England's Winter of Cricket 2020/21

First topic message reminder :

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Wake up to hear Swann doing an Aussie impression. Can this be over in two days again?

Is that what it was? Couldn't fool me...

p.s. it was a 'nowhere in particular' accent.

Not a terrible tour for England, 3-1 in the matches that really mattered. I will say it doesn't sit right that India progress to the final at the expense of Australia having prepared those second and third test pitches.

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Should be a good test summer. England will be strong favourites at home to India. The Kiwi series really could go in any direction - to be honest, I think it's a shame the number of matches for those series isn't reversed, I'd love to see England take on New Zealand in a lengthy series.

Just a further note on that. By the end of the summer, England will have played India in 32 tests since the start of 2011. The number for New Zealand will be just 13.

Money talks.

Soul Requiem wrote:Not a terrible tour for England, 3-1 in the matches that really mattered. I will say it doesn't sit right that India progress to the final at the expense of Australia having prepared those second and third test pitches.

I didn't much care for those two pitches either but still think India deserve to be playing NZ for the crown. They've been consistently good for years now. Australia can't really complain about missing the spot after being turned over at home by India.

Might be a good match at Lords . Actually fancy NZ if there's a bit in the pitch for the pace men.

alfie wrote:But I do fear the evidence of these matches is that England is , right now , a poor fourth to India , NZ and Australia as a Test Team. If we divide the Test scene into three divisions , they are in the relegation spot. Clearly better than SA , WI , Sri Lanka and Pakistan - but not good enough to take on the big boys.  Maybe that's too gloomy ; but I reckon a look at the individual records of the players suggests that my pre-tour thought remains correct : England have just four true Test class players (Root , Stokes, Anderson and Broad) and in Asia one of them generally doesn't play. The rest are "nearly" good enough , or too new to tell. With the likelihood that Broad and Anderson won't be around for ever it's a slightly depressing outlook.

Hopefully enough of the new boys will develop fast and prove me totally wrong , and soon. But for now I'm not expecting much more than being good at home - and they'll need to be this summer as India are definitely improving on their touring skills (as we saw in Australia)

First of all, I'd say England are a team in transition. They're in a process of trying to grow and giving inexperienced, but highly promising, players game-time. So I wouldn't be completely down on England's immediate prospects.

Secondly, England's status as a test team. Frankly, it depends where you're playing the game. At home England are a match for anyone - Australia haven't won a test series over here since their awesome team won in 2001; India have only won one test series here in my lifetime which was in 2007 (and they only won that series because Monty was denied the clearest of LBW's!); and it's the same for New Zealand who last won here in 1999, England's annus horribilis. And I think England's current status would leave their prospects no worse than 50-50 in a home five match series against any of those teams, though against India they would be favourites.

Away from home, obviously a different tale. England have only won one overseas series in Australia in my lifetime, when England's annus mirabilis got past a truly dreadful Australian test team;  same tale in India with that win in 2012 being the only one in 35 years or so; against New Zealand the record is marginally better with England winning twice over there in 25 years (last time in 2008), albeit the Kiwis were a lot weaker then. England's current status would put them as huge outsiders in Australia and India, and unlikely contenders in New Zealand.

Overall, be chipper. England have got a year of promise coming up - winning the T20 World Cup, beating New Zealand and India at home in test series, winning the ODI series in the Netherlands in May or September or whenever it's happening...it'll be a great year for English cricket.

alfie wrote:
But I do fear the evidence of these matches is that England is , right now , a poor fourth to India , NZ and Australia as a Test Team. If we divide the Test scene into three divisions , they are in the relegation spot. Clearly better than SA , WI , Sri Lanka and Pakistan - but not good enough to take on the big boys.  Maybe that's too gloomy ; but I reckon a look at the individual records of the players suggests that my pre-tour thought remains correct : England have just four true Test class players (Root , Stokes, Anderson and Broad) and in Asia one of them generally doesn't play. The rest are "nearly" good enough , or too new to tell. With the likelihood that Broad and Anderson won't be around for ever it's a slightly depressing outlook.

I think you might be being a bit kind to the Aussies and New Zealand there Alfie...what have the Aussies done under Paine to suggest they're a better side than England over recent years? They've just lost their second consecutive home series to India, this last one to essentially an India B side...they drew away to us when we had probably our worst test outfit out in a decade...they may have the better players "on paper", but it's not really translated onto the field the last 2/3 years for me.

Kiwis are a formidable home outfit no doubt, but maybe a sad sign of the times, since their September 2016 tour to India, they've played just three (!) away test series...one in the UAE against Pakistan in 2018 (three tests), one away to Sri Lanka in 2019 (two tests) and then the Aussie tour in 2019 (three tests). England are similarly dominant at home...and would agree with Duty's post, it is one of the great shames of modern cricket that New Zealand for one, barely play away test matches and two, even when they do it's two and three match tours at absolute most.

For me, India are a clear #1 at the moment, with NZ/Aus/Eng all grouped on a fairly even keel behind (NZ maybe slightly ahead of us/Aus)...before you get to the rest.

alfie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Not a terrible tour for England, 3-1 in the matches that really mattered. I will say it doesn't sit right that India progress to the final at the expense of Australia having prepared those second and third test pitches.

I didn't much care for those two pitches either but still think India deserve to be playing NZ for the crown. They've been consistently good for years now. Australia can't really complain about missing the spot after being turned over at home by India.

Might be a good match at Lords . Actually fancy NZ if there's a bit in the pitch for the pace men.

Yeah, I'd say India are worthy finalists based on beating Australia in Australia. That alone does it for me. Though I think if Australia's series with South Africa had gone ahead, and the Aussies got a positive result, it would be them in the final (at the expense of NZ). That is cruel on Australia.

In terms of away series I think hon mention is warranted for the 2006 tour to India. A 1-1 draw in India against Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dhoni, Kumble and Harbajhan was a very decent effort.

Freddie as captain as well. I don't think he was a good skipper by any stretch but his captaincy solely being remembered by the 2007 Ashes debacle is an interesting example of how one disastrous series can dominate our memories.

We should definitely play well in the New Zealand and India home series, Morgan's one day unit should be contenders in the world T20. Not all doom and gloom but this series has laid bare the weaknesses we already knew.

Root scored 794 runs in Sri Lanka and India. 546 more than the next best across the two tour.

The last ashes series is an odd one. The Aussies win at edgbaston was built on Smith surviving an umpires call that looked plumb which counters Joel Wilson's famous not out at Headingley. Overall though I felt England were in more games and deserved a 3-2 series win. New Zealand so rarely play overseas that it's hard to assess them properly.

Soul Requiem wrote:The last ashes series is an odd one. The Aussies win at edgbaston was built on Smith surviving an umpires call that looked plumb which counters Joel Wilson's famous not out at Headingley. Overall though I felt England were in more games and deserved a 3-2 series win. New Zealand so rarely play overseas that it's hard to assess them properly.

I'm hoping the ECB have learnt from that Ashes summer and don't let Lancashire bowl Jimmy into the ground and injure him pre tests.

king_carlos wrote:Foakes goes now. I'm a massive fan of his and he's a glorious gloveman but I wouldn't say he's grabbed his chance over these 3 Tests.

England once again short of a fifty partnership. 71 consecutive partnerships without reaching fifty. Painful.

This series feels like parallels to the last India tour in England. The touring side won a single Test and have had the odd opportunity to snatch other opportunities but the home sides class in their conditions has won out over the series.

Ashwin and Axar, Rohit and Pant have just been too good for this England team.

Hi Carlos - have to agree with you about Foakes on all points, sadly. Feel he's come across as more a lovely bridesmaid than a beautiful bride.

A more dispiriting tour for his Surrey colleagues Burns and Pope. Tbf they are not the only ones.

England pluses for me were Root, Anderson, Leach and, as far as he was given an opportunity, Stone. Having two greats in Root and Anderson is obviously much welcomed although over reliance of them may become (or perhaps already is) an issue. There again, whilst some learning and improvement is required, I feel it's important not to make too many judgements from a series against a very good side on their home soil with the skills to exploit it.

