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

[guildfordbat]

I think the other one was Strauss with 8? Bresnan I remember with 13!

I wonder if they might rotate Jimmy out for either Broad or Stone next test - I’d really like to see Stone given a go

All too modern for my my memory! I knew Bres had a good winning run but couldn't remember the number and had forgotten's Strauss' successful start.

Atherton was sure that Stone for Anderson would be considered but doubted that it would actually happen. Lloyd was more upbeat, stressing Jimmy's value - ''Anderson is gold'' - and that he might as well be rested now with the series won. Lloyd added - encouragingly for you and your man - ''they [the England selectors] seem to like giving debuts.''

[alfie]

Try out for Stone not an awful idea ; but if the pitch for the third is anything like the first two he might not thank you for putting him in on it...might get few overs and fewer prospects of a wicket...

Should think if Curran is suffering with a side strain it would be madness to risk him (even if he is a bit of a talisman in the Bresnan tradition)

If they can persuade Jimmy to take a rest then surely Olly would want to realize his long held ambition of setting up a late middle order of Stokes- Woakes-Foakes ? This would be your chance

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I’d go Woakes in for Curran (both cos Curran sounds like he could do with it and cos Woakes has had recent England form to deserve a game) and I’d rest Anderson. Broad is there and won’t want to twiddle his thumbs, but Stone could be interesting. There is value in winning though, they could go Woakes for Anderson and YJB for Curran. That’s a long batting lineup.

[Gooseberry]

Its good to see players other than the established superstars making a significant contribution again, and this really was a full team effort.
The other big change as noted previoisly is England managing to string together a run of games where they managed to look competant. Maybe again thats partly down to them not relying on just a handful of big players to bail them out.

The spinners coming good too is a big thing. I dont ever remember a time when England fielded 3 who looked like they were genuine test players and wicket taking threats. To have a balance of different types too is a fuether bonus. The last success was the tour to India with Panessar and Swann at their best ...but that was just two and the seamers made a bigger contribution there. The more recent Asian tours have been pretty awful with the other version of Moeen bowling and some pretty rotten performances from mediocre county bowlers, Rashid did ok in India but wasnt supported. Leach really seems to be a step up in quality.

The attacking cricket seems to be paying off. Go for wickets and dont just wait to get pit if the ball is spinning.

I still think they will have serious issues on flat pitches though. The lack of depth and quality in patient batting will be exposed again. The lack of bowlers, especially pace, who can make things happen on any surface exposed as it was in Aus and UAE.

Sri Lanka are poor and India came unstuck on classic English conditions. But at thes ame time England have won series in totally different conditions and you can only beat whats infront of you.
Theyve done well to move on from Cook and maybe partly driven by luck but made some good selections. If Burns and Jennings can become a legit opening pairing and someone can bat at 3 (Bairstow?) then it will start to look like the level of team they aspire to be.
And importantly a squad with options.

[guildfordbat]

...
Theyve done well to move on from Cook and maybe partly driven by luck but made some good selections. If Burns and Jennings can become a legit opening pairing and someone can bat at 3 (Bairstow?) then it will start to look like the level of team they aspire to be.
And importantly a squad with options.  

As regards looking for options, I don't think it's a coincidence that Roy is batting at 3 in the current Lions match against Pakistan A. He made 59 first dig and is currently 14 not out in the second.

[LondonTiger]

...
Theyve done well to move on from Cook and maybe partly driven by luck but made some good selections. If Burns and Jennings can become a legit opening pairing and someone can bat at 3 (Bairstow?) then it will start to look like the level of team they aspire to be.
And importantly a squad with options.  

As regards looking for options, I don't think it's a coincidence that Roy is batting at 3 in the current Lions match against Pakistan A. He made 59 first dig and is currently 14 not out in the second.

Now out for 14. According to the cricinfo scorecard he was run out twice on consecutive balls - which would be an impressive feat.

