England Tour Squad for Australia

[Howe_zat]

Absence makes the heart grow fonder, doesn't it? Compton wasn't anywhere near this popular when he was in the team. Sacrificing him in order to move Root up to open seems very unnecessary in hindsight, but Compton never looked above average as a Test player to me and I don't miss him.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

So Ravi scores his first one day ton in his 90th game and should go on an ashes tour?

Can't believe so many are forgetting how crap a test player he is.

 

[wpdavid]

So Ravi scores his first one day ton in his 90th game and should go on an ashes tour?

Can't believe so many are forgetting how crap a test player he is.

Younger readers will barely remember most of his test appearances at all. How many test has he actually played since the 2009 Ashes?

Not that his ton yesterday should have any bearing anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's a pretty common double-standard selection fallacy anyway. Bopara is left out of the Test side and picked in ODIs because the selectors believed that, while his Test failings rightly ruled him out of the reckoning for the Test side, he still had something to offer the one day team. Scoring runs in ODIs shouldn't suddenly propel him back in the Test reckoning because it's exactly what's expected of someone selected in the ODI side. Nothing has changed. You can't on one hand say his Test failings don't matter when selecting in the ODI side and then the next minute turn around and say that his ODI performances should put him back in the Test reckoning. You either thought he'd do well in ODIs despite him being a crap Test player or you didn't. If you didn't and then he proved you wrong then yeah you could possibly have grounds for re-evaluating your position on his Test credentials but this can never really happen for a set of selectors as they'd not pick him in ODIs in this case.

It reminds me a lot of the Mitchell Johnson situation, when the selectors argued that he was ideally suited to playing in Perth and would be a suitable horse for courses selection, and then when he actually backed them up, they kept him in the squad based on performance. As if it was somehow a massive shock that to themselves they weren't completely wrong and that perhaps it meant Johnson had turned a corner. Apparently he was picked just because it was Perth but after he performed well it suddenly had nothing to do with the fact that it was Perth at all. You can't have it both ways.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not sure what problems moving Root back down to 6 would resolve. I'd rather see Ravi given a good run in the Test Team at 6, he can bowl a few overs too.

If Bopara was given the same amount of time as Bell, Trott etc.. in the team he would be just as successful.

Utter bollocks.

He's had far too many opportunities in the Test side and just isn't up to it. Trott for instance is a farcical comment, the bloke tonned up on debut FFS.

Incidentally, Bell was dropped for a while, and came back stronger for it.

 

[theegyptian]

It's a pretty common double-standard selection fallacy anyway. Bopara is left out of the Test side and picked in ODIs because the selectors believed that, while his Test failings rightly ruled him out of the reckoning for the Test side, he still had something to offer the one day team. Scoring runs in ODIs shouldn't suddenly propel him back in the Test reckoning because it's exactly what's expected of someone selected in the ODI side. Nothing has changed. You can't on one hand say his Test failings don't matter when selecting in the ODI side and then the next minute turn around and say that his ODI performances should put him back in the Test reckoning. You either thought he'd do well in ODIs despite him being a crap Test player or you didn't. If you didn't and then he proved you wrong then yeah you could possibly have grounds for re-evaluating your position on his Test credentials but this can never really happen for a set of selectors as they'd not pick him in ODIs in this case.

It reminds me a lot of the Mitchell Johnson situation, when the selectors argued that he was ideally suited to playing in Perth and would be a suitable horse for courses selection, and then when he actually backed them up, they kept him in the squad based on performance. As if it was somehow a massive shock that to themselves they weren't completely wrong and that perhaps if means Johnson had turned a corner. You can't have it both ways.

Well Bopara omitted himself from the last test he was gonna play rather than England dropping him. They obviously thought that he was the best option at the time. And given none of those who have been tried at 6 since (except Root who is now opening) have convinced and have been dropped since(woakes aside re dropping) it's inevitable that Bopara's name has come up again. I also think that runs in ODI's do have significance to test cricket in this case. In the past he maybe hasn't dealt with pressure situations and lacked confidence. Even though it is small steps he seems to be high on confidence and much better dealing with pressure situations. Yes the Ireland bowling was poor but England were 50-4 and looking at an embarassing defeat. People will talk about the CT final and given it away under pressure but he batted well throughout that tournament in high pressure moments.

Don't get me wrong I'm not convinced or even sure I would pick Bopara in the Australia squad but that is the same of all the other potential options to bat at number 6. That's the problem for England.

 

[marc71178]

It seems the general consensus is that Woakes won't be even in the squad, but surely if he was selected in the last side as a number 6 who can chip in with overs he will at least tour? Yes it wasn't a stunning debut but Collingwood got an MBE for less.

 

[jackbyrne91]

Utter bollocks.

He's had far too many opportunities in the Test side and just isn't up to it. Trott for instance is a farcical comment, the bloke tonned up on debut FFS.

Incidentally, Bell was dropped for a while, and came back stronger for it.

