Gower role at 3 like was the case in Gower's vintage year of 1985 !
4 Bell
5 Ballance (to play the Mike Gatting role !)
6 Plunkett (to play the Ian Botham role! )
7 Prior
8 Ali (to play the John Emburey role!)
9 Woakes
10 Broad
11 Anderson (to play to Richard Ellison role !)

Root opening hasn't worked.

news from cricinfo that Robson, Ali and Jordan have all been given their caps (which isn't really surprising). Just the choice between Plunkett and Woakes then...

Also, Matthews seems to be blaming England for Senanayake's action being reported, and implies that the run-out of Buttler was in some way a consequence of this (basically SL feeling they were being picked on so wanted to get their own back). Hmmmm well I don't mind the run-out, it was dopey running, but not sure how England can have had a say in Senanayake being reported, thought that was entirely down to the umpire. Oh well, adds some more spice to the series certainly.

Sri Lanka win the toss and on a dry wicket they bowl first

England as expected Woakes out

No thread for the test match? Hmmmmm!. The winter seems to have done more damage than what was estimated!.