Pakistan vs England 2nd Test

First topic message reminder :

Here's a thread for the 2nd Test which has just got underway

Teams:

Pakistan: Mohammed Hafeez, Shan Masood, Shoaib Malik, Younis Khan, Misbah-ul-Haq*, Asad Shafiq, Sarfraz Ahmed†, Wahab Riaz, Yasir Shah, Zulfiqar Babar, Imran Khan

England: AN Cook*, MM Ali, IR Bell, JE Root, JM Bairstow, BA Stokes, JC Buttler†, AU Rashid, SCJ Broad, MA Wood, JM Anderson

I was vociferous on here calling for Rashid to replace Ali. Now that both have been in the same side on the same pitches I'd say Ali just edges it. The key is he offers a tad more control than Rashid does and bowls that bit quicker. Rashid has an annoying habit of throwing in one loose ball an over which really negates any good work he has done in the rest of the over. He must work on eliminating that one loose ball an over from his game.

I'd agree that it's Moeen over Rashid from what we've seen - Moeen I think is the better player at this moment in time, with both bat and ball. 

However I think Rashid has shown that if needed (ie. a Moeen injury) he could come in and do a good job. Guildford makes a good point that in both tests he's recovered from shaky first innings to do well second time round, which points to good character something which has been questioned in Adil's younger days.

Both have a lot of potential imo - and are far from the finished article it should be remembered.

Taking Olly's point I was surprised to see that Moeen is 28, Rashid is 27 (and almost 28) - a bit older than I thought for both.

There's no rules around these things but I suppose that means they have another 2-3 years before they would ordinarily be expected to be at their peak. I think even Swann was about 30 when he came into the side? They both look like good all-round cricketers that's for sure.

Both are decent all round players without being very good at either discipline. Ali has to drop down the order when we tour south africa, that's for sure. Or can Rashid take Ali's place in the side?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Cheers gb.

Whatever Beefy is or isn't he is whistling from the same hymn sheet in this case as me. Changes need to be made. Now in hindsight as the openers slot goes I don't think Hales is now the bloke for the job but looks like he'll be in for the South Africa series. Bell has been a dead man walking for well over a year now and Taylor deserves a chance and Buttler is at rock bottom form-wise and that needs addressing. We shall see what happens.

I think what GB is getting at, and what most of us feel, I suppose - is not so much that youre wrong necessarily, but that citing Botham as a resource list is on par with citing Wikipedia.

Well it is not only Beefy citing that changes are needed. Most pundits and ex-players make the same anslysis.

As I mentioned them way back in this thread, this description of the worst tail in history by Andy Zaltzman made me laugh:

"at The Oval in 1999, England sent out Alan Mullally, a low-quality 11, at nine, followed by Phil Tufnell, who by rights should have been batting at 12, at 10, then Ed Giddins, a natural number 16, at 11."

From this article which is a good read as always http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/921327/test-cricket-s-most-useless-batting-position

VTR wrote:As I mentioned them way back in this thread, this description of the worst tail in history by Andy Zaltzman made me laugh:

"at The Oval in 1999, England sent out Alan Mullally, a low-quality 11, at nine, followed by Phil Tufnell, who by rights should have been batting at 12, at 10, then Ed Giddins, a natural number 16, at 11."

From this article which is a good read as always http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/921327/test-cricket-s-most-useless-batting-position

Thanks, VTR. Lovely read.

kingraf wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Cheers gb.

Whatever Beefy is or isn't he is whistling from the same hymn sheet in this case as me. Changes need to be made. Now in hindsight as the openers slot goes I don't think Hales is now the bloke for the job but looks like he'll be in for the South Africa series. Bell has been a dead man walking for well over a year now and Taylor deserves a chance and Buttler is at rock bottom form-wise and that needs addressing. We shall see what happens.

I think what GB is getting at, and what most of us feel, I suppose - is not so much that youre wrong necessarily, but that citing Botham as a resource list is on par with citing Wikipedia.

Raf - yeah, pitched on line and hitting middle half way up - have to give you that!

VTR wrote:Taking Olly's point I was surprised to see that Moeen is 28, Rashid is 27 (and almost 28) - a bit older than I thought for both.

