England's Indian Summer - T20s, ODIs & Tests

First topic message reminder :

Off goes Rahul...at least he doesn't waste a review ! That was stone dead.
Jimmy on course for ten ?

Rahane in next as Kohli was off the field too long...

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I know Vince has his detractors, but he has gone away, and is second highest run scorer in division 1 this season - and as Jimbo will say I’m sure, for Hants he has played some long, gritty knocks (one at Taunton comes to mind). Maybe he has gone away since he was dropped post New Zealand (where he did get a 70), and ironed out his issue?

I don’t think the question anyone has about him is talent - it’s just that mentality of not having a waft outside off stump. Has he fixed that? Well this is his last chance to show it!

Fair points Olly

Fully deserved recall for Vince, 74 and 147 in his last match against Notts. 57 average this season in Div 1. Would have had Burns in the team as well over Jennings.

Moeen's biggest blockade to getting back in the test side is Ben Stokes in my opinion.

Mo would be well suited to the number 6 spot as a counter punching batsman and useful 5th option as a bowler. Problem is that Stokes is the much better bowler and more destructive batsman - although their batting stats are actually very comparable with Stokes' average still flattering to deceive.

I can't see Mo succeeding in the top 5 for similar reasons to why Vince and Duckett both failed. Namely a tendency to chase wide deliveries and a lack of awareness of his off-stump when needing to defend. He still offers a valuable option in the squad though, particularly covering Stokes when conditions suit.

In terms of talent, he's got it. So it's not an abhorrent pick. History suggests the selectors will get their fingers burnt again with this, but if all it is is a lightbulb moment needed, it could work. Kind of feel like it's the hope that kills you with Vince.

Probably gonna be very hard to solve any problems in this side until the openers are sorted, selection or form. Maybe it is better to put in Vince, with experience and a career behind him (plus a back catalogue of reasons to jettison him if needs be), than to scar a younger player and hurt their development and reputation.

Seeing as everyone's selecting their side for the 4th test;

Cook
Moeen
Burns
Root
Pope
Stokes
Buttler
Woakes
Rashid
Curran
Anderson

Should never have dropped Curran, so Broad can miss one seeing as he isn't exactly at his peak. Moeen can be no worse than Jennings at opening, while providing a second spin option on a slower pitch, and Burns in the top 3 pushes Root and Pope to more natural positions at 4 and 5.

Realistically Bairstow should get that spot in the top 5 ahead of Moeen in normal circumstances once fit, Bairstow would be fine higher up the order in my opinion.

Too many left handers there for Ishant to feast on , I think , Marky...I do like Root and Pope moving down though.
Moeen did try the opening spot in UAE a couple of years back. He was not a success.
Anyway they've picked the 4th Test squad now ...just remain to decide who to leave out.
And I very much doubt they'll be resting Broad while the series is live...

Think Rashid is probably lucky to keep a place if they really think about it. Mo does a fine job with the ball, but adds so much more with the bat.

alfie wrote:And I very much doubt they'll be resting Broad while the series is live...

I wouldn't even rest him. I'd drop him.

Marky wrote:

alfie wrote:And I very much doubt they'll be resting Broad while the series is live...

I wouldn't even rest him. I'd drop him.

That’s bold! Broad has 17 wickets at an average of 25.64 in the five tests this summer - personally think him and Jimmy have been brilliant this summer

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Marky wrote:

alfie wrote:And I very much doubt they'll be resting Broad while the series is live...

I wouldn't even rest him. I'd drop him.

That’s bold! Broad has 17 wickets at an average of 25.64 in the five tests this summer - personally think him and Jimmy have been brilliant this summer

Broad, Stokes and Woakes are similar bowlers though (IMO anyway)

When we dropped Curran we lost a bit of variation in our seam attack, so I'd bring him back in, and based on batting you'd be mad to drop Woakes or Stokes ahead of Broad when they provide very similar bowling.

Curran was harshly dropped in first place, I wouldn;t have brought Stokes back yet, and stuck with the winning side...

wisden wrote:Curran was harshly dropped in first place, I wouldn;t have brought Stokes back yet, and stuck with the winning side...

Me too. Curran did better than Stokes.
Curran 43.50/18.40
Stokes 13.50/18.83

Whether Stokes’ head was in the right place to play at Trent Bridge is a different matter, but purely as a player, give me Stokes over Curran 100 times out of 100 at the moment. Curran is a (very) promising talent but Stokes is the better Test player currently.

