England post ashes 13/14

[uvelocity]

yeah i agree, theyre ****ed

 

[Tangles]

It's pretty tough atm for England. There are no major selection **** ups that other countries have had when they've slumped and no easy selections to make in terms of dropping and selecting people. The guys who can win matches for England are all in the side already, the only thing that can get the side winning proper series is basically to collectively raise the standard of cricket they've played.

Replacing a no 3 with an all rounder doesn't help their soft batting. I know he just scored a ton but they lost more batting than they gained. It's especially amusing given the form of Prior and the bowlers. They need more batting when their tail is giving so little.

 

[Tangles]

Australia would never replace a no 3 with an all rounder. Unless his name was Watson.

 

[Daemon]

Replacing a no 3 with an all rounder doesn't help their soft batting. I know he just scored a ton but they lost more batting than they gained. It's especially amusing given the form of Prior and the bowlers. They need more batting when their tail is giving so little.

Agreed. Then again the bloke scored a hundred so that wasn't the problem..

 

[Daemon]

yeah i agree, theyre ****ed

I really tried to get around that but yeah, pretty much.

 

[theegyptian]

Replacing a no 3 with an all rounder doesn't help their soft batting. I know he just scored a ton but they lost more batting than they gained. It's especially amusing given the form of Prior and the bowlers. They need more batting when their tail is giving so little.

Yes on the face of it bringing in Stokes for Trott does weaken the batting but when you lose a guy with 9 test hundreds averaging 46 generally you're going to lose some batting. Play Ballance and you've still got someone who hasn't played any kind of international cricket(bar 2 balls v ireland), without much match practice and lacking experience playing in Australia.

There was no easy decision. It's not like sticking woakes or bresnan at 6 where they've never even batted in the top 6 or not until very recently at domestic level. Stokes isn't an international number 6 at preseent but he has batted in the top order throughout his career for his county and his aspirations are primarily as a batsman. The bowling has been pretty lousy too and been criticized so maybe England thought they needed to strengthen their bowling just as well. The fact is over the last few years it's only really been Cook, KP and Bell of the batsmen who have won test matches for England.

Australia would never replace a no 3 with an all rounder. Unless his name was Watson.

It's not like Stokes came in at number 3, Ballance wouldn't have either(iirc he's only batted at 3 in zimbabwe, spent most of his time at yorkshire at 6 or a little at 5). They changed the composition of the team to play two spinners at adelaide. Why? 1 Because of the conditions (which people generally agreed with once the game started) 2 Because of circumstances around the problem 3rd seamer position and Swann being hit out the attack. Why did they lose? Because they were no way good enough. They had too many problems which couldn't be overcome.

They had a tough decision to make and there was no easy selection to be made given the situation. Now whether poor decisions in the leadup to the series and in the past 24 or whatever months led to this tough decision can definitely be debated but on the day there was no easy team selection.

 

[Tangles]

I would always play 6 bats so my issue with Stokes and Watson is wether they can hold their spot on weight of runs alone. If Stokes kicks on then its good for him and the balance of the team. But if he doesn't then you get the Watson thing where because they can be a handy 5th bowler they get held to a different standard.

I know Ballance isn't experienced but he is the reserve bat so he should get a game before the tour is out. If he's not good enough then he shouldn't be touring.

 

[theegyptian]

I agree in principal that on the face of it the decision didn't seem very logical. Given Prior and form of the tail it would seem insane to further weaken the batting.

I think I have a slightly different view to you and some others about 6th batsmen or allrounder. I don't think they need to hold their place on the weight of their runs alone. You play an allrounder and you're betting on keeping the opposition to a lower score than they would have against 4 straight bowlers. You also are lessening the burden on the other bowlers potentially prolonging their career(just speculation). Stokes and Watson aren't the Mark Ealham or Shaun Young type allrounders who are going to have no impact in either discipline. They both at domestic level bat in the top 6 and are 3rd or 4th seamers.

To me Watson as average as his batting is is still an important and worthy player in the Australian team. His bowling gives control, allows rest to the other seamers, and means 4 seamers can be used utilised early in the match when there is no spin. I also don't think Australia have any massively better batsmen than Watson who aren't in the test team. Some marginally better yes and if Watson can't bowl he shouldn't play - but not massively better to counter the advantage of his bowling. His batting has never really prospered and that to some extent will be down to his own negligence but also playing in a struggling australia team and being moved constantly around the order.

England have given plenty of blokes a go at 6 and as the third seamer over the last couple of years and sticked rigidly to their 6 batsmen/keeper/ 4 bowlers policy but they found no-one in either position and struggled. Stokes has a load of talent and although he doesn't fit directly into their proven tactic they decided to back the player rather than the tactic.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I don't think many of us had Swann down to go. Think this strengthens Stokes hand long term as we will need 5 bowlers and he is ideal for 6 or 7 and 4th seamer depending who the keeper is.