There's no rules around these things but I suppose that means they have another 2-3 years before they would ordinarily be expected to be at their peak. I think even Swann was about 30 when he came into the side? They both look like good all-round cricketers that's for sure.

I haven't done any research to back this up (or rubbish it!) but my gut feel is that Moeen can probably be allowed another year or two as he would have been concentrating more on batting in his earlier years.

VTR wrote:As I mentioned them way back in this thread, this description of the worst tail in history by Andy Zaltzman made me laugh:

"at The Oval in 1999, England sent out Alan Mullally, a low-quality 11, at nine, followed by Phil Tufnell, who by rights should have been batting at 12, at 10, then Ed Giddins, a natural number 16, at 11."

From this article which is a good read as always http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/921327/test-cricket-s-most-useless-batting-position

Andy Caddick at 8 was at least two places higher than I'd want him in a Test batting line-up as well...

Ah Caddick! Reminds me of fantastic times lying on the floor with crackers and spicy dip watching Andy tear the Windies a new one on Channel 4. Also Curtly bowling so good that the batsmen weren't good enough to even nick it to slip. Curse you Sky.

ShahenshahG wrote:Ah Caddick! Reminds me of fantastic times lying on the floor with crackers and spicy dip watching Andy tear the Windies a new one on Channel 4. Also Curtly bowling so good that the batsmen weren't good enough to even nick it to slip. Curse you Sky.

Always wondered what it would be like facing someone that good. Possibly fatal is always one possibility to consider... I think getting the middle of the bat on something he bowled ONCE would be sufficient to get stood a drink in the pavilion every time the story was told.

Sky - spawn of the Devil...

ShahenshahG wrote:Ah Caddick! Reminds me of fantastic times lying on the floor with crackers and spicy dip watching Andy tear the Windies a new one on Channel 4. Also Curtly bowling so good that the batsmen weren't good enough to even nick it to slip. Curse you Sky.

4 wickets in an over! That series stands out for me also, as beating the Windies in a series back then was quite an achievement - they still had a fairly decent side and were very close to going 2-0 up at Lord's in an umbrella gnawingly tense finish

dummy_half wrote:

VTR wrote:As I mentioned them way back in this thread, this description of the worst tail in history by Andy Zaltzman made me laugh:

"at The Oval in 1999, England sent out Alan Mullally, a low-quality 11, at nine, followed by Phil Tufnell, who by rights should have been batting at 12, at 10, then Ed Giddins, a natural number 16, at 11."

From this article which is a good read as always http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/921327/test-cricket-s-most-useless-batting-position

Andy Caddick at 8 was at least two places higher than I'd want him in a Test batting line-up as well...

Indeed - he averaged a mighty 10 with the bat in Tests. But I suppose they didn't think they needed runs down the order with luminaries like Darren Maddy and Ronnie Irani in the top 7

dummy_half wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Ah Caddick! Reminds me of fantastic times lying on the floor with crackers and spicy dip watching Andy tear the Windies a new one on Channel 4. Also Curtly bowling so good that the batsmen weren't good enough to even nick it to slip. Curse you Sky.

Always wondered what it would be like facing someone that good. Possibly fatal is always one possibility to consider... I think getting the middle of the bat on something he bowled ONCE would be sufficient to get stood a drink in the pavilion every time the story was told.

Sky - spawn of the Devil...

There's a joke that sounds quite funny in Urdu but will probably not translate very well. A villager shows great promise in the local tournies and in the time honored fashion is randomly called up to the Pakistan squad despite the lack of first class cricket. In his first training he's put in to face the first team bowling to discern his suitability for test cricket and acquits himself marvelously, facing shoaib without flinching and hammering the spinners right out of the attack. He walks back to the other hopefuls says "It was p*ss easy, but what about that Shoaib weirdo eh? He runs in windmills his arms and walks back without bowling the ball".