That was also a big turning point, Anderson plays 3 of those matches and England possibly win. Not a good sign however that we're so reliant on a 38 year old. India with a potentially all right handed top 5 will make not selecting Broad on occasion a lot easier.

Stokes at home is a real threat with the bat while I'd like to see pitches prepared that offer as little spin as possible.

Should be an interesting summer of cricket.

I should add that India as a side are a class act, they play the game how it should be played. Kohli is a combative captain who sometimes goes near the line but never over it, a series played in the spirit of the game. Sharma in full flow in India is a joy to watch as is Ashwin bowling, hopefully we get another good look at Bumrah in the summer.

guildfordbat wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Foakes goes now. I'm a massive fan of his and he's a glorious gloveman but I wouldn't say he's grabbed his chance over these 3 Tests.

England once again short of a fifty partnership. 71 consecutive partnerships without reaching fifty. Painful.

This series feels like parallels to the last India tour in England. The touring side won a single Test and have had the odd opportunity to snatch other opportunities but the home sides class in their conditions has won out over the series.

Ashwin and Axar, Rohit and Pant have just been too good for this England team.

Hi Carlos - have to agree with you about Foakes on all points, sadly. Feel he's come across as more a lovely bridesmaid than a beautiful bride.

A more dispiriting tour for his Surrey colleagues Burns and Pope. Tbf they are not the only ones.

England pluses for me were Root, Anderson, Leach and, as far as he was given an opportunity, Stone. Having two greats in Root and Anderson is obviously much welcomed although over reliance of them may become (or perhaps already is) an issue. There again, whilst some learning and improvement is required, I feel it's important not to make too many judgements from a series against a very good side on their home soil with the skills to exploit it.

I think Burns probably benefited from being dropped. Lawrence never looked comfortable at 3 and Bairstow did nothing. I'd expect Burns to be recalled with a 1.Burns 2.Sibley 3.Crawley top order for the New Zealand series.

Pope could be under some pressure though with Lawrence getting a fifty in Sri Lanka and two solid innings in this final Test. That number 6 spot could go to Lawrence for the New Zealand series. If either of them starts the summer with some scores for Surrey or Essex they could claim the spot though.

Stokes didn't have a good series with the bat which is a worry. Him averaging over 50 in 2019 and 2020 was vital to England's batting. He's average 25 here. England need him in form with the year ahead.

Soul Requiem wrote:I should add that India as a side are a class act, they play the game how it should be played. Kohli is a combative captain who sometimes goes near the line but never over it, a series played in the spirit of the game. Sharma in full flow in India is a joy to watch as is Ashwin bowling, hopefully we get another good look at Bumrah in the summer.

Agree 100%. Kohli's attitude has rubbed off onto a side who are very tough now. The bowling depth in seam and spin is excellent. Pant is settling into Dhoni's old role as well.

I'm excited to see how Pujara does this summer. In 2014 he struggled but in 2018 he showed some class in English conditions. The century at the Rose Bowl was a fantastic stand alone innings. His 70-odd and partnership with Kohli at Trent Bridge was a vital innings setting up the India win as well. His average since 2017 has dipped significantly though and he only has 1 century since 2018. He will be under a lot of pressure.

KP_fan wrote:

Guildford wrote:.   Someone would choose to listen to Swann during a break?!

Of the 3 english commentators in this series
Swann to me is better than  Butcher (unintentionally comic) , knight ( unintentionally partisan)
Swann is a bit full of himself but his comments are insightful, ie how a fairly modern international cricketer thinks durigng games.
And reveals the stromg mind he had as a cricketer..
A poor man's Warne

Thanks for your reply, KP-f.

I'm with you on Butcher. Dislike him as a commentator and as a person - that's Oval and Surrey related.

I reckon I'm in a minority here but I quite like Knight. He along with Key knows the England county game well and better than the usual bigger names such as Hussain.

Interesting what you say about Swann providing insight. That may be the case but I just find him too full of himself and (mentally at least) switch off.

Graham Swann was my favorite England cricketer after Kevin Pietersen. He's not half the commentator of the bowler that he was. But I haven't found him to be a bad commentator, particularly when commenting on the finer points of the game. Would agree with KPF's assessment, can be a bit too full of himself, and a bit too much of the T-20 style of commentary.
My favorite English commentators would be Hussain, Atherton and Gower. Not necessarily for the substance of the commentary always. Hussain scores well on that front and he's very passionate about the game and that comes through in his commentary. Atherton has a very distinct style of presentation and radiates a sense of calm.
But for Gower, it doesn't even matter what he says, that voice, he played the game mostly a bit before my watching times, but from whatever I have subsequently cought up, I'd say that voice is even better than his magic with the bat.

They couldve made this a 5 test series and still had a shorter tour

OK time on hands today so might comment on a few of the issues raised over the (entirely predictable but still rather sad ) ending to England's Asian tour - the Test bit anyway : still have the short form stuff to follow so I do hope they aren't too disheartened by what has happened recently in red and pink ball stuff!

First off I feel I have to say a word or two for one of this board's favourite whipping boys - as I am probably Jonny B's only supporter on here (not quite sure why he is so unpopular : red hair ? Yorkshire ? Slightly mad ? ) but anyway I will certainly agree he's had a horrible two Tests this last week or so. Three ducks is a pretty spectacular fall from grace after some rather handy efforts in Sri Lanka - though one might note in passing that his one score of 28 means he actually made more than the combined total runs of Crawley and Sibley for those two games  So not Robinson Crusoe in failing to handle Axar and Ashwin in Ahmedabad ...

But obviously those failures have rather derailed his (always uphill) task to reinvent himself as a number three. And here I would commend to all George Dobell's article today on this subject as it touches on most of my thoughts on Bairstow's treatment - which , rather like Moeen's , has often seemed a little on the rough side. He certainly wouldn't expect to be picked in a first choice XI at the moment ; but given the paucity of batting talent around at present and the ever present need for injury and rotation replacements I reckon it would be a little foolish to completely discard a player who does , after all , have six Test centuries to his credit - and as of today is one of only five current England bats to average north of 32...

Which point leads on to my next article. After my coffee break

So : to the larger issue of what makes me most pessimistic about the chances for England in the immediate future.  To put it rather brutally  , the almost total dearth of batting talent.

As I noted above , only five current bats average over 32 (Root 49.24, Stokes 37.04, Buttler 34.53, Crawley 34.15 and Bairstow 34.12) By way of contrast , NZ have no less than 8 players averaging over 38 at present - several of them well over 40. And Australia , while they do lean heavily on Smith and Labuschagne with their 60 plus averages , also have Warner , Head and the discarded Khawaja at forty or more. Even Joe Burns averages similar to Stokes ! Don't even want to talk about India...

Obviously there are a number of players still early in their Test careers ; and all of them have at times shown promise. But when you consider how quickly many recent batsmen have been discarded after failing to perform strongly over a relative handful of Tests (Malan  27.84, Vince 24.9, Stoneman 27.68, Denly 29.53 ) the figures for the current assumed automatic selections are a bit of a worry :  Crawley 12 games 34.15 the best by a fair bit...Sibley 18 games 30.41, Pope 17 games 31.92 Burns 23 games 30.73 . And other than that  Lawrence (very early , only 5 games) 27.55 and Foakes , similar small sample but a rapid drop from his first few innings which generated such excitement - 8 games , 31.53.
As you can see , all still a little above the scores for those recent discards - but hardly enough to instil huge confidence in long term success. For the most part , from my observations over a long time , the players who achieve significant success in Test cricket tend to announce themselves fairly early ; and although they might suffer the odd temporary downturn , don't usually drop too far away from their early marks for long. I'd say there are serious warning signs over all of these young guns at present - though the lack of obvious alternatives means they will most probably get a pretty decent run of opportunities to prove themselves...perhaps more than some of those previously mentioned discards...

Suppose while I am at it I should throw in a couple of other figures : Moeen , despite his five centuries , averages only 28.88 - which does suggest that ,while he is a useful late order bat if his bowling is in order , calls for him to ever play in the top six are a bit "hopeful"

Oh and one forgotten man : chap called Ballance averaged 37.45 and made four hundreds. Lost his form badly and , quite reasonably , dropped out - but until some new players can at least exceed his figures I'd be very cautious about heralding a new age of English batting...

