England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

June 1st-June 4th: One Test v Ireland (four days)
June 16th-July 31st: Five Tests v Australia
August 30th-September 5th: Four T20s v New Zealand
September 8th-September 15th: Four ODIs v New Zealand
September 20th-September 26th: Three ODIs v Ireland

England try to wrest the Ashes back from Australia, in a series which could be the greatest since 2005. Australia have currently held the urn for just over five years, which is the longest spell of urn-holding since the 1989-2005 period.

Ireland also visit for a test before that, and then there's some limited-overs games squashed into the last days of summer.

The news that no one wants to hear...

England’s troubled Ashes preparation took another twist as a groin injury prevented James Anderson from taking the field for the second day of Lancashire’s Championship fixture against Somerset.

England’s selectors will meet in the coming days to select a squad for the first Test of the summer, against Ireland at Lord’s. The squad will be announced next week, and Anderson’s injury is the third fast-bowling blow of the week.

Details of the injury were light from England and Lancashire, who painted it as precautionary and said it was a “minor issue”. If it continues to trouble him, he will go for a scan and further assessments, and he seems unlikely to play a part in the final two days of the match.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/05/12/ashes-injury-news-james-anderson-injury-lancashire/

Hopefully it is just minor, because with Stone and Archer injured, Robinson taking injections, Stokes not bowling in the IPL, Woakes and Mahmood reportedly not yet 100%, and Wood not someone you want to rely on...England's bowling resources are getting stretched.

As I noted some little time ago , the chances of a full stable of pace bowlers remaining injury free for long were pretty slim...

Hopefully Anderson's issue is indeed minor. In any case I probably wouldn't be asking him to play the Ireland match : with all due respect to them they present an ideal opportunity to give one or two fringe players (like Potts , perhaps ?) another run out in the Test arena. Stokes wants eight options for the Ashes...I think he will probably still have them ; but they may not be the eight he would have chosen in an ideal world !

The injury update I really want to see is Stokes himself. Still not playing in the IPL ; but not flying back home yet either : I trust he didn't damage himself seriously in the one over he bowled in that early appearance ? Would really like to see him have a bit of a go with the bat at least.

alfie wrote:I reckon he may well make it back for the ODIs - and bailing from the IPL early is a smart move with that in mind. Bit of proper rest instead of going in and out of action every few days.

Never really had any confidence that he'd be up for the Tests. Even if he had been apparently fit  : how could anyone be confident he would last a five day game after not having any multi-day cricket for years ?

Some bowlers just aren't built for multiple long course cricket - especially in this age of matches close together , no rest days , etc.  A pity ; but if he can get back to the white ball scene on a regular basis he can still have a notable career even if he never takes the ball in a Test again.

Might need to be careful about how many franchise comps he signs up for. Let's hope this little break will enable him to get back on the field sooner rather than later.

It's so sad. He's one of my favourite cricketers to watch in full flow.

That ability in T20s to be consistently world class in the PP, middle and death across many years at the highest level puts him in a bracket basically with Bumrah and Rashid Khan. Then in Tests to be able to bowl in the high 90mph as a genuine quick but also draw the pace back into the low to mid eighties and take an Ashes Michelle bowling fantastic seam when conditions suit. It's such a rare natural ability to have that pace and his skill. The stories from Sussex of how quickly he picked up the wobble ball, then doing the same with the knuckle ball in the England squad are remarkable.

Prior to the injuries I really thought he could be even better in Tests than T20. That rounded skill set should make him a threat in most conditions with each of the different cricket balls.

Rumours are he's been offered a year round T20 deal by MI that would see him play for them in the IPL but also with the MI teams in the SA and UAE leagues presumably used to get him ready for the big show. Then release from that would presumably need to be negotiated by Jof and the ECB same as with Boult's deal now.

Jimmy's groin injury is definitely a big worry. I believe that's a new one for him as well? Being such a wicket taking threat when the ball moves but also able to regularly go at about 2 runs an over when it doesn't is an incredible skill.

8.Woakes
9.Robinson
10.Broad
11.Leach

Potentially something like that for the Ireland Test?

I doubt they'd use Wood with his ankle and 5 back to back Ashes Tests coming up.

Potts has chosen a good time to start the season well. If Jimmy, Jof and Stone are all ruled out then I'd guess he's next in line after the above.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/65599978

Interesting change coming into force starting from the England/Ireland test - the soft signal for contentious catches has been scrapped. So the third umpires will now have to do a bit of work in judging these catches, rather than just going along with whatever the on-field umpire said. This will probably lead to more 'not-out' calls, as I imagine any doubt will favour the batting side rather than the fielding side, and with these decisions there's often a lot of doubt.

It's so important for the broadcasters with those catches to make sure the audience know the significance of foreshortening from the long lens cameras.

The famous example was Tony Grieg's demonstration with Channel 9 where he stood in the slips before play, placed the back of his hand on the ground, put a ball on top of his fingers all in view of a camera on the ground with him. They then showed it from the fixed long lens camera that we'd see it from during a match and the ball looks like it's lying on the turf. Dermot Reeve then reproduced it for Channel 4. I'd honestly love it if every time controversy about these catches came up they just showed that Greig clip roughly a dozen times a day. Only when we reach the point where more people are complaining about seeing that clip than the latest 'controversial' decision should it stop being shown.

I'm usually in favour of the tech with umpiring decisions. I was heavily in favour of DRS being developed for instance but just hated that it was brought in with no testing because cricket governance is laughable. In this instance I'm unsure removing the soft signal is a good call due to that foreshortening though. Unless a significant improvement in technology has fixed that issue but I don't believe that's the case?