I see that the Lions are taking the senior teams approach to batting being 46-3 in their second knock of just 9 overs. Pope and Clarke, who both got ducks in their first go, will be looking for a score. Unlike the seniors 8 wickets fell to seamers in Pakistan's first innings.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Whilst this isn't a classic Sri Lanka side, it should be noted that they have absolutely destroyed both the Aussies and South Africans in their home country in the past year or so. Always very tough to beat in home conditions.

They'll be without Dananjaya in the next test too - having his action tested in Brisbane. So there is a huge chance for England to wrap up a series sweep

[LondonTiger]

I wonder what kind of wicket we will see in Colombo. In so many ways this series reminds me of the 2012 series in India. In both cases the hosts prepared wickets to encourage spin, and found their spinners ultimately outbowled.

Of course India were a much better side than this Sri Lanka team, ans Swann and Panesar much higher quality than the current England spinners. I do wonder just how many wickets Monty would have taken bowling in this tour at his peak. His metronomic style and high revs would have eked a huge amount from these wickets.

[Gooseberry]

Billings is the star for the Lions so far ...74 n/o and (currently) 32 n/o
Do we need a new keeper/batsman for the test side yet?

[VTR]

Don't forget that 606v2 favourite Mark Wood was the main man with the ball. Billings and Wood, they don't have too many fans on here!

[Gooseberry]

Don't forget that 606v2 favourite Mark Wood was the main man with the ball. Billings and Wood, they don't have too many fans on here!

...and "home conditions specialist" Porter did well too.

Maybe this is a cunning ruse by Pakistan to try and get these players promoted and ruin Englands test side.

Joking aside it is quite worrying that still the Lions doesnt have a decnet batsman putting their hand up to demand selection for the test side. the fourth and fifth choice spinners struggling is less of a thing ...but its also a pity that both Stone and Tom Curran are sat bench warming in Sri Lanka.

[VTR]

Well Joe Clarke has finally made some runs. He's the next in line you'd think if he can put some performances together. I actually think Billings has a lot of talent and is persisted with on the same basis that Bairstow was all those years where he was a bit of a laughing stock. Ie there's more potential there than with a lot of County players

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Yeah Billings has always felt like an player who has talent but has never taken what limited opportunities have come his way on the international stage.

As VTR points out Clarke has some runs second dig. Imagine he and Pope are the “next cabs off the rank”

[Gooseberry]

Billings is never going to be a test player though is he.
The issue with Pope, and to some extrny Clatke, is the need for them to be played in the middle to lower order in tests to be given a fair chance. Certainly in the short to medoum yerm anyway. That only offers a solution for a problem England really dont have ...they aready leaving out Bairstow and playing Stokes way to high up the order.
Noone is putting their hand up as a legitimate top 4 batsman.
If it were just the cursed number 3 spot then thats not too big a deal. But whilst Jennings has done a lot ro vindicate his selection for this tour theres still a lot for him to do to prove he can be at least adequate on seamer friendly wickets where England will play more than half of their tests. I have more faith in Burns than many and hes done fine so far ...but even my positive view retains a caveat of unproven and inexperienced.
So the openers situation is looking better than it was a few weeks ago ...but really the top 3 mess is far from sorted and the options are just not there.
Denlys selection was based on domestic limited overs form and him offering an alternative to one of the main 3 spinners. I font think anyone sees him as anything more than a bit part squad player for this tour.

[Duty281]

Whilst this isn't a classic Sri Lanka side, it should be noted that they have absolutely destroyed both the Aussies and South Africans in their home country in the past year or so. Always very tough to beat in home conditions.

It's a very good Sri Lankan team in these conditions. That's why this is England's best test series win since defeating India in 2012.

[guildfordbat]

... I have more faith in Burns than many and hes done fine so far ...

You know he plays for Surrey, right?

