England - the winter tours thread

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

First topic message reminder :

After the perfect ending to the summer, with Alastair Cook riding into the sunset with a hundred and James Anderson breaking Glenn McGrath's record to wrap up a 4-1 series win over the #1 side in the world...England head into a brave new world (in a mere 3 weeks time!) post Cook

Tour of Sri Lanka (Oct-Nov)
5 ODI's played between 10th October and 23rd October
1 T20i played on 27th October
3 Test matches played between 6th November and 23rd November

Tour of West Indies (Jan-Mar)
3 Test matches played between 23rd January and 9th February
5 ODI's played between 20th February and 2nd March
3 T20i's played between 5th March and 10th March

As ever there are many rumblings in the media on potential selections ahead of the Sri Lanka tour...

Rory Burns seems set to take Cook's spot
Will Jennings keep his place? Or will a Vince/Denly or complete wildcard be picked to open with him?
Which spinners do England take along with Moeen/Rashid?
Do Anderson/Broad get rested?
What pace options will be taken?

All questions that will be debated and answered in the coming weeks...so I start with a little competition between us selectors on v2...

Name your test squad for the series in Sri Lanka. Whoever gets the nearest to the actual squad, gets a pair of Ed Smith approved sunglasses

[alfie]

Bayliss seems to "float" a lot of possibilities in his interviews...some come to pass ; others not.

He is only stating the obvious in remarking that Moeen doesn't look the part at three. which I think we all knew in advance : I know I did ; but accepted putting him there to allow Root his preferred four and the inclusion of an extra bowler. Now whether they continue with that ; or move someone else up ; or bring another batsman in ...may be a choice of the lesser of evils ? But whatever they do should be aimed at ensuring success in this Test and series...it is unlikely that anything like this configuration will take the field in England in the summer - or probably in West Indies. Horses for courses...and plenty of time to sort out what they want to do in the future .

Pretty fortunate , really , to have a winning team while three players who quite frankly have done nothing wrong and are arguably in England's overall "best XI" - namely Bairstow , Broad and Woakes , are sat out. Gives the flexibility many would crave even if it might be frustrating for those individuals. Of course the perennial weaknesses of top order batting and lack of express pace options remain but if you look at the rankings you'd have to say they aren't doing too badly...Winning this series would be a nice step forward. Let's hope they don't fumble their chance...

[Gooseberry]

Sri Lanka are in an absolute mess by the sounds of it.
Chandimal could be out for the series, their manager has resigned, and Dananjaya has been reported for chucking on top of Heraths retirement.

[robbo277]

Bayliss seems to "float" a lot of possibilities in his interviews...some come to pass ; others not.  

He is only stating the obvious in remarking that Moeen doesn't look the part at three.  which I think we all knew in advance : I know I did ; but accepted putting him there to allow Root his preferred four and the inclusion of an extra bowler.  Now whether they continue with that ; or move someone else up ; or bring another batsman in ...may be a choice of the lesser of evils ? But whatever they do should be aimed at ensuring success in this Test and series...it is unlikely that anything like this configuration will take the field in England in the summer - or probably in West Indies.  Horses for courses...and plenty of time to sort out what they want to do in the future .

Pretty fortunate , really , to have a winning team while three players who quite frankly have done nothing wrong and are arguably in England's overall "best XI"  - namely Bairstow , Broad and Woakes , are sat out.  Gives the flexibility many would crave even if it might be frustrating for those individuals.  Of course the perennial weaknesses of top order batting and lack of express pace options remain but if you look at the rankings you'd have to say they aren't doing too badly...Winning this series would be a nice step forward. Let's hope they don't fumble their chance...

The latest one is Buttler for 3, which apparently would have happened if Sri Lanka had batted first and Moeen had bowled 40 overs in the first test.

Jennings, Burns, Buttler, Root, Stokes, Foakes, Curran, Ali, Rashid, Leach, Anderson.

I still don't know how we're going to cram all the bowlers in if we add Bairstow. Who misses out? Or does it depend on the pitch? You'd say Rashid might be the most vulnerable. Perversely, a raging turner might be worse for Rashid if the selectors decide they have enough spin options with Ali and Leach and decide Bairstow's batting would be more valuable to ensure we have enough runs to bring them into the game.

