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.

What is this impact 'over 3m' nonsense? That was out.

Looks like those boundaries broke the shackles...Smith definitely into a higher gear now and target only 34 more so I might get some sleep before sunrise

Desperation review now by Sri Lanka ? Actually pretty close but over 3m down so Root is safe.

GSC wrote:Pope lives a charmed life for me as a nailed on member of the XI tbh

Averages 43.58 since his move to 3 in the batting lineup - has a knack for getting out a bit sillily at times, but more than worth his spot in the order.

Smith impressive yet again here - both knocks in this test he’s come in with things on a knife edge and looked very very assured.

Bowled literally next ball after I posted that. Oops

Won't blame you Olly...I left the room for two minutes then so probably my fault

Think as it's down to 20 needed Smith has done his job...

Come on Joe...let's have a six to finish...

Anyway basically done now. Closer than expected so credit to Sri Lanka but England's summer rolls on...Smith my PoTM and just Stone for the injured Wood for Thursday I guess...

Will say goodnight all in anticipation of a final boundary...well played Joe Root....and indeed there it is...

Comfortable win in the end. Pitch made it an intriguing rather than exciting match, a few scored big without any real fluency.

Job done, Root with the winning runs. And glad to get it done before tomorrow and the potential rain!

Good, mature chase from England. Sri Lanka came in with a clear plan to suffocate England's scoring, and hope that England would respond with rash shots, but this didn't happen. Root, in particular, was happy to grind away at a sub-50 SR to get his team home.

4, 5 and 6 all did a good job in this test, but not so much from the top three. Duckett averages 35 in the last 18 months (excluding Ireland), and Pope a few runs lower than that, so I can understand reservations about Pope in the team. Nothing's very likely to change with regards to the batting order before the end of the next Ashes, bar a complete collapse in form for someone/injury, as I believe Key is settled with Duckett-Crawley-Pope-Root-Brook-Stokes-Smith being the top seven for the Ashes. I suppose if Lawrence were to put in some heavy scores on a possible six test run, while Crawley is injured, then it could make for an interesting selection call when Crawley returns.

Bowling wise, Woakes looks to be the attack leader now, but surely he can't be called up for any overseas tours given his horrendous overseas numbers? But it is looking more likely, especially as his batting is becoming a more worthwhile asset. Wood broke down with injury after showing what a key point of difference he can be when on form. That will surely give a chance for Stone to return to the test fold after a three year absence, in what will be England's only likely change.

Potts didn't have a good first innings, though improved in the second. Atkinson's possible lack of control is an early concern, in an otherwise glittering start to his test career. Bashir, very meh. Don't envy those bowlers having to go to Pakistan and those lifeless decks in October!

Sri Lanka have plenty to be encouraged by. Their top three didn't really deliver, but Kamindu, Dhananjaya, Chandimal and Mathews all put in good scores, as did Milan, so that's something good to build on in the second test.

Jayasuriya and A Fernando were clearly the best weapons with the ball, and Milan showed a bit of what he can do in the second innings after a poor first. V Fernando had a bad game. I'd expect him to be dropped for either Rajitha or Kumara in the next game. If I were Sri Lankan, my preference would be Rajitha. Milan should hold on to his spot, but I wouldn't be overly surprised at a double change.

I think Sri Lanka will win a test in this series, if they apply themselves and don't fold during the pressure moments, as the West Indies did.

Second test at Lord's on Thursday. Weather looks great throughout for that one. Proper summer.

If sri Lanka's tail could edge out another 50 or so it would've been really interesting I think but when they crumbled England were well ahead

Listened more today, only a bit of watching.
Game was tighter and more tense than the final scorecard.
Root played a "Proper" test inning and soaked a lot of pressure.
Smith broke the shackles just when CHOKE had started raising its head.

Lanka erred in not using the 2nd & 3rd spinner.
Commentators were blaming Lankan tail for not adding another 40....but they are bunnies, no fault.
Kammindu & Chandimal brought SL much further in the game then they could have ever imagined after being 113-7 and 90- 4 in their 2 innings and conceding 358.

Lankan "attack" was exposed as just being two men, A Fernando & Jaysurya, rest are all 5th bowler material.
They need to & will bring in Lahiru Kumara who once hit 152kph & can consistently bowl 140+

Little practice, first game totally foreign conditions...beaten but not disgraced Lanka...takes quite a few credits & looks like having  ability to nudge past Eng in one game


Confirmation of Smith's temperament is the only positive for Eng.
How dependent they are on Wood as an enforcer & not much batting above or below their Nos 4-5-6 must be the negative realizations.
Smith's untidiness to spin, they'd hope was one-off.

