England - the winter tours thread

[Gooseberry]

First topic message reminder :

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.

[guildfordbat]

Only Anderson and Stokes, and to an extent Moeen, can come out with any real credit. It's good that Burns got time in the middle, but that's all it was as the game had gone by that point.

Main worry for Thursday - aside from Chase being the second coming of Murali - is that so many of the English batsmen are out of form. Moeen and Stokes look lost at the crease. Jennings is an easy wicket. Bairstow is averaging under 35 for the past two years. Root hasn't averaged above 40 in a series since the Ashes. Burns and Foakes are yet to establish themselves.

My, my, it's a desperate looking situation. Only saving grace is James Anderson is a tremendous leveller.

Good post, Duty.

So do we pick batsmen to do their job or bowlers to get the batsmen out of a hole?

[Gooseberry]

I don't know how Moeen comes out with credit. He had one short period where he picked up a handful of wickets and otherwise bowled filth. His batting was woeful, and he as much as anyone has again shown he is one of the culprits when it comes to mental fragility. He can perhaps be excused more than some, batting wasnt his prime role and he didnt come in till the collapses were well under way and didnt get to bowl till England were already in a real hole. Plus he did have to shoulder more thsn he should have with the ball thanks to poor selections and curran/Rashids meltdowns ...but I don't see anything that was up to standard in any of his performances.
Curran too managed a short spell where he actually looked like a test bowler. And too got dropped in it to some extent, it was always a stretch of his talents to be of any use in this game with the ball and we know his test average with the bat isn't a true reflection of either his ability or what can be expected of him long term. He'd been "rewarded" for overperforming by getting lined up for the firing squad.

The Bayliss interview is remarkably frank and candid, not the usual guarded remarks youd expect at a press conference. It sounds like Jennings is toast, which can only really mean Denly?
Broad seems like a given for the next test. Whether they have a second spinner or Curran probably depends on reading of the pitch ...and they might want someone else's input on that.
If nothing else those changes will get the pundits and armchair experts of their backs. There's not really any other realistic options with the squad they have available here. If it doesnt pan out any better you can go back with hindsight and say yep...its just the team being collectively rubbish regardless of who gets picked.

Word for the West Indies too because Holder aside they havent individualy or collectively really shown that level as a team before. They really seem to raise themselves up for this, quite the opposite of whats happened in other recent series.
Despite their awful recent records in limited overs cricket it does make me think again about their potential to be a dark horse at the world cup.
Whereas many in the England camp are capable of being better than they played in that test the West Indies showed they are capable of being better than they have played in almost all of their recent matches in any format.

[alfie]

Did someone invite me to come on and rubbish Hussain's (one-Test) rankings ?

Didn't watch enough of the actual play to be fair , so I can't actually give out minus-1 even if I wanted to to...though I'd give a minus -2 for the team selection and pitch assessment !

Do agree with guildford that 8 is a bit hot for Burns : what would he have received if he'd made 100 ? Ten ? (I liked his second innings effort - much of which I did see ; but I'd have thought 7 over the whole match covers it.
Anderson and Stokes certainly deserve the top marks : 8 , perhaps ? Since they didn't achieve a win...

Agree Moeen can't really count that match as a plus despite picking up a couple of wickets late on day two...anyone who gets out like that twice needs at least five or a hat trick to break even

Anyway , ratings are nonsense

[guildfordbat]

Alfie - as usual, you don't disappoint.

[guildfordbat]

...

Word for the West Indies too because Holder aside they havent individualy or collectively really shown that level as a team before. They really seem to raise themselves up for this, quite the opposite of whats happened in other recent series.
Despite their awful recent records in limited overs cricket it does make me think again about their potential to be a dark horse at the world cup.
Whereas many in the England camp are capable of being better than they played in that test the West Indies showed they are capable of being better than they have played in almost all of their recent matches in any format.

I would have thought that Holder as captain deserves a fair chunk of praise for the whole team performance. Important for the West Indies that is maintained.

[Duty281]

Only Anderson and Stokes, and to an extent Moeen, can come out with any real credit. It's good that Burns got time in the middle, but that's all it was as the game had gone by that point.

Main worry for Thursday - aside from Chase being the second coming of Murali - is that so many of the English batsmen are out of form. Moeen and Stokes look lost at the crease. Jennings is an easy wicket. Bairstow is averaging under 35 for the past two years. Root hasn't averaged above 40 in a series since the Ashes. Burns and Foakes are yet to establish themselves.

My, my, it's a desperate looking situation. Only saving grace is James Anderson is a tremendous leveller.

Good post, Duty.

So do we pick batsmen to do their job or bowlers to get the batsmen out of a hole?

Well there's not a lot of scope for change in this series, but going forward I hope to see more genuine batsmen picked.

[JDizzle]

Only Anderson and Stokes, and to an extent Moeen, can come out with any real credit. It's good that Burns got time in the middle, but that's all it was as the game had gone by that point.

