The summer of cricket 2020

First topic message reminder :

We have actual cricket news for the first time in forever...and some hope that we will see some test matches this summer!

England bowlers began a return to individual training on Thursday, with batsmen and wicketkeepers scheduled to make a return on 1st June, in anticipation of the West Indies series being rescheduled to begin on 8th July (all according to various reports).

There was also reports a few weeks back they might play some one day games, whilst tests are happening too. Not seen anything else about that, but with England’s depth in the shorter format it could be done you’d think players wise (and actually would present a good opportunity to some on the fringes)

ECB is going to confirm the full list of players who will resume training next week. Murmurings about Hales in the one day stuff don’t go away...

So anyways - let’s keep fingers crossed, and hope everyone who posts here is healthy and staying safe too

Following on from the subject of Bess possibly being a better bowler for the first innings than the second.

There are strong suggestions that when four day county games resume next month a substitute bowler will be allowed to come in and replace one of his side's bowlers who started the game. Mainly to prevent excess overload with a fair few games in a relatively short period. Possibly also a further Covid safety measure.

It's largely for this reason that the matches are not being regarded as ''Championship'' fixtures and instead being referred to by the ECB as ''red ball''. Unsure if they'll have first class status.

No suggestion this will happen for Tests. However, it might be interesting if it did. Leach or even Virdi's fingers would be itching as they hoped to get called in.

guildfordbat wrote:Following on from the subject of Bess possibly being a better bowler for the first innings than the second.

There are strong suggestions that when four day county games resume next month a substitute bowler will be allowed to come in and replace one of his side's bowlers who started the game. Mainly to prevent excess overload with a fair few games in a relatively short period. Possibly also a further Covid safety measure.

It's largely for this reason that the matches are not being regarded as ''Championship'' fixtures and instead being referred to by the ECB as ''red ball''. Unsure if they'll have first class status.

No suggestion this will happen for Tests. However, it might be interesting if it did. Leach or even Virdi's fingers would be itching as they hoped to get called in.

That would be a dreadful idea for Tests ! I get that we are in "interesting" times ; but free substitution would change the whole nature of the format. ( To be honest I am unhappy with the concussion substitute rule . Understand the safety angle ; but it still seems a little unfair to me that bad luck for some teams at times can be "fixed" in this manner , whereas if someone rolls an ankle no relief is allowed )

Yes I know , I am old fashioned

Hi Alfie - I certainly wasn't advocating it (if you're old fashioned, I'm prehistoric! ) but Bess bowling first dig and Leach or Virdi replacing him and bowling second dig would probably benefit England.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Alfie - I certainly wasn't advocating it (if you're old fashioned, I'm prehistoric! ) but Bess bowling first dig and Leach or Virdi replacing him and bowling second dig would probably benefit England.

While it may indeed benefit England, top order runs in the first innings would be the main thing we (still) need to address.

LondonTiger wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Alfie - I certainly wasn't advocating it (if you're old fashioned, I'm prehistoric! ) but Bess bowling first dig and Leach or Virdi replacing him and bowling second dig would probably benefit England.

While it may indeed benefit England, top order runs in the first innings would be the main thing we (still) need to address.

Yep, Tiger. This was one of the concerns I touched on in my post yesterday evening. 6 of the top 7 reaching double figures in both innings but no one going on. Especially so in our first dig where Stokes was top scorer with just 43.

guildfordbat wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Alfie - I certainly wasn't advocating it (if you're old fashioned, I'm prehistoric! ) but Bess bowling first dig and Leach or Virdi replacing him and bowling second dig would probably benefit England.

While it may indeed benefit England, top order runs in the first innings would be the main thing we (still) need to address.

Yep, Tiger. This was one of the concerns I touched on in my post yesterday evening. 6 of the top 7 reaching double figures in both innings but no one going on. Especially so in our first dig where Stokes was top scorer with just 43.

Hopefully the addition of one Joe Root, will help that matter somewhat! Turns out we miss the guy who averages 48.4 in tests...(I still think this was a rather overlooked point throughout the test!)

LondonTiger wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Alfie - I certainly wasn't advocating it (if you're old fashioned, I'm prehistoric! ) but Bess bowling first dig and Leach or Virdi replacing him and bowling second dig would probably benefit England.

While it may indeed benefit England, top order runs in the first innings would be the main thing we (still) need to address.

Unavoidably true but I do see potential in 1.Burns 2.Sibley 3.Crawley.

