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.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Head sees Australia home, assisted by Cummins. 1 more win now retains them the urn. England need two wins and a draw (or better) from 3 tests.

In other news, Sibley and Crawley both failed for their counties. Questions remain over the batting line up.

I’d go with: Burns, Denly, Roy, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Bairstow, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Leach. Or potentially replace Denly with someone from outside the group. I’d potentially swap Roy and Stokes as well.

Think I would echo this XI Robbo - seems too little turnaround time to drag someone out of a CC game straight into an ashes match, but the batting order does need some tweaking. Root back to 4, however it happens, is the priority for me. We’re gonna need runs from him in these final 3 games if we have desires on winning this series and it isn’t gonna happen at 3!

Good thing is Stokes, Bairstow got some form under their belt in this game and Buttler gutted out some time
In the middle he should benefit from going forward too, so the middle order looks a tad better...

[Gooseberry]

Head sees Australia home, assisted by Cummins. 1 more win now retains them the urn. England need two wins and a draw (or better) from 3 tests.

In other news, Sibley and Crawley both failed for their counties. Questions remain over the batting line up.

I’d go with: Burns, Denly, Roy, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Bairstow, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Leach. Or potentially replace Denly with someone from outside the group. I’d potentially swap Roy and Stokes as well.

Think I would echo this XI Robbo - seems too little turnaround time to drag someone out of a CC game straight into an ashes match

Id argue its better than dragging them out of the pub celebrating a world cup win.

But it would be a lot easier to make a case for Sibley if he was making runs and demanding a place as he was earlier in the season.

As ever no right answer. Roy has been a car crash. Denly has failed in every position hes been tried in, but opener was the worst of all. Sticking him back there solves nothing, hes just not good enough and not playing his best cricket. If Sibley, who is actually an opener, is being denied a spot inthe team off a bad day in CC then Denlys lack of rubs in tests should count double against him.



Bright spots
Burns is starting to look like a test player even if its just one innings a match.
Archer wasnt perfect but hes shown he can take that confidence and pace to test cricket. Hes also shown Smith is not immortal and really laid down a marker for what will hopefully be some great tussles to come.
Leach might not have won the game for England but hes shown again he can be both economical and a wicket taking threat in tests.
Keep writing him off but averaging 24 with the ball and 22 with the bat is pretty handy.
It wont be 5-0

[sirfredperry]

Well, a drawn Test. Remember them? Must say I was a bit taken aback by all the hype about Archer before the series began.

But he's certainly quick and I'm not sure it was wise for Australia to open the door to a bouncer barrage when Cummins started peppering Burns on Thursday.

Of the England's successes in the match, that of Bairstow could be considered the most important. After Root, he's the most-established batsman in the team.

Still think BOTH sides' batting is pretty flimsy. Pity it's not 1-1 at this stage as I can't see England avoiding defeat in three successive matches - which is what they'll have to do to regain the Ashes.

[Gooseberry]

I'm also going to say I was very wrong about Archer. The hype was correct, there's not been a bowler like him for England in my memory.
His top pace is a yard faster than the likes of Wood and a match for the Austrlians. Finn and Harmisson just didn't have the consistency of performance that this young lad seems to bring, and only managed to bowl at that kind of intensity for breif periods of their careers. Add to that the number of overs they got out of him without him breaking down, it's really quite a thing.

To duff up Smith like that is pretty huge in context of the rest of the series. It's not quite bodyline, and interesting to note that the usually volatile and vile Aussie press hasn't made a meal out of Archers apparent disrespect for his victim in the way you'd expect. But Smith was exposed by that pace and aggressive length, and in a way we haven't seen England dish out to a team in along time. Let alone Australia who are should be more used to facing hostile bowling than most.
Assuming Smith is fit for the next test will their be some hesitancy and double guessing creep in when he's playing Archer? On of Smiths hallmarks as a batsman has been his calm commitment to whatever he's doing, playing or leaving. Archer rattled that, and if it's now in his head will that break his aura?

I don't want to give the impression I think Archer is the greatest bowler since the last one that was better (but he is) but although it didn't win the game that performance might have an impact on Smith and the series ahead. And it was shown again that Smith really is the key to Austrlias batting, and frankly the point of difference between the sides.
Its certainly lit the series up and more fun than booing Warner and the Aussies trying to find new reasons to boo Broad.

