England's Winter

First topic message reminder :

New Zealand

T20 Internationals

Friday November 1st - Christchurch
Sunday November 3rd - Wellington
Tuesday November 5th - Nelson
Friday November 8th - Napier
Sunday November 10th - Auckland

Squad
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex) captain
Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire)
Tom Banton (Somerset)
Sam Billings (Kent)
Pat Brown (Worcestershire)
Sam Curran (Surrey)
Tom Curran (Surrey)
Joe Denly (Kent)
Lewis Gregory (Somerset)
Chris Jordan (Sussex)
Saqib Mahmood (Lancashire)
Dawid Malan (Middlesex)
Matt Parkinson (Lancashire)
Adil Rashid (Yorkshire)
James Vince (Hampshire)


Tests

Wednesday November 20th - Tauranga
Thursday November 28th - Hamilton

Squad
Joe Root (Yorkshire) captain
Jofra Archer (Sussex)
Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire)
Rory Burns (Surrey)
Jos Buttler (Lancashire)
Zak Crawley (Kent)
Sam Curran (Surrey)
Joe Denly (Kent)
Jack Leach (Somerset)
Saqib Mahmood (Lancashire)
Matthew Parkinson (Lancashire)
Ollie Pope (Surrey)
Dominic Sibley (Warwickshire)
Ben Stokes (Durham)
Chris Woakes (Warwickshire)



South Africa

Tests

Thursday 26th December - Centurion
Friday January 3rd - Cape Town
Thursday January 16th - Port Elizabeth
Friday January 24th - Johannesburg

Squad
TBC


ODI
Tuesday 4th February - Cape Town
Friday 7th February - Durban
Sunday 9th February - Johannesburg

Squad
TBC



T20 Internationals

Wednesday 12th February - East London
Friday 14th February - Durban
Sunday 16th February - Centurion


Sri Lanka

March 7th - Warm up 1, Katunayake (3 day)
March 12th - Warm up 2, Colombo (3 day)
March 19th - 1st Test, Galle
March 27th - 2nd Test, Colombo

Flip side is the CC will continue to breed mediocrity if they dont have overseas stars adding some quality.
The English test stars hardly play in it.

Who will our batsmen learn from facing Darren Steven's and being mentored by Ravi Bopara?

Decent argument. In my mind the whole system is broken. Far too many counties, with dross bowling able to succeed due to poor pitches and playing at silly times of the year. I can't see it changing so the ECB have to ring-fence talent early and take them out of the county game as much as possible e.g. Lions Tours, chosen for lesser Test series

I'm really happy with that England squad. Pope should definitely get a shot in that XI.

1.Burns
2.Sibley
3.Denly
4.Root (c)
5.Stokes 
6.Pope
7.Buttler (wk)
8.Woakes/Curran
9.Archer
10.Leach
11.Broad

Parkinson provides competition for Leach and Mahmood a good option to rotate the seamers.

I'm less certain about Crawley selection. A reserve bat to pressure Denly is needed but if Crawley spends the winter carrying drinks then questions will be asked of whether he should have been in the middle elsewhere.

If Buttler picks up an injury, I do wonder whether Foakes or Bairstow will fly out as backup.

Quite a fall for Overton to go from playing the 4th test to not making the touring squad. I wonder if Jamie Porter is overlooked due to a perceived lack of pace or not playing all three formats. The England selectors like players who challenge all formats and Mahmood offers that much more than Porter.

Pretty much the same page Carlos.
I guess Mahmood falls in the same bracket as Crawley to me. This is a guy who's taken just 21 wickets at 32 this season in division 2. 8 wickets at 27.5 in the Blast. Gets picked for both squads. Which I guess also ties back to the prior discussion on how pointless county cricket has become.
These are very much selections on potential rather than current results.

Mahmood was on the previous Lions winter tour so at least served time there unlike Crawley (Jason Roy played 3 in the "test" and scored 59 which just goes to show the difference a flat pitch makes) but it still feels like both should have something more focused on them and specific coaching rather than just being made to feel like spare parts on a winter tour.

