England's Summer of Cricket 2024

First topic message reminder :

Now the County Championship has begun, it is officially summer once more. Don't let the rain tell you otherwise!

We can talk about promising county performances, the build up to the World T20, and Ollie Robinson's latest injury when it happens. Then, in just under two months, England start playing games:

England v Pakistan, four T20s, 22nd May-30th May
World T20 in June
England v West Indies, three tests, 10th July-30th July
England v Sri Lanka, three tests, 21st August-10th September
England v Australia, three T20s, 11th September-15th September
England v Australia, five ODIs, 19th September-29th September

It's a bit of a pressure summer for England. The ODI side made the most disappointing defence of a World Cup crown since France in the football in 2002, so there's pressure on the T20 side, and Mott in particular, to deliver something decent in the Caribbean.

For the test match side, it's been three series without a series win for England, so the expectation is on for England to get back to winning ways against the West Indies and Sri Lanka. The West Indies often cause England a few troubles, but England have won their last seven home series v the West Indies, dating back to 2000, and you have to go back to 1988 for the last time the West Indies won a series in England.

Sri Lanka are visiting for the first time in eight years for a test series, so it's well overdue. They've certainly managed to upset England in the past, very famously in 1998, but also in 2014, so it's a series that cannot be taken for granted.

And to round off the summer the ECB are making a dash for cash, with eight limited overs games against the Aussies in the fading September light, in games that will probably be forgotten in no time at all.

"Rob Key says James Anderson will continue in the England set-up as fast-bowling mentor. Gave no guarantee Jos Buttler and Matthew Mott will still be in charge of white-ball teams come series against Australia in September."

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Smith has kept plenty for Surrey and is tidy. Not surprised he’s been selected, he’s done well for the Lions when he’s played and has had a good start to the season.
Maybe harsh on Robinson, but it was going to be harsh on whoever of the two was left out. The important thing is the right call is being made on Foakes and Bairstow, both correctly not in the squad it seems.

As some may recall me saying, I usually find David 'Bumble' Lloyd a well informed and good judge of cricketing matters provided he resists the temptation to play the clown.

This was his take yesterday morning on England's wicket keeper situation, from the BBC County Championship live thread:

'' I'm looking at the England wicket keeper situation and they have got Jamie Smith in the team.
There must have been contenders. They're looking for an aggressive seven batter who can keep wicket.
So Ollie Robinson at Durham was in there and Joe Clarke would have got a mention. I saw James Rew get a useful 100 at Old Trafford.
The wicket keeper is always a good debate, it gets a reaction that Ben Foakes is a wonderful glove man and he's the best in the world, but I can see what they are trying to do in balancing the team.''

I thought Duty would like Lloyd's reference to Joe Clarke.

Interestingly perhaps, one keeper he didn't mention was Jonny Bairstow.

On the eve of this season's County Championship and Surrey's opener against Lloyd's Lancs, he said, ''[/i]I think they [the ECB / England selectors] like Jamie Smith.[/i]''

I see the usual debate re: Foakes is ensuing online Guildford - people talking with wilful abandon about his keeping, as if he was unblemished with England. I think his keeping was vastly overrated by the average punter, and his batting in those early years he played certainly underrated...unfortunately he's also never really developed his batting to be able to properly bat with the tail, a key role of any international wicket keepers arsenal, and his runs did drop away in latter years (amongst a few niggles with his back).
I would say the idea of Ben Foakes never really quite matched the reality we got in international cricket.

As noted after the India series, I think it is a good call to move onto the younger options. Sure there will be some growing pains, but better to have them this summer against Sri Lanka/West Indies in relatively low stakes affairs, rather than throwing someone into the fire in 12 months time. Huge opportunity awaits young Smith!

KC - see you noted re: Stokes's bowling...feels like it's gone under the radar considering it was all journos could talk about for ages! Guess the positive doesn't get as many listens as the negative on that story...

guildfordbat wrote:Interestingly perhaps, one keeper he didn't mention was Jonny Bairstow.

It was only a matter of weeks ago that Bumble was in a TalkSport thing released on YT where he backed Bairstow. That could've been filmed a long while before release though to be fair. He's been in the camp of needing a better batter than Foakes for a while though. Be that Bairstow or someone else. Obviously, he rates Salt given the Lancs connection.

