England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

If Pope can't play I'd probably prefer Foakes coming in, taking the gloves, myself. Maybe:

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Brook 4.Root 5.Bairstow 6.Stokes (c) 7.Foakes (wk)

It means a rejigging of the order but gets better players in the XI than Lawrence at 3 IMO. Particularly when I'm not that convinced by Lawrence against higher pace. Given the 15 man squad that isn't on the cards though.

If Wood is genuinely fit I'd like his pace in the attack but would probably ere towards the seam heavy attack again if the 4  below are good to go:

8.Woakes 9.Broad 10.Wood 11.Tongue

If Wood isn't fit then:

8.Moeen 9.Woakes 10.Broad 11.Tongue

Which does have a lot of batting depth on the upside.

Thanks KC . If that is true I am led to wonder if Wood willever be fit to play another Test ! He has been resting and rehabbing for about two months , no ?

So Murphy in for Lyon for the rest of the series for Australia. The lad did seem confident in his own abilities, and had decent numbers in India. But not really sure he's in Lyon's league, and is the ready successor to the senior man... Will have to see how he goes on tracks without much life for the spinner.
As for England, think Anderson's in need of a rest at the very least. He hasn't done much damage even in the first innings across the last 2 tests, 2nd innings has been a bit of a struggle for him for some time now. If anything, he did bowl better at the HQ in the 2nd innings.
Robinson hasn't been backing all the big talk with substantive performance, and more often than not, been a military medium bowler as the test match would progress. On a ground where overhead conditions can be at their trickiest, he might still be a handful, but he should be able to sustain himself better...
What is the deal with Sam Curran? Has he dropped completely out of test considerations? He's not the questest, but can be a hand ful in swinging conditions, and his test batting can change games... Not in the squad and so not playing, but could have been an interesting option to have.
As for Moeen, they should see how his finger is going.
Woakes and Moeen for Anderson and Robinson, if Stokes can bowl at least 10 overs on a day. Else, perhaps retain Robinson ahead of Moeen, particularly if Dan Lawrence is coming in for Pope.

alfie wrote:Thanks KC . If that is true I am led to wonder if Wood willever be fit to play another Test ! He has been resting and rehabbing for about two months , no ?

Dobell very specifically saying he's not sure Wood will be fit for Headingley does suggest to me he is close at least. It's a fair question with Wood though. I doubt we'll see him much more in Tests, sadly. That ankle is just too buggered.

msp83 wrote: What is the deal with Sam Curran? Has he dropped completely out of test considerations? He's not the questest, but can be a hand ful in swinging conditions, and his test batting can change games... Not in the squad and so not playing, but could have been an interesting option to have

Surran had that stress fracture that ruled him out for a while so he's only just getting back to red ball cricket. With England's seamers doing well for the start of McCullum's reign (20 wickets in 13 consecutive Tests) it wasn't necessary to rush him back.

With Stokes struggling so much to bowl I said before the series that I wouldn't be surprised to see Curran in this Ashes. His issue is fitting into a 3 man seam attack, which really he doesn't as he's so conditions reliant. He's such a useful bowler with the left-arm angle and his swing but when that stops he can look even more pedestrian than other England medium-fast seamers whilst leaking more runs.

I always thought Stokes and Curran dovetailed so well when Stokes was fit. If it was swinging you could use Curran. If not you could use Stokes in the middle overs with his extra pace. Between them they could complete a 4 man seam attack very well. With Stokes unable to bowl much over 80mph it's a different story now. Fitting Curran into a 3 man attack doesn't really work so you're looking at 4 seamers, no spinner.

Before the series I said I wouldn't be surprised to see England try that 4 man seam attack with Surran and Woakes strengthening the batting. I still think it's a possibility depending on how the seamers keep pulling up after back to back Tests.

Woakes need to be at 8 for the rest of the series; Broad was useful yesterday but 8 is just too high for him to be batting now. At no point yesterday did the chase ever feel likely because of that, Woakes might have been out for 4 for instance but his ceiling as he showed against Pakistan in 2020 is much higher. There's a good reason why one of them averages 28 and the other 18. That bit of extra pace has been missing too which is why I wouldn't bother looking at Curran on these pitches.

