The Ashes - official thread

[Soul Requiem]

First topic message reminder :

I don't understand why Buttler isn't hogging the strike here.

[VTR]

Also add Aussies won three tosses to one, though its been a series where its not usually been clear cut what to do. The Test just gone though batting first was a big advantage

[Gooseberry]

You can question how much practise Pope has had but but how much red ball batting has Roy done in the past few weeks?
Pope got more time under his belt in one innings than Roy has all summer.

[dummy_half]

You can question how much practise Pope has had but but how much red ball batting has Roy done in the past few weeks?
Pope got more time under his belt in one innings than Roy has all summer.

Harsh, but quite funny. Might still be more than David Warner though...

[KP_fan]

I see a lot of passionate & enjoyable discussion of Eng fans
Here is my two cents as an outsider who follows Eng and all big test cricket:

Eng's strengths in tests are( or rather were)

1-Bowling
2-Ability of almost all their bowlers to score runs

-Eng Lost Anderson in T1 and hence significantly weakened in that test......while Archer made up for Anderson next test onward but not quite fully....Eng weakened themselves further by dropping a pretty good seamer Woakes, and then lost Stokes' bowling to injury

So erstwhile strength no-1 stands significantly diluted

-Eng lost Moeen's batting to bad form and sacked a pretty handy lower order bat in Woakes, and did not bring in Curran who can almost always score runs in crisis
hence their strength no-2 stands significantly diluted.

and results of the dilutions in strength are for all to see.

[alfie]

Well now I've been off the air for most of this Test...Unlike Guildford I have not been up the Amazon but in fact in central London but sabotaged by Internet connection problems...still managed to see a fair bit of the match : not surprised by the result. But actually pleased that England were able to take it to the last hour. Two down for nothing , up and down fifth day pitch...would have been astonishing if they'd saved it. But no one threw it away ; all had to be bowled out and that is something you cannot often say of recent England teams!

As to the series : first massive congrats to Australia I see the arguments above as to how they rate ; and I personally think they are - overall - a fairly limited team (at least at this stage) One super batsman has literally carried them (with some very useful help from his apparent clone , Labuschagne) : with Warner all at sea the rest of the batting has been pretty poor by Test standards. The bowling on the other hand has been very good. Not sure I buy the "best attack since 2005" completely . They are individually at least comparable but I'm not saying miles better : but the key factor has been the excellent planning that has enabled them to rotate all but Cummins so that they've been able to perform close to their tops throughout . (Something England have been unable to match due to the injury list ...Anderson of course , but also Stone and Wood)
The planning has extended to a change in bowling philosophy as well : not just attack all the way but more keeping a tight rein on the England scoring - which almost inevitably led to wickets . They knew their opponent well (It actually backfired at Headingley but hasn't let them down otherwise)
All up ...well planned and executed and they deserve to retain the Ashes. Whether they are heavily superior - or seen as such - may come down to the Oval : 2-2- or 3-1...

As for England they have largely failed through missing the key moments. Every game they've had Australia in early trouble ...every game they've then lost their position through total inability to either dismiss or even restrain Smith . In fairness they'd have almost certainly won at Lord's had even the last day's unexpected rain delay not sucked too much time out of that rain ruined game ; but they were lucky as well as brave winning at Headingley.
Selection has been weak and muddled. I actually don't mind the team being left the same this week as the time for change was before this last game and given the improved application by the bats they may as well be left to try again - though Stokes may have to play this one as batsman only now , I'm hearing...
In fact changing the batting last week probably wouldn't have made a difference as this match was lost in the field on the first two days. "Resting" Woakes didn't turn out well. In truth it was probably Archer who needed to be rested - though they were never likely to do that , even had Jimmy been available. (Does point up a difference with the Australian approach , no ?) But the do nothing principle that Ed Smith seemed to adopt throughout the summer has a lot to answer for as I think it has bred a bit of unwarranted complacency in the team. I do wonder if Smith will keep his job much longer...
Burns Denly will do me for now as an opening pair. Sibley surely gets a try in NZ - that means Root can drop back to four . Roy did better in this match but I doubt he is going to be anything special as a four either and I really don't think England can afford two luxury attack bats in him and Buttler with both apparently having to be protected by others playing out of position. But that can all wait...for now I hope they can channel their chagrin at losing their chance at the Ashes into a series leveling win. Would at least keep the unbeaten record at home going a bit longer...I think they have a chance , to be honest : winning the toss would be handy.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

