England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

Wood's pace was not quite up there in that first over though he still was quick. The lengths weren't great. Fine half-century from Khawaja who is closing in on regaining the top-scorer position from Crawley for the series.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

king_carlos wrote:That India tour is so hard (impossible...?) to predict though. We don't know who might be injured from the CWC. We've no idea if Stokes' operation is going to allow him to bowl or just walk without being in agony.

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Stokes 4.Root 5.Brook 6.Bairstow 7.Foakes (wk) 8.Rehan 9.Wood/Tongue 10.Leach 11.Anderson/Robinson

I'd guess something like that? It feels so far off though.

I struggle to see them dropping Pope, or Stokes bowling, so I suspect Foakes might not travel. Especially after the way Bairstow hit out at the criticism of his keeping.

But as KC says , too early to predict the India tour squad , no ?

We don't know yet how well Pope's recovery will go - though you'd think he'd be ready by January. Stokes' ability to bowl - or not - will be important. I certainly don't think Foakes as keeper is locked in yet (though I'm sure he will travel) Too many unknowns at present ; though I imagine the 13 names listed above will all be in the touring party - fitness permitting.

Yes way too early I agree Alfie - have to see who makes it through the various commitments first, and also make sure nobody suffers a patented England "falling over a table/off a golf tee" type injury too...
I'd be stunned if Foakes doesn't at least travel

I see Crawley has stated he intends to make a fist of trying to crack the white ball sides - I wonder if he'll head to the WIndies on that ODI tour post World Cup, or if he's just going for franchise stuff (I saw he is entering for the Big Bash).
As stated a while ago on here, I actually thought his game was better suited for the white ball arena...and he's showed a couple of flashes of that in that Pakistan series in 2021. Definitely an option post this World Cup cycle for one of the opener slots vacated by Roy/Malan

alfie wrote:But as KC says , too early to predict the India tour squad , no  ?

Oh yes, plenty of time for things to happen between now and then. I'm just saying that the things we can be somewhat confident about as it stands are that the approach isn't changing, and Pope has a chance to recover. So until more news emerges, I'm assuming they'll back Pope and Bairstow over Foakes.

Pope's return might end up depending more on the outcome of Stokes' surgery. If he's going to play as a batsmen only, it might make more sense for stokes to bat 3 and balance the side with an extra bowling option

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-12400939/England-make-plea-Ben-Stokes-unretire-one-day-coach-Matthew-Mott-happy-World-Cup-risk-Jofra-Archer.html

England will name a provisional 18 man squad for the World Cup on Tuesday or Thursday (the article says both days, so I'm not sure!). England are likely to include Archer, and they're also expected to ask for the great Ben Stokes to come out of ODI retirement and play as a specialist batsman. But will Stokes answer the call?

Stokes over Brook in the XI, is that the idea?

England will also name the squads for the NZ, Ireland and the post-World Cup West Indies series on the same date. As Olly says, Crawley is making a push for the white ball squads, he's expected to put himself in the IPL auction, so he might be named for the West Indies tour which will be comprised of mainly B/C tier players.

Oh please no - leave Stokes to rest when he has a rare opportunity to do so ! They aren't likely to win this one with or without him * ; and he remains vital to the Test team so that is what should remain the priority.

* Pessimistic maybe but I don't fancy the bowling in Indian conditions. Hope to be proved wrong. But I still don't want to see Stokes roped back in.

alfie wrote:Oh please no - leave Stokes to rest when he has a rare opportunity to do so !   They aren't likely to win this one with or without him * ;  and he remains vital to the Test team so that is what should remain the priority.

* Pessimistic maybe but I don't fancy the bowling in Indian conditions. Hope to be proved wrong.  But I still don't want to see Stokes roped back in.

This time off is to have his knee fixed and recover. Stupid idea from Mott.

alfie wrote:Oh please no - leave Stokes to rest when he has a rare opportunity to do so !   They aren't likely to win this one with or without him * ;  and he remains vital to the Test team so that is what should remain the priority.

* Pessimistic maybe but I don't fancy the bowling in Indian conditions. Hope to be proved wrong.  But I still don't want to see Stokes roped back in.

Very pessimistic, I'd say! I've actually got England as favourites for the World Cup (again), with India and Pakistan just behind, then Australia a bit further back (the rest are no-hopers). I think India are going to struggle massively with the hometown pressure of winning a big tournament and ending their decade long trophy drought, plus their knockout record in recent times is dreadful. But England have got everything they need once again, and Stokes can be the talismanic presence to add that little bit extra.

My view would actually be reverse to yours. I don't think England have got a hope of winning the test series in India with or without Stokes, so I wouldn't mind Stokes playing the World Cup and missing the test series in India. If that is indeed the trade off.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:Oh please no - leave Stokes to rest when he has a rare opportunity to do so !   They aren't likely to win this one with or without him * ;  and he remains vital to the Test team so that is what should remain the priority.

* Pessimistic maybe but I don't fancy the bowling in Indian conditions. Hope to be proved wrong.  But I still don't want to see Stokes roped back in.