If anything this Test showed how important the often maligned Root is to the England team. His conversion rate of fifties to centuries is poor for a player of his skill and it's very frustrating. He averages nearly 50 in Test cricket though. Root coming in at 113-2 in the 2nd innings could have changed that game. Though we of course don't know that for certain and the Windies were the better team in almost every session. I really like what Holder has done as skipper for them. It can't be an easy Test side to captain in many ways.

1.Burns
2.Sibley
3.Crawley
4.Root
5.Stokes
6.Pope

Whilst I don't think that line-up is around the corner from being world beating I do think it's close to being the correct players in the correct places in the batting order. That alone is a leap forward from... "Can Root bat at 3? OK what about Stokes at 3 then... Ermm Moeen at 3... Bairstow it's your shot mate... Where's Jason Roy these days..."

guildfordbat wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Alfie - I certainly wasn't advocating it (if you're old fashioned, I'm prehistoric! ) but Bess bowling first dig and Leach or Virdi replacing him and bowling second dig would probably benefit England.

While it may indeed benefit England, top order runs in the first innings would be the main thing we (still) need to address.

Yep, Tiger. This was one of the concerns I touched on in my post yesterday evening. 6 of the top 7 reaching double figures in both innings but no one going on. Especially so in our first dig where Stokes was top scorer with just 43.

Maybe you could have Bell or Cook waiting in the pavilion ready to be substituted if necessary?

By the way... commiserations on the result. I had what I thought was a funny remark - something to do with your armchair at Bat Towers - all typed out and ready to post but then thought the better of it. Firstly for fear of jinxing the West Indies and secondly - well, I know what you must have been going through and I understood that it was not the right time for such a comment.

It was a truly nail-biting Test. I honestly thought they were gone early on at 7/2 and then again with about 100 runs to go. All it needed was a small cluster of successive wickets which I imagined Archer would achieve. The missed catching chances and near-miss reviews didn't help but for me the fumbled run-out chance from Crawley seemed to epitomise the frustrations England were facing.

I had this feeling on the 2nd day when the sun came out and those first 5 or so wickets fell - that the West Indians had that glimmer of confidence about them that I hadn't seen for a some time. Almost as if they were Playing for Pride - if it's OK to say such a thing. Must admit I had a little tremor of fear rush through me even as a neutral - and it partially evoked memories of the 70s and 80s when they knew how to dominate and heap pressure on any batting order.

I'm also of the firm belief that the 'BLM significance' did lift the team as a whole (not that Holder needs to be any taller!) and they somehow knew that this match was "there for the taking" as well as "their's for the taking". I was almost waiting for their intensity to drop off yesterday - but was quite impressed that it didn't. I really think they took this match very seriously, prepared very well, executed well and thoroughly deserved to win.
Mr Weekes would have loved their performance no doubt.

Here's an angle I haven't seen, and this is not to make excuses, just put it out there. At effectively 30odd for 4 yesterday, I think with a fired up Sunday crowd in Blackwood doesn't play that knock. It is surely a lot more intimidating to come in during the middle of a collapse with the crowd getting behind Archer, who was on fire at that point.

In the given conditions though, Windies worthy winners, and given the above I can see them winning the series

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Following on from the subject of Bess possibly being a better bowler for the first innings than the second.

There are strong suggestions that when four day county games resume next month a substitute bowler will be allowed to come in and replace one of his side's bowlers who started the game. Mainly to prevent excess overload with a fair few games in a relatively short period. Possibly also a further Covid safety measure.

It's largely for this reason that the matches are not being regarded as ''Championship'' fixtures and instead being referred to by the ECB as ''red ball''. Unsure if they'll have first class status.

No suggestion this will happen for Tests. However, it might be interesting if it did. Leach or even Virdi's fingers would be itching as they hoped to get called in.

That would be a dreadful idea for Tests !  I get that we are in "interesting" times ; but free substitution would change the whole nature of the format. ( To be honest I am unhappy with the concussion substitute rule . Understand the safety angle ; but it still seems a little unfair to me that bad luck for some teams at times can be "fixed" in this manner , whereas if someone rolls an ankle no relief is allowed )  

Yes I know , I am old fashioned  

The substitution in the county game is a very specific thing to mitigate the fixture compression and lack of training time the players have had. England had 6 weeks together to prepare for these tests, the county payers are getting 2-3 weeks. Although what that says about the professionalism of county players if they cant keep themselves in shape at home, but I guess theres some bowling specific things that are hard to train unless you have a massive garden.

Open substitutions are far too open to abuse to become a thing as you say. Runners were banned for this very reason, and lets not forget England manipulating the fielding subs rules to the maximum / Gary Pratt.