Going back to county cricket the shield in Aus shows what could be. A smaller elite competition which has the test team largely present, and a second tier competition with a wider player base which the test stars largely ignore. The 100 system kinda shows how this can work to feed down the money from regions into feeder counties to keep them afloat.
The changes being made now to sideline div 2 and reduce the risk of relegation for Surrey are a decade late and a stepping stone toward ring fencing, but one that threatens the existence of the smaller counties as viable entities ( although some world argue Leicestershire shat the bed on that one already) rather than looking to regionalise and continue subsidise them.

Theres a lot of chat about the world test championship in interviews from the england leadership. Frankly at the moment that looks like pie in the sky thinking. They dont have a team to challenge it or the structure to really address that in the short or medium term.

king_carlos wrote:I'm really happy with that England squad. Pope should definitely get a shot in that XI.

1.Burns
2.Sibley
3.Denly
4.Root (c)
5.Stokes 
6.Pope
7.Buttler (wk)
8.Woakes/Curran
9.Archer
10.Leach
11.Broad

Parkinson provides competition for Leach and Mahmood a good option to rotate the seamers.

I'm less certain about Crawley selection. A reserve bat to pressure Denly is needed but if Crawley spends the winter carrying drinks then questions will be asked of whether he should have been in the middle elsewhere.

If Buttler picks up an injury, I do wonder whether Foakes or Bairstow will fly out as backup.

Quite a fall for Overton to go from playing the 4th test to not making the touring squad. I wonder if Jamie Porter is overlooked due to a perceived lack of pace or not playing all three formats. The England selectors like players who challenge all formats and Mahmood offers that much more than Porter.

Carlos - Ed Smith confirmed Foakes is on standby if an injury to Buttler occurs pre game.

Gooseberry wrote:Pretty much the same page Carlos.
I guess Mahmood falls in the same bracket as Crawley to me. This is a guy who's taken just 21 wickets at 32 this season in division 2. 8 wickets at 27.5 in the Blast. Gets picked for both squads. Which I guess also ties back to the prior discussion on how pointless county cricket has become.
These are very much selections on potential rather than current results.

Mahmood was on the previous Lions winter tour so at least served time there unlike Crawley (Jason Roy played 3 in the "test" and scored 59 which just goes to show the difference a flat pitch makes) but it still feels like both should have something more focused on them and specific coaching rather than just being made to feel like spare parts on a winter tour.

Going back to county cricket the shield in Aus shows what could be. A smaller elite competition which has the test team largely present, and a second tier competition with a wider player base which the test stars largely ignore. The 100 system kinda shows how this can work to feed down the money from regions into feeder counties to keep them afloat.
The changes being made now to sideline div 2 and reduce the risk of relegation for Surrey are a decade late and a stepping stone toward ring fencing, but one that threatens the existence of the smaller counties as viable entities ( although some world argue Leicestershire shat the bed on that one already)  rather than looking to regionalise and continue subsidise them.

Theres a lot of chat about the world test championship in interviews from the england leadership. Frankly at the moment that looks like pie in the sky thinking. They dont have a team to challenge it or the structure to really address that in the short or medium term.

Whilst county cricket isn't perfect, a long way from, I do reject the assertion it's pointless. Even if it's still our best indicator of test potential in lieu of any alternative, it is still the best indicator as there is no alternative!

Plucking players from ODI success and ignoring CC performance has been shown up in the Ed Smith tenure. Roy and Rashid both fallen by the wayside. Burns on the other hand one of the success stories of the summer.

Many often point to the success of green top seamers who would offer nothing on the test stage. The reality of a sport so dominated by conditions is that all domestic competitions have such bowlers. In India the Ranji, Duleep and Irani trophies all see a litany of very successful spinners fielded who couldn't turn a doorknob outside of those very helpful conditions.