[king_carlos]

Billings is never going to be a test player though is he.
The issue with Pope, and to some extrny Clatke, is the need for them to be played in the middle to lower order in tests to be given a fair chance. Certainly in the short to medoum yerm anyway. That only offers a solution for a problem England really dont have ...they aready leaving out Bairstow and playing Stokes way to high up the order.
Noone is putting their hand up as a legitimate top 4 batsman.
If it were just the cursed number 3 spot then thats not too big a deal. But whilst Jennings has done a lot ro vindicate his selection for this tour theres still a lot for him to do to prove he can be at least adequate on seamer friendly wickets where England will play more than half of their tests. I have more faith in Burns than many and hes done fine so far ...but even my positive view retains a caveat of unproven and inexperienced.
So the openers situation is looking better than it was a few weeks ago ...but really the top 3 mess is far from sorted and the options are just not there.
Denlys selection was based on domestic limited overs form and him offering an alternative to one of the main 3 spinners. I font think anyone sees him as anything more than a bit part squad player for this tour.

I think the summer will be interesting. I'd be surprised to see Moeen stay in the top 6.

The Ashes grounds are: Edgbaston, Lords, Headingley, Old Trafford, Oval

Whilst the spinners have performed well on this tour, objectively looking at it Lyon is a more accomplished spinner than them. I expect England to look to for traditional English wickets and bank on their depth in the seamers. One of Moeen and Leach will likely play as sole spinner, this potentially opens a spot in the top 6.

That will most likely be filled by Bairstow, but I doubt he'd succeed at 3. There's going to be a tough call to make from 5-7.

Stokes - Adds balance but yet to show consistency to match his talent
Buttler - Has played very well on his return to the side, I think 6 is his best position
Bairstow - One of England's more accomplished batsman but question as to whether not keeping will effect his form positively
Foakes - Has started excellently but it is only two tests. Consistency with bat and gloves will be key. Vitally for Foakes I think he is a keeper that England might leave alone at 7, something that gets messed with all too often - where would England try to make Gilchrist bat in this line-up? I can almost hear certain commentators saying, 'he does open well in ODIs, why not take a punt'...

That there is 4 talented players who realistically should be making up the lower middle order. Fitting four players into three spots without trying crowbar all of them in will likely be the best call for the team and those players. It will also be the tougher call for the selectors.

I expect how Joe Clarke does with Notts in the first half of the summer will have a significant influence.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Broad to play instead of Anderson in the third test - kind of as expected

[Gooseberry]

As you say not a great surprise and with the seamers being very much bit part playerd makes very little difference to the sides chances.
Seems to be more to do with massaging Broads ego than anything. Taking him and Anderson was a bit pointless in the grand scheme of things. It wouldve been nice to see one of the younger seamers given a go and the opportunity to get some experience in these conditions....albeit probably around 10 overs in the match.

If England can top this off with a 3rd vicrory it really will be quite a thing for what on papaer was a very ordinary side.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

And Root confirms Curran misses out with injury - to be replaced by Bairstow. Obviously expecting a similar track to Pallekele so no third seamer needed.

Bairstow also to bat three - a chance for him to backup his ridiculous claim in the press this week that "three tests ago I was a top ten batter in the world now I'm dropped". Jonny - you average 34 and 26 the past two years in test cricket - get a grasp of reality!

With this and the reaction to Buttler getting the gloves for a game in the summer, it appears young Jonny likes a moan and a whinge...

[VTR]

I read that Bairstow quote as "three years ago". Can't find the article again, would be very different and correct if he had said that

[Gooseberry]

He did say 3 tests.

According to the ICC list hes down to 22 now, which still isn't bad especially as that's affected by him not having played. It still leaves him as number 3 in the England batsman list with Buttler at 21 and root at 4. Next is Stokes way down at 37.

Now you can argue all day about the vagaries of that system but at least it provides an objective measure of batmens performances over and extended period. The general point is that whilst he hasn't had the best run since getting bumped up the order and yes his claim of being top 10 was highly dubious by England standards hes still been one of their top performing batsmen in the short and longer term.