Promise to put some more positive thoughts out in my next bulletin - if anyone stays awake long enough to read it

Now let me turn to the happier bits...

1 Positives from the tours. Not a lot , but :

Jimmy Anderson (Lord please keep him fit and healthy a bit longer !) is as good as ever. Maybe better in unfavourable conditions. Australia next year ? Still a way off - but never say never...
Jos Buttler continues to improve as a keeper. Never going to be a Knott or a Russell - nor a Stewart with the bat - but as long as he can continue his recent run of decent scores he can do the job for England. Again , Australia may test his batting but that is for later.
Jack Leach came back from illness and long hibernation and bowled pretty well in conditions that largely suited him well. Still have reservations about him on pitches that don't offer much - and his limited batting means if he is the main spinner England pretty well have to pick one pace bowler largely for his batting ; but his development has to be a plus.
Lawrence : a couple of nice innings. Fair few dismal fails too but he was one of many in that ! Too early to say , but he has done enough to be in the conversation come the home summer.
Root - of course. Three super innings almost forgotten now as everything imploded in India but they showed he is up there with the best when he is on song and had only mislaid the concentration to push on for really big scores. Think the captaincy pressure (and having to carry the batting with very little help) weighed him down i the end ; and he could really do with a solid period of rest right now. His captaincy remains variable : thought he got his bowling changes very right at times - then rather messed them up at others , particularly late in this series . But that was arguably down to flawed selection and bowler fatigue as much as anything. We do tend to judge a captain's merit purely by the results he gets rather than the logic of his choices - and sometimes there just isn't any choice that will make any difference...
Stone : only one appearance - but it was a good one. A lot of pace ; better control than I'd anticipated - could be an important factor next Ashes , particularly if these repeated injuries and apparently declining effectiveness sees the high hopes for Archer Down Under take a bit of a dive.
Wood too - good in Sri Lanka and somewhat unfortunately then rotated home when in good form. Might have been interesting to see him in action in this most recent game but the selection confusion ruled that out.

Anything else ? Well strangely I'd still say Bess both gained and lost from the trip : his Sri Lankan efforts were really pretty decent and as I said the other day (although KP_fan would obviously be a better option ) he showed enough to suggest he may be a force in the future...all depends how he comes back from a rather miserable end to the tour. Guildford says he is a feisty fellow so I am pinning my hopes on that old saying : "that which does not kill me , makes me stronger".
Which might be something for the whole squad to reflect on...

Anyway apart from the plus and (mostly) minus bits from the tours , we have to consider the future. Which remains clouded , due to the virus - despite encouraging vaccine rollouts I fear it will be a while before things are "back to normal". Travel issues , bubbles...who can say ?

(Disregarding white ball stuff for now - be nice to win t20 cups etc ; and it is certainly possible though in that format you can never discount surprise results so I won't be placing bets : anyway I am an unrepentant traditionist )

Two Tests against NZ .  NZ are top of the pops on their results : I know many tend to discount them on the grounds of their playing less games , a bad tour of Australia , etc - and perhaps just the fact that they are NZ .  Didn't stop them being a matter of inches and arguably some rank bad luck from wrecking England's ODI party last year ! Reckon this will be a tight contest.

What we do not know is who will actually be there to play.  IPL could mean a number of players , from either side , are not available ; so forecasting team shapes is tricky. Guess we can say England will have something like Burns Sibley Crawley Root as the top four ...and Anderson Broad Woakes will be options alongside Wood and Stone for pace spots as none are involved in the franchise business. Basis for a decent side and in English conditions should be competitive : but if NZ have their full pace armoury (not certain , of course) it will be a real test for that currently shaky top three - though of a totally different nature to the recent ordeal by spin. Best thing for England is that their own pace attack , in home conditions , is going to ensure they will always be in the game so I am quite looking forward to these matches. As I think Duty said , might almost have been better to have had them for a four or five game series...though I suppose there are only so many days in the calendar and India has too big a following to play less than a full series...

India later and I guess we can at least assume the games will not spin viciously on days 1-3 But even so I fancy India will be tougher opponents than on the last couple of tours (not that they were rubbish then) because I think they've developed a lot more rounded set of skills and a good deal more belief in themselves overseas ...the win in Australia will have helped that along ! Not even going to hazard a guess about how this will go...and no idea what the team will look like by then. Presume some players will have had some red ball cricket by then (? Though with all the IPL , Hundred , etc I am unsure of that) so changes from the current squad may well be on the cards. India will certainly have to make some choices - from an abundance of riches , mainly . Jadeja , Ashwin , Axar Sundar : they can't all play !

And nothing to do with England but the WTC Final should be fun. Plenty of cricket to enjoy - which is the main thing

If anyone is still reading I apologise for rabbitting on at such length - I am done for now : feel free to throw turnips as desired

Alfie some interesting thoughts and points raised - will post some of mine and a response to a few either tonight or tomorrow, I’d say my glass is more half full than yours though

msp83 wrote:Graham Swann was my favorite England cricketer after Kevin Pietersen. He's not half the commentator of the bowler that he was. But I haven't found him to be a bad commentator, particularly when commenting on the finer points of the game. Would agree with KPF's assessment, can be a bit too full of himself, and a bit too much of the T-20 style of commentary.
My favorite English commentators would be Hussain, Atherton and Gower. Not necessarily for the substance of the commentary always. Hussain scores well on that front and he's very passionate about the game and that comes through in his commentary. Atherton has a very distinct style of presentation and radiates a sense of calm.
But for Gower, it doesn't even matter what he says, that voice, he played the game mostly a bit before my watching times, but from whatever I have subsequently cought up, I'd say that voice is even better than his magic with the bat.

I agree msp...Hussain to me.is the best english commentators now that Boycott is gone for long

Artherton is good until Eng.get into a losing situation ...a bit of sour grapes come out.
David Lloyd was once upon a time fresh....now a bit past expiry date

Isa guha acts coy sometimes and careful when bigger names are her co commentators but pleasing to ears in her language and observations.
Vaughan is controversial but no nonsense good.
Botham is the image of the boorish soccer fan  somehow gotten in the commentary box.

Back to Swann, when he talks you can see how he was a smart street fighter...almost australian in his thinking

Summarizing the series from my POV on Indian side in first post

The problem part is Kohli.
He left the team after being bowled out for 36 in Adelaide...disappeared for 3 tests, when he could have well missed at most one test.
The team showed amazing camaraderie, playing unbelievable cricket to beat Aus in Aus coming back from dead with a B grade bunch of players...even a fairy tale couldn't have been written better
That team had a mild mannered but astute onfield captain, a committee of senior players that governed the strategy & decision making under a tough but benign coach.
They found a consensual governance method in Aus that delivered unbelievable results.

Kohli back now sees the style of governance & dressing room environment has changed an an almost silent coup has occurred....Coach & seniors are trying to work thru the committee method.
And Kohli unable to push them back...nor able to get the solo control back.....but trying hard to stamp his authority
And that his batting form has fallen in dumps ain't helping his cause.
.
And that he  lost the first test  owing to bad selections and desperate attempt to stamp solo authority without being fully primed.
And then he became desperate and was most instrumental in pushing for raging turners....when in reality a fully primed India should have beaten Eng even if all pitches were like T4.
Kohli was insecure and lacking confidence because of team's success without him in Aus as explained above

Kohli has to find balance in captaincy...a  method taking seniors onboard....and also find his batting form...and I think he will suceed on both counts
Playing meaningless masala limited over cricket will get his feet, Hand/ eye coordination moving....and get him in form.
He listens to Shastri and Shastri will get him to understand how to relax and not be overly controlling.

Pujara and Rahane always bat well overseas....Rahane sporadically and Puajra slowly but consistently ...and they are lesser worry...as they have rarely failed overseas.

The positive part is --The Depth of Indian cricket
We will have Bumrah, Shami, ishant, Umesh, Siraj, Bhuvneshwar and Shardul to choose 3 seamers from
and Ashwin, Axar, Jadeja and Sundar to choose 1 or max 2 spinners from in overseas games.
and we have Pandya who can bat like Pant on a given day...and then we have Pant..winning a match per series with a single handed blazing inning.

