Root, Bairstow etc. should enjoy the next Ashes down under. They'll be given one flat road after the other there.
English cricket thread
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Yep was only really picked as batsmen who could bowl spin in SL. No idea why he is in the squad.
Couple questions on the squad.
Why is bairstow the wk in tests and not buttler?
How is stokes vc and not buttler? Assuming vc is picked by captain, root prefers stokes, morgan buttler?
Why is bairstow the wk in tests and not buttler?
How is stokes vc and not buttler? Assuming vc is picked by captain, root prefers stokes, morgan buttler?
I suspect both decisions are for succession planning, to ensure there are experienced players for future capitancy and current wicket keeping.
On the captaincy side, it’s a great policy. Teams like India and Pakistan have not done this and are facing issues because of lack of qualified candidates.
Yep. Seems the England management want Buttler to be the next captain so aren't putting too much pressure on him. Plus Bairstow seems to bat better in that no.7 role. He's generally failed as a specialist batsman.
Worcestershire just chased 181 in 12 overs 
Guptil 86 off 31 balls
Guptil 86 off 31 balls
So what's gonna be the English three pace bowlers(assuming that too be the case)? Anderson is undroppable so there's one. Which leaves two out of Curran, Broad, Woakes and Archer. Personally I'd play Woakes and Archer but Curran is an all rounder whilst Broad gets into his mode once every few matches where he destroys batting.
Worcestershire just chased 181 in 12 overs
Guptil 86 off 31 balls
But no one got to see it in 2019. Sums up why this tournament is not sustainable
It be Woakes, Broad & Anderson
Depends on the pitch I think. If it looks like we're going to need pace they might drop broad for archer. If it's going to swing and seam all over the place they'll play Broad and bring Archer in for Lords.
Anderson, Woakes and Stokes will all play.
If Archer's fully fit he's playing, no doubt about it.
It's such a hard decision but a good problem to have. I would probably pick Joffra but I can see them going with Broad and letting Joffra get fully fit . Batting is the major worry though and there seems to be no clear solution in sight. Australian attack is top notch and looking at how bad England have batted recently I can easily see sub 200 scores for England which might not be good enough. Sadly won't have Curran either to save us with the bat
Bangladesh U19 beat England U19: both top of table with India anchored firmly at bottom, with a few games to go.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...i-nation-under-19s-tournament-in-england-2019
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...i-nation-under-19s-tournament-in-england-2019
It won't be as simple as that. Broad and Woakes have both just taken a stack of wickets on a crap pitch, and there's every chance we've going to get another dodgy strip at Edgbaston.
The management might feel they just should play all their English-style seamers - Anderson, Broad and Woakes - together, to get maximum value out of the surface. Then unleash Archer on better wickets later in the series when he'll be fully recovered from whatever injury he had during the World Cup.
Not saying that's the right call but that'll be the thinking behind the scenes.
Yep. It's just a question of whether our lower order can biff more runs than theirs. Got to hope Bairstow and Moeen come good.
I think Broad should play and it should be between Woakes and Archer for last spot.
I agree about the Batting which makes is more baffling with selections such as Curran and Denly instead of actual batsmen. If we continue to make low scores, can see Sibley and possibly Ballance coming into selection if they continue their good form.
Not sure about that tbh. Seems Woakes is undroppable after his recent form. And we need his batting given the difficulties Bairstow and Moeen have had.
Sibley must surely be considered sooner rather than later. Not sure about Ballance though. He's had plenty of chances before and just can't see them giving him another one.
I'm not saying those aren't good points, but he's been inked in since the start of the summer. You only have to listen to those close to the camp to know what they think about him and the only issue is going to be whether they think he's fit enough. It is harsh on, probably, Woakes (although I'd drop Broad, myself) who I think is a fine bowler and would be unlucky to miss out, but Archer is clearly thought of as a generational talent and they want to get him in as soon as they feasibly can.
There's new question marks about the composition of the top 4, but I'd be surprised (if Archer is fit enough) if the team wasn't some combination of Burns, Roy, Denly, Root, Buttler, Stokes, Bairstow, Ali, Archer, Broad, Anderson
Agree about Sibley he would be in my XI. Unfortunately for Ballance seems to be a Mark Ramprakash a quality country player but been found wanting at test level. Wouldn’t mind seeing Sam Northeast have a chance at 5.
I would go
Sibley
Crawley
Roy
Root
Northeast
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Woakes
Broad
Anderson
Not sure you can compare Ballance with Ramprakash. Ballance is a decent player for whom test cricket is a step too far; Ramprakash was a brilliant player who should have bossed the test scene, but was let down by the current managerial mess and his own frailties.
Haven't seen enough of county cricket to have any opinion on the players you mention. Guess that Crawley's a bit too young for this series and there'll be some reason they don't pick Northeast - after all they've had plenty of opportunity to do so already and they never have. Sibley will surely get in if either Burns or Denly fails. He might even be in for Lords.