I would expect Woakes to be in the side for Headingley - as KC noted, he's been injured for the majority of this regime's reign so far, I don't think it's some sort of grand conspiracy or hatred towards him.

I think I see Curran more for the post-Stokes world...and as others have said, only recently returning from injury himself.

Anyone else concerned we might be seeing the final few test matches of Stokes career here btw? Bloke is struggling to walk half the time with his knee. Know he's built completely differently mentally to most mere mortals, and can clearly battle through the pain to play at a good level still...just nagging in the back of the mind that surely even he can't go on like this for too long

Duty281 wrote:
...

Moeen will regain his place. I note his bizarre hold extends to the commentators. Taylor, on commentary, banging on about how Moeen will add extra depth to England's batting. Um, Taylor, in Moeen's last 17 tests he averages 16 with the bat. Not to mention his woeful bowling. It's rather miserable. England could be looking to the future and playing the exciting Rehan Ahmed, but no. Or they could be playing Liam Dawson, who took ten wickets and scored a ton in his most recent county game, but no. Moeen it is. Moeen's selection arguably cost England the first test. A better return than 3/204 from the main spinner may have turned a two wicket defeat into a 30-run win, but of course that wasn't the only error or selection issue made. After all, Crawley's retaining his place for no reason and Foakes is still nowhere to be seen.

...

Hi Duty - I meant to mention this to you the other day - just a small correction which I'm sure you'll actually like. As well as his ton against Middlesex in his last Championship match, Dawson actually took twelve wickets (6/40 and 6/90).

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I would expect Woakes to be in the side for Headingley - as KC noted, he's been injured for the majority of this regime's reign so far, I don't think it's some sort of grand conspiracy or hatred towards him.

I think I see Curran more for the post-Stokes world...and as others have said, only recently returning from injury himself.

Anyone else concerned we might be seeing the final few test matches of Stokes career here btw? Bloke is struggling to walk half the time with his knee. Know he's built completely differently mentally to most mere mortals, and can clearly battle through the pain to play at a good level still...just nagging in the back of the mind that surely even he can't go on like this for too long

Yes, I voiced that nearer to the start of the series, I think this could be Stokes' last test series. I can't see him getting up for the tour to India, and also not the ODI World Cup as many of us hoped. Would be a shame to end this way with what looks like a decisive defeat to Australia.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Anyone else concerned we might be seeing the final few test matches of Stokes career here btw? Bloke is struggling to walk half the time with his knee. Know he's built completely differently mentally to most mere mortals, and can clearly battle through the pain to play at a good level still...just nagging in the back of the mind that surely even he can't go on like this for too long

As I said before, the Pope as VC announcement seemed significant to me. Stokes is essentially doing one spell a day with the ball now, and while he's still able to grit his teeth and squeeze out a decent number of overs, his bowling is clearly only going one way. He's got value as a leader, and can do special things like yesterday, but does he offer enough consistently with the bat to be selected in the long term just for that?
The Morgan comparisons are just too fresh and obvious, and you have to wonder if we're going to look back and think what might have been if Stokes had been made captain earlier.

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:
...

Moeen will regain his place. I note his bizarre hold extends to the commentators. Taylor, on commentary, banging on about how Moeen will add extra depth to England's batting. Um, Taylor, in Moeen's last 17 tests he averages 16 with the bat. Not to mention his woeful bowling. It's rather miserable. England could be looking to the future and playing the exciting Rehan Ahmed, but no. Or they could be playing Liam Dawson, who took ten wickets and scored a ton in his most recent county game, but no. Moeen it is. Moeen's selection arguably cost England the first test. A better return than 3/204 from the main spinner may have turned a two wicket defeat into a 30-run win, but of course that wasn't the only error or selection issue made. After all, Crawley's retaining his place for no reason and Foakes is still nowhere to be seen.

...

Hi Duty - I meant to mention this to you the other day - just a small correction which I'm sure you'll actually like. As well as his ton against Middlesex in his last Championship match, Dawson actually took twelve wickets (6/40 and 6/90).

