England v New Zealand, Headingley 29th May to 2nd June

First topic message reminder :

After an England win that for much of the first four days looked unlikely we move up to Leeds for round 2.

England have added Plunkett to the squad either as cover for Wood, who has a poor fitness record, or maybe because the senior seamers may be a touch tired. Very much doubt we will see any changes to the starting XI however. Selectors will be hoping that Adam Lyth can get some runs at his home ground as lord alone knows where they go next. Lyth and Ballance will both be hoping to be in the runs - and England need them to as you cannot keep losing 3 or 4 cheap top order wickets.

New Zealand have their own issues. Anderson and Watling have caused the physios some concern, Craig did not look like an internationalk spinner and with Anderson's issues the 3 main seamers were perhaps overbowled.

Well done to New Zealand on winning the Second Test to end up drawing the series. A fair result I'd say as both teams have contributed to a wonderful (if small) series. Great batting, tense finishes, ebbing and flowing tests. Great stuff.

Richly deserved win for New Zealand. They lost considerable time in the game, they had to do all the running as they were 1-0 behind in the series. And they did it in some style........

I echo the congratulations to New Zealand in the posts above from Craig and msp together with the comments as to how good this mini-series was. However, I still feel England are (for once) getting off fairly lightly in comments from posters. Too many individuals had a poor match and not all for the first time recently. Furthermore, as I suggested after the first Test, I remain concerned by the balance of the team and, in particular, the inability of the bowlers - or a specific bowler - to provide containment. I fear this is all going to come more to the surface as the Ashes get underway.

Ballance simply has to go, against decent seam bowling he's been shown to be rank rotten and almost single handedly cost us this game running Lyth out.

New Zealand coupled their devil may care attitude from the first Test with a slightly more circumspect approach when England where on top and it led to a more rounded performance.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ballance simply has to go, against decent seam bowling he's been shown to be rank rotten and almost single handedly cost us this game running Lyth out.

Thats a bit ridiculous, the guy still averages over 50 despite a poor run (which is only 3 tests long). Id see Bells place as much more under threat, his run of poor form is genuinely extended.

The much bigger problem than running Lyth out in this game was the inability to control New Zelands aggressive batting. With Broad Anderson and Wood being aked to bowl wicket taking balls and attack back its pretty important at least one of the support bowlers needs to have a degree of control.
Stokes has been rank awful aside from one innings since his return. His figures make Alis look good, which says something. Stokes will retain his place because hes produced with the bat, Ali though isnt delivering with either at the minute.
The problem then comes in who you replace him with, Rashid probably deserves a spot but has previously been left out exactly because he doesnt offer that control and ability to contain batsmen. Going back to Tredwell seems pretty negative and leaves a significant tail again. Theres not a straight forward answer here, Im not a massive fan of Tredwell but I do see the need to have a spinner in who can be relied upon to bowl a large number of tight overs to stem the easy scoring and to reduce the requirement to bowl Stokes as anything other than a wildcard.
I certainly think they have done the right thing by sending bell and ali back to their counties to find form and resting anderson and broad for the odis.


There is a chance for fabrace to try something radical and really shake up the side. maybe Roy will play a stormer in the ODIS and become the next new flintoff. Overall its one step forward (openers and wood) and one back (pretty much evrything else)

Gower and Hussain talking about it being a good warm up for the ashes. Idiots.

Not everything in cricket revolves around the frickin ashes

Has young Jason Roy started bowling 140+ and turned into an all-rounder overnight?

As I see it going into the Ashes then on paper the Aussies are the better side as they are on form as well. Now Australia are only narrowly above New Zealand in the rankings who England have drawn with here so they aren't in theory that far away from Australia's level of play. However, for England to be competitive they simply cannot afford any passengers in the side. They need 11 players all contributing and of those that played in this test I'd say Cook is in great form, Lyth looks like he is settling into the role, Ballance has had a patchy spell following on from great form, Bell has had a largely bad run of form for a year, Root is in fine form but not so good at Headingley, Stokes has been decent in spells with the bat and ball but less so at other times, Buttler in decent form, Ali patchy with the bat and very poor with the ball, Broad has had a very good series, Wood looks to be a very good find and Anderson has not been at his best in this series.

