England's Summer of Cricket 2021

First topic message reminder :

That's the important wicket. Deserved for Robinson and England.

Now into that brittle middle order.

king_carlos wrote:

alfie wrote:Think your team might be close to right , KC... Woakes Wood Anderson (if he can fire up after his exertions here) and Leach would probably be my main four bowlers.

If it looks really like a spinning pitch maybe they might retain Moeen rather than Overton ? Or even revert to Bess ?  But to be honest the way India play spin I am not sure two spinners - any two spinnerswould be more than a gesture , and unlikely to worry Kohli & co at all.

Whoever they pick , just have to believe that they can gain an advantage over India if they play well enough - as they have done in each of three games ; only to relinquish it twice
... and concentrate on not letting the advantage slip...

Perhaps easier said than done against a strong and confident India ? But we will see on Friday.

It's so frustrating for Saqib to have an injury. He'd be the ideal sort of bowler to bring in as he's got pace, can swing the ball and would be playing on his home pitch at Old Trafford.

I can't see England reverting to Bess over Moeen for this series. It's interesting that Bess is batting at 6 for Yorkshire though. Clearly trying to turn himself into a genuine all rounder. I just hope his bowling doesn't take a back track due to it and he slip down the route of Borthwick.

Dom Bess is a distinctly average bowler, not really test class at the moment. Can't forget his struggles to land the ball while in India. It has to be Moeen or Leach I feel.

I have a feeling Moeen won't be dropped, the game after being made vice captain. I'd rather he was and Leach was given a game, but I don't see how the two play unless it's a real turning pitch. If it is a turning pitch, making it Moeen and Leach vs Jadeja and Ashwin, we may as well just say its 3-1 now!

king_carlos wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Also if England are trying to get a David Warner style opener in England, they have been succeeding ever since Strauss retired as Warner averages 26 in 13 Tests in England.

Averages 63 in Australia at a strike rate of 75 with 18 centuries though.

Whilst having such home dominant records prevents players such as Warner, Hayden, Sehwag, Rohit, etc competing for trivial things such as "greatest Test XI ever" it does mean that they usually help their sides to very healthy home records. From Australia, India and England's perspective the majority of your Tests are going to be played at home, if you have an opener with the home record those players have then you will be winning the majority of your home series. Not to be sniffed at!

It's one of the reason that whenever people criticise some players for only dominating in home conditions my response is that the majority of players that get a bite at Test cricket fail at home as well as away!

That’s kind of my point though! Warner plays 15% of his Tests in England. If he played 50% or over of his Tests in England you wouldn’t tolerate that record. His record is so exceptional at home though that you don’t really care that he struggles in England. But it would be foolhardy for England to try and find an opener in the like of Warner - that style doesn’t work here. It’s part of the beauty of cricket that all countries produce players in different styles. If England try to find a Warner they are looking for a solution to 15% of their Tests, whereas for Australia to have a Warner that solves it for 50% of their Tests!

Just pick the bloke who will score the most runs. England can’t afford to be choosy about the manner they do it.

As far as England and the opening position is concerned, think they have finally chanced upon the best available combination. Now its about giving them a proper runs, tolerate the failures, rather than looking for the next cab in the ranks at the first given opportunity, particularly with Hameed. Even Burns for that matter, he has limitations in his game, but he and Hameed are the best they've got at the moment.

msp83 wrote:As far as England and the opening position is concerned, think they have finally chanced upon the best available combination. Now its about giving them a proper runs, tolerate the failures, rather than looking for the next cab in the ranks at the first given opportunity, particularly with Hameed. Even Burns for that matter, he has limitations in his game, but he and Hameed are the best they've got at the moment.

Well that's good because the taxi rank of openers is empty. All the taxis have been hailed and crashed in far-flung places of the world. Nothing left to try.

GSC wrote:England had a chance to give themselves a big lead on day 2, too many loose shots in great conditions

I have to disagree - England let India back into the game on session 3 of day 1, with Thakur's burst (albeit that was more luck, than anything England did wrong) and then losing 3 wickets in relatively benign conditions and sending in a bloody nightwatchman. No way on earth they should've been 62-5 on that wicket in the first innings, when they needed 400+. Could Pope/Ali/Robinson have played better shots when getting out? Sure. But they were also the reason England had a shot, so I find it hard to criticise them massively in that instance.

A massive congratulations to India - they were superb really for the majority of this game, Bumrah this afternoon absolutely sensational! A great knock by Rohit too, after being given a chance by Burns early on.

Many questions for England across many areas - too many to get into tonight. A long winded ranty post tomorrow when more time to consider things I think...

msp83 wrote:As far as England and the opening position is concerned, think they have finally chanced upon the best available combination. Now its about giving them a proper runs, tolerate the failures, rather than looking for the next cab in the ranks at the first given opportunity, particularly with Hameed. Even Burns for that matter, he has limitations in his game, but he and Hameed are the best they've got at the moment.