Thats not whats being suggested for CC though, this is a straight up extra player who can come in for the second innings. Could also see counties more inclined to pick spinners for these games which isnt a bad thing.


If England did have a sub bowler option Stuart Broad would've exploded if England had used Leach.

This test also showed that, without saliva and favourable overhead conditions, bowling becomes seriously tough for the fielding side after about the 15-20 over mark. It was for that reason that I didn't write the Windies off at 27/3, because conditions were about to get easier for them.

England do have four good long-term options in their top six now - Crawley, Root, Stokes, Pope - so there is some progress being made. Still question marks over the openers, keeper, and spinner however. Anderson and Broad are more short-term than long-term, and there's still doubts about Wood's fitness. Hopefully Archer develops into the consistent world-class fast bowler we all want him to be.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Alfie - I certainly wasn't advocating it (if you're old fashioned, I'm prehistoric! ) but Bess bowling first dig and Leach or Virdi replacing him and bowling second dig would probably benefit England.

While it may indeed benefit England, top order runs in the first innings would be the main thing we (still) need to address.

Yep, Tiger. This was one of the concerns I touched on in my post yesterday evening. 6 of the top 7 reaching double figures in both innings but no one going on. Especially so in our first dig where Stokes was top scorer with just 43.

Hopefully the addition of one Joe Root, will help that matter somewhat! Turns out we miss the guy who averages 48.4 in tests...(I still think this was a rather overlooked point throughout the test!)

He's guaranteed to get a pair now you've said that!

Good point, VTR. Lack of noise most certainly would have helped him knuckle down and build that innings free from distractions.

Pretty sure I could hear the quiet humming of an air-conditioning unit or some pump engine in the background. Did anyone else pick that up?

VTR wrote:Here's an angle I haven't seen, and this is not to make excuses, just put it out there. At effectively 30odd for 4 yesterday, I think with a fired up Sunday crowd in Blackwood doesn't play that knock. It is surely a lot more intimidating to come in during the middle of a collapse with the crowd getting behind Archer, who was on fire at that point.

In the given conditions though, Windies worthy winners, and given the above I can see them winning the series

Bowler fatigue will play a part. West Indies do have some handy options in the bag, but if we are set that Broad should've played that test then it was also the one Refeir should've played. Their quicks looked tired in the second innings, and that was only the first test, and a number of them (Holder included) are nursing injuries that could easily flare up with the back to back games. England have much more scope for rotation in the squad, and playing Bess meant their seamers bowled less overs.
If Campbells injury keeps him out of the next test then their batting is even shorter.

Id also look at just about every first innings in a series England have produced in recent years and point to a pattern (58, 184, 287, 342, 77, 85, 374, 353, 181), but most of those series they started with the low score disasters they have gone on to win or draw. It will be incredibly tough for them now, and the rotation whilst keeping people fit could affect the team ( cant see them leaving Stokes out till Pakistan now) but they are still the better side and deeper squad.

Should be good weather for the remaining tests so results on the cards. West Indies have one in the bag so have to be favorites, but its incredibly hard for touring teams to maintain success through test series these days.

I feel that huge credit should be given to Jason Holder. Maybe not for too much longer as his profile continues to grow, but a hugely under-rated cricketer. His bowling in the first innings was a fantastic example of how to make use of the conditions.

I would expect a better performance from England in the next Test, but we do appear to have a problem with the tail arguably starting at 7 given the form of the lower order. I'm not going to get on their cases too much for that, given lack of match practice, but it did open the door for the Windies in this game when England seemed to be cruising at three down in the second innings, or even rebuilding in the first. On the other hand, surely the Windies will be bundled out for about a hundred at some point this series

On the Buttler subject looking ahead to the winter should England be planning around him who did well with the bat out there last time, and well in Sri Lanka, or Foakes who makes the spinners that bit better and who also has shown he can bat in India.
I know what the forum thinks.

Looking at Buttlers series averages the last time he was over 30 was Sri Lanka nearly two years ago. I still dont think england will be rushed into a decision, but the tipping point must be closing up on him.

To be honest, the Windies deserved the win - they were only really behind in the match position for a bit when Stokes and Crawley were batting and when they got a bas start in the 4th innings, and then Blackwood in particular played very well to get them out of the hole.

Seemed to be a wicket where the new ball was difficult to face, and otherwise wasn't perhaps the easiest for stroke play, but went a bit dead in spells with the older ball until a batsman made a mistake. I suspect was a bit two paced, as some of the batting errors (such as Crawley's second innings dismissal) could be explained by the ball stopping a little.

Probably wasn't the wicket best suited to outright pace, so was probably the game Broad should have played with Wood coming in at Old Trafford on a likely faster and bouncier surface. Hopefully it might be a better stroke playing wicket as well.