Very pessimistic, I'd say! I've actually got England as favourites for the World Cup (again), with India and Pakistan just behind, then Australia a bit further back (the rest are no-hopers). I think India are going to struggle massively with the hometown pressure of winning a big tournament and ending their decade long trophy drought, plus their knockout record in recent times is dreadful. But England have got everything they need once again, and Stokes can be the talismanic presence to add that little bit extra.

My view would actually be reverse to yours. I don't think England have got a hope of winning the test series in India with or without Stokes, so I wouldn't mind Stokes playing the World Cup and missing the test series in India. If that is indeed the trade off.

Well this is a first ! Duty more confident of England's chances than I am Hope you are right ; but also hope they don't drag Stokes in and imperil his recovery. Whatever we might think of the India Test chances , I think Stokes' leadership is vital for England at the moment . Does anyone seriously fancy saddling Pope with the job this soon ? Especially coming back from injury and heading into a series in which his known weakness against quality spin would be tested to the limit ?

This might be the only chance for Stokes to get a meaningful break - and hopefully get his body back in shape for a couple more years in an England shirt (maybe another t20 Cup too ?) Surely must be the priority...

I'm with Duty on the CWC. I agree to an extent that England's bowling isn't as well suited to the conditions but as seen in the World T20 they have a very adaptable group of players. Curran turning himself into a death bowler because England didn't have one due to all the injuries was the epitome of this white ball unit.

Re Stokes being given maximum recovery time it all depends on what extent his knee can be fixed as we discussed a lot during the Ashes. If it's completely bust and he's getting an operation to allow himself to walk around without being in agony again then I have no issue with him answering the call or Mott giving that call. If there's a chance of him bowling close to 90mph again then obviously I'd favour the longer layoff. I really doubt he'll be able to though. Even when he did bowl in T1 and T2 during the Ashes he was barely getting above 80mph. If we are all honest that bowler can't do the grunt work with the old ball he used to excel at.

India's full strength side would look really well balanced but they badly need Bumrah back for the bowling. Whilst Pant will be a massive loss but Kishan is a dangerous player. Their spin depth is of course enviable. Jadeja and Chahal backed by Kuldeep who is now bowling quicker. Not to mention Ashwin, Axar and Sundar. Hardik potentially struggling to bowl many overs is an issue for their balance but Jadeja is such a luxury in that regard anyway.

I'd have England as slight favourites ahead of India due to them being able to better replace injured key players and having the tempo of batting innings better dialled in. India have had the same issue of not being as aggressive with the bat as their talent should allow for a while now.

Duty281 wrote:Stokes over Brook in the XI, is that the idea?

I'd guess that would depend on whether they go batting heavy or look for an extra bowling option. As is often England's decision with the white ball sides.

Batting heavy
1.Bairstow 2.Malan 3.Root 4.Stokes 5.Brook 6.Buttler (wk) (c) 7.Moeen 8.Curran 9.Woakes 10.Rashid 11.Wood/Archer

Extra seam bowler
1.Bairstow 2.Malan 3.Root 4.Stokes 5.Buttler (wk) (c) 6.Moeen 7.Curran 8.Woakes 9.Rashid 10.Wood 11.Archer/Topley

They could feasibly lengthen the batting depth with the extra spin bowling all-rounder such as Livi or Jacks at 6 instead of Brook as well. As said, England are very good at problem solving in the shorter formats now. So I'd expect them to be very flexible through the group stages then try to settle on the best balance for the conditions. In 2019 they dropped Mo, moved Woakes up to 7 of course. It gave them the best bowling line-up but did sacrifice the ludicrous batting depth that had become standard for the earlier white ball selections by Morgan and Bayliss.

The coaches and senior players seem to rate Brook so highly that I have a feeling they will make room for him. A bit like Pietersen making the 2005 Ashes side as they simply felt he was too talented to not find a space for him.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:Oh please no - leave Stokes to rest when he has a rare opportunity to do so !   They aren't likely to win this one with or without him * ;  and he remains vital to the Test team so that is what should remain the priority.

* Pessimistic maybe but I don't fancy the bowling in Indian conditions. Hope to be proved wrong.  But I still don't want to see Stokes roped back in.

Very pessimistic, I'd say! I've actually got England as favourites for the World Cup (again), with India and Pakistan just behind, then Australia a bit further back (the rest are no-hopers). I think India are going to struggle massively with the hometown pressure of winning a big tournament and ending their decade long trophy drought, plus their knockout record in recent times is dreadful. But England have got everything they need once again, and Stokes can be the talismanic presence to add that little bit extra.

My view would actually be reverse to yours. I don't think England have got a hope of winning the test series in India with or without Stokes, so I wouldn't mind Stokes playing the World Cup and missing the test series in India. If that is indeed the trade off.

Interesting trade off that, if that is the potential on the table Duty. I think I would come down on your side of the coin too...although Stokes's leadership for the test side would be missed, from a purely playing point of view if he isn't able to bowl in India it becomes even more difficult to balance the XI...and whilst again I'm not sure he's "needed" for the ODI side, having a bloke who's won you two World Cup run chases in your XI is obviously no bad thing!