I think Woakes at seven is a bit of a "batting positive" below the top six... but the overall batting undoubtedly looks a lot weaker without Stokes and Crawley. Hopefully Duckett and Pope will be a bit more effective next up as putting it all on 4/5/6 is a little too reminiscent of the team from a few short years ago ... I don't think there was any real suggestion of a "choke" though : more a fear that the necessarily patient batting might have seen the game extended into a possibly weather ruined fifth day.

Sri Lanka bowling needs a bit of an injection of real wicket taking threat...they were tight enough here for the most part ; but not a lot of menace once the ball was a few overs old. Obviously have plenty who can bat so solid scores at Lord's in good conditions don't look beyond them. May be this series will be closer than the recently concluded West Indies one ? England are very difficult to beat at home though...

KP_fan wrote:Listened more today, only a bit of watching.
Game was tighter and more tense than the final scorecard.
Root played a "Proper" test inning and soaked a lot of pressure.
Smith broke the shackles just when CHOKE had started raising its head.

Lanka erred in not using the 2nd & 3rd spinner.
Commentators were blaming Lankan tail for not adding another 40....but they are bunnies, no fault.
Kammindu & Chandimal brought SL much further in the game then they could have ever imagined after being 113-7 and 90- 4 in their 2 innings and conceding 358.

Lankan "attack" was exposed as just being two men, A Fernando & Jaysurya, rest are all 5th bowler material.
They need to & will bring in Lahiru Kumara who once hit 152kph & can consistently bowl 140+

Little practice, first game totally foreign conditions...beaten but not disgraced Lanka...takes quite a few credits & looks like having  ability to nudge past Eng in one game


Confirmation of Smith's temperament is the only positive for Eng.
How dependent they are on Wood as an enforcer & not much batting above or below their Nos 4-5-6  must be the negative realizations.
Smith's untidiness to spin, they'd hope was one-off.

Hi KP-f and all,

I tend to side with Alfie's later post and so wouldn't highlight ''CHOKE'' as you do but certainly agree with you about Root's ''proper'' test innings seeing England home. You are also right to flag the impetus that Smith brought to the middle.

As for Smith's keeping and in his own words, he's ''learning on the job''. Not ideal but it's not handicapping his batting as was my fear prior to his initial call up against the West Indies and he's still taken some decent catches - plus all the straightforward ones - along the way. All things in the mix, England are a stronger side with him having replaced Foakes. He was deservedly MotM.

Any other positives?
Whilst Wood's fitness looks as if it will always be something of a concern, England's management made the right call in selection by listening to Carlos and others here going for a bowler rather than a batter to replace Stokes. Had they gone the other way, we would have been in a pickle when Wood departed. Not a too difficult call perhaps but a sensible one and past managements haven't always been blessed with those.

Potts came back effectively in Sri Lanka's second dig.

Atkinson (and despite my Surrey connections, I've not been his strongest supporter) continues to take wickets even when not bowling that well.

Similar in a way to my comment about Atkinson and despite not playing that well, England won - again.

How empty is the glass to say Smith was the only positive! It was a win, not all that convincing, but England were generally ahead for most of the match and it definitely wasn't a one man show

A word about Root. Since the 3rd Test v India last winter he has scored more than 600 runs at an average of almost 80.

He really doesn't have to match the scoring rates of the others and it's good that some of the rest have cottoned on that scoring at around 3.5 an over still means going a fair old lick.

Good for England that they had to battle a bit for the win and full marks to SL for making a match of it.

As I write Pakistan are in desperate straits to Bangladesh at home - just 23 ahead with only two wickets left and a session and a half to go.

All of this suggests England should be giving a couple of Tests at home to Bangladesh. One could be played at Lord's where big crowds are always guaranteed. Alas, England, NZ and Australia seem only interested in playing each other over and over again.

VTR wrote:How empty is the glass to say Smith was the only positive! It was a win, not all that convincing, but England were generally ahead for most of the match and it definitely wasn't a one man show

Positives are measured on default expectations which in this case was a comfortable win for Eng.

When the result is less than baseline expectations then the strong sides need to look at glass empty part. Eng is vying for a place in the league of Aus, Ind, NZ and SA I would assume.

