The Ashes - official thread

[Gooseberry]

First topic message reminder :

SR that's not how mental fatigue works.
Also Stokes had a long break last year ...which he came back from err ...mentaly fatigued. Buttler and Bairstow haven't had that luxury.

But anyway it's not a case of "attitude" , ask Trott and Trescothick.

[Gooseberry]

Main trouble is this is a very weak England batting line-up. I'm not sure I can remember a weaker one.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16653/scorecard/63511/england-vs-australia-5th-test-australia-tour-of-england-scotland-netherlands-and-denmark-1989

They started that series with more of the big name batsmen but they did just as badly. England averaged 27 per wicket on some very batting friendly wickets. Australias batsmen averaged 60 over the series. that wasnt even when Aus were at their peak, it was just a rank awful England side bereft of leadership and ability in all disciplines (although they did have the last proper keeper England ever picked) and a few pensioners busy embarrassing themselves. 


I think we can safely say this isnt the worst batting (or bowling and certainly not fielding) side England have put out. It wasnt the batting that was the reason England got humped in the last test, it was the bowlers going AWOL for periods in the first innings and the entirety of the second and getting injured. 

As for Denly I honestly think hes there at all because they dont have anyone else to swap in for him that they trust to do better. Which sums up the poverty of county cricket

[Soul Requiem]

You're comparing two games as if they're the same, Edgbaston was a spinners paradise from the second day onwards, Lyon was poor in the first innings and Ali poor in the second, the New Zealand game was offering something to the seamers for the first days and started to take slow spin on the fifth day. Not at all similar.

[Gooseberry]

It might give an idea of what the pitch is like if it suits a preconceived idea but it was a game dominated by seamers where Sodhi barely bowled so a bit disingenuous to suggest it was a spinners pitch when it was not.

Possibly to do with the fact that NZ were behind the game, he got smacked out the attack in the first innings and was expensive in the second innings as well? Plus the seamers were going well. All his second innings overs would have been on Day 3/4 rather than Day 4/5 that England and Leach bowled on.

In many ways, that's a parallel to the test just played. The team batting first nullified the home spinner in the third innings and got well ahead of the game. The difference is Lyon tore through England to win the game, Leach didn't tear through New Zealand. In fact, 2 wickets in 32 overs is pretty poor going.

This doesn't mean that Leach is worse than Ali, but it also doesn't mean his selection is a no-brainer.

Well to me it is when your options are continuing with Moeen regardless of how awful he gets, playing 5 seamers including Sam Currans medium pace on a flat wicket, going into the match with 4 bowlers and a batsman worse than Denly, mentioning Liam Dawson again, or picking your best spinner.

[Gooseberry]

You're comparing two games as if they're the same, Edgbaston was a spinners paradise from the second day onwards, Lyon was poor in the first innings and Ali poor in the second, the New Zealand game was offering something to the seamers for the first days and started to take slow spin on the fifth day. Not at all similar.

I guess England would pick Lyon if they could though.

[Gooseberry]

I guess in all this we shouldnt forget that everyone was taking pot shots at Aus for not picking Starc till they got distracted by Smiths second century. They will have their own selection questions, especially if it doesn't look like a results wicket. 
Cummins showed a lot of endurance to front up the way he did after a heavy load in the first innings and was perhaps fortunate that the English batting had given up on the game after seeing the bowling murdered and strong position they'd fought so hard for blow away( also worth noting in regard to overhyping Lyon #scoreboardpressure). Its hard to see how they can sustain getting 30+ overs in an innings from their quicks in a 4 man attack through the series without breaking them, especially if theres less in the pitch for Lyon. Pattinson certainly seemed to have suffered toward the end from being overbowled in the test. 
Despite taking 20 wickets at Edgbaston I feel they really will have to find a better fifth bowling option. Making that Starc would give them a fearsome pace rotation, but leave a pretty absurd tail. The all rounders are both pretty rubbish.


Their opening pair score 25 between them in the game. There wont be a change yet but its a weakness and there must be pressure on Bancroft

[compelling and rich]

If we went in with a 5 man seam attack (Archer, Broad, Woakes, Sam Curran and Stokes), we would very likely end up some way behind the over rate even with a few overs of slow stuff from Root and Denly.

