The Ashes - official thread

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Seeing as this starts next week, I'll kick it off - the Aussies have selected their 17 man squad


Australia's Ashes squad: Tim Paine (c), Cameron Bancroft, Pat Cummins, Marcus Harris, Josh Hazlewood, Travis Head, Usman Khawaja, Marnus Labuschagne, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Marsh, Michael Neser, James Pattinson, Peter Siddle, Steven Smith, Mitchell Starc, Matthew Wade, David Warner.

Main takeaway there is no specialist spinner selected behind Lyon, with Neser included suggests they don't anticipate many, if any, spinning wickets...

[Nathaniel Jacobs]

Australia seemed to have finally realised you don't need pure pace in England. Siddle and Neser are your typical English type seamers. Hazlewood can also be placed in that bracket.

Obviously Starc is the wild card. Cummins is class. Pattinson is fantastic and has been sensational for Nottingham

[VTR]

Great to see the three cheats reunited!

[alfie]

Looks a bit heavy on the pace bowling . But given the closely grouped matches might make sense.
Nine batsmen if you count all rounder M Marsh. And just Smith and Labuschagne as spin back up. Carey not required as spare keeper with Wade involved.

Warner. Bancroft. Khawaja. Smith. Head. Someone . Paine. Cummins. Pattinson or Starc. Lyon. Hazlewood.

I think.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

It would be some kind of foul, foul luck if Lyon got injured, so seems a waste of time to pick another. It's not like planes don't exist

[alfie]

It would be some kind of foul, foul luck if Lyon got injured, so seems a waste of time to pick another. It's not like planes don't exist

Yeah , true : and anyway in truth if Lyon were to cop an injury there wouldn't be much point in replacing him ...there really isn't another spinner remotely worth a Test spot at the moment. Might as well pick an extra pace man and let the part timers bowl some filth to save the over rate...

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Smith's a bowler who bats a bit, isn't he?

[Duty281]

England squad for first Ashes Test: Joe Root (capt), Moeen Ali, James Anderson, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow (wk), Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Jos Buttler (wk), Sam Curran, Joe Denly, Jason Roy, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes.

Archer's in for England. So what are we looking at for the starting XI?

Burns/Roy/Denly/Root/Stokes/Buttler/Bairstow/Moeen - I think that's a fairly closed top 8 selection (for this test anyway). No Leach seems incredibly harsh!

Woakes or Curran at 9 (probably the former). Broad or Archer at 10 (probably the former). Anderson guaranteed at 11 (presuming he's fit).

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Seen a lot of people say it’s harsh on Leach like he didn’t go for 26 runs in 3 overs when doing his actual job...(and ignoring Moeen taking 45 wickets at 25 the past 12 months). A fantastic innings yes, but that was very much a once in a lifetime thing as he has said himself!

I would agree Duty that Woakes, Broad, Anderson seems the most likely bowling attack along with Stokes and Moeen. Unless they are sure it won’t spin and they pick Curran for the extra batting depth instead of Moeen

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Looks a bit heavy on the pace bowling . But given the closely grouped matches might make sense.
Nine batsmen if you count all rounder M Marsh. And just Smith and Labuschagne as spin back up.  Carey not required as spare keeper with Wade involved.

Warner. Bancroft. Khawaja. Smith. Head. Someone . Paine. Cummins. Pattinson or Starc. Lyon. Hazlewood.

I think.

The Aussie lineup for these tests fascinates me too Alfie - will post something a bit longer later with thoughts...they have so many options!

[VTR]

Yes, no issue with Leach being left out. Don't the Aussies have quite a lot of left handers? So Moeen in on that basis and good record with the ball at home most of the time. Leach will probably not even get past 20 again in his England career

[alfie]

Rather a lot of pace bowlers !  Injury fears ?  They surely aren't considering an all pace attack leaving just Denly and Root to bowl spin ?