He is unlucky to be finding himself left out of the test sides, as he was with the ODI side. His disappointment is not unreasonable, and Bayliss has indicated he's happy with the reaction Bairstows shown behind the scenes. Whilst hes comments may come across as sulking it seems the England leadership see him as someone who wants to fight for his place in the side. And that also seems to include taking one for the team and batting at 3. As one of the sides senior batsmen it makes sense that would fall to him now he doesn't have the gloves and the complete lack of viable contenders for the spot.


The onus on him is now to score some runs and prove a point.


(Just realised he may have be referring to the top 10 ODI batsmen which I think he was in at that time, hes now 12th ...second best for England who have 7 of the top 32)

[robbo277]

Billings is never going to be a test player though is he.
The issue with Pope, and to some extrny Clatke, is the need for them to be played in the middle to lower order in tests to be given a fair chance. Certainly in the short to medoum yerm anyway. That only offers a solution for a problem England really dont have ...they aready leaving out Bairstow and playing Stokes way to high up the order.
Noone is putting their hand up as a legitimate top 4 batsman.
If it were just the cursed number 3 spot then thats not too big a deal. But whilst Jennings has done a lot ro vindicate his selection for this tour theres still a lot for him to do to prove he can be at least adequate on seamer friendly wickets where England will play more than half of their tests. I have more faith in Burns than many and hes done fine so far ...but even my positive view retains a caveat of unproven and inexperienced.
So the openers situation is looking better than it was a few weeks ago ...but really the top 3 mess is far from sorted and the options are just not there.
Denlys selection was based on domestic limited overs form and him offering an alternative to one of the main 3 spinners. I font think anyone sees him as anything more than a bit part squad player for this tour.

I think the summer will be interesting. I'd be surprised to see Moeen stay in the top 6.

The Ashes grounds are: Edgbaston, Lords, Headingley, Old Trafford, Oval

Whilst the spinners have performed well on this tour, objectively looking at it Lyon is a more accomplished spinner than them. I expect England to look to for traditional English wickets and bank on their depth in the seamers. One of Moeen and Leach will likely play as sole spinner, this potentially opens a spot in the top 6.

That will most likely be filled by Bairstow, but I doubt he'd succeed at 3. There's going to be a tough call to make from 5-7.

Stokes - Adds balance but yet to show consistency to match his talent
Buttler - Has played very well on his return to the side, I think 6 is his best position
Bairstow - One of England's more accomplished batsman but question as to whether not keeping will effect his form positively
Foakes - Has started excellently but it is only two tests. Consistency with bat and gloves will be key. Vitally for Foakes I think he is a keeper that England might leave alone at 7, something that gets messed with all too often - where would England try to make Gilchrist bat in this line-up? I can almost hear certain commentators saying, 'he does open well in ODIs, why not take a punt'...

That there is 4 talented players who realistically should be making up the lower middle order. Fitting four players into three spots without trying crowbar all of them in will likely be the best call for the team and those players. It will also be the tougher call for the selectors.

I expect how Joe Clarke does with Notts in the first half of the summer will have a significant influence.

Bairstow being a success at 3 would really help England out of a hole when picking their Ashes XI. We'd probably be looking at something like:

Burns, Jennings, Bairstow, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Curran, Ali/Leach, Broad, Anderson

Which you'd say has enough talent, but that top 3 is very untested in home conditions (only Jennings has played in the top 3 at home, and didn't do brilliantly) and we could find ourselves relying on the lower-middle order again.

If Bairstow fails at 3, it poses two problems. The slightly happier one of which of Buttler, Foakes and Bairstow do you cut, and the very much less happy on of who do we turn to next at 3.