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:Oh please no - leave Stokes to rest when he has a rare opportunity to do so !   They aren't likely to win this one with or without him * ;  and he remains vital to the Test team so that is what should remain the priority.

* Pessimistic maybe but I don't fancy the bowling in Indian conditions. Hope to be proved wrong.  But I still don't want to see Stokes roped back in.

Very pessimistic, I'd say! I've actually got England as favourites for the World Cup (again), with India and Pakistan just behind, then Australia a bit further back (the rest are no-hopers). I think India are going to struggle massively with the hometown pressure of winning a big tournament and ending their decade long trophy drought, plus their knockout record in recent times is dreadful. But England have got everything they need once again, and Stokes can be the talismanic presence to add that little bit extra.

My view would actually be reverse to yours. I don't think England have got a hope of winning the test series in India with or without Stokes, so I wouldn't mind Stokes playing the World Cup and missing the test series in India. If that is indeed the trade off.

Well this is a first !  Duty more confident of England's chances than I am       Hope you are right ; but also hope they don't drag Stokes in and imperil his recovery.  Whatever we might think of the India Test chances , I think Stokes' leadership is vital for England at the moment . Does anyone seriously fancy saddling Pope with the job this soon ? Especially coming back from injury and heading into a series in which his known weakness against quality spin would be tested to the limit ?

This might be the only chance for Stokes to get a meaningful break - and hopefully get his body back in shape for a couple more years in an England shirt (maybe another t20 Cup too ?) Surely must be the priority...

Well, I've always been fairly upbeat on England's chances of doing well in the limited-overs competitions for the last 6/7 years. Good times.

Write off the India series, I say.

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Stokes over Brook in the XI, is that the idea?

I'd guess that would depend on whether they go batting heavy or look for an extra bowling option. As is often England's decision with the white ball sides.

Batting heavy
1.Bairstow 2.Malan 3.Root 4.Stokes 5.Brook 6.Buttler (wk) (c) 7.Moeen 8.Curran 9.Woakes 10.Rashid 11.Wood/Archer

Extra seam bowler
1.Bairstow 2.Malan 3.Root 4.Stokes 5.Buttler (wk) (c) 6.Moeen 7.Curran 8.Woakes 9.Rashid 10.Wood 11.Archer/Topley

They could feasibly lengthen the batting depth with the extra spin bowling all-rounder such as Livi or Jacks at 6 instead of Brook as well. As said, England are very good at problem solving in the shorter formats now. So I'd expect them to be very flexible through the group stages then try to settle on the best balance for the conditions. In 2019 they dropped Mo, moved Woakes up to 7 of course. It gave them the best bowling line-up but did sacrifice the ludicrous batting depth that had become standard for the earlier white ball selections by Morgan and Bayliss.

The coaches and senior players seem to rate Brook so highly that I have a feeling they will make room for him. A bit like Pietersen making the 2005 Ashes side as they simply felt he was too talented to not find a space for him.

I'd be very wary of going for that batting heavy line-up. Only leaves five bowlers, maybe Root could bowl a couple but I wouldn't count him as a sixth bowler, and I always like the insurance of six bowlers in case one of the bowlers gets carted/breaks down. Plus, Moeen rarely bowls a full ten these days.

I agree that they rate Brook so highly, but I can't quite see him fitting in if Stokes does come back. Unless they want Stokes or Brook or Buttler to open, which would be incredibly left-field.

But not long to wait to see if Stokes does return.

Meanwhile, with several speedsters harbouring hopes of a World Cup place and a Test tour of India, Steven Finn and his current county Sussex have quietly announced his retirement from all forms of cricket with immediate effect due to continuing injuries.

Characteristically understated way for him to bow out aged only 34 and much preferred by me to the Broad circus. I always liked Finn. Never the very best but always gave of his best which the paying spectator always values. That still got him 125 wickets in 36 Tests. Three times an Ashes series winner too. In addition, a good servant to the county game with Middlesex between 2005 - he was their youngest first-class debutant aged 16, just beating the record set by Fred Titmus in 1949 - and 2021 before his move to Sussex.

I wish him well in whatever comes next.

Definitely a nice guy who had a very good career. For England never quite nailed down his place, though made valuable contributions a number of times.

It did seem early on that it would be Anderson/Broad/Finn as the pace attack for many years, though in the end I doubt the three played many Tests together, with Finn coming in and out of the side, often as injury cover. Still, over a hundred Test wickets at an average around 30 isn't bad at all!

Always think he was a tad harshly treated by Flower and Strauss because he didn’t have a great economy - not that type of bowler. Glad he got the almost mini renaissance in the 2015 Ashes series coming in mid way through at Edgbaston and taking five in the 2nd dig there.
Brilliant bowler on his day, shame he never quite lived up to his full potential

VTR wrote:Definitely a nice guy who had a very good career. For England never quite nailed down his place, though made valuable contributions a number of times.

It did seem early on that it would be Anderson/Broad/Finn as the pace attack for many years, though in the end I doubt the three played many Tests together, with Finn coming in and out of the side, often as injury cover. Still, over a hundred Test wickets at an average around 30 isn't bad at all!