Duty has picked the "logical" XI.  Surely is hard on Leach but his (brief!) bowling effort against Ireland didn't help his cause.  As I think Olly said some time back , the Aussies have a few left handers that Moeen might fancy bowling to. I think England would quite like Sam Curran in the side for his batting ; but how do you fit him in ?

If they were to forget about spin (unwise !) : would they bow to the publicity wave and include Archer rather than Curran ? Would make for a long tail !  I am sure Archer has a future in the Test team ; but as he is recovered very recently from a side strain and hasn't played a red ball game for quite a while I think he'd be a risk , and am a little unsure why they've included him. Would much prefer to see him play some 4 day stuff with an eye to employing him later in the series when pitches might be flatter and drier... I see some fools on BBC comments (!?!) would leave out Woakes... absolutely nuts. I would have him take the new ball with Jimmy.

Can't do much (yet) about the top order batting ...have to give these fellows a shot- and hope . But if Burns /Denly struggle they will surely look at Sibley for Lord's.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Been fascinating listening to the Sky team over the days at Lords, they do have some enthralling talkers about the game and the rain breaks give them a lot of time to express well thought opinions, backed up with analytics at times, and then honesty about when it's a hunch or a feeling.

Nasser was very good when talking about the openers and people wanting the younger lads scoring in the CC thrown in. CC runs are no guarantee of anything at international level, and frankly they are starting not to become much of an indicator of much. He kept coming back to how good Burns has looked over the last few years and then his struggles internationally.

He was one of a few who seemed to go back to James Vince, but wanting him to open. I've tired of Vince, but then you've got to say that no one in that top order is doing much better. Vince's standard lovely 30 would actually look a bug improvement.

If we can get their top order only marginally outperforming ours, it would be a huge result.

They were all talking about the need to rotate some bowlers in this series with the tight schedule. I cannot see how Starc bowls all summer in the World Cup and all summer in a test series. The Aussies I talk to about cricket don't fancy him near their best bowler, but I'd be happier not to face him.

Woakes has to have the first test, probably has to have the second, although should be wary of how slow he bowled at spells against Ireland. Can he play all the way through after leading like he did at the World Cup? Broad would be vulnerable to Archer before Woakes, not just cos Sir Chris bats, but I'm a big fan of Broad still. I would guess that the only way we see Wood come in at all is if we're desperate.

It would seem to me to be Root/Stokes vs Smith/Warner. The bowlers are hugely important and to be talked about, but the batting being so questionable means whoever stands out is gonna win the series. My feeling is that Smith will win this for Australia and has more motivation than he's ever had in his career.

[alfie]

Smith certainly has the motivation ! As does Warner... But I suspect the rest of the Australian batting might find it heavy going if the ball continues to move around. As indeed might England's , going by the Ireland match ; though I think the middle order will be more solid next week.

I think the home crowds would do well not to go heavy on the booing of the sandpaper boys . Will just serve to make those two hard nuts even more determined to make runs. And they have to get bored with that stuff sooner or later , surely ?

Think this might be a very interesting series.

[Duty281]

The first test at fortress Edgbaston is of critical importance. England win it and they have a slight chance of winning the series. Draw, or even lose it, and England don't have a prayer of coming out of the series with so much as a tie.

It's difficult to see how England are going to score enough throughout the series, even if the seamers do perform brilliantly. A top three that isn't test class. Root who's averaging around 30 since the start of the Sri Lanka tour and who looks mentally frazzled after all the drama of the past month. Stokes and Buttler haven't played any first-class cricket for six months. Moeen...the less said the better. And beyond that the likes of Woakes or Curran might chip in with the odd fifty but you can't rely on that all the time!

Australia might have their own troubles in these conditions, but they probably won't be any greater than England's travails.

I think my series prediction will be 3-1 Australia. England narrowly win the opener, but Australia complete the usual demolition job at Lord's, before powering on in Leeds and Manchester. Obviously, I hope England prove me wrong, like last summer!

6/4 that Australia win the series. 11/10 that Australia either draw or win the series. 11/1 that Australia win it 3-1. 5/1 that Smith is the series' highest overall run scorer. Evens on England not scoring 450 or more at any point in the series. All very sweet.