Main worry for Thursday - aside from Chase being the second coming of Murali - is that so many of the English batsmen are out of form. Moeen and Stokes look lost at the crease. Jennings is an easy wicket. Bairstow is averaging under 35 for the past two years. Root hasn't averaged above 40 in a series since the Ashes. Burns and Foakes are yet to establish themselves.

My, my, it's a desperate looking situation. Only saving grace is James Anderson is a tremendous leveller.

Good post, Duty.

So do we pick batsmen to do their job or bowlers to get the batsmen out of a hole?

Well there's not a lot of scope for change in this series, but going forward I hope to see more genuine batsmen picked.

Whilst not disagreeing with sentiment, the next question is who?! It’s not like we’ve not tried a mass of bats to plug those gaps. Are we going back to Vince, Ballance, Malan, Westley, Duckett, Hales, Pope (possibly) et al. And will they do much better? Cause there isn’t really anyone banging the door down...

[Gooseberry]

Only Anderson and Stokes, and to an extent Moeen, can come out with any real credit. It's good that Burns got time in the middle, but that's all it was as the game had gone by that point.

Main worry for Thursday - aside from Chase being the second coming of Murali - is that so many of the English batsmen are out of form. Moeen and Stokes look lost at the crease. Jennings is an easy wicket. Bairstow is averaging under 35 for the past two years. Root hasn't averaged above 40 in a series since the Ashes. Burns and Foakes are yet to establish themselves.

My, my, it's a desperate looking situation. Only saving grace is James Anderson is a tremendous leveller.

Good post, Duty.

So do we pick batsmen to do their job or bowlers to get the batsmen out of a hole?

Well there's not a lot of scope for change in this series, but going forward I hope to see more genuine batsmen picked.

Like who though? Theres only Denly to bring in and increasing the number of genuine batsmen would involve retaining Jennings.

Theres a Foakes interview where hes talking openly that his days may be numbered because of the failings of others as much as his own flat display ( tidy with the gloves mind so of course this England would drop him for his lack of bowling ). The thing with that is it would be to bring in a sixth bowler and retain Curran who is every bit as much a luxury as Foakes in this series.

England though do have specialist bowlers in (and not in) the squad who could come in and give them a greater wicket taking threat, without changing the balance of the side. Longer term its pretty evident they need proper batsmen to come to the fore too, aside form the lack of options in the squad ( Denly really isnt ever likely to amount to much in tests) its not like they are queuing up in County cricket or banging on the door from the Lions. Pope (the part time keeper) hasnt done much to earn a recall since being dropped for being rubbish, and the openers we talked to death. if there were good options they'd be in the squad. That does open the door for Lions players and the likes of Gubbins to make an early county season case to be Ashes wild cards, but for this series they nailed their colours on the all rounders who won them two tricky series in a row (with Andersons help).

If you want to pick them then specialists must be the match or better than the all rounders, and theres little evidence that England have left any out on the batting front who fit that bill.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Only Anderson and Stokes, and to an extent Moeen, can come out with any real credit. It's good that Burns got time in the middle, but that's all it was as the game had gone by that point.

Main worry for Thursday - aside from Chase being the second coming of Murali - is that so many of the English batsmen are out of form. Moeen and Stokes look lost at the crease. Jennings is an easy wicket. Bairstow is averaging under 35 for the past two years. Root hasn't averaged above 40 in a series since the Ashes. Burns and Foakes are yet to establish themselves.

My, my, it's a desperate looking situation. Only saving grace is James Anderson is a tremendous leveller.

Good post, Duty.

So do we pick batsmen to do their job or bowlers to get the batsmen out of a hole?

Well there's not a lot of scope for change in this series, but going forward I hope to see more genuine batsmen picked.

Whilst not disagreeing with sentiment, the next question is who?! It’s not like we’ve not tried a mass of bats to plug those gaps. Are we going back to Vince, Ballance, Malan, Westley, Duckett, Hales, Pope (possibly) et al. And will they do much better? Cause there isn’t really anyone banging the door down...

You've beaten me to my point JDizzle - all well and good saying pick genuine batsmen, but the whole reason we have a team of keepers and all rounders if because whenever we have picked a "genuine" batsman, they've been pants!

The only ones who haven't been tried really are Roy and maybe Joe Clarke? But then Roy is more of a one day bat than a first class one (albeit I do think he is a good first class bat), and Joe Clarke has just been chucked off a Lions tour after things have come to light from this Alex Hepburn trial...

It's not like they're not selecting a Trott/Bell/Pietersen here

[VTR]

Joe Clarke was talked up but I reckon his career is now set back at least two years with the off the field stuff. Roy is probably as worth a go as anyone, though will be lumped with opening which isn't even where he bat's in FC cricket

[Duty281]

I'd be happy to try this (will never happen, though).

Burns, Stoneman, Hildreth, Ballance, Root, Wicket-Keeper*, Stokes, Curran/Ali, Broad, Leach, Anderson.