And that we have an opening pair..where each opener is capable of scoring a 100 in a session on their day, Gill is due for a blazing inning and that might well be in the final of WTC if the pitch a flat one which is what I expect , for commercial reasons.
And the day openers and pant fire..india can on a good pitch chase down 400 in last inning.

If Kohli finds balance as a captain and we go fully primed & focused with no dressing room digressions ...games in Eng will be tough, but india will be very competitive.

Blimey , KP_fan  - I am surprised you could even find any "problems" for India after that resounding success

Certainly dead right about the amazing depth - which I think was originally revealed in Australia - and underlined just now.  One "problem" being how to keep everybody happy and focused when there are just too many deserving cases for inclusion so excellent players are likely to find themselves sitting out more than they'd like !

I do think this Indian team will be more than competitive in England. It is probably still true that the batting may find the going a lot tougher if there is a lot of seam movement (though you make a good point about the likelihood of a flat pitch for the WTC Final - I hope it isn't too flat as a bore draw would be horrible! What do they do if it is drawn anyway ? I haven't checked - have a super over ? )
But anyway even if the top order doesn't make big runs , when you have the likes of Pant and Sundar , Jadeja , etc , coming in later , decent scores are always likely. And with the current bowling resources they are always going to be in the game...

I think I am almost talking myself into giving up on England's chances of winning at home here ! Not quite ready to do that ; will wait and assess closer to the event. But I do think India have their best chance for many years and England will need to be at their best to keep their very solid recent home record intact.

I wouldn't worry too much about King Kohli : he is what he is ; and his leadership brings both plus and minus points but I reckon on balance has been a winning factor for India . Rahane may in truth be a better captain in an overall sense but that is unlikely to be tested again barring injury so I think you should be thankful for what you've got at the moment.

Could have done with him scoring a few runs in that last test though...just a nice twenty and I'd have caught you in the  Tipping Competition

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Alfie some interesting thoughts and points raised - will post some of mine and a response to a few either tonight or tomorrow, I’d say my glass is more half full than yours though

Your glass usually is , Olly

Though mine was being emptied rather rapidly a few times the other evening after that grisly end to the tour so I might have been looking through it rather darkly on the following morning (to scramble a few metaphors). In truth I do not mean to be altogether despondent about the England prospects ; just pointing up the reasons for not expecting too much all at once - which often seems to prompt a somewhat disproportionate public backlash when things go awry ...

But hey : I will look forward to reading your thoughts and will doubtless then come back and discuss it all further : we have a while before the next Test action , with only a lot of white ball stuff (which should be entertaining even if essentially just "practice" for the WC events) to keep us distracted.

I'll try to do a batsmen rating for the overall tour

Sibley (4)- Showed signs of adapting but 10 failures across 12 innings is simply not good enough, he's there to eat up deliveries but failed on that front too.
Burns (3)- Got a couple of starts and has the ability to score against spin but as is common throughout his test career transpired to get himself out, coincidentally has a slightly higher overall average than Sibley
Crawley (4)- One decent aggressive innings where he scored freely off the pacemen but again barely scored a run against the spinners, showed little sign of adapting across his four matches.
Lawrence (6)- A modest overall return but on his first tour showed a degree of promise in the middle order, showed good temperament in the second innings in the first Galle test to help England across the line when the top order failed.
Root (8)- Possibly a harsh score considering the three big centuries but did little in the final three matches to alleviate the pressure on his fellow batsman. You can't expect century after century but seven innings without a fifty is uncharacteristic.
Stokes (5)- A couple of fifties but not going on in the fourth India test was the turning point, everything was set for a Pant like innings.
Foakes (4)- A decent score in the second test but allowed himself to get tied down too much when he should have been trying to transfer some pressure back onto the bowlers.
Bairstow (4)- Five starts without going on is the story of his test career in recent years, certainly not helped by leaving and then returning mid tour, doesn't seem to know how to bat in tests any more.
Buttler (6)- A similar story to a few of the batsman and typical of his test career, got in five times out of five but didn't push on. Important aggressive innings in the second test when England were faltering, can't help but think he needs to be more aggressive in general.

alfie wrote:So : to the larger issue of what makes me most pessimistic about the chances for England in the immediate future.  To put it rather brutally  , the almost total dearth of batting talent.

As I noted above , only five current bats average over 32 (Root 49.24, Stokes 37.04, Buttler 34.53, Crawley 34.15 and Bairstow 34.12) By way of contrast , NZ have no less than 8 players averaging over 38 at present - several of them well over 40. And Australia , while they do lean heavily on Smith and Labuschagne with their 60 plus averages , also have Warner , Head and the discarded Khawaja at forty or more. Even Joe Burns averages similar to Stokes ! Don't even want to talk about India...

Obviously there are a number of players still early in their Test careers ; and all of them have at times shown promise. But when you consider how quickly many recent batsmen have been discarded after failing to perform strongly over a relative handful of Tests (Malan  27.84, Vince 24.9, Stoneman 27.68, Denly 29.53 ) the figures for the current assumed automatic selections are a bit of a worry :  Crawley 12 games 34.15 the best by a fair bit...Sibley 18 games 30.41, Pope 17 games 31.92 Burns 23 games 30.73 . And other than that  Lawrence (very early , only 5 games) 27.55 and Foakes , similar small sample but a rapid drop from his first few innings which generated such excitement - 8 games , 31.53.
As you can see , all still a little above the scores for those recent discards - but hardly enough to instil huge confidence in long term success. For the most part , from my observations over a long time , the players who achieve significant success in Test cricket tend to announce themselves fairly early ; and although they might suffer the odd temporary downturn , don't usually drop too far away from their early marks for long. I'd say there are serious warning signs over all of these young guns at present - though the lack of obvious alternatives means they will most probably get a pretty decent run of opportunities to prove themselves...perhaps more than some of those previously mentioned discards...

Suppose while I am at it I should throw in a couple of other figures : Moeen , despite his five centuries , averages only 28.88  - which does suggest that ,while he is a useful late order bat if his bowling is in order , calls for him to ever play in the top six are a bit "hopeful"

Oh and one forgotten man : chap called Ballance averaged 37.45 and made four hundreds. Lost his form badly and , quite reasonably , dropped out - but until some new players can at least exceed his figures I'd be very cautious about heralding a new age of English batting...

Promise to put some more positive thoughts out in my next bulletin - if anyone stays awake long enough to read it

Alfie I will respond to this post, and a point or two you raised in other posts in this reply, then pop up some "ratings" for the whole winter for our players after that.

I think "total dearth of batting talent" is a bit over the top negative, and when pointing out NZ/Aus averages, you have missed the important piece of context which is conditions the majority of test matches the respective batsmen play in. It's significantly harder to bat in England than it is Aus/NZ (particularly those docile NZ pitches), and as pointed out before, NZ rarely tour away anywhere, and Australia rarely tour the subcontinent either (a wider cricket problem, than just those two nations). It'll be well over three years since the Aussies/NZ toured the subcontinent soon.
Now am I suggesting England's batting is better than those two outfits? No. But I think lacking that context is a little unfair on them...I highly doubt you would see significantly improved results from either of those sides if they'd just played India on the wickets England did.

Do think it is an important summer for the youngsters now, there does come a point where "promise and potential" does have to start to be reflected into on field results. I think all Sibley/Crawley/Lawrence/Pope/Foakes etc can be guys who average 35+ and towards 40 odd...but only time will tell (odds are one or two will, one or two won't I should think).

On Bairstow, I probably fall more into the "whipping boy" category as you define it , albeit not quite Dolph levels! Can certainly see why he was picked this winter, with all the rotation and young lads it makes sense to have an experienced head around.
But, ultimately since that glorious 2016 year, he's now played 36 test matches, 64 innings and averages 26.80 in that 2017-2021 timeframe...and that average has only been going down over that time (the 14 tests and 27 innings over the 2019-2021 period he averages 21.21). At some point, it only becomes fair to player and team to move on for a bit...and I think we have reached that juncture. Now, does that mean he should never be picked again if he goes away and over the next 12-18 months, scores a ton of county championship runs, clearly works out technical flaws...no, the door should always be open to any possibility. But the current situation of half committing to him, half dropping him, just isn't working for anybody.