[JDizzle]

The top 7 picks itself for the First Test then - Burns, Roy, Root, Denly, Buttler, Stokes, Bairstow (wk). Could see England blowing it all up and throwing in Sibley, Crawley etc. if Burns and Denly both fail in this Test though.

Ali is almost a lock to play, and I would pick him - his bowling has been good in England for years. The only thing that gives me pause for thought is the number of seamers in the squad. They aren't potentially considering picking 5 seamers (including Stokes) are they? Unless it is purely because of fitness concerns over Anderson, Woakes and Archer.

I can't see them not starting Broad, and Anderson is a nailed on pick if fit. Then you are down to one of Woakes or Archer. Can't see Stone playing yet, and think Curran only comes in to consideration if you drop Moeen so you can have a left armer, and he bats well, rather than 5 right arm seamers.

Archer gets my pick over Woakes. I know Woakes bowled well in the second dig vs Ireland, but he bowled trash in the first innings, and I genuinely think Archer is something special. His FC Record is exceptional - average of 23 and strike rate of 45. Sussex don't play a four day game will August 18th so leaving him out to play red ball stuff doesn't really work.

Woakes comes back into he frame for Lords though.

[Duty281]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27269499/more-hand-wringing-top-order-england-try-persuade-joe-root-bat-no-3

Denly and Burns to open? Root at 3? Roy at 4? Any takers?

[Dolphin Ziggler]

How long do Burns and Denly get? If Sibley has the defensive and straight technique I’ve read of (and I’d have to ask the people on here their opinions on that) then does he not deserve a go?

I don’t mind them holding out on the young lad if they are thinking possible short term struggles could have long term damage.

Doing damage elsewhere by moving Root seems needless. I’ll be honest, if they do it then I’d rather they dropped Burns or Denly and out Vince in 4 or 5; I’m not sure top three has given him a fair crack

[king_carlos]

Roy would be a better option at 3 than opening. Whether Denly is opening or at 3 he is realistically there for the same reasons. He has a solid defensive technique, isn't a rabbit in headlights against the short ball and has a strong temperament.

Sibley has a reliable defensive technique but I think international attacks would find it too easy to lock off his limited scoring areas and build pressure on him. He is next cab off the rank and has earnt his chance when it comes but that is my feeling having watched him play.

I hope Crawley is given more time to develop as a batsman.

It's a shame that Nick Browne has lost the form of previous seasons over the last two summers. His first class record is better than most tried and had he kept scoring this summer as he has previously then he'd be a shoe in given the malaise at the top of the order.

If changes were being made at 3 with Roy still opening then it's worth noting that Dawid Malan is in very good form.

[king_carlos]

It's a shame the Lions side against Australia A went a bit rogue with Foakes at 3, Bracey and Crawley getting early call-ups, Hains included but batting down at 6.

1.Sibley
2.Browne
3.Ballance
4.Malan
5.Northeast
6.Foakes (wk)
7.S Curran
8.Gregory (c)
9.Roland-Jones
10.Leach
11.Porter

Something like that would have been a better look at options who could plug gaps in the batting line-up starting in that first Ashes test.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Looks a bit heavy on the pace bowling . But given the closely grouped matches might make sense.
Nine batsmen if you count all rounder M Marsh. And just Smith and Labuschagne as spin back up.  Carey not required as spare keeper with Wade involved.

Warner. Bancroft. Khawaja. Smith. Head. Someone . Paine. Cummins. Pattinson or Starc. Lyon. Hazlewood.

I think.

The Aussie lineup for these tests fascinates me too Alfie - will post something a bit longer later with thoughts...they have so many options!

So a bit more on the Aussies - their main issue really is that number 6 slot, and thus the balance of the side, along with really having one too many good seamers (what an issue to have!).