Judging Curran on his test averages is a bit ...silly. Hes not played enough alongside stokes for a menaingful comparisson.
I do agree that Stokes was rushed back both from a mental and a moral position.
As it was he batted well and has shown enough to suggest he deserves his spot.

Theres no way anyones susatining the argument that Curran is the better all conditions bowler and certainly not batsman. Stokes is also a key fielder for england and on of the few players who stands up when things are going wrong.
As a home track bowler to add variety Vurran is very handy. Its also good to see him get time with an eye to the future.

If Broad or Anderson need resting hes an obvious choice to bring back. Its Woakes hes competing for a spot with really ....and woakes is the master on home tracks. But lets also not forget he was way down the pecking order whe he got his chance....it came through a host of injuries. It also takes a special bowler to be at his pace and height and succeed abroad. Its a paceman england really need for the future, but still its good to have him in lone for when Broad and Anderson do retire.

On Broad the discussion on his form is a bit off. Hes been pretty handy for most of the summer, if prone to wasting the new ball once in a while.
Again England should be more concerned with finding someone who can take that long term than a medium pacer.

I can't understand all the talk about Stokes' position in the side. the cricketer competing with him for the title of the current best all-rounder in the world is not Sam Curran. it is not Chris Woakes or Moeen Ali either. It is a Bangladeshi, Shakib Al Hasan.
Don't exactly understand the moral argument either. If you didn't have a problem in him being picked for the first test when he still was an accused, you can't have a problem when he's discharged.
The only problem that could have been there would have been around his match readiness. But it was a week that he was off, there was no physical fitness concerns. For the possible best all-rounder in the world who is a proven match-winner, you do make accommodations.
If at all there had to be a discussion about Curran, it had to be a he/Woakes discussion. I would have voted Curran, but could fully understand why they went for Woakes, who equally deserved hisopportunity.
For the next test too, it has to be a Woakes/Ali/Curran discussion. Stokes shouldn't be part of it. Don't think many England fans really understand the value he adds to the side... We would be pretty happy if Hardik Pandya could be half the player that Stokes is at this stage of his career.

Some of the discussions remind me of the discussions around KP. Not the personality bit, but the cricketing ones. If he failed to score in 2 or 3 games, he would be clubbed along with any average county pro or an unproven upcoming talent!

I don't think anyone has been questioning Stokes' right to a place in the side , msp.

Some are more bothered than others by "moral" issues ; but leaving that aside the main reason some of us were uneasy over his immediate reinsertion was the matter of his mental state ...and also ,I would suggest , the possibility of his return , and the attendant publicity , proving something of a distraction for the rest of the team...
I don't think it was a major issue , as it happened. But certainly Stokes was well off his best on the first day - for whatever reason. And I think it would have been perfectly reasonable (and less likely to generate unnecessary media fuss around the team) to have had him sit that one out and leave Curran in an unchanged lineup.

Not to worry , what's done is done. Certainly I don't think anyone will quibble at Stokes remaining in his normal place now (and I hope the disciplinary hearing facing him - and Hales -  doesn't set everything off again later : I'm sure Root doesn't need anything else taking the players' minds off cricketing matters)

As for Curran : he does offer a very welcome left arm variety option for an attack that can be a bit vanilla ; so you can see why many would like to see him included. But you are correct in that his way back is replacing Woakes , in the short term - and that was unlikely following the latter's century at Lord's.  In the future , options will eventually become more open as Anderson and Broad can't go on forever...but for now he's likely to be a squad reserve.

It would have been nice to see him get one more game in before that , but never mind.  I guess if England win at the Rose Bowl they might be able to rest one of the big guns at The Oval...

msp83 wrote:I can't understand all the talk about Stokes' position in the side. the cricketer competing with him for the title of the current best all-rounder in the world is not Sam Curran. it is not Chris Woakes or Moeen Ali either. It is a Bangladeshi, Shakib Al Hasan.
Don't exactly understand the moral argument either. If you didn't have a problem in him being picked for the first test when he still was an accused, you can't have a problem when he's discharged.
The only problem that could have been there would have been around his match readiness. But it was a week that he was off, there was no physical fitness concerns. For the possible best all-rounder in the world who is a proven match-winner, you do make accommodations.
If at all there had to be a discussion about Curran, it had to be a he/Woakes discussion. I would have voted Curran, but could fully understand why they went for Woakes, who equally deserved hisopportunity.
For the next test too, it has to be a Woakes/Ali/Curran discussion. Stokes shouldn't be part of it. Don't think many England fans really understand the value he adds to the side... We would be pretty happy if Hardik Pandya could be half the player that Stokes is at this stage of his career.