*I'd suggest Bairstow at the moment, but there's a lot of competition.

Far from perfect, but at least with this side you have five specialist batsmen, a wicket-keeper, a couple of all-rounders and the tail. You also have a couple of obdurate, defensive batsmen for the tough times, and fluent stroke-makers elsewhere.

[Gooseberry]

Clarkes had a pretty mixed bag for the Lions, certainly not enough to demand a place, and obviously is out of favour for the time being. On top of that he bats middle order which doesnt exactly help much.
Roys batted 3 for the Lions and could possibly make a case for that with England if he gets to play much first class cricket before the ashes. Hes doing OK in the T20 leagues for all that means.
Gubbins as the other name touted as an opener before Denly got in the squad, but hes barely scored a run since July.
The other Lions opener in their last "test" was Max Holden ...scored 4 and 9.
Pope is the other specialist bat who played, and has been largely poor since getting dropped for being poor.

Roy probably is the only one they have in reserve who's making a case, but its not the strongest and nor is he going to be that rugged hang around type any time soon. But a good world cup and start to the county season could see him as a realistic option for the ashes if this rabble dont get their act together.


Amazed noones mentioned Vince yet

[JDizzle]

I rate Vince! I'd pick him over a lot of other players that have been mentioned. Do wonder whether they should have taken Malan to the Windies, he did play the bounce well in Australia - but I guess England weren't expecting pacey wickets judging by the team they picked in the first Test.

[guildfordbat]

I'd be happy to try this (will never happen, though).

Burns, Stoneman, Hildreth, Ballance, Root, Wicket-Keeper*, Stokes, Curran/Ali, Broad, Leach, Anderson.

*I'd suggest Bairstow at the moment, but there's a lot of competition.

Far from perfect, but at least with this side you have five specialist batsmen, a wicket-keeper, a couple of all-rounders and the tail. You also have a couple of obdurate, defensive batsmen for the tough times, and fluent stroke-makers elsewhere.

If Stoneman gets further decent CC runs, I wouldn't be astounded to see him get a recall. It's now in the public domain - not shouted from the rafters but made clear by Surrey, presumably with the player's agreement - that Stoneman's wife had a very difficult pregnancy last summer which was considered to affect his form. Since then, his wife has successfully given birth and all seems well for now and the future. I'm normally not too touchy feely about that sort of thing but do accept this at face value and feel it might pave the way for Stoneman replicating his 2017 form when imo he looked a genuine Test prospect.

[alfie]

Burns isn't set in cement yet - and Jennings is looking very dodgy for the (pace dominated ) threat posed by Australia in the Ashes. So anyone who makes big runs in the CC might be in with a shout : certainly wouldn't rule Stoneman out. I would like to see a right hander in the mix though obviously runs are the main issue. Good slip skills a bonus ...apply c/- Bayliss & co...

[Gooseberry]

Given Vinces biggest problem is chasing seaming balls outside the offstump I don't see him as one for the Ashes.

The comments from Bayliss suggest they are giving Burns a long run regardless, and finaly making a decent innings wil have helped his cause. They simply aren't going to find two replacement openers that quickly.

Stoneman was a pretty outside pick when he got a chance, and had a poor season last year. Given his age Of be very surprised if they went back to him unless he had a truely stunning start to the season.

Much more likely is investing in the younger players and understanding its not just about an opener for the next series or year but for the next generation.

The underlying issue here is that county cricket just isn't producing test class batsmen, and part of that problem is they cant afford to employ first class specialists on living wages. Australia have hit the same wall, and South Africa have only unearthed one good batsman recently. There's plenty of good bowlers and an unprecedented number of allrounders in world cricket, but it only really seems to be India that are still producing batsmen with the all round game for test cricket, and even they struggle for openers. It might partly be because they play 50 over cricket slightly differently and are less reliant on power hitting.
Surrey aside batting averages in the CC last year were awful. Part of that is that counties are effectively rewarded for producing results wickets. Also the time of year the games are played, especially with how the weather went last year. There are tweaks coming with the 10 team top division, so more players are exposed to the higher level and less teams are focused on avoiding relegation. I'm really not sure thats enough though.
It would be good if the ecb cpuld pit together a test batsmen programme, in the same way that they did for fast bowlers ( no comment on the results of That!) a few years back. Fund them to winter in Sheilad cricket or similar and at training camps rather than trying to scratch a living on the t20 circuit. It does feel all a bit late though.
It is increasingly apparent that the problems with England's batting are more than just selections and leadership issues. To not have found a test class opener since Cook is unthinkable, at one time they had Strauss Cook and Vaughn around. Now we have Burns Jennings and a Geoff Boycotts gran with a stick of rhubarb. (Side note that Cook very nearly got ditched early career for being rubbish against seam bowling so yay Jennings)
The same things have been said for a decade. I'm yet to see real radical changes made to address the root problem.