Ah, thank you, I wasn't aware. Even better for Dawson's case!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-12255745/ECB-push-ensure-Tawanda-Muyeye-England-eligibility.html

I didn't realise this player could be eligible, but apparently the ECB want to speed up Muyeye's potential eligibility for England, which is currently not until 2027. Have seen him play a couple of innings. He's raw but very talented, good range of shots and a pleasing strike-rate.

king_carlos wrote:
...
I think Olly (I believe it was Olly who said this earlier in the thread!) might be right that even if Wood isn't fit they may look at:

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

Presumably, on the basis that they feel Robinson is a better bowler than Potts even slightly down on pace. Robinson has frustrated me perhaps more than most but his odd ability to still end up with decent figures even below his best perhaps shouldn't be overlooked. He's got 10 wickets at 24.6 which is actually a better average than Broad's 11 wickets at 26.9 to be fair.

All wickets are useful and particularly so for PJ's comp where Robinson is a handy card to hold but for winning this Ashes series he really needs to get more early ones to put Australia in trouble from around the off. Even though the horse hasn't completely bolted when he gets in the end column, it's generally cantered some distance.

Lyons (and to a lesser extent Pope) does beg the question if it's time for general injury subs in test cricket beyond COVID/concussion

GSC wrote:Lyons (and to a lesser extent Pope) does beg the question if it's time for general injury subs in test cricket beyond COVID/concussion

I wouldn't be advocating it myself, would be too open for abuse. Concussion subs are a necessity but beyond that it's part of the game.

GSC wrote:Lyons (and to a lesser extent Pope) does beg the question if it's time for general injury subs in test cricket beyond COVID/concussion

I'm not in favour of any substitutions in test cricket. Do think it's weird that concussion is given elevated status in terms of injury. Concussed? Yeah, you can have a sub. Ruined your calf? No chance. Logically, if concussion subs are allowed then a sub for any form of injury should be permitted. But that would be open to abuse.

Would imagine with the way that cricket is going that within ten years we'll see tactical substitutions allowed in test cricket.

guildfordbat wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
...
I think Olly (I believe it was Olly who said this earlier in the thread!) might be right that even if Wood isn't fit they may look at:

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

Presumably, on the basis that they feel Robinson is a better bowler than Potts even slightly down on pace. Robinson has frustrated me perhaps more than most but his odd ability to still end up with decent figures even below his best perhaps shouldn't be overlooked. He's got 10 wickets at 24.6 which is actually a better average than Broad's 11 wickets at 26.9 to be fair.

All wickets are useful and particularly so for PJ's comp where Robinson is a handy card to hold but for winning this Ashes series he really needs to get more early ones to put Australia in trouble from around the off. Even though the horse hasn't completely bolted when he gets in the end column, it's generally cantered some distance.

Agreed. Though in fairness he hasn't had an issue getting good batters out before. His record overall remain very impressive indeed. He's still averaging under 20 in England!

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Lyons (and to a lesser extent Pope) does beg the question if it's time for general injury subs in test cricket beyond COVID/concussion

I'm not in favour of any substitutions in test cricket. Do think it's weird that concussion is given elevated status in terms of injury. Concussed? Yeah, you can have a sub. Ruined your calf? No chance. Logically, if concussion subs are allowed then a sub for any form of injury should be permitted. But that would be open to abuse.

Would imagine with the way that cricket is going that within ten years we'll see tactical substitutions allowed in test cricket.

Given fast bowlers basically never play at 100% it would be too subjective as to what rules a bowler out. From the 05 Ashes alone Flintoff and Jones have both spoken about bowling on so many painkillers that they can't feel where their foot's landing for instance.

I think some T20 franchises may go down that route of having a matchday squad of say 15 players that you then pick 11 batters and 11 fielding players from. The idea being you can then have the best bowlers go up against the best batters for more of the match. No middle overs where a part time offie is bowling darts to a promoted pinch hitter that was sent in to whack a few of seamer but can't line up spin. Bowling attacks could have 5 legitimate seamers (including a quick and a leftie) and 2 proper spinners (i.e. one that spins it either away from a right-hander, one that spins in into at a minimum). Batting could run much deeper to counter it.

I don't think it will get there in Tests. I bang on about it but my biggest worry in Tests isn't subs, umpiring, pitch doctoring, odd stumpings, etc or even franchise T20. It's the lack of proper governance, the big three carve up and their subsequent ineptitude and greed. Without that changing the potential of subs is the least of the Test games concerns.