If you go with a lineup of Starc, Cummins, Lyon and Hazlewood bowling wise, you really have to go Mitch Marsh at 6, for the extra overs as a seamer if needed. But I'd really say Labuschagne is better for that role, especially when you consider that he has been doing well for Glamorgan with the bat this year, so provides a lot of extra depth. If you go Head, Marsh, Paine as your 5-7, that really does put a lot of pressure on the top 4 to score the majority of the runs.

If you go Labuschagne at 6, you can then probably play Pattinson, Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood as a pace bowling quartet, especially on the grounds/wickets that look like they'll seam loads, and get through spin overs of Labuschagne/Head/Smith. Might be harsh on Lyon, but that pace quartet is scary, and if conditions suit it makes sense to me...!

The real key for the Aussies is how the top four goes - if Anderson/Broad/Woakes can get into the likes of Smith, Head etc with the new ball and get into that Aussie middle order early, then I'd fancy us to rattle through them quickly in English conditions (Cummins, Starc etc can hold a bat, but not in the same class as a Woakes/Curran etc with the willow). But if Warner/Bancroft/Khawaja can get through the new ball period, then the likes of Head/Marsh (if he plays) are very dangerous players at 5/6, as they can score quickly...

Finally - seeing a lot of rumours that Starc will miss out for the 1st test. Must admit that would surprise me, I know Pattinson has been in form, but I'd still go with Starc to begin the series, unless he really is struggling with the workload of the past few months.

[robbo277]

Seen a lot of people say it’s harsh on Leach like he didn’t go for 26 runs in 3 overs when doing his actual job...(and ignoring Moeen taking 45 wickets at 25 the past 12 months). A fantastic innings yes, but that was very much a once in a lifetime thing as he has said himself!

I would agree Duty that Woakes, Broad, Anderson seems the most likely bowling attack along with Stokes and Moeen. Unless they are sure it won’t spin and they pick Curran for the extra batting depth instead of Moeen

I'm not sure 5 seamers is ever that wise an idea. If the pitch is really green then we should be able to bowl them out with 4. If it isn't then it's always better to have a change-up option.

I'd say Moeen starts the first test, would be happy to see him come in at 9 and think it would be relatively fair if no consideration was given to his batting in selection. But in pure bowling terms he's probably just ahead as our best spinner. Leach didn't do anything special against Ireland (although he didn't really get much of a chance) and Australia have a few left handers he can try and get at.

For the main seam bowlers, I'd have Woakes in for the first two tests. He's only played one test at his home ground of Birmingham and took 5-132, but he should know the ground well. At Lords he has that ridiculous average - still under 10 I think after taking 6-51 across the match. He struggled in the last Ashes away series and in New Zealand, but at home he's been one of our best bowlers of the last few years and averages under 22 at home across his entire career. I'd keep assessing his workload and possibly rest him for the third test, but I'd like to see him in for the first two if he can make it.

I wouldn't be too surprised if they went with Anderson and Archer as the other bowlers. The only issue would be whether they were both fit, because you don't want to go in with two fast bowlers you are unsure about. I guess if they had question marks about both of them but thought they'd both be okay, they could circle back and replace Moeen with Sam Curran to give 3 fit seamers + 2 half fit and 2 part time spinners making up their "5-man" attack. It would just feel like a risk.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

How long do Burns and Denly get? If Sibley has the defensive and straight technique I’ve read of (and I’d have to ask the people on here their opinions on that) then does he not deserve a go?

I don’t mind them holding out on the young lad if they are thinking possible short term struggles could have long term damage.

Doing damage elsewhere by moving Root seems needless. I’ll be honest, if they do it then I’d rather they dropped Burns or Denly and out Vince in 4 or 5; I’m not sure top three has given him a fair crack

I think Burns is already on a short leash, if he has a similar test at Edgbaston as what he had against Ireland, I don't think he makes the 2nd test. Denly probably gets a bit longer, imo he's shown a tad more than Burns and was unluckier against Ireland.
I have the same reservations about Sibley as others have voiced - undoubtedly he has earnt his shot, and who knows, but I am not sure his style will hold up against the best in the world where you get even less deliveries to score off. Also when he was at Surrey, I thought he was a massive LBW candidate...not sure if he has fixed that, but just something to keep an eye on if he does play.