[Duty281]

Good news this year is that many County Championship fixtures will be played in May, June and July, rather than being unceremoniously shunted to both ends of the calendar.

[Gooseberry]

Its good to an extent but theres very few fixtures play prior to the world cup squad preparations, so the likes of Roy Denly and Hales wont get much chance to play first class cricket or even think about developing that side of their game. That also impacts existing test team members like Root, Bairstow, Stokes, Buttler and Moeen.
The world cup runs till mid July, so assuming England don't crash out early the ODI players wont get any other CC fixtures before the Ashes. The last few rounds are played during the Ashes break.
So its good news for those not in the ODI squad and an opportunity to do great things (whilst Bayliss is busy elsewhere and not get noticed) but not great for those in the ODI squad.
There might also be some help in those fixtures for fast bowlers to make a case, which is the other glaring hole in Englands team.  Stone should return to bowling early in the season which is good news.

Its also still dependant on counties employing promising young technically correct English batsmen and encouraging them to feel comfortable leaving the ball. The way points are awarded and the finances just don't encourage it.
The impact of a shift to 10 teams will be pretty minimal, its not enough on its own. Two divisions was a fairly radical shift, but came a decade late. It seems we are falling into the same trap again. The addition of the ridiculous 100 ball nonsense is another step back for first class cricket and the test team.

Overall whilst there does seem to be a recognition that first class cricket is failing theres little concrete action or even interest in sorting it out properly. Its increasingly irrelevant, and an extended Lions/Performance programme with more focus on 4/5 days games may be the only way to develop players with test specific skills.


Edit:
I've just remembered that Surrey signed Elgar didn't they? That surely leaves Stoneman as a reserve, and limits Roys chances of getting a CC game even further on the few occasions he'd be available? Or will Stoneman be leaving? Its seems hard to imagine even Surrey having the resources to be paying 3 test caped openers and Roy. Its a good signing for the county and helps improve the quality in the competition, hopefully he will be able to help mentor Burns too...but another spot which could have gone to a potential England player taken up.

[VTR]

If England win the World Cup I'd actually take a home Ashes whitewash defeat as a trade off. As its the only thing I've never seen us win

[Gooseberry]

Yeah I have no problem with England concentrating in the world cup, its just worth noting that the county schedule this year has been done to clash with that and have the more profitable competitions played largely when England aren't rather than as part of some grand plan to improve the test team and save the CC.

Its about more than just the Ashes too, wheres the next decade of test bats coming from?

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

If England win the World Cup I'd actually take a home Ashes whitewash defeat as a trade off. As its the only thing I've never seen us win

100% agree with this - World Cup is far and away the priority, might not get another opportunity like this for decades to come.

And on the CC schedule, I always look back to an evening with Strauss I attended this summer (pre his wife's illness), where he was saying he obviously wished it wasn't pushed to the fringes of the schedule, but said ultimately "500 members watching a county game on a Tuesday doesn't pay the bills, 10,000 at a T20 on a Friday night does".

Unless someone solves that conundrum, this is just the way it will be!

[guildfordbat]

...

Edit:
I've just remembered that Surrey signed Elgar didn't they? That surely leaves Stoneman as a reserve, and limits Roys chances of getting a CC game even further on the few occasions he'd be available? Or will Stoneman be leaving? Its seems hard to imagine even Surrey having the resources to be paying 3 test caped openers and Roy. Its a good signing for the county and helps improve the quality in the competition, hopefully he will be able to help mentor Burns too...but another spot which could have gone to a potential England player taken up.

Hi Goose - the Elgar signing is really a re-signing. He's played previously for Surrey batting at 3 or 4 with Burns and Stoneman opening. It therefore shouldn't impact any chances Stoneman might have of an England recall.

[Duty281]

If England don't win the World Cup this year, then they never, ever will.

But I'd still prefer the Ashes.

[LondonTiger]

If England don't win the World Cup this year, then they never, ever will.

But I'd still prefer the Ashes.

We should win the WC, but even in the ODI format we have one shocking performance every 5 or 6 games. If that happens in the knockout stage

[Gooseberry]

Anyway back to the topic in hand ...do we assume that Jennings' Goose is cooked and that Denly becomes de facto next in line to be discarded? based on the comments Bayliss made it looks extremely hard for him to be retained.

Broad is almost certain to play, the question is how is he fitted in.
Option A - for Rashid. The simplest if its not a spin friendly looking pitch, and with Denly in theres still a fair bit of part time spin available.
Option B - for Curran. The nearest thing to a straight swap. the coaches seem to love him, but Root avoids bowling him as much as possible. Bayliss whilst acknowledging he was the wrong selection seemed keen not to blame the player for his struggles, and they seem heavily invested in him as a future new ball bowler regardless of how well Anderson and Broad are playing. I fancy this is the least likely of the options on the table.
Option C - Foakes gets dropped, opening up an extra bowling spot. Bairstow or Buttler taking the gloves. Bayliss discussed this option, so its very much on the table apparently, and given that theres no reserve batsmen (assuming Denlys replaced Jennings) it would have to be to include an extra bowler and return to the 3 batsmen, 2 keepers, 3 allrounders, 3 bowlers split. Whilst England still bat deep in this model its worth noting that they were appalling in the last test when batting deeper, and that Moeen hasnt produced with the bat for 18 months now.