I imagine that's what it's like facing Curtly

On Rashid v Moeen, I am not sure Moeen has any kind of edge over Rashid as such. The latter has played only 2 tests, and in both games he came back from difficult starts, and performed with ball in the 1st and with the bat in the 2nd. Moeen did play an innings of character against Sri Lanka early in his career, but Rashid's innings the other day isn't any lesser. And when the ball spins, think Rashid clearly is a much better bowler than Ali is. Lets see how they go about in the next test. I though, would hope Ali as opener would in fact continue, but with him being given a different mandate, to set the tempo of the innings rather than holding an end up, he just isn't capable of the latter........

VTR wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Ah Caddick! Reminds me of fantastic times lying on the floor with crackers and spicy dip watching Andy tear the Windies a new one on Channel 4. Also Curtly bowling so good that the batsmen weren't good enough to even nick it to slip. Curse you Sky.

4 wickets in an over! That series stands out for me also, as beating the Windies in a series back then was quite an achievement - they still had a fairly decent side and were very close to going 2-0 up at Lord's in an umbrella gnawingly tense finish  

I have two favourite memories of him. One, you've mentioned and the other is Caddick getting out caught last ball off Saqlain with England needing three of the last ball. First ODI attended live and it went down to the wire.

msp83 wrote:On Rashid v Moeen, I am not sure Moeen has any kind of edge over Rashid as such. The latter has played only 2 tests, and in both games he came back from difficult starts, and performed with ball in the 1st and with the bat in the 2nd. Moeen did play an innings of character against Sri Lanka early in his career, but Rashid's innings the other day isn't any lesser. And when the ball spins, think Rashid clearly is a much better bowler than Ali is. Lets see how they go about in the next test. I though, would hope Ali as opener would in fact continue, but with him being given a different mandate, to set the tempo of the innings rather than holding an end up, he just isn't capable of the latter........

Hi Msp - one thing (probably the main thing) in favour of Moeen as a bowler is that he does have the knack of picking up wickets. Just over 50 now in Tests and the best strike rate of any England slow bowler to have taken that number. Admittedly, DRS gives him an advantage there over those from yesteryear as probably does cricket having been more attritional in the past. Nonetheless, still something to be applauded and one reason why I would be reluctant to throw him overboard.

He also matches stokes figures almost exactly.

ShahenshahG wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Ah Caddick! Reminds me of fantastic times lying on the floor with crackers and spicy dip watching Andy tear the Windies a new one on Channel 4. Also Curtly bowling so good that the batsmen weren't good enough to even nick it to slip. Curse you Sky.

Always wondered what it would be like facing someone that good. Possibly fatal is always one possibility to consider... I think getting the middle of the bat on something he bowled ONCE would be sufficient to get stood a drink in the pavilion every time the story was told.

Sky - spawn of the Devil...

There's a joke that sounds quite funny in Urdu but will probably not translate very well. A villager shows great promise in the local tournies and in the time honored fashion is randomly called up to the Pakistan squad despite the lack of first class cricket. In his first training he's put in to face the first team bowling to discern his suitability for test cricket and acquits himself marvelously, facing shoaib without flinching and hammering the spinners right out of the attack. He walks back to the other hopefuls says "It was p*ss easy, but what about that Shoaib weirdo eh?  He runs in windmills his arms and walks back without bowling the ball".

I imagine that's what it's like facing Curtly

Shah

I suspect if Curtley bowled you one there's at least a chance you'd hear it as it went past your ear completely unseen

dummy_half wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Ah Caddick! Reminds me of fantastic times lying on the floor with crackers and spicy dip watching Andy tear the Windies a new one on Channel 4. Also Curtly bowling so good that the batsmen weren't good enough to even nick it to slip. Curse you Sky.

Always wondered what it would be like facing someone that good. Possibly fatal is always one possibility to consider... I think getting the middle of the bat on something he bowled ONCE would be sufficient to get stood a drink in the pavilion every time the story was told.

Sky - spawn of the Devil...

There's a joke that sounds quite funny in Urdu but will probably not translate very well. A villager shows great promise in the local tournies and in the time honored fashion is randomly called up to the Pakistan squad despite the lack of first class cricket. In his first training he's put in to face the first team bowling to discern his suitability for test cricket and acquits himself marvelously, facing shoaib without flinching and hammering the spinners right out of the attack. He walks back to the other hopefuls says "It was p*ss easy, but what about that Shoaib weirdo eh?  He runs in windmills his arms and walks back without bowling the ball".

