England's Summer of Cricket 2022 as Joe Root Steps Down

First topic message reminder :

Joe Root has decided to step down from the captaincy. Main problem now is - who should take over?

Stokes is the only one really in contention. But should he be lumbered with the captaincy? His workload is immense as it is. But if he doesn't take the job, then who?

Let's hope Root's stepping down doesn't effect his batting! Captaincy cares hardly showed in his stats over the last few months.

Good, positive intent from England to start. NZ starting off by pitching it short of that full length which has reaped dividends all test, they need to be braver if they are to win.

guildfordbat wrote:It goes against all my long and traditional instincts to play a batter at 7 but I do feel, certainly for this innings, that England may have benefitted from Foakes and Bairstow swapping places in the order. If we were 5 down needing 60 odd to win with Root and Bairstow at the crease, we would be [stronger] favourites.

If Bairstow and Stokes are going to bat the way they did it weirdly almost feels like they're trying to pressurise Foakes to find a spot for Brook.

Looks like NZ have thrown it in, 100 partnership and 18 to get.

Very poor captaincy from Williamson since the Stokes dismissal, in not bowling Patel and in gambling on getting the ball changed last night.

Hundred stand

Whatever else happens : this has been Ben Foakes best innings for England since that first match in Sri Lanka. Could hardly have picked a better time...

I know NZ can’t account for CDG getting injured, but you have to think we’ll see Wagner for Patel in T2 and it could have cost them this one.

100 for Root. 10,000 runs. A superb innings. One of his greatest.

Hundred for Joe

What a superb innings ... At a crucial time. He looks happy

Just 14 left to get...

Appears Michael Vaughan was right

Honestly didn't expect it to be so straightforward !

Thought they might look to take the new ball out of the equation - but they've done this brilliantly : no fuss , no alarms , no nail chewing...

2 more runs for a perfect start for McCullum and Stokes

Excellent from Root and impressive from Foakes .

MotM for Root.

Don't know if they have a Moment of the Match (or similar) for this Test as they do for some nowadays but, if so, it should go to Pope for his run out of CDG. That had significant impact - for the Test as well as putting me further behind in Joey's comp!

...and sealed with another boundary :

I'm for a drink now

Superb from Joe - secures a full refund for all the spectators on Day 4. And the 100 wasn’t bad too.

JDizzle wrote:Superb from Joe - secures a full refund for all the spectators on Day 4. And the 100 wasn’t bad too.

Forever a man of the people - what a man! What a knock!

New era, still headlined by Anderson, Broad and Root

Masterful from Root, made a very tricky chase appear quite easy in the end. Very good from Foakes too, important for him to have seen it through.

A technically better innings than Stokes at Headingly.

guildfordbat wrote:Excellent from Root and impressive from Foakes .    

MotM for Root.

Don't know if they have a Moment of the Match (or similar) for this Test as they do for some nowadays but, if so, it should go to Pope for his run out of CDG. That had significant impact - for the Test as well as putting me further behind in Joey's comp!

Fair suggestion , Guildford : but perhaps it should be the CDG no ball that reprieved Ben Stokes ? Reckon it was game over if he'd kept his foot behind the line...

Very unusual match : electric start (NZ 45/7) ; wild swings (England losing 8 for 49 ; NZ 195 partnership , then losing three in one over) ... And in the end , a professional run down of the last 61 runs that was almost boring by contrast

Love Test Cricket

Well done to Root and well done to England. A quite incredible win in a test that lurched from one outcome to the other.

It vacillated so much that it's difficult to know what the key moment was, there were several. Perhaps it was when NZ lost three wickets in three balls and a lead that looked like it was sailing over 300 was only 278; or it was De Grandhomme's injury; and then in the end it was Root and Foakes' partnership.