Played 7 with Broad alone, 5 with Anderson and 24 Tests with both of them. Also played 21 ODIs together and had 46 wickets at 19.30 with 2 5fers.

Think it was mainly injury issues - often at inconvenient times - that limited his career. He did pretty well in any case . That 2015 PoTM performance at Edgbaston (6 wickets in the second innings actually, Olly) was a highlight of his rather successful Ashes record : part of three winning series . Unfortunately he didn't have a lot of success after 2015 : the no ball problem from bumping the stumps may have upset him at times ?
Pity he couldn't have stayed fit to help Middlesex in his later years - they need all the help they can get !

Think the no ball thing was the major one. Iirc he had to go rebuild his action to stop doing it and was never really the same player after that.

But all in all, can't argue with the success he had

I think he did actually come back from that quite well, took some time but had a very good 2015 into 2016. I definitely remember a lot of praise for his bowling on the South Africa tour, which was a very good series win at the time. So at that stage he was only around 27 and was looking good again, can't remember exactly what happened but I think possibly that was when the injuries really started

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/12940130/ben-stokes-to-come-out-of-retirement-for-odi-world-cup

All but confirmed that Ben Stokes will come out of retirement to defend England's World Cup crown.

I'm curious to see how he'll fit into the 15 man squad. My certain 13 was:

Batters: Bairstow, Malan, Roy, Root, Brook, Livingstone
Keepers: Buttler
Seamers: Archer, Wood, Woakes, Surran
Spinners: Dilly, Moeen

With the idea that one spinner and one pace bowler would be added. But Stokes is being added. Does one of Roy/Malan miss out of the 15 and be inserted as an injury reserve, and England back their chosen opener all the way through? Or do England only pick one extra bowler, which may leave them a little light in that department?

Well I hope he knows what he's doing... confess I am surprised as I thought he was keen to take the rare chance to recuperate and hopefully get back to at least a little bowling.

Looks as if he is basically resigning himself to be batsman only going forward . Which is OK in its way - he is very good at that and likely better concentrating on the role. But it will raise problems for England in terms of balance.

Tests can wait for now. But even in this WC if he isn't going to bowl at all : I see no room for Brook ; and Root is your sixth bowler. Not ideal.

Hope they don't regret this.

I'd imagine the likely XI is;

Roy/Malan
Bairstow
Root
Brook
Stokes
Buttler
Moeen/Curran (pitch condition dependent)
Woakes
Rashid
Wood
Another seamer - Topley, Archer, Stone et al

With 6th bowler overs made up between Root and if they can get anything bowling wise out of Stokes.

Maybe leaves the bowling a tad light, but boy that's a strong top 6! Similar to what the formula they've landed on for both the ODI and T20 World Cup stuff...having the extra batting is for me far more important than fitting in a 6th "proper" bowler.

I see also the suggestion is Stokes will miss the IPL, so that will provide his window of recovery.

Yes - my bad (had both Roy and Malan , really only needs one ) so Brook fits in. Though that leaves no room for Livingstone.
Agreed if you get enough runs the bowling isn't quite so vital. My main concern around that bowling is that I am not sure Moeen and (more importantly) Rashid are quite what they were in ten over stuff. Though he did well in Bangladesh so maybe I am worrying unnecessarily.
Stokes indeed could rest after the Indian tour , I guess. But that only gives him a short break as it ends in March. Are you suggesting he miss the India trip , Olly ?

Yeah, as I mentioned yesterday, that likely XI looks a bowler light. It leaves no room to turn if one bowler has been taken for 38 runs off four overs.

My XI would be: Malan, Bairstow, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Livingstone, Second spinning all-rounder/seam all-rounder (for me this is between Jacks and Curran, but I know Moeen is the more likely), Woakes, Rashid, two of Wood/Topley/Archer.

Hopefully England get to a position where all of Wood, Topley and Archer have found fitness and form, and a steady rotation of playing two out of those three occurs, keeping them fresh.

Does seem harsh on Brook, but I wouldn't want to leave the bowling vulnerable. A left-field option might be Brook or Buttler or Stokes or even Root opening, and Malan making way for Brook, but I feel this is unlikely.

Personally wouldn't be stunned if Livingstone is on the edges of the squad - don't think his form has been good the last year across formats/competitions at all.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I see Tim Wigmore has reported that England are likely to schedule a one off test match against Zimbabwe ahead of the 5 match series vs India in the summer of 2025. Zimbabwe A to tour England next year too, and face the Lions.

Four day Test at the end of May now confirmed.

Good to see England playing Zimbabwe again. Could Jimmy hang on until then? it would be a perfect farewell game, bringing his career full circle!

Fair point about Livingstone. It's why these upcoming ODIs against NZ and Ireland will be quite important.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I see Tim Wigmore has reported that England are likely to schedule a one off test match against Zimbabwe ahead of the 5 match series vs India in the summer of 2025. Zimbabwe A to tour England next year too, and face the Lions.

Four day Test at the end of May now confirmed.

Great chance to unearth the next Anthony McGrath!

