The Ashes - official thread

[KP_fan]

First topic message reminder :

Cummins was out no doubt about that, not sure what he was complaining about to be honest, a clear noise and deviation off the bat.

why were there 2 deviations?
one clearly before the ball had passed the bat and nothing seemed to be touching anything then...and the second when ball passes the bat.
Both deviations looking similar...put a question mark over the correct functioning of Snicko

that said 3rd umpire could have done nothing different than upholding the onfield ump

[Maine man]

Discussed this this with a colleague in the office today. If Anderson is selected instead of Woakes, what's the possibility of Ali coming in for Leach to (supposedly) strengthen the batting?

[Duty281]

I saw Dawson bowl about a week ago in a county game on a turning track...he returned figures of 0/180! Morgan's also a dismal test batsman.

[Gooseberry]

Discussed this this with a colleague in the office today. If Anderson is selected instead of Woakes, what's the possibility of Ali coming in for Leach to (supposedly) strengthen the batting?

Very very low. He has made a decent comeback to Worcs mind, with the bat at least. But England dropped him several times for the same reason, hes just not reliable and affects those around him. Leach has done a good job with teh ball and performed above his county standard with the bat. He has a test match head, unlike Moeen.

I feel the pain of the tail, but it wont be the primary driver in picking a bowling attack. A loyalty to Anderson will be.

Theres also a limit to the number of changes they'd want to make to a winning side. Those changes should be centred on fixing the actual problem, the top 7. Firstly move or drop Roy and shunt Denly up or bring in Sibley (or both). Possibly bring in Pope for Roy or Buttler. Id argue its worth not messing with the side anymore and keeping some batting depth by not trying to fix a problem England don't have (the bowling attack is very very good), but I take it as a given that Anderson will replace Woakes and that his ongoing overload issues make it inevitable.

Once you've already ready made a bowling change and 1 to 3 batting changes changing another bowler becomes excessive revolving door fiddling. If anyones that concerned about the tail drop Broad instead of Woakes.

[Gooseberry]

I saw Dawson bowl about a week ago in a county game on a turning track...he returned figures of 0/180! Morgan's also a dismal test batsman.

Didnt stop them picking Roy and Buttler

[VTR]

Morgan? Dawson? People do still want to win The Ashes don't they? Who's next to be suggested. Ramprakash?

[robbo277]

I think if Anderson comes in for Woakes, Anderson and Broad open the bowling with Archer in reserve. If the new ball bowlers go well you save Archer for Smith, which could be early anyway. If one of them isn't on the money after 3 or 4 overs you bring Archer in earlier.

The bowling is much easier than the batting. You almost can't pick a bad attack. The batting is harder as it's the case of picking the least worst and there's no guarantee it will work.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I am torn between realism and what I want.

I would prefer Burns, Sibley, Denly, Root, Stokes, Pope, Bairstow, Archer, Broad, Leach, Anderson.

I suspect that any changes will gives us Burns, Denly, Root, Pope, Stokes, Bairstow, Roy/Buttler, Archer, Broad, Leach, Anderson.

I wouldn't be against changing Denly for any option (Northeast, Sibley, Crawley) but think he will do for now. He has decided to battle for every last ball he faces and at least that's an attitude that should be encouraged. If Malan is still playing nasty, shorter pitched deliveries like he was before, he'd be a consideration. It seems something they are reverting to.

[VTR]

The Glenn Mcgrath column on the BBC is ridiculous. He seems to think that England are batting terribly, but Australia are finding form. Truth is, both sides have been terrible bar a few exceptions

[Soul Requiem]

Warner finding form? He scored a fortunate 60 odd because Stokes and Woakes bowled so badly, as soon as Archer and Broad returned he was all at sea again as the second innings further highlighted.

[Afro]

You're picking Dawson why?

Morgan just no.

My guess would be to recover the batting ability lost by going from Woakes to Anderson.

For me, you pick the bowlers to bowl, and don't worry much about their batting ability. If you have a problem with your batting, you fix the top 6. Reducing your bowling options to have a long tail is just papering over the cracks.

For me, you pick your best 5 batsmen, an all rounder, your best keeper and your best 4 bowlers. If any of them are good enough at the other bits, then great, but you don't try and build a team of all-rounders

[Afro]

Dom Bess?

[VTR]

I can see the logic of having some batting at 8,but it shouldn't be the priority vs having the most potent attack available. Calls for Dawson are absolutely insane, he would probably make a pair against this Aussie attack anyway.