Option C is probably more realistic if Jennings is retained and Denly plays at 3 (or even comes in as an opener and Jennings is put at 3 to hide him from the new ball seam). Foakes drops out, Bairstow bats 5 or 6 with the gloves, Broad replaces Curran or the second spinner. So maybe there is just a way of Jennings keeping his spot, but it would be the weakest looking top 3 for England since the 90s ...and that includes Moeen having played there!

Rashid for Leech is also a possibility, if option A isnt taken.

Theres little indication that Woakes will get a place under any formula, and Woods name hasnt even been mentioned in the press conferences. Moeen presumably is safe despite his struggles with the bat. Burns is the long term project player, it would be a shock if he wasnt there for the whole of this tour and likely the start of the Ashes too especially in light of their stated aim to settle on a top 3.

The comments coming out of the England camp whilst keen to say that selections weren't the biggest problem do seem to make it pretty clear that they need to make some changes. Its unthinkable to lose in that manner and not do something in terms of the team make up as well as sharpening up attitudes.

[Gooseberry]

I rate Vince! I'd pick him over a lot of other players that have been mentioned. Do wonder whether they should have taken Malan to the Windies, he did play the bounce well in Australia - but I guess England weren't expecting pacey wickets judging by the team they picked in the first Test.

I do feel a bit for Malan, he had the disappointment in the summer after being one of the few to get any credit in Aus. Gets told hes seen as a n overseas tour specialist, then left out for Denly who is yet to get a game. Trouble is he did almost nothing to suggest they were wrong in the CC, had only passed 30 once in his last 10 test innings when dropped, and is now making mediocre scores in the low end T20 leagues. Hes another the wrong side of 30 (over in age, under in batting average) too.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Looks to be a straight decision between Leach/Curran for the final spot in the XI I would say - wholly depending on the pitch, if its a spinning wicket you'd think Leach plays, if not and a seaming wicket Curran plays.

Not issues with them discarding Jennings - the man has shown consistently he cannot play pace, which as an opening batsman, is a rather big issue!

Whether Denly is the answer...well who knows - doesn't hurt to try another option...surely one has to stick soon

[king_carlos]

If Foakes drops out then it would be yet another indictment of more faith being put in several senior players batting than they deserve.

I believe that Stokes and Moeen are part of Englands best side but the continued faith in them as batsman does wear thin when Stokes averages 33 in test cricket and Mo averages 30. Dangerous batsman but Stokes needs to show more consistency to bat top 5 and Moeen belongs at 8, not in the top 7.

Denly and Jennings average modestly in the mid 30s in first class cricket as well. Shoehorning both in would hardly be a reason to drop the guy who just one man of the series in Sri Lanka.

[Afro]

Left field suggestion....

Pick your 6 best batsman
Pick your 4 best bowlers, split between spinners and seamers depending on the pitch
Pick your best wicket keeper.

Then see how many available spots you still have from people being in more than 1 list, and fill those spots according to the area you feel is weakest

[Duty281]

So Denly in for Jennings, Leach for Ali, and Broad likely to come in for Rashid.

Better.

[Gooseberry]

Well thats what they have done afro...their 3rd reserve wicket keeper is a better batsman than the second best batsman theyve found in the last 5 years.
Hell even woakes had a better summer with the bat than most of those in the current top 8.

[king_carlos]

Woakes has a better first class batting average than Buttler, Stokes and Jennings - i.e. half the top 6 - so not a total surprise there...

[Gooseberry]

Rashids isnt far off those either, which goes to show how much county averages mean in test cricket I guess. The point being if your best players are all rounders and you have 1 test class batsman and at best 3 test class bowlers available then its not always the best idea to pick 6 and 4, especially if your best bowler cant shoulder huge workloads. In Englands case those 6 best batsmen include their 3rd choice wicket keeper who a few months ago we were singing the praises of. Even Stokes got called the best all rounder in test cricket on here a few days ago.

We simply dont have good batsmen in county cricket to pick. Vince is touted as the most talented batsman of his generation, he averages under 40 in first class and under 25 in tests. The new Ramprakash. People used to slate Bell for only averaging 40. Even those like Pope who score big runs and have healthy first class figures struggle when asked to step up (although he did get hung out to dry by being stuck in too high), it was the same with Balance before him.