You are right.......they have their flaws but Hameed & Burns are OK
Burns shuffles all over the crease & is ugly on eyes...but does manage to see off balls and get some runs often enuf.

Hameed  has got a good defense....and plays close to the body, generally with straight bat, front footed and leans low trying to get head over the ball.... leaves well outside off.
His problems arise when put under pressure by team to score faster....that's when he starts dragging the bat with bottom hand and hits across the line.
The've gotta leave  him to do his own thing and he will serve them long.....he's a poor man's Hashim Amla in my view at this time.

Pope offers No-Hope....his (lack of ) feet   movement is "horriblest" I have seen from a Top order batsman in a long time.

But they have Root, Bairstow and Butler.....so about 5 OK to good top order batters  and that is OK, esp given Stokes will be back sometime.

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:As far as England and the opening position is concerned, think they have finally chanced upon the best available combination. Now its about giving them a proper runs, tolerate the failures, rather than looking for the next cab in the ranks at the first given opportunity, particularly with Hameed. Even Burns for that matter, he has limitations in his game, but he and Hameed are the best they've got at the moment.

You are right.......they have their flaws but Hameed & Burns are OK
Burns shuffles all over the crease & is ugly on eyes...but does manage to see off balls and get some runs often enuf.

Hameed  has got a good defense....and plays close to the body, generally with straight bat, front footed and leans low trying to get head over the ball.... leaves well outside off.
His problems arise when put under pressure by team to score faster....that's when he starts dragging the bat with bottom hand and hits across the line.
The've gotta leave  him to do his own thing and he will serve them long.....he's a poor man's Hashim Amla in my view at this time.

Pope offers No-Hope....his (lack of ) feet   movement is "horriblest" I have seen from a Top order batsman in a long time.

But they have Root, Bairstow and Butler.....so about 5 OK to good top order batters  and that is OK, esp given Stokes will be back sometime.

England seem to rate Pope very high. I tend to agree with you more KPF, he may yet evolve into a good test player, but with the kind of limitations in his game, I can't envisage a player who can average more than the mid-30s at this point. Can play some lovely shots, but just doesn't look that organized. Seemed pretty poor in spinning conditions as well.
Hameed, Burns, Malan? Root, Stokes, Pope? Foakes/Buttler, Woakes, Archer, Leach/Moeen, Anderson/Broad. That might be the strongest that England can put on the park across conditions.

msp83 wrote:England seem to rate Pope very high

Eng rating system is curiously bizzare sometimes
They ended up giving Mark Rampraksh 52 tests to average 25 and Graeme Hick 65 test to average 30...when their inability to make the cut were fairly obvious to many outsider quite early on.
They rate and talk about Mike Atherton sometimes as if he is one of their greatest....only if you look him up in CI you rub your eyes in astonishment....he averages 37

I think ( not sure though) Eng's judgement system gets tinted by social / speaking skills, schooling / academic background

Eng's the only country for which CI puts a field called EDUCATION in the player profile and lists school / University
Manchester Grammar School; Downing College, Cambridge....for eg in Case of Artherton

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:England seem to rate Pope very high

Eng rating system is curiously bizzare sometimes
They ended up giving Mark Rampraksh 52 tests to average 25 and Graeme Hick 65 test to average 30...when  their inability to make the cut were fairly obvious to many outsider quite early on.
They rate and talk about Mike Atherton sometimes as if he is one of their greatest....only if you look him up in CI you rub your eyes in astonishment....he averages 37

I think ( not sure though) Eng's judgement system gets tinted by social / speaking skills, schooling / academic background  

Eng's the only country for which CI  puts a field called EDUCATION in the player profile and lists school / University
Manchester Grammar School; Downing College, Cambridge....for eg in Case of Artherton

Think someone like Atherton, in an era of slim batting quality, was one of the better batters they had in the 90s. Ramps and Hick had chances after chances for nothing, and someone like Robin Smith, who actually possessed batting quality and performances at the top level, was messed about badly.

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:England seem to rate Pope very high

Eng rating system is curiously bizzare sometimes
They ended up giving Mark Rampraksh 52 tests to average 25 and Graeme Hick 65 test to average 30...when  their inability to make the cut were fairly obvious to many outsider quite early on.
They rate and talk about Mike Atherton sometimes as if he is one of their greatest....only if you look him up in CI you rub your eyes in astonishment....he averages 37

I think ( not sure though) Eng's judgement system gets tinted by social / speaking skills, schooling / academic background  

Eng's the only country for which CI  puts a field called EDUCATION in the player profile and lists school / University
Manchester Grammar School; Downing College, Cambridge....for eg in Case of Artherton

Atherton is rated by whom exactly?