A few years back at a washed out day in a Yorkshire CC game I had the pleasure of a fascinating chat with Jason Gillespie about the issue. He listed around a dozen Sheffield Shield seamers who suit the hard pitches and Kookaburra ball due to their 'hit the pitch hard', shoulder heavy, front on actions. In those conditions they are successful but by his own admission he wouldn't have dreamt of bringing them over to county cricket as their skill sets which had been built to suit those domestic conditions would have fallen by the wayside in English conditions.

Steve Magoffin is a terrific example of the reverse. He was a fantastic seamer who had some success in the Shield and made the periphery of strong Australia squads without getting capped. He just didn't quite suit Australian conditions though. In English conditions however he was lethal, as his FC record shows. Were Australia correct not to cap him given he'd have struggled in most conditions? Yes I think they were. It isn't a tragedy to the world of cricket that Magoffin had a successful professional career despite being below test standard though!

I really like your thoughts in the last paragraphs though, Goose. Particularly not instinctively dismissing the Hundred. Every bleeding comments section on the Beeb is filled with people saying the Hundred is a farce without offering any argument to back it up. Bottom line of the Hundred is it's a competition designed for one reason, getting more cash flow into a County system that's going bankrupt.

My grandfather was an Essex CCC member from the end of the second world war to his death. My father was an ardent Essex fan but being in the army we moved all over the UK and I had the chance to watch cricket at most county grounds in the country with him. Many at Headingley when we lived in York and latterly I watched Surrey obsessively as my dad got a job in London with an MOD flat within sight of the Oval.

I have so many fond memories of the county system and it's traditional groundings. The sad truth is that change has to come to not only improve the pathway from the CC to Test cricket but also to safeguard the financial future of the county game.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I'm really happy with that England squad. Pope should definitely get a shot in that XI.

1.Burns
2.Sibley
3.Denly
4.Root (c)
5.Stokes 
6.Pope
7.Buttler (wk)
8.Woakes/Curran
9.Archer
10.Leach
11.Broad

Parkinson provides competition for Leach and Mahmood a good option to rotate the seamers.

I'm less certain about Crawley selection. A reserve bat to pressure Denly is needed but if Crawley spends the winter carrying drinks then questions will be asked of whether he should have been in the middle elsewhere.

If Buttler picks up an injury, I do wonder whether Foakes or Bairstow will fly out as backup.

Quite a fall for Overton to go from playing the 4th test to not making the touring squad. I wonder if Jamie Porter is overlooked due to a perceived lack of pace or not playing all three formats. The England selectors like players who challenge all formats and Mahmood offers that much more than Porter.

Carlos - Ed Smith confirmed Foakes is on standby if an injury to Buttler occurs pre game.

Delighted by that on two counts. Firstly, Foakes being in the frame for a recall. Secondly, it implies that Bairstow may be getting told to concentrate on batting.

I read an excerpt from a Smith interview saying that dropping Bairstow doesn't rule out the possibility of him returning as keeper. Foakes being 2nd choice certainly suggests that's the current thinking though.

As a keeper-batsman I see Bairstow as a player who will float around the order, play some fantastic innings but ultimately end his Test career with an average in the mid-30's and a reputation as a solid but unspectacular gloveman. As a batsman alone, concentrating on 5 or 6 in the order I'd hope he can push his average up towards 40 though. Unlike many keepers he is also a fantastic outfielder. In fact I'd argue he is a better outfielder than keeper.

Hopefully Smith have given him simple instructions going forward. Namely, Ollie Pope is going to be batting at 6 and if he fails put yourself in a position to claim that spot.

I also think that if Buttler is to have a long term test future he needs to be keeping and as such his glovework will need to improve to the standards Bairstow has grown to. He's had intermittent success since being recalled but one century in 36 tests isn't going to keep Buttler in the side forever. If he can prove himself as a keeper then his counterattacking from 7 could be very valuable.

The hundred is utterly pointless when T20 is only 20 balls more, a complete waste of time.

Aside from Jadeja, Bairstow is probably the finest boundary fielder in the game which is very odd for a wicketkeeper.

Soul Requiem wrote:The hundred is utterly pointless when T20 is only 20 balls more, a complete waste of time.