Now it is a tough era for batsmen full stop at test level, but we cant hide that England haven't produced a successful top 3 player since Trott (discounting Root who refuses to play there), and he won his first cap a decade ago. Even he couldn't sustain his performances for long, and since then only one proper batsman has really managed to establish himself long term anywhere in the line up. The system is broken. County cricket is awful at developing test players and the England performance , Age group and Lions set up isnt doing enough to plug the gap. The senior squad  batting coaching and leadership is arguably a problem too. There needs to be more than the old shane warne attitude that good players dont need coaching, we clearly dont have good batsmen to not be coached. We have Ok ones who badly underperformed in the last test.
This is not a new problem, its been a continual slide over the last decade. Any of the 2005 Ashes batsmen would walk into the current squad, even Thorpe if he was sober.

Whilst I agree that Curran was clearly a bad pick for the last test even without hindsight, and less so Rashid, we have to be realistic and accept that its a choice of very ordinary batsmen, good all rounders, with a handful of good bowlers and the option of a pretty good keeper. The all rounders are as good or better than our pure batsmen (bar Root), without being especially brilliant.
The best we can manage for a replacement batsman is a 32 year old with a modest first class average who's mostly play in division 2 at 3. Its pathetic.

[LondonTiger]

Love the niceties of selection. Rather than being dropped, Rashid has been released to attend the birth of his second child, returning for the ODIs.

[LondonTiger]

Goose, 

We are not the only country struggling to find top order batters. Globally the quality of test batting when there is an iota of encouragement for bowlers is pretty shocking. It is easy to blame T20, but heck why not I reckon. Flat tracks, ball with no seam and a demand to score quickly has reduced batters to mere sloggers.

[king_carlos]

People often state 'county averages mean little in test cricket' but the supposed anomalies to prove it in the current England side aren't anomalies at all.

Suggestions that first class averages mean less than talent would suggest that those England bastman 'picked on talent' average significantly more in tests than they do in first class cricket, but it simply isn't the case. Stokes test average is lower than his modest first class average and Moeens test average in significantly lower. Bairstow likewise averages significantly lower than his albeit impressive first class returns.

Buttler and Root both average more in tests than first class cricket but averaging close to 50 in both makes Root very much the outlier, whilst Buttler has earnt a prolonged run he's hardly blown test cricket away.

I agree that county cricket isn't bringing through talent the way it should, but that doesn't change the fact it's the best indicator of ability, even if it is so by default. The often repeated statement that it should be ignored leads only to more rogue selections and knee jerk responses when things go badly. Two things which very rarely pay-off in test cricket.

County crickets problems, as with many sports, stems from lack of cash more than anything though. That's a much more difficult problem to deal with than who opens the batting though!

The best we can manage for a replacement batsman is a 32 year old with a modest first class average who's mostly play in division 2 at 3. Its pathetic.

Denly is the best selected, but he was a rogue selection off the back of solid one day returns but a mediocre county championship season in div 2. That doesn't mean he's the best available. James Hildreth for one would have something to say about county cricket not producing good batsman.

[Gooseberry]

The best we can manage for a replacement batsman is a 32 year old with a modest first class average who's mostly play in division 2 at 3. Its pathetic.

Denly is the best selected, but he was a rogue selection off the back of solid one day returns but a mediocre county championship season in div 2. That doesn't mean he's the best available. James Hildreth for one would have something to say about county cricket not producing good batsman.[/quote]

You think Hildreth would hack it as a top 3 bat in test cricket? Really?
Hes also 34, a product of the past ...the generation thats retiring or retired. The guys like Bell and Trott (who have both made just as much of a recent case for a test place and actually have some pedigree as a number 3 batsman) who kept him from even getting close to an England place during his prime. Hildreth got out performed by test failure Matt Renshaw playing on unfamiliar surfaces, not to mention that Trescothick in his 40's had been matching him for runs in previous seasons. If anything that theres aged uncapped players like him with decent averages, who used to be considered nothing more than a decent county player, now looking like the cream of the CC only underlines just how poor the competition is and how spectacularly its failing to bring through the next generation.


Its not like England have been ignoring county scores altogether either. Pope Burns and Jennings were all amongst the best averages for EQ players who had a decent number of innings in D1 last year (all better than Hildreth) and all have struggled in tests. Bairstow and Moeen only played a handful of innings but scored a lot of runs, Moeen in particular has been awful in batting tests even though its those scores that won him his place back. Test failure Vince Bopara and Ballance were the next best of the qualified players with a decent number of innings. People are touting Clarke, but he only averaged 34.
In D2 the top performing EQ bats were Trott and Bell. The only others with a decent number of games to average over 40 were Will Rhodes, Ben Brown ( Englands 5th choice keeper) and Ben Slater. Hardly an all star cast.
If anything I'd argue that England have been paying more attention to the CC performances under Bayliss than they did under Flower.