England have their attack nicely balanced now with a functional spinner who importantly can bowl reliably and with economy as well as providing a steady stream of wickets ( Incpuld remark on his strike rate ), I know hes only 5 tests in but his bowling figures mirror what he's done in first class cricket. Again not getting ahead of myself ( I am) but people said the same thing about Swann when he got his second dib at tests, he's just in the side because we need a spinner but he's a pretty ordinary county workman. What Leach brings is a reliable consistent stock ball, something Moeens style was never really going to do.


If they could just get the batsmen playing better and sort the order out to a way that promotes that they could turn this series around. I don't see that happening now though.
I agree with Fred that it's still a very outside chance for them to win the ashes back, but I'm much happier with the way they are shaping up now than I was after the first test. Mo had to go, they aren't feeling the loss of Anderson , Burns is looking competent still and importantly Bairstow and Stokes are rebuilding their confidence with the bat.

Still huge problems with the top 4 but Australia without Smith at his best are a worse batting side in total.

[VTR]

I'm not so fussed about winning back The Ashes at this stage. I'd take a drawn series, and keep the unbeaten record at home going. Unless there is a lot of rain in another match, we'll have three results, England aren't winning three in a row

[Soul Requiem]

I have absolutely no idea why the inclusion of Archer or Leach was questioned, it's been a long time since we've had an accurate genuine fast bowler and the fact he offers so little to the batsmen is quite remarkable, as for the spinner well it's been said for a long time he's the best we've got and he proved his accuracy.

[GSC]

did anyone really question archers inclusion? especially at Lord's and with Anderson injured.

I think given the short turnaround, and given the shortened game, I'd have to stick with the same team for Headingley.

[robbo277]

Well we can't win back the Ashes in the next test, but a win at Headingley is a must to build on the good things at Lords. BBC showing a very good forecast for the 5 days, with a low chance of rain at any time.

We'll probably see Pattinson back in for the Aussies, and potentially Starc as well as it's a quick pitch. Although I'm not sure if they'll go into the test without either Hazelwood or Siddle, it would put a lot of pressure on Lyon to hold an end for basically the whole test. Their selection is potentially more interesting than England's.

For England, it will probably be an unchanged XI, with some tweaks to the batting line-up maybe, as I intimated earlier. It will be interesting to see what happens if Anderson returns to fitness. You can't take Archer out the team, so do you bring him in for Broad or Woakes? And if Woakes who do you relegate to first change?

On Anderson, he's not playing in Lancashire's match against Glamorgan in the County Championship, but may play against Australia for Derbyshire in the gap between the third and fourth test, which would put him in contention for Old Trafford.

On Archer, as well as the pace he's got the best economy of a debutant since Fraser (h/t Andy Zaltzman). His match figures of 5-91 are better than current bowlers Anderson (5-138), Broad (1-95) and Woakes (1-96).

[Gooseberry]

I questioned it pre world cup certainly, and until Anderson's injury there always was the question over who makes way for him. Then there was the question over how fatigued and injured he was post world cup and if chucking him full blooded into the ashes was the best thing to do for him.

But once he had bowled a ridiculous number of overs at pace in the county game prior to this test, and Anderson was injured and England in need of a boost the selection was a no brainer. There were still some, including Smith ironically, questioning his endurance for tests even once he was picked.

I guess we have had a lot of false messiahs for England over the years, especially in regard to pack bowlers. Oddly it's been the ones that people thought weren't much cop who have often done the best (Finns place on his first ashes tour was vilified by many). Is it a coincidence that Archers early development was outside the English system, and even since he's been here much of his work has been done away from central ECB

As for Leach yes many people on here were rubbishing him and talking him down. There was a begrudging acceptance from others that Mo had lost his place but that Leach was playing purely because they had no other option. His county figures have consistently been dismissed as purely down to bowling a lot at Taunton.

Let's not overeat these chaps as the saviour of English cricket, they couldn't win that game against the weather, but they have given England some relief in what was looking to be a horrid test summer.