I'll pop my full thoughts up later on player by player stuff, but the pace bowling stocks/ranks are a clear positive for me this winter. Archer's injury is a concern, but he was superb in that first test when fit, and both Wood/Stone both looked great too when they played (Wood's figures unreflective of his efforts!). If they can somehow get all three of them fully healthy for that Australia tour this winter, then that's going to be fantastic...but all three don't exactly have great injury histories! Broad/Anderson superb, but that almost goes as read nowadays

It’s exactly my problem with Bairstow! They wanted him to go away and improve, either mentally or technically (probably both) and then never let him do that.

Combine that with poor scores and being picked on loyalty to a level of performance that was the outlier.

I don't agree that England have a total dearth of batting talent, that seems rather unkind. In terms of a top six - Root and Stokes are established quality. Crawley and Pope are brilliant talents, both long-term options, albeit they have struggled in the sub-continent (and Pope's suffered with injury). Sibley is probably not a long-term option, but he's sufficient for what England need now - an obdurate opener who can soak up new ball bowling with a dour defensive grit - and will likely be a fixture in the England team for a few years. The other spot is problematic, with Burns repeatedly showing he isn't good enough, but the opener cupboard is bare, and England may choose Crawley/Sibley as the opening pair, which leaves an issue of finding a number three, where Lawrence is the current leading option. Going forward, I'd like to see:

Sibley/Crawley/Lawrence/Root/Stokes/Pope/WK (do prefer Foakes, but it'll be Buttler)

That looks a pretty decent batting order to me. Two players of high quality, two players with great potential, Sibley who can grind an attack down and give the middle-order a platform, Lawrence who has shown flashes of promise (and we'll know more when he bats for England away from the alien sub-continent), and a wicket-keeper with a fearsome reputation for power-scoring. I don't think, overall, it's as strong as the top three teams in test cricket, currently, but it has the potential to be in 2-3 years, if Crawley and Pope fulfil their potential and Root and Stokes maintain their high-quality.

Anyway, no test cricket for England for a few months now. The five-match T20 series against India is, unlike most T20 series which are just a bit of fun, of utmost importance with the T20 World Cup being held there in October. If England can win the series, I believe it justifies their status as favourites to win the competition. It is of early concern to hear that Archer is a doubt for the series because of his troubling elbow injury.

KP_fan wrote:Summarizing the series from my POV on Indian side in first post

The problem part is Kohli.
He left the team after being bowled out for 36 in Adelaide...disappeared for 3 tests, when he could have well missed at most one test.
The team showed amazing camaraderie, playing unbelievable cricket to beat Aus in Aus coming back from dead with a B grade bunch of players...even a fairy tale couldn't have been written better
That team had a mild mannered but astute onfield captain, a committee of senior players that governed the strategy & decision making under a tough but benign coach.
They found a consensual governance method in Aus that delivered unbelievable results.

Kohli back now sees the style of governance & dressing room environment has changed an an almost silent coup has occurred....Coach & seniors are trying to work thru the committee method.
And Kohli unable to push them back...nor able to get the solo control back.....but trying hard to stamp his authority
And that his batting form has fallen in dumps ain't helping his cause.
.
And that he  lost the first test  owing to bad selections and desperate attempt to stamp solo authority without being fully primed.
And then he became desperate and was most instrumental in pushing for raging turners....when in reality a fully primed India should have beaten Eng even if all pitches were like T4.
Kohli was insecure and lacking confidence because of team's success without him in Aus as explained above

Kohli has to find balance in captaincy...a  method taking seniors onboard....and also find his batting form...and I think he will suceed on both counts
Playing meaningless masala limited over cricket will get his feet, Hand/ eye coordination moving....and get him in form.
He listens to Shastri and Shastri will get him to understand how to relax and not be overly controlling.

Pujara and Rahane always bat well overseas....Rahane sporadically and Puajra slowly but consistently ...and they are lesser worry...as they have rarely failed overseas.

The positive part is --The Depth of Indian cricket
We will have Bumrah, Shami, ishant, Umesh, Siraj, Bhuvneshwar and Shardul to choose 3 seamers from
and Ashwin, Axar, Jadeja and Sundar to choose 1 or max 2 spinners from in overseas games.
and we have Pandya who can bat like Pant on a given day...and then we have Pant..winning a match per series with a single handed blazing inning.

And that we have an opening pair..where each opener is capable of scoring a 100 in a session on their day, Gill is due for a blazing inning and that might well be in the final of WTC if the pitch a flat one which is what I expect , for commercial reasons.
And the day openers and pant fire..india can on a good pitch chase down 400 in last inning.

If Kohli finds balance as a captain and we go fully primed & focused with no dressing room digressions ...games in Eng will be tough, but india will be very competitive.

Bit harsh there on Kohli, KPF.
Yes, we both agree that Kohli can be rashly impulsive to the extend of being sometimes stupid when it comes to some selection calls. Not sure he's entirely guilty for that Nadeem selection, seams the management doesn't really has much favor for Kuldeep at this stage, even in Australia when both Ashwin and Jadeja were out injured, they went for Washing, who at that point, was playing a FC game after 3 years.
Virat surely has things to learn from the Rahane style of leadership. Rahane seems to have a touch of MSD when it comes to getting the best out of his players, without the onfield orthodoxy that has by and large characterized Dhoni's leadership. And yes sure, Virat can do well to run-scoring ways. He made 72 and 62 in the 4th and 3rd innings in tough circumstances. But never quite looked in entire control that we come to associate with his batting. When he's scoring thus when out of form, there is not much to worry I feel, he should be back to his best soon. Might also make him more reflective on the leadership of side then.

As for Rahane, I am not entirely sure about him when playing in India, he does play the crisis hand when required at home, but is our weakest bat against spin usually.
Pujara is usually as good as Kohli at home, and bats differently to the way he does overseas. He somehow allowed Leach to get the better of him far too often and by the end of the series was batting in his overseas version. He has been short of big runs in recent times though he was utterly crucial to the series win in Australia yet again. Didn't have a dominant series after the 2018-19 tour of Australia. I have no doubts about his class, and his absolute requirement to the Indian team at this stage. But as a single format player, this could put him under a bit of pressure, probably mostly from himself as the team now seems to have recognize his true worth.
I never imagined myself saying this, but the biggest positive for India in this series has not been Pant, not Axar, not Washington, but Rohit Sharma! He did have a spectacular series as test opener against South Africa. But that Rohit was playing his typical way and somehow sustained it for long to really hurt the bowling. The Australian series showed signs of Rohit working on the technical side of things, his leaves looked more assureed, and he seemed to have made some nuanced adjustments to his technique that gave him a better chance to succeed at the top. But his temperament let him down as usual in that series, with a number of useful, but ultimately unconverted starts. And things seemed on the same course in the first test with 2 poor dismissals. But Rohit since then, seems to have finally had that tough conversation with himself, and finally decided that he needs to grow up. His 161 and 66 were match defining, but I was most impressed with his 49 in the last game. Runs didn't come to Rohit effortlessly in that innings, but unlike his usual self, he didn't do anything silly, no attempt to hit his way out of trouble at the first sign of it. At one stage, Cheteshwar Pujara had nearly double the strike rate of Rohit's!!!
I still don't entirely trust Rohit to remember that conversation that he had with himself come the next series that would come after a lot of limited overs and the IPL, but he really has looked like he belonged at the test level in this series.

I hope India wouldn't hold this relative failure against Shubman Gill. The lad is seriously promising, and should be given an extended run. Would also be better to keep him away from the limited overs stuff for the time being. Had played the last couple of games in Australia and did look good. But with all fit and available, they should keep him in the reserves at best and not actually expose him too much at that level where the ball is only there to be hit with no questions asked.