Recent hopes like Westley and Livingstone seem to have dropped off almost entirely. Hameed even more so, and his case is particularly interesting. Initially it was injury that hampered him, but the much touted theory for his continued struggles was his employers desire to remould him as a viable ODI player. And therein is the issue, Counties cant afford to pay the wages of specialist first class players, they need players who cover at least two competitions, they simply don't have the budget for paying proper test openers unless they are exceptional talents (Surrey aside who bathe in asses milk and act as a laundering facility for russian billionaires). Very few players with this natural inclination and skill set will get picked up at all, and even fewer pro contracts. Theres also little drive for young players to want to go down that path when the money and glory is in whacking the ball over the fence, and employability is even greater if you're a keeper. I dont think its any great coincidence that so many of Englands current best bats are or have been keepers, whilst weve had a good run of batting keepers since Stewart the number around now is ridiculous. Davies is yet another who could've had more caps and whos first class average is similar to that of Hildreth. The same for bowler batsmen, its increasingly difficult in the limited overs game to get opportunities if you cant bat a bit. Englands best bowlers are spending their time learning to bat, and their best batsman to keep or bowl. And all of them learning to bat in the limited overs style.


Denly is a poor option, and a short term pick. Hildreth would be even more short term, and wouldnt address the real problem area (the top 3). That these names are in the frame shows the desperation England have. It should hardly a surprise that they see the form, ability and confidence a guy like Buttler shows against the best bowlers in the world in ODIs and feel he has a better chance of achieving in tests what the county bats havent. I was pretty shocked and dubious when he was picked, and frankly boggled when he got to 5 ...but looking at the other options I can understand how and why.

Its because the CC and England development system is failing, and has done for some time. If Hildreth is the best candidate we can come up with to suggest that specialist bats have been unfairly overlooked then this is further proven. England need to start investing targeted coaching and money in ensuring that the best test prospects are given the support they need to push on and concentrate on those skills. That might even mean subsidising wages to stop them wanting to go on the T20 circuit and concentrating on that game, whilst also having a development pathway for those who have the natural aptitude and raw skills to succeed in the shorter formats. There will be the odd player like Root who can succeed in all 3 (or 4 now) formats, but if we want technically correct proper test batsmen then someone needs to employ, encourage and coach them. The Counties are not doing that.

[LondonTiger]

Hildreth is, imo, one of the unluckiest players never to have been capped. However his time has gone.

County Cricket in all 3 forms is being marginalised by the ECB. The county championship is shoehorned into the start and end of the season. The 50 over cup is slotted wherever they can find space and the T20 will soon be subservient to the 100. 

However it is easy to blame the ECB. Really we have too many counties employing too many cricketers with too few really good ones. Once upon a time the best English players would play county cricket while spread across the counties were world class players. Young bowlers would have cope with the likes of Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Zaheer Abbas, Alan Border et al while the batters would have to face Marshall and Garner, Waqar and Wasim, Hadlee and Imran, Mustaq's Saqlain and Ahmed. We saw the impact a genuine international quality bowler can make in the handful of matches  Morkel played.

In the ideal world we would have just 10 counties (a slightly arbitrary number but a real reduction) funded from the centre playing 3 tournaments of 4 day, 50 over and T20. Wil never happen though and instead we have more cricket to bring in more money to fund too many ground developments and too many space filling players.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I’d just pick Trescothick for the Ashes and enjoy the memories

[Duty281]

Hildreth is the greatest English batter to never do his batting thing for England. It'll never happen now which is a great shame.

To be honest, with regards to the openers, I wouldn't mind the ECB attempting to beg, plead and cajole Cook out of his retirement, like what Capello tried with Scholes once upon a time. Failing that, Root opening isn't the worst option.

[alfie]

Hildreth is the greatest English batter to never do his batting thing for England. It'll never happen now which is a great shame.

To be honest, with regards to the openers, I wouldn't mind the ECB attempting to beg, plead and cajole Cook out of his retirement, like what Capello tried with Scholes once upon a time. Failing that, Root opening isn't the worst option.

Maybe not the worst ; but pretty bad...

Root wasn't hopeless as an opener ; but he only had one really good innings and he clearly wasn't anywhere near as effective as he is at his preferred four. I know they are making an art form of batting players out of position  - but I think Root has enough on his plate already.

As for this match the squad looks better balanced. One of Curran or a spinner (which could easily be Moeen rather than Leach) to be left out , surely ?  Dropping Foakes would be a bit pointless : if you need six bowlers you have picked the wrong ones ; and what would happen to the batting order ? Bairstow keeping and batting at three ? Or Moeen going back to that position - because that worked so well last time     His position may not be as secure as it looked after Sri Lanka : depends really how he does against pace attacks going forward , I think - but the only logical reason for displacing him would be if they had a proper top order bat to insert.

Hearing more grass in Antigua than previously seen ?  Maybe increases the chances of just one spinner (which will presumably be what the home team does , again.  You never know with England selectors though...

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Hildreth is the greatest English batter to never do his batting thing for England. It'll never happen now which is a great shame.

To be honest, with regards to the openers, I wouldn't mind the ECB attempting to beg, plead and cajole Cook out of his retirement, like what Capello tried with Scholes once upon a time. Failing that, Root opening isn't the worst option.