Full credit to Root, that was one of his greatest innings, and one of the last things (Century in the fourth innings, added to a century in a winning chase) ticked off on his illustrious CV. Foakes provided his best innings to date so far as well - without that, Root would have likely run out of partners. England's bowling was hit and miss - lethal with the new ball, toothless with the old ball - but Potts certainly took his chance well and we can only hope he stays fit and doesn't fall victim to the curse.

NZ, also hit and miss. Only Mitchell and Blundell provided a decent quantity of runs, the top four didn't fire at all. Southee, Boult and Jamieson (especially Jamieson) were initially superb, but were then bowled into the ground due to Williamson's baffling reluctance to use his spinner to try and hold up an end. I'd like to see him explain that. If De Grandhomme wasn't injured, the outcome may well have been different. The three main seamers would have been fresher and the run-rate would have been lower which would have brought the second new ball into the equation. But it doesn't excuse Williamson's strange choice, or the decision to pick Patel over Wagner/Henry. And Williamson getting the ball changed last night backfired immensely, as the 'new' one was completely lifeless.

Sets the series up superbly. I thought this was England's best chance of getting a win in the series, though I'm certainly surprised they have won it, but NZ will likely get stronger as the series progresses, particularly with Nicholls to return...and presumably they won't be picking Patel again!

Well done again to Root and Foakes. Stokes is a 100% captain.

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Excellent from Root and impressive from Foakes .    

MotM for Root.

Don't know if they have a Moment of the Match (or similar) for this Test as they do for some nowadays but, if so, it should go to Pope for his run out of CDG. That had significant impact - for the Test as well as putting me further behind in Joey's comp!

Fair suggestion , Guildford : but perhaps it should be the CDG no ball that reprieved Ben Stokes ?  Reckon it was game over if he'd kept his foot behind the line...

Very unusual match : electric start (NZ 45/7) ; wild swings (England losing 8 for 49 ; NZ 195 partnership , then losing three in one over) ... And in the end , a professional run down of the last 61 runs that was almost boring by contrast

Love Test Cricket  

Yeah, but he didn't and would it have been a wicket taking delivery if he had?

Still my captain

Rooooooooooooooot

Excellent victory for England, and a superb knock by Root! Great work in support of him by Stokes originally, and then Foakes at the end. Much needed boost to the "new era" albeit of course a long way to go and plenty of work to do.
Thought the three main seamers were magnificent through the game, Anderson maybe tired a tad at the end of day 2, but otherwise they kept going and bowled very well. Potts impressive on debut! Parkinson did ok, considering Lords is not a spinners ground and he was having a BBQ on day 1 of this game!
Suspect that will be England's only selection decision for the 2nd test, providing Leach passes all concussion protocol's before the 2nd test - it would feel harsh to leave Leach out, and you'd suspect chances for Parkinson to come later in the summer maybe...but of course, has to be fit to be picked first.

New Zealand I fancy will be pretty disappointed to have let that one slip - both with the bat on the morning of day 3, and with the ball late on day 3. Agree with general comments/consensus on Williamson's captaincy late yesterday, once Stokes had gone to not use the spinner to tie down an end (Root/Foakes wouldn't have attacked him like Stokes, and also he is more comfortable bowling to right handers) was an oversight - to be honest not even using Mitchell to send down a few overs too (he is a handy enough bowler) was silly. Simon Doull did mention on comms on day 3 that Williamson has had some issues captaining/trusting spin during his tenure, and it really did show yesterday.

Providing everyone pulls up ok for them, they will have some interesting decisions for the next test (bar De Grandhomme, who it seems very unlikely will play another part in this series with that injury).
Can't see how they can pick Patel again if they're not going to use him, so it is likely one of Wagner or Henry in for him (you'd suspect Wagner, for the different option). Then, who replaces De Grandhomme...do they strength the batting with the fit again Nicholls coming in (and leave themselves with four seamers + Mitchell/Williamson and no real spinner) or do they go with Rachin Ravindra at 7, in as the spinning all rounder? Ravindra I think bowled 2 overs across both the warmup games, so it would seem he is properly on the fringes...
If I had to guess, I fancy they will go with...Latham, Young, Williamson, Conway, Nicholls, Mitchell, Blundell, Jamieson, Southee, Wagner, Boult and forego a proper spin option.