I imagine that's what it's like facing Curtly

Shah

I suspect if Curtley bowled you one there's at least a chance you'd hear it as it went past your ear completely unseen

Not a chance.

I'd probably have fainted at the start of his run up

Getting back to the current series : it seems , not to anyone's great surprise , that Wood's famously fragile body has ruled him out of the 3rd Test...

Plunkett , Jordan , or Patel ?

alfie wrote:Getting back to the current series : it seems , not to anyone's great surprise , that Wood's famously fragile body has ruled him out of the 3rd Test...

Plunkett , Jordan , or Patel  ?

Or Taylor, and have the 5 bowlers?

Plunkett, Jordan or Patel - three very unconvincing options!

My own choice would be Plunkett.

Still picking Taylor , by the way ... but for Buttler. Need a full set of bowlers .

alfie wrote:My own choice would be Plunkett.  

Still picking Taylor , by the way ... but for Buttler.  Need a full set of bowlers .

But 6, plus Root, who is a very decent part timer?

VTR wrote:Plunkett, Jordan or Patel - three very unconvincing options!

I don't know : Plunkett can work up to good pace , and might be able to test some of the Pakistan bats with a few short balls. He was doing reasonably well in 2014 before he picked up some injuries and slipped down the pecking order.
Will certainly give it everything , if he gets the chance.

Stella wrote:

alfie wrote:My own choice would be Plunkett.  

Still picking Taylor , by the way ... but for Buttler.  Need a full set of bowlers .

But 6, plus Root, who is a very decent part timer?

I agree Root could be used more. Trouble is , we have seen that the spinners are pretty ineffective in the first innings. I'm not sure that it is wise to have just three pace men in these conditions.

Batting is (nominally) long enough anyway. Only been the one collapse so far on day three in Dubai - other than that they've batted fairly well ; so as England need to win I would prefer to make sure the attack is as well resourced as possible.

Stella wrote:

alfie wrote:Getting back to the current series : it seems , not to anyone's great surprise , that Wood's famously fragile body has ruled him out of the 3rd Test...

Plunkett , Jordan , or Patel  ?

Or Taylor, and have the 5 bowlers?

With Ali and Rashid unable to keep a lid on things, I doubt that's feasible, particularly in the heat.

From this distance, I would be tempted to go for Jordan although recognise that won't be popular here.

I get the impression that it's almost a done deal that Taylor will come in for Buttler with Bairstow taking the keeper's gloves.

alfie wrote:

Stella wrote:

alfie wrote:My own choice would be Plunkett.  

Still picking Taylor , by the way ... but for Buttler.  Need a full set of bowlers .

But 6, plus Root, who is a very decent part timer?

I agree Root could be used more.  Trouble is , we have seen that the spinners are pretty ineffective in the first innings.  I'm not sure that it is wise to have just three pace men in these conditions.

Batting is (nominally) long enough anyway.  Only been the one collapse so far on day three in Dubai - other than that they've batted fairly well ; so as England need to win I would prefer to make sure the attack is as well resourced as possible.

I still think six is one too many, but like you say we need a win. With that in mind, there's no point in brining in Patel. Plunkett has taken wickets at this level, and looks like the obvious choice.

I'd pick Taylor. Stokes bats one too high anyway. Buttler seemingly can't bat, so maybe #8 will serve him well. Three seamers and two spinners is fine. Wood's only bowled 62 overs for the series, so you'd be makin gup 15 overs an innings over five bowlers. Hardly impossible

I quite like raf's higher risk strategy, though I doubt it will happen

A few people have mentioned Root's bowling, I thought he was bowling less now to protect his back condition? Similar to Michael Clarke who more or less gave up bowling after while and still retired quite early

kingraf wrote:I'd pick Taylor. Stokes bats one too high anyway. Buttler seemingly can't bat, so maybe #8 will serve him well. Three seamers and two spinners is fine. Wood's only bowled 62 overs for the series, so you'd be makin gup 15 overs an innings over five bowlers. Hardly impossible

Raf - agreed, not impossible. However, if Cook has to concentrate too much on how to make up overs, I fear that may dilute the concentration and effectiveness of taking wickets. If Ali or Rashid could be relied upon to tie down an end, the problem would go away - but they can't and it doesn't!