I don't think Athers is ever in the conversation as a great. Some of his innings are talked in those terms, but not his overall career. Whilst he was playing he was respected as at least someone who knew one end of the bat from another, not a given in those days!

Atherton is not one of England's greatest, but in his defence his average was savaged by some truly great bowlers - 80 of his test dismissals were against McGrath/Ambrose/Walsh/Warne/Donald/Waqar.

He'd get into England's team today, though that's not saying much!

I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to Atherton as an England great, frankly. Even his fellow commentators, i.e. some of his best friends, don't go to that length when introducing Athers with him stood 5 feet away!

Hick is an interesting example of a player who arguably came to Test cricket too late in his cricketing development. He'd played a huge number of FC games by that point and had built is prolific success at that level on just seeing off the decent opening bowlers most counties had then absolute savaging the change bowlers who weren't as strong. When he got to Test level he could just 'see them off' in the same way as sides had better bowling depth and he got found out. Had he come to Test cricket sooner, or had something such as the Lions as an intermediate step, with better coaching then someone might have identified this and worked with him in County cricket to start attacking the stronger bowlers more. That just didn't happen in a shambolic era for the management of England players though. He's a really interesting case study in what poor management can do to a players development.

Averages are a bit of a blunt instrument when comparing across eras though. Atherton for instance played in a very strong bowling era. The England side under Flower came smack bang in the middle of a phase when batting averages seemed to be going up year on year. Then just now we are actually in a phase where seam bowling is dominating with far more low Test scores. That's before discussing how a players home conditions affect averages. England for instance is a tough place to be a Test opener.

KPF - On 'Eng rating system', it is of course easier to rate/predict a players success if you give 17 different predictions in all scenarios. For instance, I predict that in T5:

- Rahane will certainly be dropped for SKY, unless Jinx is actually selected or Vihari picked ahead of Sky
- Kohli will score somewhere between 0 and 500 runs in the 1st innings
- The game will 100% end in an India win unless England win, its drawn or tied
- Particular bowlers either will or won't take wickets, maybe with good economies, maybe with high economies
- The 17th over of the 3rd innings will definitely be a maiden unless a run is conceded during it

When all that comes true I'm going to send this post to TMS with demands to replace Zaltzman as stats guru.

Day after thoughts...

India thoroughly deserved the win. Not just for execution of skills , but also for resilience in fighting back from 127/7 and later a deficit of 99 with a tricky 50 minutes to bat on day two.

England made a couple of serious tactical errors (which I among others have already done to death , I think ! ) and also crucially dropped India's main scorer twice - rather costly

Sending India in wasn't a rotten idea as it did result in all out 191 . But as Olly said above they then tossed the advantage away by losing 5 for 62 . The middle order recovery got them a decent lead - but not the huge lead that they wanted. And then the downside of fielding first at The Oval was revealed as India enjoyed the best batting conditions on days three and four and set up their win ; before using sustained pressure - both scoreboard and accuracy ; a bit of rough and a great display of reverse swing bowling from Bumrah to finish the job. And once again , well done them

Crumbs of comfort for England ?

The opening pair have now had two century stands in three attempts. Not too bad for starters...
Caution being that Hameed shows some signs of Sibley similarity in that he can get very bogged down - perhaps strangely after a reasonably fluent early period. I think he has more upside ; but will need to see how he develops - have hopes he is a "learner" so some optimism there.

Pope played a good first innings. Despite the technical doubts expressed by KP_fan above I think he may yet make a go of it , though he is probably not the Next Joe Root. I tend to place more faith in temperament than technique at this level ; and coming in with Bairstow at 62/5 there was a lot of pressure on him - pressure which he withstood rather well. So I rate that 81 - slightly soft dismissal notwithstanding.

The batting generally remains dodgy but I think we knew that. And they are facing a very good Indian attack.

The bowling by and large isn't bad at all considering the long injury list. Exhaustion may have done for them on Sunday...and that is a challenge for next week. But in the longer term things look fairly promising.

Really need to work on the catching ! Slip cordon is a problem as you can hardly select your team with that skill as a primary concern : but if you just don't have anyone who is much good in there then you are always likely to miss vital chances. I don't have an instant solution , I'm afraid

Finally : India team selection. TBH I don't think it matters much ! Keep Rahane - replace him with someone new or recycled ? Frankly it's a guess which would be better.
Make up of attack ? They have half a dozen highly effective bowling options. They can rely on Jadeja for control (very important component) at all times so just need to assess pace bowler fitness to shape their fast bowler group ; and Ashwin is around if they really expect a lot of aid for spinners...a wealth of choices.
Reckon their only danger is overconfidence...

alfie wrote:Pope played a good first innings. Despite the technical doubts expressed by KP_fan above I think he may yet make a go of it , though he is probably not the Next Joe Root. I tend to place more faith in temperament than technique at this level ;

Temperament rides overs technical flaws provided a minimum core is in place
The Core being a DEFENSE...get feet in position behind or (more or less behind) the line of the ball, defend well enuf to keep good balls out.