 

[theegyptian]

I don't think many of us had Swann down to go. Think this strengthens Stokes hand long term as we will need 5 bowlers and he is ideal for 6 or 7 and 4th seamer depending who the keeper is.

If anything I'd think slightly the opposite (at least in the short term). Panesar is more able than Swann to bowl the long spells and especially in first innings bowl long containing spells. This reduces the need for a fourth seamer. Also Panesar in for Swann reduces the batting by a distance even if Swann wasn't contributing much to the batting. Could potentially have Rankin, Panesar, Anderson at 9,10,11 in Melbourne. That actually strengthens the cause to having a genuine batsman at 6 rather than an allrounder.

Obviously losing a player like Swann means there is one less good player competing for positions so that strengthens Stokes position and England will give Stokes plenty of time to develop given his potential and his recent performance.

But if anything in the short term Stokes playing is more of a worry today than he was yesterday imo or at least there were more reasons to play Stokes yesterday than today. I don't think there is anyway they will drop him though.

Stokes getting in the team may by some strange way help Woakes find a long term position in the team. There's definitely a need to have a strong wkbatsmen and/or tail if you have Stokes at 6. There aren't particularly many good young bowlers coming through who can hold a bat at present. David Willey would be the only one but neither suit is that strong yet.

A totally awful but plentiful resources team- Cook, Root, Borthwick, Ali, Kieswetter, Stokes, C Overton, C Woakes, Bresnan, Willey, Broad. Thakor, Dawson, and Ansari in reserve Everyone bats and only Cook doesn't bowl.

Damn it I think Stokes being in the team is also going to prolong Bresnan being in the team which is bad news for me.

What's worse than having one crap allrounder? Having a team of them

 

[vicleggie]

Really hope England give Steve Finn more of a go.
They've managed him awfully in the last few years, preferring to play defensive cricket, when if they had used him well as an attacking Johnson type option, they may have been even more dominant over the past 3-4 years.

He has all the attributes and has done a good job so far in his test career.
Hope they learn something from how Clarke has used Johnson- just let him strive for wickets and to not worry about runs. He could be a gem.
Hope he's not too disillusioned by how he's managed, and can learn to bowl to his strengths.

 

[AlanJLegend]

I can't help but feel as though the legacy of this tour will last well into the future. Trott gone, Swann gone, Prior as good as gone with KP and Anderson both on relatively shaky ground, it is almost a given that the England squad for the next Ashes tour will be considerably more different than Australia's. That being said, only time will tell whether or not this will be a 'rebirth' or not.

 

[Garson007]

England's dead. Dead.

 

[wpdavid]

I can't help but feel as though the legacy of this tour will last well into the future. Trott gone, Swann gone, Prior as good as gone with KP and Anderson both on relatively shaky ground, it is almost a given that the England squad for the next Ashes tour will be considerably more different than Australia's. That being said, only time will tell whether or not this will be a 'rebirth' or not.

Yeah, from an English pov it's a shame the next series is only 18 months away. As you say, Aus could conceivably be unchanged, or at most seeing a couple of replacements. England will almost certainly still be trying to find a team. I suppose we'll be hungrier than the current side having not actually won anything of note, but I doubt whether that will be enough to compensate for the lack of quality coming through our beloved county system nowadays. Whoever's in charge will have a seriously tough job on his hands.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

wpd I think the quality is there just most of it is in the 18-22 age bracket and that means this next ashes in 2015 will come too soon for them. The worry is the 23-28 age group seems poor so we have no real replacements for anyone at the moment.

 

[wpdavid]

wpd I think the quality is there just most of it is in the 18-22 age bracket and that means this next ashes in 2015 will come too soon for them. The worry is the 23-28 age group seems poor so we have no real replacements for anyone at the moment.

Aye, I'm struggling to name anyone with any sort of track record who I'd back to come in and do a job for us. I think Compton deserves another crack, but that's not exactly rocket science.

fwiw who do you rate from the 18-22 group? I couldn't honestly say I see enough of the county game to know who's looking likely to succeed.

My worry is that the county game has regressed since the number of 2020 group games was doubled in a way that makes it harder for them to develop, so we'll be scratching our heads again in four years' time.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I can't help but feel as though the legacy of this tour will last well into the future. Trott gone, Swann gone, Prior as good as gone with KP and Anderson both on relatively shaky ground, it is almost a given that the England squad for the next Ashes tour will be considerably more different than Australia's. That being said, only time will tell whether or not this will be a 'rebirth' or not.