Aside from Jadeja, Bairstow is probably the finest boundary fielder in the game which is very odd for a wicketkeeper.

Is that view coming from a viewpoint of developing better players for international cricket or making the domestic game more financially viable?

Not wanting to sound abrasive, Soul. I'm just genuinely interested in having a legitimate discussion!

I feel a lot of people instinctively dismiss it as a concept due to it's similarity to T20. The prime motivation for it's creation isn't an attempt to revolutionise shorter form cricket but to bring more cash flow to a domestic set-up that's going bankrupt.

In front of the media the ECB will of course say they hope it has a similar impact on world cricket to county cricket introducing professional T20 in 2003. The reality is that they need it to do one thing, make more money. Even if no other cricketing nation adopts it as a format the ECB won't care one jot if it brings a desperately needed revenue stream to a game choking on financial difficulties.

I think Bairstows been told he has to play as batsman in Tests going forward. Pope has a chance to take that spot though

I genuinely don't see how a mere 20 balls is going to make the game more viable, it will just further dilute an already diluted format.

Its not SR. the only reason the 100 exists is because they stuffed up the Blast and made it a global second tier competition. 

This is enabling them to have a competition on a par with BBL/IPL in terms of player quality whilst pretending they aren't stepping on the county/Blasts toes. 

From a pure cricketing perspective its pointless. But thats not the point Carlos was making. 

From a marketing and revenues perspective it has potential. It also shows a model I think the first class game needs to follow to make it viable and include higher quality more intense gameplay. Less teams, more test players. A stripped down county game can still exist behind that in the same way that minor counties and club cricket manages to exist, and with some trickle down funding from the elite competitions. 

The ECB messed up big time getting into bed with Stanford and its taken them a few years to get back on track. Its a daft format yes, but at least its promoting elite play. Englands best players will stay mediocre without that.

I'm all for it if it leads to an 8 to 10 team FC tournament, played on proper wickets which will instantly retire the likes of Darren Stevens. With all respect to him (and I could pick other examples), he has spent a whole career never getting near England recognition. As the FC competition will never attract more than two men and a dog to most matches, even in a reduced format, then it needs to exist to feed the England team with talent as its certainly not making the money to pay the wages of the players in it. There must be well over a hundred players in the English counties currently who aren't worth keeping as professionals. Pastes to Surrey forum and runs!

To be fair there must be well over 100 Surrey players who have been capped for England in the past 4 years

Word on the street is Gary Kirsten will be announced as England coach soon

Well of that's true its welcome news and they did a very good job of keeping it on the down low. All the reports and betting odds seemed to have it as one of the honest county pros.
Kirsten certainly has the pedigree as a succesful international coach and the credibility to demand the players respect even if hes been low profile for a few years. Certainly not a bad guy to have on board for a trip to SA.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Word on the street is Gary Kirsten will be announced as England coach soon

Hope this is true. Reports are really strong so looks to be

Got a great rep for improving players technically and also tactically which is exactly what England need.

Sounds like England have changed tack and Chris Silverwood is set to be appointed.

Silverwood confirmed - a perfectly good appointment in itself to be fair, did sterling work with Essex and has been good as bowling coach in his tenure with England

Feels somewhat a missed opportunity. Hard to say whether change is needed though, as he was part of a hugely successful coaching setup, but the test side needs something. Maybe it needs his tweaks and to keep a good team together with a slightly different voice.

I’d have preferred a One Day coaching setup and a Test coaching setup, but it doesn’t seem to happen

Happy enough with a single head coach, but would have different assistant coaches for the differing formats.

Hopefully Silverwood will be better than the last Yorkshireman to be England's head coach

A cautious welcome from me.

Unless you're Nathaniel, it's always difficult to make judgements about coaching staff when you don't directly see them at work. However, as Olly says, Silverwood was successful at Essex. Furthermore, his role as bowling coach has coincided with that being the best part of England's game at Test level. That's not to say everything is pefect there - particularly thinking about Woakes where there are unanswered questions.