Good summary , Olly. Not sure Leach will be cleared in time ? Next game starting on the 10th ? We will see. I tend to agree Parkinson might be more value later in the summer but again will leave that to Ben and Baz.  Think England might still be a bit concerned by the fragility of the tail (not tested -perhaps mercifully- in the second innings) ; but hard to see what they can do about it for now.

Agree the bowling was good. I get a bit annoyed with BBC articles trotting out the tired old line "toothless when the ball stops moving" : OK  ; maybe , when Mitchell and Blundell were handling the softer old ball in the sunshine : but so were NZ's excellent trio once the shine wore off after tea yesterday and this morning. Sure we'd love an express bowler (or a deadly left arm option) for variety : but they're all injured : and I reckon the combination of two Old Boys and the new lad did a pretty good job overall.

Still a lot to work on , of course : new batting order can't claim to have exactly fired - but again , neither did NZ's. But the fielding was hugely improved ; and I also think there seemed to be a renewed intensity throughout the game , even when things were not going to plan...for which I give the new leadership group much credit.
Of course that could be just "new manager bounce" ; but let us be positive for now and see how they progress.  Not sure many recent England teams would have come back so well from the situation facing them at stumps on day two...

As for NZ : they may see this as a lost chance. I reckon they actually did extremely well to come back from 45/7 Thursday morning to lead most of the contest , despite a limited preparation ; and I'm sure they will present stern opposition again next week. No CDG will give them balance issues (bit like England !) but Nicholls will be back which should boost the batting , with Conway going back up top - or so Doull suggested. Guess they will have in camp consultation re spinners and Williamson's handling of them. I do expect Wagner back to give the England boys a few round their ears.

Hope we get another pitch that gives the bowlers a bit of help (though not too much !) as it generally makes for more interesting cricket. Could be a good series to start the Northern International summer.

So England got the result that looked certain on the first day when NZ were 45-7. But boy did they have to go round the houses to get home.

Key moment was probably the no-ball "dismissal" of Stokes on one in the second innings. Doubt whether England would have won from there.

Not really happy with Pope at three. There's a a strange logic to having a guy who has to play at the very top level of the game in a position he's never batted in before. I was there on Thursday and Pope, who I rate, looked absolutely hopeless.

I think Crawley shouldn't be opening either. Imagine what he would be like coming in, say, at five. Main problem is that virtually everyone else who could open in his place has been tried and....discarded.

Much talk about this being Root's first 4th innings century in Tests. Main reason for this is Joe's good enough to make 100s in the first innings, and often on the very first day of a Test, thus heavily influencing the match.

After an age of humiliation, a good start to the reset England test side and for the new skipper Ben Stokes.
The way the pitch had lost life particularly when the ball is oldish, this wasn't beyond the possible, if Root would have got runs, and one of Stokes and Bairstow chipped in. Root of course got a big one, Stokes made a crazy and crucial contribution, and young Ben Foakes played a mighty fine hand, playing to his strength, and letting Root do his thing. Fine win for England...
New Zealand lost the plot a bit in that last hour of day 2, and again in the last hour or so of day 3. And I absolutely can't understand why on earth don't they play Wagner!? He's cut out for these situations, these tracks where the ball doesn't do much when it goes old. He may not have turned the situation around in this game, but he most certainly have made it a lot more difficult... Patel had that remarkable test achivement against his game, but he's a pretty average spinner. Unless the track is a spinning one, he has no place over and above Wagner in this lineup. If they need a spin option now that KW doesn't bowl that much, play Rachin Ravindra ahead of CDG...

guildfordbat wrote:Don't know if they have a Moment of the Match (or similar) for this Test as they do for some nowadays but, if so, it should go to Pope for his run out of CDG. That had significant impact - for the Test as well as putting me further behind in Joey's comp!