I think the one should be worrying about his place is Rashid rather than Woakes. Woakes proved to be a good all rounder with both wicket taking and run scoring capabilities. He justified his place more than the top order English batsmen. Rashid on the other hand has done nothing to be in the side. I would bat for including Curan in place of Rashid. In any way England is playing without a spinner looking at Rashid performance in the first three games. Curan can bat a bit also. If Curan is in the team English bating line up goes deep to number 9.

msp83 wrote:Some of the discussions remind me of the discussions around KP. Not the personality bit, but the cricketing ones. If he failed to score in 2 or 3 games, he would be clubbed along with any average county pro or an unproven upcoming talent!

Think Stokes went into the Test with a knee injury but he will never let that stop him. Was limping in the field at the Riverside in the T20. If he cannot bowl he plays as a batsmen.
Woakes Curran Rashid
Woakes Curran Ali
Curran Rashid Ali
Woakes Rashid Ali

alfie wrote:I don't think anyone has been questioning Stokes' right to a place in the side , msp.

Some are more bothered than others by "moral" issues ; but leaving that aside the main reason some of us were uneasy over his immediate reinsertion was the matter of his mental state ...and also ,I would suggest , the possibility of his return , and the attendant publicity , proving something of a distraction for the rest of the team...
I don't think it was a major issue , as it happened. But certainly Stokes was well off his best on the first day - for whatever reason. And I think it would have been perfectly reasonable (and less likely to generate unnecessary media fuss around the team) to have had him sit that one out and leave Curran in an unchanged lineup.

Not to worry , what's done is done. Certainly I don't think anyone will quibble at Stokes remaining in his normal place now (and I hope the disciplinary hearing facing him - and Hales -  doesn't set everything off again later : I'm sure Root doesn't need anything else taking the players' minds off cricketing matters)

As for Curran : he does offer a very welcome left arm variety option for an attack that can be a bit vanilla ; so you can see why many would like to see him included. But you are correct in that his way back is replacing Woakes , in the short term - and that was unlikely following the latter's century at Lord's.  In the future , options will eventually become more open as Anderson and Broad can't go on forever...but for now he's likely to be a squad reserve.

It would have been nice to see him get one more game in before that , but never mind.  I guess if England win at the Rose Bowl they might be able to rest one of the big guns at The Oval...

Hi Alfie,
you look through some of the discussions, people suggested that Stokes has been averaging 22 after his return and young Curran, who is yet to score a first class ton could be a better replacement... It was also ignored how Stokes was brilliant with the ball in the first test. And then there were the talk of the moral issues. I understand some would be more bothered than others about those, but my point was that if it was not immoral to play Stokes in the first test, it can't be the case now.

Ind all set to go with NO CHANGES
Eng all set to go with Vince for Bairstow and Ali for Rashid

The latter in a bid to sneak in quietly who they think will be a full batsman, in the guise of a spinner:D

Which ain't bad.......but why did they drop Ali in the first place and played Dom Bess and another SLA & then dropped both to bring in Rashid
Now Rashid to me is Eng's best spinner and has delivered in every inning of this series so far

Moeen was horribly out of form Nd mentally broken. Dropping him was entirely right ...initially for leach who is a specialist spinner with an excellent county record in recent seasons.
He got injured. rashid had retired from test cricket. So they picked bess who was an inform young county spinner.
He was OK but got injured.

Rashid was pretty much the only option left..vs Moeen who still had done nothing to suggest he was selectable. The decision was to go with Rashid and get him out of retirement becuasr they wanted inform players.
Hes done OK but always been expensive.
Moeens suddenly hit a tremendous piece of form with bat and ball in county cricket. England have realised they barely use a spinner in these games but desperately need to prop up their batting. Swapping an ok spinner for one whos in great form and a much better batsman is a logical short term trade, as was picking Rashid in the first place.
Moeens also likley to be a key player in blanacing the side for sri lanka ...if he can show hes mentally functional again.

Leach, Bess and Crane are at siffetent stages of their comebacks. 1 or 2 of them will probably be in the winter squad. I firmly beleive England still see them (and possibly vidri) as the future, but right now need to select fit inform players who help prop up the glaring holes in the side.
Ideally, and more so on away pitches, they will also get a proper test class spinner in there...but for now Moeen is a justifiable choice

Englands spinner selections may look haphazard but they have been driven by sound logic and circumstance.

