England - the winter tours thread

[Gooseberry]

No Jofra then

Turns out he doesn’t actually qualify until March - so couldn’t make the West Indies tour

...and Smiths being more guarded about him for the world cup than the press hype has been.

But he is eligible for the T20s on this tour, for which the squad hasnt been named yet if he pulls out of the BBL. Aside form that theres just the 5 match warm up series against Pakistan for him to be capped before the world cup.

Smith does seem to think Denly can make a case for inclusion in the world cup squad, so despite him not getting much cricket in sri lanka, struggling with the bat, and only being a replacement for Dawson in the ODI squad he must be doing something right.

Of the two though you'd think Archer had more potential to improve Englands first XI on home pitches.

[robbo277]

How do we think we'll line up for the first test?

A top 6 of Burns, Jennings, Bairstow, Root, Stokes, Buttler now seems pretty well set. Will we go for 5 bowlers, or Foakes + 4? Probably the latter.

So if we have 4 bowlers (and Stokes), do we go 3 seamers, or 2 spinners? Anderson and Sam Curran will probably make it. Broad, Woakes and Stone are the other quick options, while Ali, Leach and Rashid are the spinners. It's hard to drop one spinner after Sri Lanka, let alone 2, but the pitches probably won't turn as much. Leach really looks like someone persevering with, possibly in tandem with Ali or as a sole spinner?

Burns
Jennings
Bairstow
Root (C)
Stokes
Buttler
Foakes (wk)
Curran
Ali/Broad (depends on conditions)
Anderson
Leach

[guildfordbat]

Hi Robbo - if I was picking a current England Test team with 6 bowlers, Sam Curran would be right up there. However, even though his late order runs have been very valuable, I'm not sure he yet sufficiently cuts it as a bowler to be one of only 5.

[LondonTiger]

First of the two 2-day warm up games has started with England batting. 

England have lodged a 12 man team (the 12 Robbo names above except Woakes for Buttler). I assume the remaining members of the squad will get a look in for teh second game, and doubt there is anything behind Buttlers omission for this except that he needs a chance to bat less than Woakes/Curran/Leach etc need to bowl.

England batting first with Jennings and Bairstow out cheaply (rather intriguingly the umpire who gave the Bairstow decision is the uncle of the bowler who got the wicket - not an LBW thankfully)

Decent starts from Burns and Root so far.

[king_carlos]

It would be good to see Root go big here. Averaging 50 in test cricket with his conversion rate is in itself impressive but to challenge for best batsman in test cricket (which he should be) he needs to go big more often.

[Gooseberry]

On the fairly safe assumption thay Foakes is keeping the keeper job it does seem a 5 bowler line up ( with stokes as one) is a given.
Woakes and Curran are likely competing for a place again. I agree with Guilford that I dont see Curran as one of the top 3 or 4 seamers, but he was given the spot in Sri Lanka ahead of Woakes despite the latter being a better bat and bowl IMO. Maybe the selectors are rewarding his hard work and have a preference for sone variation in the attack, also maybe they think he can be moulded into an overseas bowler which is something soaked has struggled with. So I don't see it as set in stone that Soaked gets a spot ahead of him despite it being my natural preference.

Similar with Moeen and Leach. Leach is the better pure bowler, and if one of woakes/Curran plays theres little call for Moeens batting. But he has done the business with the ball since his recall. I've be3m a Moeen critic but again I don't see leach as a totally set pick. Theres also a fair chance that both will be wanted ..and that does raise questions in regard to the seamers. Windies pitches are often do I friendly now and england have shown they can thrive in such conditions.
Would broads place be under threat in a 3 man attack? Would Curran be considered as an opener? I just don't that happening.

Again its disappointing to see that the out and out pace bowlers seem to be peripheral to the tour....but if a players not considered good enough or ready then fair enough.
But its still a problem for England long term if they cant find one.

[Duty281]

The usual for Root in this tour game - crosses 50, doesn't make 100!