Yes, finally I got the point of England continuing to pick him!

A fantastic win.

Root really is an all time England great. There were a lot of great batters pre and post WW1 and WW2 of course (a long list - Hobbs, Hammond, Barrington, Sutcliffe, Hutton) but it was such a different game that comparisons to there are tough. From the more modern era I'd consider Root the best I've seen just pipping Pietersen and Gower with Gooch and Cook of course England greats as well.

K Carlos. Yes, Root is right up there with the best. At 31, he will surely go on to become England's highest run scorer and century maker.

It's a still a way to go for him to catch Tendulkar at the top of the Test run-scoring list, but he might do it.

Amazing to think his best run of form has come when England's batting has been at his weakest for many years.

Only 18 months ago there was talk of Root not being worthy of his Big Four status (Kohli, Smith, Williamson).

But he's hit nine Test centuries since, while K and W have rather fallen away and Smith has been less dominant.

Pietersen was for me the best batsmen I've seen play for England but Root is undoubtedly the greatest. After every innings I struggle to remember specific shots which speaks volumes for his skills of accumulation.

KP was magnificent but worth noting his entire career was within one of the two highest averaging periods in Test history.

Root's latest peak has come in a bowling dominated period and he plays his home Tests in England with a diabolical top order failing to set platforms. It really has been remarkable.

I'd certainly argue that KP had a bigger impact on English cricket due to how he played and specific iconic innings. But Root for me is just the better batter.

Splitting hairs though really! I'd consider both as better than Gower for instance which is no mean feat.

https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/122475/olly-stones-journey-to-hell-and-back-england-cricket-cricbuzzcom

Excellent article here following Olly Stone’s return from his latest back injury - some great insights and he does mention ambitions to be able to play all formats for England again, something which he was debating during recovery. I note he made his comeback tonight for Birmingham in their shortened blast game, and picked up a wicket with his first delivery back. Do hope he can make it, there’s such a talented bowler in there as we’ve seen fleetingly

Nice article - thanks Olly.

Good luck to Stone - he's probably due some after all those injuries ! At 28 , he'd want to get back into it without further interruptions to his career if he's to ever get a serious crack at the five day game. But since Wood is already 32 and I have grave doubts about Archer ever making it back into Tests , he probably has a window to make himself a first choice pace option over the next couple of years - if he can come back good as new.

Re the batting greats comparisons : I always shy away from trying definitive judgements like "who's the GOAT ?" ... too many differences ; era , batting position , team strength... but I guess it makes for interesting discussion.

KC making me feel a bit old lumping Barrington in with Hobbs and Hammond : they were a bit before my time but I remember watching Ken very well
I'd mention Peter May too as one I was lucky enough to see.

But fair enough to limit this to players who made it into this century or near enough to :

KP was certainly the most spectacular batsman I've seen batting for England.  And he played a lot of wonderful innings. He had the advantage of coming in after a seriously good bunch of platform layers - not that that should detract from his performances , of course.

Cook , like Gooch , played all his innings in the most difficult spots in the order. Two very contrasting players but both have to be in any conversation about greats of the English game (maybe should be a special category for openers) Cook's overall figures are better ; but Gooch probably played more memorable innings ... happy to have either in my side anytime.

Gower ? Best of them all to watch for his sheer elegance : just a question as to whether his laid-back attitude caused him to actually under-perform in the sense of hard figures. Think on balance I'm content to have enjoyed watching his sublime strokeplay rather than have had him adopt a bit of Boycott-style doggedness and average half a dozen more.

Who knows how Root's career will look like when it's done ? Very impressive to date ; and as others have noted , the fact that he's done most of it while surrounded by more journeymen and apprentices than fellow artists makes it all even more commendable.