In fact changing the batting last week probably wouldn't have made a difference as this match was lost in the field on the first two days. "Resting" Woakes didn't turn out well. In truth it was probably Archer who needed to be rested - though they were never likely to do that , even had Jimmy been available. (Does point up a difference with the Australian approach , no ?)  

Agree with most of your points (although I really despair at the way the batting lineup is being left to do it's thing in the last test), but I think the only argument on this is that they really may have felt they just didn't have the bowlers to rest Archer and Woakes, seen with Overton coming in. That injury list in the bowling is a bit mad, with Anderson, Stone and Wood (let alone Gregory) all injured, with Woakes and Archer having played all summer in the World Cup.

It does seem a shame that injury replacements don't exist in cricket.

[Gooseberry]

I CBA to fact check but I think Cummins managed an entire world cup and has taken the heaviest share of Australias bowling in the Ashes so far without falling apart. Its not even like Bancrofts been there with his sticky tape (cough) to keep him in one piece. The Aussie quicks in theory should be putting a lot more stress on their bodies than the likes of Woakes who spent half the world cup bowling leg cutters.
But whilst England are keeping the physios on overtime with a terrifying list of injuries it seems the Australians can bowl any number of overs without issue. Its not just rotation. Archer had a fairly light load last year, Woakes sat out a lot of games, Stokes had his enforced break from cricket last year and tends to bowl small allocations, Anderson hardly plays any cricket at all, Broad sits out white ball, Stone and Wood both spend more time on the inured list than they do playing.
I dont doubt there are occasions where England could/should have rested the seamers more but I cant help wondering what else Australia are doing that has so dramatically changed their "luck" with bowler injuries. Its not so long back they had an injury list to rival Englands.

[alfie]

To be honest , goose , I think it is largely "luck" in this case .  As you say , Australia had a lot of fast bowler injuries : Pattinson was out for ages ...and there comes a time when everyone has recovered - in this case nicely lining up for the Ashes series. Cummins was plagued by injuries for years ; now he is enjoying a good injury free run. I certainly don't think they have found some mysterious witchcraft that keeps all their pace prospects healthy forever.
No guarantee they won't suffer a spate of injuries next southern summer.
Cast your mind back a while : Anderson was injury prone relatively early in his career but subsequently enjoyed a prolonged period in which he only ever missed the odd game...only recently has he started to suffer the frustrating recurring problems that have sidelined him for these matches. Broad had some issues : this year he is cruising niggle free....Wood has always been frail , unfortunately.
As for Woakes and Archer I don't think either has been seriously impaired ...just had the edge taken off by minor niggles , which is why I said that in a ideal world England might have done something like Australia ( Lord's Archer Broad and Woakes ; Leeds Archer Broad and Anderson ; Manchester Broad Anderson and Overton ; Oval Broad Archer and Woakes ...or something like that ?) all scuppered by the Anderson - and Wood - injuries , of course. But I do wonder anyway if this England management would have been flexible enough to do so even if all had been available ? I have my doubts...

[VTR]

England should have changed the batting but there is no point now. Ed Smith will no doubt be banging on about "special talents" as usual. So special they average about 20 in Tests this year.

Post this series I think Buttler and Roy have to go and concentrate on limited overs. Bairstow is the most disappointing of the lot, he was one of the best Test batsmen in the world for a period, now he is really patchy. He could well be in for the chop as well.

[Soul Requiem]

Bairstow has a county average of over 50 which I believe is the highest of any current player not called Ollie Pope who is qualified to play for England, I could be wrong on that however. He has for the most part played in the top order for Yorkshire so his failure to transfer that form into test is an issue replicated throughout the team.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

He gets out the same way too often.