With so much cricket being played by England nowadays in each calendar year, it's probably also helpful to have a man like Silverwood in charge whose home and family are in this country. That doesn't mean we couldn't or shouldn't ever appoint someone like Kirsten. However, it needs to be recognised that a coach from overseas wouldn't be able to easily nip home after every game and would be more likely to need a fixed time (possibly a particular series) away from the team for his own home life which could be disruptive.

I agree with Tiger about having a single head coach (otherwise potential conflicts and mixed messages), albeit with different assistant coaches for the differing formats.

Well I'm sure he brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to help address Englands major issues with batting.

LondonTiger wrote:Happy enough with a single head coach, but would have different assistant coaches for the differing formats.

Yeah, I would have no qualms with that either, but I definitely think there should be different teams or specialists within.

Giles was England ODI coach for a period when Flower was the Test coach wasn’t he? And by all accounts he hated it - the push and pull of who was tested for what etc. so no shock he has gone for one coach. We will see how Silverwood goes!

Dont have an issue with the single coaching thing if hes prepared for what that entials, and has enough support in the wider team. 

What worries me is that appointment seems to have been made based on a dogmatic idea that the coach ought to be English, not on who is the best qualified for the role. 

Bayliss was pretty vocal on leaving about the poor standards in county cricket and the gulf between quality and the types of skills (batting and bowling) required to succeed outside England. Silverwoods experience and success is almost entirely in the county game. So sure he knows it inside out and knows the players, but it also makes him the master of mediocrity. 

Im not sure what he really knows about batting either, and thats the si issue England need to address. 

9 months as Englands bowling coach, it does seem he was pretty much rubber stamped back at the start of the year when Giles chucked his name out there and said he thought England should be led by and Englishman (something Im sure went down a treat with Bayliss and Morgan) 

It may be that Silverwood turns out to be a genuine coaching genius, and he presumably has a good relationship with Root and the bowlers. He certainly hasn't done a bad job as the bowling coach, at least in terms of getting the best from Broad and Archer. 

I'm just not sure any of that really makes him proven at the level England should be aspiring to for the top job. As a player he was a good county pro, I feel that way about him as a head coach too. 

Happy to be proven wrong, but it feels to me like Kirsten would have been a better choice and a decision made for the wrong reasons.

I'd have been far happier having a former test class batsmen as coach rather than a decent county bowler, I just don't think Silverwood will fix any of the problems in the team. A fairly simple way of looking at things but Kirsten knew how to bat very long and prized his wicket very highly, having someone like that in conjunction with Thorpe could do the team the world of good.

People realise that how good people were as players has absolutely no relevance to how good a coach they are right?

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:People realise that how good people were as players has absolutely no relevance to how good a coach they are right?

In some situation it might have no relevance but in others it might, Kirsten will know more about the technical side of batting than Silverwood.

Be on the batting coach.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:People realise that how good people were as players has absolutely no relevance to how good a coach they are right?

In some situation it might have no relevance but in others it might, Kirsten will know more about the technical side of batting than Silverwood.

How about i'd much rather have a head coach with a wealth of experience and success at the highest level in all international formats as a head coach rather than one who's had a some success with a county and a few weeks as a bowling coach with England during a time they've been awful in tests.

Gooseberry wrote:Dont have an issue with the single coaching thing if hes prepared for what that entials, and has enough support in the wider team. 

What worries me is that appointment seems to have been made based on a dogmatic idea that the coach ought to be English, not on who is the best qualified for the role. 

Bayliss was pretty vocal on leaving about the poor standards in county cricket and the gulf between quality and the types of skills (batting and bowling) required to succeed outside England. Silverwoods experience and success is almost entirely in the county game. So sure he knows it inside out and knows the players, but it also makes him the master of mediocrity. 

Im not sure what he really knows about batting either, and thats the si issue England need to address. 

9 months as Englands bowling coach, it does seem he was pretty much rubber stamped back at the start of the year when Giles chucked his name out there and said he thought England should be led by and Englishman (something Im sure went down a treat with Bayliss and Morgan) 

It may be that Silverwood turns out to be a genuine coaching genius, and he presumably has a good relationship with Root and the bowlers. He certainly hasn't done a bad job as the bowling coach, at least in terms of getting the best from Broad and Archer. 