How much is the glass empty?....Far less than half.
The empty part too only reflects lack of backup when top guys like Stokes and Wood breakdown.

@ guildfordbat
On Smith's keeping he did take fantastic catches vs WI snd those were flying to seamers.
He has fluffed about 4 or 5 takes including 1 missed stumping in this test and all of that was against Bashir and Root and  I watched less than half of the game.

He is standing up too early to spinners which is a handicap if there is a deflection from bat or body. He then has to lunge with much less reaction time.
It certainly can be overcome thru coaching
He needs to learn and practice into his muscle memory to " rise with the ball"

Wood ruled out of the next two tests.

England have called up Josh Hull, though Stone is likely to play the next test in Wood's absence. I have big reservations about Josh Hull, principally because he gets taken for five an over on the county circuit and must have the worst control of any frontline county bowler. And this is in Division Two.

Hull's season figures are 68-5-365-2, which is an average of 182.5 and an economy of 5.36. In the plus column, he took match figures of 20.1-1-74-5 against Sri Lanka for the Lions very recently. And he's obviously liked by Key because he's very tall and offers a left arm angle and pace. So those vibes put him ahead of better county bowlers.

Duty281 wrote:Wood ruled out of the next two tests.

England have called up Josh Hull, though Stone is likely to play the next test in Wood's absence. I have big reservations about Josh Hull, principally because he gets taken for five an over on the county circuit and must have the worst control of any frontline county bowler. And this is in Division Two.

He has the second worst average of many England seamer to have send down 100 overs since 2023. Olly Stone is only a bit better at 47!

https://x.com/ohlookitswill_/status/1827635869441728817?s=46&t=wiyMk89KEarOmJqGyH0sCA

I guess they wanted like for like, with Wood/Stone/Hull all being the pace option - but Sam Cook must be spitting feathers, especially after Key name checked him earlier in the summer.

I've never thought that Cook would get picked because he's the type of seamer, low 80s, that Key is trying to get away from. No matter how well he bowls for Essex.

Hull has got that extra pace + height + bonus left arm angle = he's a viable Bazball pick, no matter what the numbers look like. As an added note, Hull is unlikely to add much with the bat. His FC average is 3.5.

According to the BBC, Woakes is struggling with his fitness, so it might be Stone + Hull on Thursday.

Is it just me , or does anyone else wonder if they are getting just a little too "funky" with selection ? This lad Hull has played 9 games , is yet to take more than three wickets in an innings , and averages 58. And hasn't shown much sign of being able to bat .  OK , he's young , left arm and tall ; but still...

I would imagine he's likely there more for exposure/experience and it will just be Stone for Wood. But if Woakes were to be unfit he really doesn't look like a viable replacement option so struggling to see the point.

Edit : Ah thanks Duty for reminding me of Hull's Lions game - had overlooked it. Must be why he's been picked ; though I am still not convinced it is sufficient reason to be taking such a gamble.

I have a subjective feeling ( not backed by stats)
English seamers are the most fragile.

Aussies are the other end most Robust. Their top-3 ie Cummins, Starc &Hazelwood play all formats and generally complete the full test series.

As Rocky Flintoff’s Championship debut was flagged here, I’ll quickly say he’s just fallen first ball in his second dig to Frank Worrall at the Oval. Good catch by Foakes as the ball moved away from him but a very poor and unnecessary shot by the youngster.

Think it's pretty clear at this point England don't view the county championship as any kind of representative conditions for test cricket. in fairness they've gotten a decent return from the approach so far

KP_fan wrote:I have a subjective  feeling ( not backed by stats)
English seamers are the most fragile.

Aussies are the other end most Robust. Their top-3  ie Cummins,  Starc &Hazelwood play all formats and generally complete the full test series.

I was discussing this with an Aussie pal. His view, which I share, was that Oz seamers are just as fragile but they simply produce so much talent in that area. Their pitches and cricket culture, i.e. you don't need to be minted to play, encourage lots of top athletes to play cricket and try to bowl fast. So they just pump out talent in that area. So the injuries don't seem as significant as the next talent just comes in.

If you think about the generation that Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood have spanned, there's another similar talent in Pattinson that struggled to stay on the pitch. Jhye Richardson is an incredible talent who has barely bowled. Whilst a young Billy Stanlake was bowling genuinely rapid outswing from Kyle Jamieson's height. Again, Stanlake hasn't fulfilled his talent due to injury. Cummins also missed 6 years of course.

Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood are carefully managed too. Yes, they play all formats, but they barely do outside the big events. Australia's game plan for world cups is to rock up with a full squad for the warmups, puff their chest out and see if the talent carries them through. Whilst Australia have had some periods recently where they were, ahem, selective, with playing away from home.

Going further back but sticking with Oz. Bruce Reid could've been a great of the game. He only played 27 Tests. Given that McGrath, Gillespie and then Lee came through, it's easy to forget though. They just have that abundance of talent. I do wonder if that might shift though? AFL is huge now, Test cricket is struggling and T20 hasn't grabbed the Australian cricket fans attention quite as it has in other areas. May we see those sorts of athletes choose other sports going forward? The cupboard behind the big three does look a bit barer.

Whereas in England the taller/stronger athletes already go to other sports and our conditions encourage 78mph nibblers. We simply don't have as many athletes in cricket who could bowl fast even if encouraged to. As there are so few to start with, we are desperate for them to play and remember the injuries more.

Pakistan's quicker seamers generally struggle with injury. Jamieson is struggling to stay on the park. Nortje has had plenty of injuries. Bumrah is very carefully used by India, generally saved for IPL, ICC tournaments and marquee Test series. Even then, he's specialised in away series in Tests.

I think it's just seamers in general, especially quicker ones, rather than English bowlers specifically.

The number of F-C games played in the CC has certainly exacerbated it at times. Cummins has played 14 F-C games outside of Tests and McGrath played 65 in his career for instance. Matt Potts is at 49 despite having had injuries himself. Even that has improved recently in England though I think though. It's a fine line with English weather too. We need more F-C games than the Sheffield Shield to account for days and games lost to rain.

I think there are sometimes rose tinted glasses looking back too. Folk talk about the Windies quicks, "always bowling 100% and staying on the pitch", which is nonsense. The Windies quicks themselves say it. Mikey Holding would bowl swing off about 6 paces if he didn't think conditions warranted ruining his body. Sylvester Clarke invented the off cutter when he realised he couldn't bowl fast for the full workload demanded of an overseas pro in county cricket. Holding also played only 60 Tests in a 12 year career. Malcolm Marshall is for my money the best seamer I've seen, he played 81 Tests in 13 years.

The furore around Jofra Archer being criticised by some commentators for being "culturally different" when he didn't bowl over 90mph in every spell was fascinating in terms of memories being deceiving. Commentary teams literally had guys like Holding and Bishop saying they didn't always bowl fast in every spell, whilst others in those comms teams said previous generations of quicks always bowled fast. It was such a blind spot for some though where their memory of the past was completely disconnected from reality and they just wouldn't reconsider it.

Whilst plenty of the quicker bowlers back then got injuries. Bob Willis was ravaged by them. Botham went from one of the best athletes cricket will ever see and genuinely quick, to being too overweight to bowl. Lillee had to rebuild his body to bowl effectively as a seamer when his back went. Thommo obliterated his shoulder and was a shadow of his former pace afterwards. Ian Bishop's Test career was cut cruelly short.

Fast bowling is just brutal on the body. The force going through the braced leg, back and elbow in order to bowl quick is nuts.

GSC wrote:Think it's pretty clear at this point England don't view the county championship as any kind of representative conditions for test cricket. in fairness they've gotten a decent return from the approach so far

Agreed. I quite like it too.

For my cricket watching life it's felt like England are in a cycle of going on overseas tours, doing awfully with unsuited players, we all talk about how selection and the structure needs to change to do well home and away. Then we come home the next summer, pick players suited to English conditions, do well in England, pick the same faces overseas, things go usually go to s**t as soon as we meet a decent team away from home. Then the cycle repeats.

Especially with seamers. We pick seamers on the great numbers that they get from opening the bowling with a new Dukes ball in English conditions. They get picked for a Test match. As the junior seamer they are usually now the change bowler. Suddenly they're bowling with an old Kookaburra in completely different conditions. It makes little sense.

We often discuss how we should be good enough in English conditions to be able to blood some players who might be suited elsewhere and win series at home. Now they are actually trying it. Maybe it'll make no difference overseas. Maybe the talent isn't there. At least they'll have tried something else though.

If they're trying to find seamers who can bowl with an older ball outside of English conditions, then looking beyond county stats makes a lot of sense at a point.