[GSC]

if nothing else its put Australia on the back foot for the next test, with Smith scrambling to be passed fit and question marks in their batting lineup, along with picking the right quicks

[Gooseberry]

Well they will certainly think twice about being on the front foot to Archer. Its a test of Smiths resolve to come back and still play his natural game. The temptation would be to try and assert himself on Archer by hooking and pulling him all over the place which is really something I suspect England wouldn't mind too much as it increases the chance of an error. There's also the possibility that he will be subdued and tentative if the thought of getting struck again is playing on him.

Knowing Smith vs England though he will turn up at two down for loose change and go on to score 150 n/o batting second to set up an innings victory.

But there's a hope he will be affected even if he's fit to play.

[eirebilly]

I was busy all weekend with the little one so could not comment but I watched the game.

I am not sure if this has been mentioned but I will ask anyways. If Smith was swapped on the final day due to a concussion protocol, will Australia be in some hot water for allowing him to bat again after being hit? Could their concussion protocols be investigated? He certainly did not look that comfortable when he came out to bat the second time. Also, is he now a risk of missing the next test?

Overall, I was actually impressed with England in that test and they showed some very positive signs of improvement although I do fear that they will over bowl Archer. Leach was excellent and I feel he out bowled Lyon.

[Soul Requiem]

If cricket is to be seen to be taking concussion seriously then Smith should not be playing in the next match, 3/4 is not long enough to recover fully and puts him at undue risk especially knowing he'll be targeted from the get go. I like the idea of an internal injury replacement but feel it should include all injuries not just head injuries, I would however say that this would not include Anderson in the first test as separate tear or not it was linked to a previous injury.

[robbo277]

I was busy all weekend with the little one so could not comment but I watched the game.

I am not sure if this has been mentioned but I will ask anyways. If Smith was swapped on the final day due to a concussion protocol, will Australia be in some hot water for allowing him to bat again after being hit? Could their concussion protocols be investigated? He certainly did not look that comfortable when he came out to bat the second time. Also, is he now a risk of missing the next test?

Overall, I was actually impressed with England in that test and they showed some very positive signs of improvement although I do fear that they will over bowl Archer. Leach was excellent and I feel he out bowled Lyon.

I'm sure the ICC will probably have a look but there's nothing to suggest it was untoward. He had an assessment which showed up fine then got delayed symptoms which often happens and was rightly pulled out of the game.

[LondonTiger]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned but I will ask anyways. If Smith was swapped on the final day due to a concussion protocol, will Australia be in some hot water for allowing him to bat again after being hit? Could their concussion protocols be investigated? He certainly did not look that comfortable when he came out to bat the second time. Also, is he now a risk of missing the next test?

The official stance is that he passed the "HIA" (not sure what cricket calls it) but developed the symptoms overnight. This is something reasonably common with boxers I am led to believe.

There are murmurs that Smith may have pressured the medic into passing him fit, but so far unsubstantiated. We have seen much more obvious issues of unfit players being allowed to play on in rugby with no sanction. Different sport I know but if the medics followed the protocols then there will be no sanction.

[eirebilly]

Cheers robbo.

I have only ever known concussion to have an immediate effect and if initially not identified (passed protocol but the contact deemed serious enough) then further tests, scans, are required at a suitable institution.

Not saying that anything was untoward, it did come across that way I admit, but may highlight a gap in the concussion protocols that needs to be addressed.


He just did not seem right after the hit and when he returned to bat so I would have certainly not risked sending him out.

[GSC]

england name an unchanged squad, so likely an unchanged team

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

England name the same 12 for Headingley as they did for Lords.
Anderson to play a 2nd XI Lancs game starting tomorrow, in a bid to get some cricket and prove his fitness for either the 4th or 5th test. What a boost that would be!

[GSC]

Apparently Smith passed all the tests then woke up with a headache and feeling groggy so was ruled out

[LondonTiger]

England name the same 12 for Headingley as they did for Lords.
Anderson to play a 2nd XI Lancs game starting tomorrow, in a bid to get some cricket and prove his fitness for either the 4th or 5th test. What a boost that would be!

It felt like Woakes was underbowled at Lords, a ground he has a good record on. With mention of a potential niggle was he perhaps being protected to ensure no breakdown before Headingly, seeing as our seam resources are getting stretched a bit thin.