If the horrible leg break didn't full finish Bairstow then that massive winter away certainly seems to have done.

I actually thought his batting in the Ashes was a bit undervalued. A dialogue started about scoring easy runs due to the 99* in Manchester after Crawley had done his stuff. The 78 at Edgbaston and 78 at The Oval that bookended his series were vital though. When he came together with Root at Edgbaston, they were 5 down for f*** all on an absolute road, day one of an Ashes series, having won the toss. That counterpunching innings really turned things. Then again at The Oval. England were 210 ahead on a dying pitch with Moeen, Woakes and the tail to come. He puts on 110 with Root to get England into a winning position.

When we look back, I expect there will be a pondering of what might have been if not for the leg break. He was batting as well as ever before that. He still looked an incredible athlete as cricketers go despite being well into his 30s. He was more than solid enough with the gloves to keep in seaming conditions and he was a gun outfielder in white ball cricket. Since the leg break, he's looked a bit overweight and just hasn't moved the same way.

I find the parallels to Khawaja interesting with how a late career push can take record from unfulfilled to excellent. Ussie looked a wonderful talent but hadn't quite done it consistently for Australia and drifted out the team. Head gets covid, Ussie comes in knowing his game better than ever, in a role that finally suits him and he nails it for a few years. Suddenly, he's got a mid 40s average and 15 tons.

Had Bairstow not destroyed his leg in a freak accident, I wonder if that late career purple patch continues and he gets a few more tons, his average gets boosted by a few runs? We'll never know. 12 centuries and a 36 average is good without fulfilling his abundant talent. It's a slightly better average than Allan Lamb for instance. He's always dominated the CC whenever he returned to it, hence he got so many chances even when the Test returns waned.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I see the usual debate re: Foakes is ensuing online Guildford - people talking with wilful abandon about his keeping, as if he was unblemished with England. I think his keeping was vastly overrated by the average punter, and his batting in those early years he played certainly underrated...unfortunately he's also never really developed his batting to be able to properly bat with the tail, a key role of any international wicket keepers arsenal, and his runs did drop away in latter years (amongst a few niggles with his back).
I would say the idea of Ben Foakes never really quite matched the reality we got in international cricket.

As noted after the India series, I think it is a good call to move onto the younger options. Sure there will be some growing pains, but better to have them this summer against Sri Lanka/West Indies in relatively low stakes affairs, rather than throwing someone into the fire in 12 months time. Huge opportunity awaits young Smith!

KC - see you noted re: Stokes's bowling...feels like it's gone under the radar considering it was all journos could talk about for ages! Guess the positive doesn't get as many listens as the negative on that story...

100% with you there, Olly. If Foakes were half as good on the field as he is in the cricket romantics mind then we'd have one hell of a cricketer on our hands. I was the "pick the gloveman" camp forever too. I always wanted Foster or Chris Read to get more chances over the likes of Geraint Jones. I probably sung Foakes' praises more than anyone here. It's just not quite translated though.

This dropping feels different to other ones as well. Previously, he'd scored some vital runs in winning sides, then been dropped when others got fit. Here, he got no runs in a losing side in India (conditions that should suit his batting...) and has made mistakes with the gloves.

I think everyone's too busy discussing whether coaches, captains or directors will lose their jobs rather than discussing Stokes looking fit again! I didn't think it would happen, suspected his knee had no cartilage left and he'd end up a batter. I'm delighted to be proved wrong. It completely changes how England can build their attack. Not least as Stokes is actually a change bowler. Whereas England have almost always picked 3 opening bowlers and wonder why we struggle through the middle of the innings.

Guess it's a bit of a wait and see how consistently he can bowl a full workload but it helps balance the side immensely. Early returns seem promising

Even if it's 5-10 overs an innings, specifically through the middle, that can make it significantly easier to blood English condition seamers though.

As said a few times, I thought that Sam Curran and Ben Stokes dovetailed excellently as bowlers. Both were in that odd zone where they weren't quite 3rd seamers but could be better than 4th seamers. Their strengths were opposing though. Surran was very good when it swung and he could pitch it up. Stokes was very good with the old ball, could bang it in and had a good record breaking partnerships.

That isn't me advocating for Surran returning to the Test side! Rather, I think Stokes being able to take on even a limited workload could be vital for removing some pressure from other seamers in parts of the innings where they aren't as strong.