I can definitely foresee an increase in situations where fielders claim catches thinking it's a clean catch, the camera incorrectly looks like it's grounded and the player gets a ludicrous amount of vitriol for 'cheating' by claiming it as caught when overturned.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/may/15/ben-stokes-fitness-doubt-england-test-ireland-ashes

Stokes' IPL team have said he is unable to bowl, and he has only been utilised as 'batting cover' for the last six weeks, hence why he hasn't played in the competition for a while. Meaning Stokes is also a doubt for Ireland and maybe beyond that. Also, Mark Wood - no he's not injured! - is awaiting the birth of his first kid, so he's also in some doubt for the Ireland game. The selectors are considering Woakes, Mahmood (although he's not played much on his comeback from a long injury) and Fisher (remember him?) as further options. Worth remembering that J Overton is out for a long spell, and Carse's chances of breaking in from the fringes have been obstructed by injury in his previous CC game

This first test of the summer selection is a right mess! Might be: Crawley, Duckett, Pope, Root, Brook, Bairstow, Foakes as the top seven (Stokes' injury would indeed delay the decision on who makes way for Bairstow's return) and then three of Woakes, Broad, Robinson, C Overton, Potts, Mahmood and Fisher for the seamers, with Leach as the spinner (presuming England want a spinner, otherwise pick four seamers).

Yep, injuries in the seamers really not looking good. I was hoping England's strength would be depth in that department as well.

For the Ireland game I'm really hoping they produce a track to go the distance and give some spin. It suits England's batting, Ireland don't play or bowl spin well so works for the match situation and should get overs into Leach. If we want to play on flatter tracks that last part will be important. If the last Ashes is anything to go by the Aussies will go after Leach immediately.

Seamers wise I think Broad, Robinson and Woakes are the obvious trio there if all fit.

Duty281 wrote:The news that no one wants to hear...

England’s troubled Ashes preparation took another twist as a groin injury prevented James Anderson from taking the field for the second day of Lancashire’s Championship fixture against Somerset.

England’s selectors will meet in the coming days to select a squad for the first Test of the summer, against Ireland at Lord’s. The squad will be announced next week, and Anderson’s injury is the third fast-bowling blow of the week.

Details of the injury were light from England and Lancashire, who painted it as precautionary and said it was a “minor issue”. If it continues to trouble him, he will go for a scan and further assessments, and he seems unlikely to play a part in the final two days of the match.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/05/12/ashes-injury-news-james-anderson-injury-lancashire/

Hopefully it is just minor, because with Stone and Archer injured, Robinson taking injections, Stokes not bowling in the IPL, Woakes and Mahmood reportedly not yet 100%, and Wood not someone you want to rely on...England's bowling resources are getting stretched.

I have an often unused groin if Jimmy needs it. Available anytime

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The news that no one wants to hear...

England’s troubled Ashes preparation took another twist as a groin injury prevented James Anderson from taking the field for the second day of Lancashire’s Championship fixture against Somerset.

England’s selectors will meet in the coming days to select a squad for the first Test of the summer, against Ireland at Lord’s. The squad will be announced next week, and Anderson’s injury is the third fast-bowling blow of the week.

Details of the injury were light from England and Lancashire, who painted it as precautionary and said it was a “minor issue”. If it continues to trouble him, he will go for a scan and further assessments, and he seems unlikely to play a part in the final two days of the match.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/05/12/ashes-injury-news-james-anderson-injury-lancashire/

Hopefully it is just minor, because with Stone and Archer injured, Robinson taking injections, Stokes not bowling in the IPL, Woakes and Mahmood reportedly not yet 100%, and Wood not someone you want to rely on...England's bowling resources are getting stretched.

I have an often unused groin if Jimmy needs it. Available anytime

I could lend him a right wrist but it's considerably less skilled and might have more wear on it from my adolescence than his does after bowling 11,825 overs and 4 balls.

Yes, Tino, I actually did take the time to calculate how many overs England's most successful ever seamer has bowled in professional cricket just to make a w***ing joke.

Reports are that Bairstow is set to be named as keeper, Foakes dropped and Crawley retained.

Wildly incorrect decision for me - not so much on the keeping front, the difference is likely small if there is any difference in keeping between Bairstow and Foakes (Foakes's keeping, based on what we've seen so far internationally, is more hype than actuality for me)...but on the batting front between Foakes and Crawley. Foakes is a far superior bat...leaving him out and retaining Crawley because he notionally "opens" is total nonsense. Nobody can convince me that Bairstow wouldn't do better than Crawley opening the batting.

If, and I am trying to jinx it here, Jimmy does miss any Tests due to injury the last home Ashes series he would have completed in full is 2013?

Missed the last couple in 2015 and the whole, essentially, of 2019. For a bloke who is insanely durable it’s incredible bad luck for England.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Reports are that Bairstow is set to be named as keeper, Foakes dropped and Crawley retained.

Wildly incorrect decision for me - not so much on the keeping front, the difference is likely small if there is any difference in keeping between Bairstow and Foakes (Foakes's keeping, based on what we've seen so far internationally, is more hype than actuality for me)...but on the batting front between Foakes and Crawley. Foakes is a far superior bat...leaving him out and retaining Crawley because he notionally "opens" is total nonsense. Nobody can convince me that Bairstow wouldn't do better than Crawley opening the batting.

Entirely expected, though, Foakes just doesn't fit in with 'Bazball' and Crawley does. It's like when Buttler used to get all those chances as a test player.

Crawley is averaging just under 40 this season for Kent. He's scored 170, 91 and 56, but also had six innings where he's scored 12 or fewer (including two ducks). The 170 he made was seemingly on a pretty flat pitch, with just 12 wickets falling across the two days of play that were possible. I'm just concerned Crawley will make a monster score against Ireland and it'll basically lock him in for the entire summer - Crawley's good at notching up pressure-free runs; the only notable contribution he made last summer was one innings against a South African team that had basically given up.

Some contrary reporting this morning...Times are saying that Stokes won't be able to bowl, so he will go up to open, Crawley will be dropped and a 5th bowler (Woakes/Curran types) will be included in the side - then it's a straight choice between Bairstow and Foakes.

If Stokes can't bowl this summer, I think this makes a lot of sense. We're going to need a 5th proper bowling option, we can't risk three seamers plus Leach both from a workload point of view (three seamers doing the bulk of work seems prime for a breakdown!) and from a playing standpoint you'd think the Aussies would seriously target Leach in that scenario. Stokes more than capable of opening I think, certainly won't be no worse than Crawley.