[wisden]

Angers me that Denly isn't being tried...why select a guy to bat 3, and then not actually pick him...give him a debut

[Nathaniel Jacobs]

Bairstow seems a tad delusional tbh, his Test career has been pretty underwhelming. Aside from 2016, which in years to come maybe be considered a fluke, he's averaged around the low 30s. Hardly making a case for prolonged selection. As we've had issues in other areas, Bairstow's modest returns have gone somewhat unnoticed. His wicketkeeping was always nothing more than adequate, and now he's lost the gloves to the sensational Foakes, Bairstow is already making excuses about a. Losing the gloves and b. Moving up the order. At Yorkshire he bats 5, so either suck it up and take the opportunity on offer(granted at 3) or sulk around and carry the drinks.

[VTR]

If he said three tests then it truly is a headsgone moment, as he was batting like a sulky teenager in the latter half of the India series. I don't think he was awful after 2016, performances did level out but there's still a place for him in the side, if he can focus on his batting now and accept England will give Foakes a pretty long run now

[alfie]

I am astonished at the negative comments Bairstow seems to be attracting lately : kind of expect it from the idiots on BBC HYS but expect a bit more sense from people on here .
First off the suggestion that he is "sulking" seems to have come entirely from a rather thoughtless and attention-seeking piece by Michael Vaughan when he was injured during the Test against India a few months back - on no actual evidence beyond the fact that he made it clear in an interview he did not want to give up the keeping gloves : hardly unreasonable considering how hard he had worked to transform himself from a bit of a backstop to a perfectly good Test gloveman!   Certainly the player who was hurling himself around the outfield - broken finger and all - in that next match didn't show any signs of disconnection from the team or a lack of commitment...If his batting was underwhelming I'd suggest that had more to do with his injury than anything else (frankly I think he'd have been better off not playing ; but clearly he and the management thought it best for him to play as a batsman.)
Same with this latest article :  the headline can be construed as a bit grumpy ; but the actual comments are not.  He will bat wherever they ask him (and here I would point out that he has been messed about a bit by the selectors : pushed up the order first because top order bats were failing , and later to allow Buttler to slip back into the team in a "protected" position. Never heard him complain about that ) ; but says he does not intend to abandon work on the other part of his game. Why should he ?  If Foakes gets injured , or fails to kick on as a batsmen , don't you all want him available to fill the spot ?  That's not sulking it's intention to be the best player he can be ...and it is not for us to dictate what a player should aspire to : should we have the right , say , to demand Sam Curran give up bowling to concentrate on his batting ? Or Buttler stop keeping in ODIs in case he gets injured ?
And finally this stuff about his Test record. 2016 was extraordinary ; subsequent efforts less so - but still damned good for a keeper/batsman. He still (despite the recent run of injury-affected low scores) averages over forty as such. Had he been left at seven he would quite likely have an even better set of figures. And don't forget his keeping was improving out of sight over this period.  Look back at posts on this forum and you'll see that up to the middle of last summer many on here were calling him England's second best batsman; one of the first three or four on the team sheet , etc - and suggesting he had an obligation to bat up the order rather than be "wasted" down at seven...what a difference three or four matches makes.  Or short memories...

Now just for the record :  I am happy that Foakes has got his chance - and taken it. His initial performances have been excellent and if he maintains that standard he deserves to keep his spot.  If Bairstow is able to adapt his game to top order batting it will be wonderful for both himself and England : in truth I have my doubts that he will succeed but wish him all the best. I suspect he would be a better fit around five/six but that area is fairly heavily contested at present - which is surely a good thing for England.  But if he does end up losing his Test place altogether then I think he would be entitled to feel a bit unlucky - not that he's the first player to have been disadvantaged by ill-timed injuries , but still unfortunate for the individual himself.

People are a bit quick to rubbish yesterday's hero sometimes.  Moeen was a useless clown who would never get back in the team , what , four months ago ?