You'd expect a comfortable test series win for England, over a team that just got comprehensively demolished by Bangladesh, but things have rarely gone to plan in the Caribbean for the last two visits!

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

The usual for Root in this tour game - crosses 50, doesn't make 100!

You'd expect a comfortable test series win for England, over a team that just got comprehensively demolished by Bangladesh, but things have rarely gone to plan in the Caribbean for the last two visits!

Strange team West Indies - on paper they have some good players, particularly in their bowling attack, yet haven’t been able to piece it together recently.

Also tough to know what the pitches will be like - we could have some slow low puddings, or some with more pace in - really does vary from venue to venue.

An interesting test for this england side

[Gooseberry]

Too many makeweights, and not enough desire, and no batsmen of any real standing. Warrican is a pretty medicore spinner, and the seamers arent good enough to carry that on dead pitches.

As Duty says England have to be paper favourites, but that hasnt panned out a couple of times recently.
One thing that may stand them in better stead this time is that they are less dogmatic in their selections, and have the squad to allow them to flex to conditions more. Sri Lanka showed they are willing to adapt their approach to batting and bowling in ways they maybe haven't so much in the past.

Englands squad has its problems too, notably the lack of established top order batsmen, but really it would be a huge disappointment for them not to win this series and a real step back.

[guildfordbat]

Too many makeweights, and not enough desire, and no batsmen of any real standing. Warrican is a pretty medicore spinner, and the seamers arent good enough to carry that on dead pitches.  

As Duty says England have to be paper favourites, but that hasnt panned out a couple of times recently.
One thing that may stand them in better stead this time is that they are less dogmatic in their selections, and have the squad to allow them to flex to conditions more. Sri Lanka showed they are willing to adapt their approach to batting and bowling in ways they maybe haven't so much in the past.

Englands squad has its problems too, notably the lack of established top order batsmen, but really it would be a huge disappointment for them not to win this series and a real step back.  

Yes - although, in line with Olly's post, the reading of possibly variable tracks will be important prior to selection and more difficult than in Sri Lanka.

[guildfordbat]

The usual for Root in this tour game - crosses 50, doesn't make 100!

You'd expect a comfortable test series win for England, over a team that just got comprehensively demolished by Bangladesh, but things have rarely gone to plan in the Caribbean for the last two visits!

And, as some might say, the usual 35 for Burns. No one should be getting the knives out for that sort of score from an inexperienced Test opener, especially in a warm up game. However, the bunting will need to come out of the box before this series is done if he is to anything like cement his place.

[Gooseberry]

The usual for Root in this tour game - crosses 50, doesn't make 100!

You'd expect a comfortable test series win for England, over a team that just got comprehensively demolished by Bangladesh, but things have rarely gone to plan in the Caribbean for the last two visits!

And, as some might say, the usual 35 for Burns. No one should be getting the knives out for that sort of score from an inexperienced Test opener, especially in a warm up game. However, the bunting will need to come out of the box before this series is done if he is to anything like cement his place.

Ditto Jennings though, hes had a more sustained run in the side and only produced one "career saving" performance.

Theres very little external threat to their places at this point, but yeah the general point is neither has really announced themselves as a test force yet. But it would also take someone demanding a place through Lions and early season CC performances for them not to be the opening pair for the summer regardless of what they score in the Windies.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Didn't realise quite how poor England's record in the West Indies has been - think it is one series win since the 1960's. Now I realise that for a large period when Guildford was young(er) in the 70's and 80's that they were a powerhouse, but you'd have thought in more recent tours England would've done better. The 2009 and 2015 tours stand out to me as ones they should've won

[Gooseberry]