So long as we do still have bowlers in the side who can win games with the new Dukes, I don't really have an issue. Which is why I like the Woakes selection more than others. He's magnificent with a new (and older) Dukes in these conditions. He'll win us games at home. Which gives you breathing space to blood bowlers who might make us more competitive elsewhere.

I just don't align with that. If Hull is getting taken for five an over, and can only manage two wickets in 65 overs, in the illustrious heights of Division Two, what on earth is there to say that he's going to be successful in Adelaide against the likes of Smith and Labuschagne?

I don't think England have completely discarded county stats. Many picks have obviously been made on good FC numbers e.g. Atkinson, Tongue, Smith, Brook etc. but they do also like a wildcard pick.

It mainly correlates with spinners so far, however. Hartley and Bashir getting surprise call ups for India, Rehan for Pakistan perhaps another in 2022, but that all makes a degree of sense, because it's difficult for spinners to display their true potential in unfriendly English conditions in April or September.

With the pace bowlers there's no excuse because conditions are generally favourable to them. And someone who takes 15 wickets @ 58 in their FC career is a long way from being ready for test cricket against the elite nations. A call up too early may also be detrimental to a player's development.

"We pick seamers on the great numbers that they get from opening the bowling with a new Dukes ball in English conditions. They get picked for a Test match. As the junior seamer they are usually now the change bowler. Suddenly they're bowling with an old Kookaburra in completely different conditions. It makes little sense."

There's no real alternative to this though, at least historically. Now the Kookaburra is getting used in county cricket, there is some scope for change.

Overall, the selection is a confused mess, with all these injuries. England are trying to get everything right for when they land in Australia, but there's a succession of bowlers who are deemed to be slow in Australia, and the ones that are quick are either injured or injury prone.

I don't really see that England are awful overseas, either. There's mainly three countries England struggle with - West Indies, India and Australia. But they key thing is that everyone struggles to win overseas. It's just the nature of cricket combined with rushed tours that give next to no preparation time. India have won one series in England since 1990 (and only a plumb LBW not being given caused them to win that series in 2007). Australia haven't won here since 2001. West Indies haven't won here since 1988. Winning overseas is bloody difficult and it's not a unique English struggle that they've won only once in India in the last 30 years;  once in the West Indies going back nearly 60 years; and once in Australia in the last thirty years.

Otherwise, England overseas generally go quite well, winning in much of the subcontinent and South Africa. Would be nice to beat NZ this winter.

I don't see any real change in selection policy, there's been plenty of young players picked based on their potential before and then progress through the England rather than County system. Harmison and Broad as examples of fast bowlers without even thinking too much.  

One time I'd say England picked mainly on county form was in a different format, for the early T20 World Cups, before it was considered that serious. Look up those line ups at your own peril

Height, reasonable pace and the left-arm angle are three very useful skills on bouncier wickets with a ball that doesn't move as much. There's a lot to work with there that English cricket doesn't often have to work with. I can see why they are looking at him early. It's very similar to the Bashir pick. Which I also liked.

Conditions in the CC are favourable to seam but they are also favourable to a specific type of seam bowling. CC seamers have forever been talking about actually bowling slower to improve their success there. In a lot of county conditions bowling 78mph, wicket to wicket wobble seam will be lethal.

I think there is an alternative to just picking opening bowlers from the CC. You make sure the Test XI at home still has outstanding new ball Dukes bowlers such as Woakes, then you look for bowlers with attributes that could make them good with an older ball and you try them in Test matches.

It being so difficult to win overseas is why I like a different method of thinking. If we keep doing the same familiar stuff, then we'll get the same familiar results. Which English cricket is generally comfortable with as a whole because change be a scary demon.

I think it's also important with England specifically to remember that we play long series in India and Oz. Outside the big three, the Test nations sadly aren't playing long tours anymore. India and Oz are competitive over here. India are now competitive in Oz. England go to both for long series and it's so often depressing. If Test cricket is heading towards the marquee series between those three being the main thing to look forward to, then trying something different to be more competitive in those longer away series is even more important IMO.

Be interesting to see what they do if Woakes is out - I can’t see a world in which they’d then continue to play five out and out bowlers. Wonder if the next pivot would be to bring in Cox, go with four seamers plus Root/Lawrence for spin?