And I totally agree on not moving Root. I have no idea why they want to do it, the stats prove he is much better at 4, than he is at 3, and why would you want to expose him against a newer ball, earlier? You don't see any similar noises coming out of the Aussie camp about moving Smith from 4 (and the same last summer with Kohli at 4)...we'd all love it if he was moved upto 3 as it'd mean there was a much increased chance of him coming in against Anderson and co with the new Dukes.

Ultimately for England to win this series, the middle order of Root, Buttler, Stokes and Bairstow is going to have to do most of the run scoring, with helpful runs from the likes of Woakes/Curran/Ali etc down the order. Anything the top 3 gets is essentially a bonus at this stage.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

https://www.wisden.com/stories/stats-analysis/ben-stokes-cricviz

Interesting article here from the cricviz guys, doubt it would ever happen but some very interesting stats and figures here which make a good case for Stokes at #3

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12173/11771986/moeen-alis-recent-bowling-record-shows-why-jack-leach-will-have-to-wait-for-ashes-chance

And an article pointing out what people on here have been saying re: Moeen's bowling in recent times...

[Pal Joey]

https://www.wisden.com/stories/stats-analysis/ben-stokes-cricviz

Interesting article here from the cricviz guys, doubt it would ever happen but some very interesting stats and figures here which make a good case for Stokes at #3

Why not? But as you say Olly... the logic looks and sounds good but would be seen as probably too brave a move.

It would ease the log-jam at 6-7 down the order and give him more of a chance to score some big totals... as well as help build an innings.
As the article says, there's no doubting he has the technique to bat higher up... he's a super fit stayer and a proven leader in a time of crisis (or not).

Which leaves the mental bit. I'm quite sure he could apply himself to adapt to a more constructive type role and distance himself from our current perception of him being the dashing knight saving the day as the proverbial "finisher'.


Guys, on the subject of selections...

Start getting your "two batsmen, two bowlers and winner of 1st Test" thoughts together.

Also we'll do 1) the toss and 2) captain's decision for each Test.

I know the teams aren't finalised but there are enough players who are pretty much cemented in who will score the runs, take the wickets and catches.

Don't post them up on here. I'll set up a new thread shortly.  

[Soul Requiem]

Stokes showed during the world cup on numerous occasions that he has the technique and temperament to get selected purely as a batsmen, he just needs to translate that into the test arena, he's showed glimpses but more than anyone has failed to reach his full potential. I do like the idea of him at three, very sound defence, full array of shots and most importantly hates getting out when his mind is right, his average of 33.89 doesn't do him justice at all.

[Nathaniel Jacobs]

Australia seem set to have a fast bowling trio of Pattinson, Cummins and Siddle for Birmingham. According to the Australian media Langer and Paine want more control which naturally leaves Starc in the shadows. Hazlewood is being labelled as fifth choice

[robbo277]

So if you put Olly's two articles together, get Stokes in at 3 and tell him to focus on his batting and get Moeen in at 9 and tell him to focus on his bowling? Turn 2 all rounders gunning for the 6/7 spots in the team into two specialists who can offer a bit of the other discipline and open a spot for another lower-order batsman that we're apparently blessed with?

The one thing I'd say about Moeen is his economy feels high (3.6 vs 3 for someone like Lyon). I think he'd need to bring a bit more control if we were going to ask Stokes to bat at 3 and bowl less.

[Duty281]

Stokes averages a whopping 47.5 when batting in the first match innings of test matches, compared to 22 in the second, 33 in the third and 26 in the fourth.

Want the best out of Stokes? Bat first.

[alfie]

Lots of room for speculation ...