[JDizzle]

Interesting article from a couple of years ago, point still stands though:

http://www.sportsanalyticsadvantage.com/england-batting-ashes-2017

TL;DR, if you don’t average 50 in D1 cricket, you are probably going to seriously struggle in Test cricket.

[alfie]

England should have changed the batting but there is no point now. Ed Smith will no doubt be banging on about "special talents" as usual. So special they average about 20 in Tests this year.

Post this series I think Buttler and Roy have to go and concentrate on limited overs. Bairstow is the most disappointing of the lot, he was one of the best Test batsmen in the world for a period, now he is really patchy. He could well be in for the chop as well.

I do wonder if the ODI emphasis hasn't been somewhat detrimental to Bairstow . Unlike the others mentioned , he was a regular in the Test team before he took over as the preferred ODI opener (used to be Hales and Roy , remember ?) Could be all that top of the order white ball attack mode has adversely affected his late middle order game ?
On the other side I suspect trying to adapt for Tests has possibly rendered Buttler slightly less consistently effective in the fifty over game - though that may be just an impression from some patchy scores over just 11 games which may mean very little . I think combining the two forms doesn't come easily to many players - which is why we tend to see specialists in most teams.

Of course there again we have the " what do you sacrifice for a World Cup win?" question again. At least they got that !

May well be that now the serious ODI business is done , asking players which form they wish to concentrate on could be a good idea ? I guess some will want both ; but unless they are seen to be successful -like Stokes - perhaps that won't be an option.

Of course it is always easier to say right , out with him and him , than it is to find viable alternatives. I'd be a lot happier going forward if I trusted the chief selector a bit more than I do the current one as I'm just not impressed by his hopeful hunch methods...

[alfie]

He gets out the same way too often.

Method of dismissal worries me less than it seems to do many people. Frankly don't care if someone is bowled caught or hit wicket as long as they get enough runs beforehand.
Root is frequently lbw. When he is scoring fifty plus every innings , fine.

Players often change style to compensate for weaknesses in one area or another...and it often makes them vulnerable to a new style of dismissal. Bairstow initially in Tests was seen as vulnerable to the short ball. He worked hard to get on top of that - successfully. He remains prone to being bowled through the gate early in his innings, which is why I don't want him in the top four even though many urge him to move up whenever he is making runs further down. But really his failure in this series has been edging to slip more than once with a loose cut shot when he had apparently settled in , thereby not going on to the big score England need from their number six/ seven. I think it is concentration , to be honest. He needs to sort that. Hopefully he will because Soul correctly points out his good county record should mean solid runs in that position ...which would help to cover for the top order troubles - as they show no signs of disappearing overnight.

[Gooseberry]

England should have changed the batting but there is no point now. Ed Smith will no doubt be banging on about "special talents" as usual. So special they average about 20 in Tests this year.

Post this series I think Buttler and Roy have to go and concentrate on limited overs. Bairstow is the most disappointing of the lot, he was one of the best Test batsmen in the world for a period, now he is really patchy. He could well be in for the chop as well.

I do wonder if the ODI emphasis hasn't been somewhat detrimental to Bairstow . Unlike the others mentioned , he was a regular in the Test team before he took over as the preferred ODI opener (used to be Hales and Roy , remember ?) Could be all that top of the order white ball attack mode has adversely affected his late middle order game ?
On the other side I suspect trying to adapt for Tests has possibly rendered Buttler slightly less consistently effective in the fifty over game - though that may be just an impression from some patchy scores over just 11 games which may mean very little . I think combining the two forms doesn't come easily to many players - which is why we tend to see specialists in most teams.

Of course there again we have the " what do you sacrifice for a World Cup win?" question again. At least they got that !

May well be that now the serious ODI business is done , asking players which form they wish to concentrate on could be a good idea ?  I guess some will want both ; but unless they are seen to be successful -like Stokes - perhaps that won't be an option.

Of course it is always easier to say right , out with him and him , than it is to find viable alternatives. I'd be a lot happier going forward if I trusted the chief selector a bit more than I do the current one as I'm just not impressed by his hopeful hunch methods...