It's also invaluable for just keeping seamers fresh of course. I think that often playing in sides with 4 seamers was hugely helpful for Jimmy and Broad's longevity. It doesn't mean they didn't work insanely hard to stay fit and remain so good. It definitely didn't hurt them to have the workload shared between 4 seamers rather than 3 though.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:
...
I would say the idea of Ben Foakes never really quite matched the reality we got in international cricket.

...

You should copyright that, Olly.

I would say Jimmy might have a point to prove… Notts 34/5 - Anderson 8-2-13-5.

Six now in his first spell of the summer!

Good figures, but he hasn't been all that great in Tests for a while. Always wary of how poor the CC can be, Darren Stevens and all that

Taking him off on a 10fer. Cowards. Not like he has an international career to prolong!

I know we have to "move on " eventually ; but Jimmy 6/19 on the same pitch on which Stone and Pennington managed combined figures of 3/163 earlier in the match... Hope that doesn't mean too much !

Jimmy can do a perfectly fine job for England this summer and next summer against India, but building for the inevitable 4-0 loss in Australia must take precedence.

VTR wrote:Good figures, but he hasn't been all that great in Tests for a while. Always wary of how poor the CC can be, Darren Stevens and all that

Shhh. We don't talk about that. "Jimmy's bowling as well as ever", is the party line. We just need to ignore him being significantly worse than even an unfit Robinson in the Ashes and that he's mostly struggled in the second bowling innings (i.e. half of a Test match for a seamer who doesn't bat) since 2019.

In 33 Tests since the calf injury in the 2019 Ashes, he's taken more than 2 wickets in the second innings only 3 times. 3 wickets on 1 occasion - Chennai. 4 wickets on 2 occasions - Rawalpindi and NZ. He's not taken more than 2 wickets in the second innings at home since that injury. That's an issue.

I love Jimmy, he's one of my favourite ever cricketers. I wrote many a post defending him against the clouderson tedium. His career has also fascinatingly tracked with the changes to seam bowling we've seen from lengths shifting way up the pitch and the wobble ball coming in. Seamers have changed entirely from when he started and Jimmy has been at the vanguard of that.

It's time though. Woakes, as shown last summer, is now a better home conditions medium-fast seamer and he bats. I'd love Jimmy's economy for the Pakistan series, but doubt he fancies that at 42. The time is right.

Exactly, it's entirely possible that he is still better than some of the replacements but they've got to be given a chance now. The man himself came in during the transition from the Gough/Caddick era and was not all that convincing to start with. But he was given some exposure then gradually improved his game and hasn't looked back since. Time for someone else to have that opportunity

VTR wrote:Exactly, it's entirely possible that he is still better than some of the replacements but they've got to be given a chance now. The man himself came in during the transition from the Gough/Caddick era and was not all that convincing to start with. But he was given some exposure then gradually improved his game and hasn't looked back since. Time for someone else to have that opportunity

I find Broad the more interesting comparison. His average was still around 35 after more than 30 Tests. Whilst he took 73 Tests, the same as Mitchell Johnson's career, to get his average below 30. He wasn't the Stuart Broad we will now remember until he was given a LOT of Tests to develop into that bowler.

If Jimmy were actually, "as good as ever", then I'd be all for picking him for a couple more summers. He isn't though. There has been a decline, even if how late that decline has come and how good he is at nearly 42 are still remarkable. I think that decline is significant enough that they shouldn't borrow against the future for the sake of 1st innings wickets against weaker batting sides this summer.

I'd say early Broad his batting kept him in the side at times. His bowling returns were pretty patchy but he was balancing the team with useful runs at 8. Well remember the old discussions about his role as " the enforcer", and also how England sometimes improved when he wasn't playing. 2011 series vs India was the real turning point

VTR wrote:I'd say early Broad his batting kept him in the side at times. His bowling returns were pretty patchy but he was balancing the team with useful runs at 8. Well remember the old discussions about his role as " the enforcer", and also how England sometimes improved when he wasn't playing. 2011 series vs India was the real turning point

Typical of England's muddled thinking in trying to get Broad to be an 'enforcer' type - just because he's tall doesn't mean that's how to maximise him, bowled much better slightly within himself (and on the days when it all came together, faster like that than with full effort), was definitely more McGrath than Brett Lee. Of course we tried the same with Jimmy early on, in trying to make him a true fast bowler rather than a highly skilled fast-medium one.