In short of that team I'd say England are carrying two passengers - Bell and Ali. England will stick with them regardless and that will prove costly.

Ok, Craig, what should the selectors do then to replace the two passengers?

Adil Rashid for Ali.
Since they are not going to pick Pietersen, then pick Roy? Hales? Taylor? Perhaps bat Compton at 3 and push Ballance down to 4?

msp83 wrote:Adil Rashid for Ali.
Since they are not going to pick Pietersen, then pick Roy? Hales? Taylor? Perhaps bat Compton at 3 and push Ballance down to 4?

Exactly and either option is hardly a gamble considering Bell and Ali's lack of form. It has worked giving Lyth his chance as it has giving Wood his chance. There are players there you know if given the chance. Mediocrity does not have to be accepted.

Lyth would never have played in this series had Jonathan Trott thought enough is enough. Lyth's success is entirely down to Trott rather than the England management.
As I said earlier, Ian Bell will play the next 2 tests easily even if he doesn't score a run for the next 4 innings!!
And Moeen Ali ones ran through the Indian lineup brought up on quality spin!!! And if he fails with the ball, then he's a batsman who's bowling is a bonus! If he fails with the bat then that is because England confused him so much and bat him down the order, he's the only viable option for England led spinner role and he can bat a bit as well, you shouldn't expect him to deliver with the bat every time, his role is that of England's led spinner!!!
Bell being retained for his experience in a side where that is on rather short supply is somewhat understandable, but something has to be done so that he regains his confidence. He has had only 1 outstanding series in the last 3 years, the rest of them all have been either average or poor, and it seems now it has really caught on to his confidence.......

It has to be noted that for New Zealand, all 11 players, every single one of them contributed to the win. Even Kane Williamson who scored a total of only 6 runs in the match came to the party in a massive way with those absolutely crucial w3 wickets and some good catching. All other than KW got runs in the top 7, Mark Craig showed he has the foundations to step into Daniel Vettori's position with crucial runs in both innings, good containing bowling and a couple of wickets in the first innings and then the 3 strikes in the last innings. Southee lived up to his reputation with the ball in the first inning and even came off with the bat, Henry bowled quite OK and thrashed around with the bat and Boult led the attack when his senior partner was slowly getting into the thick of things.......

msp83 wrote:It has to be noted that for New Zealand, all 11 players, every single one of them contributed to the win. Even Kane Williamson who scored a total of only 6 runs in the match came to the party in a massive way with those absolutely crucial w3 wickets and some good catching. All other than KW got runs in the top 7, Mark Craig showed he has the foundations to step into Daniel Vettori's position with crucial runs in both innings, good containing bowling and a couple of wickets in the first innings and then the 3 strikes in the last innings. Southee lived up to his reputation with the ball in the first inning and even came off with the bat, Henry bowled quite OK and thrashed around with the bat and Boult led the attack when his senior partner was slowly getting into the thick of things.......

Which emphasises the importance of having eleven contributing players and at the moment for England that isn't Bell and Ali (whilst not as bad) is still not acting as a wicket-taking or even containing bowler. Root has looked more dangerous with the ball than Ali - that is seriously worrying.

msp83 wrote:Adil Rashid for Ali ...