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I would expect Woakes to be in the side for Headingley - as KC noted, he's been injured for the majority of this regime's reign so far, I don't think it's some sort of grand conspiracy or hatred towards him.

I think I see Curran more for the post-Stokes world...and as others have said, only recently returning from injury himself.

Anyone else concerned we might be seeing the final few test matches of Stokes career here btw? Bloke is struggling to walk half the time with his knee. Know he's built completely differently mentally to most mere mortals, and can clearly battle through the pain to play at a good level still...just nagging in the back of the mind that surely even he can't go on like this for too long

Yes, I voiced that nearer to the start of the series, I think this could be Stokes' last test series. I can't see him getting up for the tour to India, and also not the ODI World Cup as many of us hoped. Would be a shame to end this way with what looks like a decisive defeat to Australia.

Yes, Stokes is struggling with fitness issues. But I'll be surprised if he's done after this series. He might turn into a batter who might bowl a few overs here and there, and prolong his career by a year at least. He has that passion for test cricket. Has already given up on ODI cricket as such. I am sure he'll do everything possible to try and last a bit more.

msp83 wrote:  
Yes, Stokes is struggling with fitness issues. But I'll be surprised if he's done after this series. He might turn into a batter who might bowl a few overs here and there, and prolong his career by a year at least. He has that passion for test cricket. Has already given up on ODI cricket as such. I am sure he'll do everything possible to try and last a bit more.

That's correct aged 32 he has atleast 4 years as a pure batsman.
His average of 36 belies his batting skills....and perhaps a reflection that he did not apply himself as a pure batsman would.

If he declares tomorrow...I will not bowl......he can still walk  into Eng 11 and will easily be their no.2 best batsman and would average 42-45ish in my view.
He should actually do that & they should look at playing Sam Curran & Ali as bowling and batting allrounders respectively for balance.

If I was the Establishment...I would have a chat with him and assure him........focus on your batting and captaincy for next 4 years

GSC wrote:Lyons (and to a lesser extent Pope) does beg the question if it's time for general injury subs in test cricket beyond COVID/concussion

It would get Wood a lot more starts.

king_carlos wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
...
I think Olly (I believe it was Olly who said this earlier in the thread!) might be right that even if Wood isn't fit they may look at:

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

Presumably, on the basis that they feel Robinson is a better bowler than Potts even slightly down on pace. Robinson has frustrated me perhaps more than most but his odd ability to still end up with decent figures even below his best perhaps shouldn't be overlooked. He's got 10 wickets at 24.6 which is actually a better average than Broad's 11 wickets at 26.9 to be fair.

All wickets are useful and particularly so for PJ's comp where Robinson is a handy card to hold but for winning this Ashes series he really needs to get more early ones to put Australia in trouble from around the off. Even though the horse hasn't completely bolted when he gets in the end column, it's generally cantered some distance.

Agreed. Though in fairness he hasn't had an issue getting good batters out before. His record overall remain very impressive indeed. He's still averaging under 20 in England!

Yeah, certainly impressive although, as you originally said, currently frustrating.

Some people have the notion that cricket is a gentle sport that is not too hard on the body, but clearly it cannot be given all the injuries. Of course when the West Indies were on the top of their game they sometimes turned cricket into a blood bath - but I am not referring to being hit with the cricket ball. Bowling and batting seems to create stresses within the body that results in many injuries. On top of that their is a mental stress as well that sometimes see some very good players / promising players just succumb to it.

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Lyons (and to a lesser extent Pope) does beg the question if it's time for general injury subs in test cricket beyond COVID/concussion

I'm not in favour of any substitutions in test cricket. Do think it's weird that concussion is given elevated status in terms of injury. Concussed? Yeah, you can have a sub. Ruined your calf? No chance. Logically, if concussion subs are allowed then a sub for any form of injury should be permitted. But that would be open to abuse.

Would imagine with the way that cricket is going that within ten years we'll see tactical substitutions allowed in test cricket.

I'm all over the shop on this.

Instinctively I'm with Duty, not wanting subs in Test cricket and feeling there are far too many nowadays in other team sports such as football and rugger.