I don't know but wonder if there might then be repercussions for the third test. Anyone know? We certainly wouldn't want Root banned for a test.

pretty sure the rules have changed on slow over rates now. teams can get punished by points deductions in the new test championship thingy. also less concentration on just the captain for slow over rates, all players to be held equally responsible

[sirfredperry]

G'berry. Yeah, that 1989 line-up looks fairly lame. But it did include Atherton (first Test I think), Robin Smith and Gower. (Botham was injured).

What we have now is a team with only one established batting specialist - Root.

[Duty281]

And Root is the last example of a specialist batsman coming into the England test side and establishing a consistent place in the team. He made his debut nearly seven years ago! A damning indictment on the state of the county game.

Speaking of counties, Australia had a day out at Worcestershire today. Travis Head made an unbeaten ton, Khawaja got a 50. Hazlewood 2 wickets in no time at all and Starc got 1 but went for a few runs along the way.

[Gooseberry]

G'berry. Yeah, that 1989 line-up looks fairly lame. But it did include Atherton (first Test I think), Robin Smith and Gower. (Botham was injured).

What we have now is a team with only one established batting specialist - Root.  

That team had two, and Gower was in the worst extended run of form in his career.
Looking through the side the openers were both poor, career averages of 15 and 26. Atherton was on debut and never really went on to be anything special...a career average of 37 is the level we slate this current teams all rounders for maintaining. Hes only got a big reputation because he held the captaincy through an abysmal era where opening partners were every bit in as short supply as they are now. And he was a cheat.
Smith was the real shining light, a class act in an awful era for England. Perhaps the Root of his day? For some reason hes rather the forgotten star on "English" cricket to me. They had him on TMS not long back talking about his fight against depression and how hes only recently rebuilt his life, he sounded very meek and shaky which is in complete contrast to the tough fighter he was as a cricketer.
Gower at 5 another decent test class bat, perhaps affected by the captaincy.

Russel at 6 was the last of the real specialist keepers and would bat at 10 in the current England side. Hemmings at 7 was what passed for an all rounder in those days, again would bat 10 for England now. Botham was well past it by this point, his last half century was in 1987 and last century in 86. From this series onwards he rarely made double figures. Even then I assume it was the injury that kept him batting below Fraser he was an absolute bunny, as were Cook ( not that one) and Malcom. All 3 of those are far worse batsmen than Anderson and the late career Broad.

If we flip Denly to his proper place at 3 and root to 4 Id say Englands current top 3 is the match of that (which isnt saying much). 4/5 I will give a nod to that side although I reckon Stokes will match Gowers aggregate runs in this series and Root is as good a bat as either of the 89 class. If we assume Buttler Bairstow Woakes  and 6/7/8 the gulf in batting is enormous. Archer and Broad Leach as the tail again is a goo 10 runs a player better.

Whilst this team might lack proven and established batsmen its still not as awful as that side by any stretch. 5 of them got dropped for the next game.

I guess what we have now is a lot of average bats, but a lack of good batsmen. And that does go to Dutys point, England just havent produced ones who can step up to test cricket and stick a place above these one day keepers and all rounders. Roys not looking to smart in that regard, Burns has hopefully turned a corner, but Denly I just dont think will ever be good enough. Behind them only Sibley is genuinely knocking the door down to be picked.
Theres absolutely an issue in county cricket. The way the game is played and the results focus. The relative financial importance to counties of one day players, and the wages that keeper batsmen and all rounders can command. The depth of quality bowling to face is sorely lacking, and top class foreign stars arent coming as much as they used to to help drive up the level of play. The best England players are hardly ever around for domestic cricket either due to the ever expanding international calendar and the T20 mercenary leagues. The England set up also seems to be really bad at helping to nurture those coming through the Lions to lift them up as they come into tests and also in helping those who drop out the side get back in. Hameed was an extreme example and that seems to be driven by injury as much as anything, but theres very few who have been able to fight their way back into the side (Jennings a bad example who booked the trend) once dropped. Thats quite worrying in itself, can these players not work on their game and improve? are they all James Vince?
There needs to be more focused batting camps in the way they had a fast bowler programme a few years back which is finally starting to reap dividends ( well OK they just straight poached Archer whos better than the rest but there are actually a few decent pace options behind him like Stone and Curran). It was very disappointing to see the recent Lions tour dominated bay batsmen keepers and limited over specialists as always, but there is a "future opening pair" identified now in Crawley and Sibley. Whats being done to help them push their games on? Im not aware of any additional coaching or support being offered by the England set up. Do they check in with their county coaching staff? Do they have mentors (Cook?)
The ECB do make piecemeal changes but they are a decade behind in improving the production line of test talent. they cant just leave it up to the counties, theres little in it for them to pay long format specialists.
Chances are with so many folk looking to be rested over the winter we will see a much more raw and potentially worse England batting line up than this one.