If you want a fast bowler, pick a genuinely fast bowler and try to improve his consistency, rather than a more consistent bowler and try to make them faster.

Anyway, it's undoubtedly time for Jimmy to call it a day - he hasn't fallen off a cliff performance wise, but it's clear he's a notch or two down on his best days.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c880vdrygl0o

Good luck to Boycott.

With a week before the return of test cricket, West Indies have started their trip to England with a game against the First Class Counties XI.

West Indies batting first had a poor start, 10/2, both openers including the captain went cheaply, but 3-6 have all scored half centuries. That is potential test debutant Louis, the inexperienced McKenzie, the highly regarded Athanaze (currently 74*), and the under 30 FC average Hodge (71*), all putting the West Indies up to 285/4 from just 58 overs.

The highly regarded Josh Hull continues to be very expensive. Talked up by Key, his FC economy is around 5 after 11 innings, and it's showing in his 1/51 from 8 overs today. Overall, it's a very young and inexperienced attack, also featuring Farhan Ahmed, Turner, Eddie Jack and Sonny Baker.

Also a note, Kemar Roach is out of the series after sustaining injury.

Glamorgan currently 509/6 needing 84 more off 23 overs to smash all fourth innings run chase records! Two set batters including Northeast on 172*.

Sonny Baker is very sharp - just injury prone as all our fast fast bowlers seem to be.

Must be one of the great games. Scores tied and wicket off the final ball

England team to face West Indies at Lord’s:

Zak Crawley, Ben Duckett, Ollie Pope, Joe Root, Harry Brook, Ben Stokes (c), Jamie Smith (wk), Chris Woakes, Gus Atkinson, Shoaib Bashir, James Anderson.

That's pretty much as expected. Potts might fill Anderson's role in tests two and three. Had a false memory that Wood was in the squad, but he isn't for the first two tests (might be a new squad for the third test). Pennington will hopefully get at least one test this series.

Here's a side by side look at the England teams for Anderson's first and last tests.

First test - Trescothick; Vaughan; Butcher; Hussain (c); Key; Stewart (wk); McGrath; Giles; Harmison; Hoggard; Anderson.
Last test - Crawley, Duckett, Pope, Root, Brook, Stokes (c), Smith (wk), Woakes, Atkinson, Bashir, Anderson.

Thought they might have brought Woakes in for the second test to get a look at as many as possible

Highly recommend the comments on the BBC article about this. People calling for "Foulkes" to still be in the team. Someone else picking the not even England qualified Worrall over Atkinson. Really is amazing stuff

Duty281 wrote:That's pretty much as expected. Potts might fill Anderson's role in tests two and three. Had a false memory that Wood was in the squad, but he isn't for the first two tests (might be a new squad for the third test). Pennington will hopefully get at least one test this series.

Here's a side by side look at the England teams for Anderson's first and last tests.

First test - Trescothick; Vaughan; Butcher; Hussain (c); Key; Stewart (wk); McGrath; Giles; Harmison; Hoggard; Anderson.
Last test - Crawley, Duckett, Pope, Root, Brook, Stokes (c), Smith (wk), Woakes, Atkinson, Bashir, Anderson.

If asked, I wouldn't have got McGrath. Probably not Key either.

GSC wrote:Thought they might have brought Woakes in for the second test to get a look at as many as possible

Not got good figures so far in the cc 71.0 overs 1 wicket at 220 but his Lords figures 61.2 with the bat and 11.30 with the ball....

I thought so too. Certainly have a good number 8 with the bat.
1st Test Pennington, Anderson, Potts, Stokes, Bashir
2nd Test Pennington, Woakes, Potts, Stokes, Bashir

Had expected Potts to play but guess they want the pace option - and also Woakes to ensure depth of batting. Will be interested to see what Atkinson can do . Admit that on the little I have seen of him in white ball stuff I've not been over impressed ; but Tests might be a better place for him to show what he can do.

England ought to fancy this at home ; but won't do to take West Indies too lightly. Australia found that out not so long ago...

alfie wrote:Had expected Potts to play but guess they want the pace option - and also Woakes to ensure depth of batting. Will be interested to see what Atkinson can do . Admit that on the little I have seen of him in white ball stuff I've not been over impressed ; but Tests might be a better place for him to show what he can do.