Pope's aforesaid core is missing....he lunges at the ball in a defensive posture with his feet either stuck or moving in wrong direction

One might ask....So how does he stills score runs?
He has stroke play....and with that you can get away at mediocre levels scoring runs and sometimes plenty of them......like I think Prithvi shaw does .

But if your core is missing, its found out very quickly at the top level of bowling, pitch and match condition adversity combined.

Before anyone gets too down on England the following can be taken into consideration:

1. England's players have had to be in bubbles far longer than anyone else.

2. By next week, England's last 11 Tests have all been against the two best sides in the world.

3. England have been missing two match-winners in Stokes and Archer against India at home.

The quality of the opposition has to be taken into account when considering averages (see the Atherton argument above).

England were particularly weak for a number of reasons in the 90s.
During this weak period we insisted on not just playing five-Test series against the strong sides but SIX-Test series.

Atherton, for example, was facing McGrath and Ambrose seemingly all the time. Hence his 20 ducks which helped lower his average. There was little chance for filling-your-boots matches against the weaker teams.

The Hick/Ramps arguments persist - after nearly 30 years. What should be remembered was that Hick was dropped practically every summer.

Hick, amazingly for such a commanding batsman, lacked confidence but was poorly handled. Ramps was intense and arrogant but he, too, could have been managed better.

On the 90s' principles, Ian Bell would have been cast into outer darkness after averaging 17 in the 2005 Ashes series and England would have missed out on nearly 8,000 Tests runs and 20 hundreds.

Not sure I buy into the argument that those with some, or slight, technical deficiencies, will be found out at Test level. Trescothick, for example, was said to have limited footwork, but he didn't do too badly.

I think Pope will make a lot of Test runs and should be persevered with. Crawley has had a lean time of it of late but he should go to Australia. Burns, for all his technical difficulties, has made runs this summer and should also be persevered with.

king_carlos wrote:With Anderson and Robinson both looking fatigued, Mahmood off the field for Lancashire and Surran so out of form on top of the Stokes, Broad and Archer absences it's really hard to see where England go with selection for T5.

I actually thought Anderson looked a bit less exhausted than Robinson in this Test so he may actually be the more likely to play on his home ground. Wood will surely come back in and Leach might too but I'm really unsure in what combinations.

1.Burns
2.Hameed
3.Malan
4.Root (c)
5.Pope
6.Bairstow (wk)
7.Woakes
8.Overton
9.Wood
10.Leach
11.Anderson

Perhaps something like that? I like to think I'm usually a tediously optimistic cricket fan (my catchphrase for most of this summer has been "cricket is cricket") but it really is uninspiring!

Always easier to knock a selection than come up with a better alternative*, but Overton was poor in this Test. Never looked like coming to the party will ball or bat. In particular, got riled too easily and obviously when hit for boundaries on Saturday and started that day with atrocious footwork and a horrible waft to get out immediately and further gee up the visitors.

As I've said before, he's a more than capable fielder and performed well in the Leeds Test. However, if selected for Old Trafford, he'll need to considerably up his game from the Oval.

*No easy answers and maybe we stick with him but I'll give some thought to a possible replacement between now and the next start. I have one old favourite in mind - he won't be picked but it'll give me an excuse to write him up.

I'm now scratching my head on who this old favourite might be. Pretty sure Martin Bicknell is long retired so guessing its not him!

guildfordbat wrote:

king_carlos wrote:With Anderson and Robinson both looking fatigued, Mahmood off the field for Lancashire and Surran so out of form on top of the Stokes, Broad and Archer absences it's really hard to see where England go with selection for T5.

I actually thought Anderson looked a bit less exhausted than Robinson in this Test so he may actually be the more likely to play on his home ground. Wood will surely come back in and Leach might too but I'm really unsure in what combinations.

1.Burns
2.Hameed
3.Malan
4.Root (c)
5.Pope
6.Bairstow (wk)
7.Woakes
8.Overton
9.Wood
10.Leach
11.Anderson

Perhaps something like that? I like to think I'm usually a tediously optimistic cricket fan (my catchphrase for most of this summer has been "cricket is cricket") but it really is uninspiring!

Always easier to knock a selection than come up with a better alternative*, but Overton was poor in this Test. Never looked like coming to the party will ball or bat. In particular, got riled too easily and obviously when hit for boundaries on Saturday and started that day with atrocious footwork and a horrible waft to get out immediately and further gee up the visitors.

As I've said before, he's a more than capable fielder and performed well in the Leeds Test. However, if selected for Old Trafford, he'll need to considerably up his game from the Oval.