Tend to agree, possibly Root too. It all adds weight to the argument of putting Buttler and Roy back to just white ball, and maybe resting Bairstow from that over the winter. theres certainly scope for that if Hales is considered selectable again. 
I guess part of the issue is Bairstows ego and insecurity, he had to fight very hard for his places in both the red and white ball sides. He strikes as the sort to not take being rotated/rested well and certainly wouldn't be the one putting forward the idea hes playing too much of one format or the other. 

I dont see his test place as under any real pressure right now. Foakes isnt demanding selection with this seasons county form in the way he was last year. Even as a pure batsman Id see him as ahead of Buttler, Roy and Denly in the hierarchy...hes only just been overtaken by Stokes as Englands second highest averaging batsman and as pointed out above has the pedigree of a very good county record and has shown previously he is capable of scoring good runs in tests. England surely wouldnt be looking to scrap that many players even with a new coach. So really the emphasis should be on getting his form and confidence back in this format, rest him from the white ball but give him the security hes still key to the future in all formats. 

There is still a huge issue with the quality of play in county cricket, the types of bowlers and pitches used (Darren Stevens still a force), and then bridging the gap up to test level. The step up has been talked about for a long time, and its only got wider as the CC has declined. the changes the ECB makes are always a decade behind and depressingly held back by the county die hards and a desire to protect that tradition. Theres also little onus on young players to pursue a career in red ball cricket, or for counties to employ red ball specialists with a living wage, they make their money in white ball cricket and inevitably an attacking batting keeper commands more of the budget than a classic nurdler. Is it any wonder half the Lions squad batsmen were listed as wicket keepers to add to the three in the tests side? 
The coaching and development just isnt up to scratch. We are seeing some fruits from the fast bowler program ran a few years back (although Archer bypassed that), why hasnt there been an opening batsman one? Its not like the shortage of opener is vaguely new.

[eirebilly]

-Eng lost Moeen's batting to bad form and sacked a pretty handy lower order bat in Woakes, and did not bring in Curran who can almost always score runs in crisis
hence their strength no-2 stands significantly diluted.

Woakes, to me, was a huge loss with both bat and ball. Really thought he was criminally under bowled and should have taken the new ball every time it was offered up instead of Archer.

As for Curran, Sure he will get runs but is he the type to bat controllably in a tight finish?

[Dolphin Ziggler]

He gets out the same way too often.

Method of dismissal worries me less than it seems to do many people. Frankly don't care if someone is bowled caught or hit wicket as long as they get enough runs beforehand.
Root is frequently lbw. When he is scoring fifty plus every innings , fine.

Players often change style to compensate for weaknesses in one area or another...and it often makes them vulnerable to a new style of dismissal.  Bairstow initially in Tests was seen as vulnerable to the short ball. He worked hard to get on top of that - successfully. He remains prone to being bowled through the gate early in his innings,  which is why I don't want him in the top four even though many urge him to move up whenever he is making runs further down. But really his failure in this series has been edging to slip more than once with a loose cut shot when he had apparently settled in , thereby not going on to the big score England need from their number six/ seven. I think it is concentration , to be honest. He needs to sort that. Hopefully he will because Soul correctly points out his good county record should mean solid runs in that position ...which would help to cover for the top order troubles - as they show no signs of disappearing overnight.

Don’t disagree, think the one day focus has definitely changed him a bit. I think there’s clearly a mental game with him too - why was he so much better if Roy was with him? - but if he’s batting at seven then I think he has the ability to knuckle down and sort his game.

Bairstow does bug me though. His batting form for England is abysmal, if my memory serves me rightly. Starting to feel like he’s getting away with it because they have the same kind of feeling towards him as they do Buttler and Roy.

The problem is really who do you prefer: Buttler or Bairstow? I don’t know if both are palatable in this England side. I think Burns opening, Root at 4, Stokes at 5 and Pope at 6 seem pretty obvious positions.

I also agree with people who think Foakes is a test player.

Maybe they need to accept that with so much cricket, some players are not gonna get the red ball tuning they need.

[Gooseberry]

-Eng lost Moeen's batting to bad form and sacked a pretty handy lower order bat in Woakes, and did not bring in Curran who can almost always score runs in crisis
hence their strength no-2 stands significantly diluted.