England ought to fancy this at home ; but won't do to take West Indies too lightly. Australia found that out not so long ago...

Fair to say there's considerable surprise amongst the Surrey faithful that Atkinson has been elevated so highly and quickly. It very much appears to be based on his pace rather than performance. That could still turn out to be the correct approach but doubts are certainly there.

VTR wrote:Highly recommend the comments on the BBC article about this. People calling for "Foulkes" to still be in the team. Someone else picking the not even England qualified Worrall over Atkinson. Really is amazing stuff

I know Guildford is an advocate for Frankie, when he does qualify...but from what I have seen I don't think he could make the step up to international level. Bowls far too many "four balls" for my liking, which you can get away with to an extent in the county stuff, don't think you can at international

Anyone know how the WIndies are expected to shape up for this? I know Roach is out but that's about it!

Would take a punt on this being the West Indies XI:

Brathwaite; Louis; McKenzie; Athanaze; Hodge; Holder; Da Silva; A Joseph; Seales; S Joseph; Motie/extra bat e.g. McCaskie at 3

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Had expected Potts to play but guess they want the pace option - and also Woakes to ensure depth of batting. Will be interested to see what Atkinson can do . Admit that on the little I have seen of him in white ball stuff I've not been over impressed ; but Tests might be a better place for him to show what he can do.

England ought to fancy this at home ; but won't do to take West Indies too lightly. Australia found that out not so long ago...

Fair to say there's considerable surprise amongst the Surrey faithful that Atkinson has been elevated so highly and quickly. It very much appears to be based on his pace rather than performance. That could still turn out to be the correct approach but doubts are certainly there.

I have always thought Lawes was better than Atkinson

Appears I was paying attention because Cricinfo have said the West Indies XI will be what I guessed above, with Motie as the spinner.

West Indies 1 Kraigg Brathwaite, 2 Mikyle Louis, 3 Kirk McKenzie, 4 Alick Athanaze, 5 Kavem Hodge, 6 Jason Holder, 7 Joshua da Silva (wk), 8 Gudakesh Motie, 9 Alzarri Joseph, 10 Shamar Joseph, 11 Jayden Seales.

Louis will be making his test debut. He's got a FC average of nearly 49 and has three centuries in 14 innings so far. He made a 50 v the County XI last week. McKenzie, just his fourth test. He's done little of note with the bat in either test or FC cricket, averaging barely above 30 in the latter.

Athanaze has been talked up quite a bit, but is yet to deliver - seven test innings, no fifties, and he averages just 24. He did put up two half centuries v the County XI last week, however. Hodge has had a long FC career (63 games) and averages below 30, but he did make a 71 in his second test v Australia, which was the one the West Indies won.

It's an immensely inexperienced 2-5, with just nine tests between them!

Brathwaite obviously has a lot of experience, as does Holder. Da Silva's picking up a fair few caps as well now. The bowling we're more familiar with. S Joseph bowling his country to a famous win over Australia a few months back, and Seales has had a strong stint for Sussex this season, which should have prepared him suitably for this series. A Joseph is eight wickets away from 100, although he might be a bit disappointed at his average, which is a tick above 35 and perhaps doesn't do him justice.

Overall, it looks like a West Indies team that is weak in the batting, but carries a few punches in the quick bowling. And that bowling might be aided further with cloudy/overcast conditions constantly forecasted for this test. The top seven looks incredibly weak, but it is the West Indies, and we all know that unheralded bats have a recent history of notching up astonishing innings against England (Hope, Blackwood, Holder, Dowrich all come to mind).

It is a series that England should be winning, and winning well, but there is a fair bit of pressure on them to do so with no test series victories to speak of since 2022.

That was a great end to the series last summer. Spectacular stuff from Shamar Joseph. Even I really enjoyed watching Australia lose.

If conditions suit him in England, your guys will really need to be en guarde. If he gets fired up in any way, he could prove a handful.

Test match between top sides starts ,.will.have to find time follow a bit.
WI is not a top side but bring out their top game vs Eng and are coming on the back of that super win in and against Aus
...no mean feat.
WI's bowling is very good, batting is their weak link and team spirit / motivation second worst to only Pak.
Would appreciate if one of Eng fans here helps me understand following in their playing 11.