Msp - I'm not convinced Rashid would be an improvement on Ali and fear he might turn out to be the opposite. However, I fully accept it's a game of opinions and that Ali has not been at his best. If Ali is to be dropped, I think the primary reason should be because he's not containing enough; that is something important which England's bowling armoury is currently lacking. I don't associate Rashid with containment and so if he comes in (or even if Ali stays in), I feel another of the current bowlers would need to step down to allow a steadier / more defensive minded seamer to enter the stage. I realise this won't be popular with many but, if we're picking either Rashid or Ali, I believe we'll need to leave out Wood or Stokes. They've both got a lot going for them but insufficient containment imo. With that partly in mind, I was asking Hoggy earlier today about Woakes' fitness. Another option would be for ''my man'' Tredwell to leapfrog Rashid and replace Ali. When Australia get going with the bat, we won't always be able to match them with attacking bowling and nor should we limit ourselves to that being the only available option.

Well Treadwell is sn option and one that fid better than Ali in the West Indies but still got the chop.

Guildford, it has to be remembered Tredwell got smashed a bit by the Australians in ODIs. Different format and all that I agree and I actually like the bloke, but it was after that Australian tonking that he became a far more inconsistent ODI bowler. Before that, he was the 1 bowler to have emerged with a seriously enhanced reputation when he played an ODI series in India, and for about 2 years, he had proved himself to be a far more than capable replacement for Graeme Swann in the shorter formats, and whenever Swanny wasn't available because of injury or being rested, England didn't feel his significant absence because Tredwell had stepped up. But ones the Australians took him on, even his ODI performances have been affected.
Knowing they could do that to him, the Australians would surely go after Tredwell, and with not much confidence going for him in the longer formats, how would Tredwell cope up?
Now on Rashid v Ali. The thing that has to be remembered is that other than that 1 series against India, Ali hasn't been much of a wickettaking option. One way you contain is by taking wickets. At the moment Ali is doing neither, not taking wickets, not containing either. If Rashid could do the former better, then that would go some way in helping him do the latter. He has taken lots of county wickets in the last 2 seasons, is a regular spin option, how long would you go on ignoring his domestic record for someone who is 28 already and may or may not go on to become a good spinner in some years?

I am really torn on Rashid.

On the one hand I firmly believe that he is the most talented spinner in the English game atm. However he is not full of self confidence - and wrist spinners really need to be cocky little buggers.

He should have been selected for T2 in the Windies. Tredwell was injured and it did not take hindsight to know that parachuting Ali in was a bad idea. By doing that they shafted both Ali and Rashid.

msp83 wrote:Guildford, it has to be remembered Tredwell got smashed a bit by the Australians in ODIs. Different format and all that I agree and I actually like the bloke, but it was after that Australian tonking that he became a far more inconsistent ODI bowler. Before that, he was the 1 bowler to have emerged with a seriously enhanced reputation when he played an ODI series in India, and for about 2 years, he had proved himself to be a far more than capable replacement for Graeme Swann in the shorter formats, and whenever Swanny wasn't available because of injury or being rested, England didn't feel his significant absence because Tredwell had stepped up. But ones the Australians took him on, even his ODI performances have been affected.
Knowing they could do that to him, the Australians would surely go after Tredwell, and with not much confidence going for him in the longer formats, how would Tredwell cope up?
Now on Rashid v Ali. The thing that has to be remembered is that other than that 1 series against India, Ali hasn't been much of a wickettaking option. One way you contain is by taking wickets. At the moment Ali is doing neither, not taking wickets, not containing either. If Rashid could do the former better, then that would go some way in helping him do the latter. He has taken lots of county wickets in the last 2 seasons, is a regular spin option, how long would you go on ignoring his domestic  record for someone who is 28 already and may or may not go on to become a good spinner in some years?

Totally agree with you with regards to Ali. I think a lot of people are too enamoured with his batting and it wins people over. As you say he is primarily in as a bowler (or else why bat at No.8) so that being the case he should be judged on his bowling alone. He has neither taken enough wickets or had any degree of control either so what does he bring to the side bowling-wise? I truly do feel Root has looked more dangerous and done a better job so if that is the case Ali could be replaced as first spinning option by Root if need be. If Rashid is more a wicket-taking bowler than Ali then that should be more than enough reason to get him in.

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:Adil Rashid for Ali ...