Straight choice between Bairstow and Foakes is then a very tough one - but as we said over the winter, having too many to choose from is certainly better than previous scenarios!

Just confirmed that Foakes is dropped. Many Surrey supporters going mental but, as I said back in March, I feel it's the right decision provided Bairstow is fully fit.

Crawley retained. Like almost everyone, I have doubts about that but it's a separate issue from who keeps.

Seem to be a few "reports"" about who will be picked for the Test : but having prepared a long post musing on prospects I now see it is official :

Bairstow in , Foakes out. 15 man squad including Jimmy , Potts among seven bowlers and dan Lawrence as the presumed "spare" bat.

Probable XI then : Crawley Duckett Pope Root. Brook. Stokes . Bairstow. + four bowlers from Woakes Wood Anderson Robinson Broad Leach...kind of depending on fitness , eh ?

alfie wrote:Seem to be a few "reports"" about who will be picked for the Test : but having prepared a long post musing on prospects I now see it is official :

Bairstow in , Foakes out.  15 man squad including Jimmy , Potts among seven bowlers and dan Lawrence as the presumed "spare" bat.

Probable XI then :  Crawley Duckett Pope Root. Brook. Stokes . Bairstow. + four bowlers from Woakes Wood Anderson Robinson Broad Leach...kind of depending on fitness , eh ?

Yep, and Pope officially named as vice-captain. Think I flagged that last year as a possibility and was advised not to rush him.   Whilst Stokes undoubtedly has massive stamina and determination, will he make every Test this summer? I'm not so sure and, if not, Pope's 'promotion' could turn out to be more newsworthy than it now seems.

Alfie's XI is probably what we'll end up with and the best way to go but it still looks light on bowlers to me (assuming Stokes is limited in how many overs he can send down). Especially if the Aussies - or even Stirling for Ireland if he has the opportunity - get after Leach.

guildfordbat wrote:Just confirmed that Foakes is dropped. Many Surrey supporters going mental but, as I said back in March, I feel it's the right decision provided Bairstow is fully fit.

Crawley retained. Like almost everyone, I have doubts about that but it's a separate issue from who keeps.

Ha - got there before me , guildford

Not astonished by any of that. I note Duty's fear that Crawley might make a big hundred and lock in for the summer but it may also be he fails and they reconsider his position before the Ashes , no ? Though I doubt that would change the WK choice - about which I am somewhat ambivalent to be honest. As a long time Bairstow admirer I am glad to see him back - looked fit enough in what I saw of the Yorkshire game the other day ; but I thought Foakes had both done quite well with the bat recently and offers a point of difference in batting styles that might have been useful against Australia - I had hoped there was a way to keep both players.

But I guess it was always a bit of a juggling act. And one they didn't fancy at present.

Still crossing my fingers for Stokes . Not saying no hope without him ; but I do think that unless he can play some kind of all round role in the Ashes the team balance will be practically impossible to get right and Australia would therefore be strong favourites. But that is for the future...

And in further news that will surprise no one , Archer has been officially ruled out for the entire summer due to a recurrence of his elbow injury. ECB still harboring some hopes (optimistic ?) he might make it back for the ODI WC , apparently.

Probably better to make a call now. No sense in fiddling about to try and get up for a Test against the odds... At least a proper rest might give him a chance of regaining fitness for October. The poor chap deserves some luck on the injury front !

Very tough news on Archer. I highly doubt he'll make the World Cup 15, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a retirement in the near future.

The test squad is mostly as expected, although I'm surprised to see Anderson included, but I assume it must be good news about his fitness. Very harsh on Foakes and the useless Crawley gets retained (average at opener just over 25; average last summer 23) because he can bat quickly. One of the worst openers in test history, factoring in his relative longevity, actually gets another summer. It's a disgrace.

Very good to see Woakes back. I don't feel he gets the credit he deserves, but a test bowling average of 22.63 in England tells you what you need to know. A marvellous player at home, and quite remarkable he's only played 25 tests in England.

I feel very sorry for Archer, I really do but this is exactly why the West Indies did not pursue him and let him go to England.

I simply do not understand Crawley's continued inclusion other than maybe the ECB have pumped too much coin into him and are living on hope that they will get some returns.

Many disagree with me but I would have Burns ahead of him or Hameed, even Jennings is a better option than Crawley for me.

eirebilly_01 wrote:I feel very sorry for Archer, I really do but this is exactly why the West Indies did not pursue him and let him go to England.

I simply do not understand Crawley's continued inclusion other than maybe the ECB have pumped too much coin into him and are living on hope that they will get some returns.

Many disagree with me but I would have Burns ahead of him or Hameed, even Jennings is a better option than Crawley for me.

No it isn't, he made the decision to play for England. The West Indies would have snapped him up if he showed an inclination to play for them.

Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Jof played for the Windies U19s three times not long after converting from wicket-keeping I believe. So basically got grabbed by them straight after seeing him bowl seam up. That was in 2014. In 2015 he moved to England and turned down further opportunities as he wanted to qualify on residency. Windies obviously wanted him for the senior side as well after he excelled with Sussex then exploded into franchise cricket through the BBL (when it was good as well) and the IPL.

I don't believe his injuries started until long after the Windies U19 apps.

Amusingly the ECB reduced their residency period from 7 years to be inline with the ICCs 3 years after a long while of resisting that largely to get Jof for the home CWC.

Duty281 wrote:Very tough news on Archer. I highly doubt he'll make the World Cup 15, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a retirement in the near future.

The test squad is mostly as expected, although I'm surprised to see Anderson included, but I assume it must be good news about his fitness. Very harsh on Foakes and the useless Crawley gets retained (average at opener just over 25; average last summer 23) because he can bat quickly. One of the worst openers in test history, factoring in his relative longevity, actually gets another summer. It's a disgrace.

Very good to see Woakes back. I don't feel he gets the credit he deserves, but a test bowling average of 22.63 in England tells you what you need to know. A marvellous player at home, and quite remarkable he's only played 25 tests in England.

My guess is that he may take the MI year round contract. He's an absolute superstar in T20 so worth the gamble for them getting him fit. Not that it's much of gamble in reality when Reliance Industries is India's biggest company! From there I really hope we see him for England again albeit it that would be through agreed release and who knows if the ECB will pick players in those circumstances.