[alfie]

As to the team for this match ...well I guess it makes sense to shuffle Anderson and Broad , not that either were likely to have a great deal to do in this match any more than the last one. There was a case to try Stone ; but as I've said before it might not be an ideal surface on which to throw in a new pace bowler...and having at least one very experienced bowler on hand is not the worst idea. Could have been Woakes too - either for Jimmy or Curran - but I guess they don't think his style would suit these conditions and would rather take the opportunity to try another candidate for number three .
One could argue about the changes (Denly fans already are ) but I don't think anyone could call them unreasonable. Joe is about due to lose a toss so getting the 3-0 might not be any walk in the park ; so hopefully this combination does the trick.

[guildfordbat]

Yeah, the selection of Broad in place of Anderson isn't particularly exciting for us posters but it's probably sensible and appropriate. One experienced hand comes in so that the other can have a breather. With Bairstow replacing Curran, it also shouldn't be overlooked that we're going into this Test one bowler down on the first two. That probably increases the benefit an experienced bowler being there for Root to use. Admittedly, Curran has bowled very little but he was always an option available.

Whilst Stone would have certainly got me watching - I was very impressed by the first few overs he sent down in an ODI - the Sri Lankan surface may well have won out and made it a disappointing debut. Given Stokes hardly bowled last time when many of us were keen for him to be given the ball, having both him and Stone in the same attack seems unnecessary here. Provided Stone stays fit, another opportunity will surely come his way in a better place.

We all agree that the time and games available on tours before the real business begins is woefully short. However, that's the way it is. In any practise games they get, fringe players need to hit the ground running and make a strong case for Test selection. Denly didn't. With Foakes making the most and more of his chance upon debut and Bairstow now fit, Denly and his supporters can't complain he's now well down the pecking order.

As for Bairstow, I haven't actually seen or read what he said (or didn't). Something we and he need to realise though is that a player's important talking is done in the middle. I'll be listening and watching as to what he does there which is what will really count.

[Gooseberry]

In regards to the Bairstow comments Root has repeated them in his latest interview, so its not a case of the player sulking but something the team leadership also believes and supports him in.

[guildfordbat]

I've only just twigged from today's press that Foakes is expected to drop one place down the batting order to number 8.

I can understand why (a consequence of Bairstow replacing Curran and a rejigging of the order) but it still seems mighty odd that someone who usually bats at 5 for his county and is averaging 76 in his (admittedly, only) two Tests is that low. A waste or simply evidence of our batting strength? Take your pick.

[guildfordbat]

I've only just twigged from today's press that Foakes is expected to drop one place down the batting order to number 8.

I can understand why (a consequence of Bairstow replacing Curran and a rejigging of the order) but it still seems mighty odd that someone who usually bats at 5 for his county and is averaging 76 in his (admittedly, only) two Tests is that low. A waste or simply evidence of our batting strength? Take your pick.

After a detailed five minutes of thought, my own best answer to my last post would be to keep Foakes at 7 and, with a heavy heart, put Moeen back on his batting merry-go-round and have him play at 8.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Is Bairstow going in at 3? Stokes’s trial run was rather shot

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Is Bairstow going in at 3? Stokes’s trial run was rather shot

Don't think Stokes was real a trial run - it was a "actually having Mo bowl 35 overs then potentially come in after 1 ball is a really stupid idea" epiphany.

I also don't think when we're looking to next summer that we have to "find" a specialist three. If the best batsmen in the country are all all rounders and wicket keepers, then why pick someone who is worse just because they can bat three? If that makes any sort of sense (it does in my head )

[Dolphin Ziggler]

It makes sense and I kinda agree and disagree. Talent and form are a lot in sport, but I’d rather play someone like Denly than just plonk in the talented lad who won’t play to his potential there.

I’m very much in the mindset it should probably be the third best opener we have who ends up playing there. I fear more in seaming conditions that exposing these players earlier in an innings is a real weight around their necks.