Msp - I'm not convinced Rashid would be an improvement on Ali and fear he might turn out to be the opposite. However, I fully accept it's a game of opinions and that Ali has not been at his best. If Ali is to be dropped, I think the primary reason should be because he's not containing enough; that is something important which England's bowling armoury is currently lacking. I don't associate Rashid with containment and so if he comes in (or even if Ali stays in), I feel another of the current bowlers would need to step down to allow a steadier / more defensive minded seamer to enter the stage. I realise this won't be popular with many but, if we're picking either Rashid or Ali, I believe we'll need to leave out Wood or Stokes. They've both got a lot going for them but insufficient containment imo. With that partly in mind, I was asking Hoggy earlier today about Woakes' fitness. Another option would be for ''my man'' Tredwell to leapfrog Rashid and replace Ali. When Australia get going with the bat, we won't always be able to match them with attacking bowling and nor should we limit ourselves to that being the only available option.

Totally agree.
Swapping Ali for Rashid would be a like for like taking the man on form, but it does nothing to solve the real issue England have had which is the inability assert control.
Stokes has earnt more of a right to hold his place than Ali, despite being even more expensive so far this year, because he has produced enough with the bat to be picked on that alone.
Broad has had an issue through his career with being flip flopped between the line and length medium paced version and trying to strain for pace and agression version, and consitently slagged off for doing whichever is asked of him. It may be that he is the one who has to step up to that role. Dropping wood for the failings of others would be very harsh, and the only way Anderson or Broad will be left out is if they need resting. Would Woakes offer the control option? Not sure really. He would give England a get out for keeping the depth to their batting if Tredwell did come back for Ali, but it would then flip England back to lacking real wicket taking bowlers.
Theres also the fielding issue, England dont have the best set of catchers out there and its cost them. Jordan back for Wood again would if anything worsen their run leaking.
With KP not an option theres not an obvious replacement number 4 for Bell knocking the door down right now.

As always there isnt a clear right answer. Change one thing and it opens up a hole elsewhere and Englands problem with getting 11 guys producing what they are caopable of at the same time continues.
Bell and Ali should be under pressure, but they are both capable of doing much better than they are currently. Root, Stokes, Broad, Anderson and of course Cook have all had their bad spells too and no doubt will again at some point ...but are all central to Englands plans it wouldve been foolish to write any of them off permanently.

I am not convinced by Rashid. Didn't the Aussies savage Imran Tahir (Raf can confirm this I expect)? I think Tahir is a much better bowler than Rashid will ever be.

Bowling legspin in Tests is about as tough an assignment as it gets, so I am not saying Rashid is a bad player, just that his chosen discipline is really difficult to convert to consistent results at Test level.

Given that I would probably back Tredwell as a containing option for the Ashes.

The question though, is can Tredwell be that containing option against the Australians? Can Moeen Ali, who hasn't contained other lineups and hasn't taken enough wickets to justify his place before or after the India series be that option against the Australians who would certainly look to target him?

msp83 wrote:The question though, is can Tredwell be that containing option against the Australians? Can Moeen Ali, who hasn't contained other lineups and hasn't taken enough wickets to justify his place before or after the India series be that option against the Australians who would certainly look to target him?

Its a fair question. I can only say that Tredwell is far more likely to contain than Rashid who can be expected to bowl 1 or 2 bad balls an over. Rashid quite often goes for c.5 runs an over even in the CC, though I accept he does pick up wickets and make runs.

We finally won our first cricket test in England this century. thats a massive achievement.

Some very good posts above on the slow bowling front.

One name from the recent past I'll quickly mention but only to take out of the equation is Kerrigan. I saw him on Monday bowling for Lancs against Surrey at the Oval. He posed little threat and Roy really tore into him. The only reason his figures (0/50 off 8 overs on the day) weren't worse was that he didn't bowl more and was promptly taken out of the attack more than once.

MSp - if you are going with Rashid, who are your other bowlers? In line with my earlier posts and subsequent ones from Goose and VTR, I do feel the containment factor is important.