Woakes, to me, was a huge loss with both bat and ball. Really thought he was criminally under bowled and should have taken the new ball every time it was offered up instead of Archer.

As for Curran, Sure he will get runs but is he the type to bat controllably in a tight finish?

Bearing in mind it was Overton that came in for the Woakes/Curran spot I dont think we could have expected either of them to have lasted longer than he did second innings.

The only explanation for why Woakes has been treated so badly through this series is that hes been carrying and been hampered by an injury. In the first test once Anderson was injured he was hardly getting bowled, its either that or hes seriously upset Root somehow.

[Gooseberry]

He gets out the same way too often.

Method of dismissal worries me less than it seems to do many people. Frankly don't care if someone is bowled caught or hit wicket as long as they get enough runs beforehand.
Root is frequently lbw. When he is scoring fifty plus every innings , fine.

Players often change style to compensate for weaknesses in one area or another...and it often makes them vulnerable to a new style of dismissal.  Bairstow initially in Tests was seen as vulnerable to the short ball. He worked hard to get on top of that - successfully. He remains prone to being bowled through the gate early in his innings,  which is why I don't want him in the top four even though many urge him to move up whenever he is making runs further down. But really his failure in this series has been edging to slip more than once with a loose cut shot when he had apparently settled in , thereby not going on to the big score England need from their number six/ seven. I think it is concentration , to be honest. He needs to sort that. Hopefully he will because Soul correctly points out his good county record should mean solid runs in that position ...which would help to cover for the top order troubles - as they show no signs of disappearing overnight.

Don’t disagree, think the one day focus has definitely changed him a bit. I think there’s clearly a mental game with him too - why was he so much better if Roy was with him? - but if he’s batting at seven then I think he has the ability to knuckle down and sort his game.

Bairstow does bug me though. His batting form for England is abysmal, if my memory serves me rightly. Starting to feel like he’s getting away with it because they have the same kind of feeling towards him as they do Buttler and Roy.

The problem is really who do you prefer: Buttler or Bairstow? I don’t know if both are palatable in this England side. I think Burns opening, Root at 4, Stokes at 5 and Pope at 6 seem pretty obvious positions.

I also agree with people who think Foakes is a test player.

Maybe they need to accept that with so much cricket, some players are not gonna get the red ball tuning they need.

Bairstow scored 3 centuries and 3 50's in 2018, 1 of each on the Sri Lanka tour which is when Foakes was vying for his spot. 
That was still a drop from when he was regularly a top batsman for England, but not worthy of the level of stick and questions he was getting. Hes played every position from 3 to 7. 
This year though he has hit a real slump with the bat even hiding down the order. Two scores just over 50, a run of 5 single figure scores including two ducks against Ireland. Averages just 20 this year. 
Buttler is averaging just 22 and picked solely as a batsman. 

Foakes is having a rank year with the bat ( not sure how good is glove form in Surrey fans?) otherwise Id be onbaord with him getting the gloves and Bairstow competing for a specialist batting spot.

[Soul Requiem]

Foakes is having a rank year with the bat ( not sure how good is glove form in Surrey fans?) otherwise Id be onbaord with him getting the gloves and Bairstow competing for a specialist batting spot.

Where would you play Bairstow if Foakes is keeping?

The only spot I could see being up for grabs in that situation is number 3.

[VTR]

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/kevin-pietersen-jack-leach-ashes-cricket-england-australia-criticism-quotes-test-series-latest-a9098841.html

Dreadful attention seeking stuff from KP. Seems to think Leach can control who the crowd decide a cult hero is. Or should he stop wearing the glasses and effectively face Cummins and Hazelwood blind (insert your own joke about Jason Roy here)

[robbo277]

Very strange article that.

I get that he wants to express that Leach hasn't been that good and possibly a 1* has glossed over some only-okay stats, but the tone is off.

He's not there yet and hopefully there is more to come from Leach the bowler as this series and his England career move on.

KP's battle against left arm spin apparently continues.