Woakes is a terrific cricketer at home. I believe that his stats in England are actually slightly better than Jimmy's across the same period and quite a lot better than Broad's in that time from memory of looking that up. Albeit that would've been around 2021 so is from memory. When Woakes put that extra bit of pace on he went from good to as good as any at home. Hopefully he still has that after the injuries.

He's also vital in the ODI side. I've banged on about it a lot so folk a probably bored but he's an unsung cog there. His PP bowling was fantastic and he then offered well above average in the middle and death, whilst doing it game after game. Then his batting gives the depth that is key to giving the top order the confidence to go hard early.

On Crawley my only contention is that I don't think it's based on scoring rate as much as most say. I think it's based on him having a really high ceiling. Which I do think is the case. His stroke play can be superb. I just don't think he's spent long enough in a high quality F-C system to iron out the flaws around that natural ability. Whether how the game now works will ever enable that is questionable. Learning on the job at Test level isn't working though and I'd certainly drop him. I still feels Burns is better than most picked since or the partners that came and went whilst he was in post.

eirebilly_01 wrote:Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Any team in the world would have snapped Archer up given the chance. Yes his career has been curtailed by injuries but ultimately England don't win the world cup without him and Stokes isn't in a position to produce innings without him. Stokes rightly gets the plaudits but Archer's 8-85 across the match is just as important if not more so.

I understand Archer did have a fairly serious back injury in 2013 - not so unusual for a young fast bowler. But I suppose that may have been a hint that he was going to risk his fitness by bowling a lot at extreme pace.
Seems to have been pretty injury free after moving to England , up until he broke into the International game...and then I guess with WC , Ashes , and then the NZ tour all involving a lot of work the stress on his body became a bit too much.
Being smart too late ; possibly should have been rested for that NZ tour - or the SA one that followed , where he did actually break down. But he wouldn't be the first fast bowler to overdo things - with team management understandably keen to exploit an exciting new weapon and he obviously ready to throw himself into the action whenever asked.

Perhaps Covid has actually helped teams gain a better grip on the advisability of making sure players (pace bowlers in particular) get the odd break from the game to ensure they don't put too much repetitive strain on their system ? These days , with Tests often close together and no rest days ; a crowded three format calendar ; and the expectation that even fast bowlers fling themselves around in the field , injury risk is probably higher than ever despite all the medical support staff on hand.

None of which helps Archer right now. I do suspect his Test Match days are probably behind him ; but still hope he can , if handled carefully , get back into the white ball game for England as well as making a good living - and exciting crowds - on the franchise circuit. Will need to be a bit selective about when and where he plays though. Wishing him some overdue luck...

Soul Requiem wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Any team in the world would have snapped Archer up given the chance. Yes his career has been curtailed by injuries but ultimately England don't win the world cup without him and Stokes isn't in a position to produce innings without him. Stokes rightly gets the plaudits but Archer's 8-85 across the match is just as important if not more so.

Steady on there, i never said that Jofra wasn't good. Far from it, for me he was one of the players of CWC19 and i thought he bowled brilliantly in the Ashes series. He is an excellent bowler in all formats, a rare breed.

As I said, i thought i read somewhere that the West Indies stopped pursuing him because of injuries which is why he came to England. As it goes, KC explained the situation properly.

Has Hameed's boat sailed as an opener?

On Crawley : I think KC has it right about the reasons for his continued selection...high ceiling , I mean.  On song , he can look terrific ; and some of his innings (the 77 in Sydney ; that fast 46 in company with Lees that helped to launch the massive run chase against India at Edgbaston ; the blazing hundred at Rawalpindi - OK everyone got runs there , but he arguably led the way, along with Duckett) give an idea of why the team leaders want him to succeed. The trouble is , he just doesn't do it often enough ; and the failures in between tend to be generally "total" - hence the poor average.

I think he is very lucky to still have a spot. But it also occurs to me that England are not keen to give up on him just yet because they are still not totally sure the top order ( a problem for a long time !) is sorted yet.  Pope at three has done very well - arguably better than we had a right to expect given his past record. And indeed they've expressed more confidence in him with the vice captain call. But he now has to face an Australian attack that pretty much destroyed him not so long ago on their home grounds so he does have a challenge to face. And then we come to Duckett - who thoroughly justified his call up with fine efforts in Pakistan and a decent if less successful NZ tour. I hope he can go on from there : but we may need to watch this summer to see whether he is a true all-weather opener - or just an Asia specialist. Given the constant struggles since Strauss , Trott and Cook all gradually left the scene I can't blame them for being a bit cautious in changing things one brick at a time in case the others don't prove too stable either.

TBH , I would have preferred to see England try out someone else this time - keeping Foakes on board at the same time , by employing either Stokes , Root , or, perhaps the best option, Brook as an opener. But I can see why they felt moving the furniture around like that might prove too much of a risk. Guess we will have to wait and see how it all plays out - and what the plan B is if it doesn't

Maine man wrote:Has Hameed's boat sailed as an opener?

Not entirely, he was playing for the England Lions over the winter, so I think he's still in the thoughts of the selectors, but it will be a long road back for him as he's had two goes as a test player and getting a third chance will be tough.

I still like him as a player, and although his test average is a meagre 24.38 (marginally worse than Crawley as an opener), it must be remembered that every test he played was against either India or Australia, with 70% of his tests either taking place in India or in Australia. It couldn't have been a tougher introduction to test cricket.

Soul Requiem wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Any team in the world would have snapped Archer up given the chance. Yes his career has been curtailed by injuries but ultimately England don't win the world cup without him and Stokes isn't in a position to produce innings without him. Stokes rightly gets the plaudits but Archer's 8-85 across the match is just as important if not more so.

I hadn't really thought of that with Headingley to be honest. I think about Jof's 6-fer in my sleep and that Stokes innings is of course iconic. For whatever reason I hadn't really connected the two like that. Probably because of how remarkable the end of the Test was. In a way Jof was very much the Willis to Stokes' Botham though. A cracking point, Soul. Good to see you back on the cricket side of things here!