Has to be Crawley retained and Denly dropped - even if they were at an equal level at the moment (they aren't), Crawley's potential for improvement is much higher.

Buttler batting in Tests is a bit like Hales was - trying to rein in their natural game and ending up a bit between two stools. I'd rather he went more positive, with his natural game. If it doesn't work, we aren't losing anything compared to his recent batting record, and if it works 1 innings in 3 he can change the game very quickly.

Gooseberry wrote:On the Buttler subject looking ahead to the winter should England be planning around him who did well with the bat out there last time, and well in Sri Lanka, or Foakes who makes the spinners that bit better and who also has shown he can bat in India.
I know what the forum thinks.

Looking at Buttlers series averages the last time he was over 30 was Sri Lanka nearly two years ago. I still dont think england will be rushed into a decision, but the tipping point must be closing up on him.

The Sri Lanka tour part is a good point as Buttler is a good player of spin against the red ball as well as the white ball. His batting against seamers with the red ball really hasn't improved with time in the test side though.

I'm still definitely on the side of having Foakes standing up to the spinners being worth more than potential of Buttler playing an innings from nowhere.

If Buttler gets dropped from Tests I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being his last first class game for a couple of years. He's so in demand as a T20 star that he could spend most the year outside of ODI and T20i playing franchise cricket.

What alternatives to Foakes are there?

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:What alternatives to Foakes are there?

Stick with Buttler. Recall Bairstow. Recall Foakes. Those would seem the 3 options likely to happen.

James Bracey is highly rated as a batsman but not sure how he's viewed as a keeper.

I'd guess Sam Billings is still voting for Sam Billings.

Ollie Pope and Rory Burns used to be wicketkeepers....

Re the Eternal Wicket Keeper debate :

I don't think anyone would disagree that Foakes is the best pure glove man available. (and as he is actually with the squad he is the only real immediate alternative to Buttler). However I have a feeling that England do not really rate him with the bat , despite his initial batting success in Sri Lanka. He did not look so secure in West Indies  ; though I believe he was a little unfortunate to be dumped so quickly there - probably a victim of the fact that England were rather shocked to lose the first two Tests.
Will he get a chance now to see what he can do ? If not I'd suggest he isn't really in their plans except as a "spare"...

Bairstow is the obvious other candidate. Not with the Test squad at the moment of course , but in the longer term surely a serious option again. He has - even after poor recent results - an average of about 38 when playing as wicket keeper , compared with Buttler's average in that role of under thirty and sinking. And I'd suggest if he hadn't been pushed up the order (ironically often to accomodate Jos in that peculiar "specialist number 7 bat" position) that average would probably be higher. Five centuries in the position should not be written off.

The problem with YJB (apart from Ed Smith not wanting to admit a mistake , perhaps ?) is that all the messing about might have done for his batting effectiveness more or less permanently - as it sadly seems to have done for Moeen . Guess we won't know unless he gets another try. Much as you could say for Foakes...

So are we stuck with Buttler ? And can he ever justify the faith ?

I see comments along the lines of "he should play the way he does in ODIs" or "he's trying too hard to adapt his game " : and there may be an element of truth to those. But he's been trying one method or another for more than forty matches now and those "match changing innings" remain just fantasy in the minds of some pundits , while real solid currency in the form of runs continues to elude. Might he do well in Asia if given the chance ? Well maybe (though he wasn't keeping when he was playing in Sri Lanka , and all the figures show his batting is markedly less productive when he keeps wicket) : but is it really worth persevering indefinitely with a highly questionable experiment just because it "might" pay off some time in the future ?

My suggestion ? Jos should probably play at Old Trafford. But unless he produces something truly excellent (not just a flashy thirty) it is time to call it quits and try one of the other candidates ; and let him just do what he does best in the white ball game...

It is a quiet morning here ; so having sorted the keeper issue  - ok not quite - I should have a look at the bowling attack...

I see Agnew now seems to be edging towards the position espoused by Atherton etc on Comms that Old Trafford might suit the faster bowlers so Broad's recall might not be automatic. Frankly I think that it is nuts to leave out a bowler of Broad's established skill and excellent recent record - but having chosen to do so for this match , is there a case for persisting with the apparent "new plan" ?