Gooseberry wrote:

Englands spinner selections may look haphazard but they have been driven by sound logic and circumstance.

OK
if you say so

I would not have  touched Rashid now...he's take 7-187 in 2 tests when he bowled

KP_fan wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

Englands spinner selections may look haphazard but they have been driven by sound logic and circumstance.

OK
if you say so

I would not have  touched Rashid now...he's take 7-187 in 2 tests when he bowled

#


BTW I cant see this reported anywhere? Its still speculation right?

Assuming it is what they do:

Which (cba to fact check) id wager is a worse avergae, and certainly worse economy, than the england seamers have. Seam/swing has , and will remain, the key weapon in this series with spin only playing a bit part. Last summer Moeen took 13/278 ..which whilst its an outlier in his career shows he is cpaable of delivering better figures than those you quoted for Rashid. Im not saying he hasnt done a decent job, just not one thats irreplacably valuable.

The real key though is what he offers with his bat. England lose home tests because their batting is awful, they rarely win them because they have an OK spinner instead of a mediocre one. Rashid isnt a good enough spinner (espeically in home conditions) to demand selection, and hasnt lived up to his potential with the bat so far in tests. Its maybe a harsh decision on him, driven more by the failings of others and worries about trading Bairstow for Vince, but that doesnt make it worng. It was a bit left field for him to get selected in the first place, again driven as much by issues with others as his own performances in limited overs.

Theres also a small whiff of politics in his selection. Both he and Vince have been picked on County from, something England have roundly ignored over previous years. The levels of indignation from Yorkshire over Rashid were an even higher level than the internets reaction to Buttlers initial selection (who pretty much doesnt play red ball cricket) . Suddenly you have two dropped guys recalled based on their good county form. Its well timed anyway for smoothing over the increasing worries from the counties and ECB regarding the disdain the selectors and leadership had shown for county cricket, both in selections and allowing players to miss most of the season playing T20 or resting.


I dont disagree that Rashid is a slightly better bowler than Moeen. I just dont think this occassion thats the most important thing for England to consider, otherwise they'd be picking Leach.
Form, confidence and batting. Moeen brings all those to the table.


The question now is where do Vince and Moeen sit in the batting order.
Id assume Moeen will go 8...which maybe signals a contradiction to the arguments I raised in favour of his selection, but to England is still very much an all rounders spot. Others would argue he could/should bat top 6 ... but I see that as laying too much on him. Hes a fragile player and still ultimately a front 5 bowler, espeiclaly if Stokes is limited. Moeens consistently said he wants a clear role and not to be up the order if hes the lead spinner.
Vince previously was put at 3. Hes replacing Bairstow at 5. There was already talk of Bairstow moving up to give Pope breathing space, I dont see that changing with Vince coming in. So 3 or 4. Id go with 4 as hes never going to be a test 3. If they wanted a top 3 player to move Root down to his comfort zone they shoudlve picked Burns and taken the opportunity to ease in the future opener.

Woakes tightness in quad and not training today but England not expecting to call a replacement

If Stokes and Woakes are doubts then england will go with Moeen and Curran with Stokes playing as a batsman only

https://scroll.in/field/892290/im-desperate-to-keep-my-place-as-wicket-keeper-englands-bairstow-fit-to-play-fourth-test

Indian media from Eng is reporting Bairstow declared fit to play.....and as if batting is a given...he is talking about wanting to keep wickets too
Wow
Just wow
Broken fingers heal in 8 days

if not.....and if he is playing with a tape and he gets a hard hit catch......it will shatter his finger
or will he not attempt to take the catch

I'd rest him for 4th test really would...either give Buttler the gloves, or call up Ben Foakes

He didn’t break his finger, only a small fracture - and if he’s passed fit to play he should do, even if only as a specialist bat (which imo would be best, let Buttler, who I think is a better keeper anyways, keep)

Well the rumour mill seems to suggest that Bairstow will be shunted up to open during the winter.

All a mess.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:He didn’t break his finger, only a small fracture - and if he’s passed fit to play he should do, even if only as a specialist bat (which imo would be best, let Buttler, who I think is a better keeper anyways, keep)

fracture however fine hairline is a broken finger

What's passed " fit to play"

was he given hard hit catches with that red leather ball and he could catch them with the naked hand....without shattering that minor fine hairline crack

wow...guess his bones are made of steel

Duty281 wrote:Well the rumour mill seems to suggest that Bairstow will be shunted up to open during the winter.

All a mess.