Broad has been excellent so far - but perhaps struggled a touch in both of Australia's second innings?

[Hoggy_Bear]

May I just ask a quick question ( as I can't be bothered to look up the answer), but why are batting substitutes allowed in the case of concussion but not in the case of other injuries which may be sustained from being hit by the bowler? Or are they and I've just missed that new bit of legislation?

[LondonTiger]

May I just ask a quick question ( as I can't be bothered to look up the answer), but why are batting substitutes allowed in the case of concussion but not in the case of other injuries which may be sustained from being hit by the bowler? Or are they and I've just missed that new bit of legislation?

Concussion regulation is new and came into effect back end of last year I believe. It was part of a campaign to protect participants across all sports from an injury that can have life changing implications but no obvious outward sign of injury. This is the first time it has occurred in an international game I believe, but has happened in domestic cricket before.

I suspect that if/when we see someone who has an arm broken by a bowler then there may be more noise about having that kind of injury allowed a full replacement also. It is rare though.

[Soul Requiem]

Apparently Smith passed all the tests then woke up with a headache and feeling groggy so was ruled out

Such a load of garbage, trying to cover their backs because they know they made a mistake, Smith didn't field at all during the second innings did he?

[alfie]

Not surprised England kept the same squad. I think I would have made a change as I just can't see Roy cutting it in Tests and think they are just putting off a decision - though the logical replacement , Sibley , picked the wrong time to make a duck ! Hope stubbornness doesn't hurt them too much. (Even better Roy proves me wrong with a blazing fast eighty....)
Hope sense prevails and Denly and Root swap positions. At least Denly has shown the capacity to hold the bowlers up under pressure for a while so it makes sense to have him act as a "third opener"
Suggestions that Roy should move to four - or even five ! leave me shaking my head. Why on earth would you deliberately play your only undisputed world class bat out of position in order to protect a new selection who frankly doesn't look particularly likely to succeed any time soon ? Makes no more sense than " protecting" Denly.

Surely it is obvious that the 4-7 of Root Stokes Buttler Bairstow is the
engine room of the batting order and must be left in these , their best positions ? Burns is doing well : if the other two are retained for now let them justify the faith or give way to ...Sibley , Crawley or one of Goose's tins of custard...won't be any worse off and just might do better...

Bowling stays the same unless there is a fitness issue with Woakes (which might explain the otherwise baffling reluctance of Root to give him the ball on his favorite ground !) Sam Curran is a ready made replacement.

[eirebilly]

As a former sportsman (about 10 years and 6 stone ago) I can understand Smith wanting to go out there and get his 100 at Lords. He just did not look right going off the field, re-entering the game and whilst he was batting so to me he was already showing some signs of concussion.

I was very surprised at the time that he was allowed to come back out. This is why I would expect an investigation into the levels of HIA protocols in cricket. They may not be as stringent as they should be.

[eirebilly]

I thought Denly looked very good this test and would not be out of place as an opener seeing off the new ball. Roy should not be seen as anything special (as good a ODI player as he is) and shuffled around the order to try and accommodate his place in the team. His whole game is suffering, not just the batting.

I was very unsure about Burns at first but he has shown great composure and will only improve with confidence.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Not surprised England kept the same squad.  I think I would have made a change as I just can't see Roy cutting it in Tests and think they are just putting off a decision - though the logical replacement , Sibley , picked the wrong time to make a duck !  Hope stubbornness doesn't hurt them too much. (Even better Roy proves me wrong with a blazing fast eighty....)
Hope sense prevails and Denly and Root swap positions.  At least Denly has shown the capacity to hold the bowlers up under pressure for a while so it makes sense to have him act as a "third opener"
Suggestions that Roy should move to four - or even five !  leave me shaking my head.  Why on earth would you deliberately play your only undisputed world class bat out of position in order to protect a new selection who frankly doesn't look particularly likely to succeed any time soon ? Makes no more sense than " protecting" Denly.

Surely it is obvious that the 4-7 of Root Stokes Buttler Bairstow is the
engine room of the batting order and must be left in these , their best positions ? Burns is doing well : if the other two are retained for now let them justify the faith or give way to ...Sibley , Crawley or one of Goose's tins of custard...won't be any worse off and just might do better...