They should go in with something like
Rohit, Dhawan, Kohli, Iyer, Rahul, Pandya, Washington, Bhuvneshwar, Shardul, Chahal, Natarajan
Pant in for Dhawan in T-20Is with Rahul moving up to open.
Bumrah is missing the series for personal reasons, wouldn't have played him in this silly little series even otherwise. They should play Bumrah only when really necessary. Shami is not back to full fitness, as is Jadeja. Hope Hardik will bowl regularly from now, will have significance for the test side too. Kuldeep is short of confidence, seems to require time away from the top level. Washington's bowling needs to improve, steady opportunities at the limited overs level might be the way to go as of now. Wouldn't mind him and Axar rotated in that all-rounder position until Jadeja is fully fit.

https://www.606v2.com/t69794p850-england-s-winter-of-cricket-2020-21#3949218

My scores post SL series on the link above - Wood and Curran's scores won't change from 7.5 and 4/10 respectively as they didn't play in the India series. Scores are for the overall winter

Sibley - 3.5/10 - score of 4 after the SL series, I think I'd give him a 3 for the India series because he had some really soft dismissals, and didn't even do his job of eating up the new ball on most occasions, even if runs weren't coming. Concerns over his ability to play spin, which surfaced against Pakistan, certainly haven't gone away.

Crawley - 2.5/10 - 2 in Sri Lanka, and a 3 for the India series. Like Sibley only one score of note (where he batted like a dream against seam), but still problems against spin persist. Think he could benefit from England deciding he's whether he's an opener or 3.

Burns - 2/10 - didn't play SL, but was very disappointing. Actively threw away a score unlike Sibley in the 1st test, and then again when looking decent in the 2nd test. Big summer ahead, ideally think England would like him to nail a spot because he's clearly got the talent in him...but a poor few series leaves him under the spotlight most of any of them I think.

Lawrence - 6/10 - same score as he got in SL for me, struggled at 3 and had a worrying dismissal against Bumrah...but a good fourth test, there is clearly some talent there. Looks to be first in line for the middle order reserve slot

Bairstow - 4/10 - scored a 6.5 in SL, but only a 1.5/10 for me in India. Discussed in my post above so won't go into more detail here

Root - 9/10 - scored a 10 in SL, I would give him a 7/10 in the India series. Essentially won the first test with the bat for us, and then randomly became Jim Laker in the third test...batting was inevitably going to fall off a touch, and he tired unsurprisingly as the series went on considering the workload as a batter, bowler and captain. But 794 runs, three hundreds at an average of 66.17 is a world class winter in my books!

Stokes - 6/10 - maybe a touch generous, did bat well in T1 and in T4 he put in a great effort...but overall a disappointing series for him. Not entirely surprising mind, he's always been a much better bat on the bouncier wickets of Aus/SA than the spinning wickets.

Pope - 2.5/10 - can't score him any higher than Burns for batting, but a slight bump for being a decent short leg. But 153 runs in 8 innings, high score of 34 at an average of 19.13 can't be dressed up, a very poor winter. In an ideal world by now he'd be playing well enough we'd be having the discussion "should he be moved to bat 3", unfortunately he's now got Lawrence in the wings and needs a good summer.

Buttler - 7/10 - scored 8 in SL, I'd give him a 5.5/10 for his one India test...thought he had a good winter, clearly developed with the gloves and some crucial innings in SL, particularly the 2nd test (again showing he's better coming in in the 120/4 type scenario than the 320/4 one, weirdly!). Think England are in good hands with him and Foakes going forward

Foakes - 5/10 - you'd have got good odds on Soul scoring him lower than me    we know he's an excellent gloveman, but a disappointing return ultimately with the bat, Soul's point about him not being proactive enough with the willow a good one I think. Definitely a scenario where you could play Buttler at 6, and Foakes at 7 going forward for me.

Bess - 4.5/10 - gave him a 6 in SL, would only be able to give him a 3/10 for India...some battling innings with the bat over the winter, but not the control/progression we'd ultimately like to see from him yet. Whereas Wood's figures are unkind and don't tell the true story, do think Bess's bowling figures are the inverse of that...but still young and plenty of time for him to develop, hopefully a good county summer ahead.

Leach - 7.5/10 - scored a 6/10 in SL, but a 9/10 in India for me...he got stronger as the winter went on, and was superb in India. Clearly earned a shot to nail the #1 spinner role in less favourable conditions now...which he still has to do. Matt Roller of ESPN Cricinfo posted a tweet mid series, which I then asked him to follow up on after, which show Leach's splits as a bowler, which are interesting. See below;

1st/2nd innings
vs RHBs: 19 @ 35.78
vs LHBs: 3 @ 112.66

3rd/4th innings
vs RHBs: 32 @ 17.40
vs LHBs: 8 at 34.75

Now obviously a spinner is always going to be more effective in the 2nd dig, but do think England would like to see him improve against left handers and offer a bit more control in the first dig. No doubting his ability to bowl teams out in favourable conditions for me though!

Moeen - 3/10 - think getting Covid-19 buggered up all plans for Moeen this winter, and the one test he did play, didn't do well enough despite some flashes of his talent. He's more crucial to the ODI/T20 squads now going forward for me, and might be best if England let him concentrate on that from here on in.

Anderson - 10/10 - got that in SL, gets that here. Bloody brilliant he is isn't he

Stone and Archer - 7/10 - grouping these two together, as essentially I think they did pretty similar. Both bowled superb new ball spells in the first innings of T1 and T2, and overall did a good job in the pace man role. Neither should've been batting as high as they did though both immensely promising for the future, if they can stay on the park.

Broad - 7.5/10 - scored a 10/10 for his excellent T1 in SL, but a bit of hard one to score for the India series because twice England selected him, when they really shouldn't have done in T2 and T3...yet left him out in T4 when they could've done with an extra seamer. I'll say a 5/10 for India, to give him a 7.5 overall, as he did have a good winter all told and is continuing to age nicely.

Overall: I'd personally say a good winter for England, but not a great one. The two test wins in Sri Lanka were brilliant (I am reminded on my trawl through of this post from JDizzle highlighting that - https://www.606v2.com/t69794p850-england-s-winter-of-cricket-2020-21#3949182) and while the India series crumbled by the end, ultimately winning a test in India is better than a lot were predicting...and they did become the first team to win one there since 2016, and one of only two tests won by a touring side in about 40 tests since the infamous 2012 series win. Think that overall perspective has been slightly lost a tad in the aftermath in the wider media...

msp83 wrote:I hope India wouldn't hold this relative failure against Shubman Gill. The lad is seriously promising, and should be given an extended run. Would also be better to keep him away from the limited overs stuff for the time being. Had played the last couple of games in Australia and did look good. But with all fit and available, they should keep him in the reserves at best and not actually expose him too much at that level where the ball is only there to be hit with no questions asked.

Naah Gill has enough credit in the bag from the Aus series and even here he got a 50 and 25 and a 15*
He gets 3 more tests at least to fail
I think he will crack a 100 in the WTC final

Dan Lawrence looks like a middle order batsman to me, doesn't quite have the technique to bat in the top three but possesses 360 shot making. The selectors will however try and squeeze him into that number three spot. It's worth noting that the aggressive openers of recent times have had no success in England whether it's Warner, Sehwag or anyone else so you need that stodgy top three to see of the new ball.

I wouldn't be against having Buttler at 6 with Foakes at 7 but i'd be expecting Jos to be striking closer to 70 than his current 57 (still good for tests admittedly), boom or bust would be more beneficial to the team than the regular 30's he scores.

Soul Requiem wrote:Dan Lawrence looks like a middle order batsman to me, doesn't quite have the technique to bat in the top three but possesses 360 shot making. The selectors will however try and squeeze him into that number three spot. It's worth noting that the aggressive openers of recent times have had no success in England whether it's Warner, Sehwag or anyone else so you need that stodgy top three to see of the new ball.

Lovely to watch but his bat comes down at some funky angles which worries me for a number 3.

It isn't ideal, but if they are going to go with Crawley and Sibley at the top, then I would rather Pope at 3 and Lawrence at 6. I don't want to move Pope up but Root and Stokes need to stay where they are so it doesn't leave much option.

Suspect for the summer we will go back to Burns Sibley Crawley as the top 3 and back to basics bat for time approach that got Englands batting seemingly back on track for a year. Pope probably would've been given the 3 spot ahead of Lawrence if his own form hadnt been so bad since his return from injury. Those two could be vying for a place in the middle order, although some of that may depend on rotation of the multi format players and IPL.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Dan Lawrence looks like a middle order batsman to me, doesn't quite have the technique to bat in the top three but possesses 360 shot making. The selectors will however try and squeeze him into that number three spot. It's worth noting that the aggressive openers of recent times have had no success in England whether it's Warner, Sehwag or anyone else so you need that stodgy top three to see of the new ball.