If the English selectors are willing to go radical.....i would suggest using Jason Roy as an opener especially in subcontinent and Australia....where ball doesn't seam too much and if he clicks 1 in 4 innings, he would deliver a sehwag like rapid platform

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well the rumour mill seems to suggest that Bairstow will be shunted up to open during the winter.

All a mess.

If the English selectors are willing to go radical.....i would suggest using Jason Roy as an opener especially in subcontinent and Australia....where ball doesn't seam too much and if he clicks 1 in 4 innings, he would deliver a sehwag like rapid platform

Roy can't play spin so he's not a viable option to play in the subcontinent. Anyone semi decent tweaker would get him for fun

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well the rumour mill seems to suggest that Bairstow will be shunted up to open during the winter.

All a mess.

If the English selectors are willing to go radical.....i would suggest using Jason Roy as an opener especially in subcontinent and Australia....where ball doesn't seam too much and if he clicks 1 in 4 innings, he would deliver a sehwag like rapid platform

Roy can't play spin so he's not a viable option to play in the subcontinent. Anyone semi decent tweaker would get him for fun

he has 6 hundreds and 12 fifites averages nearly 40 in ODIs....and no one bowls even "half decent tweakers at him" to stop him early in his innings

In the mean time, Bhuvneshwar Kumar, not selected for the last 2 England tests, is now passed fit and will be joining the India A team playing an ODI series with SA A and Aus A.
There was no communication on Bhuvi after the test team announcement. Seems they didn't want to rush him back without him proving his match fitness. Fair enough, though he would have been quite a handful in swinging conditions.

If Stokes isn't fit to bowl and Woakes not available, think they should go for Curran for Woakes, play Bairstow as a batsman only, and try opening with Vince instead of Jennings. Vince seems someone who can play some exquisite shots. To me he seems more like Rohit Sharma rather than VVS Laxman or David Gower in terms of test impact in combination with the beauty of his strokeplay. But considering the current struggles of England at the top, it is not a bad option. And even if Vince performs to the Sharma level as a test batsman, then that could be rather welcome for England.

Get Malan opening in Australia

msp83 wrote:If Stokes isn't fit to bowl and Woakes not available, think they should go for Curran for Woakes, play Bairstow as a batsman only, and try opening with Vince instead of Jennings. Vince seems someone who can play some exquisite shots. To me he seems more like Rohit Sharma rather than VVS Laxman or David Gower in terms of test impact in combination with the beauty of his strokeplay. But considering the current struggles of England at the top, it is not a  bad option. And even if Vince performs to the Sharma level as a test batsman, then that could be rather welcome for England.

I agree, try Vince opening instead of Jennings. Left/right hand at the top of the order.

1 Cook
2 Vince
3 Ali (he bats at 3 for Worcs)
4 Root (in his preferred position)
5 Stokes
6 Bairstow
7 Buttler
8 Curran
9 Rashid
10 Broad
11 Anderson

This is just getting silly now. Malan for Australia? That's not till Nov 2021!
Roy hasn't played a first class game in a year, let alone as an opener. Although he does have a good ODI record he's barely played a game in Asia (9) so you cant base his ability to play spin on that.

Vince as an opener? The guys who couldn't nail spot at 3 and has never played as an opener? The guy who was dropped for habitually nibbling outside the off stump is going to solve England top order issue of nibbling outside the off stump?

We might as well put Anderson there as a morning watchman to block out a few overs. Broad can play a few strokes and once opened for his school. James Hildreth could probably open as well, that way theres 3 of them which would really bamboozle the Indian bowlers. Does Bell open? Get KP out of retirement too.
(Admittedly the current England leadership does seem to operate in this way at times)

Its increasingly clear the media are second guessing as much as we are, but at least they are laying off the crack pipes.

It does look pretty certain Bairstows going to play, if hes fit to train with the gloves hes surely fit to bat at least. England were pretty explicit that Vince was called up as cover for Bairstow, so whether he plays as a batsman or keeper its unlikely Vince will be playing (as an opener )

Well hark at thee, genius! God forbid people think aloud on a forum!

I just wondered aloud whether Malan, a man who did look to build slow and respect the ball in Australia, could open in a place that seems more suited to his play. I know it’s a long way away, it wasn’t a memo sent to Joe Root. A throwaway comment, really - you and I could be a great opening pair by that time.

Are you sure you’re not a few days off the crack and getting a bit tetchy?