Amongst other aspects, a Test match should be a challenge of the physical and mental strength of the 22 players involved from start to finish. Hence, my reluctance for any subs.

However, I understand the concerns that playing on with concussion could lead to serious brain injury in later years. Therefore, subs are probably necessary and acceptable for concussion.

This though leads to this possible messy scenario (and, I'm sure, several others) as we have the situation today. Batsman nudges ball forward, attempts a quick single and collides with bowler attempting to get the ball. Batsman is knocked out whilst bowler breaks his leg. Replacement batsman then comes into the game whilst the opponents are left a man down. Messy, as I say, and hardly fair.

All in all, I wouldn't permit subs for tactical resons but would when warranted by strict medical criteria. I fully concede - in line with Carlos' post - that that last bit is much easier to say than to meaningfully implement.

The Mail speculating that England's team will have three changes for Thursday. They're saying Lawrence in for Pope, with Wood and Moeen returning. Anderson will be rested and the other absentee is likely to be either Tongue or Robinson.

Would be Lawrence's first test in over a year. He's averaging 45 this season at Essex, with two tons, including a 152 in his most recent four-day game. I really hope Tongue doesn't miss out, the best bowler England had at Lord's.

The team will probably be named today (Tuesday), as is England's usual policy, although they delayed it for Lord's while waiting over Moeen's finger. Another flat pitch is expected.

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Lyons (and to a lesser extent Pope) does beg the question if it's time for general injury subs in test cricket beyond COVID/concussion

I'm not in favour of any substitutions in test cricket. Do think it's weird that concussion is given elevated status in terms of injury. Concussed? Yeah, you can have a sub. Ruined your calf? No chance. Logically, if concussion subs are allowed then a sub for any form of injury should be permitted. But that would be open to abuse.

Would imagine with the way that cricket is going that within ten years we'll see tactical substitutions allowed in test cricket.

Oh please no !

Not saying you're wrong , by the way. Sure a lot of broadcasters would love it for one thing. But just hope if we do have to go that way : please hold off a few more than ten years to make sure I'm dead

As to the other questions re subs :

Agree it seems a bit unfair that the concussed player gets replaced while the broken leg one doesn't. If one could design a "perfect system" for fair injury replacements I'd be all for it. Just have trouble seeing how one could be produced. Someone would always try to cheat push the boundaries...

What they do in the white ball crazy stuff I couldn't care less! But seriously I agree having a fifteen man outfit in things like IPL or the 100 would probably be a good idea: more excitement , more chat from the commentators - and more time for advertising breaks

Just leave the Tests alone , OK ?

Concussion injuries and subs are a different beast to other injuries.

Players have died after being hit on the head. I'm pretty confident noone has died from a calf muscle injury or dislocating their shoulder. Extra care needs to be taken with head injuries.



Edit: No idea what I typed instead of shoulder, for it to autocorrect to soldier!!

With concussion it is the medical officer in charge of the game that determines whether concussion has occurred and if it has the player MUST be removed from the match.  With any other injury the player can continue on as we saw with Lyon in the second test.

Afro wrote:Concussion injuries and subs are a different beast to other injuries.

Players have died after being hit on the head. I'm pretty confident noone has died from a calf muscle injury or dislocating their shoulder. Extra care needs to be taken with head injuries.



Edit: No idea what I typed instead of shoulder, for it to autocorrect to soldier!!

Not denying that someone who has been concussed needs to be removed from play for the remainder of the game; just that I don't think a substitution should be allowed (except for fielding).

England's fixtures for the 2024 summer have been released:

22-30 May: Four T20s v Pakistan
June: T20 World Cup in USA and the West Indies
10-30 July: Three tests v the West Indies
21 August-10 September: Three tests v Sri Lanka
11 September-29 September: Three T20s and Five ODIs v Australia

Not the most exciting summer. More cricket shoved into September because of the Hundred nonsense. Pointless games against Australia scheduled for the cash registers.

Agreed not that exciting, but I will caveat that we should be playing Windies and Sri Lanka regularly in Tests. We seem to have played India, Australia and New Zealand almost endlessly in the last 3 years!