I dont think Englands records been exactly aided by the "highly recreational" approach the likes of Botham, Tufnell, Flintoff and doubtless other have taken to tours there. But yeah the last two were series they were expected to win, if nothing else because they were facing pretty poor opposition (as this time). Prior to that they at least had the excuse of being outdone by ridiculously fast bowlers on ridiculously fast pitches, post 2000 those conditions are an increasing rarity.
The 2009 series they started absolutely awfully and took a real hammering in the first test, posting one of their lowest ever innings totals. The second was abandoned after about 2 overs because the field was covered in sand pits. The final 3 took place on absolutely disgracefully flat pitches at a time when test batsmen still existed and England were picking random people off the street to masquerade as pace bowlers. That series was a real low point for test cricket all round.
2015 wasnt anywhere near as bad in terms of excitement, but one where England not winning seemed really inexplicable. Much more sporting pitches than 2009, and far lower scoring innings. They just didnt have the firepower to close out the Windies in T1, strolled to a win in T2, then despite a Cook century had a woeful time with the bat and folded twice. On the surface that squad was arguably stronger than what they are sending this time, certainly in the batting department.

Either script could happen again, but i hope to god we dont get the sort of shambolic tour which was an embarrassment for the whole sport ( around the time of Stamford too which doubtless contributed to the mess) seen in 09.

[Duty281]

Didn't realise quite how poor England's record in the West Indies has been - think it is one series win since the 1960's. Now I realise that for a large period when Guildford was young(er) in the 70's and 80's that they were a powerhouse, but you'd have thought in more recent tours England would've done better. The 2009 and 2015 tours stand out to me as ones they should've won

England in the West Indies in 2009 was probably the strangest test series I can remember.

In the 1st test, England had that memorable and unexplainable collapse for 51 all out. The 2nd test was abandoned due to an unfit pitch. In the 3rd and 5th tests, England were one and two wickets away from victory, respectively, on absolutely dead tracks but couldn't get over the line. And the 4th test was where the Windies somehow managed to accumulate a 700 score.

The England side at this time was a true hybrid of different eras - with Flintoff and Harmison and Sidebottom still there, but Anderson and Broad also coming through. A Danish-born bowler also made his one (and only) test appearance for England.

I think it was also the first series for England where a referral system was used (to much criticism at the time).

[Gooseberry]

The other unique thing about that tour was the third test was an unplanned replacement for the second played on what amounted to the local park.
Amjad Khan was the Danish "new Harmisson". Other no marks to play were Bopara, Owais Shah and Tim Ambrose.
But as mentioned above there was very much a changing of the guard going on around that time with stars kof the future coming into a side packed with big name egos.
Also the turmoil created by the Peitersen Captaincy, Moore's sacking, and the Stanford mess. And obviously Fintoff got injured as standard.

England should be much more together as a team and less distracted this time. Hopefuly Stokes has managed to move on from the court case last summer and had tine to get his head back together.

It's a team on the up after a tough spell, rather than one in a downward spiral as they have been on the previous two visits.

[guildfordbat]

Just hearing that Olly Stone has been ruled out of the West Indies tour due to a back injury and will return home for further tests.

A replacement will be called up. Maybe Tom Curran?

Dreadful news for 25 year old Stone who has shown signs of being the real deal on the few times I've seen him.

[Gooseberry]

I maybe spoke to soon about the pitches on this tour. Reports are the surface is absolutely ridiculous. Broad took 4 in 5 balls, Anderson 4 for 12 in 11 overs, and reduced Windies to 203/19 in the days play. A side with 6 test capped players and another making his debut tomorrow, on paper not a total joke...in reality, a total joke.
Worse the same pitch is due to be used for the second warm up. Its hard to say England will get any valuable experience from this fiasco.

Perhaps most relevant was that Curran was given the new ball alongside Anderson, hinting he is in with a strong chance of a test place regardless what some of think. Apparently Leach got smacked about a bit whereas Moeen was fairly tidy for once and Root in the wickets again. Its not inconceivable that England could end up with ridiculous batting depth again although the way this game was played by the Windies (including overflowing the scorecard) its hard to really take anything meaningful from bowlers returns.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Just hearing that Olly Stone has been ruled out of the West Indies tour due to a back injury and will return home for further tests.