I'm expecting that balance too, Olly. I think they'll want Buttler at 6 for the batting depth. That will be if said balance goes well though. England's luxury of batting power and bowling all-rounders means they can adapt their team structure more easily that most if needed.

England's big players haven't really played ODIs since the 2019 CWC. Root has played 15, none in over a year. Since giving up the Test captaincy he has reportedly been working hard on his bowling as he wants to experience the franchise circuit, see how good he can get in T20s. I do think he's looked a more accurate spinner in that time in Tests. Previously, I often felt like he could either be accurate bowling straight breaks or he'd rip it but offer up some buffet balls. He's also developed that arm ball that swings and has apparently been working on a carrom ball again. I'd be interested to see whether he's a bowler we can get a few overs from in Indian conditions now.

Olly wrote:I see also the suggestion is Stokes will miss the IPL, so that will provide his window of recovery.

Folk are probably sick of me saying it but I strongly suspect his knee is so far gone that it will be an operation to remove pain when batting, fielding, getting out of a car, etc. Not getting him bowling again. In which case the recovery time post op might not be massive anyway.

They've kept whatever it is a very tightly guarded secret. There have been whispers since this news about him being at the CWC that it might be severe patellar tendonitis. Which can potentially be healed by operation and rest. The fact that they haven't been able to significantly reduce Stokes' pain over the summer seems odd with patellar tendonitis though. It's not uncommon for fast bowlers but can usually be managed to some extent with anti-inflammatory and pain killing injections. Stokes was clearly in agony and struggling to bat unimpaired at times even after the injections at the start of the summer.

If Stokes is a batter only then maximising his time on a full central contract will be his best bet financially it's fair to note. The very biggest earners in T20s (prime Pollard, Russell, Gayle type players) can get similar money on the franchise circuit to England's central contracts from playing in several leagues. Below those highest profile players I doubt many franchise hoppers get close to England's central contracts. It's not the same as players from nations with poorer boards where internationals can pay a pittance. Or England players on incremental deals that are much less lucrative and less secure. The central contracts are massive and guaranteed once you've been given it for another year. Which Stokes will. When players maximise their earnings through franchise cricket money becomes the dirty word but it's a little overlooked that English, Indian and Aussie players have a big financial incentive to keep playing Test cricket!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66512823

According to the BBC, England will only be naming their squad for the T20 and ODI series against NZ tomorrow. The ODI squad is almost guaranteed to include Stokes, so he's getting back into the swing of things right away.

The squad for the Ireland series will be named at a later date. The BBC reckon that most of the first-choice players will be rested for that one, with it being so close to the World Cup. Should have scheduled these games in August/early September, but no later.

I'll be interested to see if Atkinson gets a chance in the NZ series, to make a late bolt for the World Cup. Lot of media hype around him.

Yes plenty of reports Atkinson is in serious contention for the World Cup! So expect him to be in the NZ squad and probably play too.

Going to be some interesting squads announced today

NZ squad (and provisional World Cup squad) announced. Stokes, Atkinson and Willey in, Brook out, no backup spinner are the main headlines.

Jos Buttler (Lancashire – captain)
Moeen Ali (Warwickshire)
Gus Atkinson (Surrey)
Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire)
Sam Curran (Surrey)
Liam Livingstone (Lancashire)
Dawid Malan (Yorkshire)
Adil Rashid (Yorkshire)
Joe Root (Yorkshire)
Jason Roy (Surrey)
Ben Stokes (Durham)
Reece Topley (Surrey)
David Willey (Northamptonshire)
Mark Wood (Durham)
Chris Woakes (Warwickshire)

Wow a bit surprised they've plumped for the extra seamer in that provisional squad - would have thought Willey would be one of the reserves travelling potentially.
I see they've said Archer will travel to India as a reserve...you'd presume Brook does also?

No Brook but Roy is in.

M Wood and Woakes miss out in the T20 squad. Also no Jordan in any squad. Are they moving on with Atkinson, Tongue and Turner, all fast and young?

Wow, there's some interesting calls in that squad.

Feel very sorry for Harry Brook and I'm very surprised he isn't in the squad. Willey? Never a player I've particularly liked, another left-armer in the squad, and surprised he's been taken over another spinner like Jacks or even Rehan Ahmed.

Atkinson is a gamble, but shows how dedicated England are to backing pure pace. Disappointed that Archer won't be fit in time.

Luke Wright has said this is the 15 he intends on taking to India, however there is still scope for change until September 28. So there is time for players to play themselves out of contention, or perhaps make a late bid to come in from the cold through the T20s against NZ or ODIs v Ireland.

And of course England still have to pick their three reserves - the Telegraph specifically note that England will pick Archer as one such reserve and hope he can play a part in the second half of the World Cup (when an England player presumably suffers a magical injury!).

But for now this is what it is. It's the last waltz for many of these players at a ODI World Cup. Nine names taken forward from 2019, only LL and Atkinson can be classed as new players since winning the tournament last time.

The starting XI from this might be - Bairstow, Malan, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Moeen, S Curran, Woakes, Rashid, Wood, Topley. Picking two spinning all-rounders and three seaming all-rounders indicates England will play one of the former and two of the latter.