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Any team in the world would have snapped Archer up given the chance. Yes his career has been curtailed by injuries but ultimately England don't win the world cup without him and Stokes isn't in a position to produce innings without him. Stokes rightly gets the plaudits but Archer's 8-85 across the match is just as important if not more so.

I hadn't really thought of that with Headingley to be honest. I think about Jof's 6-fer in my sleep and that Stokes innings is of course iconic. For whatever reason I hadn't really connected the two like that. Probably because of how remarkable the end of the Test was. In a way Jof was very much the Willis to Stokes' Botham though. A cracking point, Soul. Good to see you back on the cricket side of things here!

I remember being apoplectic at the sky commentators on the first day when they kept banging on about his speeds being mid 80's and why wasn't he bending his back to hit the 90 mark; two hours later he ends with 6-45 and Mikey Holding succinctly explained how the conditions required skill and accuracy rather than blunt force speed.

alfie wrote:I understand Archer did have a fairly serious back injury in 2013 - not so unusual for a young fast bowler. But I suppose that may have been a hint that he was going to risk his fitness by bowling a lot at extreme pace.
Seems to have been pretty injury free after moving to England  , up until he broke into the International game...and then I guess with WC , Ashes , and then the NZ tour all involving a lot of work the stress on his body became a bit too much.
Being smart too late ; possibly should have been rested for that NZ tour - or the SA one that followed , where he did actually break down.  But he wouldn't be the first fast bowler to overdo things - with team management understandably keen to exploit an exciting new weapon and he obviously ready to throw himself into the action whenever asked.

Perhaps Covid has actually helped teams gain a better grip on the advisability of making sure players (pace bowlers in particular) get the odd break from the game to ensure they don't put too much repetitive strain on their system ? These days , with Tests often close together and no rest days ; a crowded three format calendar ; and the expectation that even fast bowlers fling themselves around in the field , injury risk is probably higher than ever despite all the medical support staff on hand.

None of which helps Archer right now. I do suspect his Test Match days are probably behind him ; but still hope he can , if handled carefully , get back into the white ball game for England as well as making a good living - and exciting crowds - on the franchise circuit. Will need to be a bit selective about when and where he plays though. Wishing him some overdue luck...

With the modern calendar it's so tough for a bowler of Jof's demand across the game to avoid over playing. How rounded his abilities are means that if fit he will be a top earner in any arena basically. There's just too much cricket. That's not me saying he wasn't over bowled in NZ of course. I just struggle to see how it doesn't happen for a player so in demand.

Bumrah is starting to have issues which is so sad. Two bowlers who are capable of such brilliant feats and spells. Bumrah's spell where he blew through Bairstow and Pope at the Oval was brilliant viewing even as an England fan for instance. The earning potential for those two is huge across the board though.

This is a tangent and a long one but I do feel the Jof situation with injuries, franchise vs country, potential MI contract, etc leads into the more important framing of crickets wider issues. I passionately feel way that debate is framed is terrible and only acerbating the crisis in the sport.  

For a player such as Cummins for instance I think there's an argument that his best earning opportunity is with the Australia central contract, following endorsement deals and franchise things being in the background. That's certainly true for Anderson and Broad as well for instance. The size England central contracts, only playing red ball cricket and the longevity of earning that's given has made them far more money than they could have as white ball players. Those three whilst having ability in white ball at points in their career just wouldn't command the wages Jof can in the T20 game.

It's one of my bug bears when people chastise current players for taking the best paying option when it's T20. The reality is that when Hadlee for instance played Tests and County cricket that was his best earning option. As Test and F-C cricket is often given the 'real cricket' badge we like that. Similar with Anderson and Broad when it is their best earning opportunity.

It often gets framed as good vs bad or even some sort of moral debate. Those who prioritise Tests when it's their best earner are brave gladiators holding back the invasion by protecting the purest form. Those who do the same in T20 are the barbarians. Which I find frustrating at times.

I don't just find it frustrating because it can be unfair to the players either. It also frustrates me as I think it's detrimental to helping Test cricket. It paints a picture that Tests are struggling only because T20 has eaten it, or younger players and fans no longer respect it enough. Whereas I strongly feel Tests biggest issue is actually the absence of proper governance and the big three takeover. Without that we could have the games coexist better. So many of those who love Tests and fear for it direct that concern at casting T20 as fake cricket though. Regardless of whether lovers of the longer form believe that or not that anger that comes with our fear for the game we love should be getting directed at the often non-existent, when existing inept and so often corrupt governance behind the game. As an example, if as many Test cricket connoisseurs directed that fire at the detrimental actions of N Srinivasan, Giles Clarke and Wally Edwards through the BCCI, ECB and CA as they did at the IPL I wonder if things my be different.

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Any team in the world would have snapped Archer up given the chance. Yes his career has been curtailed by injuries but ultimately England don't win the world cup without him and Stokes isn't in a position to produce innings without him. Stokes rightly gets the plaudits but Archer's 8-85 across the match is just as important if not more so.

I hadn't really thought of that with Headingley to be honest. I think about Jof's 6-fer in my sleep and that Stokes innings is of course iconic. For whatever reason I hadn't really connected the two like that. Probably because of how remarkable the end of the Test was. In a way Jof was very much the Willis to Stokes' Botham though. A cracking point, Soul. Good to see you back on the cricket side of things here!

I remember being apoplectic at the sky commentators on the first day when they kept banging on about his speeds being mid 80's and why wasn't he bending his back to hit the 90 mark; two hours later he ends with 6-45 and Mikey Holding succinctly explained how the conditions required skill and accuracy rather than blunt force speed.

Incredibly true. The too West Indian, not having the same attitude or work ethic side of that genuinely made my blood boil as well.

There was so much just plainly untrue things around previous generations said amongst it as well. Talk of how the Windies quicks always bowled quick. Which they didn't. Holding frequently bowled seam off half his runup if the conditions didn't suit. Marshall was one of the most complete swing bowlers of his time as well as being able to bowl pace. It's also worth noting that the ones who did solely try to bowl quick tended to have shorter and more limited careers too.