[VTR]

Yes, all very odd. I also seem to remember Swann didn't have a great overall record vs Australia, or certainly had some quiet series, including his first Ashes. Leach may or may not last as a spinner but he has shaped the outcome of a few games in his short tenure in the side, with bat, ball and in the field (key runout vs Sri Lanka).

[Gooseberry]

Foakes is having a rank year with the bat ( not sure how good is glove form in Surrey fans?) otherwise Id be onbaord with him getting the gloves and Bairstow competing for a specialist batting spot.

Where would you play Bairstow if Foakes is keeping?

The only spot I could see being up for grabs in that situation is number 3.

If Roy Denly and Buttler are the competition theres plenty of spots he could be slotted in.
I dont think Roy or Buttler should play test cricket this winter regardless of how well they do in the next test. Give them some time off to focus on white ball and rest.
Unless Denly gets some very good runs in this next test I dont see him having a test future beyond filling in if Roots given a break too.
So really Bairstow could end up 4-6. If its the 3 spot hes competing for I dont see that as workable, not after last time. Its certainly not a spot to be sticking someone whos struggling at 7 (like when they put Moeen in there after being recalled following his previous meltdown).
I know theres still a lot of people gunning for him but hes still the batsman with the third best average in the side, they can ill afford to get rid straight away.

But anyway Foakes isnt doing enough to warrant a recall so its a moot point.

[JDizzle]

The most bizarre part is the 8 wickets at 30 dig. Like, that’s not bad for a spinner in England! If he averages 30 in Tests in England across his career he will have done pretty well! And the one time he has bowled in the fourth innings this summer he looked dangerous.

[Gooseberry]

It also seems to be a case of KP yet again misunderstanding the English psyche.

Its exactly because Leach is a bit rubbish and awkward that the crowd love him. KP is such a preening peacock, its sad to think that hes so insecure he feels the need to invest heavily in hair gel and skin treatments just to get the praise his cricketing skills deserve. I dont thiunk hes ever quite understood its exactly his posturing and self agraindisment that Bristish folk hate him for.

Its also worth noting that all Leach was doing was carefully going about making the most of very modest talents. Its more of that we need form the England team, with the bat hes gone beyond the call of duty and made the best of it. Something we haven't seen from the likes of Roy. And whilst Leaches figures continue to match those of Lyon Im not going to be over critical of his bowling. Moeen got some great figures at home last season by bowling a lot of filth. This just isn't a spinners series.

[Soul Requiem]

Foakes is having a rank year with the bat ( not sure how good is glove form in Surrey fans?) otherwise Id be onbaord with him getting the gloves and Bairstow competing for a specialist batting spot.

Where would you play Bairstow if Foakes is keeping?

The only spot I could see being up for grabs in that situation is number 3.

If Roy Denly and Buttler are the competition theres plenty of spots he could be slotted in.
I dont think Roy or Buttler should play test cricket this winter regardless of how well they do in the next test. Give them some time off to focus on white ball and rest.
Unless Denly gets some very good runs in this next test I dont see him having a test future beyond filling in if Roots given a break too.
So really Bairstow could end up 4-6. If its the 3 spot hes competing for I dont see that as workable, not after last time. Its certainly not a spot to be sticking someone whos struggling at 7 (like when they put Moeen in there after being recalled following his previous meltdown).
I know theres still a lot of people gunning for him but hes still the batsman with the third best average in the side, they can ill afford to get rid straight away.

But anyway Foakes isnt doing enough to warrant a recall so its a moot point.

He either bats at seven without Foakes in the side or he doesn't play in my opinion, I'd much rather the latter, you're placing too much emphasise on overall average to be honest.

Root, Stokes and Pope should occupy 4-6 over the winter with Sibley coming in at the top, who plays three is anyones guess but Roy, Denly and Buttler have done very little to keep their places in the team.

[robbo277]

I agree that the winter tours selection will come down to much more than this next test.

Who actually wants to play red ball cricket for England would be the first question. Do Roy and Buttler want to fight for test spots? Or do they want to focus on white ball? We can replace their 20 runs an innings in tests, we can't replace them at white ball.