If we go with Archer/Broad/Anderson/Leach I'd be tempted to put Leach at 8 out of that lot and see if he can block an end like Matthew Hoggard used to.

[Duty281]

With that tail, I'd also be tempted to put Broad at 11, the way he bats these days!

[VTR]

Yes, Broad has largely become a joke. He actually still plays the odd decent innings here and there but doesn't even look like he's trying most of the time. If he's part of that tail he needs to apply himself more.

People will inevitably compare it to the infamous Caddick/Giddins/Mullally/Tufnell but they are actually all better than the final three of that lot

[robbo277]

I can see the logic of having some batting at 8,but it shouldn't be the priority vs having the most potent attack available. Calls for Dawson are absolutely insane, he would probably make a pair against this Aussie attack anyway.

If we go with Archer/Broad/Anderson/Leach I'd be tempted to put Leach at 8 out of that lot and see if he can block an end like Matthew Hoggard used to.

I don't want to see Leach higher than 10, because every test innings he's had so far his batting position has had a 1 in it (1, 10 or 11) and I want to see how long he can keep that run going.

Realistically, I'd have him at 9. Archer can bat, so I'd have Leach come in after him. He's a better bat than Anderson and applies himself better than Broad does.

[JDizzle]

Nathan Lyon has injured his ankle playing (Aussie Rules) football today. No indication of seriousness yet, but the Aussies don’t have a second spinner in the squad so will be nervous.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Carey is in for their warm-up/tour match to give Paine a rest and Khawaja is captaining.

[Gooseberry]

Agree with the comments on Broad, he doesnt even seem to try to apply himself to batting these days and just swings a bit. Leach is the opposite, hes batted well above himself in tests so far and whilst that no way makes him good or an all rounder he has been able to make the best of very modest talents and importantly bought calm to proceedings when hes in. Anderson was a pretty good blocker/nightwatchman for a period and can hang about a bit too. Archer is the best of whats likely to be picked, a first class average of 29 would suggest hes not far off a Woakes or Curran but perhaps flatters a bit.

I get both sides of the pick your best bowling attack and worry about the top 7 batting. For me the difference here is that Woakes is arguably as good as Anderson at home, so you dont lose anything by sticking by him but you do lose in batting. It would be an easier argument to sustain if he hadnt had a dodgy spell in the last couple of tests and if he wasnt being limited by wear. Drop/rest seems inevitable.
I dont think that decision is the most important England will make though, the top 7 is where a real difference could be made.

Smith coming back will be a big boost for Aus, does losing Lyon offset that? Im not sure. It allows them to pick 4 seamers (Starc!) and they have lambuschange to bowl some spin. Its not an ideal balance but they do gain something in allowing more overs of raw pace. Lyon was huge in the first test but has been quiet since. Whllst losing Lyon is hardly a blessing for Aus its not a total disaster in the way Smith was.

[alfie]

I think Australia would be hugely impaired by losing Lyon ! OK he hasn't wrecked the innings since Edgbaston ; but he remains integral to their whole plan of attack : control , regular spelling of pace men , pressure especially on the left handers...
Injury may not be a problem - week to go - but if he were to miss it would give Langer a big problem to solve. There just isn't a comparable replacement . Four pace men sounds OK - and a way to fit Starc in ? - but could run into over rate problems as well as looking a bit silly if the pitch turned out to be better suited to the spin merchants as the game goes on.

[Duty281]

Blimey. Stokes' innings that defied belief. Anderson's sensational recovery. Smith getting whacked on the head. Now Lyon an injury doubt. Just like in 2005, fate really is turning England's way.

[robbo277]

Bumble has posited on twitter the possibility of England going into the Old Trafford test without a front line spinner. So I'd assume Anderson in for Leach is what he's angling at.

All agreed this is a bad idea? Or if we have Root and Denly is there a bit of support for it?

[VTR]

It doesn't sound great. 5 right arm seamers. OK, there's a bit of variety between them but overall seems too much. If at any point we are relying on Denly's legspin, then we truly are struggling

[Duty281]

I'd be ok with it. Not as if spin is having any impact from England's end, whether it's Ali or Leach, and with five seamers in the side there'll be absolutely no problem with workload.