Figures aren't everything : but they can supply a guide ; so let us look at what we have just seen.
Archer and Wood combined in this match for an overall 5 wickets for 216 from 73 overs. At the same time Anderson and Stokes bowled 64 and returned 9/192.  This isn't perhaps conclusive but it does suggest the enthusiasm for having two ninety plus bowlers didn't translate into any great damage to a (generally regarded as weak) West Indian batting order.
Would Broad have done any better ? No way to know : but I'd have thought his greater control might have been a useful factor in the first innings , where Archer was ineffective and Wood fast but failed to penetrate . As for the second innings , in which the extra pace was expected to be a major factor : Archer was rightly praised for a vastly improved performance ; but after the two early wickets he generated a lot of fire and excitement but not much actual result in terms of wickets. When Broad has had a "day out " he has tended to finish the job...five or six wickets not two or three.
Which of course doesn't mean he would have done so this week ! But it does I think raise the question of whether all this obsession with pace - at least in English conditions - is a little overdone.
My own view is that playing Wood and Archer together is not a great idea at this stage. With Stokes supplying a bit of an x-factor as a bowler in any case I'd argue England would be better served by having at least two of the Anderson/Broad/Woakes/Curran type - more reliant on movement and accuracy than raw speed. (The argument might be made that their inability to use saliva on the ball might limit their effectiveness ; but I think this is a red herring. If the conditions allow they'll still get swing - sweat should be fine for ball polishing.) In any case these fellows can get movement off the pitch if it is offering any assistance in that line. Not certain the selectors will agree but I'd say the evidence from this match supports my opinion , though I'd concede it is only one game.
Before the first game I'd have played Broad , and Wood over Archer. After this match I'd lean to resting Wood for the next game but I imagine they might be guided at least in part by how well they think everyone has come up after the game. We will see.

I suppose one other matter they might consider is the effect on the late order batting ? I know we generally think it is most important to get the bowling right regardless of run making potential ; but with a tail that seems to start earlier than it ought they might be tempted to consider how handy a Woakes or a Curran could be...

I do think there will be some rotation throughout the truncated season. But I'd say the most important thing right now (vital in fact at one down !) is to get the best combination to win the next match on the field.

They are rightly asking Bairstow to concentrate on white ball for now. One of the effects of the bio security regulations is that its very difficult to bring in players from outside the reserve pool once they have left the bubble as they have to do two week isolation, so he's effectively ruled out for the summer. It would also take a he'll of thing for him to get the starting spot for the winter.

The option really is Foakes. Bracey, Pope and Burns are realistically just emergency injury cover.

Take the point made above about Buttlers future if he does get dropped. This summer the England players will be pretty flat out and unlikely to play in the red ball County games. That's also another reason why Bairstow and Mo might find it hard to force their way back into the 11 in the short term, opportunities to improve and perform in red ball will be very limited. I do think all three have a strong chance of making the winter tour squad though.

In terms of the bowler selection for the first test it was based on the warm ups and an assumption the pitch would behave in a similar way. It didn't quicken up or offer as much turn as had been expected, but there also wasn't a great deal of green grass or evidence of outrageous swing that typical English County type bowlers ( broad Curran woakes Robinson etc) thrive on. They also assumed Wood and Afcher who bowled very well in the warm up would turn up for the first innings, they didn't. Broad who was ineffective on the warm up pitch may have done better but there's a lot of hindsigjting. Anderson didn't do that much better than the quick, the only bowler to come out with real credit was Stokes who is a bit more of a blunt instrument than the county style broad Curran and woakes.
I don't buy questions about Englands tail, its hardly a weak point even if we are used to England having a ridiculously strong one from the days of Bairstow Mo Woakes. can't really criticise them for picking the best bowlers first rather than hedging their bets on all rounders. Woakes and Curran will be in the mix when Stokes gets rested for sure, but England will want one proper quick in the side for when the pitches aren't offering much.

Agnew is right to say the selections may have been proved wrong by the fact they lost and the way some players performed. But its not the reason England lost, its because they didn't play well enough as a team.

I don't think there is any debate Broad comes back into the XI. I don't really understand this obsession with "preparing for the Ashes", when it is 18 months away essentially...lets win the series we're playing first. We know we have some decent pace bowlers coming through, but how about we play to the conditions we're playing in...

And I think it should be for Wood on home soil - Archer has proven to be a lethal weapon in test matches in England, whereas Wood, statistically, is one of the worst seamers we've had in matches in England in the test side (https://twitter.com/cricvizanalyst/status/1281596090085670912).
He's played 11 test matches in England now, so it does seem to be something more than just a weird anomaly. I can't really explain why, maybe because there is less likely to be reverse swing with a Dukes ball in England, than the Kookaburra in say South Africa like we saw in the winter? Either way, flogging him into the ground in England, doesn't appear to be the best use of him, or best for the team. Rotate him and Archer throughout the summer imo.