Rashid in 130 ish First Class matches concedes 3.5rpo, in 150 Tredwell 3.1rpo.

Those people who assume that Rashid will bowl 1 or 2 bad balls per over are basing it on what? Have they actually seen him bowl in FC cricket recently?


All irrelevant as Ali will be selected for T1

Isn't 0/50 off 8 overs almost the exact return that Kerrigan had on his disastrous Test debut?

VTR - sounds about right. Kerrigan even had a more torrid time in 2012 at Guildford when another of Surrey's batsmen totally took him to the cleaners. From my (admittedly limited) experiences of watching Kerrigan, he seems to have no answer when taken on. I don't like to write off any young bowler but I suspect the calibre and current attacking instincts of many Test batsmen will be too much for him.

I'd be more against picking a containing spinner, purely because the Aussies are going to tear apart any of the options (look what they did to Swann, and none of our options are near that atm). Pick the guy who will pick up the most wickets spinner wise I'd say

LondonTiger wrote:Rashid in 130 ish  First Class matches concedes 3.5rpo, in 150 Tredwell 3.1rpo.

Those people who assume that Rashid will bowl 1 or 2 bad balls per over are basing it on what? Have they actually seen him bowl in FC cricket recently?


All irrelevant as Ali will be selected for T1

Tiger - I personally don't make that assumption and haven't stated that but do have doubts as to how he and his economy will fare. As VTR posts, the step up for from the county game to Tests is greater for a leg spinner than for any other bowler. Most who have tried are remembered more with embarrassment than for their success. Perhaps, Rashid will be different but the difficulty shoudn't be underestimated.

If I am at all qualified to comment on Rashid's bowling from watching him 'live', then it's a dodgy qualification. I saw him in the CC game for Yorks against Surrey at the Oval in September 2013. That was when youngster Dom Sibley (Goose would probably say he was aged 11 although he was actually about 18! ) scored a double century and Rashid failed to impress. Mind you, his slow bowling partner was even worse and he was Kane Williamson, yesterday's destroyer of England, proving you can change and improve. Or that there is no logic as to when the cricketing gods choose to shine on you!

Btw, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Ali will be selected for the first Test. He probably would be if it was next week but now he'll need to do something with the ball for Worcs over the next month.

I am 100% there are posters here who know more about the options available to England in terms of spin so I cannot argue cases for players either way. What I do know is that Ali has struggled big time for England in the West Indies and in this series so do his performances with the ball merit a starting place above others who have not been given a chance? I cannot see that they do and I'd say completely forget what he has done with the bat. On current form he is certainly not in the sort of shape to face the Aussies. Other options may or may not do better but can they really do any worse?

Interesting discussions above , re bowling , though they seem to be morphing into a "selection for the Ashes" thread. I'll come back to them.

First my apologies for deserting the sinking ship at tea Didn't think I could help much from down here and needed some sleep. I see the bowlers held out for a commendable while ; but the end was inevitable. Losing five wickets before lunch was the killer.

Have to congratulate NZ . Often seems we all fuss too much over the deficiencies of England and forget the other team is allowed to be outstanding sometimes - this was one of them. They had to force a win , and resolved to attack from the off ; which worked for them - though had England held some crucial catches it might have backfired.
They also learned from the first match , and adopted more sensible tactics in the field . Rather than just attacking with no regard for the runs , they backed off sensibly when Cook and Lyth got on top , dried up the runs - and attacked again , to great effect , with the second new ball.
And of course it was that last forty minutes on day two , and the opening passage on day three that decided the Test Match. You can't lose 6/29 at any stage and expect to recover from it , unless your opponent falls in a hole. NZ didn't ; so the rest of the match was really just establishing the timing and margin of the defeat.
England made some crucial mistakes. Sending NZ in probably turned out to be one , though it looked a reasonable choice at the time. The truth is , if you insert your opponent other than on a genuine "120 all out" pitch - which this never was - you have to ensure you bat yourself into a substantial lead , to make up for batting last. England of course should have done just that , but....see previous paragraph.
They also arguably over attacked with the ball. Didn't help that Moeen completely failed to bowl a length , and the pace men strayed far too often from a tight line ; but I think England would have been well advised to defend a bit more against Ronchi in particular - he may well have overreached and got out had they done so.
But again , I don't want to take anything away from NZ. Sometimes it is just good batting that makes the bowlers look bad. And the converse , of course. Boult , Southee , and even Craig , who contained well in the first innings , fortunate though he may have been with his figures in the second , all had good matches. As did most of the NZ wicketkeepers with the bat.
A drawn series strikes me as a fair result ; it was played with spirit throughout , and left everyone wishing there was a third match. Maybe next time...