While our permutations are all good and well, a lot of it is because other than Root, Stokes and Anderson, no player is undroppable. Even players suited for this series and playing well could find themselves out the team by the next series. Think back to that number 1 team; Strauss, Cook, Trott, KP, Bell, Prior, Anderson, Broad, Swann were all fixtures. And that wasn't wholly because a lack of alternatives, more the quality of the players.

Looking at that line-up I've posted, neither opener is set, Buttler or Foakes could make way for Bairstow and/or the emergence of a genuine number 3, Curran is playing well but currently keeping out Woakes and Broad and none of those 3 spinners could confidently say they'd be the sole spinner if we were playing at home or in Australia or South Africa, for instance. It would be nice if over the next year a few of the players above, or not currently in the team, could put together a few match-winning performances to nail their spots.

[Gooseberry]

Bayliss seems to "float" a lot of possibilities in his interviews...some come to pass ; others not.  

He is only stating the obvious in remarking that Moeen doesn't look the part at three.  which I think we all knew in advance : I know I did ; but accepted putting him there to allow Root his preferred four and the inclusion of an extra bowler.  Now whether they continue with that ; or move someone else up ; or bring another batsman in ...may be a choice of the lesser of evils ? But whatever they do should be aimed at ensuring success in this Test and series...it is unlikely that anything like this configuration will take the field in England in the summer - or probably in West Indies.  Horses for courses...and plenty of time to sort out what they want to do in the future .

Pretty fortunate , really , to have a winning team while three players who quite frankly have done nothing wrong and are arguably in England's overall "best XI"  - namely Bairstow , Broad and Woakes , are sat out.  Gives the flexibility many would crave even if it might be frustrating for those individuals.  Of course the perennial weaknesses of top order batting and lack of express pace options remain but if you look at the rankings you'd have to say they aren't doing too badly...Winning this series would be a nice step forward. Let's hope they don't fumble their chance...

The latest one is Buttler for 3, which apparently would have happened if Sri Lanka had batted first and Moeen had bowled 40 overs in the first test.

Jennings, Burns, Buttler, Root, Stokes, Foakes, Curran, Ali, Rashid, Leach, Anderson.

I still don't know how we're going to cram all the bowlers in if we add Bairstow. Who misses out? Or does it depend on the pitch? You'd say Rashid might be the most vulnerable. Perversely, a raging turner might be worse for Rashid if the selectors decide they have enough spin options with Ali and Leach and decide Bairstow's batting would be more valuable to ensure we have enough runs to bring them into the game.

While our permutations are all good and well, a lot of it is because other than Root, Stokes and Anderson, no player is undroppable. Even players suited for this series and playing well could find themselves out the team by the next series. Think back to that number 1 team; Strauss, Cook, Trott, KP, Bell, Prior, Anderson, Broad, Swann were all fixtures. And that wasn't wholly because a lack of alternatives, more the quality of the players.

Looking at that line-up I've posted, neither opener is set, Buttler or Foakes could make way for Bairstow and/or the emergence of a genuine number 3, Curran is playing well but currently keeping out Woakes and Broad and none of those 3 spinners could confidently say they'd be the sole spinner if we were playing at home or in Australia or South Africa, for instance. It would be nice if over the next year a few of the players above, or not currently in the team, could put together a few match-winning performances to nail their spots.

Apparently visiting seamers have done well at the next ground so Rashid would be the obvious one to miss out if they did decide to play all 3 keepers. (Not going to mention that those successful visiting seamers almost all had genuine pace again)
The Buttler at 3 bandwagon seems to be gaining momentum too, which is pretty bonkers on paper but hey someone has to play there...and it I do agree that Moeen is out of his depth there. it makes even more sense to move him down if they do play just two spinners and put greater pressure on him to perform with the ball.

[James100]

Cricinfo reckons that if Buttler moves to three, Moeen and Stokes would be 5/6

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

To go along with my Woakes/Foakes/Stokes combination, there was a situation (before Pope left the tour) where England could have had five wicket keepers playing in the side - Bairstow, Buttler, Foakes, Pope and Burns - now how you make up that side is beyond me, but I'm all for it!