Yeah, from an English pov it's a shame the next series is only 18 months away. As you say, Aus could conceivably be unchanged, or at most seeing a couple of replacements. England will almost certainly still be trying to find a team. I suppose we'll be hungrier than the current side having not actually won anything of note, but I doubt whether that will be enough to compensate for the lack of quality coming through our beloved county system nowadays. Whoever's in charge will have a seriously tough job on his hands.

It's possible, but this is actually quite an aged Australia. Of the current XI only three are still south of 30 and one of those (Siddle) will have passed it by 2015.

England's woes are all too easy to diagnose, but rather harder to cure.

The only glaringly obvious call is Buttler in as keeper; Bairstow looks short in both disciplines and Prior needs to go away and score bags for Sussex.

I'd personally like to see Sam Robson given a go at the top of the order; he scored runs for Middlesex and (if these things are deemed to matter, and they should or else what is the point of them?) two centuries for the Performance Programme when they were shadowing the test squad around Oz.

Carberry was only ever going to be a short-medium term solution even if he hit the ground running which, despite some starts, he hasn't done and Root at #3 does the opposite of convince.

The third seamer spot remains an issue and, with hints of Anderson's bowling senescence growing more obvious, is likely to be more glaring sooner rather than later. Overton and Mills have pace; Topley has height and control. You pays your money, I guess.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Aye, I'm struggling to name anyone with any sort of track record who I'd back to come in and do a job for us. I think Compton deserves another crack, but that's not exactly rocket science.

fwiw who do you rate from the 18-22 group? I couldn't honestly say I see enough of the county game to know who's looking likely to succeed.

My worry is that the county game has regressed since the number of 2020 group games was doubled in a way that makes it harder for them to develop, so we'll be scratching our heads again in four years' time.

Lees, Topley and Overton for a start. Not seen any of Ravi Patel who everyone is talking about as a future spinner for us on here but Rafiq and Dockrell (presuming we end up poaching him) are both promising and young enough to make the improvement needed.

 

[Scaly piscine]

If anything I'd think slightly the opposite (at least in the short term). Panesar is more able than Swann to bowl the long spells and especially in first innings bowl long containing spells. This reduces the need for a fourth seamer. Also Panesar in for Swann reduces the batting by a distance even if Swann wasn't contributing much to the batting. Could potentially have Rankin, Panesar, Anderson at 9,10,11 in Melbourne. That actually strengthens the cause to having a genuine batsman at 6 rather than an allrounder.

Obviously losing a player like Swann means there is one less good player competing for positions so that strengthens Stokes position and England will give Stokes plenty of time to develop given his potential and his recent performance.

But if anything in the short term Stokes playing is more of a worry today than he was yesterday imo or at least there were more reasons to play Stokes yesterday than today. I don't think there is anyway they will drop him though.

Stokes getting in the team may by some strange way help Woakes find a long term position in the team. There's definitely a need to have a strong wkbatsmen and/or tail if you have Stokes at 6. There aren't particularly many good young bowlers coming through who can hold a bat at present. David Willey would be the only one but neither suit is that strong yet.

A totally awful but plentiful resources team- Cook, Root, Borthwick, Ali, Kieswetter, Stokes, C Overton, C Woakes, Bresnan, Willey, Broad. Thakor, Dawson, and Ansari in reserve Everyone bats and only Cook doesn't bowl.

Damn it I think Stokes being in the team is also going to prolong Bresnan being in the team which is bad news for me.

What's worse than having one crap allrounder? Having a team of them

If Woakes is a genuine batsman I'd not mind him and Stokes being in the same side. Just means you'd have 3 guys at 6-8 who're probably a little high for 6 and too low at 8. I'd be more inclined to pick a genuine gloveman than Bairstow - if one exists in the county scene - and bat them at 8. Bairstow's technique isn't good enough and he needs to go work on it away from international cricket. Woakes and Stokes bowling actually compliments each other very well and will probably bat as well as any pure batsmen likely to come in for their spot.

I'm not convinced Bresnan is worth persisting with in the short term, the selectors can't seem to make their mind up. I'd let him have a season with his county and if he looks like his old self then fine.

The main things for me are England have to go back to picking players on merit, back the County system, and not just completely screwing over guys like Onions whilst randomly picking and discarding other players. They also need to manage the workload of their bowlers better otherwise they're going to go through games where they look completely innocuous. I would have Onions in for Panesar most of the time.

 

[social]

It's possible, but this is actually quite an aged Australia. Of the current XI only three are still south of 30 and one of those (Siddle) will have passed it by 2015.

.

Aside from winning the Ashes, the best thing about this summer is that none of our young guys have been thrown to the wolves and have either spent their time learning the trade or rehabilitating

Assuming fitness and continued development, I fully expect Oz to be much stronger in 2015