Leg spin in test cricket is a thankless art. Warne was an outlier, and more than being an outlier, was also fortunate to have
a) started out in era where batsman had a broader definition of a respectable ball
and
b) had the privilege of practising against hapless English opposition until he got good.

His average against India is basically an illustration of what happens when batsman get well and truly on top of a bowler, and in terms of aggressiveness, the modern bats in all the top countries (except curiously Australia) are just as good as them. Rashid is no Warne. Rashid will get slaughtered.

Also, Rashid doesn't have the advantage of spinning out hapless English sides because, you know... he's English

kingraf wrote:Leg spin in test cricket is a thankless art. Warne was an outlier, and more than being an outlier, was also fortunate to have
a) started out in era where batsman had a broader definition of a respectable ball
and
b) had the privilege of practising against hapless English opposition until he got good.

His average against India is basically an illustration of what happens when batsman get well and truly on top of a bowler, and in terms of aggressiveness, the modern bats in all the top countries (except curiously Australia) are just as good as them. Rashid is no Warne. Rashid will get slaughtered.

He had a bit of fun bowling to one or two South Africans too , you know , raf

Bowling stats of Ali in first class cricket compared to Rashid then there is no contest. Rashid wins hands down. What am I missing folks?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Bowling stats of Ali in first class cricket compared to Rashid then there is no contest. Rashid wins hands down. What am I missing folks?

Ali is a better bat.

Rashid is a leg spinner. I'd hate to see Imran Tahir's figures against County opposition. Warne esque I imagine

England do have issues with the balance of their side , as guildford and Gooseberry have flagged.

Fact is they have been stuck with a five bowler plan since Swann retired, unless they want Broad and Anderson carried off in a box. And given one at least has to be a sound bat , Stokes looks nailed on for he time being. Which in itself need not be a problem , since he is best used - in my opinion - as an attack dog , in short , flat out spells ... If he bowls twelve overs in an innings , it should be in three spells ; fast , attacking , and don't worry too much if he concedes a few runs.
However that does mean that the third seamer , or the spinner , needs to be able to offer a serious control option.
And there is the problem. There just may not be anyone right now who fits the specs perfectly.
Several options canvassed above ; but I'm not sure any of them offer better prospects than Wood and Ali.
To be continued...

Ali has bowled in county cricket as well but has had one five wicket haul. I do not see Ali's batting as relevant here since he bats at No.8. Ali's bowling is under the spotlight here and his bowling is just not worthy (for me) of keeping him in the side.

alfie wrote:England do have issues with the balance of their side , as guildford and Gooseberry have flagged.

Fact is they have been stuck with a five bowler plan since Swann retired, unless they want Broad and Anderson carried off in a box. And given one at least has to be a sound bat , Stokes looks nailed on for he time being. Which in itself need not be a problem , since he is best used - in my opinion - as an attack dog , in short , flat out spells ... If he bowls twelve overs in an innings , it should be in three spells ; fast , attacking , and don't worry too much if he concedes a few runs.
However that does mean that the third seamer , or the spinner , needs to be able to offer a serious control option.
And there is the problem. There just may not be anyone right now who fits the specs perfectly.
Several options canvassed above ; but I'm not sure any of them offer better prospects than Wood and Ali.
To be continued...