I do think there’s a lack of players who want to slowly build an innings. You can get away with that if your first three are slow and steady players. I miss Trott

[Gooseberry]

...which is also why Denly is sat on the bench.
Hes an honest county pro with no more than a decent season of first class cricket in division 2. His place on this tour was as much to do with the total lack of options for openers and the flexibility on an additional slow bowling option he gave as it was a serious beleif he was a long term answer at 3.
Even those who have been chucked in so far are aknowledged stop gaps, since they are facing almost solely spin regardless of where they come in and have been asked to bat aggresively the role of 3 is very different here to what it will be in the summer.

Bairstow has a better chance of becoming that medium tonlong term answer than Mo Stokes or Buttler IMO. Its still a big ask though, and not impossible that we will see Root back there for the summer.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Yeah I wouldn’t really know enough to be claiming Denly was that solution, and I imagine this has allowed them a good look at him, but I think they need to find someone they think can play there.

A rough around the edges example, but Paul Scholes played left midfield for England. He was arguably a better footballer than anyone in the team at the time, but it didn’t make the left side any good. I’d say Trevor Sinclair had a better impact there and he wasn’t half the player, but his skill set better matched the role.

I’m not saying Bairstow can’t, I just think England should look at what they need, not what they hope.

[Gooseberry]

...then again most of us though Buttler for all his striking talent would never make it as a test keeper batsman let alone justify selection as a batsman alone...and then make a decent job of it after being moved up the order.
(Insert something about Steve Smith too)

Theres always going to be an element of balancing picking specialists vs picking your most talented guys. Lets face it England have tries both approaches at 3 and had a string of failures in all conditions. Bairstow is one of the more talented and successful batsmen of the current England squad, whilst he has a fairly modest average in context of the rest of the team (and those who have been tried and failed) its actually pretty good. Im not sure exactly what statistics he and Root are talking about, and I assume they look at overall contribution including his keeping, but he clearly has been a decent test player...but does need to improve and be more consistent to make it as a test 3 at home, I personally feel he has a better chance of doing that than a sub stoneman level workaday county player.

The only other option on the table really is Gubbins coming into the side, pending him doing something with the Lions and having a good start to the season. That would also require both Jennings and Burns to continue justifying a place to sort out the whole top 3 ... so all that together is a stretch.

[guildfordbat]

...then again most of us though Buttler for all his striking talent would never make it as a test keeper batsman let alone justify selection as a batsman alone...and then make a decent job of it after being moved up the order.
(Insert something about Steve Smith too)

Theres always going to be an element of balancing picking specialists vs picking your most talented guys. Lets face it England have tries both approaches at 3 and had a string of failures in all conditions. Bairstow is one of the more talented and successful batsmen of the current England squad, whilst he has a fairly modest average in context of the rest of the team (and those who have been tried and failed) its actually pretty good. Im not sure exactly what statistics he and Root are talking about, and I assume they look at overall contribution including his keeping, but he clearly has been a decent test player...but does need to improve and be more consistent to make it as a test 3 at home, I personally feel he has a better chance of doing that than a sub stoneman level workaday county player.

The only other option on the table really is Gubbins coming into the side, pending him doing something with the Lions and having a good start to the season. That would also require both Jennings and Burns to continue justifying a place to sort out the whole top 3 ... so all that together is a stretch.

I'm convinced that every now and again someone else grabs goose's laptop to send a post I really like. There again, I see he managed to wrestle back control long enough to get in his usual Stoneman dig.

Dolph is right that the team balance is so important. I appreciate that and his Scholes / Sinclair example as it gives me the opportunity to repeat one of my favourite football stories on a similar theme. Before the 1966 World Cup, Alf Ramsey was criticised by the media (they were politer back then but it was strong stuff for the time) over his planned selection of Jack Charlton. ''Surely, Jack isn't the best centre half available to you?'', he was asked. Ramsey perceptively replied, ''No, he's not but he is the best centre half to play alongside Bobby Moore.''