As you say , Duty : still time for injuries or change of mind. But if that is the squad they take  
my main worry would be the lack of reserve spin should anything happen to Rashid. Plenty of pace cover ; and most of them can bat. Brook missing is a surprise though.

Three reserves to add.  Brook , Archer , Jacks ?

I'd think those would be the three reserves as things stand.

But Wright does sound hesitant to even include Jofra as a reserve, it seems: "But is there an opportunity or a place where potentially he could play at the back-end of a tournament, if all things go well and there was an injury? Yes, there's a potential chance. But obviously, a lot of things have still got to go right with this rehab before then."

Who would be next in line if Jofra can't be a reserve? Stone, if he proves fitness?

Have to add, also, a squad of 15 seems very restrictive for an intense tournament of up to 11 games in just over a month, travelling across a massive country like India.

Duty281 wrote:I'd think those would be the three reserves as things stand.

But Wright does sound hesitant to even include Jofra as a reserve, it seems: "But is there an opportunity or a place where potentially he could play at the back-end of a tournament, if all things go well and there was an injury? Yes, there's a potential chance. But obviously, a lot of things have still got to go right with this rehab before then."

Who would be next in line if Jofra can't be a reserve? Stone, if he proves fitness?

Have to add, also, a squad of 15 seems very restrictive for an intense tournament of up to 11 games in just over a month, travelling across a massive country like India.

It is a weirdly restrictive amount - especially when they allow for reserves. Why not just make it 18 and save everyone the hassle?

18 should be a bare minimum. By restricting it to 15 you are just potentially restricting the quality of the competition.

I'm very surprised and disappointed that Brook has missed out. He just looks too special a talent to not pick in a 15-man squad to me. Yes, he struggled at times in the IPL but his playing of spin had already seemed to come on throughout the summer.

I just struggle to see where Willey bowls 10 overs in top end ODIs. He can really good in the PP but he isn't much of a middle overs or death bowler. He can be a very destructive batter but we aren't short of bowling all-rounders. He is a good outfielder though to be fair. He's absolutely rapid and has a gun arm.

One area that squad looks off the standard of 2019 to me is fielding. Stokes can't move as he once did. Bairstow in 2019 was one of the best boundary riders in the white ball game for the same reasons as Willey above, I'm not sure he can move like that now though. Mo, Dilly, Roy and Woakes are all that bit older, so inevitably slower. Malan isn't the best fielder. That 2019 unit was one of the best all-round fielding outfits I've seen. I'll be interested to see if there are few more mistakes in that area from this group.

For those negatives, it is still a very good group. The batting remains incredibly powerful and their ability to shuffle the balance of the side to get additional batting or bowling depth is enviable.

Livingstone and Willey in (a batting and bowling all-rounder respectively) ahead of Brook (specialist batter) indicates to me that they'll be going with Buttler at 5, Mo/Livi at 6 and an extra seamer.

I'm really excited by Gus Atkinson. I don't put too much reliance on the speed gun so the 95mph seen in the Hundred isn't as relevant. More important was the fact he rushed very good players, including Buttler, for pace. That combined with an ability to swing the ball and bowl a wobble seam is very promising indeed.

Genuine question and apologies if it only serves to show my modern ignorance but should
Livingstone be as nailed on for even a squad place as he seems to be?

Guildford, I think Livi is there for his bowling as much as his batting. His pick-n-mix spin in Indian conditions where he can bowl offies to lefties and leggies to the righties is as useful as his batting to me. With the bat he can come off spectacularly in terms of strike rate but hasn't been consistent at international level. That combination of explosive batting and versatile bowling is useful for shifting the makeup of an XI though.

I'm guessing they are of the view that if they want to go batting heavy then Malan can bat at 3 or 4 to get an extra batter without needing Brook in the 15.

1.YJB 2.Roy 3.Root 4.Malan 5.Stokes 6.Buttler

I'd much rather Brook in that instance but it is by no means a weak top 6. If they did decide to simply go with 6 batters in the top 6 and their best 5 bowlers at 7-11 as they did in 2019 then that can still do so with the above batters.

Whereas Livi gives them more options if they want to go with extra bowling.

1.YJB 2.Malan 3.Root 4.Stokes 5.Buttler 6.Livi 7.Moeen 8.Curran 9.Woakes 10.Rashid 11.Wood

That XI for instance has 3 spin options and 3 seamers without considering Root and Stokes. Alternatively Curran can shift up to 7 with Livi and Mo competing for one spot at 6 to accommodate an extra seamer whilst maintaining a second spinner. Rather than Mo being the only option who can bat 6 and bowl, meaning he'd get picked even if his form evaporated.

Simply a case of giving them more options than Brook would. The only realistic challenger to Livingstone would be Jacks. I think Jacks is the more useful 50 over batter in many ways. He could feasibly be a 50 over opener for instance, whereas I wouldn't use Livi there. Livingstone's bowling gives far better options though both due to his variety and simply being a wilier spinner than Jacks at this stage.