[guildfordbat]

To go along with my Woakes/Foakes/Stokes combination, there was a situation (before Pope left the tour) where England could have had five wicket keepers playing in the side - Bairstow, Buttler, Foakes, Pope and Burns - now how you make up that side is beyond me, but I'm all for it!

As for Pope, it's sensible for him to be playing cricket with the Lions rather than just being on the sidelines in Sri Lanka. I do though still get the feeling that he's being phased out with an unspoken recognition that it was a bit too much a bit too soon.

[Gooseberry]

Theres now vague mutterings appearing in the press that Burns could even be the one to give way for Bairstows return, that certainly would be a THING and very harsh on him, as well as short termist.

[guildfordbat]

Theres now vague mutterings appearing in the press that Burns could even be the one to give way for Bairstows return, that certainly would be a THING and very harsh on him, as well as short termist.

Hi goose - I don't know if you saw my post soon after the first Test but Trescothick and Willis then made the same suggestion on Sky. Unsurprisingly, Stewart disagreed strongly.

Unsurprisingly too, I side with Stewart. As you say, it would be very short termist. That's a factor for me but definitely not the sole reason. I also side with Alfie in taking the view that you pick the best side to win the Test match you are about to play. I'm unconvinced that Bairstow or anyone else in a rejigged order would be a better opener than Burns at this time.

Unless conditions are noticeably different than for the previous Test, I would go same again.

[LondonTiger]

Following Root's latest press conference Foakes will be keeping. Also strongly suggested that Bairstow will return - but I am hearing most likely to be in place of Rashid as they are expecting a real turner with the emphasis on accurate spinners.

[LondonTiger]

PS in an article praising Ben Foakes today, Michael Atherton had a little dig at at Alec Stewart.

It is sometimes wise to ignore the cries for greatness that emanate from the Oval, as the selection of every Surrey player of late, from Zafar Ansari to Gareth Batty, has been accompanied with an encomium from south London. But Foakes’s debut was eye-catching, and not just to observers in the press. Buttler said yesterday that he took Foakes’s performance as a “wake-up” call, given the level of the newcomer’s work behind the stumps. Buttler may be sure of his place in the side as a batsman but he has now slipped down a place in the wicketkeeping pecking order.

[guildfordbat]

PS in an article praising Ben Foakes today, Michael Atherton had a little dig at at Alec Stewart.

It is sometimes wise to ignore the cries for greatness that emanate from the Oval, as the selection of every Surrey player of late, from Zafar Ansari to Gareth Batty, has been accompanied with an encomium from south London. But Foakes’s debut was eye-catching, and not just to observers in the press. Buttler said yesterday that he took Foakes’s performance as a “wake-up” call, given the level of the newcomer’s work behind the stumps. Buttler may be sure of his place in the side as a batsman but he has now slipped down a place in the wicketkeeping pecking order.

Yeah, I've been aware for a little time of Atherton on Sky slightly raising an eyebrow or failing to totally hide a smile when Stewart's name and his comments have been mentioned.

Of the Surrey players that Stewart has pushed to be given a Test call up - Atherton could also have referred to Stoneman - I think he's been right to do so as they have been (or were) good and consistent performers in the Championship. I do accept though that he sometimes overeggs it.

[LondonTiger]

Stewart does tend to also tailor his comments for the audience - so on a Vaughan and Tuffers podcast early last summer he described Bairstow as the best keeper/batsman in the world.

Mind Vaughan is the worst - often far too complimentary of players with affiliations to a certain management company.


anyway back to the tour - who is getting up early tomorrow?

[guildfordbat]

Following Root's latest press conference Foakes will be keeping. Also strongly suggested that Bairstow will return - but I am hearing most likely to be in place of Rashid as they are expecting a real turner with the emphasis on accurate spinners.

Even though I'm no great fan of Rashid, I don't go a bundle on that. If Bairstow was still unfit, I very much doubt indeed that we would swap Rashid for Denly (the only other available batsman in the squad). Bairstow for Rashid would seem more a contrivance to get the former back in rather than much to do with the necessary team balance for the Test coming up.