And on the keeping situation - Foakes would be the man to step in, for me. The further we go into his career, the more and more it looks like 2016 was a complete outlier in test match batting for Bairstow. Averaged 58 in 2016, but doesn't average above 34 in any other of the 7 (!) years he has played test cricket. I think what Goose says about him concentrating on the white ball stuff from here on out is probably for the best, him and Roy are one of the best opening partnerships in ODI cricket of all time.

Alfie

With regard to the batting ability of the bowlers, I don't think Broad is a downgrade on either Wood or Archer - all are likely to fail more often than they succeed, but when they come off the scoreboard will tick along quickly for 30-50 runs. In fact, I'd say Broad has the potential to score more once he's in, even now.

Bess at 8 I think is OK, certainly wouldn't want him any higher, but I think can be relied on to chip in more often than not; may not be Woakes / Curran good, and certainly not Moeen good (when the real Moeen turns up), but good enough if the rest of the batsmen do their job. The issue is really Buttler's lack of runs at 7.

With the next test starting Thursday and the 3rd 8 days later, and especially given the lack of cricket they've all had in the build-up, I certainly see an argument for rotating the seamers - I suspect Broad for Wood for the 2nd test and then Wood back to replace Joffra in the third test, with consideration to Woakes coming in for Jimmy.

Obviously Root comes back into the batting line up, and surely that has to be it for Denly as a first choice selection. I don't see them dropping Buttler this series, even though I think most on here would rather see Foakes with the gloves (better keeper, and on present form at worst not losing you anything from the batting).

Hi Alfie - couple of very good posts there. I'll try to briefly* cover both.

Only 2 keepers are realistically in contention, Buttler and Foakes.

Bairstow is disadvantaged and out of the equation by not being in the current squad and not having any county games to press his case.

Foakes would be in my side - he's the better keeper (no guarantee of course he would have taken the legside chance that Buttler spilled but I've seen him take similar) and Buttler isn't cutting it with the bat despite considerable opportunities. However, I doubt the selectors will act so swiftly. They'll probably want to give him at least one more Test. Furthermore, there's likely be two changes to the side anyway and there'll be reluctance to make it as many as three.

Root coming back will be one. Almost certainly for Denly.

I can't properly name my bowlers without knowing their condition and seeing the track. However, I would expect there to be one change there if only to freshen things up. Wood had a pretty ineffective match and must be at risk. He won't have been helped by these comments yesterday from David 'Bumble' Lloyd: ''Now England have to come back all guns blazing in Manchester. People think the pitch will be quicker but I live up the road from Old Trafford and it's been raining solidly for two weeks. So I'm not sure there will be any great pace.'' When resisting the urge to play the fool, Lloyd's solid.

If Wood goes out, who comes in? I may be cutting my nose to spite my face but it would be Woakes for me. Haven't checked any stats but a good and reliable performer with the ball who would comfortably slot in at 8 and make the tail seem so much stronger with Bess and Archer dropping down to 9 and 10. I also liked what Woakes had to say about being left out of the last Test; i.e. absolutely nothing. In marked contrast to ''woe is me'' Broad. I'm with Soul on Broad. I haven't seen or heard Broad's interview which may make it seem very unfair for me to judge him. However, my (cricket) concentration over the 5 days was on the Test in hand and imo Broad should have done the same, buttoning his lip and doing everything to help the eleven who had been picked.

I have a sneaking feeling that Broad will be recalled although, as stated, it's a choice I would be reluctant to make so soon.

PS Joey - liked your post yesterday. Don't worry, I wasn't too stressed in the armchair at Bat Towers! More surprised I called the result correctly. If I were a betting man, the bookies would have done well out of me the last year.  

* sorry - not that briefly!

guildfordbat wrote:

PS Joey - liked your post yesterday. Don't worry, I wasn't too stressed in the armchair at Bat Towers! More surprised I called the result correctly. If I were a betting man, the bookies would have done well out of me the last year.  

* sorry - not that briefly!

I believe you, Guildford. You'd still remain calm and assured when things are totally out of your control.
I noted one of your comments "but more about that later..." which, to me, meant the possibility of getting the end result right.  

I do not think it is hindsight to say Broad should not have been left out. Many of us were clear from the start we didn't agree with it.