I'm just not sure any of that really makes him proven at the level England should be aspiring to for the top job. As a player he was a good county pro, I feel that way about him as a head coach too. 

Happy to be proven wrong, but it feels to me like Kirsten would have been a better choice and a decision made for the wrong reasons.

Hi goose - a few points in response.

* We don't actually know the reason(s) why Silverwood got the job. Nationality is unimportant to me (and I hope those making the appointment) but residence has a bearing. Not a deal clincher although it belongs in the mix, as I mentioned in a post the other day. It's not ideal if your head coach has to skip a series to have some home time with his family the other side of the world.

* Batting is the current (main) problem but Silverwood's role has to cover all aspects - including those working pretty well continuing to work at least pretty well. As for what he knows about batting, I don't know. Probably the most important thing is that he recognises the issues and has them being worked on, even if not much by him personally. Fair to point out that it was on Siverwood's watch at Essex that Westley was called up for England. You probably regard Westley as a student of mediocrity but it was under Silverwood that he batted as well as he has ever done.

* You mention Bayliss being vocal about the poor standards in county cricket. My disappointment is that Bayliss and the ECB have done nothing to change that, quite the reverse in fact. If England players were allowed to play in County Championship games more frequently, it would improve some of their skills - certainly batting - needed for Tests. It would also mean that the usual county pros were playing alongside and competing against higher quality opponents. I think you have said yourself that you only get better by playing against better players. Furthermore, Championship cricket is increasingly being played outside of England's summer months, with around half the matches last season in the two months of April and September. Little wonder, we struggle to come up with a Test match spinner! I was taken with this comment from David Lloyd during last month's fifth Ashes Test: ''County cricket seems to be pushed to the margins and played at unseasonable times ... We need to care for county cricket, it's where you learn the game.'' When resisting the urge to play the clown on Sky, I've usually found Lloyd to be a sound judge of our game.

guildfordbat wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Dont have an issue with the single coaching thing if hes prepared for what that entials, and has enough support in the wider team. 

What worries me is that appointment seems to have been made based on a dogmatic idea that the coach ought to be English, not on who is the best qualified for the role. 

Bayliss was pretty vocal on leaving about the poor standards in county cricket and the gulf between quality and the types of skills (batting and bowling) required to succeed outside England. Silverwoods experience and success is almost entirely in the county game. So sure he knows it inside out and knows the players, but it also makes him the master of mediocrity. 

Im not sure what he really knows about batting either, and thats the si issue England need to address. 

9 months as Englands bowling coach, it does seem he was pretty much rubber stamped back at the start of the year when Giles chucked his name out there and said he thought England should be led by and Englishman (something Im sure went down a treat with Bayliss and Morgan) 

It may be that Silverwood turns out to be a genuine coaching genius, and he presumably has a good relationship with Root and the bowlers. He certainly hasn't done a bad job as the bowling coach, at least in terms of getting the best from Broad and Archer. 

I'm just not sure any of that really makes him proven at the level England should be aspiring to for the top job. As a player he was a good county pro, I feel that way about him as a head coach too. 

Happy to be proven wrong, but it feels to me like Kirsten would have been a better choice and a decision made for the wrong reasons.

Hi goose - a few points in response.

* We don't actually know the reason(s) why Silverwood got the job. Nationality is unimportant to me (and I hope those making the appointment) but residence has a bearing. Not a deal clincher although it belongs in the mix, as I mentioned in a post the other day. It's not ideal if your head coach has to skip a series to have some home time with his family the other side of the world.

* Batting is the current (main) problem but Silverwood's role has to cover all aspects - including those working pretty well continuing to work at least pretty well. As for what he knows about batting, I don't know. Probably the most important thing is that he recognises the issues and has them being worked on, even if not much by him personally. Fair to point out that it was on Siverwood's watch at Essex that Westley was called up for England. You probably regard Westley as a student of mediocrity but it was under Silverwood that he batted as well as he has ever done.