Happy days!

[guildfordbat]

If we went in with a 5 man seam attack (Archer, Broad, Woakes, Sam Curran and Stokes), we would very likely end up some way behind the over rate even with a few overs of slow stuff from Root and Denly.

I don't know but wonder if there might then be repercussions for the third test. Anyone know? We certainly wouldn't want Root banned for a test.

pretty sure the rules have changed on slow over rates now. teams can get punished by points deductions in the new test championship thingy. also less concentration on just the captain for slow over rates, all players to be held equally responsible

Thanks, Compelling. That seems sound.

[sirfredperry]

Perhaps, with England selection and performance, we were spoiled in the period 2000 to around 2014/15.

Not only were the guys with Test match temperament spotted and chosen; they did well.

The main problem before then was that players chosen on county form did not so much fail to show that form in the Test arena, but performed well below that standard.

Take England v South Africa in the 1990s when SA came back into Test cricket. They had some great bowling, but their batting was very ordinary, at least on paper. Yet their players consistently played above themselves at Test level.

There was no way that their batsman were classier than, say, Hick and Ramprakash, but those two - for any number of reasons - did not translate their excellent county form into Test stats.

Tresco and Vaughan, conversely, performed much better in Tests than at county level. Later, the likes of Strauss, Bell (eventually), Pietersen, Prior, Trott and Cook took to Test cricket very quickly.

Now, we've effectively gone back to the bad old days. We're not sure who's Test class and who isn't. People are in and out of the side and the selector(s) have lost the knack of recognising just who will prosper at Test level and who should be persevered with.

[Gooseberry]

Ive added a big chunk to my previous post SFP but yes there does seem to be a cycle. England were a good side for much of the 80s and went into that 89 Ashes AS FAVOURITES. It was just the start of the Aussies becoming an absolute dominant force in world cricket after some lean years themselves. As you say in the early 2000s things picked up pretty rapidly and over a decade of England being routinely awful. We seem to be slipping back that way again sadly.
I guess the difference for me is that there were a number of pretty good players (like Stewart) around, but absolutely no depth and some very poor ones making up squads. Not dismilar to Australia now. England currently just have a lot of average batsmen and a Root.

The selection merry go round is nothing like what it was (go look at that 89 Ashes series, they got through a lot of players), its only really Mo who seems to drop in and out of the side. Other changes are largely injury or tour condition driven. But one thing that really stands out as worrying for me is actually that dropped batsmen are not making it back into the side as improved players, they are just sliding into county obscurity and mediocrity.

Remember when Root got dropped? It sorted him out.

[sirfredperry]

Have seen your add-on piece now, G'berry. Thanks for that.
Yes, Atherton only averaged 37 in Tests. But it might be worth taking into account the fact that England insisted, at a time of weakness, to have not just five but SIX Tests against the powerful Aussies and Windies.

It seemed we'd have as few Tests as possible against the weaker sides. Consequently Atherton was often up against the very best bowlers. England would also bend over backwards to give tourists a goodly number of warm-up matches before the Tests begun - something that doesn't happen now.

Talking of dropped batsmen improving. Is it worth going back to Malan? He's made a stack of runs this season, admittedly in Division Two. Selectors seem to think he's better suited for overseas wickets.

[Gooseberry]

Have seen your add-on piece now, G'berry. Thanks for that.
Yes, Atherton only averaged 37 in Tests. But it might be worth taking into account the fact that England insisted, at a time of weakness, to have not just five but SIX Tests against the powerful Aussies and Windies.

It seemed we'd have as few Tests as possible against the weaker sides. Consequently Atherton was often up against the very best bowlers. England would also bend over backwards to give tourists a goodly number of warm-up matches before the Tests begun - something that doesn't happen now.

Talking of dropped batsmen improving. Is it worth going back to Malan? He's made a stack of runs this season, admittedly in Division Two. Selectors seem to think he's better suited for overseas wickets.