Bowling stays the same unless there is a fitness issue with Woakes (which might explain the otherwise baffling reluctance of Root to give him the ball on his favorite ground !) Sam Curran is a ready made replacement.

Don't disagree with you at all here Alfie - whatever happens, we have to get back to 4-7 being Root, Stokes, Buttler, Bairstow and whatever makeup of the top 3 with Roy/Denly is what it is at the moment. I'm afraid Root (I rather suspect it is actually Bayliss forcing this 3 lark on him myself, so him) needs to swallow his pride and revert that mistake at least.

Think I saw this correct the other day, but Denly now has the longest streak of double figure scores by an English batsman since Root had in 2012-13 (can't remember the exact number he is now upto!). He just keeps getting mini starts, and getting out...surely he's due converting one of them? I don't think he's actually done horrifically this series so far...

[robbo277]

May I just ask a quick question ( as I can't be bothered to look up the answer), but why are batting substitutes allowed in the case of concussion but not in the case of other injuries which may be sustained from being hit by the bowler? Or are they and I've just missed that new bit of legislation?

Concussion regulation is new and came into effect back end of last year I believe. It was part of a campaign to protect participants across all sports from an injury that can have life changing implications but no obvious outward sign of injury. This is the first time it has occurred in an international game I believe, but has happened in domestic cricket before.

I suspect that if/when we see someone who has an arm broken by a bowler then there may be more noise about having that kind of injury allowed a full replacement also. It is rare though.

I believe the argument is that concussion can cause very long-lasting brain damage and the player is in no condition to be making their own decisions about their welfare, so it needs to be taken out of their hands. Allowing a substitute allows the team not to be detrimented so it reduces that desire to lie about the concussion results.

If you broke your arm and insisted you came out to bat second dig that would be up to you, but at least you are in a position to make an informed decision.

[LondonTiger]

That is the general argument across a lot of sports Robbo. Hence in rugby for a concussion you can bring on a player who has previously been replaced. Difference between cricket and most other team sports is that the others have a bench of replacements to cover for injury, while cricket has only ever allowed fielding replacements (and runners).

Protecting the player is why I do hope they make sure there was nothing untoward in the way in which Smith was assessed.

[alfie]

As to the match : good comeback by England after Edgbaston.  Just too much time lost to the weather so it would have been remarkable had they managed to bowl Australia out yesterday...though they gave them a bit of a scare !
Obviously Archer made a huge impact ...literally. That blow that knocked Smith silly has potentially altered the balance of the sides quite dramatically.
Like others , I am impressed that Archer has been able to produce such a sustained barrage of exciting pace. It has certainly gone a long way towards justifying all the hype.
I will caution though that it won't count for much if they don't use him - and the other bowlers - in the most effective roles. For all the physical threat posed by Archer he bowled a lot of overs for just five wickets in the match. Woakes was seriously under bowled , especially in the new ball periods in which he excels . I still suspect you'd see better results from starting Woakes with Broad and having Archer on after their initial bursts - to either enlarge the breaks they've made in the batting or kill off a budding stand. He doesn't need a brand new ball to be effective : the pace and bounce are his primary weapons .; but Woakes is at his most lethal with the new missile and if you're going to pick him it seems wasteful not to use that skill.
The other point I noted was that Archer actually took two early wickets yesterday with fairly full deliveries. As he did getting Bancroft in the first innings.  All the short stuff looked fearsome and certainly unsettled batsmen - not just Smith - but didn't actually get many out.  I'd prefer to see him mix his length a bit more.  Let him operate as a true cutting weapon rather than a battering ram , as it were...

Pleasing that Buttler had time in the middle. Still nowhere near his best but a good solid innings ...hopefully a sign more to come in the remaining games ? Probably best placed at six , as Stokes looks happy enough at five and breaks up the right handers. Stokes was excellent . Root had a shocker and I've already droned on enough about the foolishness of batting him at three.
It is nowhere near a vintage batting lineup but it's what they've got at the moment so will have to get the job done...The job is simple : win the next three. Tough. But not impossible ...Australia , if Smith can be kept to mortal performances , are very vulnerable. Their bowling is very good . Their batting is not.