A replacement will be called up. Maybe Tom Curran?

Dreadful news for 25 year old Stone who has shown signs of being the real deal on the few times I've seen him.

Hmm not good for my Norfolk man - unfortunately he seems to have real issues with staying fit, not uncommon with a express pace bowler.

I should imagine Curran and Wood are in consideration - shame Archer hasn't qualified yet

[LondonTiger]

Stone's first major injury was a bit of a fluke - such that at first his team mates at Northants were laughing at him till they realised the seriousness. This one being a stress injury of the back is worrying and seems to be following a bit of a trend. So many of our quicks get crocked in this way. I often wonder if they are trying to bowl faster than their body/action suits?

I do wonder about the coaching our teenage quick bowlers get. I wonder if there action gets tightened up to facilitate accuracy with the view that speed can be added as they grow and fill out. I would prefer it to be the other way, concentrate on developing the speed and let the accuracy come later. I think about someone like Matt Fisher who at 16 was bowling at 85/86 miles an hour and was a bit of a tearaway bowler. Through the later stages of his academy development and his 3 years with England U19s his speed dropped by 5mph but accuracy improved. He now seems almost permanently injured as he tries to "speed up".

I also wonder if our bowlers are very gym fit rather than bowling fit. It must be hard to recreate the stresses of bowling quick in a gym.

[guildfordbat]

Olly - I knew you would be understandably disappointed about your local man Stone. It was only recently announced that he had signed a county contract extension keeping him at Warwickshire until the end of the 2022 season. I thought at the time that might be a risk for Warks but, there again, it must show how highly they rate him.

[VTR]

Not sure it's just an English problem keeping express pace bowlers fit. Look at Pat Cummins and some of the problems Dale Steyn has had. The ones that stay fit for long periods seem to be the exception

[alfie]

Stone's first major injury was a bit of a fluke - such that at first his team mates at Northants were laughing at him till they realised the seriousness. This one being a stress injury of the back is worrying and seems to be following a bit of a trend. So many of our quicks get crocked in this way. I often wonder if they are trying to bowl faster than their body/action suits?

I do wonder about the coaching our teenage quick bowlers get. I wonder if there action gets tightened up to facilitate accuracy with the view that speed can be added as they grow and fill out. I would prefer it to be the other way, concentrate on developing the speed and let the accuracy come later. I think about someone like Matt Fisher who at 16 was bowling at 85/86 miles an hour and was a bit of a tearaway bowler. Through the later stages of his academy development and his 3 years with England U19s his speed dropped by 5mph but accuracy improved. He now seems almost permanently injured as he tries to "speed up".

I also wonder if our bowlers are very gym fit rather than bowling fit. It must be hard to recreate the stresses of bowling quick in a gym.

Was discussing this very thing a year or two back with a former Australian Test fast bowler : he was adamant that the modern "scientific , gym based" system now imposed on pace bowlers instead of actually bowling a lot of overs was largely responsible for the increased number of injuries compared with his day (which was a fair few years ago - he's of my vintage ) I'm sure the sports scientists have a contrary case to put - and I'd suggest the plethora of limited over games and an increased emphasis on dynamic fielding might be factors also - but I do think he had a point.
Makes sense that doing the actual thing you do in a match (at a slightly lower intensity or for shorter periods)
is the best way to develop your body for the stresses of Test Match bowling...

[alfie]

The other unique thing about that tour was the third test was an unplanned replacement for the second played on what amounted to the local park.
Amjad Khan was the Danish "new Harmisson". Other no marks to play were Bopara, Owais Shah and Tim Ambrose.
But as mentioned above there was very much a changing of the guard going on around that time with stars kof the future coming into a side packed with big name egos.
Also the turmoil created by the Peitersen Captaincy, Moore's sacking, and the Stanford mess. And obviously Fintoff got injured as standard.