You say that but then they had tests against Zimbabwe ( and lost!) in the schedule, and Sri Lanka who were utterly awful. It has always been the case that theyve tended to play the big nations more often. All that aside though the general point does remain, Atherton was the best opener England had at the time, that in itself doesn't make him a great. We would settle for that now, someone who can do a competent job, a new Cook would be grand (remember when he nearly got dropped for Carberry because he couldn't play the moving ball? Oh the heady days of high expectation levels!) but someone who could sustain and average of 35 as an opener would be a massive leap forward. 

Malan seems to be getting a bit of traction on the board. 15 tests average 27, he would need to come back better to be the solution. Has anything been done to help him fix his game? Not that I'm aware of, hes scored a few good runs in the build up to the ashes but prior to that wasnt doing much at county level to put his hand up. 
 The CC just isnt producing players ready for the intensity of quality bowling and competition you get at this level. Jennings seems to have been utterly ruined by his time with England, averaging 26 in the D2 of the CC this year. Confidence shot it seems. Denly did what was asked of him when dropped from teh world cup squad and scored a bunch of runs in D1, but that hasnt translated to being test ready. 

The one hope for the middle order is Ollie Pope back playing. His first England experience was a bit of a car crash but hes young enough to come back better prepared. What are England doing to help? Is the County Champs enough to drive players to the standards required? It doesnt seem to be.

[VTR]

Athers had a truly shocking record vs Australia. Didn't he only make one Ashes century? And he played a lot of Tests vs them. Yes, they were generally very good versions of Australia but it used to be embarrassing how easily Mcgrath got him out. Average of 37 wasn't bad in his era, but the subsequent Tresco, Vaughan, Strauss and Cook were all miles better. What we'd give for a peak version of any of those now.

[Gooseberry]

The irony of folk calling for Cook to be dropped this time last year should never be over estimated.

[Gooseberry]

Meanwhile Australia are rather strangely playing a warm up for the second test in Worcestershire. And dominating so far.

[Soul Requiem]

The 90's was a dire time for all;

Alec Stewart was for a fair time our best batsmen but he was ruined by being burdened with the captaincy, keeping duties and being asked to open, all big mistakes by the selectors, trying to solve the issue of Russells batting created an even bigger problem that was never really resolved.

The complete mismanagement of the best county players in Hick, Ramprakash and Crawley, all in and out of the team without ever nailing down a spot, partly due to them not being able to replicate the form that got them selected but there was a definite group of untouchables like Atherton and Hussain.

The lower orders inability to hang around with Thorpe, one in six innings he ended up stranded and as such his average and overall stats suffered, he was a far better player than his 44.66 average would suggest, he'd get into any England team since the days of Barrington.

[Duty281]

Speaking of counties, Australia had a day out at Worcestershire today. Travis Head made an unbeaten ton, Khawaja got a 50. Hazlewood 2 wickets in no time at all and Starc got 1 but went for a few runs along the way.

Hazlewood up to 3/22 now and reminding the selectors of his merits.

[Duty281]

Athers had a truly shocking record vs Australia. Didn't he only make one Ashes century? And he played a lot of Tests vs them. Yes, they were generally very good versions of Australia but it used to be embarrassing how easily Mcgrath got him out. Average of 37 wasn't bad in his era, but the subsequent Tresco, Vaughan, Strauss and Cook were all miles better. What we'd give for a peak version of any of those now.

Yes, just the one century against Australia. Australia and the Windies - his two most common opponents - really wrecked his average.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8579.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

[Gooseberry]

And Thorpe was another who ended his career a broken alcoholic. These things only really started to get talked about with Trescothick, but its pretty clear theres been a constant grind of players going through mental breakdown from the tour cycle and separation form a stable home life. 
You look at this side now and chaps like Bairstow who just isn't performing to his potential currently. Buttlers been mentioned as feeling frazzled and mentally exhausted after the world cup and all the pressure that was on England, very different to the version that got a test recall last summer and shut a lot of us doubters up. Roots batting line a man who's feeling the pressure form all sides. Moeen we know is a constant fruitcake regardless of anything else. 

I guess theres a certain level of self created pressure in play too, the longer this collective batting slump goes on the more stress and pressure there is when things start to go badly. Once in a series is a bad day. But when its once or twice a game it becomes A THING.

There are some players out of their depth in the test side, as certainly was the case for the Adam Holliakes of the 90s. To a large extent thats beyond anyones direct control, you can only select from players who exist. But theres also a number of players who have shown they can score runs at test level under performing. Thats a morale, leadership and management issue. 


The winter tour with folk being rested en masse could be a low point results wise for England. Or it could free up a bunch of players to play without fear or expectations and excel.