[king_carlos]

More on Ballance...he averages 20.5 against Australia and was dropped twice in a run of 13 tests where he averaged 19.6, most of which he was he batted at 4/5 . This wasnt just a case of being held to higher standards, he was awful. Its even worse than the likes of Bairstow are getting savaged for now. I just dont see how he gets a third bite, certainly not in the Ashes.

Slow response I know sorry, Goose. I'm not arguing he's a perfect option, just that his test performances stack up a lot better than others tried in recent years. Crucially he actually bats top 3 as well.

A century and two fifties against Kemar Roach and Jerome Taylor. A fifty against Starc, Hazlewood and Mitchell Johnson. 4 centuries in 23 tests. Compared to Buttler for instance who has 1 century in 34 tests.

I'm by no means his biggest fan but he has performed better than many who tried after him. If trying to get Root back to 4 I'd personally put Denly up to open and bring Malan in at 3 as he plays the short ball well.

I'd rather Ballance up the top than shoehorning Pope or Roy up there is more the opinion I'm trying to put across.

[Soul Requiem]

He made those runs a long time ago and has since been well and truly found out, I'd much rather see Malan than Balance.

[king_carlos]

He made those runs a long time ago and has since been well and truly found out, I'd much rather see Malan than Balance.

To be fair I don't think it's secret to test bowlers that if you pitch a swinging ball up, in good areas, at 90 mph that you have a good chance of taking wickets with the new ball.

Agree that Malan is better suited to facing this Australia attack, particularly the short ball, but I'd still prefer Ballance in the top order over Pope or Roy. I'm a huge fan of both the Surrey men but shoehorning attacking lower middle order players into the top 4 is part of the problem rather than the solution.

[Gooseberry]

Pope bats at 4 now, putting him at 4 wouldn't be shoehorning anyone. No-one is suggesting Pope at 3.
Malan does bat at 3 a lot and most folk are suggesting him as a 4, so again noone is suggesting shoehorning anyone anywhere.

[king_carlos]

Pope bats at 4 now, putting him at 4 wouldn't be shoehorning anyone. No-one is suggesting Pope at 3.
Malan does bat at 3 a lot and most folk are suggesting him as a 4, so again noone is suggesting shoehorning anyone anywhere.

From my knowledge Pope has batted at 4 in two FC games this season (MCC and Hampshire) and one last season. His performances in those three games are outstanding but I think (as do many pundits) that at Test level he's currently suited to the lower middle order where he has batted for most of his short County Championship career.

He's hugely talented but attacking middle order batsman are better starting their Test careers further down the order.

I didn't say Malan was being shoehorned into the top order. If you read my post I said I'd prefer Malan than Ballance at 3 against this Australia attack. I said that attacking batsman better suited to the lower middle order such as Pope and Roy are being forced into the top order, and that is part of the problem not the solution in my opinion.

I enjoy debating cricket on these boards with you but you do often strike me as someone who could argue with their own reflection Goose!

[sirfredperry]

If Lyon does have to miss the Test it will be yet another example of the stupidity of players of one sport warming up by playing something else.

Didn't Bairstow get hurt playing football? Some years ago I seem to remember Nasser Hussain breaking a wrist playing tennis.

You don't see Harry Kane practising slip catching before a football match. I saw Collingwood limping away from a soccer session with the team at Lord's last week. Good job he wasn't actually playing in the Test.

[LondonTiger]

Hussein could break a bone in his hand using a TV remote he was so fragile.

In the end injuries can crop up anywhere. After all McGrath stood on a cricket ball. Sportsmen need to find ways to warm up and keep fit and odd injuries will always happen.

Olly Stone lost a season after getting injured celebrating a wicket when at Northants. So for me so long as tackling is not allowed why not kick a football or pass a rugby ball. I heard that some of the guys playing at Wimbledon last year played football in the evenings.

Oh, there is a video of Harry Kane playing some cricket earlier this summer with Virat Kohli.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

The rumour mill seems very much ablaze with speculation the only change Ed Smith wants to make to the batting is to switch Denly and Roy's batting slots. Nothing on what Bayliss/Root want...

I wouldn't be hugely against this, on the proviso that the youngsters/next generation like Sibley/Pope et al are definitely coming in post Ashes, on that tour in NZ (providing Roy/Denly don't hit like triple hundreds)

I don't think there is an ideal solution either way...throwing these guys into an Ashes series off the back of mainly playing T20's for a month and a half isn't exactly the ideal situation for them (especially Pope, who has already been thrown in the deep end once already and thrown aside).