To me the list of pace bowlers that actually bowled express most spells and long term is Brett Lee. Akhtar wound up and down. Several keepers who played with Thommo have said he had on and off days. As said above most the Windies greats were far more nuanced than usually portrayed.

Of present day players Anrich Nortje is almost doing a Brett Lee impression at times. His top end pace and consistency of speed has been very impressive. Whether he does it long term remains to be seen though. He's a hell of a unit to keep smashing into the crease like he does!

Most of the games best ever bowlers have possessed the ability to excel below their top end pace. It's arguably a prerequisite of long term Test success yet with Jof was being painted as a weakness. Infuriating.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Any team in the world would have snapped Archer up given the chance. Yes his career has been curtailed by injuries but ultimately England don't win the world cup without him and Stokes isn't in a position to produce innings without him. Stokes rightly gets the plaudits but Archer's 8-85 across the match is just as important if not more so.

I hadn't really thought of that with Headingley to be honest. I think about Jof's 6-fer in my sleep and that Stokes innings is of course iconic. For whatever reason I hadn't really connected the two like that. Probably because of how remarkable the end of the Test was. In a way Jof was very much the Willis to Stokes' Botham though. A cracking point, Soul. Good to see you back on the cricket side of things here!

I remember being apoplectic at the sky commentators on the first day when they kept banging on about his speeds being mid 80's and why wasn't he bending his back to hit the 90 mark; two hours later he ends with 6-45 and Mikey Holding succinctly explained how the conditions required skill and accuracy rather than blunt force speed.

Incredibly true. The too West Indian, not having the same attitude or work ethic side of that genuinely made my blood boil as well.

There was so much just plainly untrue things around previous generations said amongst it as well. Talk of how the Windies quicks always bowled quick. Which they didn't. Holding frequently bowled seam off half his runup if the conditions didn't suit. Marshall was one of the most complete swing bowlers of his time as well as being able to bowl pace. It's also worth noting that the ones who did solely try to bowl quick tended to have shorter and more limited careers too.

To me the list of pace bowlers that actually bowled express most spells and long term is Brett Lee. Akhtar wound up and down. Several keepers who played with Thommo have said he had on and off days. As said above most the Windies greats were far more nuanced than usually portrayed.

Of present day players Anrich Nortje is almost doing a Brett Lee impression at times. His top end pace and consistency of speed has been very impressive. Whether he does it long term remains to be seen though. He's a hell of a unit to keep smashing into the crease like he does!

Most of the games best ever bowlers have possessed the ability to excel below their top end pace. It's arguably a prerequisite of long term Test success yet with Jof was being painted as a weakness. Infuriating.

There's a definite divide when it comes to commentators/analysts; those who found the game easy and those who found it bloody difficult. The former like a Kumar Sangakkara appreciate the talent above all else and the latter like an Atherton have a degree of jealousy in their words talking about work ethic*. Yes he appears to saunter in and everything looks far too easy but that's the exact way James Anderson has been bowling for 20 years and I don't see his work ethic questioned.

*yes we both know why Archer was subjected to this more than most

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Any team in the world would have snapped Archer up given the chance. Yes his career has been curtailed by injuries but ultimately England don't win the world cup without him and Stokes isn't in a position to produce innings without him. Stokes rightly gets the plaudits but Archer's 8-85 across the match is just as important if not more so.

I hadn't really thought of that with Headingley to be honest. I think about Jof's 6-fer in my sleep and that Stokes innings is of course iconic. For whatever reason I hadn't really connected the two like that. Probably because of how remarkable the end of the Test was. In a way Jof was very much the Willis to Stokes' Botham though. A cracking point, Soul. Good to see you back on the cricket side of things here!

I remember being apoplectic at the sky commentators on the first day when they kept banging on about his speeds being mid 80's and why wasn't he bending his back to hit the 90 mark; two hours later he ends with 6-45 and Mikey Holding succinctly explained how the conditions required skill and accuracy rather than blunt force speed.

This is part of why it's such a shame he's not been able to get fit for tests - he showed a real array of skills and understanding of red ball bowling that summer, and could bowl both express pace or move it with seam/swing too.

I am not giving up on him yet...but we're beginning to reach a point where it would be almost miraculous for him to come back. But, if I remember correctly, Cummins endured a similar long spell of injury luck in his early international career, and has subsequently got through it and been pretty reliable ever since?

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Any team in the world would have snapped Archer up given the chance. Yes his career has been curtailed by injuries but ultimately England don't win the world cup without him and Stokes isn't in a position to produce innings without him. Stokes rightly gets the plaudits but Archer's 8-85 across the match is just as important if not more so.

I hadn't really thought of that with Headingley to be honest. I think about Jof's 6-fer in my sleep and that Stokes innings is of course iconic. For whatever reason I hadn't really connected the two like that. Probably because of how remarkable the end of the Test was. In a way Jof was very much the Willis to Stokes' Botham though. A cracking point, Soul. Good to see you back on the cricket side of things here!

I remember being apoplectic at the sky commentators on the first day when they kept banging on about his speeds being mid 80's and why wasn't he bending his back to hit the 90 mark; two hours later he ends with 6-45 and Mikey Holding succinctly explained how the conditions required skill and accuracy rather than blunt force speed.

This is part of why it's such a shame he's not been able to get fit for tests - he showed a real array of skills and understanding of red ball bowling that summer, and could bowl both express pace or move it with seam/swing too.

I am not giving up on him yet...but we're beginning to reach a point where it would be almost miraculous for him to come back. But, if I remember correctly, Cummins endured a similar long spell of injury luck in his early international career, and has subsequently got through it and been pretty reliable ever since?

Agreed fully on his variety of skills.

Cummins recovered remarkably given his greatest skill, among a lot, has been his consistency. That's consistency across most factors too. Match to match, series to series, etc but also in accuracy and his pace. He bowls at a relentlessly high pace with incredible accuracy. He's one of my favourites so I whisper it quietly in an Ashes summer for fear of what might come but I do think we've finally seen a very small fall off from Cummins in the last 18 months though. I'll be intrigued to see how he goes this Ashes.