Of the multi-format players, we need to work out who needs a rest and what format / series they're going to sit out. We have 8 tests (6 in the World Championship), 3 ODIs (0 in the Super League) and 8 T20 (no league, however we are building for the T20 World Cup).

In November, England have 5 T20s in NZ followed by 2 back-to-back tests. There's 11 days between the T20 series and the test series so not much time for any red ball practice in between. This is not part of the World Test Championship. Personally, I'd use this as a bit of a development tour. Maybe rest the 3 format players (Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Archer and Woakes) from the whole thing. I don't think it's worth flying these 5 players out for 5 T20s in two weeks and then sending them home.

From a 3rd December finish in NZ, England start a test series in South Africa on Boxing Day. This is in the World Test Championship so I'd bring the big guns back for this one. Our four day test series finishes at the end of January and then we have 3 ODI and 3 T20 in February.

We then have a 2 Test tour of Sri Lanka in March before the England home summer. No white ball cricket there.

If we rest the 3 format players from the entire NZ tour, we'll have:
T20 team: Roy, Hales/Vince/Duckett/(gap), Buttler, Morgan, Billings, (gap), Willey, Curran, Jordan, Rashid, Wood
Test team: Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Denly, Pope, Foakes, Curran, Overton, Broad, Leach, Anderson

That T20 team I've based off the last one against West Indies. Hales and Bairstow opened so Roy can come back in. Hales might be out so we may have another opener spot can come back in. We have a gap for another batsman to come in (good chance to look at someone before the tournament). The bowling options are all available but we could tweak those, with Moeen and Plunkett being available too.

The test team looks weak on paper (you could argue we're weak now though), but 5 of that top 6 could easily make our top 7 for the next series while Anderson, Broad and Leach will probably make it too. Much changed from the Ashes, but potentially not that huge a change before the next test - Root back for Denly, Stokes back for Curran, Woakes/Archer back for Overton and you're arguably at our strongest team. Bairstow being the other option.

If Roy and Buttler then want to compete for test places, they can stake a claim with weight of Championship runs. But this winter just leave them to smash the white ball around. I'd take them to NZ for the T20 series and then South Africa as well - where I'd look to play at or near full strength. They'll be able to play franchise cricket in between or, if they're serious about getting back into the England team, maybe they can get some first class cricket somewhere.

I think this gives us a good chance of winning our Test Championship tests and manages everyone's workload over the winter so they can start again fresh. Next summer should be much less taxing with some more lowkey series before we go to the T20 World Cup in the autumn, but we can start to shape both our test and limited overs team this winter.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I think it is pretty reasonable to expect test players to be able to handle two back-to-back tests in New Zealand. They don't get enough red ball practise, so they probably shouldn't turn it down. Especially the captain.

Maybe Buttler and Woakes, who arguably need it for their future careers, but I'd rest no one else. I would give a consideration to Stokes, but maybe just take him as a batsman. Bairstow is included below, but I would be tempted to drop him so he can consider where he wants to focus his game.

Squad of: Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Denly, Root, Stokes, Pope, Foakes, Bairstow, Archer, Anderson, Broad, Leach, Curran.

[Soul Requiem]

After a decent start to the season Crawleys form seems to have fallen off a cliff and highlights the major problem with the county game and that's the prolonged period where they play no red ball cricket. Pope however continues to show he's a cut above everyone else and really should be excelling at test level with the ability he has.

[Duty281]

I'd expect to see players rested for the oddly-arranged NZ tour, because the tests don't count as part of the Championship, but then I think a full-strength XI would take the field for the South Africa and Sri Lanka tests.

It's going to be a very tough winter. New Zealand and South Africa are both better than England at the moment, though England do seem to have a good record in South Africa, and going to the subcontinent is generally more painful than pleasurable for an England side.

[VTR]

Why are England playing in Sri Lanka again? Who comes up with these ridiculous schedules?

[LondonTiger]

After a decent start to the season Crawleys form seems to have fallen off a cliff and highlights the major problem with the county game and that's the prolonged period where they play no red ball cricket. Pope however continues to show he's a cut above everyone else and really should be excelling at test level with the ability he has.

And County Championship is even more marginalised next season to the edges of the season.