I've said it for a long time now alfie - Chris woakes is the answer to all England's problems

Olly wrote:

alfie wrote:England do have issues with the balance of their side , as guildford and Gooseberry have flagged.

Fact is they have been stuck with a five bowler plan since Swann retired, unless they want Broad and Anderson carried off in a box. And given one at least has to be a sound bat , Stokes looks nailed on for he time being. Which in itself need not be a problem , since he is best used - in my opinion - as an attack dog , in short , flat out spells ... If he bowls twelve overs in an innings , it should be in three spells ; fast , attacking , and don't worry too much if he concedes a few runs.
However that does mean that the third seamer , or the spinner , needs to be able to offer a serious control option.
And there is the problem. There just may not be anyone right now who fits the specs perfectly.
Several options canvassed above ; but I'm not sure any of them offer better prospects than Wood and Ali.
To be continued...

I've said it for a long time now alfie - Chris woakes is the answer to all England's problems

That could be a great shout but is he not still recovering from injury? If fit bring him in for Ali and use Root as the spin option.

I'm glad you brought that up , Olly. I have a lot of time for Woakes myself ; of course , he's been injured lately.

But assume a fit Woakes , in form : whose place does he take ?
Stokes ? Can he bat at six ?
Or Wood's (which would be a pity , after the latter's promising debut ; but would stretch out the batting , allowing a Tredwell , perhaps , to replace Ali)
Or Ali ...but that gives five seamers ! A bit too much of a good thing...

Comments ?

We should go with a four pronged seam attack this summer, Stokes, Woakes, Wood, Broad, Anderson and Jordan in the contention.

I'd like to see rotation employed personally, the schedule is gruelling and people will need rests.

Olly wrote:We should go with a four pronged seam attack this summer, Stokes, Woakes, Wood, Broad, Anderson and Jordan in the contention.

I'd like to see rotation employed personally, the schedule is gruelling and people will need rests.

I suspect wear and tear will probably do the rotating for them...

I'd add Plunkett to that list. But you still need a spinner. Unless it is a very damp summer.

alfie wrote:

Olly wrote:We should go with a four pronged seam attack this summer, Stokes, Woakes, Wood, Broad, Anderson and Jordan in the contention.

I'd like to see rotation employed personally, the schedule is gruelling and people will need rests.

I suspect wear and tear will probably do the rotating for them...

I'd add Plunkett to that list.   But you still need a spinner.  Unless it is a very damp summer.

Oh yes of course alfie, but I think the containing bowler from the attack needs to come from the seamers, not the spinner thus said one of those four and left the spinner out of it.

I'd be very wary of going in with five right arm seamers personally...

guildfordbat wrote:If I am at all qualified to comment on Rashid's bowling from watching him 'live', then it's a dodgy qualification. I saw him in the CC game for Yorks against Surrey at the Oval in September 2013. That was when youngster Dom Sibley (Goose would probably say he was aged 11 although he was actually about 18! ) scored a double century and Rashid failed to impress. Mind you, his slow bowling partner was even worse and he was Kane Williamson, yesterday's destroyer of England, proving you can change and improve. Or that there is no logic as to when the cricketing gods choose to shine on you!

Yeah went to much of that game. the yorkshire team, bar Ballance, looked like a side that would rather be anywhere else having come up short in the fight with Durham for the title. Mind playing cricket in the last week in September is a touch perverse. Ballance showed real application and grit to get hundreds in both innings and play his way into the England Squad for that winter's Ashes. I hope he can refind that over the next month or so.

alfie wrote:I'm glad you brought that up , Olly.  I have a lot of time for Woakes myself ; of course , he's been injured lately.