Either way - seems Anderson is coming through the 2nd XI game well at least - is an attack of Anderson, Broad, Archer, Stokes our best seam lineup since the 2005 vintage?

[Gooseberry]

Interesting that Smith thinks Denly is an opener, then think he isnt, then think he should get a chance down at 4 where he doesnt do much then gets put back as an opener. Smith does seem to have a genuine belief in Denly regardless of how mediocre a cricketer he is, where he plays his county cricket and how he performs for England. 

Its the least of the "ought to do something" options available, but I doubt its enough to fundamentally address Englands batting woes. Better than nothing but feels like a cop out and you still have a guy who doenst play regularly as a county opener opening in tests, two openers who are yet to be really established as test class players, a number 3 who doesnt want to bat there, and a 4 with a truely awful test record, an all rounder at 5, two wicketkeepers who are both out of touch with the bat and most likely a weak tail. 

Its not that surprising if this is the only change, and its not like other options arent without their issues, but it feels like sweeping things under the carpet and pretending everythings fine because we won a game too.

[Soul Requiem]

Either way - seems Anderson is coming through the 2nd XI game well at least - is an attack of Anderson, Broad, Archer, Stokes our best seam lineup since the 2005 vintage?

You could argue it's a touch better if they're all on top form.

Anderson and Broad you'd have to say are the better opening pair with Archer as first change instead of Jones equally strong, you'd have to say though that Flintoff the bowler at that point was capable of doing things that Stokes isn't.

[alfie]

The rumour mill seems very much ablaze with speculation the only change Ed Smith wants to make to the batting is to switch Denly and Roy's batting slots. Nothing on what Bayliss/Root want...

I wouldn't be hugely against this, on the proviso that the youngsters/next generation like Sibley/Pope et al are definitely coming in post Ashes, on that tour in NZ (providing Roy/Denly don't hit like triple hundreds)

I don't think there is an ideal solution either way...throwing these guys into an Ashes series off the back of mainly playing T20's for a month and a half isn't exactly the ideal situation for them (especially Pope, who has already been thrown in the deep end once already and thrown aside).

Either way - seems Anderson is coming through the 2nd XI game well at least - is an attack of Anderson, Broad, Archer, Stokes our best seam lineup since the 2005 vintage?

Ed Smith seems to like to play his hunches ...and keep playing them. After three scores of under 100 in the last half dozen Tests you'd think he might have reconsidered the wisdom of picking players in form and in positions to which they are suited, but...

I truly do hope he and his bizarre selections prove me wrong ... But I honestly fear Smith and his stubbornness (aye , and Bayliss ) will (a ) Throw away the Stokes lifeline in this Ashes series , and (b) Continue to drive England's batting back to the Stone Age.

I do take Olly's point about the vulnerability of Pope : but if he can't come in and perform on the back of a superb innings for Surrey then I'd ask when would be a better time ? Sure there will be less high profile series to come (though I'm not sure facing Boult & co in NZ , or the SA pace attack , are any easier assignments in a technical sense) but isn't the best test of a young player to see if he can do it on a big stage ? Labuschagne managed all right at short notice...

I get the "don't mess with a winning team" idea : but honestly this one was basically pulled out of the fire by one man. Can't expect him to do it on his own every week. If they don't take some steps to improve the batting I think they are asking for trouble.

In an ideal world I'd have a new opener and also find a place for Pope. But this world is far from perfect and also I am still clinging to a hope that Buttler might conceivably get a start and play an innings at some point (perhaps I'm dreaming ?) so would settle for asking Denly to move to the top and bat Pope at four. (I'd bat Jos at six though : playing him at seven after the keeper surely doesn't exactly tell him the management is brimming with confidence in his batting ability !) If however he really is mentally shot (Bayliss must know , surely ?) then OK , rest him...which would bring us back to the team Olly suggested the other day , which does have the merit of placing everyone in their best positions.

But I do think they have to do something rather than just hope to get lucky again.

[robbo277]

Anderson bowled 29 overs 2-70 in Durham's 409-7d. Economy was good, plenty of maidens, and most importantly a large number of overs across a number of spells without breaking down.

[LondonTiger]

Pope should come in because Buttler so obviously needs a break. I know Buttler was our leading run scorer last year, but unless he can hold down a spot in the top 6 he should not be in the side as a specialist batsman.