Aussies first.  Warner Bancroft Khawaja Smith locked in if fit , I think. I'd expected Head to be five ; but there is a push for Wade. Marsh probably six , with Paine and three quicks plus Lyon ( no way they are leaving him out , Olly !). Think it looks like Cummins Pattinson Hazlewood at the moment (Starc seems to be out of favor unless this is a smoke screen ) and Siddle an outside chance. If Khawaja isn't fit Labuschagne might bat at three...don't think Smith is any keener than Root to bat there. Of course that could all be wrong ! To be honest I'm guessing and I think most of the journalists are too.

England looks more settled 1-7 , and surely Woakes Anderson and Broad will play with Moeen as the spinner ? I see Robbo has Archer in for Broad ; and this would probably be popular with some media who seemingly can't wait to be "out with the old , in with the new " - but I'd have thought at least at the start of the series they'd prefer to go with a man with 400 plus Test wickets who has just come back into the Test scene with seven wickets in a match - albeit against Ireland.

The Stokes at three theory is interesting . He does look to have the technical ability - and , lately , the patience , to make this feasible . But if he's to remain an all rounder - given his high octane bowling style - would this not be a bit of an overload ? If he moved to three you'd think it might lead to his bowling becoming very limited.  So another all rounder steps into number six ?  Something like :
Burns.Roy.Stokes.Root.Buttler.Bairstow.S.Curran.Woakes.Moeen.
Broad. Anderson....you can vary some of those choices to taste ; but you end up with five pace bowlers which seems excessive.(In fact if you swap Denly in for Burns virtually the whole team can bowl except the wicket keepers )
I know the current management loves all rounders but I'd still prefer they at least try to find/ develop some proper top order bats...

I do think Stokes might possibly go to three (if no one has cemented a spot there ) on the next Asian tour , where a different team balance may be required. But I wouldn't be considering it now.

[king_carlos]

Stokes averages a whopping 47.5 when batting in the first match innings of test matches, compared to 22 in the second, 33 in the third and 26 in the fourth.

Want the best out of Stokes? Bat first.

Suggests that he fatigues as the match goes on which makes sense as an all rounder. Using his bowling in shorter bursts is one option. The other would be moving him from the catching positions which take a lot more of a mental toll and allow him to field the boundary. Then you lose on of the best fielders in the world from the catching positions though.

I'd ere on the side of keeping our keeper at 7 and all rounder in the lower middle order.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I can't help but really, really want Broad to absolutely destroy them.

[Pal Joey]

I can't help but really, really want Broad to absolutely destroy them.

I preferred your 22,222nd post, Flipper. But it's good to see you getting into the spirit of things!

I don't need to water your plants... it's raining here and down your way.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I can't help but really, really want Broad to absolutely destroy them.

I preferred your 22,222nd post, Flipper.  But it's good to see you getting into the spirit of things!

I don't need to water your plants... it's raining here and down your way.

If I'd have seen I'd hit such a magical number, I might have retired. Or at least I'd have saved it for the CC.

My sister is out in Sydney at the moment, she was livid to be missing peak summer here and go to "cold" Sydney, although she was more annoyed about Melbourne and Auckland ahead of her!

[Pal Joey]

I can't help but really, really want Broad to absolutely destroy them.

I preferred your 22,222nd post, Flipper.  But it's good to see you getting into the spirit of things!

I don't need to water your plants... it's raining here and down your way.

If I'd have seen I'd hit such a magical number, I might have retired. Or at least I'd have saved it for the CC.

My sister is out in Sydney at the moment, she was livid to be missing peak summer here and go to "cold" Sydney, although she was more annoyed about Melbourne and Auckland ahead of her!

Not too bad here... a sunny 21 degrees today, 22 again next week... and still a month of winter to go. Perfect days without much humidity.

[robbo277]

Stokes averages a whopping 47.5 when batting in the first match innings of test matches, compared to 22 in the second, 33 in the third and 26 in the fourth.

Want the best out of Stokes? Bat first.

His first innings average is helped in no small part by his 258 - which was in the first innings of the match. Of his 6 tons though, 4 of them have come in the first innings of a match.