I'd have picked Brook over Willey myself with the final place between Livi and Jacks. Where I'd narrowly have gone Livi for the useful bowling.

Thanks, Carlos. Currently at the home of cricket concentrating on Surrey being taken apart by Will Williams and Lancs but will respond further tonight (or late this afternoon if things worsen more).

alfie wrote:As you say , Duty : still time for injuries or change of mind. But if that is the squad they take  
my main worry would be the lack of reserve spin should anything happen to Rashid. Plenty of pace cover ; and most of them can bat. Brook missing is a surprise though.

Three reserves to add.  Brook , Archer , Jacks ?

Archer has said that he has started bowling again. I think it takes about 6 weeks to get up to speed. He should be ready by end of September. Can't see why he isn't in the squad.

king_carlos wrote:Guildford, I think Livi is there for his bowling as much as his batting. His pick-n-mix spin in Indian conditions where he can bowl offies to lefties and leggies to the righties is as useful as his batting to me. With the bat he can come off spectacularly in terms of strike rate but hasn't been consistent at international level. That combination of explosive batting and versatile bowling is useful for shifting the makeup of an XI though.

I'm guessing they are of the view that if they want to go batting heavy then Malan can bat at 3 or 4 to get an extra batter without needing Brook in the 15.

1.YJB 2.Roy 3.Root 4.Malan 5.Stokes 6.Buttler

I'd much rather Brook in that instance but it is by no means a weak top 6. If they did decide to simply go with 6 batters in the top 6 and their best 5 bowlers at 7-11 as they did in 2019 then that can still do so with the above batters.

Whereas Livi gives them more options if they want to go with extra bowling.

1.YJB 2.Malan 3.Root 4.Stokes 5.Buttler 6.Livi 7.Moeen 8.Curran 9.Woakes 10.Rashid 11.Wood

That XI for instance has 3 spin options and 3 seamers without considering Root and Stokes. Alternatively Curran can shift up to 7 with Livi and Mo competing for one spot at 6 to accommodate an extra seamer whilst maintaining a second spinner. Rather than Mo being the only option who can bat 6 and bowl, meaning he'd get picked even if his form evaporated.

Simply a case of giving them more options than Brook would. The only realistic challenger to Livingstone would be Jacks. I think Jacks is the more useful 50 over batter in many ways. He could feasibly be a 50 over opener for instance, whereas I wouldn't use Livi there. Livingstone's bowling gives far better options though both due to his variety and simply being a wilier spinner than Jacks at this stage.

I'd have picked Brook over Willey myself with the final place between Livi and Jacks. Where I'd narrowly have gone Livi for the useful bowling.

Hi Carlos and firstly apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Only just recovering the will to live after yesterday's visit to Woodbridge Road.

Anyway, your post was characteristically thorough and helpful. Many thanks.

My starting point with Livi (before your post at least) is that I'm unconvinced by him. Not so much because I consider him unconvincing but rather more because I just don't really know him. He's someone I've not often seen or noticed when I've watched cricket at the ground or on tv. I'm thus a little underwhelmed. I accept fault for that although, in mitigation, his one day stats don't exactly scream, ''Pick me and I'll win you the game!''.

12 ODIs. Batted 10 times with a top score of 66* (his only 50). ODI average of 31. Bowled in 7 innings with 6 wickets for his efforts at a tidy average of 24. Best return of 2/30. Furthermore, he's not bowled in more than a third of his total List A games (bowling in 43 of his 67). Generally, going between 5 and 6 an over.

That seems handy and useful back up (especially if Moeen has 0/44 from 6 overs**) although doesn't properly convert me. However, I note your comments about the extra bowling option and, with specific reference to Livi, his potentially valuable pick-n-mix variety of style. Not for the first time in recent months, we sigh, ''If only Stokes could also still bowl'' to permit us the extra batting and bowling option in one. But he can't! I therefore accept the need for Livi or someone like him to get a squad place as a minimum. Notwithstanding your comments about Liv's likely usefulness with the ball in Indian conditions, my own preference would probably be for Jacks. Surrey bias? Yeah, perhaps although I don't apologise for it as I know his batting can win a game whilst his bowling is beginning to be used more by both his county and in the franchise stuff.

Just a final follow on point about your side with the extra bowling option. I see you bench Roy for that and I get it. As mentioned in a previous post, I would though flag that Roy is a somewhat emotional / self-centred character (you choose the description) who may not react well to being left out. That certainly doesn't mean he automatically gets into the XI or even that he gets binned from the squad but it should be recognised that keeping him motivated and on side if he's not playing may take up a disproportionate amount of management time.


** ''As cheap as that?!'' - Duty.

Hi guildford,

I think those are all fair points you raise. Livi's batting hasn't really come off outside of T20 at the highest level yet. There is a slight feeling that some spectacular early innings and six hitting have earned him a higher rep than his more recent returns maybe deserve.

He was the joint highest drafted player in the SA20 alongside Buttler for instance. Which shows how highly the IPL coaches rate him given it's many of the same owners and setups. I feel his batting in ODIs is no more likely to come off one in three or four at an incredible strike rate than others such as Moeen though.