[Gooseberry]

SA did lose to Sri Lanka. But they are if course a different proposition at home. I don't think they are quite the force they were mind, the world cup showed the new generation aren't quite Steyn, Kallis, Smith and Pietersen. Markram is the one bright spot
in batting , and they still have a strong stable of seam bowlers. It's not as strong a side as the one England beat on the last tour though.
It won't be a comfortable place for whoever's is the top 3, and nor will NZ. It's a rough ask for new players coming in.

[robbo277]

Roy and Overton out, Woakes and Curran in. Stokes will bat but not bowl.

Possible order:

Burns, Denly, Root, Stokes, Bairstow (wk), Buttler, Woakes, Curran, Archer, Leach, Broad

[Duty281]

Christ, that team looks awful. Australia are available at 21/20.

[JDizzle]

Roy and Overton out, Woakes and Curran in. Stokes will bat but not bowl.

Possible order:

Burns, Denly, Root, Stokes, Bairstow (wk), Buttler, Woakes, Curran, Archer, Leach, Broad

Hopefully they put Stokes in at 3, so Root can bat 4, if he isn’t going to bowl.

[Soul Requiem]

Possibly the worst England line up I've seen since the 90's.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Batting is stronger than last week by virtue of Curran and Woakes being better than Overton and Roy*. Bowling is better by virtue of Stokes being half dead before and Overton being not good.

*said with purposeful hyperbole and lack of respect for how Roy is currently playing

[Soul Requiem]

Batting is worse by virtue of having not one but now five players batting too high up the order.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Batting is worse by virtue of having not one but now five players batting too high up the order.

They were all batting too high up the order with Roy around.

If you wanted to fix that problem, you probably needed a real squad change and not just sticking with the same s***

[Soul Requiem]

If Stokes, Bairstow and Buttler are in the team then it's at 5-7 so don't think that argument holds much water, whether one of them should miss out altogether is a different question altogether.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Aussies dropping Head for Marsh

[Dolphin Ziggler]

If Stokes, Bairstow and Buttler are in the team then it's at 5-7 so don't think that argument holds much water, whether one of them should miss out altogether is a different question altogether.

Roy has been five knuckle shuffle and Stokes is probably capable of batting four if he isn’t bowling. If Bairstow and Buttler really can’t bat 5 and 6 (wasn’t Buttler at 6 not long ago?) then that’s a stronger indictment than I need write.

If you then consider that both Woakes and Curran would appear notable improvements on batting than Overton, and Roy has been a walking wicket, I see this as little worry.

I can’t see how last week’s team isn’t getting the same derision, basically. Both are pretty s***

[robbo277]

Batting is worse by virtue of having not one but now five players batting too high up the order.

They were all batting too high up the order with Roy around.

If you wanted to fix that problem, you probably needed a real squad change and not just sticking with the same s***

I'd agree. It's probably the best from the squad, but probably not the best squad.

As Olly (I think) said early, it's hard to bring someone new in for one game after they've played a month of white ball. Pope and Sibley both got Championship 50's in this round though, so possibly could have come in.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Whilst I get his point, it’s still defeatist to me. And a logic they cannot use themselves if they look at their picks of Roy (now) and past picks like Buttler. And this whole squad is full of players whose red ball time was spent at the World Cup

It’s a sound logic, but it’s definitely not a logic they’ve shown much of in the past.

[LondonTiger]

Aussies dropping Head for Marsh

Now Aussies are taking the piss

[VTR]

Woakes at 7 should be fine, if he is indeed a Test quality allrounder. Think we have got a bit used to ridiculous players at 8 or 9, which isn't the norm. You don't have to go back to the 90s to find teams with a fading Flintoff at 7.

The issue as ever is with the dog's dinner above it that is supposed to be the top 6.

[Gooseberry]

Agree it's a making the best of a mess selection. The batting issue isn't 7 to 11 its 1 to 7. Stokes not bowling made this inevitable.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

What position in any team am I allowed to pick Vince in? He’s like a girlfriend who dumps you but brings you back for the lonely boring months. So wrong, but looks so good

[Sponsored content]