*** Official*** South Africa in England 2017

[marc71178]

Generally, you would be right. But, I do think at least two of the 3 have the potential to grow into top batsman. That is why I mentioned the bit about them being young in their international careers there. If they were a bit older, I can understand. But AFAIC there is enough time for one of them to be groomed as a #5.

Which is well and good but because they're all multi-faceted players we then end up with either 6 bowlers or a specialist bat very low in the order. I guess the best option may be to pick a specialist glovesman who can bat 8 or lower?

 

[S.Kennedy]

Call me a stickler for traditional ordering but Ali, Stokes and Bairstow at 5-6-7 in my opinion.

 

[Adders]

Call me a stickler for traditional ordering but Ali, Stokes and Bairstow at 5-6-7 in my opinion.

I'm in no way a stickler for batting orders, but why Bairstow behind those two? He is the better batsmen of the 3 or do you not think so?

 

[honestbharani]

Which is well and good but because they're all multi-faceted players we then end up with either 6 bowlers or a specialist bat very low in the order. I guess the best option may be to pick a specialist glovesman who can bat 8 or lower?

Could be. Its really about whether you can find either a #5 batsman who is better, at least potentially, than these 3, or a better spinner than Ali or a better keeper than Bairstow. But from what I gather from this thread, answer to all 3 is none. In which case, you are back to trying what I was suggesting.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I'm in no way a stickler for batting orders, but why Bairstow behind those two? He is the better batsmen of the 3 or do you not think so?

Wicketkeeper: seven. I'd be willing to switch the two ginger northerners around as a sop to Bairstow's superior batting but I'd definitely have Ali at five as I do not like batsmen - even those that spin a bit - lumped at seven or eight like Ali (or Jos Butler in India). It just looks ****.

 

[Jarquis]

**** looks, it's about winning games

 

[S.Kennedy]

**** looks, it's about winning games

I mean it looks **** on paper, and I suspect Ali-Stokes-Bairstow is the correct formulae to aid England win games rather than the **** team selection we've been served with. Why would you want a specialised batsman coming in as late as seven? By his own admission he regards himself as a 3 or a 4. It is ludicrous tacking on a batsman that high in the order.

 

[marc71178]

I'd rather a proper batsman who really adds depth to the line up then taking the attitude that number 8 must be able to bowl when there's already 5 bowlers in the team.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I'd rather a proper batsman who really adds depth to the line up then taking the attitude that number 8 must be able to bowl when there's already 5 bowlers in the team.

Number 8? We are not even discussing 8?

 

[Prince EWS]

Number 8? We are not even discussing 8?

We indirectly are. One of the options to fill the top order is just moving one or more of Moeen/Bairstow/Stokes up, but if that happens a spot opens up down the order.

 

[S.Kennedy]

We indirectly are. One of the options to fill the top order is just moving one or more of Moeen/Bairstow/Stokes up, but if that happens a spot opens up down the order.

England's 8 is, ehh, Liam Dawson!

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think we can take the top 4 given as Cook, Jennings, Westley and Root. Probably in that order, although there's arguments for both Root and Jennings at 3 and Jennings and Westley at 4.

The next 4 slots are really dependent on who's picked for the 11. If it's Malan (& he'd be my pick) he has to be #5 as he's the specialist and then I'd go Bairstow - Ali - Stokes. Depending on what kind of spin one wants to put on it Stokes is either the least adaptable of the three or the batsman who scores sufficiently quickly enough to be least wasted at 8.

If Dawson gets another go (& The Oval is traditionally a venue where spinners prosper, so there's a case to be made) I'd move Bairstow up to five and swap Stokes and Ali in the order. For whatever reason 7 is Ali's most profitable position by some distance. I could float a pseudo-psychological reason why this might be so, but ultimately it boils down to "if it ain't broke".

 

[Jarquis]

I mean it looks **** on paper, and I suspect Ali-Stokes-Bairstow is the correct formulae to aid England win games rather than the **** team selection we've been served with. Why would you want a specialised batsman coming in as late as seven? By his own admission he regards himself as a 3 or a 4. It is ludicrous tacking on a batsman that high in the order.

Because on average he's going to score fewer runs than our wicket keeper so should bat below him. David Willey, by his own admission, is an opener in LO cricket but that doesn't mean he gets to do it for England.

It's not about what is best for Moeen Ali, or anyone else, it's about what is best for England to help them win games

 

[AndrewB]

Looking at England middle-order batting averages since the last Ashes tour by position, (names in brackets only have 1 or 2 innings in that spot):

At 3: Root 50, Ballance 46, (Ali 5)
At 4: Root 53, Ali 51, Ballance 6, (Stokes 31), (Bairstow 15),
At 5: Root 76, Bairstow 32, Ali 30, Ballance 27, (Stokes 5)
At 6: Bairstow 57, Stokes 38, Ali 18, (Root 77)
At 7: Ali 68, Bairstow 63, Stokes 26
At 8: Woakes 30, Ali 28, Rashid 25, Dawson 21, (Bairstow 58), (Stokes 0)
At 9: Ali 37, (Stokes 0)

If "average by position" has any significance there's a case for pushing Ali up to 4 with Root at 5, Stokes at 6, Bairstow at 7.

 

[Spark]

A good argument for why averages by position should not have much significance on its own.

 

[Pothas]

England's best results in recent years (Ashes 2015, SA 2016) have come with Moeen at 8. I know loads of us (I certainly was) were saying that he should get a real run as a batsman but it is hard to avoid the fact that right now he is the best spinning option we have. He also does not bat like a top 5 player, just look at the ways he got out in the last Test. In an ideal world for him then he would bat 7 followed by 4 bowlers but Stokes exists so he has to go to 8. Having said that Stokes certainly could do with some more runs in the next few Tests. Moeen needs to know that he is hugely important to the side even if that means him batting at 8, there is no reason he can't bat like he has at 7 from 8, especially if have Woakes at 9.

Basically I change my mind every other Test.

 

[Bijed]

Looking at England middle-order batting averages since the last Ashes tour by position, (names in brackets only have 1 or 2 innings in that spot):

At 3: Root 50, Ballance 46, (Ali 5)
At 4: Root 53, Ali 51, Ballance 6, (Stokes 31), (Bairstow 15),
At 5: Root 76, Bairstow 32, Ali 30, Ballance 27, (Stokes 5)
At 6: Bairstow 57, Stokes 38, Ali 18, (Root 77)
At 7: Ali 68, Bairstow 63, Stokes 26
At 8: Woakes 30, Ali 28, Rashid 25, Dawson 21, (Bairstow 58), (Stokes 0)
At 9: Ali 37, (Stokes 0)

If "average by position" has any significance there's a case for pushing Ali up to 4 with Root at 5, Stokes at 6, Bairstow at 7.

Can't remember Stokes batting at 9, when did that happen?

Edit: Never mind, worked it out - was Lord's 2014 vs India (he was down to bat at 8 but Plunkett came in (I assume) as nighwatchman for Prior.)

 

[Pothas]

Yeah that was the summer when he basically got a duck every innings.

 

[Bijed]

Yeah that was the summer when he basically got a duck every innings.

Blimey, I'd not realised what a shocking rut he was in at that point:

The Cricinfo commentary for Stokes' 2nd innings dismissal

Stokes' miserable run continues, duck again! Ishant has five, again the short ball has done it, this was well outside off Stokes goes for the pull, hits low on the blade and swirls high towards midwicket, safely taken by Pujara, India tighten their grip on this one, Stokes' recent scores for England: 0,5,5,4,0,4,0,0,0,0

The worst bit of course being

Ishant has five

 

[OverratedSanity]

What a day that was