Suspect with Hull they want to get him in and around the setup - clearly a good Lions outing would’ve peaked interest too (they definitely take Lions stuff as of more interest than County stuff). He’s certainly got all the tools, which is what you’re looking for with a kid that young.

England T20 squad to play Australia: Jos Buttler (Lancashire, captain), Jofra Archer (Sussex), Jacob Bethell (Warwickshire), Brydon Carse (Durham), Jordan Cox (Essex), Sam Curran (Surrey), Josh Hull (Leicestershire), Will Jacks (Surrey), Liam Livingstone (Lancashire), Saqib Mahmood (Lancashire), Dan Mousley (Warwickshire), Adil Rashid (Yorkshire), Phil Salt (Lancashire), Reece Topley (Surrey), John Turner (Hampshire)

England ODI squad: Jos Buttler, Jofra Archer, Gus Atkinson (Surrey), Jacob Bethell, Harry Brook (Yorkshire), Brydon Carse, Ben Duckett (Nottinghamshire), Josh Hull, Will Jacks, Matthew Potts (Durham), Adil Rashid, Phil Salt, Jamie Smith (Surrey), Reece Topley, John Turner

England have named a squad, two squads, for the limited overs games v Australia, which are five ODIs and three T20s. England have no permanent head coach, so Trescothick will take temporary control.

As ever, selection is a bit of a mess, not helped by the T20s starting the day after the scheduled end of the tests v Sri Lanka!

The headline news is no Bairstow or Moeen. It appears to be the end for both. No Jordan, it's probably the end for him. Various other players are rested (from one or both squads) or injured, so trying to make sense of the madness is difficult. I suppose England are building towards the Champions Trophy (come on, give a big cheer) early next year, and that rarest of events, the T20 World Cup, in 2026.

Jacob Bethell is getting a go in both squads. He's an all rounder, bowls slow left arm, just 20. Carse has returned from incarceration for his betting offences. Cox is in the T20 squad. Hull is now in all three squads. Livingstone makes the T20 squad, but not the ODI squad, interestingly. Mahmood is back from injury and in the T20 squad.

Mousley might get a debut in the T20 side, no surprise there. Rashid has been retained in both squads, so despite being 37 in February, no sign of the end just yet. Turner is in both squads, I think again, but will he make  a debut this time? No Hartley in the T20 side, that was a bizarre non-experiment. And still no Rehan  Ahmed, who has disappeared from England squads since suddenly leaving the India tour. Also, no Woakes in either squad, so he might be test only now? Or just rested.

About as expected then.

Bethell is inexperienced but clearly talented. Vitally, he fills a role that England need new blood and better quality in. Someone coming in at 6 or 7 and going big quickly. Particularly with no Sam Curran in the ODI squad.

I'd quite like to see Surran batting higher up in T20is. I think he's a very talented batter but not suited to the 6 or 7 role. If batting higher works then his bowling can be used more sparingly when conditions suit too. It might not work but it's well worth the experiment I think. Whilst at it, I'd probably consider Jacks in the Livingstone role lower down. There's just so much talent higher up the order. I don't want Brook lower than 3. Duckett is ideally suited to 4. Buttler and Salt are a fantastic opening pair.

T20
1.Buttler 2.Salt 3.Brook 4.Duckett 5.Curran 6.Jacks 7.Bethell/Mousley 8.Carse 9.Archer 10.Rashid 11.Topley

With Saqib, Turner and Hull backing up the respective seamers.

ODI
1.Salt 2.Jacks 3.Duckett 4.Brook 5.Smith 6.Buttler 7.Carse 8.Atkinson 9.Archer 10.Rashid 11.Turner

The top 6 feels like complete guesswork figuring out who bats where! It's a shame Crawley is injured as I could see him being a brilliant ODI opener. He just seems made to attack during the PP with the fielding restrictions.

I really like the look of Turner. I think he could be an excellent PP bowler in ODIs. That's something England direly need again. Woakes was absolutely brilliant in that role for Morgan's side.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Be interesting to see what they do if Woakes is out - I can’t see a world in which they’d then continue to play five out and out bowlers. Wonder if the next pivot would be to bring in Cox, go with four seamers plus Root/Lawrence for spin?

Suspect with Hull they want to get him in and around the setup - clearly a good Lions outing would’ve peaked interest too (they definitely take Lions stuff as of more interest than County stuff). He’s certainly got all the tools, which is what you’re looking for with a kid that young.