*No easy answers and maybe we stick with him but I'll give some thought to a possible replacement between now and the next start. I have one old favourite in mind - he won't be picked but it'll give me an excuse to write him up.

Overton has had one good game and one bad game. I'm not sold on him but I suppose he remains in the mix : at least he can catch something in the slips ! But I am also under the impression he copped a nasty blow while batting and may not be fit ...

Who is guildford's mystery man ? Not a spinner , I'd imagine ; must be able to hold a bat , presumably. And able to bowl the "stock" overs to augment the rest of that attack...hmm Toby Roland-Jones ?

I was thinking it might be Jamie Porter?

I think we can be certain it won’t be Jamie Overton given his performances for Surrey this year!

My money would be on Keith ‘Ronnie’ Barker.

A couple of other names, not sure of form or fitness are Luke Fletcher and Ben Coad. Unless its a call for James Vince to return and bowl a few medium pacers as well as getting out driving for 20

JDizzle wrote:I think we can be certain it won’t be Jamie Overton given his performances for Surrey this year!

My money would be on Keith ‘Ronnie’ Barker.

JDizzle moves to the top of the class at Guildford Old School. Yep, Keith 'Ronnie' Barker is the name I would throw in the ring. With a smile as I know it won't go anywhere but an element of seriousness.

For this county season - look at his stats, just look at his stats! (That's for any old MotD viewers!).

28 wickets in 7 and a half matches at 19. Averaging 32 with the bat normally going in at 9. A fivefer in the ongoing match for his Hants side against Warks together with a half-ton.

Fair to say, the guy is in form. He also brings something different to the party being fast medium left arm. Regularly economical as well.

At 34, he's been around and knows his game together with being a determined competitor. His age though will massively rule him out of contention. That actually doesn't bother me for Friday's Test. All I'm concerned about is 'the here and now' (@Alfie) and squaring the current series. We can then think long and hard about the Ashes, assuming that happens, and who makes up that squad. I'm not suggesting him for that.

He has suffered fitness issues in the past and I acknowledge that would need to be checked carefully.

As I say, it won't happen and some of you may feel it's a ridiculous call. You may be right but I haven't seen too many others I'm completely sold on.

On the comparisons with batsmen of the past...

Ramprakash was a prolific county run maker but honestly it is astounding that he played as many Tests as he did. His early returns were extremely underwhelming (1 fifty in 24 innings) before he made a fifty in Perth that got him a few more games ; but it led nowhere.
Then when recalled in late '97 he actually had a very productive period : his first hundred , in West Indies ; followed by good runs against SA and Sri Lanka at home and even some scores in Australia. Trouble is it all dried up the next year ; and even though he kept getting chances and got his second century (in his 46th match) the fact that his figures constantly reverted to the mean shows , I think , that he just wasn't quite good enough.

Mental more than technical flaws , I suspect. And it is true he was in and out a bit : but to be honest I think the view that he was a victim of poor management is a bit of an excuse peddled by commentators who overrated his value. Even today , I doubt we would be too excited over a batsman who never got his test average over 28 ...

(Thanks to Cricinfo for assisting me with the exact details to refresh my memories)

Next : I dissect Graeme Hick

Interesting call , guildford ! As you surmise , I approve of the "here and now" priority.

I really don't know the fellow , having never seen him bowl. But the figures you cite suggest he may be able to do a job - and would present something different (a left arm not called Curran) One off selections have sometimes worked for England in the past (Neil Mallender , for those with long memories ?)

But as you say , won't happen. Interesting idea though

Re one off selections, you don't have to go to far back to see James Kirtley and the aforementioned Martin Bicknell bowling England to a couple of victories in 2003. Saying that, you also have to go less far back to see the in form at the time Darren Pattinson in the team!

VTR wrote:Re one off selections, you don't have to go to far back to see James Kirtley and the aforementioned Martin Bicknell bowling England to a couple of victories in 2003. Saying that, you also have to go less far back to see the in form at the time Darren Pattinson in the team!

One of my clearer cricketing memories is seeing Bicknell, Kirtley and Kabir Ali ripping through the South African top order only to then endure a Gary Kirsten special.

Yes, I remember that well. The Test before that was the one where Kirtley took a 6 for (I think) to bowl England to victory. Then Martin Bicknell in the final Test had a huge say in England only having a small target, after Trescothick, Thorpe and Flintoff pulled off a very unlikely performance with the bat

The squad is out anyway, with no county stalwarts added. If we want left arm it's Sam Curran!

Graeme Smith produced two almost identical innings early in that series too, was a pretty impressive recovery from England to end up tying the series against what was a very good South African team. A certain James Anderson played.