[sirfredperry]

Can't understand why Root agreed/was forced into/chose to bat at three.

If he's happier at four then he should bat at four. It's not his fault England have no obvious number three to call on.

IMHO players should bat at the position at which they are most happy. There have been some number threes, for instance, with good solid techniques which would have made them good openers but they disliked opening (even though, effectively, they could be in as early as the second ball of the innings).

Even as I type this I realise that some of the England greats did move up to open and made a real good fist of it (Gooch, Woolmer, Amiss and Vaughan spring to mind). I assume though that they were HAPPY to do so.

[jimbohammers]

Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Bairstow
Curran
Woakes
Archer
Leach
Broad

Push Denly up to open and bring in Curran who is more than capable with the bat and offers something different with the ball.

[alfie]

Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Bairstow
Curran
Woakes
Archer
Leach
Broad

Push Denly up to open and bring in Curran who is more than capable with the bat and offers something different with the ball.

Has its attractions , Jimbo...I am tempted , in fact. But has a couple of flaws : first you're exposing Root to that tricky number three spot again...and then compounding this risk by pushing the next three up probably one place higher than is ideal. Sam's record of playing "saving" late order innings may compensate ...but compensate enough ? Questionable , I think.
And then while an extra bowler with a different angle could be handy , I'd suggest the Australian batting is less to be feared than their bowling : do England really need six bowlers ?

The fact that they've not changed the squad tells me they are sticking with the bats they have - for now.

[Soul Requiem]

Bringing in an extra bowler who's not that good isn't going to solve any problems at all, if you're replacing Roy it has to be a top order batsmen like Sibley.

[Gooseberry]

All well and good SFP but what happens when you only have sub standard players who are happy to be there? Stokes and Buttler are already a place too high at 5 and 6. 
You're also talking a massively inexperienced top 3 without Root in there as a result of years and years failing to find anyone who can hold down a position post Cook. 

Is Roy really most comfortable at 2/3? Probably not, its not like he was a regular opener in county cricket. Hes in there because the England leadership deem him to outright be a better and more confident player than the other candidates. But along side that they wanted some stability, and a guy who when he started was seen very much as a number 3 and potential opener. One of the few batsmen coming through with anything like a proper defensive batting technique. 

But yes this has been forced on him to a large extent, as it was last time it was tried. Its failed both times. Specifically for Root it does seem to be breaking something that worked and not fixing something that will be equally as broken if he were at 4. 

To me its Denlys selection and position that makes the least sense. Aside from Burns hes the only one who plays most of his cricket as a top 3 bat, but is playing at 4 after failing. Doesnt this just say hes not god enough regardless of what position they stick him in? 
Only passing 30 once in your first 5 tests doesnt scream the answer to Englands problems. His selection in the first place was based on getting someone in who should be comfortable and competant at 2/3. Hes neither. I dont buy the lack of single figure scoress as suggesting hes any good, more just that it wasnt an absolute minefield but he still manages to get out anway.

So for a top 3 we have the choice of :
Burns (A given)
Sibley(uncapped and underated, )
Denly (just not very good and doesnt regularly open for his county)
Roy (absolute disaster)
Root (the best batsman in the squad) 

I guess their only way to get players in comfortable positions is to drop Roy, bring in Sibley and shunt Denly to three. But that leaves you without the only one who has an real batting talent rather than a defensive mindset and some basic county graft. Thats also how you ended up with Stoneman and Jennings as whichever county jobber with a 30 something average did well last season. 

Denly I just dont think is good enough to play tests in any position. Burns I think we can give some leeway too still and he has done enough to warrant the rest of this summer as a minimum. Sibley the jury should be out on too, I am quite a pusher of his case but i can also see why England arent going on a few could scores at county level alone. He remains very much the next option though. 

So in light of not having enough players who are both comfortable and good to make up those top 3 spots you can see why theyve ended up with a couple of their genuine batting talents bunted up. Its not working though. 

Its rough on Roy who probably could do better than Buttler as a specialist 7 playing at 6, but its hard to see how you give him a chance to do that when Stokes and Bairstow should also be batting 6/7. Give him a spot in 4-7 in place of Denly or Buttler and Root has to stay in the top 3. 