Vitally for Cummins the injuries happened earlier though giving him more time and fewer miles/overs on the clock. He was also early enough that making changes to his action was possible. He didn't fundamentally change it like say Jimmy, but from memory he altered his delivery stride by 'jumping up' less in favour of bounding forwards. This reduces stress on the back and keeps your momentum, hence pace. I also think he slightly jigged his foot spacing in delivery to reduce rotational force of his back on release. Small on appearance but significant for the bowler.

At 28-years-old Jof doesn't have the same time on his hands. I fear we may not see him again in Tests. I just hope if that's the case we at least so some more peak Jof for England in ODIs and T20is.

king_carlos wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The news that no one wants to hear...

England’s troubled Ashes preparation took another twist as a groin injury prevented James Anderson from taking the field for the second day of Lancashire’s Championship fixture against Somerset.

England’s selectors will meet in the coming days to select a squad for the first Test of the summer, against Ireland at Lord’s. The squad will be announced next week, and Anderson’s injury is the third fast-bowling blow of the week.

Details of the injury were light from England and Lancashire, who painted it as precautionary and said it was a “minor issue”. If it continues to trouble him, he will go for a scan and further assessments, and he seems unlikely to play a part in the final two days of the match.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/05/12/ashes-injury-news-james-anderson-injury-lancashire/

Hopefully it is just minor, because with Stone and Archer injured, Robinson taking injections, Stokes not bowling in the IPL, Woakes and Mahmood reportedly not yet 100%, and Wood not someone you want to rely on...England's bowling resources are getting stretched.

I have an often unused groin if Jimmy needs it. Available anytime

I could lend him a right wrist but it's considerably less skilled and might have more wear on it from my adolescence than his does after bowling 11,825 overs and 4 balls.

Yes, Tino, I actually did take the time to calculate how many overs England's most successful ever seamer has bowled in professional cricket just to make a w***ing joke.

In which case, Carlos, your eyesight might not be too clever either.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Pretty sure he played for the West Indies U19's so they did show an interest in him. I am sure I remember reading an article that the West Indies (after several injuries) stopped showing an interest in him so he decided to come to England. I could be very wrong though...

Any team in the world would have snapped Archer up given the chance. Yes his career has been curtailed by injuries but ultimately England don't win the world cup without him and Stokes isn't in a position to produce innings without him. Stokes rightly gets the plaudits but Archer's 8-85 across the match is just as important if not more so.

I hadn't really thought of that with Headingley to be honest. I think about Jof's 6-fer in my sleep and that Stokes innings is of course iconic. For whatever reason I hadn't really connected the two like that. Probably because of how remarkable the end of the Test was. In a way Jof was very much the Willis to Stokes' Botham though. A cracking point, Soul. Good to see you back on the cricket side of things here!

I remember being apoplectic at the sky commentators on the first day when they kept banging on about his speeds being mid 80's and why wasn't he bending his back to hit the 90 mark; two hours later he ends with 6-45 and Mikey Holding succinctly explained how the conditions required skill and accuracy rather than blunt force speed.

Incredibly true. The too West Indian, not having the same attitude or work ethic side of that genuinely made my blood boil as well.

There was so much just plainly untrue things around previous generations said amongst it as well. Talk of how the Windies quicks always bowled quick. Which they didn't. Holding frequently bowled seam off half his runup if the conditions didn't suit. Marshall was one of the most complete swing bowlers of his time as well as being able to bowl pace. It's also worth noting that the ones who did solely try to bowl quick tended to have shorter and more limited careers too.

To me the list of pace bowlers that actually bowled express most spells and long term is Brett Lee. Akhtar wound up and down. Several keepers who played with Thommo have said he had on and off days. As said above most the Windies greats were far more nuanced than usually portrayed.

Of present day players Anrich Nortje is almost doing a Brett Lee impression at times. His top end pace and consistency of speed has been very impressive. Whether he does it long term remains to be seen though. He's a hell of a unit to keep smashing into the crease like he does!

Most of the games best ever bowlers have possessed the ability to excel below their top end pace. It's arguably a prerequisite of long term Test success yet with Jof was being painted as a weakness. Infuriating.

Good post and points there, Carlos.

Of the bits I've highlighted, the very quickest West Indians I saw didn't last too long at Test level. in particular - Patrick Patterson, the fastest whom Graham Gooch said he ever faced but troubled by muscle damage too young; Wayne Daniel who burst onto the scene to considerable success ('76, I think) but couldn't maintain it at Test level; and Sylvester Clarke who too regularly needed to top up his excess pace with rum and ended his days and life at just 44 as a net bowler in his native Barbados. All were good enough to continue for sometime being effective - and somtimes frighteningly so - on the English County circuit but not, as I say, at the highest level for an extended period.

As regards being far more nuanced than usually portrayed, Andy Roberts is a fine example. I have read how he described plotting a batman's downfall over several overs. Almost like a hunter, luring his prey into a final fatal move. A much underrated bowler by many although, significantly, very highly viewed to this day by Michael Holding.

guildfordbat wrote:Good post and points there, Carlos.

Of the bits I've highlighted, the very quickest West Indians I saw didn't last too long at Test level. in particular - Patrick Patterson, the fastest whom Graham Gooch said he ever faced but troubled by muscle damage too young; Wayne Daniel who burst onto the scene to considerable success ('76, I think) but couldn't maintain it at Test level; and Sylvester Clarke who too regularly needed to top up his excess pace with rum and ended his days and life at just 44 as a net bowler in his native Barbados. All were good enough to continue for sometime being effective - and somtimes frighteningly so - on the English County circuit but not, as I say, at the highest level for an extended period.

As regards being far more nuanced than usually portrayed, Andy Roberts is a fine example. I have read how he described plotting a batman's downfall over several overs. Almost like a hunter, luring his prey into a final fatal move. A much underrated bowler by many although, significantly, very highly viewed to this day by Michael Holding.

Sylvester Clarke is a fascinating and ultimately tragic character and story. I believe Viv rated him the most fearsome he faced. Famously Duncan Spencer was one of the quickest Viv faced too. Another who's body couldn't handle the stress of that pace.