Edit: although autocorrect had this at “bark at thee” which is a little less poetic and has me reaching for the pipe

Agnew:

Bairstow looks set to play as batsman. Woakes struggling. Will know more in an hour. #EngvInd

Cook
Jennings
Root (c)
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler (w/k)
Moeen
Curran
Rashid
Broad
Anderson

What a bizarre selection!

So we now have...
- 3 specialist batsmen (1 of whom in Jennings has proven not not be up to it)
- 2 wicket-keepers
- 4 all-rounders
- 2 bowlers

Challenge anyone to find a similar set-up in the history of the game!

If we were going to shunt everyone up a slot again, why not give Pope the chance to bat at 6/7 rather than drop him?

#JustIn: Moeen Ali picked in #England's playing XI for fourth Test against #India. Sam Curran replaces Chris Woakes. Jonny Bairstow set to play as specialist batsman.

#ENG XI: Cook, Jennings, Root (c), Bairstow, Stokes, Buttler (wk), Moeen Ali, Curran, Rashid, Broad, Anderson

jeffwinger wrote:What a bizarre selection!

So we now have...
- 3 specialist batsmen (1 of whom in Jennings has proven not not be up to it)
- 2 wicket-keepers
- 4 all-rounders
- 2 bowlers

Challenge anyone to find a similar set-up in the history of the game!

If we were going to shunt everyone up a slot again, why not give Pope the chance to bat at 6/7 rather than drop him?

Moeen bowled India out at Southampton in 2014

Dropping Pope after three innings now.. This is like going back to the 90s!

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:

jeffwinger wrote:What a bizarre selection!

So we now have...
- 3 specialist batsmen (1 of whom in Jennings has proven not not be up to it)
- 2 wicket-keepers
- 4 all-rounders
- 2 bowlers

Challenge anyone to find a similar set-up in the history of the game!

If we were going to shunt everyone up a slot again, why not give Pope the chance to bat at 6/7 rather than drop him?

Moeen bowled India out at Southampton in 2014

So why retain Rashid? Is it expected to be a two spinners pitch? (forecast is pretty good but still a fair bit of cloud through the match and presumably theres some green on teh wicket)

I have no issue with Moeens selection and hes batting at the correct place.
Roots is a place too high in theory, but the relaity is they cant find a top two let alone a 3.
Bairstow I have no issue with at 4, hes Englands second best batsman now. Without the gloves the argument hes overloaded goes away. Should he be playing at all ...well theres another question.
Stokes is a place too high at 5, hes not really established himself as a genuine test bat (outside the context of England batting being so awful). I know theyd said theyd pick him as a specialist if he couldnt bowl, but to me that show sthe depths England batting has sunk to rather than his true ability. Like Moeen just too inconsistent and attacking to be a proper test top 5.
Buttler ...well I have my reservations about him but he has scored a lot of test runs since his recall. 6 still feels too high.
Curran for Woakes...anyway you cut it England are weakened by that. Currans been decent with bat and ball and opffers variety, but Woakes has been phenomenal on home tracks.
If Stokes is carrying an injury youve then got a kid whos not been bowling long spells and two old nags who bowled too much in the last test ...backed up by two medicore spinners.

The dissapointment for me is that England had the opportunity with Bairstows injury to draft in some new bats. Instead they are using it to rehabilitate a guy they keep dropping, but still dont trust to be a lead spinner, and shunt more players up the order out of their comfort zones.

Whilst they also have their own probblems still India have a chance of levelling the series. If it is really a two spinners pitch that suits them more than it does England.

Gooseberry wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:

jeffwinger wrote:What a bizarre selection!

So we now have...
- 3 specialist batsmen (1 of whom in Jennings has proven not not be up to it)
- 2 wicket-keepers
- 4 all-rounders
- 2 bowlers

Challenge anyone to find a similar set-up in the history of the game!

If we were going to shunt everyone up a slot again, why not give Pope the chance to bat at 6/7 rather than drop him?

Moeen bowled India out at Southampton in 2014

So why retain Rashid?

Stokes isn't fully fit

Oh for goodness sake, that is the worst selection all summer.

Only three players (Cook, Bairstow, Root) of which you would trust to do the business with the bat - sadly, one is out of form, one is injured and one can't cope with the pressure. What has Pope done to be dropped? Lose the last game by 203 runs, and the solution is apparently to reduce the number of pure batsmen.

Then you have a mish-mash of bits and pieces hitters - Stokes will be coming in when England are three down! Then you've got two spinners on a non-turning track selected to play against the best country in the world at playing spin!

Foolish. England are getting smashed in this test.