England squad: Joe Root (capt), Moeen Ali, James Anderson, Jonny Bairstow, Rory Burns, Jos Buttler, Sam Curran, Haseeb Hameed, Dan Lawrence, Jack Leach, Dawid Malan, Craig Overton, Ollie Pope, Ollie Robinson, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood

England's squad for the final test. Main headline news is Buttler and Leach returning to the squad (Leach was previously a stand-by). Wonder if Buttler will come straight back into the XI? Would be difficult to drop Pope after the last test. Presuming Leach's recall means he'll be starting, hopefully for Moeen.

Possible team: Burns; Hameed; Malan; Root; Pope; Buttler; Woakes; Overton; Wood; Leach; Anderson/Robinson.

If both Anderson and Robinson miss out, Curran will likely come in. Surely England won't go down a two-spinner route with both Moeen and Leach?

Other news is that England are naming their squad for the T20 World Cup on Thursday, even though England's first game isn't until the 23rd October. Still unknown if Stokes will return for that. I'm starting to wonder if he'll ever play for England again.

Soul Requiem wrote:Graeme Smith produced two almost identical innings early in that series too, was a pretty impressive recovery from England to end up tying the series against what was a very good South African team. A certain James Anderson played.

Trescothick was struggling that summer too - only had 3 Tests hundreds at the time and hadn’t got one for over a year. There were certainly rumblings about moving him down to 3 (or dropped all together) as he wasn’t traditional with his footwork against the new ball till he blasted that 219 at the Oval. Glorious knock and he kicked on from there. Averaged nearly 48 in his final 39 Tests. What a player.

I did not realise Ed Smith played in that Oval Test though!

JDizzle wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Graeme Smith produced two almost identical innings early in that series too, was a pretty impressive recovery from England to end up tying the series against what was a very good South African team. A certain James Anderson played.

Trescothick was struggling that summer too - only had 3 Tests hundreds at the time and hadn’t got one for over a year. There were certainly rumblings about moving him down to 3 (or dropped all together) as he wasn’t traditional with his footwork against the new ball till he blasted that 219 at the Oval. Glorious knock and he kicked on from there. Averaged nearly 48 in his final 39 Tests. What a player.

I did not realise Ed Smith played in that Oval Test though!

Trescothick benefitted from Vaughan taking over the captaincy and the brand of cricket he wanted the team to play, he excelled as an attacking opener whereas prior to that he looked a bit lost as to how to play. If you know your game as he did you can overcome technical issues with aplomb. He and Vaughan were a quality opening partnership.

VTR wrote:you also have to go less far back to see the in form at the time Darren Pattinson in the team!

Pretty sure I remember Vaughan saying years after this particular debacle that he didn't even know what bowling action Pattinson had when he turned up for that test.

I think that's right, or at the very least he hardly knew anything about him. Thing with that Test though, he didn't actually bowl that badly, it was a collective poor performance. If you want a one off paceman bowling absolute garbage, try Amjad Khan and his "express pace" in the West Indies series in 2009

guildfordbat wrote:

king_carlos wrote:With Anderson and Robinson both looking fatigued, Mahmood off the field for Lancashire and Surran so out of form on top of the Stokes, Broad and Archer absences it's really hard to see where England go with selection for T5.

I actually thought Anderson looked a bit less exhausted than Robinson in this Test so he may actually be the more likely to play on his home ground. Wood will surely come back in and Leach might too but I'm really unsure in what combinations.

1.Burns
2.Hameed
3.Malan
4.Root (c)
5.Pope
6.Bairstow (wk)
7.Woakes
8.Overton
9.Wood
10.Leach
11.Anderson

Perhaps something like that? I like to think I'm usually a tediously optimistic cricket fan (my catchphrase for most of this summer has been "cricket is cricket") but it really is uninspiring!

Always easier to knock a selection than come up with a better alternative*, but Overton was poor in this Test. Never looked like coming to the party will ball or bat. In particular, got riled too easily and obviously when hit for boundaries on Saturday and started that day with atrocious footwork and a horrible waft to get out immediately and further gee up the visitors.

As I've said before, he's a more than capable fielder and performed well in the Leeds Test. However, if selected for Old Trafford, he'll need to considerably up his game from the Oval.

*No easy answers and maybe we stick with him but I'll give some thought to a possible replacement between now and the next start. I have one old favourite in mind - he won't be picked but it'll give me an excuse to write him up.

I'd largely agree about Overton. I said prior to his recall that I think he's a very good swing bowler when the ball is moving and he's allowed to bowl those full lengths. I'm not sure he has anything when the ball isn't swinging though.

I was hoping that David Payne might get an opportunity as I think he's a very good bowler indeed.

I'm just trying to figure out who you old favourite was. Toby Roland-Jones perhaps despite him playing on the wrong side of the Thames? He got a five-fer in his last CC game!