Duty281 wrote:England's fixtures for the 2024 summer have been released:

22-30 May: Four T20s v Pakistan
June: T20 World Cup in USA and the West Indies
10-30 July: Three tests v the West Indies
21 August-10 September: Three tests v Sri Lanka
11 September-29 September: Three T20s and Five ODIs v Australia

Not the most exciting summer. More cricket shoved into September because of the Hundred nonsense. Pointless games against Australia scheduled for the cash registers.

Have they said where the home matches are being played yet? Wanting to take my lad to an international as he is getting in to it now. But so far he has only been able to experience Somerset v whoever they are playing

Afro wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England's fixtures for the 2024 summer have been released:

22-30 May: Four T20s v Pakistan
June: T20 World Cup in USA and the West Indies
10-30 July: Three tests v the West Indies
21 August-10 September: Three tests v Sri Lanka
11 September-29 September: Three T20s and Five ODIs v Australia

Not the most exciting summer. More cricket shoved into September because of the Hundred nonsense. Pointless games against Australia scheduled for the cash registers.

Have they said where the home matches are being played yet? Wanting to take my lad to an international as he is getting in to it now. But so far he has only been able to experience Somerset v whoever they are playing

Yes, list of venues is at the bottom of the page.

https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/3565336/2024-england-women-and-england-men-home-international-fixtures-released

Afro wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England's fixtures for the 2024 summer have been released:

22-30 May: Four T20s v Pakistan
June: T20 World Cup in USA and the West Indies
10-30 July: Three tests v the West Indies
21 August-10 September: Three tests v Sri Lanka
11 September-29 September: Three T20s and Five ODIs v Australia

Not the most exciting summer. More cricket shoved into September because of the Hundred nonsense. Pointless games against Australia scheduled for the cash registers.

Have they said where the home matches are being played yet? Wanting to take my lad to an international as he is getting in to it now. But so far he has only been able to experience Somerset v whoever they are playing

No worries, just found them. Got my eye on a T20 v Pakistan in Cardiff and the WI Egbaston test

I'm already looking forward to seeing which Windies batsmen will be gifted an anomalous century

John Campbell said to be in tears because his four-year doping ban means he'll miss that series and his first test century.

Pope's out for the series so Foakes or a specialist bat?

Think they have to stick with Bairstow as WK now after backing him following the first test.

he was much better in the second

I reckon they'll go with Lawrence, but they should pick Foakes as WK and put either Stokes or Brook or Bairstow up to 3. BBC speculating a left-field option where Moeen could bat at 7 and Woakes at 8, with everyone bumped up a place (Root to 3). Imagine putting Moeen, averaging under 20 in his last 18 or so tests, at 7.

Pope's had a tough series, hopefully he'll be back for India, but these persistent shoulder injuries (both shoulders?) are a concern.

Jesus, the BBC are now asking if Moeen can bat at three?! Has the world gone completely mad? He averages 16.46 in his last 18 tests.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:So who does play the next Test ?

For Australia , I guess Murphy is like for like for Lyon ; maybe Boland back for Hazlewood , with three Tests to go ?

More tricky for England : Wood , surely , plays ; Woakes ?  Moeen if they want a spinner - , but quite seriously , if Lawrence were to replace Pope they might feel he and Root have the spin requirements covered.

Batting hasn't been awful - just some silly patches which have proved costly. And if Pope were to be out with injury not sure it would be a big loss . True he has copped a couple of terrific balls ! But still : he does get bowled a heck of a lot ; and he is averaging 16 against Australia. Making him VC seems a bit premature...

Anderson and Robinson probably both need a rest. But honestly I have no idea what England will come up with. Just hope they take the main messages from these two games :

A/  Australia are good - but not fantastic. They get rattled when pressed.

B/ When you get into a good position - don't throw it away !

The batting faults are probably sliding under the radar a little, but Pope hasn't had a good series. Four innings, 90 runs, high score of 42, and he's played on some pristine batting surfaces; albeit he has been victim to two delightful deliveries. Crawley/Bairstow/Brook, all with one half-century, but not much else. Brook's been getting plenty of starts but no big returns. All under the microscope as England's batting has been falling short.

Dryly amusing that in a series of attacking batting the one who sits top of the run pile is Khawaja, with 300 runs at a Boycott strike-rate of 38.7, the lowest strike-rate of anyone in the series.