[guildfordbat]

Stewart does tend to also tailor his comments for the audience - so on a Vaughan and Tuffers podcast early last summer he described Bairstow as the best keeper/batsman in the world.

Mind Vaughan is the worst - often far too complimentary of players with affiliations to a certain management company.


anyway back to the tour - who is getting up early tomorrow?

Of the 606 cricket squad, that is a role Olly has consistently and perfectly played over several years. No change should be considered to that and I look forward to waking up to his report of the morning's play.

[alfie]

Following Root's latest press conference Foakes will be keeping. Also strongly suggested that Bairstow will return - but I am hearing most likely to be in place of Rashid as they are expecting a real turner with the emphasis on accurate spinners.

Even though I'm no great fan of Rashid, I don't go a bundle on that. If Bairstow was still unfit, I very much doubt indeed that we would swap Rashid for Denly (the only other available batsman in the squad). Bairstow for Rashid would seem more a contrivance to get the former back in rather than much to do with the necessary team balance for the Test coming up.

Yes and no : it's true they probably wouldn't rush Denly in and there may be a touch of avoiding the awkwardness of ignoring a player who only a couple of Tests ago was probably about third name on the team sheet...
However if this next pitch turns out to be the sort on which SA could barely scrape 150 then I suppose it does make sense to shore up the batting (not that Rashid let them down with the bat last time !) ; and it is also probable that Rashid's bowling - not too heavily used even in Galle - might be a luxury they wouldn't need.

Could go either way , I think. I don't retreat from my mantra of pick the team to win this match ; but I am ready to admit either selection might be the correct one. Or at least , the more likely to succeed.

Whether they actually judge the pitch and make the call correctly , of course , we can all judge perfectly in hindsight once the match is done and dusted

[James100]

Unchanged side confirmed. Stokes at 3, Buttler 5, Moeen 6

[guildfordbat]

Hi again Alfie and all - if the track is going to considerably help the spinners, isn't there more merit in looking to leave out Curran than Rashid? 

This was Key's stance on Sky after the first Test. Curran bowled little in that and might bowl even less in the second. Whilst he scored valuable runs, Key would normally back Bairstow to score more. I appreciate all that but the weakness of Key's argument for me is that it overlooks the value of having Curran available to send down some overs. Consequently, I favour playing the same eleven with Bairstow left on the bench. Admittedly, the track needs to be seen to make a proper call as Key acknowledged. 

Even on a spinning track, it shouldn't be overlooked that Leach and Moeen will be likely to need a break. Better to then bring on Rashid rather than Root or have to turn to seam just because there are no other slow options.

Never thought I would be fighting Rashid's cause. Hope msp is reading! 

PS I hadn't seen James' post confirming the side when this one of mine was posted.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I wouldn't change it. Not sure Bairstow is some sort of superstar who has to be included

[LondonTiger]

Unchanged side confirmed. Stokes at 3, Buttler 5, Moeen 6

Unchanged side is good. 

Trying Stokes at 3 not a terrible idea, but at the moment based on a hunch really, plus some desperation. If it works it would go a long way to shaping the team going forward.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

I wouldn't change it. Not sure Bairstow is some sort of superstar who has to be included

Agree with this completely. And I think putting Stokes to 3 instead of Moeen makes sense, especially from just a workload point of view Moeen will be bowling more than Stokes - and also Stokes is probably more suited to bat higher (he does seem to do better when given more responsibility).

Unchanged side is good - don't really see any reason to change a side that just won the first overseas test for the best part of two years, fairly comfortably too.

[Gooseberry]

True to form though they have manged to come up with about the only option that hadn't been touted as a potential change!

Someone has to play at 3, and it does get Stokes more into the game. As he himself pointed out it doesn't really make a deal of difference as they will all likely be facing mostly spin whatever position they bat in.

And Sri Lanka face much tougher questions on how to put together a side with 2 senior players from last weeks shambles now not available. Its their weakest squad in decades.

Apparently Sri Lanka have asked for a turner and believe it will be.