England should be much more together as a team and less distracted this time. Hopefuly Stokes has managed to move on from the court case last summer and had tine to get his head back together.

It's a team on the up after a tough spell, rather than one in a downward spiral as they have been on the previous two visits.

Was indeed an odd series...pitches were awful.

Not sure I'd call the 2009 team "one on a downward spiral" though. They were unsettled and needing to gain some confidence ; but in truth that dreadful first match disaster marked the low point from which they bounced back...right to the top of the tree over the following three years. Several spots in the team were yet to be settled ; but I'd actually say they were at a not not too different stage of development from the current outfit.

How well this team fills those undecided spots will dictate how high they can fly this time round.

[guildfordbat]

England replace Stone with Wood.

A like for like replacement. Another injured fast bowler.

[Gooseberry]

The other unique thing about that tour was the third test was an unplanned replacement for the second played on what amounted to the local park.
Amjad Khan was the Danish "new Harmisson". Other no marks to play were Bopara, Owais Shah and Tim Ambrose.
But as mentioned above there was very much a changing of the guard going on around that time with stars kof the future coming into a side packed with big name egos.
Also the turmoil created by the Peitersen Captaincy, Moore's sacking, and the Stanford mess. And obviously Fintoff got injured as standard.

England should be much more together as a team and less distracted this time. Hopefuly Stokes has managed to move on from the court case last summer and had tine to get his head back together.

It's a team on the up after a tough spell, rather than one in a downward spiral as they have been on the previous two visits.

Was indeed an odd series...pitches were awful.

Not sure I'd call the 2009 team "one on a downward spiral" though. They were unsettled and needing to gain some confidence ; but in truth that dreadful first match disaster marked the low point from which they bounced back...right to the top of the tree over the following three years. Several spots in the team were yet to be settled ; but I'd actually say they were at a not not too different stage of development from the current outfit.

How well this team fills those undecided spots will dictate how high they can fly this time round.

Lets agree on the nadir of a downward spiral before an upsurge...the Windies loss was their third on the bounce and the one they were on paper expected to win. theyd sacked their coach and captain, and it was the real start of a genuine rift between KP and the senior players. Flintoff was bouncing between drunken antics and injury and they were looking a bit lost after Vaughns early retirement.
certainly things improved fairly quickly through that summer and beyond (aside form the relationship with KP).

Id say its a different point to where this teams at, they've just come off the back of a god awful run and are well on their upsurge. Maybe the point they were at prior to the India series? Cooks retirement was constantly rumoured, Bayliss' ability to lead a test team questioned, Stokes and co were in a world of trouble, and there had been an extended period of failures. They are past that low point now, the Stokes incident is cosigned to history, theres been two very commendable series victories, and the team seems to be bought into the leaderships vision. So perhaps where they were at after the 09 Ashes win? Noone kidded themselves that they were suddenly a brilliant team, there were clearly still flaws and maybe they'd rode their luck a bit in winning that , but results and morale were high and they looked to be a side on the up.

Thats really the point i was driving at, this squad looks happy and united and believing in what they are being asked to do. Theres maybe some disgruntlement from Bairstow (perhaps justifiable if hes been given the defence against the dark arts job) and Broad (when isn't there?) but theres no suggestions of the sorts of rifts that occurred under Strauss/Flower or that theres players being selected that the captain doesn't trust or value. Even Moeen seems to have got his head screwed back on which given where he was this time last year is pretty amazing.
Poor morale and outside distractions are the only things that should really stop England from winning, and were almost certainly a key factor in their total collapse in the first 2009 test and subsequent failures to bowl Windies out. Player for player they have a vastly superior team (despite its flaws) that can be effective on different types of wickets, and frankly they probably care more than some of the opposition players do.