I just cant square an England batting order that has the best players in it playing where you would ideally want them.

[Gooseberry]

Bringing in an extra bowler who's not that good isn't going to solve any problems at all, if you're replacing Roy it has to be a top order batsmen like Sibley.

Agreed. Bringing in Curran makes all Englands batting order problems another position worse and theres no real value he brings to the bowling attack. I really dont understand where that is all coming from. 
Hes not even that good.

[Soul Requiem]

Bringing in an extra bowler who's not that good isn't going to solve any problems at all, if you're replacing Roy it has to be a top order batsmen like Sibley.

Agreed. Bringing in Curran makes all Englands batting order problems another position worse and theres no real value he brings to the bowling attack. I really dont understand where that is all coming from. 
Hes not even that good.

I'm sure if you chucked Roy down at number 8 facing an old ball that he'd be able to smash the ball around a bit.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Could always try Denly at the top and Roy at 3, allowing our best batsman to bat in his favoured position

[Soul Requiem]

Burns
Sibley
Denly
Root
Stokes
Buttler/Roy
Bairstow

That's how I'd go about things for the time being, far from perfect but the best possible option I can see, I do like the idea of a pinch hitter at six but with the flaky Bairstow at seven it becomes a bit more risky. Stokes at five seems a no brainer at the moment, the best option we have albeit he should be batting at six with a genuine batsmen at five but we don't have that luxury.

[Afro]

Could always try Denly at the top and Roy at 3, allowing our best batsman to bat in his favoured position

This is what I would do I think based on the squad chosen. Denly has been facing what an opener has faced, and whilst not setting the world alight, has done enough to give it a proper go.

And if Burns and Denly can score even 30 odd each, that brings either Roy, or Root if he ends up staying at 3, in facing a slightly older ball.

Sibley opening appears the only other live option

[Gooseberry]

Bringing in an extra bowler who's not that good isn't going to solve any problems at all, if you're replacing Roy it has to be a top order batsmen like Sibley.

Agreed. Bringing in Curran makes all Englands batting order problems another position worse and theres no real value he brings to the bowling attack. I really dont understand where that is all coming from. 
Hes not even that good.

I'm sure if you chucked Roy down at number 8 facing an old ball that he'd be able to smash the ball around a bit.

Well if Currant came in he'd be at 7, but the point still stands. I'd also go back to the comment I made earlier and say id trust Roy to fill that 7 spot (or 6 as they currently insist) better than Buttler does. Buttler made a sensational return to the team against Pakistan, but his scores have declined with each series hes played and currently has less runs than Denly in this one. In context of how the rest of the side is playing hes not quite getting the attention for the executioners axe yet, but when you look at all the flack Bairstows taken then his overall record best in tests and first class theres little to suggest that last summer was more than a good blip. is there another player in a major test nation holding down a spot as a batsman on the back of an average of 34 and one career century in 33 tests? 
Roy at 6 seems a much fairer place for him, but as it is it looks like his chances and reputation will be getting ruined in the top order instead. It was a gamble worth taking and I get the logic, but how long can they persist? 

Also thinking now about Hales, what a shame it is he turned to drugs and alcohol to get through the pressures of cricket. His reaction to being left out of the world cup has probably burnt his bridges. But he was probably better placed than Roy to have made a go as an aggressive test opener if he'd been given a second chance. If he were doing a bit more in the Blast he mightve been able to force his way int the selectors minds for the winter limited over tours where many of the world cup stars will be rested, but its easier when hes just pottering along to keep him on the naughty step.

[JDizzle]

Could always try Denly at the top and Roy at 3, allowing our best batsman to bat in his favoured position

This is what I would do I think based on the squad chosen. Denly has been facing what an opener has faced, and whilst not setting the world alight, has done enough to give it a proper go.

And if Burns and Denly can score even 30 odd each, that brings either Roy, or Root if he ends up staying at 3, in facing a slightly older ball.

Sibley opening appears the only other live option

Think I saw a stat the other day that Denly has reached double figures in all of his Test innings - bar the first one. So if you dump him up to open, in a last chance saloon, he might at least see you through an opening burst and make things easier for Roy and Root.