* You mention Bayliss being vocal about the poor standards in county cricket. My disappointment is that Bayliss and the ECB have done nothing to change that, quite the reverse in fact. If England players were allowed to play in County Championship games more frequently, it would improve some of their skills - certainly batting - needed for Tests. It would also mean that the usual county pros were playing alongside and competing against higher quality opponents. I think you have said yourself that you only get better by playing against better players. Furthermore, Championship cricket is increasingly being played outside of England's summer months, with around half the matches last season in the two months of April and September. Little wonder, we struggle to come up with a Test match spinner! I was taken with this comment from David Lloyd during last month's fifth Ashes Test: ''County cricket seems to be pushed to the margins and played at unseasonable times ... We need to care for county cricket, it's where you learn the game.'' When resisting the urge to play the clown on Sky, I've usually found Lloyd to be a sound judge of our game.

* Its reported Giles was talking about wanting an English coach back in Feb (whilst Bayliss was still in charge). Of course it wont have been the only factor in his decision, but it does seem to have a been a dogmatic point that he would always favour the English candidates regardless of the credentials of others. It really stands out when you have a coach with the credentials of Kirsten turned down for one with pretty much no experience. He was talking up Silverwood before he had taken up the bowling coach role.
Partly though Im egging this line a bit to justify my lack of enthusiasm for the appointment.

*Im not sure getting Westley called up by England is to anyones credit. When we had Gooch as the batting coach he kept insisting that Bopara was the greatest bastman of all time.

*Absolutely yes I'm consistently vocal about how irrelevant county cricket has become, both in terms of producing test players and in performances/figures there directly leading to England call ups. Even the two stand out openers of the past three seasons have only been begrudgingly selected (and Sibley is only one of four openers in the winter squad) after those they were left out for initially failed.
Why is county cricket getting marginalised? Because it doesn't matter, to the public, TV or selectors. How do you get first class cricket back center stage? By making it a competition worth watching and played at a high level. Its not Bayliss thats stood in the way of that, its outside his remit. Its Strauss and now Giles that look after the bigger picture, but really its the ECB that are the key. And who runs the ECB? The counties. Whos standing in the way of truly reforming county cricket on a similar model to the 100? It isnt the head coach of England. Theres been fiddling and piecemeal change, the latest being increasing the number of teams in D1 which is seen as a possible stepping stone to ring fencing. They keep saying that about the Rugby Premiership though and its still a way off happening. the most frustrating part is that the counties themselves are increasingly focusing their resources on the white ball competitions that keep them financially viable, it doesnt really pay them to invest their wage bills in red ball specialists. Its not just a case of showing county cricket some love ans sticking back on July weekends, but having a product thats got the financial backing to get the sort of players trotting out for the 100 appearing in it and having the level of competition and intensity you get in some white ball leagues. Its going to take more than just pretending the current county model can deliver that, and its pretty hard for an organisation with a board made up the way the ECB is to break free from a big part of whats holding back radical change. (IMO)

England have named their XI for a warm up T20 vs a New Zealand XI this weekend

Bairstow
Banton
Vince
Morgan
Denly
Billings
Sam Curran
Rashid
Jordan
Mahmood
Brown

Kane Williamson will miss the T20 series. He's also 50/50 for the test series

Any idea who is keeping?

Malan, CurranT, Dawson & Parkinson miss out (I think)

LondonTiger wrote:Any idea who is keeping?

Malan, CurranT, Dawson & Parkinson miss out (I think)

Gregory too I think

LondonTiger wrote:Any idea who is keeping?

Malan, CurranT, Dawson & Parkinson miss out (I think)

I *think* Bairstow - but didn't see it confirmed.

Should imagine they'll rotate Rashid/Parkinson throughout, and similar with Gregory and Jordan. Malan you'd have thought with Denly too...?

I hope they don’t think Gregory is a T20 bowler. He is a batsman and an occasional bowler in that team. He should really be in that side too, as it looks a bit pedestrian after the top 2. Finisher and 6th bowler.