There used to be a chap on here who would have had Ian Bell in this conversation , I seem to recall  Certainly up there for his elegance.

Lot of fine bats. Wonder when the Next Big One will emerge ? Surely we are just about due ?

Joe Root is surely among the very best of English batting. And over the last year and a half, he has been the best in the world. He has a fine record at home, and he's the most impressive English batter against spin, a touch better than even Pietersen, who really had to work through some difficulties against some pedestrian left-arm spin! KP though, has a superior record in Australia, even in the shambolic 2013 series, he had top-scored for the team... Between Root and Pietersen, think i'll wait until Joe gets done. At the moment, there is not a lot to differentiate, though Root at this rate, can end-up being England's best modern batter...

Soul Requiem wrote:Pietersen was for me the best batsmen I've seen play for England but Root is undoubtedly the greatest. After every innings I struggle to remember specific shots which speaks volumes for his skills of accumulation.

I think you've summarised this nicely for me Soul - it's a bit similar to Broad/Anderson, in that I can reel off a bunch of great Broad spells off the top of my head in big series, whereas (and maybe this is just me) I struggle to do similar for Anderson, who is similar to Root in that he just accumulates wickets and is consistently brilliant.

I think the part of Root's game which is massively underrated in conversations about how good he is, is just how bloody good a one day international bat he is too! Probably because since the 2019 World Cup there have been fewer ODIs played, but he's an incredible ODI bat, averages a full 11 runs more per knock than KP with 7 more hundreds in that format (and has only played 10 more innings than KP has), and at the same strike rate.
Now of course the flip side of the strength of the test side arguments apply to the ODI side with Root/KP of course...!

alfie wrote:Appears Michael Vaughan was right

A broken watch is right twice a day.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Pietersen was for me the best batsmen I've seen play for England but Root is undoubtedly the greatest. After every innings I struggle to remember specific shots which speaks volumes for his skills of accumulation.

I think you've summarised this nicely for me Soul - it's a bit similar to Broad/Anderson, in that I can reel off a bunch of great Broad spells off the top of my head in big series, whereas (and maybe this is just me) I struggle to do similar for Anderson, who is similar to Root in that he just accumulates wickets and is consistently brilliant.

I think the part of Root's game which is massively underrated in conversations about how good he is, is just how bloody good a one day international bat he is too! Probably because since the 2019 World Cup there have been fewer ODIs played, but he's an incredible ODI bat, averages a full 11 runs more per knock than KP with 7 more hundreds in that format (and has only played 10 more innings than KP has), and at the same strike rate.
Now of course the flip side of the strength of the test side arguments apply to the ODI side with Root/KP of course...!

I don't think you can compare Root and Pietersen in ODI, the game has changed far too much and become too batsmen friendly for any comparison to be meaningful. That SR of 86 in the 2000's has to be the equivalent of 95+ nowadays at least. I don't really buy into the idea that it's a bowlers game in test cricket at the moment either, the numerical difference between now and 2005-2013 is largely down to the gulf in class of the batsman.

It's not really worth splitting hairs over, they're nailed down at 4 and 5 in a 21st century England best XI.

The vast majority of batters who played in the previous batting friendly era (actually up to around 2017 rather than 2013) and still play now have seen their numbers get much worse as well though. That's not accounted for by poor younger batters who started in this era.

There was actually a good discussion of this very topic on this thread back around page 2 and 3. Apologies for the unforgivable sin of quoting my own post below.  

king_carlos wrote:

VTR wrote:Might Lakmal have improved his skills though? The likes of Ishant, Broad, Starc all required quite a while before becoming top performers. Even Jimmy Anderson transformed himself as he worked on additional skills

Lakmal developed the wobble ball, as most seamers have over this period where seam has started to dominate. The wobble ball is a big reason for that shift towards seam dominating more though. We now see new opening bowlers such as Hazlewood who earlier in their careers bowled swing using the wobble seam with the new ball as it's so effective.