[Gooseberry]

That in effect makes him a night watchman. I'm not entirely dismissing it but if we have gone from looking for someone who can average over 30 runs to thinking someone who can last 30 balls reliably average as an improvement then it really sums uo how dire things are.

I'd say as well that Roy at 3 takes away a big piece of the argument for him at the top. If you're looking at 1 2 of Burns Denly to soften the ball then it takes away from the idea he can make the hard ball find the boundary playing controlled shots. The way he scored early in ODIs off agressive quicks was part of the justification for him opening in the ashes, we are now talking about protecting him from the very bwoling he's supposed to be in the team to attack.

If he's not opening stick him down at 6 7 to feast in the way Buttler has stopped doing.

[JDizzle]

I’m not saying Denly is a long time solution, obviously. He has to score runs to justify his position. But he’s playing in the next Test at his ability to at least get himself in would seem to suit better at the top of the order.

I’m not sure anyone here was justifying Roy on those grounds either! It was the accepted opinion that he would probably struggle against quality new ball bowlers in Tests, and he’d be much better suited down the order like he is for Surrey. We’ve probably forgot as England fans that the even number three shouldn’t have to face the brand new ball too!

[No name Bertie]

If Jason Roy could learn to leave balls missing stumps and block balls hitting stumps - then that could solve a lot of problems. Maybe he could have a set of rolling targets. Survive the first 12 balls, then score at a rate of 1 run per 6 balls on average, then slowly settle on 2 to 3 runs per 6 balls when he works his way in etc. The focus should be seeing off the new ball.

[robbo277]

The really strange thing about Roy was that during the World Cup he'd often pause and have a look. For instance, he scored 66 in 57 against India batting first, but at one stage he was 11 off 16, and that includes two loose balls from Shami crashed for 4 in the first over. Similarly against NZ in the pool stages he hit 60 from 61 but at one point he was 14 off 20.

Obviously a completely different game, but he doesn't come out at the top of an ODI innings and look to send the first two overs for 20 runs. I don't know why in tests he feels the need to go so early. Does he not back his defensive technique to the extent he feels he needs to smash the bowler out of rhythm to give himself any chance?

You think if he just has a look at the first 10 or 20 and blocks or leaves a good ball and hits the bad ball then he'll at least be giving himself half a chance before he starts throwing his bat at wide ones.

[Afro]

Maybe its psychological.

He hears that he is selected to be more aggressive than a traditional test opener, ala Warner, and that has made him go too aggressive.

In which case, then TB and JR need to be in his ear trying to reign that in.

[Gooseberry]

"It's just the way I play"

KP every time he got out trying to slog the left arm spinner with a premeditated shot.

I'd guess it certainly is an element of not quite beinvg sure of himslef and knowing hes been backed to do what he does in ODIs coupled with the non judgemental approach they have to people getting out playing positively.

What really seems to be the issue is that he's not even managing to execute the big shots well, he should get away with a fair few even if they are I'll judged risks . .But it seems that he's lost his ability to bat skilfully as well as poor shot selection. That is very Moeen and suggests a level of stress and tension you don't see from him in ODIs. Maybe it will just take one or two shots for him to feel like he's asserting himself and he will settle down.
.But right now the weaknesses in his game and approach are getting badly exposed.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I’d keep Denly too as he’s getting starts and taking some time up: a depressing reason for inclusion though. Does somewhat ask the question of why Vince doesn’t get the same leeway

[Gooseberry]

I’d keep Denly too as he’s getting starts and taking some time up: a depressing reason for inclusion though. Does somewhat ask the question of why Vince doesn’t get the same leeway

Vince has had several goes at England and been found to be uncoachable. He was given specific things to work on and help to achieve it but simply cannot change and keeps getting out the same way. there is just no hope for him. Hes played 13 tests in two stints whilst being consistently rubbish. 

Denly has had like 5 tests, and is getting his place seriously questioned. He got booted from the world cup squad after barely getting a chance. I personally don't think he ever should have been selected in the first place for tests, and whats been done with him since is just baffling. But that in no way makes a case that they ever should have gone back to Vince or that Vince was hard done by.

[Sponsored content]