1. How fast is Atkinson? I think I saw him in the ODI world cup game vs SA

2. Smith the new WK I read on BBC is a second choice  WK even for his county behind Foakes

Is he really a batsman turned into makeshift WK to prop batting..

3. Why is Leach not playing ahead of Bashir with so many years of proven track record ?

1) Atkinson was at an average pace of 89mph in last year's Hundred.
2) Smith has kept for his county before, so to describe him as makeshift would be unfair. He's certainly a very attacking batting option, something Foakes isn't.
3) It's an interesting one. Bashir is seen as the second spinner at Somerset (behind Leach), but England see it the other way after what they view as Bashir's promising displays in India. Bashir has had a pretty rough few games for his county this year, just four wickets @ 75, including getting taken for 38 in one over, before getting loaned out to Worcestershire and taking 2/162. But England will ignore the numbers and back him heavily based on what they're seeing.

Arising from KP_f's questions and Duty's answers, I feel it's appropriate to say that the counties are concentrating on the here and now whilst England are more looking to the future.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

VTR wrote:Highly recommend the comments on the BBC article about this. People calling for "Foulkes" to still be in the team. Someone else picking the not even England qualified Worrall over Atkinson. Really is amazing stuff

I know Guildford is an advocate for Frankie, when he does qualify...but from what I have seen I don't think he could make the step up to international level. Bowls far too many "four balls" for my liking, which you can get away with to an extent in the county stuff, don't think you can at international

Sir Frank's economy rate and lack of ''four balls'' can actually be impressive if he gets into an early rhythm. However, I understand where Olly is coming from and he is right to raise the concern. It should be probed further if future hopes and ambitions of international selection develop for England and the player.

Re the WK position (I haven't seen Smith in action so cannot judge ; but from what the Surrey lads have said he must be fairly competent) ; I do have some sympathy for Foakes . The BBC comments section predictably went into cataclysmic frenzy over his omission though I think many on here aren't too surprised. Fair to say his keeping tends to get a bit over praised - while his batting is arguably marked down a bit unfairly. He's shown the ability to play a solid supporting role to a top batsman on a number of occasions ; and I guess it is mainly his lack of significant contributions when left with the tail that has counted against him. But using a very modest Indian tour against him seems a little harsh given the batsmen ahead of him didn't have much to shout about either !

Still the truth is probably that they really want a keeper who can play a dominant role at seven ; and with Jonny unfortunately finding the comeback from his serious injury (probably combined with trying to play different roles in all three formats ?) has completely derailed his form and confidence , they had to look for someone new - and Smith apparently fits the bill in terms of style. Remains to be seen whether he can cut it at the top level but it seems sensible to introduce him now so we can find that out well ahead of that Ashes tour which inevitably has already come to occupy much of the advance attention...

... And I do continue to harbour a dislike of too much focus on "future BIG tours" rather than winning the game in front of you. So I hope some of the decisions - like easing Jimmy out , trying Atkinson and Bashir together as half the attack - don't come back to bite them. But I don't have any problem with the keeper move. As long as the top six perform I reckon a team with Woakes at eight is fairly well covered for batting - the bowling is the area that concerns me . Hopefully Stokes' return to bowling action will help a lot in that regard.

Will be nice to see some proper cricket again. Weather OK I trust ?

alfie wrote:Re the WK position (I haven't seen Smith in action so cannot judge ; but from what the Surrey lads have said he must be fairly competent) ; I do have some sympathy for Foakes . The BBC comments section predictably went into cataclysmic frenzy over his omission though I think many on here aren't too surprised. Fair to say his keeping tends to get a bit over praised - while his batting is arguably marked down a bit unfairly. He's shown the ability to play a solid supporting role to a top batsman on a number of occasions ; and I guess it is mainly his lack of significant contributions when left with the tail that has counted against him. But using a very modest Indian tour against him seems a little harsh given the batsmen ahead of him didn't have much to shout about either !

2 stunning catches from a WK in a game register less on viewers mind than a 60  ball 55 off the bat.
This inspite of those drops costing far more....that's the nature of perceptional memory.
Foakes could have been a well performing batsman at No.5.....technically good and with a get-set build an inning approach....a No.5 has time at hand that often a No.7 lacks.
It still excites me to watch new kids on block & hope Smith stars with the bat and can be atleast a clean WK.