VTR wrote:I quite like raf's higher risk strategy, though I doubt it will happen

A few people have mentioned Root's bowling, I thought he was bowling less now to protect his back condition? Similar to Michael Clarke who more or less gave up bowling after while and still retired quite early

Is it high risk? I thought giving up a bowler to shore up a soft underbelly was pretty risk-averse myself

guildfordbat wrote:

kingraf wrote:I'd pick Taylor. Stokes bats one too high anyway. Buttler seemingly can't bat, so maybe #8 will serve him well. Three seamers and two spinners is fine. Wood's only bowled 62 overs for the series, so you'd be makin gup 15 overs an innings over five bowlers. Hardly impossible

Raf - agreed, not impossible. However, if Cook has to concentrate too much on how to make up overs, I fear that may dilute the concentration and effectiveness of taking wickets. If Ali or Rashid could be relied upon to tie down an end, the problem would go away - but they can't and it doesn't!

Indeed Guildford. Although, with five bowlers, I'd still think Cook would be pretty comfortable with balancing bowling his team. At this moment, Rashid and Ali are so expensive that going in with six bowlers isn't helping. On that note though, with Anderson and Broad (?) seemingly done with the limited overs stuff, I take it this will be their last effort in the desert? if so, I'd definitely go with five bowlers and empty out their tanks. Six weeks until the first SA test

kingraf wrote:

VTR wrote:I quite like raf's higher risk strategy, though I doubt it will happen

A few people have mentioned Root's bowling, I thought he was bowling less now to protect his back condition? Similar to Michael Clarke who more or less gave up bowling after while and still retired quite early

Is it high risk? I thought giving up a bowler to shore up a soft underbelly was pretty risk-averse myself

Fair point - I meant the selectors would see it like that as the pacemen could be flogged into the dirt if as expected Moeen and Rashid go for 4.5 per over. Then you have the questions over whether Stokes is a 3rd seamer, so you could be left with 2 reliable bowlers, one of which isn't even taking wickets

VTR wrote:

kingraf wrote:

VTR wrote:I quite like raf's higher risk strategy, though I doubt it will happen

A few people have mentioned Root's bowling, I thought he was bowling less now to protect his back condition? Similar to Michael Clarke who more or less gave up bowling after while and still retired quite early

Is it high risk? I thought giving up a bowler to shore up a soft underbelly was pretty risk-averse myself

Fair point - I meant the selectors would see it like that as the pacemen could be flogged into the dirt if as expected Moeen and Rashid go for 4.5 per over. Then you have the questions over whether Stokes is a 3rd seamer, so you could be left with 2 reliable bowlers, one of which isn't even taking wickets

Looking at it in that way, I suppose it is a tad risky, but as I said to Guildford, Broad and Anderson are gonna be off for a few after this anyway, so you might as well really empty their tank. Different conditions demand different things. In England and in some parts of South Africa (the coast), you can "win" a test off the bat, as England did when they creamed Aus for 60. but in other parts of the world (of which the UAE is most certainly one), you have to win a test by first not losing it - ie, you need to put up a competitive score. You can't hope to blast a team out twice.

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:On Rashid v Moeen, I am not sure Moeen has any kind of edge over Rashid as such. The latter has played only 2 tests, and in both games he came back from difficult starts, and performed with ball in the 1st and with the bat in the 2nd. Moeen did play an innings of character against Sri Lanka early in his career, but Rashid's innings the other day isn't any lesser. And when the ball spins, think Rashid clearly is a much better bowler than Ali is. Lets see how they go about in the next test. I though, would hope Ali as opener would in fact continue, but with him being given a different mandate, to set the tempo of the innings rather than holding an end up, he just isn't capable of the latter........