It's also worth noting that the toss doesn't matter to Stokes. If we win the toss and bat (you'd assume a good pitch) he averages 42 in the game. If we lose the toss and get sent in (presumably a bowler friendly wicket) he averages 39 in the game. If we lose the toss and field he averages 25, even though it's probably a good pitch. If we win the toss and field (again, a more bowler friendly wicket), he averages 18.

If you class the pitch as "batting" or "bowling" based on the toss, Stokes is still markedly better batting first (42 vs 25 on batting pitches, 39 vs 18 on bowling pitches).

Looking at his bowling stats, in 20 innings bowling first innings of the game he's bowled 382 overs. That's an average of 19 overs a game. The article suggests his bowling is having an impact on his batting, so if we could reduce that 19 overs, would we see better batting in the second innings? In the second of a match, he's bowled 387 overs but over 28 innings (under 14 per innings), so he averages fewer bowling overs, and his batting average increases. His averages 13 overs per innings in the third innings of a game as well, so he never bowls as much as in the first innings of a test and never bats so badly as in the second.

Stokes has never hit a 100 in the second innings of a game, but he has made 5 half centuries. I looked at the stats on these games to see how many overs Stokes was bowling. In 4 of those games Stokes bowled between 17-20 overs (around his average for that innings) but the games were high scorers (over 600 runs across the first two innings combined and 400+ scores in 3 of them), suggesting easier batting tracks - hence why he managed to hit the runs. The 50 he scored in a low scoring game he bowled the fewest overs out of the 5 games (down at 14.3) and was probably pretty buoyed by the 6-22 he'd taken.

There does seem to be a bit of statistical evidence to suggest that Stokes struggles to bat after he bowls, similar to Bairstow's struggles with the bat after he's taken the gloves. Unless we just ensure we can bat first every match, we can either accept this as part of what Stokes offers or look to reduce his bowling workload.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Reports that Root will play three. Suggestions it’s Denly at 4.

Not a fan

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Reports that Root will play three. Suggestions it’s Denly at 4.

Not a fan

This would be absolutely ludicrous in my eyes. Completely insane

[Soul Requiem]

Burns
Denly
Roy
Root
Stokes

That makes the most sense to me, Denly at 4 goes against the very reason he was brought into the side, using his apparently sound defence to help see off the new ball.

[alfie]

I agree not much point in Denly batting after Root as he's primarily there as a "third opener"...sort of insurance. Leave the skipper where he is comfortable.

I still prefer Roy opening though , risky as he might be : if he does come off he will rattle the bowlers ; whereas Burns/Denly (if by some miracle they stay in together) might reach 60/0 by lunch ...

[Gooseberry]

Cricinfo reporting the side as

Burns
Roy
Root
Denly
Stokes
Buttler
Bairstow
Moeen
Woakes
Broad
Anderson


Hmmm.

[VTR]

Denly at 4 is ridiculous. Probably a better option would be Denly to open with Roy, then get someone else in at 4. Malan? In decent form at the moment. I don't care for left hand/right hand openers if one of them is the out of form and awful looking Burns.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/29/joe-root-offers-bat-no-3-solve-englands-top-order-batting-crisis/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Nick Hoult delves deeper into it here...and he even says they see Roy as a middle order player long term - so why is he opening now?

And don't even get me started on Denly at 4...so by Root moving upto 3 they've decided he isn't good enough for 3, but he is suddenly good enough for 4 - right...

This is complete nonsense all round I am afraid. Ultimately for as successful he has been with the ODI team, Bayliss has been as bad for the Test side.

[Duty281]

Classic, peak England. Shuffling their best player out of his best position just to accommodate inferior ones - like playing Scholes in left midfield. I can see the logic in having Roy in the middle order, but keeping him at opener for now achieves what exactly? Destroys his confidence?

It would be very risky to play Archer given the recurrent nature of the injury he's suffering from, but it could be difficult to slot him in at Lord's if Broad bowls well in Birmingham, as Woakes and Anderson are surely undroppable for the second test.