That said and our stories told, a specialist (whether a number 3, a fast bowler or a spinner etc) needs to have a sufficient level of ability to come in and take the step up to Test level. Just being a specialist available for a vacancy which has arisen will not by itself be good enough. A few years ago here, several posters were pushing for Tymal Mills to be called up to the Test side. A left armer with express pace. Something different and very much wanted. What wasn't to like? Well, besides always struggling for fitness as shown by him subsequently ditching the red ball game, he had nothing like any consistent accuracy at the time and would have been a massive liability.

There needs to be genuine confidence that a player called up for Test cricket will be able to cut the mustard. If the selectors don't think a particular player can, he shouldn't be around the Test team even if we do want someone to fill a role that he usually plays in the county game. We then get back to fiddling around with who is (very) good and might slot in even if it's going to be some way off a natural fit.

I'm pretty sure that we all agree that the current Test side appears somewhat disjointed. However, I don't think there's anyone screaming out to be called up and more naturally fit in. Furthermore, we're winning -the difficulty and importance of which should never be overlooked.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Ideally Bairstow and Root can nail down 3/4 - that then allows you to have Buttler/Stokes at 5/6 and then Foakes keep at 7 and Moeen at 8.

Then you have a choice between Woakes/Curran at 9 and Broad/Anderson round out 10 and 11

If Leach plays over Moeen you shift Woakes/Curran upto 8.

I think that is what they're probably hoping for, in an ideal world, for next summer...

[sirfredperry]

After all the hoo-ha I fully expect Bairstow to make a hundred in this Test. He's certainly good enough to do so. I don't really see him as a number three, but then again who saw Amiss/Woolmer/Gooch/Vaughan as openers?
The England side over recent months has been the weakest for some time. Yet they have beaten India at home and SL away. Funny old game, eh?

[Duty281]

The side is a mess. The batting order is a mess. On paper, per the above, it looks a weak side. But they're winning. Difficult to fathom. But enjoy it whilst it lasts. Just hope it doesn't lull England into a sense of complacency come the Ashes.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

They do have some absolutely fantastic players, which is probably why balance isn’t losing them tests. Root, Buttler, Stokes, Anderson and Broad are all brilliant, Bairstow arguably can be, whilst Foakes is looking the part. The likes of Curran have come in and delivered.

Further to that, you can easily pick an England home and away test side that bats down to 9. Might well be that uncertainty up the top gets Mo in over Leach. (Not to mention Curran/Woakes could replace Broad or Anderson in the not too distant future and make it batting down to 10)

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Two poor dismissals this morning - Burns going back to a good length and Jennings the ball after he’s placed there nurdles one round the corner to short leg

[KP_fan]

I see Eng have swapped Anderson for Broad & Bairstow for Curran
gives them batting down to No. 11

I said earlier on these pitches 2 seamers is one too many and 3 seamers 2 too many....and most vulnerable is Curran as he doesn't get to bowl
Feel sorry for him...having pulled  Eng out of hole with gutsy counterattacking lower order batting

Eng have never lost a test he has played and never won when they dropped him

Root is so lucky...won all the tosses vs Ind and now here in Lanka

[VTR]

Curran is injured, that's why he isn't playing

[Gooseberry]

A convienet injury though VTR and notable that England didnt do a like for like seap with Woajes.
They clearly recognised that strengthening the top order batting was more important than having a third seamer when none of them bowled more than a handful of overs and remained almost wicketless. Also suggests they strongly back Bairstow. It may have been a change they made anyway.

So far it appears the correct decision. Bairstows closing in on a 50 with England well placed despite losing both openers early.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Quite Interesting: Bairstow now has at least one Test 50 when batting in positions 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8

Starting the Bairstow at 4 movement. #FourJonnyFour

[eirebilly]

He is a very very good player Bairstow. I would be more than happy to keep him in the side as a specialist batsman.

[alfie]

Good day so far for Yorkshire...

Didn't see the openers getting out ; but YJB and cap'n Joe seem to be traveling pretty comfortably. Running well - as you'd expect from these two - and not missing out on boundaries when the bad ball comes long.

Hundred stand comes up in 160 balls ...good batting

[Sponsored content]