Just on his domestic bowling figures though. He did come to bowling later and like most England stars he will likely have played little list-A cricket since breaking through into internationals and franchise cricket. Having seen a decent amount of both bowl I do think that Livi is the better white ball bowler than Jacks.

I'd agree that I would expect Jacks batting to come off more regularly in the 50 over format. He's another that has barely played list-A since maturing into such a destructive hitter though so it's difficult to be sure. He looks a fantastic white ball batter to me though and as said above I think he could potentially bat in the top order or open in ODIs down the line.

Realistically though, I think they're picking a player to bat 6 and bowl rather than bat higher though. If they'd wanted more batting cover up the order they had Brook available. Also Duckett to be fair. Who's a cracking white ball batter and good player of spin so would suit the conditions. I also think Crawley could be a fantastic ODI player. This tournament is too soon but his game just looks very well suited to it.

Basically, I think there's a long queue to get in as a batter. Which is where Jacks will more likely get his break. Then as a batting all-rounder coming in later in the innings I'd say it's fair for Livi to get the spot.

Roy can be tempestuous let's say! The England white ball setup is so well oiled that I wouldn't be concerned with Mott and Buttler managing that though. They may also rotate slightly in the group stages. It's not unforeseeable to me that certain batters in the top order might be managed to look after injuries early in the tournament.

One area that Roy does have an advantage over Malan is fielding and running between the wickets. Malan isn't the best in either. If Roy is completely out of form and Malan looking by a distance the better batter then that shouldn't be in the equation. If it's a tight selection call it may well be though. Malan is a terrific batter but not the most athletic. He is a lot slower between the wickets than all of Bairstow, Roy, Root, Stokes and Buttler. Running very aggressively has been a massive part of England's white ball setup since Morgan and Bayliss. I'll be keeping an eye on Stokes' fitness in that regard too.

Your points on fielding in this outfit are definitely ones to be monitored I think KC - seemed to be fine in the t20 WC last year, but 50 overs obviously a longer time and more stress on the body...and as you point out they aren't quite the outfit on paper they were in 2019 in the field.

Be interesting to see how Bairstow is in the outfield - he was one of the best in the world on the boundary pre leg injury...but as we've seen with his keeping he's struggled to regain some of that mobility. Hopefully with time it continues to improve.

I agree re: Livingstone/Jacks - Livi hasn't been in the best form recently, but his bowling is superior at the moment. I see Jacks as really part of the post ODI World Cup shift that is almost inevitably going to take place in the coming year or two, I wouldn't want to be introducing him during the tournament itself. Jacks should be a nailed on player in the T20 setup though I think.

Roy is an interesting one - he's scored a century in each of the last two ODI series, but obviously they've been so sparse it doesn't feel like he's in great shape in the format. I don't think it can be overstated that the Roy/Bairstow opening partnership is literally the most successful ODI opening partnership of those with a sustained sample size, including in the 2021 ODI tour in India with opening stands of 135 and 110, and that's before we come onto the "role" Roy plays going from ball one...which I do think Malan would struggle to replicate.
Obviously form is going to play a huge role, but I think they're going to give him every opportunity and rightfully so.
(Should also be mentioned just how good he was in the 2019 ODI World Cup, and while that is a long time ago, he generally has a pretty good record in these tournaments across ODI and T20s...particularly played some crucial knocks in semi finals too

I thought Bairstow was running between the wickets well in the Ashes which suggests the acceleration and pace is still there. He's one of the quickest over 40m England have had since they included it in the fitness tests. I believe Bairstow and Willey are in a bracket of their own there with Billings a step behind. Whether the agility, ability to change direction and throw himself around the rope is there remains to be seen as you say Olly.

I think Roy's role in going from ball 1 is a very key point. It complemented the rest of that line-up so well in 2019. Bairstow is so explosive but likes to take a bit of time to get in. Root is the master in the middle overs. Morgan and Stokes had the versatility to go from ball one or score at close to 6 RPO in the middle overs without taking many risks, then go later on. At 6, Jos is Jos. Roy worked perfectly in putting pressure on the opposition without it feeling like a massive risk given the flexibility of the middle order.

I also think batting 'roles' is a large part of why Stokes has come back. With Morgan already gone they've lost one player who could score at a run a ball in a fairly risk free manner. Brook is a special talent that I'd have picked in the 15 but that isn't really his skill yet.

The Morgan era ODI batting units standout strength was being the only side to score at 6 RPO in the middle overs for a sustained period. They were also brilliant in the PP and death of course. But other sides do that too. England were alone in scoring that consistently in middle and they did it in a relatively risk free way. With Morgan retired, I think Stokes' experience in that role then becomes more vital. Especially if Buttler is going to bat 5, reducing the depth below the top order.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66573148

England's fast bowling injury curse extends to even those who are uncapped. Turner ruled out of the T20 series v NZ, so Carse comes in as a replacement. Good chance for Carse.

The series starts in just over a week.

I can’t be convinced that you’ll get better performances opening the batting with either Malan or Roy this winter than you would with Harry Brook - who has the upside of being a batter in his 20s for a side sorely lacking them.