As Alfie says, the batting hasn't been awful although, in line with Duty's post, the failings have probably gone too much under the radar.

Four of our top 7 (Pope, Crawley, Bairstow and Brook) are averaging between 22 and 33 from their 4 innings in this series. Not awful but not exactly too impressive either.

In the first dig of the last Test, all England's top 8 reached double figures. So far, so good. However, half of those 8 then failed to reach 20 and only one player went beyond 50. In the second dig, Stokes' superb efforts rightly took our attention but it's surely concerning that behind his 155 and Duckett's 80 odd, our third highest scorer was Tongue with 19.

I fully accept that not everyone will be able to make a meaningful score against high quality Test bowlers but more players should be going on and making their innings count than are currently, especially given the batting conditions at Lord's and Lyon missing most of the time there.

Absolutely , guildford ! Which is why I highlighted the "silly patches". Most of the bats got a decent start (in the first innings) ; few went on , because they got sucked into loose shots ; which was , in my opinion , the main reason they lost the game. To be fair , Stokes got a very good ball ; but most of the others were culpable.

Second innings was a bit different. The Australian bowling to get the first four cheaply was outstanding. Always uphill from there , even without "controversial" dismissals

They really need to make the good starts count. Less 20-40 stuff. Someone is always going to get out for 0 , 5 or 15...so once you're "in" you have to make it count. Elementary .

Of course one might reasonably make the same criticism of the Australian bats in the second innings !
But they had enough of a cushion that it ultimately didn't matter.

Really bad luck for Pope getting injured again. Though given his fortunes so far against Australia he may be better out of it for now ! Lawrence is in form it seems so you'd think he's a chance to do as well or better : don't think they will try and pull any alternative rabbit out of the hat.

Hopefully we will see one or two more put in a proper shift with the bat this time around...

alfie wrote:
...

Of course one might reasonably make the same criticism of the Australian bats in the second innings !
But they had enough of a cushion that it ultimately didn't matter.

...

Yep. I almost said that about Australia but decided to just give my instructions to McCullum.

Will Macpherson of the Telegraph has posted what he thinks the England team will be for Headingley. He's usually correct, and has been correct this series, so I trust his judgement/sources. Here it is. Brace yourself...

Crawley, Duckett, Brook, Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen, Woakes, Wood, Broad, Robinson.

So, Lawrence not coming back. Brook at 3 - not sure he's ever played there before for his county, certainly never at test level. But they did gamble on Pope at 3, with some success. Brook hasn't had the best series, however, and I'm not sure him coming in at 3 is wise. Moeen at 7. Oh dear. England's batting being made weaker even though it's an area England have struggled with through the series.

Pleased to see Woakes and Wood in, but Tongue getting rested after Lord's, and not Robinson? Robinson looked cooked from the first over at Lord's. Surely Tongue doesn't need to recuperate?

But, overall, I'm concerned about the balance of that XI. If England want to keep four seamers, fine, but they should trust Root to deliver the spin and not need to weaken the batting through picking Moeen. The batting already has enough problems without removing a specialist batsman. Five down and Moeen comes to the crease...it's like those South African teams that have Mulder or Jansen at 7.

I saw some whispers of that yesterday but decided not to post it for the sake of duty's blood pressure.

I'm not a fan of it myself. Unless they're expecting a road to rival Edgbaston which I'd be even less in favour of!

Re the batting struggling. As Zaltzman's fun article on the Beeb points out England have actually marginally outscored Australia with runs off the bat for the same number of wickets lost. Whereas they have conceded 60 more extras in 2 games. They have also missed 14 chances to Australia's 7.

Individuals have been struggling though. I don't think going in with a long tail is the right way to go. Particularly when we are definitely going to see players further targeted with the short ball ploy.

Re Brook at 3. He opened very unsuccessfully early on for Yorkshire. Then went away and completely altered his game, came back batting in the middle order and rapidly got elevated to England. So he hasn't batted successfully in the top order but had he remained at Yorkshire scoring that weight of runs in the middle it's very likely he would have naturally slid up the order. The majority of batters move around the order a lot when young.