I was thinking the same re balance of the side. I doubt that they'd go with 3 seamers. Especially without Woakes. It'd be a bit of a kick to trying to develop Bashir this summer though.

1.Duckett 2.Lawrence 3.Pope 4.Root 5.Brook 6.Cox 7.Smith 8.Stone 9.Potts 10.Atkinson 11.Hull

That certainly looks a better balance than a 3 man pace attack or the tail genuinely starting at 7!

I just wish they'd brought Jennings or even Bohannon in as Crawley's replacement. Not only would the batting line-up look better here but it'd also be a look at a potential top 3 player in case Pope's returns fall away. Jennings in particular could be well suited to the Pakistan tour too.

Lawrence is a talented stroke maker but he looks a streaky number 6 at best to me in Tests. Nothing I saw from his couple of flashy thirties in T1 dissuaded me of that. He played some ludicrous strokes. The flick through square leg from well outside off-stump from Prabath and one of the sixes in particular were brilliant. Then he just plays around a straight one in the second innings.

England have confirmed their test team with Stone in for Wood the only change. Will be Stone's four test in what has so far been a very stop/start career - one test v Ireland in 2019, one test in Chennai in 2021, one test v NZ in Birmingham in 2021. This might be a chance for him to put two tests together for the first time.

Luke Wright has also said that it's not the end for Bairstow or Moeen in the limited overs format.

Great news for the balance of the side and quality of the bowling attack that Woakes is fit. He's probably our second most valuable player at home after Root. T1 was so typical of Woakes in England. 6 for 90 across the match and a very useful 25 in the first innings which helped Smith get them into a lead. He averages 21.5 with the ball and 33 with the bat at home now. His batting at home is actually far better as well as his bowling. His only century and 5 of his 6 half centuries are all at home. Probably a case of the short ball, his obvious weakness with the bat, and spin being less potent in England.

I still think Stone could be an excellent Test bowler. Even if England can only get a brief Test career out of his body, that's much better than nearly nothing. Ryan Harris for instance will be remembered as a what if given his massive talent being constantly hobbled by injuries. 113 wickets at an excellent average across 27 Tests is still a very valuable input across a few years though. Hopefully Stone can go well and stay fit even if it's only for a short time given he's nearly 31 already.

Thankful that Woakes is fit. Can't see any realistic way of replacing him in the XI (OK , maybe Curran , but...) ; without seriously disturbing team balance ; and given they were pushed a bit last week further weakening the side would not have been a good thing at all.

Not a lot of experience in that bowling group though , is there ? So hope Stone can produce the goods...

alfie wrote:Thankful that Woakes is fit. Can't see any realistic way of replacing him in the XI (OK , maybe Curran , but...) ; without seriously disturbing team balance ;  ..

I am sure you can see but perhaps don't wish to mention this Ghost...
Ali for Bashir brings the same balance

Moeen! A suggestion cribbed straight from the BBC comments section

I suppose Moeen being dropped from the limited overs set up is the clearest indicator that he's now a test only player, and we should look forward to seeing him in the test XI for the next ten years.

Moeen's batting record in Eng matches that of Woakes
& bowling in Eng betters that of Flintoff in Eng
& in absolute terms pretty decent for any spinner in English conditions.

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:Thankful that Woakes is fit. Can't see any realistic way of replacing him in the XI (OK , maybe Curran , but...) ; without seriously disturbing team balance ;  ..

I am sure you can see but perhaps don't wish to mention this Ghost...
Ali for Bashir brings the same balance  

Can always count on you to add the punch line , KP_fan...

Factually correct I suppose ; but I sense that the Great Man himself is no longer keen to return to the red ball set up. In truth either Hartley or Rehan for Bashir would go some way to adjusting the bat/ball balance ; but not expecting either in the immediate term. Perhaps should have said no way to fix the batting from available seamers...

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/dawid-malan-england-s-former-no-1-ranked-t20i-batter-retires-from-international-cricket-1448927

Dawid Malan has retired from international cricket. Extraordinary averages with the white ball. 55.76 in the ODI format, which is the highest of any regular England player and fifth highest in the global game. 36.38 average in T20is, the second highest of any regular England player. Perhaps didn't work out for him in the test format, but he did get a century in that as well, which leaves him as one of only two Englishmen to get a century in all three formats.

-------
Since too many posts were made, this topic has been divided automatically. You can find the rest of this topic here :
https://www.606v2.com/t71654-england-s-summer-of-cricket-2024