[Gooseberry]

Athers had a truly shocking record vs Australia. Didn't he only make one Ashes century? And he played a lot of Tests vs them. Yes, they were generally very good versions of Australia but it used to be embarrassing how easily Mcgrath got him out. Average of 37 wasn't bad in his era, but the subsequent Tresco, Vaughan, Strauss and Cook were all miles better. What we'd give for a peak version of any of those now.

Yes, just the one century against Australia. Australia and the Windies - his two most common opponents - really wrecked his average.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8579.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

Others would call him a flat track bully, just not a very good one. He was also a cheat, just in an era where it was normalised.

[robbo277]

Archer bowled 19 overs on Day 2 of the Sussex 2nd XI game. Although he was expensive (1-78), it does bring his tally up to 31 overs across 2 days. Should be okay for next week.

[Duty281]

Speaking of counties, Australia had a day out at Worcestershire today. Travis Head made an unbeaten ton, Khawaja got a 50. Hazlewood 2 wickets in no time at all and Starc got 1 but went for a few runs along the way.

Hazlewood up to 3/22 now and reminding the selectors of his merits.

Slightly embarrassing for the Aussies as Worcestershire wriggled from 75/8 to 201/9 declared. Bancroft then spent 40 balls to accumulate an innings of just 7 before edging behind, while his opening rival Marcus Harris scored an unbeaten 62 off just 78.

[Duty281]

Archer bowled 19 overs on Day 2 of the Sussex 2nd XI game. Although he was expensive (1-78), it does bring his tally up to 31 overs across 2 days. Should be okay for next week.

Yep, his fitness is proven and he's near-certain to replace Anderson for Lord's.

[Gooseberry]

Theres something deeply odd about the end of that innings isnt there! Charlie Morris averages 10 in first class and has a high score of 33 . He made 53 against Australia's second string attack?

Interesting that theres pressure on Bancroft. I can see them ditching him yet but if the openers struggle again theres someone equally rubbish banging in the door.

[robbo277]

Speaking of counties, Australia had a day out at Worcestershire today. Travis Head made an unbeaten ton, Khawaja got a 50. Hazlewood 2 wickets in no time at all and Starc got 1 but went for a few runs along the way.

Hazlewood up to 3/22 now and reminding the selectors of his merits.

Slightly embarrassing for the Aussies as Worcestershire wriggled from 75/8 to 201/9 declared. Bancroft then spent 40 balls to accumulate an innings of just 7 before edging behind, while his opening rival Marcus Harris scored an unbeaten 62 off just 78.

Australia should be embarrassed at getting a team 8 down like that and then not finishing them off.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Moeen dropped, Leach in, a 12 man squad named. Looks like this will be the XI

Burns
Roy
Root
Denly
Buttler
Stokes
Bairstow
Woakes
Archer
Leach
Broad

with Sam Curran as 12th man

[Duty281]

As expected then, just the two changes and not wholesale panic (yet!). This is likely to be Denly's last chance of producing something of test-match class.

[Soul Requiem]

Bairstow has somehow been selected again

[king_carlos]

If Bairstow and Denly both struggle again then I wouldn't be surprised to see Foakes come in for Test 3, Jonny lose the gloves and Denly get dropped.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Yeah you'd think Bairstow and Denly need to show something this test to secure their places for the 3rd test.

[Gooseberry]

Foakes literally knocking the door down with scores of 7 and 8 against the Aus second string

[Soul Requiem]

Foakes literally knocking the door down with scores of 7 and 8 against the Aus second string

Not sure that's overly relevant when he's the far superior keeper, would be nice if the keeper scored runs but doesn't look likely regardless of who it is so you pick the better gloveman.

[Gooseberry]

Well if you're dropping Bairstow for his batting record and that's the perceived problem England have, it's pretty relevant.

If you want Foakes in regardless then drop Denly. He's a worse outfielder than Bairstow and worse batsman.

There's a general principle here, if you want to drop people there really ought to be an option who brings more to the table. Leach is a better bowler than Mo and can give the control he lacked against Smith.

Dropping 4 of the top 7 is harder when every batsman tried sine him has a worse record than Bairstow.

It's only Sibley who's really banged on the door this season. Foakes batting is relevant, especially without any pretence that a functional Moeen exists.