A happy England camp on a relatively low pressure tour to a nice part of the world. What could possibly go wrong?
(Awaits Stokes being arrested for stealing a pedalo and trying to fight a shark)

[Gooseberry]

Mixed day for England, 379 all out against a half way professional bowling attack.
Good scores for Bairstow and Burns, but Jennings Buttler and Ali failed. The other top order bats are rested. Curran Woakes and Rashid all made 40 something.

Theres little to suggest that the backbone of the team will vary from what was mentioned a few days ago ...
Burns
Jennings
Bairstow
Root
Buttler
Stokes
Foakes
2 of Moeen, Curran, Woakes, Leach, Rashid
Broad
Anderson

I still fancy that Curran is ahead in the thinking, but how the bowling goes tomorrow may settle those final bowling spots for the first test, along with the pitch report. I guess theres an outside chance Broad could miss out if they wanted two spinners, but I'd be surprised.

[alfie]

Hey Goose...

I don't really disagree with your team assessment - guess I'm nit-picking ...

Just that the 2009 team wasn't , in my view , going down : after the loss of Trescothick , Jones , etc . they had certainly gone down hill ...but the 2006/7 tour of Australia was the really bad patch ; followed by a really mixed bag of some home wins and some horrible losses- and a lot of team reshuffling. The Pietersen-Moore clashes muddied the waters ; but by the time they went to West Indies I thought they had settled a bit and were only a couple of players away from being a decent team.  As it happened that West Indies tours produced a couple of failures and one notable deceptive "comet" in Bopara ; but they finished it with some useful gains - mainly the knowledge that Swann was the way of the future in terms of spin bowling : a lot flowed from that.
I agree this team is further down the path of progress (about half a dozen matches ?) and ought to be more confident of winning. The only reservation is : were Sri Lanka a serious indicator of their strength ?  Guess we will see over the next few weeks...

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

I’d say the final spot in the XI is really between Curran and Leach depending on pitch conditions

[VTR]

Well those were pretty rubbish warm-ups, but England should be able to beat the Windies, though they are a bit of a bit of bogey team at times, with some unforgettable losses such as the 50 odd all out, the collapse in the final Test of the last tour and somehow taking the series to a decider at home in 2017 by making Shai Hope look like Brian Lara. Oh yes and Tino Best nearly scoring a century!

[Gooseberry]

Alfie...as VTR above, I'm not sure the West Indies will be a real indicator of strength either. But to me whats important is that morale, confidence and team cohesion should be high. It wasnt the last two times they came here.

They didn't give Leech a bowl in the final warm up, but Denly got 7 overs, and Moeen and Rashid 31 between them. That may be an indicator hes not fancied for the first test, which rather surprises me.
Woakes came out with the best figures, which maybe edges him ahead of Curran if that is a choice they are considering. Broad was effective again too which presumably shores up a place for him.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

https://twitter.com/willis_macp/status/1087010179844063234?s=21

Yeesh...

[Gooseberry]

https://twitter.com/willis_macp/status/1087010179844063234?s=21

Yeesh...

Jeez.

Ive seen talk theres a special Dukes ball being used with a harder lacquer to stop them degrading so badly on these rough pitches, so thats one bonus I guess. But by all account the West Indies are pushing for slow low wickets, judging by the state of those pitches we could be in for another horrendous series like the one discussed above.

WICB seems determined to destroy whats left of interest in test cricket there.

[LondonTiger]

https://twitter.com/englandcricket/status/1087738168743481350


Video of pitch

[Duty281]

Absolute disgrace of a wicket. Demeaning to the glorious sport of test cricket, and further damaging the legacy of the once magnificent West Indies.

Still, pile on the 4/11 that England win this test to make yourself feel better. There'll be plenty of swing for Anderson to exploit.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

https://twitter.com/englandcricket/status/1087738168743481350


Video of pitch

Looking at that I think there's a case to be made for England to pick a similar team to what they did in Sri Lanka - looks like it's gonna turn to me, and with the duke's ball as well, Anderson should have more success as Duty points out.