[KP_fan]

So Bairstow dropped
after being the first choice WK and deemed often times good enough to play as a pure batsman
BUT
he can only blame himself...barely averaged 20odd in last 7 tests batting at his favored slot(s)

Moving stokes to 3 ain't a good move....don't fix what ain't broke.....Stokes was delivering runs in middle order

If Eng win the toss then its about 50-50
If Eng lose the toss, then its 70-30 in Lanka's favour

[guildfordbat]

So Bairstow dropped
after being the first choice WK and deemed often times good enough to play as a pure batsman
BUT
he can only blame himself...barely averaged 20odd in last 7 tests batting at his favored slot(s)

Moving stokes to 3 ain't a good move....don't fix what ain't broke.....Stokes was delivering runs in middle order

If Eng win the toss then its about 50-50
If Eng lose the toss, then its 70-30 in Lanka's favour

Hi KP-f, 

As Tiger posted earlier, moving Stokes to 3 seems to owe more to a hunch than anything else and so there has to be doubts over it working. I'm normally not keen on trying to fix what ain't broke and take your point that it could do undo a strength of the team. However, it has to be recognised that the number 3 spot has been badly broke for some time with something needing to be done.

I'm not a betting man and will leave in-house experts like Duty and Olly to comment properly on the odds you give. However, after the first Test and the trouble that Sri Lanka now appear to be in, I fancy England's chances to be better than those you give.

[sirfredperry]

I trust that Bairstow's omission for this Test will be a salutary lesson to one and all that playing football as a warm-up is not just a no-no but a NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO.
Actually, everything has worked out well. I reckoned for some time that we ought to be playing Bairstow purely as a batsman and when he gets back in the side, as eventually I think he will, he'll be in as a specialist bat. Can't share other posters optimism for this Test, though. England normally follow a good win with a shocker, although I'm not sure this SL side is up to much, particularly without their captain.

[Duty281]

Got no idea how this one is going to go, but I think I favour Sri Lanka. Don't like Stokes moving up to 3...wouldn't want him walking out at 0/1 in the first over! Pitch is supposed to turn more, so will be an excellent test.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Sri Lanka at 9/4 to win a home test is very good value - had a punt even though I do fancy england to win again.

[alfie]

I don't have a problem with Stokes at three. His technique is sound enough - whether it will suit him from a mental point of view we will see.
Probably a "this tour only" solution as he'd bowl a lot more outside Sri Lanka ? But nothing wrong with that if they want to win...

Still slightly odd is the use of Buttler. He actually said he'd be happy to bat three ; Bayliss talked about it ...and (although I personally doubt it would work) if he is playing as a batsman it makes some sense in these conditions : but here we are with that option quietly dropped. His apparent "protected " status - though at least he's to bat at five this time - just seems a contrast with the way Moeen and Bairstow have been moved all around the order to fill holes. And unnecessary given he's been batting so soundly recently.

Never mind. I'm happy enough with this team for this game ; though I share Sir Fred's caution given England's inconsistent recent record. Hope the rain stays away !

[alfie]

Joe Root is a lucky sod with the toss...wins it again and will bat.

So unless the new opening pair is careful we might see Stokes sooner than we want

Should be a handy toss to win as all accounts are this is going to spin like a top...

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Jennings edging one just outside off stump off the seamer - feel like I’ve seen that before...good to see Keaton return

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Lovely delivery from Perera gets Stokes lbw - not sure how it was given not out live but a good review by Sri Lanka

Already a lot of turn and some bounce too - in a similar fashion to what England saw in Bangladesh in 2016. Imagine a first innings score of 250-300 would be a good one

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

120-4 at lunch - don’t think that’s too bad from England - ball has turned and bounced from the first spin over, so anything over 200 and they’re in the game. If they somehow manage 300+ they’re laughing

Good knock from burns too

[CaledonianCraig]

Well for me a decent first session that both teams can take something from. England have 120 runs on the board on a spinning pitch whilst Sri Lanka have made inroads with 4 wickets.

A score of 250 will be competitive here so England would take a repeat of the first session in the afternoon getting to tea for 240 for 8. Sri Lanka will want to restrict England to less than 200.

[guildfordbat]

Watched the last 20 minutes live which included Burns' dismissal and rewound to see Stokes and Root getting out.