[king_carlos]

More a question of whether they think Bairstow will score more runs without the gloves. Given he is now a mainstay of the ODI side and his second innings average drops significantly when keeping, arguably indicative of fatigue as the match goes on, there could be a train of thought that he'd be a greater asset as a batsman.

As someone who has followed Bairstow's career since playing against him at schoolboy level (he scored 150* with toe curling ease) I hope he does move to being a batsman. As a keeper I see him averaging mid 30s and being a solid but unremarkable gloveman. As a batsman focusing on one role I'd have hopes he can improve his defensive technique and get his test average up to the 40 mark.

[Gooseberry]

Yeah I can see a case for asking him to concentrate on just one aspect of his game as they gave done with Buttler. But I still don't think that makes a cast iron case for dropping him or how giving Buttler the gloves would improve things or how you square Foakes having a spot in the side.
Calling up out of form players who are mid way through a T20 tournament doesn't seem the best way to plug gaps in a sinking ship.
I did think he was harshly dropped before, but now we aren't in a world where he's at the top of his game as he was then.
The argument in regard to specliast keepers was kinda lost 20 years ago, rightly or wrongly it just doesn't seem to be on the cards. And Foakes won't fix the top order or middle order crashes, or make Smith rubbish overnight.

[KP_fan]

So for the second test Moeen is out and Leach+ Archer are sure to play.

The only variable for the final 11 is Curran vs. Denly...for me Curran is a no brainer.....for he will score runs no less than Denly...probably a lot more with the bat and gives cover as a specialist seamer to cushion for fatigue / breakdown of others
BUT
selectors & team managements worldwide have complicated things by over-analysis

[compelling and rich]

Athers had a truly shocking record vs Australia. Didn't he only make one Ashes century? And he played a lot of Tests vs them. Yes, they were generally very good versions of Australia but it used to be embarrassing how easily Mcgrath got him out. Average of 37 wasn't bad in his era, but the subsequent Tresco, Vaughan, Strauss and Cook were all miles better. What we'd give for a peak version of any of those now.

Yes, just the one century against Australia. Australia and the Windies - his two most common opponents - really wrecked his average.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8579.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

Others would call him a flat track bully, just not a very good one. He was also a cheat, just in an era where it was normalised.

stick up for athers slightly being a good Lancashire lad. he played in a era where he faced ambrose and walsh, mcgrath and warne, wasim and waqar and donald for south africa who had the wood over him. imagine some of our current lot facing some those partnerships. 37 aint too shabby when you consider he'd usually stick around a bit for 37 and take away the danger of the new ball.

should also add that many around similar time had similar averages. stewart, hussain gatting were around similar. even talented batsmen like thorpe gower gooch, were only slightly better in low/mid 40's. and he had a much better record than likes hick, butcher and ramps

[Gooseberry]

If the selectors think that Sam Curran is a better batsman than Denly to the point they'd select him as a top order player then English cricket really is broken.
It would signal that they made an appalling decision to pick him at international level in the first place ( to be honest I'm kind of on board with that as I was at the time) and that the batsmen in the CC are worse at batting than the bowlers are.
The suggestion that Curran and Denly are fighting for a spot when there's already 4 seamers in the side is up there with folk suggesting leach should bat in the top order because all they know about him is that Ireland game.

[alfie]

Team as expected. Think Sam will be carrying the drinks : I can see the attraction in having him in the XI ; but if he were to replace Denly who would move up to four ? (Plenty of opinion around already that Root and Roy not in their ideal spots and surely we don't really want to push Buttler any higher than five ? So Stokes ? Has the technique , perhaps ...so if he were to be relegated to "occasional" bowler , just maybe. I still don't like it much)
The thing is , although it often looks like a good idea to bring in a late order player who generally gets runs and push others up the
order to cover failing spots , it only works if the players moved up click in their new spots . Remember the push to move Bairstow up when he was making runs for fun at seven ? When they brought back Buttler - and he started making runs - it looked promising. But Bairstow in fact didn't do any better than Malan etc at five (and it subsequently seems to have derailed his batting altogether !) : so in fact the overall gain to the team was zero. Now Buttler at five is the current fix : remains to be seen if that works (I am not dismissing the idea after one Ashes Test)
Sometimes you just have a lot of players for one part of the team and a shortage in other areas. Better to find specialists - even if it takes a while - than messing things up further by trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
If Denly doesn't make four - or three ? - his spot let us look at Pope . Or again at Malan , perhaps. Or someone else who bats in the top four for his county side. Keep the all rounders for six/seven/eight where all the good teams have them...