Analysis and DRS has largely aided bowlers more than batters too. Spinners getting LBWs has of course been huge. Things as simple as more bowlers coming around the wicket to lefties and bowlers using the crease more, hence the wobble balls rise, are so much more prevalent now. Seamers have even changed what a 'good length' is due to analysis. It used to be between 6-8m from the stumps. As analysis showed that too many balls weren't challenging the stumps many seamers are shifting to 5-7m to keep bowled and LBW in play more.

Of the batters who played before and after this dip in batting averages I believe the only one to have stayed steady and not seen a decrease in his figures is Dean Elgar.

Of the 23 bowlers to take more than 20 wickets in both eras you only have Steyn (past his peak when the change came), de Grandhomme (change bowler so smaller sample size) and Abbas who got worse in the seam friendly era. Hazlewood, Starc and Rabada stayed very similar. Then 17 bowlers figures got significantly better.

If you look at batters with significant Test runs (over 3000) averaging over 50 then 13 of the 32 batters scored a lot of their runs between 2000-2017 when averages were high. Of the top 10 Bradman, Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hammond all played in the 1920s and 30s. The highest scoring decades in Test cricket:

1. 1940s - Not as big a sample size though
2. 2000s
3. 1920s
4. 2010s
5. 1930s

Cricket likes to take simple metrics such as averages and compare across different periods but when you play unavoidably has a massive influence on what your figures will be.

It's also key to mention that pitches and balls have changed. Windies have made a huge move from dead low bouncing tracks to using the Dukes and livelier wickets. India were often producing 700 plays 600 roads, now we are seeing tracks that bring spin and seam into play. England have played on a lot of seaming tracks and now use Dukes that swing forever. The red Kookaburra has changed to favour bowlers more.

If Test cricket hasn't moved to a seam bowler friendly era then we are witnessing some truly astonishing statistical coincidences that point that way!

Olly
Interesting comparison with Broad/Anderson - Broad/KP have the higher peak performances but fewer of them, Jimmy/Root have greater consistency but somehow it's not as spectacular.

The biggest criticism of Root until a couple of years ago was his conversion of starts to 100s, but even then he scored so consistently that his average has settled at very close to 50 through from 2014 onwards. OF course the last couple of years has been a bit more 'feat or famine' in that he's had a few more low scores than historically, but interspersed with more big scores and fewer scores in the 70s and 80s.

Root and Cook were both the same age in years and days (31 years 157 days) on reaching 10000 runs, but apparently Cook was a day younger based on a count of days only - one fewer leap day...

dummy_half wrote:Root and Cook were both the same age in years and days (31 years 157 days) on reaching 10000 runs, but apparently Cook was a day younger based on a count of days only - one fewer leap day...

That's the sort of stat you become a cricket fan for. Love it!

De Grandhomme out of the series. That really knocks the balance of the side and it's tough on NZ to lose such a useful player.

It also denies the fans sight of one of the great modern day mullets!

king_carlos wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Root and Cook were both the same age in years and days (31 years 157 days) on reaching 10000 runs, but apparently Cook was a day younger based on a count of days only - one fewer leap day...

That's the sort of stat you become a cricket fan for. Love it!

My favourite is still Alec Stewart's test runs (8463) and birthday 8/4/63

https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/england/england_ponder_all-seam_attack_injury_worries_continue_trent_bridge_test.html

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/england/england_ponder_all-seam_attack_injury_worries_continue_trent_bridge_test.html

Sounds as though Robinson will miss the rest of the summer. Guessing he'll be diagnosed with a stress fracture, like all the rest, and we'll see him next year sometime. Hope they don't risk Stokes either if he's got a problem, just play four seamers and have Root bowl a bit of spin.