Hi Msp - one thing (probably the main thing) in favour of Moeen as a bowler is that he does have the knack of picking up wickets. Just over 50 now in Tests and the best strike rate of any England slow bowler to have taken that number. Admittedly, DRS gives him an advantage there over those from yesteryear as probably does cricket having been more attritional in the past. Nonetheless, still something to be applauded and one reason why I would be reluctant to throw him overboard.

Ali hasn't been picking too many wickets of late. His bowling average is going up........ Other than that India series, his bowling output has been nothing great, and now batsmen are figuring out that they don't need to try and hit him out of the attack, keeping him bowling is in fact better....... And his economy rate isn't great at all. So neither control, nor wickets. Rashid also doesn't offer much in terms of control, but he's a better wickettaking threat, and as a legspinner, there will always be that something extra about him....... And they both can bat too, think it just has to be a question of current form when they have to choose between the 2 of them. But if Moeen is given time as an opener and asked to play a free game, they will have the opportunity to play both on a more regular basis even outside Asia....... As they don't like Compton's face, and as there are no semi decent openers in county cricket, they should stick with Ali for some time.

You know , I don't think Ali is so far ahead of Rashid as all that , now that the latter has demonstrated his batting credentials in Dubai. So I am , to that point , in broad agreement with msp.

However : I'm a little concerned about the development of that point ...anointing Ali as opener as a means of fitting two spinners into the team "even outside Asia " sounds to me to be allowing a particular theory to take over from the rational pursuit of the main objective - winning Test Matches.
Is Rashid - or is he likely to become - good enough to essentially build an attack around ? On what I've seen so far , I would doubt it. He took five wickets when Pakistan panicked in the first Test , three of them rabbits. Apart from that he's been shredded. Not that I want him dumped - far from it ; I want him to get plenty of chances - at worst he will give England another weapon in the subcontinent. and he may yet develop into a genuine allrounder ; possibly supplanting Moeen.
But I would still be looking first for a quality opening bat - which probably wont be Moeen . And then picking an attack to win matches anywhere
...which almost certainly means four pace bowlers and one spinner except for india/Pakistan etc. Having Stokes on board means you can tinker with that ; but I wouldn't be looking to artificially extend that plan unless the conditions make it essential.

Moeen's figures are quite good ; though as msp points out that is largely due to the India series. I think Rashid may prove the more dangerous if he is able to settle into test Cricket - but he could also prove just too expensive and unreliable to carry around for the odd occasion on which the stars align for him...

Too early to say , I think. Will watch this one with interest.

msp83 wrote:
Ali hasn't been picking too many wickets of late. His bowling average is going up........ Other than that India series, his bowling output has been nothing great, and now batsmen are figuring out that they don't need to try and hit him out of the attack, keeping him bowling is in fact better....... And his economy rate isn't great at all. So neither control, nor wickets. Rashid also doesn't offer much in terms of control, but he's a better wickettaking threat, and as a legspinner, there will always be that something extra about him....... And they both can bat too, think it just has to be a question of current form when they have to choose between the 2 of them. But if Moeen is given time as an opener and asked to play a free game, they will have the opportunity to play both on a more regular basis even outside Asia....... As they don't like Compton's face, and as there are no semi decent openers in county cricket, they should stick with Ali for some time.

Msp - I understand your comments about Ali's bowling. The peak of his success was unquestionably against India. I did raise the possibility at the time that might have been more due to the ineptitude of the Indian batsmen than his own spinning skills. Nonetheless, he got those wickets and that earned him some credit with my bank. Clearly he hasn't been so successful since.

However, I do believe though your front foot is over the line in trying to make a wicket taking point when you suggest he now provides ''neither control, nor wickets''.

The lack of control point is fair enough and something I've also been critical about. When that is added to Rashid's similar propensity to leak runs, the answer I get is that the two are not a workable combo.

Where I feel you overstep the mark about Ali is in the ''nor wickets'' comment. Since the India series, he's played 11 Tests (West Indies away, New Zealand and Australia at home, Pakistan in the UAE), bowled in 19 innings and taken 29 wickets. That's not earth shattering but it still displays a useful knack of picking up wickets. Indeed, he's only had a nil return on 3 of those 19 occasions.