James100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Any idea who is keeping?

Malan, CurranT, Dawson & Parkinson miss out (I think)

Gregory too I think

Ah yeah. Why the hell did I think Dawson was in the squad. Billings vice captain for the tour, I believe.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Any idea who is keeping?

Malan, CurranT, Dawson & Parkinson miss out (I think)

I *think* Bairstow - but didn't see it confirmed.

Should imagine they'll rotate Rashid/Parkinson throughout, and similar with Gregory and Jordan. Malan you'd have thought with Denly too...?

Billings to keep according to the team sheet I've just seen on Twitter.

Well, England win the warm up game with 11 balls and 6 wickets to spare. Morgan does not bat (to allow others to make a case for selection?) but new faces fail to significantly advance their claims with Bairstow and Rashid the key contributors.

LondonTiger wrote:Well, England win the warm up game with 11 balls and 6 wickets to spare. Morgan does not bat (to allow others to make a case for selection?) but new faces fail to significantly advance their claims with Bairstow and Rashid the key contributors.

Tiger - good two sentence summary. Assuming you don't regard Denly as a new face, he didn't do much to help his cause either - a three ball duck and 0/30 off 3 overs!

Denly kind of is and isn't a new face. Certainly he is trying to make a good impression and succeeded yesterday, but not in a good way.

I'm kinda disappointed to see so many players who arent good enough for a first choice side and not likely to get better taking the spots of rested players.

The fresh faces tried are all very young ...Curran has no pedigree in this format at all, and the other 3 are extremely raw if highly rated.

No players between 22 and 27 ...which should be those hitting their prime.

Vince Denly Billings Jordan to me just arent world cup winning talents

Malan, Banton, Vince, Morgan, Denly, Billings, Gregory, T Curran, Mahmood, Brown, Parkinson.

Team for the 2nd warmup game - Gregory batting 7 and as 5th bowler it seems, his best role JDizzle?

Also Goose - is that Sam Curran with "no pedigree in the format"? If so...what T20's have you been watching the past year or two...did you just miss last years IPL?

Yes - close to his best role. England really do lack a ‘finisher’, at the moment I’d say they are best off just packing the side with openers (Buttler, Roy, Bairstow, Banton etc) and making do rather than pick a finisher for the sake of it. So Gregory has a chance to make a claim - but I really worry about his bowling if you need any overs from him! It’s just gentle with not extreme pace or mystery in this format.

On that note, can’t remember who made the point, but did hear a theory that England’s lack of specialist finishers is due to the talent being so spread in the Blast, you just get your best player opening so he can have the biggest impact. Leaving less talented options in the finishing role.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Malan, Banton, Vince, Morgan, Denly, Billings, Gregory, T Curran, Mahmood, Brown, Parkinson.

Team for the 2nd warmup game - Gregory batting 7 and as 5th bowler it seems, his best role JDizzle?

Also Goose - is that Sam Curran with "no pedigree in the format"? If so...what T20's have you been watching the past year or two...did you just miss last years IPL?

For a seocnd I though I was going mad and double checked cricinfo ....he hasnt played a T20 for England yet. 

His average with the ball in domestic leagues is 30.78 @8.66 which is pretty terrible for that format. Maybe he did have some better results the last season or two but hes hardly a world class short form bowler. Hes played 2 ODIS and not delivered in them either. I get Smith has a hard on for him because hes a left armer and has delivered beyond expectation in tests, but for me theres players with more potential in the short term (like his brother).

I woudl have thought it was fair to suggest that Curran of the Sam variety did not justify his auction price at this years IPL.

OK checked his IPL stats.... his batting (finishing) stats are pretty handy (although more than half his runs came in one innings), incredible strike rate. But as a bowler again poor. Its similar to his overall record in the format, hes more of low order swinger and sixth bowling option than a bowling allrounder. 
If England see him as that finisher and an option bowler then I kinda get it. But hes not in the top 8 bowlers England have available IMO, and most of those are pretty lusty with the bat too.