But assume a fit Woakes , in form : whose place does he take ?  
Stokes ? Can he bat at six ?
Or Wood's (which would be a pity , after the latter's promising debut ; but would stretch out the batting , allowing a Tredwell , perhaps , to replace Ali)
Or Ali ...but that gives five seamers ! A bit too much of a good thing...

Comments ?

Alfie - obviously far more important to a poster than his country's current performances in Tests is being able to look back and say he called it right. I'm therefore delighted that I raised similar issues after we won the first Test when some others (not you) were taking the view that everything in the garden was rosy.

More seriously and as I've banged on about above, I do believe we need a bowler who is more likely (nothing is guaranteed) to provide containment. My inclination at the moment would be to replace Ali with ''my man'' Tredwell. My reasons for Ali dropping out are various and mixed: he's out of form with the ball; he doesn't provide containment; although they also don't provide (much) containment, the other current seamers have more going for them today and merit retaining their places; in any case, a suitable containing seamer to be brought in is less clear - it could be a fit Woakes although he's still largely unproven.

An issue my ''solution'' causes is that Broad would move up to 8 in the order (soon after some were demanding he bat at 11) with Tredders, Wood and Anderson at 9, 10, Jack. That's not ideal but, as discussed before, we probably have to accept that the solution we're seeking is the least worst one!

Looking at the spin options : Tredwell is probably the most likely to contain successfully ; and he bowled well in Antigua.  True , as msp pointed out , he was hit around by the Australians last time they clashed in 50 over cricket...but there is a considerable difference between that format and the long game so it doesn't automatically follow that the same will happen . Incidentally - I haven't checked - how many games were involved in that last meeting ? I have vague memories that he did get smashed around ; but I can't recall the details or the number of different occasions.
I think the other thing against Tredwell is his batting - or the lack thereof. Not that he is a total rabbit ; but he is no Ali - or Rashid for that matter.  Broad did better this match , but I'm not sure I want him at eight just yet , with Wood Tredwell and Anderson to follow.

Rashid is a bit of a wild card , really.  Those who have seen him in the CC seem to have widely differing opinions : he may well be a better wicket taking option than Ali ; but it seems very doubtful he'd offer much control.  The Aussies cut their teeth on wrist spinners ; and the fate of previous hopeful English leggies has not been a pretty one in modern times. Not ruling him out , mind. Just saying we shouldn't assume too much.

And Ali , who is taking a bit of stick for his recent efforts.  But perhaps we should back up a bit : he has only played 11 Tests.
He came in as a batsman  - with his useful bowling ability as a second string. Against Sri Lanka , in May , they probably didn't expect to use much spin at all. But of course he made a hundred at Headingley , booking his place for the India series despite not doing much with the ball. And then he had some serious bowling success against India ...which rather changed everyone's perception of him.
Was it a fluke ? I don't think so : it wasn't just one match , and the Indians are known as good players of spin? but it is probably true to say things went his way a bit ; so we probably shouldn't have been too carried away. He needed to back it up.
Unfortunately for Moeen - and probably unfortunately for England generally - the programme then led to a prolonged diet of one day cricket...I don't think adjusting to the different demands of that game did him any favours. Especially with his pace colleagues not having much success. And then he got injured.
Since he came back (perhaps too quickly ?) he has lacked any control ; though he has , to be fair , picked up a few wickets - and could have had a few more if England's catching had been sharper. Memory tells me he bowled a much better length last year against India. Even so , he didn't have a fantastic economy rate - though it compares quite well overall with that of Craig , his opposite number in this series , for one.
He's still new at this level. He can bowl better than he's done so far this season. If he can get some decent bowling done for his county before Cardiff , I think he should be starting the Ashes.

But his place isn't set in stone.

I tell you what bugs me is those backing Bell (mainly pundits such as Hussain) saying well he did it in the last Ashes Series in England but doesn't mention that there are more Ashes series that he hasn't actually performed in. In fact I'd say going by the laws of averages it means he is less likely to fire up this summer with a bevvy of runs. However, I am certain the selectors will stick with him until at least the end of the year.