In summary, I'm not going to die in a ditch about Ali's bowling but he continues to make my team for now.

PS AND EDIT: I hadn't seen Alfie's post when I wrote the above. I wanted to concentrate in my post here about Ali as a bowler. I'll comment separately about him as an opening batsman but in essence I'm not sold on that and feel it's remarkably generous to Rashid if Ali has to do that to get Rashid in the side. As flagged above, I don't see them normally playing together and for now at least Ali has my vote.

The point about openers....... England team management do not Trust Nick Compton. Among all the openers tried out, he was the only one who really looked like someone who can step up though his own record hasn't been great. Hales just doesn't look test class to me. Lyth deserved his chance but failed to take it. Moving Root up the order would be downright madness. As such, they would need a naturalized opener. I know James Taylor was viewed as such a possible option some time ago, but think that doesn't work that way any more. Bell is done at the highest level, he might do his usual saving act by playing a career saving knock in the next test and stay on in the side for another year or 2 doing nothing, but he's essentially done at the top.
In that scenario, England will have to do something non-conventional. Ali has opened in limited overs, bat in the top 3 for his county. His batting technique isn't very sound as such, has short ball problem....... But he can play some graceful strokes. He can play an attacking game up the order and try and set the tempo of the innings. If he comes off 3 out of 10 times also, that won't be bad, comparing England's present crisis at the top.
Now on Moeen taking wickets, 29 wickets from 11 tests isn't great. Rashid has 7 in 2 tests. The sample size isn't great, but there is not a major difference in there. I believe 5 seamers will be an overkill. If Ali is opening, they can play Rashid or may be an additional batsman.......

Of all the batsmen eligible for the England team the man with the skills and temprement most suited to opening with Cook is.......


..........




..........



Joe Root.


Will not happen again as they will not wish to lose his middle order runs - but he is far and away the bet available option to open.


Cook, Root, Taylor, Bairstow, Ali, Stokes has the makings of a decent batting lineup, with the two all-rounders meaning they can be flexible with the bowling options.

Buttler has been axed and in comes Taylor (sensible move for me) and Bairstow takes over the wicket-keeping duties which is fair enough. With Wood missing out I'd prefer them playing Plunkett rather than Patel. There are enough spin options in the team and in any case the seamers have proven their worth in the series.

There is a 3rd test thread now

LondonTiger wrote:Of all the batsmen eligible for the England team the man with the skills and temprement most suited to opening with Cook is.......


..........




..........



Joe Root.


Will not happen again as they will not wish to lose his middle order runs - but he is far and away the bet available option to open.


Cook, Root, Taylor, Bairstow, Ali, Stokes has the makings of a decent batting lineup, with the two all-rounders meaning they can be flexible with the bowling options.

Just to continue this a little - I realise there's a Third Test thread but this is already underway here and seems more general in nature anyway.

Tiger - I appreciate your reasoning about Root opening and why, in any case, the selectors won't let it happen which is also very understandable. Purely out of interest, on the rare occasions that Root now plays for Yorks where does he bat?

I do feel that an opener is such a specialised position that you need a natural and/or experienced talent to do it, especially in Tests against (presumably) the best opening bowlers in the world. Moeen just doesn't fit the bill there for me. Mind you, that's easier said than bringing in the right person. Who might do it? With Hales seemingly out of form, I would return to Compton although accept there's a marked reluctance to do so. Not yet but someone else I would be thinking about for the future is Surrey's Rory Burns. A 1,000 CC runs this season just gone (admittedly in Div 2) and a fc average of 41, that's 2 more than Hales and 2 less than Compton. A left hander but similar in approach and temperament to Compton. Surprised he's attracted no interested from the Lions.

Btw, Tiger, I hope you noticed that I posted quite kindly here on Wednesday about your man Rashid. That break in Dorset must have really softened me up!

We have only seen young Joe in one CC game over the last two years.

He batted first wicket down.

Spent much of this week with my girls, and on the rugby board. Dilly batted well in the second innings, but after that first innings shot he had to really. There were some ugly shots in that first innings collapse. While Root's was the worst shot - Rashid's was certainly the ugliest.