While we continue to shuffle the deckchairs at the top of the order, Pope could at least be given a go at 6 before moving up the order in the winter.

[LondonTiger]

Anderson bowled 29 overs 2-70 in Durham's 409-7d. Economy was good, plenty of maidens, and most importantly a large number of overs across a number of spells without breaking down.

Do we know if he was bowling within himself?

[Duty281]

Michael Neser with a 'don't forget about me' spell of 3/31 against Derbyshire, while Starc and Siddle are currently wicketless.

[king_carlos]

Either way - seems Anderson is coming through the 2nd XI game well at least - is an attack of Anderson, Broad, Archer, Stokes our best seam lineup since the 2005 vintage?

You could argue it's a touch better if they're all on top form.

Anderson and Broad you'd have to say are the better opening pair with Archer as first change instead of Jones equally strong, you'd have to say though that Flintoff the bowler at that point was capable of doing things that Stokes isn't.

Flintoff the bowler at his best was a better bowler than Stokes no doubt. Over 90mph, brutal bouncer, excellent yorker and swing. He didn't do it for long due periods due to the ankle injuries but when Flintoff clicked he was some bowler.

Taking the seamers from the 2005 series and this one - Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones, Anderson, Broad, Woakes, Archer - it does amuse me that Hoggard has a better strike rate than Harmison, Flintoff, Anderson, Broad and Woakes. For a traditional English swing bowler who usually clocked the speed gun around 80mph his stats are remarkably good over a long career.

Agree that Anderson and Broad are the stronger opening pair though.

[sirfredperry]

London Tiger - You're right. I'd forgotten about the Kane-Kohli thing.

Don't agree with swapping Denley and Roy. Roy should be dropped and another opener (but who?) should be brought in.

If a bowler needs to make way for an Anderson return, it certainly shouldn't be Broad. Which just leaves Woakes for the chop.

[Gooseberry]

London Tiger - You're right. I'd forgotten about the Kane-Kohli thing.

Don't agree with swapping Denley and Roy. Roy should be dropped and another opener (but who?) should be brought in.

If a bowler needs to make way for an Anderson return, it certainly shouldn't be Broad. Which just leaves Woakes for the chop.

It should be Sibley who was the Lions opener the past two series and who has been the biggest run sorer in any position in this years CC. Hes also been the concussion reserve for the tests. 

It sounds like they are going to move Denly up instead.

[LondonTiger]

So deckchairs, re-arranging thereof?

[Duty281]

Michael Neser with a 'don't forget about me' spell of 3/31 against Derbyshire, while Starc and Siddle are currently wicketless.

Starc also ended up with 3 wickets; Australia a wicket down but haven't sent Steve Smith out to bat yet.

[No name Bertie]

Given the three tests so far - my overall feeling is that Australia is the better "package" - they seem more stable, more robust, with maybe better decision making.  England have seemed up and down, erratic, with some obviously out of form or out of mind individuals, with some strange decision making, and relying on a few individual outstanding performances.

[Soul Requiem]

Given the three tests so far - my overall feeling is that Australia is the better "package" - they seem more stable, more robust, with maybe better decision making.  England have seemed up and down, erratic, with some obviously out of form or out of mind individuals, with some strange decision making, and relying on a few individual outstanding performances.

Australia could and probably should have lost the first test and were saved by one individual, the second test England were in control pretty much the whole game and the third was another up and down affair.

[GSC]

dont think it's unfair to say without Steve Smith, Australia could well be 3-0 down already

[robbo277]

Anderson received treatment on his knee today and it's being reported he is unlikely to be fit for the 4th test.

It is also being discussed that Woakes is due a rest (and would have probably made way for Anderson) and is still possibly going to be taken out the team, with Sam Curran coming in at 8. Another bowler (possibly Overton) may be added to the squad as 12th man.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

ECB confirm Anderson is out of the series - felt some pain in his calf bowling, so not passed fit. A huge shame. Craig Overton called upto the squad

No other batsmen called into the squad - but no comment made about potential batting order changes

[sirfredperry]

News just in is that Anderson is out of the series thru injury, with Overton drafted into the squad.

As long as Woakes is OK I think they should go with the same bowling attack.

[Afro]

We need Overton for the final championship games more. Probably not a problem for the 4th test, as he won't play and should be released for the Yorkshire game. But if he is still in the squad for the 5th test, then I think that would rule him out of the Hampshire match

[Sponsored content]