Lovely to watch but his bat comes down at some funky angles which worries me for a number 3.

It isn't ideal, but if they are going to go with Crawley and Sibley at the top, then I would rather Pope at 3 and Lawrence at 6. I don't want to move Pope up but Root and Stokes need to stay where they are so it doesn't leave much option.

I'd be sticking with Crawley at three who does play correctly but I'd describe Lawrence as very wandy which will make sense to no one. Sibley and Burns in lieu of the lack of alternatives should get the summer despite neither really deserving it.

Suicidal not to play Sibley, Burns, Crawley. Think Burns is being treated a touch harshly.

Ultimately, I see it as priority to find a way to give Root and Stokes the best platform to succeed. If they can find that, they can start then looking at more risk with the three spot.

I’d fancy Stokes there more than any other option (other than the three I’ve said I’d go with) currently, but wouldn’t want to force him there and see him struggle with the bat and need to rest more during bowling efforts.

Maybe Buttler needs to go in at three and play like his career rests on it, he pulls out some stubborn innings with his back to the wall.

As much as I think Burns probably should, on balance, open this summer - I don't think he could complain too much about being treated harshly if he was dropped after averaging 31 in 23 Tests opening the batting.

I'll throw some names out there that might be knocking on the England batting door this summer:

Tom Lammonby - probably a season too early for Somerset's talented left hander. But he opens the batting, rather than bats in the middle order like most of his competitors. Only played 6 FC games, but has 3 hundreds, including one in BWT final. Good to get runs when the lights are brightest.

Joe Clarke - Still only 24 years old, but has nearly as many FC hundreds as Pope and Lawrence combined (17 vs 19). He's never kicked on since his move to Notts, but the talent is there and one big summer could propel him to the front of the frame. This is taken with the caveat that the ECB even have him on their radar.

Sam Hain - Yes, I know he had a terrible BWT. And yes, I know his talent isn't reflected in his numbers. But anyone who can average 60 in List A cricket over the period he has clearly has some insane ability somewhere. Another one who just needs to put it all together - and he averaged 50 in 2019. Another season like that and he is right there.

Sam Northeast - A long shot I guess, as there is clearly something they don't like about him if he hasn't been picked already. But dropping someone into the team who averages 40 for a few years, even only 20-30 Tests, would be blessed relief.

JDizzle wrote:As much as I think Burns probably should, on balance, open this summer - I don't think he could complain too much about being treated harshly if he was dropped after averaging 31 in 23 Tests opening the batting.

I'll throw some names out there that might be knocking on the England batting door this summer:

Tom Lammonby - probably a season too early for Somerset's talented left hander. But he opens the batting, rather than bats in the middle order like most of his competitors. Only played 6 FC games, but has 3 hundreds, including one in BWT final. Good to get runs when the lights are brightest.

Joe Clarke - Still only 24 years old, but has nearly as many FC hundreds as Pope and Lawrence combined (17 vs 19). He's never kicked on since his move to Notts, but the talent is there and one big summer could propel him to the front of the frame. This is taken with the caveat that the ECB even have him on their radar.

Sam Hain - Yes, I know he had a terrible BWT. And yes, I know his talent isn't reflected in his numbers. But anyone who can average 60 in List A cricket over the period he has clearly has some insane ability somewhere. Another one who just needs to put it all together - and he averaged 50 in 2019. Another season like that and he is right there.

Sam Northeast - A long shot I guess, as there is clearly something they don't like about him if he hasn't been picked already. But dropping someone into the team who averages 40 for a few years, even only 20-30 Tests, would be blessed relief.

I really like what I've seen of Lammonby so far, but would agree it's at least a season too soon. Don't want him thrown to the lions of the fearsome New Zealand and Aussie pace attacks before he's ready! I've suggested Sam Hain's name before and, though he hasn't yet realised his enormous potential that seemed evident in his greener days, I'd like to see what he can do for England. At 25 he can still improve.

Northeast has a touch of Hildreth about him in that I don't think he'll ever be given a chance with England, despite his number of FC tons. His time may have already passed. Clarke is undoubtedly highly talented, but his off-the-field incident in 2019 would bring a wave of negative media coverage if he were ever selected, and it's for that reason I think the ECB won't go near him.

Whatever happens, I just hope England move past Burns this summer.

JDizzle wrote:As much as I think Burns probably should, on balance, open this summer - I don't think he could complain too much about being treated harshly if he was dropped after averaging 31 in 23 Tests opening the batting.

Would be more damning if there were other who had done better post Cook. Someone was talking up Keaton Jennings the other day who averages 25 from 17 tests. Sibley is averaging 30.

Crawely, Ballance, and Root are the only guys who've done better than a 31 average batting in the top 3 I can think off post Strauss Cook Trott era

Ah Gary Ballance. I miss the days when he seemed such a natural successor to Trott at number 3. I can't remember many players coming unstuck that suddenly after a fairly prolonged strong start. The third fastest Englishman to 1000 Test runs after Sutcliffe and Hutton, some serious company there.

His Test recrod is still better than almost any who have come since the peak years under Andy Flower. Whilst I think Ballance's first-class record is second only to Root from county players since that era. Honourable mention to James Taylor there who was averaging similarly to Root and Ballance when his career was sadly cut short.

In the openers to watch out for bracket I also rate Lammonby very highly. He turns his arm over pretty well with the ball too.

I'd also throw Josh de Caires (Mike Atherton's son) hat into the ring for a good few seasons down the line in guildfordbat esque long term prediction. I was in the Isle of Wight a couple of summers ago and saw de Caires (aged 16 or 17) score a century for Middlesex 2nds against a Hants 2nd XI led by Keith Barker. He just looked a very assured at the crease and had excellent basics. For such a young batsman he was impressive. Potentially one to watch out for on the county circuit.

Also mustn't forget Haseeb Hameed, who we're all hoping turns good again after a barren few years. He did make three half-centuries in seven innings last season - which was his debut year for Nottinghamshire - albeit against Leicestershire and Derbyshire.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

alfie wrote:So : to the larger issue of what makes me most pessimistic about the chances for England in the immediate future.  To put it rather brutally  , the almost total dearth of batting talent.

As I noted above , only five current bats average over 32 (Root 49.24, Stokes 37.04, Buttler 34.53, Crawley 34.15 and Bairstow 34.12) By way of contrast , NZ have no less than 8 players averaging over 38 at present - several of them well over 40. And Australia , while they do lean heavily on Smith and Labuschagne with their 60 plus averages , also have Warner , Head and the discarded Khawaja at forty or more. Even Joe Burns averages similar to Stokes ! Don't even want to talk about India...

Obviously there are a number of players still early in their Test careers ; and all of them have at times shown promise. But when you consider how quickly many recent batsmen have been discarded after failing to perform strongly over a relative handful of Tests (Malan  27.84, Vince 24.9, Stoneman 27.68, Denly 29.53 ) the figures for the current assumed automatic selections are a bit of a worry :  Crawley 12 games 34.15 the best by a fair bit...Sibley 18 games 30.41, Pope 17 games 31.92 Burns 23 games 30.73 . And other than that  Lawrence (very early , only 5 games) 27.55 and Foakes , similar small sample but a rapid drop from his first few innings which generated such excitement - 8 games , 31.53.
As you can see , all still a little above the scores for those recent discards - but hardly enough to instil huge confidence in long term success. For the most part , from my observations over a long time , the players who achieve significant success in Test cricket tend to announce themselves fairly early ; and although they might suffer the odd temporary downturn , don't usually drop too far away from their early marks for long. I'd say there are serious warning signs over all of these young guns at present - though the lack of obvious alternatives means they will most probably get a pretty decent run of opportunities to prove themselves...perhaps more than some of those previously mentioned discards...