Roberts was an incredible bowler. Hearing Holding talk about those teammates was always a joy. I remember him once being asked to comment on an all time XI and he basically saw that Malcolm Marshall was absent, disregarded the selection and talked about Marshall for a while.   

Joel Garner is another in that Roberts bracket of being slightly overlooked at times due to teammates. Some talk of him as simply fast, tall and having a yorker. Statistically I believe he is still the best first change bowler Test cricket has seen. Change bowling is a hugely underrated skill. The most talented seamers usually open domestically so don't learn the skill, we then end up with Test attacks full of opening bowlers learning how to use the old ball on the job. Garner was a master of that craft. More recently Cummins was incredible doing so for Australia. 

I had a friend who is a journalist who was trying to track how cutters came back into the game and Clarke was a key part of it at Surrey. He realised he couldn't bowl the long spells required in CC cricket at full pace but he could bowl in fast-medium to medium-fast range and get enough revolutions on the ball to get real spin. He was unplayable doing that at times from teammates and opponents accounts.

It's so interesting that 'mixed bowlers' or 'fast spin' is coming back into the game through T20 now with Mustafizur Rahman, Benny Howell, Pat Brown, etc. I do wonder if it might get into red ball. I remember Mitchel Johnson doing similar to Clarke's tactics above early in his career. He came round the wicket and was bowling off cutters (which as a leftie went away from a right-hander of course) whilst angling it in, still at fast-medium pace. It was an unremarkable Test and passage of play, in which he was just doing that because the ball wasn't swinging anymore but I remember vividly seeing it and thinking, "that's 80+mph SLA, if someone actually masters that it's unplayable".

Mustafizur produced some legitimately unplayable balls doing this early on but the stress on his shoulder meant he had to change. Which may be the real barrier. The rotational forces needed to get those revs at that arm speed might simply to be too great. Looping back to Clarke it shows what a genetic freak he was athletically that he did so for many overs.

Might be Division Two, but has to be noted Ollie Robinson is in superb form for Sussex with 19 wickets at an average of just under 12. He picked up 4/29 today, including the wicket of Labuschagne. For the Australians, Steve Smith clicked into gear with an unbeaten 68 in the same game.

If Robinson can stay fit (both injury wise and not being out of shape) he could be incredible this Ashes. A masterful wobble ball and accuracy from the second highest release point in cricket after Jamieson. It's an extremely potent combination with the Dukes and English conditions.

Ideally I think they would want to pick two from Anderson, Broad and Robinson rather than all three though given the condensed nature of the series. Then they could look at pace from Archer and Wood or the consistency, change bowling and batting depth of Waokes as conditions suit. That seems unlikely now though with the best three that are fit seeming far more likely!

Between reading articles and listening to podcasts I've heard Sam Curran mentioned a few times by pundits who's views I rate. That might just be speculation breeding speculation but when it happens quickly from a few usually reliable sources it does make me wonder if they've heard something from the camp. I don't think it will happen if injuries relent nor early in the series. If he's bowling well and injuries keep mounting I could see it as the series goes on though. He's a Stokes and McCullum style of cricketer given he bowls such aggressive lengths. Having been out the picture for a while it's easy to forget the key wickets and innings early on in Tests. When on song he can make the Dukes sing.

Think you are right there , KC , about the ideal arrangement of two at a time from Anderson Broad and Robinson... though I guess conditions for particular games would always have a say. No Archer and Stone unlikely so just Wood for extreme pace and again I'd suggest they choose his (three ?) appearances carefully.
Woakes - and Curran - both options , especially if Stokes really is so limited in bowling that they need to look at a five bowler set-up at some point.

Which leaves Potts and Mahmood as the two spares to make up Stokes' desired group of eight pace bowlers...

...and yes , Robinson's early season form is very encouraging. Just hope he doesn't overdo it and break anything ! He really could be a matchwinner - and will probably enjoy bowling against an Australian side heavy with left handed bats. Although the two Big Guns are right handed of course ; and how he bowls to them might be rather important. He got Smith cheaply a couple of times in Australia ; and has just struck an early blow in the lead-ups against Marnus with his quick dismissal yesterday

My preferred bowling attack would be Anderson, Woakes and Robinson, backed up with Leach and maybe the occasional dose of Stokes. Curran is good back-up for Woakes, and obviously Potts and Broad will be required to step in at points because Anderson and Robinson won't be able to play all five tests.

I'm really not sure about Mark Wood, however. He hasn't played a home test since 2021, and it must be remembered that his record in England is poor - he averages just over 40 and his strike-rate is just above 70. Wood isn't quite to England what Woakes is to overseas, but it's pretty close. Of course, if we see flat pitches as expected then England will want a 90mph bowler for at least a couple of tests, and Wood's pretty much the only one left.

Fair point about Wood's lack of success at home , Duty. Only I do feel he has improved generally over the last couple of years and just might be ready to produce a far better display...obviously we can't be sure he will ! But as you say he is the only express option around and is surely going to be required for at least some games.

Anderson Woakes Robinson ticks a lot of boxes - and I won't be at all surprised if it is the chosen group for the first Test. Going to depend a lot on prior judgement of the pitches (as well as the weather) so I hope they judge the home pitches better than they did those on that last tour of Australia

Robinson not seen on the field since lunch for Sussex against Glamorgan

I hope this isn't Really Bad News ...

Does seem to be an injury, although it might be cramp again. That wouldn't be surprising as it wouldn't be the first time that Robinson has broken down with cramp this season, although cramp does indicate a general lack of fitness, but he did come into this county year after a few injections so it could be an altogether more serious injury.

It's really not looking good for England's bowling stable. Only Broad and Potts, it seems, are 100%, and Broad hasn't been in stellar form for Notts this season so far.

Oh dear, just seen that Robinson has an injury to his left ankle and he'll be going for a scan on Monday. Not sure if he's suffered injury to that area before (I think he had an ankle complaint during the NZ tour but he played through it), or if this is an entirely new concern.

Might be a line-up of Potts, Broad and Fisher at this rate, with C Overton and Sam Cook in reserve.