Duty281 wrote:
Possible team: Burns; Hameed; Malan; Root; Pope; Buttler; Woakes; Overton; Wood; Leach; Anderson/Robinson

No Bairstow?

Duty281 wrote:England squad: Joe Root (capt), Moeen Ali, James Anderson, Jonny Bairstow, Rory Burns, Jos Buttler, Sam Curran, Haseeb Hameed, Dan Lawrence, Jack Leach, Dawid Malan, Craig Overton, Ollie Pope, Ollie Robinson, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood

England's squad for the final test. Main headline news is Buttler and Leach returning to the squad (Leach was previously a stand-by). Wonder if Buttler will come straight back into the XI? Would be difficult to drop Pope after the last test. Presuming Leach's recall means he'll be starting, hopefully for Moeen.

Possible team: Burns; Hameed; Malan; Root; Pope; Buttler; Woakes; Overton; Wood; Leach; Anderson/Robinson.

If both Anderson and Robinson miss out, Curran will likely come in. Surely England won't go down a two-spinner route with both Moeen and Leach?

Other news is that England are naming their squad for the T20 World Cup on Thursday, even though England's first game isn't until the 23rd October. Still unknown if Stokes will return for that. I'm starting to wonder if he'll ever play for England again.

Incredible that Buttler - an average keeper and batsman at test level - comes straight back in, but not surprising given that he's one of Root's mates. Hopefully Foakes will get fit for next season and take his rightful place.

VTR wrote:I think that's right, or at the very least he hardly knew anything about him. Thing with that Test though, he didn't actually bowl that badly, it was a collective poor performance. If you want a one off paceman bowling absolute garbage, try Amjad Khan and his "express pace" in the West Indies series in 2009

That's absolutely right. I'm not particularly defending Pattinson's selection but he gets an overly harsh press. He had more success in that Test than Flintoff and Broad - 2 quality wickets (Amla and MotM Prince) to their 1 each - and was also more economical than the latter.

king_carlos wrote:

...

I'd largely agree about Overton. I said prior to his recall that I think he's a very good swing bowler when the ball is moving and he's allowed to bowl those full lengths. I'm not sure he has anything when the ball isn't swinging though.

I was hoping that David Payne might get an opportunity as I think he's a very good bowler indeed.

I'm just trying to figure out who you old favourite was. Toby Roland-Jones perhaps despite him playing on the wrong side of the Thames? He got a five-fer in his last CC game!

I know that England have been looking at Payne. Geoff Arnold, former Surrey and England seamer who now does some coaching and scouting for England at all levels, was watching him and making notes when he was bowling for Gloucs against Surrey at the Oval this season.

I actually went to Lord's for one day last week of Middlesex's Championship match against Derbys (don't tell any of the Surrey boys!). I saw T R-J bowl in the first innings and was disappointed. Particularly for him - down on pace, not really threatening and ending up wicketless. Come the second dig when I'm not there - and as you say, he got a fivefer! Funny old game - anyone ever said that? Anyway, good luck to the guy although I'm pretty sure his international ship has sailed.

The Middlesex bowler who did impress me on the day I was there was Ethan Bamber. Consistently around top of off and appeared quicker than when I've seen him on tv. So young looking - talk about a baby faced assassin!

Keith Barker is my old favourite. Covered in earlier posts above.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:
Possible team: Burns; Hameed; Malan; Root; Pope; Buttler; Woakes; Overton; Wood; Leach; Anderson/Robinson

No Bairstow?

Don't think so. Buttler's a favourite of the selection lot so comes straight back in. It's likely between Pope/Bairstow for the outgoing player, and as Pope did better than Bairstow in the last test it'd be reasonable to assume Bairstow's making way. Only other options are to put Bairstow at 3 and drop Malan, which is very unlikely so soon after Malan's recall, or take out one of the four seamers (which would be silly).

While it is all a bit moot now the squad has been named, I have no problem with the concept of England picking an older player for the 'here and now' rather than worrying about the future. Sometimes players really master their game relatively late - I'm thinking of the likes of Ryan Sidebottom or even Swanny, who only merited their selection when they were 29, but went on to make significant contributions for a time.

OK picking a 34 year old seamer is (normally, Jimmy A excepted) a truly short term fix, but that's really what we need at this moment - someone to cover for all the various injury absences now rather than being ready for Australia in a few months.

alfie wrote:Well it's official now...all out 210 and a comprehensive win for India ...

Congrats to Kholi and his men

Must admit I've been perplexed at the absence of Ashwin : but reckon this win has proved Kohli and Shastri know what they're doing.

Rohit , Rahul , Pujara ...and of course Thakur , Bumrah - could name virtually the whole team ... Brilliant performance.