[alfie]

Anyway the attack looks better. Provided no one breaks down they have four fast bowlers and a spinner who operates in a different style from the part time options (incidentally Root should be ready to bowl himself sometimes , and preferably before the situation gets desperate , for variety. He has an annoying tendency to hold back the surprise options until all hope is lost , when they ought to be deployed at a time when an opponent is "in" but not dominating. Just for a couple of overs . Though in truth Paine did no better with a few useless overs from Head and Wade just before the new ball)
Hope Archer can live up to the hype - which strangely seems to have dropped off a bit as his selection actually became more likely. I think Lord's might actually suit him this time , although he didn't have a great time there against Australia in the WC . A lot will depend on Leach though. Not expecting him to wreck the innings ; but he needs to supply some Giles-like control - such as Moeen so sadly failed to do at Edgbaston.

[compelling and rich]

yeah root really does have to do his bit with all the aussies left handers. always like off spin to left handers, swann made a very good career out of it

[Duty281]

The only way Curran gets in the side, other than injury to one of the other XI on the morning of the game, is if it's an absolute green top and England decide it's worth going with an all-seam attack. Curran v Denly isn't even a discussion.

Could be another four-day test, by the way. Weather for Wednesday looks a write-off.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2638768

[Soul Requiem]

Well if you're dropping Bairstow for his batting record and that's the perceived problem England have, it's pretty relevant.

If you want Foakes in regardless then drop Denly. He's a worse outfielder than Bairstow and worse batsman.

There's a general principle here, if you want to drop people there really ought to be an option who brings more to the table. Leach is a better bowler than Mo and can give the control he lacked against Smith.

Dropping 4 of the top 7 is harder when every batsman tried sine him has a worse record than Bairstow.

It's only Sibley who's really banged on the door this season. Foakes batting is relevant, especially without any pretence that a functional Moeen exists.

I don't actually disagree with that in theory but the problem then becomes batting order; Bairstow has shown he's not capable of batting in the top four despite that century so you end up with having to shift Stokes up one. That again is a good idea but you've dropped someone who can bowl a few overs so you increase his work load both batting and bowling, in order to compensate for that you'd have to bring Sibley in.

Ideally;

Sibley
Burns
Roy
Root
Buttler
Stokes
Foakes
Woakes
Archer
Broad
Leach

Now you can avoid picking Sibley but who takes that final top four spot?

[Soul Requiem]

Ooooh I don't dislike the idea of Curran coming in for Denly actually, reduce Stokes bowling workload and get him to concentrate being a top order batsmen, more capable of doing that than any other option.

[alfie]

Not sure why Soul is so convinced that dropping Bairstow is the cure for all our ills...

Yes he's having a lean patch of runs lately (possibly not helped by a couple of injuries and going up and down the order every other week ?) : but his overall record purely when playing as keeper batsman , shows (still) an average of about 39 , and five Test centuries .(Prior averaged 40 ; Knott about 32)
Seems a reasonable talent to be jettisoned lightly , given the paucity of proven Test Class amongst the current batting list.

Not suggesting Jonny should be untouchable. He needs to get back in run scoring form.But I think he has more credit in the bank than some people allow.

[Soul Requiem]

Why do people insist on looking at an overall record?

Lets recall Ian Bell, he still averages in the 40's or how about Ballance, his average is better than anyone tried since, oh yes current form does also matter.

[compelling and rich]

everyone in the 2000's averaged 40+

it helped all the great bowlers i mentioned above had finished (bar warne and mcgrath)

[alfie]

Why do people insist on looking at an overall record?

Lets recall Ian Bell, he still averages in the 40's or how about Ballance, his average is better than anyone tried since, oh yes current form does also matter.

Because overall records mean something. "Class is permanently, form is temporary " ...no ?

Look the point here is whether or not Jonny's form slump is terminal or not. You think (or hope ?) it is. I think it would be smart to give him some time rather than toss aside someone who has shown the ability to perform at this level over a number of matches in favour of a relatively untried alternative. It is a reasonable argument : but given that the remaining list of batsmen apart from the automatic choices Root and Stokes is Burns Roy Denly Buttler Woakes Broad...with just four Test centuries between them ...I am reluctant to toss away Jonny's six hundreds as well as all Moeen's in one fell swoop...

We won't agree on this . I pass.

[Sponsored content]