Suppose while I am at it I should throw in a couple of other figures : Moeen , despite his five centuries , averages only 28.88  - which does suggest that ,while he is a useful late order bat if his bowling is in order , calls for him to ever play in the top six are a bit "hopeful"

Oh and one forgotten man : chap called Ballance averaged 37.45 and made four hundreds. Lost his form badly and , quite reasonably , dropped out - but until some new players can at least exceed his figures I'd be very cautious about heralding a new age of English batting...

Promise to put some more positive thoughts out in my next bulletin - if anyone stays awake long enough to read it

Alfie I will respond to this post, and a point or two you raised in other posts in this reply, then pop up some "ratings" for the whole winter for our players after that.

I think "total dearth of batting talent" is a bit over the top negative, and when pointing out NZ/Aus averages, you have missed the important piece of context which is conditions the majority of test matches the respective batsmen play in. It's significantly harder to bat in England than it is Aus/NZ (particularly those docile NZ pitches), and as pointed out before, NZ rarely tour away anywhere, and Australia rarely tour the subcontinent either (a wider cricket problem, than just those two nations). It'll be well over three years since the Aussies/NZ toured the subcontinent soon.
Now am I suggesting England's batting is better than those two outfits? No. But I think lacking that context is a little unfair on them...I highly doubt you would see significantly improved results from either of those sides if they'd just played India on the wickets England did.

Do think it is an important summer for the youngsters now, there does come a point where "promise and potential" does have to start to be reflected into on field results. I think all Sibley/Crawley/Lawrence/Pope/Foakes etc can be guys who average 35+ and towards 40 odd...but only time will tell (odds are one or two will, one or two won't I should think).

On Bairstow, I probably fall more into the "whipping boy" category as you define it , albeit not quite Dolph levels! Can certainly see why he was picked this winter, with all the rotation and young lads it makes sense to have an experienced head around.
But, ultimately since that glorious 2016 year, he's now played 36 test matches, 64 innings and averages 26.80 in that 2017-2021 timeframe...and that average has only been going down over that time (the 14 tests and 27 innings over the 2019-2021 period he averages 21.21). At some point, it only becomes fair to player and team to move on for a bit...and I think we have reached that juncture. Now, does that mean he should never be picked again if he goes away and over the next 12-18 months, scores a ton of county championship runs, clearly works out technical flaws...no, the door should always be open to any possibility. But the current situation of half committing to him, half dropping him, just isn't working for anybody.

I'll pop my full thoughts up later on player by player stuff, but the pace bowling stocks/ranks are a clear positive for me this winter. Archer's injury is a concern, but he was superb in that first test when fit, and both Wood/Stone both looked great too when they played (Wood's figures unreflective of his efforts!). If they can somehow get all three of them fully healthy for that Australia tour this winter, then that's going to be fantastic...but all three don't exactly have great injury histories! Broad/Anderson superb, but that almost goes as read nowadays

Hi Olly

Yes I think that is all pretty fair. I do acknowledge that the different conditions in England and places further south will always have an impact on comparative batting records ; and I am actually quite hopeful that one or two of the players discussed will indeed lift their games considerably in the next year or two. But I think you might be a little over optimistic in suggesting all of them capable of getting those averages up near forty : I cannot recall too many players making such significant progress after the modest early results shown in the above figures. (and obviously Lawrence and Foakes are in a different category to the others in that their sample size is still too small) If we see more than two of that group ever averaging over forty I will be delighted - but also rather surprised. Two would probably make me happy !

Should add that I do not mean they have no hope of mixing it with Australia or NZ - or indeed India , in England. If a number of players perform up to their (fairly modest) best ; and the stars of the show do their thing - then they can continue to keep a recent fine home record going even without a new batting star arising. But to have any hope of getting to "the top" it is surely going to need at least one batsman other than Root putting his hand up to join the group of players (Smith Labuschagne Williamson Taylor etc ) who might have a case for inclusion in teams other than their own...and right at the moment no one is exactly jumping into view... I am prepared to be patient ; but I fear I might have to be.

A last mention on the Bairstow case : I largely agree with you and Dolph that all the messing about hasn't done him or England much good (though I'd suggest it was quite an important aid to the Sri Lankan campaign) ; and for him to return to some red ball action with Yorkshire is probably best at least for the present. In fairness to the management - and as you indeed alluded - the messy Covid landscape has had a bit to do with the in-out-roundabout in his case among others. I guess the one thing that annoys me a little with all the YJB criticism is the fact that his best season (extremely good to say the least) almost seems to be used as a stick with which to beat him. For all he hasn't reproduced that 2016 form , his record as keeper batsman remains pretty good overall : and I think the point Dobell made is a sound one - when allowed to bat at 6/7 as keepers normally are , he always averaged over forty (still does). So the suggestion that he has had a bit of a rough deal from management has merit , I think.
Of course , WK records are largely irrelevant at present as Jos Buttler has apparently overcome his own difficulties (I sincerely hope that doesn't prove to be a jinx ) and nailed down that spot for the foreseeable future (I think even guildford has come round to the view that Foakes is destined to be an occasional reserve rather than a serious full time option). Which at least means the eternal England wicketkeeper debate can be put to rest for a while ...

Look forward to your expanded take on the bowling , cheers.

Duty281 wrote:Also mustn't forget Haseeb Hameed, who we're all hoping turns good again after a barren few years. He did make three half-centuries in seven innings last season - which was his debut year for Nottinghamshire -  albeit against Leicestershire and Derbyshire.

I have always nursed a small flame of hope for Hameed - really liked his batting in those brief appearances for England. But am reluctant to get too excited about his prospects for fear of disappointment. Will watch his progress this (northern) summer with interest.

Gooseberry wrote:

JDizzle wrote:As much as I think Burns probably should, on balance, open this summer - I don't think he could complain too much about being treated harshly if he was dropped after averaging 31 in 23 Tests opening the batting.

Would be more damning if there were other who had done better post Cook. Someone was talking up Keaton Jennings the other day who averages 25 from 17 tests. Sibley is averaging 30.

Crawely, Ballance, and Root are the only guys who've done better than a 31 average batting in the top 3 I can think off post Strauss Cook Trott era

Kind of what I've been saying about the batting In truth , none of them could rightly claim to be robbed if they lost their spots at the moment. Except that since there is nobody exactly battering the door down...

I reckon Burns will start the summer. Whether he finishes it is probably up to him.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/sourav-ganguly-reveals-india-v-new-zealand-wtc-final-to-be-held-at-southampton-1254247

This WTC final will be in Southampton

JDizzle wrote:As much as I think Burns probably should, on balance, open this summer - I don't think he could complain too much about being treated harshly if he was dropped after averaging 31 in 23 Tests opening the batting.

I'll throw some names out there that might be knocking on the England batting door this summer:

Tom Lammonby - probably a season too early for Somerset's talented left hander. But he opens the batting, rather than bats in the middle order like most of his competitors. Only played 6 FC games, but has 3 hundreds, including one in BWT final. Good to get runs when the lights are brightest.

Joe Clarke - Still only 24 years old, but has nearly as many FC hundreds as Pope and Lawrence combined (17 vs 19). He's never kicked on since his move to Notts, but the talent is there and one big summer could propel him to the front of the frame. This is taken with the caveat that the ECB even have him on their radar.

Sam Hain - Yes, I know he had a terrible BWT. And yes, I know his talent isn't reflected in his numbers. But anyone who can average 60 in List A cricket over the period he has clearly has some insane ability somewhere. Another one who just needs to put it all together - and he averaged 50 in 2019. Another season like that and he is right there.

Sam Northeast - A long shot I guess, as there is clearly something they don't like about him if he hasn't been picked already. But dropping someone into the team who averages 40 for a few years, even only 20-30 Tests, would be blessed relief.

Joe Clarke is an interesting one isn't he JDizzle...because I think he is actually making more of a case for getting into the white ball frame than the red ball one, specifically the T20 side. Had a good blast season for a few years, and made a promising start to the PSL season this year (with the type of explosive batting England like, can also keep apparently like everyone!).
Always one to keep an eye on.

Similarly, I know/have heard England are keen on Will Jacks's talent, having come through the age groups. He's yet to translate it onto the field consistently yet though

On the white ball side of things, see both Morgan and Buttler have come out in the press and are being positive about a possible Alex Hales return. Seems he’ll be given a chance in the summer to get back into the fold