From comments here and on Sky, it seems Burns had batted well but my immediate reaction to his dismissal was the same as Mahela Jayawardene's in the Isleworth studio at lunch that he got the angle of his bat wrong and too pronounced towards slip. Useful runs but disappointing - as I've commented on before - that he didn't go on and make the most of his start.

From one viewing, Root's dismissal looked poor to nothing more than an ok ball. Much better and more deadly delivery to get Stokes - like Olly, struggled to understand how the on-field umpire didn't give it.

Effective counter attacking from Buttler towards the end of the session but 4 wickets on the first morning of a Test means it belongs to Sri Lanka for me - albeit not as much as usual given the apparent surface.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Hmm not sure about that DRS review to get Moeen - surely that ball was heading down leg?

[guildfordbat]

Moeen given lbw on review - unlike the comms, I thought it might be out on first viewing but the decision to make the review seemed to take an age - too long?

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Really not too bad. Hard to have any judgement on Stokes, thought he looked effortlessly great with some shots. Jos again done excellently and England do still have some runs in this team, so I think they probably will put up something they can use. Could go to pot, obviously, cos England.

Good that Burns has got some runs too, stops him being cast aside automatically.

And Mo goes as I type.

[alfie]

First thoughts were a bit leg side ...but when I watched again slow mo I had a bit of concern - with good reason !
Replay of Galle , then ? Foakes and Curran to do a job again ?

Buttler seems to have been counter attacking well so I hope he can go on ; but I'm not at all sure England will get their 250 plus. Surely they can't expect the lower half to do all the work every time ?

[guildfordbat]

Hmm not sure about that DRS review to get Moeen - surely that ball was heading down leg?

Olly - that was also the immediate impression of ex umpire Lloyd, referring to the keeper moving down the legside for the ball and his ''surprise'' at the DRS decision. For me, although the ball was turning leg side, it didn't have far to travel after hitting Moeen's pad and would have gone on to still hit the leg stump.

[alfie]

And watching Root's dismissal on replay I am moved to ask : how on earth did he miss that ? Rather un-Root like...

Good fifty for Buttler

Scored at a good rate too. Important stand this and nice to see Foakes unfurling a nice shot early on...

[Gooseberry]

Jennings is useless against seam isnt he! Its quite worrying looking ahead that whilst he may well go on to make more runs this series and secure a place in the side that come summer (and the west Indies) he will be back to a walking wicket again.
He might actually be better off batting at 3 in this series and avoiding Lakmal.

That aside the old concern that every good England performance is followed by a horrible one has resurfaced again. Foakes and Buttler though seem to be scoring easily now, and Sri Lankas batting line up is worse than Englands.

So predictably Englandlike

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Sheesh that ball to Buttler turned an incredible amount pitched off and turned beyond leg stump from around the wicket by Perera! Good non review by SL...

[alfie]

If Buttler ever gets tired of cricket he could try out for the British Curling team ...his skill in sweeping would be quite handy...

Has employed the shot very well to put the Sri Lankan spinners off their lengths

Foakes has settled in nicely...runs still coming at an excellent rate and this match is indeed threatening to follow the pattern of Galle...

[alfie]

Blast ! Hexed Foakes...

165/6 and England will be hoping Sam Curran's golden touch is still working...

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Jennings is indeed a very intriguing case - a South African born, raised in England on English pitches, opening batsman, who seemingly cannot play seam - but is very good against spin! Maybe he'll be an away tour specialist...?

Now Alfie gets Foakes out

[alfie]

Weird ? Did Foakes even hit that ? Nothing on ultra edge...but he walked...

???

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Can't believe hes not reviewed that

[JDizzle]

Another one to go on the reel of clips for when a commenattaor (IT Botham) lazily says a batsman always know when he has hit it!

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Batsmen don't always know if they have, or haven't hit it - despite commentators proclamations to the contrary...Foakes clearly thought he got something on it - but ultraedge didn't pick it up!

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Another one to go on the reel of clips for when a commenattaor (IT Botham) lazily says a batsman always know when he has hit it!

You beat me to it Dizzle!

[Sponsored content]