Really still hope England can come back from this on Friday and level up again but I fear that's more a dream than a serious prospect. Hats off to India

Belatedly returning to this. We've deservedly given Root stick for his captaincy howlers but probably not enough praise to Kohli for his handling of a side that delivered - as Alfie says - a brilliant team performance. In recognition of that, he would have been a strong MotM contender for me.

That said, my award would still have gone to Rohit. I'm possibly being overly influenced as I was there on days two and three but, in line with Carlos' comments, I really feel his innings from late on Friday to the final session on Saturday decisively changed and shaped the game as it gnawed away at the bowlers' and the crowd's confidence.

dummy_half wrote:While it is all a bit moot now the squad has been named, I have no problem with the concept of England picking an older player for the 'here and now' rather than worrying about the future. Sometimes players really master their game relatively late - I'm thinking of the likes of Ryan Sidebottom or even Swanny, who only merited their selection when they were 29, but went on to make significant contributions for a time.

OK picking a 34 year old seamer is (normally, Jimmy A excepted) a truly short term fix, but that's really what we need at this moment - someone to cover for all the various injury absences now rather than being ready for Australia in a few months.

Dummy - a ticket for the Ronnie bandwagon is yours. Just say if you need any more.

There is some talk about OT being spin-friendly. So when you least expect it after Kohli's team managed to justify his selection calls, will Ashwin at last get to play? Think not, Kohli just loves to have that 4th seamer, he seems to think that keeps the others also well rested and rotated in between spells. And Jadeja, if start spinning, can do the job, as he proved in the last game, even not being at his best. Hope they'll stop destroying his batting, leave the guy at 7, or let him bat 6, get Sky in at 5 for the struggling Rahane.
The only reason I will still keep Ashwin in my thoughts for the next test, is the bounce at OT, Ashwin loves a bouncy pitch...

msp83 wrote:There is some talk about OT being spin-friendly. So when you least expect it after Kohli's team managed to justify his selection calls, will Ashwin at last get to play? Think not, Kohli just loves to have that 4th seamer, he seems to think that keeps the others also well rested and rotated in between spells. And Jadeja, if start spinning, can do the job, as he proved in the last game, even not being at his best. Hope they'll stop destroying his batting, leave the guy at 7, or let him bat 6, get Sky in at 5 for the struggling Rahane.
The only reason I will still keep Ashwin in my thoughts for the next test, is the bounce at OT, Ashwin loves a bouncy pitch...

Hi msp - I notice that you and KP-f regularly refer to the type of wickets being prepared for Test matches in this country. It may surprise you and some others that rather than the priority being to produce a track most suitable for a home win, a key aim of those in charge of the particular Test venues is for the game to go into day five with no ticket refunds and plenty of bar takings. That may sound cynical but I have it on good authority.

msp83 wrote:There is some talk about OT being spin-friendly. So when you least expect it after Kohli's team managed to justify his selection calls, will Ashwin at last get to play? Think not, Kohli just loves to have that 4th seamer, he seems to think that keeps the others also well rested and rotated in between spells. And Jadeja, if start spinning, can do the job, as he proved in the last game, even not being at his best. Hope they'll stop destroying his batting, leave the guy at 7, or let him bat 6, get Sky in at 5 for the struggling Rahane.
The only reason I will still keep Ashwin in my thoughts for the next test, is the bounce at OT, Ashwin loves a bouncy pitch...

they might play Ashwin for Rahane i.e 6 bowlers

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:There is some talk about OT being spin-friendly. So when you least expect it after Kohli's team managed to justify his selection calls, will Ashwin at last get to play? Think not, Kohli just loves to have that 4th seamer, he seems to think that keeps the others also well rested and rotated in between spells. And Jadeja, if start spinning, can do the job, as he proved in the last game, even not being at his best. Hope they'll stop destroying his batting, leave the guy at 7, or let him bat 6, get Sky in at 5 for the struggling Rahane.
The only reason I will still keep Ashwin in my thoughts for the next test, is the bounce at OT, Ashwin loves a bouncy pitch...

Hi msp - I notice that you and KP-f regularly refer to the type of wickets being prepared for Test matches in this country. It may surprise you and some others that rather than the priority being to produce a track most suitable for a home win, a key aim of those in charge of the particular Test venues is for the game to go into day five with no ticket refunds and plenty of bar takings. That may sound cynical but I have it on good authority.

Guildford I had come across references that the England coach had specified the need to flat pitches considering the state of his team's batting. If they go by that suggestion of the management, I'd say fair enough, though I hate pitches that do not offer anything for bowling up to day 4 and then suddenly spring into some life... Would surely prefer a 3-day finish type of pitch to that. But if the authorities aren't listening to the management, and instead preparing pitches only for money concerns and considerations, that is pathetic!
Thankfully, also thanks to overhead conditions, we haven't had a road of a pitch for any of the 4 games, not even the Oval that did flatten out after a while...