[Gooseberry]

The way Root was talking they ideally wanted to play 4 seamers and 2 spinners, but with Foakes in its got be 3 and 2. Jennings and Root can offer some additional options too, and if its really that much of a minefield then pretty much anyone could chuck a custard tart down there and get Geoff Boycotts gran out.
Certainly the talk from the Windies was about getting slow low pitches to negate englands seamers and because their batsmen had traditionally struggled on those wickets. The Sri Lanka tour though does suggest that might be outdated thinking, the more positive approach to batting and the emergence of a capable spin trio seems to have helped England turn a corner on those things.

[king_carlos]

1.Burns
2.Jennings
3.Bairstow
4.Root (c)
5.Stokes
6.Buttler
7.Moeen
8.Foakes (wk)
9.Leach/Woakes/Curran/Rashid
10.Broad
11.Anderson

I can't see the selectors straying from that formula. The last spot will come down to the pitch (looks a minefield) and which bowlers they want to take pressure off. If they want to monitor Anderson and Broads workload then you'd presume a seamer, if they want to take some pressure off Mooen then I'd guess Leach.

It's a small point but I hope Moeen bats at 8 and Foakes at 7, unlike the other way round as they did in the 3rd test in Galle. Couple of reasons for it. Firstly, I think Foakes is the better batsman. Secondly, Foakes has done enough to deserve a nailed down position in the order, put the guy at 7 and let him make the keeper spot his own.

The England batting order has chopped and changed so regularly that some stability is now needed. In 4.Root 5.Stokes 6.Buttler 7.Foakes there is a core middle order of players batting where they are suited for the team to build around.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I’d agree with that Foakes and Ali order. To add to your points, I also think Ali is more likely to come in and swat a quick 50 if he’s in the mindset of being a luxury, having the pressure off.

[alfie]

Considering Gabriel and Holder have done so well recently with the ball - and their spin options aren't that startling - I'm not sure why West Indies would want to "take the seamers out of the game" ?
Isn't their best chance knocking a still unproven England batting lineup over cheaply ?
Will wait and see how this pitch behaves.

[Gooseberry]

I’d agree with that Foakes and Ali order. To add to your points, I also think Ali is more likely to come in and swat a quick 50 if he’s in the mindset of being a luxury, having the pressure off.

Its a feature of his career that hes tended to do well with the bat when picked as a bowler and well with the ball when picked up the order. And that does almost certainly map to him not handling pressure well and needing to be well managed. he does seem to have turned a corner a bit and look to have got over the scrambled version with could neither bat nor bowl regardless of position this time last year. I don't really think 7 or 8 makes much odds, if the top 6 do half their job. There is a bit more onus on him being able to bowl consistently if hes not bating in the top 6 and England "only" have 5 options though, but looking at the pitch for the first test hes likely to have a spin partner and have less pressure on him. Certainly if they do play two spinners hes set to be one, although if they did go for just one specialist Id still rather see Leach whos the best out and out wicket taking option in the squad and Woakes or Curran bat at 8, both players also well capable of hitting that swashbuckling 50 or hang around to support Jennings to his triple century (hmmmm)

Interestingly the talk on cricinfo is that England are going to go with two spinners and Broad would be the one to get the chop. That does rather surprise me, if nothing else because hes been the pick of the bowlers on tour so far and as far as you can tell from two days of glorified nets seems to have his mojo back. I also see no evidence that Curran or Woakes have yet to figure out how to bowl effectively away from home. Its not like England are in desperate need of their batting at 9 (on the assumption that Moeen is one of the two spinners), thats very much a luxury bonus. Anderson was talking him up and the work hes done to change his run up and reinvigorate his bowling only the other day.

Considering Gabriel and Holder have done so well recently with the ball - and their spin options aren't that startling - I'm not sure why West Indies would want to "take the seamers out of the game" ?
Isn't their best chance knocking a still unproven England batting lineup over cheaply ?
Will wait and see how this pitch behaves.