[Nathaniel Jacobs]

If Root was going to bat 3, and the management thinking of Roy as a middle order player - why didn’t Sibley get a chance against Ireland? The boy has been consistently scoring runs and hundreds. No disrespect to Denly but he’s average at best.

It’s also a shame Joe Clarke’s fallen away as he’s a marvellous talent

[LondonTiger]

It’s also a shame Joe Clarke’s fallen away as he’s a marvellous talent

Currently banned from England selection any way.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I guess the logic could be that he's basically playing the new ball anyway, so maybe Denly will be better at 4 than he is at 3 and it adds runs that way. Plus, if it goes wrong and they've dropped Denly, bringing him back a test later is no good for him.

[Gooseberry]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/29/joe-root-offers-bat-no-3-solve-englands-top-order-batting-crisis/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Nick Hoult delves deeper into it here...and he even says they see Roy as a middle order player long term - so why is he opening now?

And don't even get me started on Denly at 4...so by Root moving upto 3 they've decided he isn't good enough for 3, but he is suddenly good enough for 4 - right...

This is complete nonsense all round I am afraid. Ultimately for as successful he has been with the ODI team, Bayliss has been as bad for the Test side.

Also Ed Smith has a hand in this. 

But it does seem classic lack of joined up or consistent thinking. Theres lots of pet theories and experiments but little consistency or backing of players. 
The suggested team seems even stranger in light of them supposedly being quite taken by Sibley and Crawely as a possible future pairing opening pair. Theres obviously someone in the mix who loves Denly despite him being a pretty average cricketer and not even being able to hold the ODI reserve spot ahead of Liam flipping Dawson. 

Root at 3 I have previously argued in favour of, but it was tried and it failed. they quickly changed back and chucked everyone else under that bus. Now they pick a side with a "proper" number 3 and move him to 4, but leave the new KP as an opener despite his debut being a disaster and his long term future being in that role. This sort of thing has been the hallmark of the Bayliss era for sure. 

That said against Aus I can see some logic in having Roy up at the top. His style could see a lot of cheap runs from the quicks that wouldnt come from the 75-80mph club bowling he faced from Ireland. Hes shown in the world cup he can take on the express pace men even when there is some movement. 

I'm far from convinced by this team but you could have Wally Hammond, WG Grace and a tin of custard opening for England and they'd still make a mess of it. So they may as well draw names out of a hat. 


The bowling too lacks variety. If Curran does miss out he could feel hard done by as the only left arm option, and Woakes apparent fatigue. Later in the series Id expect to see Archer feature, but thats for is debatable and maybe contingent on how this group fair. It could be sold as resting Broad or Woakes to get him in, or  a flare up of Andersons injury would make it an easy decision. 

At Edgbaston they should be able to get away with a typical England mid paced attack and Moeen, but if Lords is a flat deck as per usual someones like Archer could offer a bigger threat. 

Moeen ahead of Leach. I wish they'd stop trying to kid themselves this guy should bat in the top 7/8  (or better maybe coach him back into some form?). But i do think hes worth the place based on his home test record rather than his apparent ability or consistency. Leachs performance with the bat is as relevant to his selection for these test as Currans has been...not very. if hes going to push moeen out it needs to be with bowling returns not opening the batting against second rate bowlers (although if Burns fails....) .

Aus have had their own selection merry go round too of course, but Englands seems to be out of control currently.

[Gooseberry]

I guess the logic could be that he's basically playing the new ball anyway, so maybe Denly will be better at 4 than he is at 3 and it adds runs that way. Plus, if it goes wrong and they've dropped Denly, bringing him back a test later is no good for him.

If they decide they dont want Burns/Roy at 1-2 why not call up Sibley who isnt yet proven not to be good enough.  Denly doesnt even open for his county, and doesnt have the same outrageous talent and confidence that Roys shown the last year or so. Other than having him in as a part time bowling option I struggle to see what hes bringing to the party at all. 

Moving Root up though really seems to be about having a more experienced test player in the top 3 who's feeling less pressure for his place than it does about having batsmen in their comfort zones.

[Sponsored content]