More often than not players scoring big in domestic F-C cricket at 5/6 practically beg to go up higher to prove themselves for higher honours. The statistics around how much easier it is to score runs at 5/6 compared to the top 4 in domestic cricket are really interesting. Of course due to most sides having a big fall off to their change bowlers. Test selectors around the world have looked at that for a while now. There are fun stories about Maxwell and Wade practically fighting each other over who got to bat up the order for Victoria when they were young players trying to prove themselves.

Hmm. Not sure they really need seven bowlers...

For all the complaints re the attack , they have managed to bowl Australia out (except for two vital tail end wickets at Edgbaston) each time. Despite missing a lot of chances. The problem has more been that they aren't taking wickets early to put the Australian "engine room" under pressure. Need to get Warner and/or Khawaja out withy the new ball ... not sure having Moeen there to share spin duties with Root will help much in that.

With Woakes and Moeen they would actually shorten the tail - even if Duty would probably have the latter batting after Broad  But I agree with feeling a bit uneasy about Brook at three after seeing him against Starc and Cummins in this latest match.

Ironically I quite fancied trying Brook as opener (with Foakes keeping) at the start of the series. Less keen on moving Brook up now : think I'd lean to Stokes batting higher ; especially if he isn't going to bowl much. But honestly I'd have thought they'd be better off with the seven bats + , say , Woakes Wood Broad and someone - and keep Moeen's return for Old Trafford.

By the way I don't really share the gloomy predictions of Stokes' imminent retirement. He is presumably going to bowl less - as he's done here except for that very solid spell late Saturday. But I think we saw the other day that his batting hasn't lost much : he just needs an occasion to really turn it on. Reckon he will take the team to India and hopefully
beyond . He had better ; because for all Pope's recent improvement at number three I don't think he is anywhere near ready to take on any extra responsibility just yet.

PS : Just read this back and see I am more or less agreeing with Duty about the team makeup... that's a worry

It would really shock me if Moeen is selected. He was out bowled by Root and does not look like a threat at all. Just hoping that one of the Aussies miss-time a tonk and he gets a wicket? That is not really a front line spin bowling threat to me.
As for his batting... I have no words to describe just how poor he is in that department.

Simply do not understand his selection and I am a huge fan.

The problem with Moeen's batting now is that the plan to bowl to him is as obvious as it is for Broad. Just bowl short and more often than not he will be out for a score less than 20

Unfortunately it seems both sides have embraced the idea of bowling persistently short with lots of catchers out to everyone !

Don't mind it at times ; but a non-stop diet of it might almost have me switching off...

Duty281 wrote:Will Macpherson of the Telegraph has posted what he thinks the England team will be for Headingley. He's usually correct, and has been correct this series, so I trust his judgement/sources. Here it is. Brace yourself...

Crawley, Duckett, Brook, Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen, Woakes, Wood, Broad, Robinson.

So, Lawrence not coming back. Brook at 3 - not sure he's ever played there before for his county, certainly never at test level. But they did gamble on Pope at 3, with some success. Brook hasn't had the best series, however, and I'm not sure him coming in at 3 is wise. Moeen at 7. Oh dear. England's batting being made weaker even though it's an area England have struggled with through the series.

Pleased to see Woakes and Wood in, but Tongue getting rested after Lord's, and not Robinson? Robinson looked cooked from the first over at Lord's. Surely Tongue doesn't need to recuperate?

But, overall, I'm concerned about the balance of that XI. If England want to keep four seamers, fine, but they should trust Root to deliver the spin and not need to weaken the batting through picking Moeen. The batting already has enough problems without removing a specialist batsman. Five down and Moeen comes to the crease...it's like those South African teams that have Mulder or Jansen at 7.

Got to agree. Not happy with the balance of that side. I would have brought Foakes in, but if sticking with YJB as keeper, then I'd have brought in Lawrence at 3 and not brought back Moeen.

I also would keep Tongue instead of Robinson

alfie wrote:With Woakes and Moeen they would actually shorten the tail - even if Duty would probably have the latter batting after Broad

I'd probably have Moeen at 10 in that bottom five. Woakes at 7, Robinson at 8, Wood at 9, Moeen at 10, Broad at 11.

Moeen's batting average since the start of 2018 is virtually identical to Wood's career test batting average but, strangely, you don't hear people bang on about how Wood will improve the batting when he comes in, like we hear with Moeen.