Yeah I wouldnt dispute that West Indies strength is in their seamers too, and their spinners are pretty awful. But prior to Sri Lanka England have really struggled with bat and ball on slow low wickets, and getting movement once the seam is worn.
I cant find the article now but a few days ago there was an interview posted with someone from the Windies set up moaning about the dukes ball thats being used and that theyd wanted the kookabura which loses its seam quicker to negate Englands seamers, and having seem them struggle consistently with that ball. Also that they were looking at slow low pitches feeling their bowlers were batter adapted to them, and Englands batsmen didnt have technique to cope with them.
I guess they feel they have a better chance of making runs themselves on a wicket thats going to give Englands seamers very little with the new ball, and that their best chance of bowling England out cheaply is to put them on surfaces they arent comfortable or so used to.

[LondonTiger]

The article in the Guardian worried me. It suggested that while they are looking at playing 2 spinners, due to concerns over batting Broad at 9 it would be Curran/Leach or Rashid/Broad.

We really should not be worrying about who bats at 9 and should pick the bowling lineup most likely to take 20 wickets.

[Duty281]

If England were to win this series, it would be their third consecutive test series victory.

The last time England won three or more test series on the bounce was in 2010-2011, when they won six (defeating Bangladesh, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Australia, Sri Lanka and India) and got to number one in the world because of it. Such a run was very special.

This next year (well 14 months) could be the greatest in English cricket since 2005. It starts today. It could end with an Ashes triumph and a World Cup trophy (It's coming home), as well as away test series wins over South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and the Windies.

"This is no time for ease and comfort. It is time to dare and endure."
Winston Churchill

[LondonTiger]

Curran and Rashid in.

Root call incorrectly and Holder opts to bat.

England Team list shows Ali at 7, Foakes at 8

[Duty281]

Interesting team selection from England. Not sure if I agree with Curran over Broad, but it shouldn't make a great deal of difference.

[Gooseberry]

The article in the Guardian worried me. It suggested that while they are looking at playing 2 spinners, due to concerns over batting Broad at 9 it would be Curran/Leach or Rashid/Broad.

We really should not be worrying about who bats at 9 and should pick the bowling lineup most likely to take 20 wickets.

Quite, its a pretty disappointing line up ...especially as Rashid would've batten 9 and broad 10 anyway!
Woakes and Broad were the pick of the bowlers in the last warm up. Neithers in. Anderson and Curran were the weakest bowlers in Sri Lanka, both play.
Its not a disastrous selection but seems muddled to me. There is a strong case for any of the bowlers to play, but picking then on their batting is probably the worst way to decide.

[alfie]

Slightly surprised at Rashid rather than Leach if its going to really spin but it's not an unreasonable choice. Neither is Curran (good luck charm) though I'd prefer Broad myself. They obviously like both his batting and the left arm variety.
Not sure why Goose calls Anderson "weakest" bowler in Sri Lanka ? He didn't take wickets - hardly surprising on those pitches ! And didn't really need to...but he kept it tight which was basically the requirement on that trip. Certainly he was always first choice here.

Root had to lose a toss sooner or later. Let's see how they respond.

[robbo277]

Is Curran in for his batting? We've all complained about England overseas lining up with four right arm fast mediums and an offie and being predictable. Doesn't work outside England.

We've got a 20yo left armer who's taken wickets at home. Bowled in unfriendly conditions in Sri Lanka without great reward. Is that reason enough to drop him? He took wickets in the warmups and the change of angle when the ball stops swinging would be more useful than another right arm over at 82mph.

Let's applaud the selectors for backing him.

[alfie]

Anderson starting well...Curran less so.

Interesting contrast in team selection as West Indies have gone for an all-pace attack - just the part time spin option in Chase.

Can't both be right...

[Duty281]

At 146 appearances, James Anderson is now the most-capped pure bowler in the history of test cricket, overtaking Shane Warne.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/283683.html

Quiet-ish start.

[Sponsored content]