CDG's lose is a big one for New Zealand. Will be interesting as to how they balance the side. Would it be Henry Nicholls back in for CDG and Mitchell trusted with a few more overs? Or will it be Wagner back in, and Rachin Ravindra covering for CDG and Patel at one go? Or will it be Nicholls and Wagner back in, with Patel sitting out and Williamson bowling a bit more than he does these days? That could be a risky option as the New Zealand skipper has been battling injuries quite a bit in recent times.
I would go with Ravindra and Wagner in for CDG and Patel, though that is rather tough on Nicholls... And if they really have to play Nicholls, then Conway can move to the top of the order, and Young benched.

I already thought it quite likely England would go for Overton instead of a spinner at Trent Bridge , given Stokes seemed a little reluctant to bowl much in the first match : if he has even a hint of an injury I'd imagine this now becomes a certainty.

Don't know what NZ will do to cover CDG's loss. Bracewell is an allrounder , I guess...but can't see him leap frogging those already in the squad so their balance will be tested.

Michael Bracewell seems more like a batter who can bowl, his FC figures are rather mediocre with the ball, and his overall figures with the bat too, aren't outstanding. Seems he's had a few good seasons.

England unchanged. Fair enough Leach coming back in, far more likely to tie an end down than Parkinson, which is going to be the main job for a spinner if they even get much of a bowl

I don’t have any qualms about them picking Leach over Parky. If they thought he was the better spinner for T1, nothing happened which will change that view in the first Test.

Picking a guy one day out of the concussion protocol does seem a bit dodgy to me though. He won’t have trained all week after a nasty concussion, and we have seen in cases like Will Pucovski how these things can follow you around if you aren’t cautious.

Leach, though doesn't seem a consistent test class spinner, does deserve this chance. He has had a rough time of it really, its only fair he's given a decent run before a call is made either way. McCullum had hinted that he would be happy to keep the door open for Moeen Ali's (England's best test spinner in the last decade) unretirement and return to test cricket. That hasn't happened yet, and they consider Leach next in line. So OK, let him have a go of it... The legspinner is always a more tempting option, but think Parkinson has time on his hand, and his debut performance wasn't demanding enough to bench Leach if he's fit and available.

Leach realistically could have been bowling all week having gone through the return to play protocols to be fair. I had to go through them playing rugby and if you recover fast enough you can get back to non contact fitness work very quickly.

If he's feeling good enough to be considered then he probably will have felt good enough to train. Of course there are concussions severe enough that symptoms linger where players wont have been as active. I've had teammates who have suffered migraines after a concussion for instance. If Leach is being considered for selection then I'd presume that isn't the case though.

With the spin cupboard so bare and the type of surfaces we play on in England these days I think the 4 seamer argument is reasonable though. I'm usually the guy always wanting a spinner as well.

I just struggle to see Leach as an automatic pick at home. When circumstances suit he's good but he has such holes in his game. Struggles to lefties, in the first innings and tends not to keep it tight if he isn't taking wickets. Leach to me looks a fantastic second spinner that you pick when conditions and opposition suit. I'm not sure that's the case at home.

With our seamers tending to bowl defensive lines and lengths if the ball isn't hooping I also wonder if a spinner to "tie up an end" is actually what we need. Stokes aside our seamers tend to bowl that way. If anything I think at home we want a spinner who takes wickets even if they can go for a few. Someone to break partnerships. That's why I liked Mo (before his form fell off a cliff) much more than other 606ers. He has holes in his game, as the alternatives also do, but I thought Mo's strengths at one point suited what England needed more than the alternatives.

Surprised Leach is playing, but if he's fine and dandy it makes sense to go unchanged. Another big game for the top three, none of them are too far away from the axe. If Bairstow has another poor return then Brooks should come in for test three.

Moeen will not be returning to the test side at any juncture. Remember Moeen was given a recall last summer v India after huge clamour despite all the evidence against it - he played three tests and averaged 50 with the ball and 16 with the bat. Since then he has made zero first-class appearances. I'd rather go back and give Kerrigan another go.