Maybe not the worst ; but pretty bad...

Root wasn't hopeless as an opener ; but he only had one really good innings and he clearly wasn't anywhere near as effective as he is at his preferred four. I know they are making an art form of batting players out of position  - but I think Root has enough on his plate already.

As for this match the squad looks better balanced. One of Curran or a spinner (which could easily be Moeen rather than Leach) to be left out , surely ?  Dropping Foakes would be a bit pointless : if you need six bowlers you have picked the wrong ones ; and what would happen to the batting order ? Bairstow keeping and batting at three ? Or Moeen going back to that position - because that worked so well last time     His position may not be as secure as it looked after Sri Lanka : depends really how he does against pace attacks going forward , I think - but the only logical reason for displacing him would be if they had a proper top order bat to insert.

Hearing more grass in Antigua than previously seen ?  Maybe increases the chances of just one spinner (which will presumably be what the home team does , again.  You never know with England selectors though...

After what happened last game, you'd be surprised if the West Indies board said to the groundsman "hey, make this one a real slow low pudding" - I am expecting the following XI

Burns
Denly
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Foakes
Moeen
Curran
Broad
Anderson

[LondonTiger]

Hearing more grass in Antigua than previously seen ?  Maybe increases the chances of just one spinner (which will presumably be what the home team does , again.  You never know with England selectors though...

Well after Chase's heroics do they need more than one spinner?

Has there been any news on Shannon Gabriel?

[Gooseberry]

Hildreth is the greatest English batter to never do his batting thing for England. It'll never happen now which is a great shame.

To be honest, with regards to the openers, I wouldn't mind the ECB attempting to beg, plead and cajole Cook out of his retirement, like what Capello tried with Scholes once upon a time. Failing that, Root opening isn't the worst option.

Maybe not the worst ; but pretty bad...

Root wasn't hopeless as an opener ; but he only had one really good innings and he clearly wasn't anywhere near as effective as he is at his preferred four. I know they are making an art form of batting players out of position  - but I think Root has enough on his plate already.

As for this match the squad looks better balanced. One of Curran or a spinner (which could easily be Moeen rather than Leach) to be left out , surely ?  Dropping Foakes would be a bit pointless : if you need six bowlers you have picked the wrong ones ; and what would happen to the batting order ? Bairstow keeping and batting at three ? Or Moeen going back to that position - because that worked so well last time     His position may not be as secure as it looked after Sri Lanka : depends really how he does against pace attacks going forward , I think - but the only logical reason for displacing him would be if they had a proper top order bat to insert.

Hearing more grass in Antigua than previously seen ?  Maybe increases the chances of just one spinner (which will presumably be what the home team does , again.  You never know with England selectors though...

Foakes was never really in Englands core plans and a bit of a happy accident, but yes his dropping for a bowling option would be odd and not really addressing the core problems. The more viable option I can see is if Jennings somehow retained, Denly comes in at 3 and Bairstow et al can bump down to more appropriate positions. Im far from convinced of that as a solution to the batting issues, Jennings is junk and Foakes is on a par with most of the batsmen in the squad and is the best keeper. Its really only Bayliss making open comments about the possibility of dropping Foakes that it even crossed my mind it could happen.
If it is a green pitch the 6 bowling options does become even less of a thing, they can still have 4 seamers.

[guildfordbat]

...


Foakes was never really in Englands core plans and a bit of a happy accident, but yes his dropping for a bowling option would be odd and not really addressing the core problems. The more viable option I can see is if Jennings somehow retained, Denly comes in at 3 and Bairstow et al can bump down to more appropriate positions. Im  far from convinced of that as a solution to the batting issues, Jennings is junk and Foakes is on a par with most of the batsmen in the squad and is the best keeper. Its really only Bayliss making open comments about the possibility of dropping Foakes that it even crossed my mind it could happen.
If it is a green pitch the 6 bowling options does become even less of a thing, they can still have 4 seamers.  

Foakes was modest enough or daft enough to also talk openly about the possibility of his being dropped.

Subject to no surprises with the wicket, I would largely go with Olly's line up although Leach would be in my team rather than Moeen. A remarkable omission, eh Goose?

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Denly
Burns
Bairstow
Root
Buttler
Stokes
Foakes
Woakes/Ali
Curran
Broad
Anderson

Think 5 seam options might be overkill...
Buttler to me should play 5 and Stokes 6.
I am quite tempted by Leach though. I just think Ali is getting harshly criticised from one test.

[Duty281]

Denly in for Jennings and Broad in for Rashid appear to be the confirmed changes. Bit of rain around this morning, but the rest of the test should be clear and fine.

[LondonTiger]

Root loses the toss and Holder puts us in.

[Duty281]

Jolly good. Will England bat the day? Or even two sessions?

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Root says he'd have bowled first too - suggests a more seam friendly pitch...

[Sponsored content]