How is it utter bollocks? The most tests Bopara played in a row was seven, he scored three tons in those seven.

Bell went 35 innings without scoring a ton before this little run he is on and he wasn't questioned once.

Bopara was dropped last time round unfairly, he played three tests (I've gone into more detail on an earlier post today) - two of them he came in at 600/4 and 500/5 and the other one yeh failed but it was one match (which we lost and Dale Steyn was on fire).

 

[Scaly piscine]

Bopara has never been dropped unfairly in his England career, he's only ever been unfairly picked. His bowling is a complete non-factor in Test cricket. He has a crap temperament, he's a bottler, he has technical issues and he's done sweet FA in County Cricket. Whenever he gets a shot for England A/Loins (which is fairly often) he does nothing. He didn't earn the chances he got and he hasn't earned any chances since then either.

 

[marc71178]

It is utter bollocks because those 3 tons were scored against dire opposition and given a lot of assistance by crap fielding. He then followed it by 4 Tests of pure ****e, so the "3 tons in 7 Tests" stat is misleading to the extreme. If you'd like another 7 Tests stat I'll tell you that in his most recent 7 Tests he has 178 runs @ 17.80.

I'm struggling to see where he's played 3 games when Dale Steyn's been involved so not sure what you're trying to say there.

Bell had a lot of credit in the bank to allow him that run of innings without a ton, because he'd actually done it before at Test level against a variety of attacks, unlikely Bopara.

 

[hendrix]

3 tons against a crap attack shouldn't count against him though.

How many tons have the others scored against crap attacks? It's a fairly valid point that the number 6 position hasn't been snatched up by anyone, leaving aside Root.

Didn't they try Samit Patel there? Is he really that much better than Bopara?

 

[marc71178]

They shouldn't be taken as a big thing to say he deserves a call up now, when he's failed miserably both before and since and they were over 4 years ago. The difference is the others have scored runs against good attacks as well.

Patel only really played to add another spin option really but I'd say he's still a better bet than Ravi.

 

[hendrix]

The difference is the others have scored runs against good attacks as well.

who are these others?

 

[jackbyrne91]

I'm struggling to see where he's played 3 games when Dale Steyn's been involved so not sure what you're trying to say there.

The last three test matches he played. There was two against India and then the last one was against SA. Anyway I'd forgotten he withdrew for personal reasons. My bad.

Still think he should be in the squad though.

 

[marc71178]

who are these others?

Well Bell and Trott were the 2 mentioned originally and I think it's safe to say that they have.

 

[marc71178]

The last three test matches he played. There was two against India and then the last one was against SA. Anyway I'd forgotten he withdrew for personal reasons. My bad.

Worth noting that he only played the 2 matches against India as an injury replacement for Trott, so wasn't dropped so much as Trott regained fitness.

Still think he should be in the squad though.

Based off one ODI innings against Ireland? In that case Morgan should be ahead of him.

 

[jackbyrne91]

Yes Marc but I think it was unfair to judge Bopara's efforts against India given that he only batted twice, and once the score was at 600/4 and the other the score was 500/5.

Based on the fact that I think he is a talented player and I think his efforts over the past year have shown a different temperament. He averages 82.33 this year in ODI Cricket and has had a pretty good summer.

I'm not fully advocating selecting someone based soley on their ODI form but it is clear Bopara has talent, he has struggled to use it in the past and had problems definitely, but I don't see him doing any worse than Bairstow's recent efforts?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Yes Marc but I think it was unfair to judge Bopara's efforts against India given that he only batted twice, and once the score was at 600/4 and the other the score was 500/5.

Based on the fact that I think he is a talented player and I think his efforts over the past year have shown a different temperament. He averages 82.33 this year in ODI Cricket and has had a pretty good summer.

I'm not fully advocating selecting someone based soley on their ODI form but it is clear Bopara has talent, he has struggled to use it in the past and had problems definitely, but I don't see him doing any worse than Bairstow's recent efforts?

He has done well in ODI's, leave him in that side then and don't consider him for tests. He has a crap record in tests and has technical faults that get exposed. Just let him go to Australia to be part of the ODI and T20 squads not the test one.

 

[marc71178]

Yes Marc but I think it was unfair to judge Bopara's efforts against India given that he only batted twice, and once the score was at 600/4 and the other the score was 500/5.

That's irrelevant because he was only playing as an injury replacement - it's like the great Aussie side of recent times, if someone was injured, the replacement only got one game no matter how well they did because they hadn't done enough to warrant a regular spot.

 

[jackbyrne91]

Well it's not irrelevant is it. My point was Bopara has never been given a prolonged run in the team. Other than the West Indies series at home (2 tests) he has not played a full test series batting in the same position. Regardless of whether Trott was injured or not, Bopara hasn't been given a proper go.

He is not a test number 3. I wouldn't put him there now. We were desperate against the Aussies in 2009 and stuck Bopara in, but looking back at it now it was a bloody awful decision and one that could cost Bopara a proper crack at the whip.