Leach aged 33 has a good 5 to 6 years of cricket, has a proven track record and Bashir hasn't done anything extraordinary.
Don't read too much into wickets on Indian pitches where Jason Kreza, Hartley, Root, Michael Clarke & even Leach all have abundant wickets.
Dropping a proven performer goes against the principal of consistency / fairness in selections.
With Eng's test cricket under Stokes these days there is an air of anticipation of "seeing something different". Hope it's thought out and not for the sake of being different.

alfie wrote:Re the WK position (I haven't seen Smith in action so cannot judge ; but from what the Surrey lads have said he must be fairly competent) ; I do have some sympathy for Foakes . The BBC comments section predictably went into cataclysmic frenzy over his omission though I think many on here aren't too surprised. Fair to say his keeping tends to get a bit over praised - while his batting is arguably marked down a bit unfairly. He's shown the ability to play a solid supporting role to a top batsman on a number of occasions ; and I guess it is mainly his lack of significant contributions when left with the tail that has counted against him. But using a very modest Indian tour against him seems a little harsh given the batsmen ahead of him didn't have much to shout about either !

Still the truth is probably that they really want a keeper who can play a dominant role at seven ; and with Jonny unfortunately finding the comeback from his serious injury (probably combined with trying to play different roles in all three formats ?) has completely derailed his form and confidence , they had to look for someone new - and Smith apparently fits the bill in terms of style. Remains to be seen whether he can cut it at the top level but it seems sensible to introduce him now so we can find that out well ahead of that Ashes tour which inevitably has already come to occupy much of the advance attention...

... And I do continue to harbour a dislike of too much focus on "future BIG tours" rather than winning the game in front of you. So I hope some of the decisions - like easing Jimmy out , trying Atkinson and Bashir together as half the attack - don't come back to bite them. But I don't have any problem with the keeper move. As long as the top six perform I reckon a team with Woakes at eight is fairly well covered for batting - the bowling is the area that concerns me . Hopefully Stokes' return to bowling action will help a lot in that regard.

Will be nice to see some proper cricket again. Weather OK I trust ?

Should be ok weather wise today Alfie - bit overcast, maybe the odd bit of drizzle, but nothing like what we've seen around the country in the last few days!

Batting does look very strong on paper - agree with some concern on the bowling attack. I hadn't really clocked the Bashir/Leach thing...I don't mind it, albeit I am not sure Bashir is the wagon I would be hitching too, I'd still like to see Ahmed given a proper run.
It is harsh on Leach, but he has also really struggled to be available/stay fit in recent years.

England win the toss and bowl first. Seems a good toss to win and a chance for England to get at this inexperienced WI batting order early.

Don't agree with the decision at the toss....it's a used pitch was used in the CC and it was a road....sun peaking through, i feel like that was an emotional decision at the toss rather than a cricketing one...i hope im proved wrong though...

Good interview on Sky just now of Atherton to Smith. Respectful and polite as you would expect but also probing, particularly of Smith's relative inexperience of keeping and his ongoing relationship with Foakes. The debutant stood up to it well although the real challenge is now coming.

Still think Stokes should have batted first, pitch is slow, low gonna be flat this could backfire.....Anderson goes for two boundaries in his first over, not gonna be the easiest of pitches for him to run through the windies here

Nice couple of overs from Jimmy there, beating the bat a few times. Fair bit of swing, but agree it's not the quickest pitch.

wisden wrote:Still think Stokes should have batted first, pitch is slow, low gonna be flat this could backfire.....Anderson goes for two boundaries in his first over, not gonna be the easiest of pitches for him to run through the windies here

Nor should it be of course.

Despite my usual old school outlook on cricketing matters (which traditionally includes ''win the toss and bat first''), I'm ok with Stokes' choice today. 20 or so miles south of the ground and it's very overcast with a bit of breeze here which should aid the bowlers. Anyway, as always, best to judge when both sides have had a dig.

22-0 after 6 overs...Woakes bowling very slowly, even slower than Jimmy.....Louis looking solid early doors has a good f/c average albeit early days.....WI look okay here, ball not doing lots could end up being a day where WI happy to lose the toss..