Would be very surprised if they dropped Woakes. Reckon it's between Archer and Broad for that last spot.
On form I absolutely agree with you, but I think Broad's seniority will go in his favour. Broad was dropped in the winter, obviously, and Curran played, but he came back in in the West Indies as soon as they decided to go with a more classical attack. That was the first time he was dropped for 6 years, and – if you accept the argument that Curran's selection was because he was left handed – then the only right arm seamer picked ahead of Broad for six years is James Anderson.
It wouldn't necessarily be the wrong decision to break that habit for the Ashes, but it would be pretty brave one.
I reckon thats a fair comparison. Both, more so in Marks case, dominate/d the county scene - hell, Ramprakash was absolute force for Surrey. Ballance, to be fair, had a very good start to test cricket and only recently has been exposed as maybe just a county level player. I do like the comparison though. Ramprakash was quite poor at test level from what I've read.
There is no chance Woakes doesn't play the first test
In terms of talent and technique they're worlds apart really. Ballance looks like a guy who makes the absolute best of himself and has to fight his limitations. Ramprakash just oozed class. But he only managed two centuries for England and never nailed down a place.
To be fair to Ramprakash he played for England during a period when selection was a complete joke and players would get dropped if they had two poor games in a row. Also, at that time pretty much every team apart from England had at least one world-class bowler. Even Zimbabwe had Heath Streak ffs. So it was a terrible time to be an English batsman.
Certain players (Atherton, Stewart, Thorpe) overcame it through sheer mental toughness but the majority were unable to realise their potential. Hick and John Crawley should also have had glittering test careers and they both went the same way as Ramprakash.
International sport is very difficult. The pressure levels are higher and you need a tougher mentality. Same applies to other sport imo .
Many players will have that problem. Sub Badrinath is a prime example for Indian cricket. An absolute monster at domestic level - averaged 60. Dale Steyn ended his career before it even started. Unfortunately, like Mark, I don't think he was good enough to overcome to challenges posed by international cricket.
Yeah, you're always going to get players who aren't up to it. Cricket gives you so much time to think about your game, and it's essentially an individual sport so there's no hiding place. It's a wonder that anyone makes a success of it really.
But at least the environment is generally better now, with greater consistency of selection across most teams and a growing awareness of sports psychology.
Only ahead of Ali, conditions look swing friendly from the forecast - so Woakes and Anderson are in. And can’t see Broad left out at this stage. Long run yes
But a huge risk to pick him as a bowler; after a side issue
I have changed my mind and think that Archer is definitely playing. You need some pace in your attack at times. It's between Broad & Anderson depending on Jimmy's fitness
Definitely. I’ve actually been into cricket for ages. I was in the SCG when Darren Gough got a hat-trick in an Ashes match.
Have appropriately low expectations as an Irish fan but this test went a lot better than expected. So it’s all good.
Ireland were the better side for two days. Final innings went horribly wrong but still plenty of positives.
I think I'd play Archer on thursday.
Don't think this is a good move to be honest. Root has made clear he wants to bat at 4, and he's our best player, so we should let him. The idea that the best player always bats at 3 is nonsense, as Tendulkar, Kohli, Pietersen, Steve Waugh (and Mark Waugh come to think of it) have all proved.
We're making a major change on the eve of the Ashes and we're pushing our best batsman out of position. Hopefully it comes off but it seems like we're looking at this the wrong way to me.
I like Root at 3 but I am stunned that this is happening to have Denly at 4 . That just seems like madness . Should have been Roy at 4 . Anyways England will struggle to post any decent scores this Ashes , will come down to the bowlers to save this team
So within two weeks this has happened
> Bayliss tells press positions 4-8 are England's strength and they're not going to mess with it
> Pick a player who bats in the middle order to open
> Play one test
> Move your best batsman to a position he doesn't want to bat because you don't trust your selection
> Move a guy who bats at 3 for his county to 4 because you don't trust him to bat in the top 3
> Tell the press that you think that the guy whose scored most of his red ball runs in the middle order might be better suited to batting at 4 long term, but you're still going to pick him to open for now.
#justtrevorbaylissthings
This! Bayliss is clearly a great ODI coach but test cricket doesn't seem to be his bag.
Surely the idea behind picking Denly was that he's a top-order specialist?
We've already fecked Root the batsman up by making him captain and now we're making him play in a position he doesn't want to.
I'd seriously consider after this ashes having him step down as Captain and just concentrate on scoring runs. Buttler seems like he'd make an excellent skipper.
Root is our best batsman. We should do everything we can to make sure he's scoring a shit ton of runs for as long as possible.
I'd seriously consider after this ashes having him step down as Captain and just concentrate on scoring runs. Buttler seems like he'd make an excellent skipper.
Root is our best batsman. We should do everything we can to make sure he's scoring a shit ton of runs for as long as possible.
Yeah completely agree. Think the same.
Best player bats at 4 - Smith and Kohli do it, AB did too.