But hey : I'm not trying to say what will or should be done for game two - just throwing up options and pointing out some arguments one way or another. (For the record if I was picking the team this week it would be - fitness allowing - Burns Sibley Crawley Root Pope Stokes Foakes Bess Archer Broad Anderson)
I do not buy Olly's claim that Bairstow was only good in 2016 : it was his best year , certainly ; but there wasn't much wrong with his batting over the following couple of years , albeit his figures were down , partly due to being shifted up and down the order to suit other players ( and I recall even erudite judges on here being very keen to shove him up the order "too good to be wasted at seven" - so I can't altogether blame the selectors ) .  Still think he will end up back in the job if Foakes doesn't fire.
But as goose points out , not an option for now. Even more reason to give Foakes a chance to show what he can - or can't - do.

But I expect Ed Smith to stick with Buttler so I hope he can prove me wrong
Pretty much agree with dummy_half on the bowling

Edit : hadn't seen your post when I wrote that , Guildford ...interesting comments re Broad ! I didn't actually see and hear the interview so cannot judge whether it was toxic or honest ; but I note it doesn't seem to have upset Stokes so am inclined to be OK with his remarks myself. I understand your attitude to players reacting to omission ; but - despite being a dinosaur ! I actually would rather an honest answer than media-coached trotting out the party line...
I guess opinions will differ on that one.

Yeah I think the England leadership are fine with Broads comments. It seems to be part of the current approach to allow players to be honest, and they want to see them passionate and fighting for their places. Some of the commentary from pundits suggested it was much better to see him fired up and caring about his place rather than resigning to retirement.

alfie wrote:

...

Edit : hadn't seen your post when I wrote that , Guildford ...interesting comments re Broad !  I didn't actually see and hear the interview so cannot judge whether it was toxic or honest ; but I note it doesn't seem to have upset Stokes so am inclined to be OK with his remarks myself. I understand your attitude to players reacting to omission ; but - despite being a dinosaur ! I actually would rather an honest answer than media-coached trotting out the party line...
I guess opinions will differ on that one.

Hi Alfie - I don't like mealy mouthed platitudes either but feel Broad's comments (from what I've read) were more suited to an autobiography than coming from the bench during a Test. Keep it schtum for now and do your talking on the pitch when you next get a chance.

I'll accept Stokes wasn't upset but that doesn't guarantee it was the right thing to do.

Pal Joey wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

PS Joey - liked your post yesterday. Don't worry, I wasn't too stressed in the armchair at Bat Towers! More surprised I called the result correctly. If I were a betting man, the bookies would have done well out of me the last year.  

* sorry - not that briefly!

I believe you, Guildford. You'd still remain calm and assured when things are totally out of your control.
I noted one of your comments "but more about that later..." which, to me, meant the possibility of getting the end result right.  

Or I forgot what I was going to say?

Silverwood comments make it pretty clear what his input to the selection panel will be.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/29455738/joe-denly-facing-final-curtain-england-prepare-bounce-back-again

Jos stays, Denly goes.

Also on the Broad comments above

Silverwood wrote:"I think Stuart handled himself very well during that interview, to be honest," Silverwood said. "What I did love about it, and subsequently the conversations I've had with him, is that passion. That drive is still there and to see that in someone who's done as much in the game as he has, I find very exciting to be honest. And Stuart still has a big role to play within this team. I've made that very clear to him."

It may have come across a bit off but its clear that the leadership gave him the green light for it and want him to show that passion rather than letting things boil under as they have in the past with players like Mo which only added to the issues.

As expected from Silverwood. I think we all know what the team will be ...whether it is the right set of choices I guess we will find out...

In fairness to the selectors , picking teams this year is tricky : really no "form" to go on , so it is either "faith" or "promise" that has to guide them . Bit of both on display here.

Denly duly dropped.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53419675

That photo the Beeb are using there has been shared so many times that it's probably going to end up being used in place of Denly's epitaph.

It's a cracking cricket photo in fairness. Denly still covering up, stump mid cartwheel, bail still in shot and slip fielder already starting to celebrate. I bet poor Joe is already sick of seeing it though. In days gone by there would probably be a copy of it stuck to his locker down in Canterbury awaiting his return to county cricket...

Thank heavens for that.

Interesting stat thrown up by the BBC that if the West Indies win this test series, it will be their first away test series win against a major test nation (excluding Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe) since defeating New Zealand 1-0 in 1995.

England announce Anderson and Wood to be rested for the 2nd test - Curran and Robinson added to the "squad", to compete with Woakes and Broad for those two slots.

You'd think the decision will be between Curran and Woakes for the final slot, with Broad coming in. To be honest, don't mind who they pick out of those two, both have performed well with their limited opportunities in the past 12 months in the test arena. I would plump for Curran probably myself...

Atherton reporting on sky both Jimmy and Wood had pulled up "very stiff" after the 1st test...considering their recent injury history, hardly surprising.

Yeah Curran and Woakes are shades of the same colour really, although the left arm option might get curran the nod I guess it will come down to whos showing the most in practise.

Athertons description sounds like the script to a carry on movie

Not too surprising all round...we expected Bowler Rotation so Anderson sitting this one out isn't totally unexpected . Means Broad and presumably either Woakes or Curran get a run - and either of the latter pair strengthen the wonky tail end batting .
Still perhaps an air of England using this as a "development" series rather than picking their best team ... and as there must now be a good chance they're going to be done over by West Indies in this series one has to hope results down the line justify their choices.

Think Denly has been a little harshly criticised in some quarters : he has been a gutsy battler in a side with very few consistently performing bats ...but with Root returning he was the logical omission. And as no spring chicken he is probably unlikely to return (cue a couple of injuries and back for match 3 )

England are generally pretty good at following a poor game with a decent comeback. Hopefully they can again ; but I'd suggest West Indies should start favourite this week - they seem to me to be more focused at the moment.

West Indies going off at 4/1 to win this test. Not as generous as last week, but still a pretty good price that should be taken. I do make England favourites, but I don't think the West Indies' chances are that remote.

Not surprised to hear that Anderson is rested - the days of him playing back-to-back tests are gone. Hopefully we'll see Woakes in his place. I imagine Archer will be putting his feet up for the third test. Could be Buttler's last hurrah, unless he conjures up something special. Root does well in Manchester - according to Cricinfo he has a supreme 85 test average at this ground, from 9 innings.

Expected to be another test dominated by the seamers. Old Trafford is normally far better for the seamers than spinners, and this will be aided by the heavily overcast conditions in place for the first three days. Could be a drop of rain around, though we should still see a result.

Fingers crossed we'll see another brilliant test.

Duty281 wrote:West Indies going off at 4/1 to win this test. Not as generous as last week, but still a pretty good price that should be taken. I do make England favourites, but I don't think the West Indies' chances are that remote.

Not surprised to hear that Anderson is rested - the days of him playing back-to-back tests are gone. Hopefully we'll see Woakes in his place. I imagine Archer will be putting his feet up for the third test. Could be Buttler's last hurrah, unless he conjures up something special. Root does well in Manchester - according to Cricinfo he has a supreme 85 test average at this ground, from 9 innings.

Expected to be another test dominated by the seamers. Old Trafford is normally far better for the seamers than spinners, and this will be aided by the heavily overcast conditions in place for the first three days. Could be a drop of rain around, though we should still see a result.

Fingers crossed we'll see another brilliant test.

Do we know if they’re using the same wicket for the next test as this one? You’d presume the wicket for the third test is likely to be more suited for the spinners if so, and this one as you say likely to have more spice for the seamers

Hi Olly - I'll be very surprised if it's not a new wicket for the third test. I think there would be considerable reluctance to start a test on what could be a 6 day old track and potentially finish it on a 10 day old one. Although preparing a new test wicket is always a tricky job and two at the same ground even more so obviously, the ECB and Old Trafford ground staff have known about the third test being held there as long as they've known about the second.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Olly - I'll be very surprised if it's not a new wicket for the third test. I think there would be considerable reluctance to start a test on what could be a 6 day old track and potentially finish it on a 10 day old one. Although preparing a new test wicket is always a tricky job and two at the same ground even more so obviously, the ECB and Old Trafford ground staff have known about the third test being held there as long as they've known about the second.

Rats! Just thought of a possible argument against the above ... the set up of the main tv cameras. Can they be moved to align with a new wicket?

Having now given two different views, I'll obviously claim having given the right answer once I know which one it is!

Not sure whether it means anything, but pre T1 the team had leaked out the night before - that it was going to be Anderson, Archer, Woakes. Not a peep this time. Whether someone has had a shouting at for leaking it or whether they genuinely don’t know who will play yet.

Archer also out as he’s broken the bio secure rules and thus needs to self isolate for five days as per ECB protocol

Time to fire up the Ollie Robinson hype train???

oooph breaking news ...Archer is out for breaking the saftey protocols, England may go in without a quick at all now!

Theoretically Stone (if hes fit) or Mahmood his cover could play but it seems unlikely. Or they could risk Wood if his stiffness wasnt that bad but most likely does seem Woakes and Curran. One extreme to the other! Robinson is in the 13 but seems the least likely option to me

Has no-one told Root that he can get his hair cut now?

Archers been wheeled out to apologise already. He should be available for the third test but I suspect this puts wood ahead of him if they don't go with two quick again.
No replacement so it is two from Curran Woakes and Robinson