5th Test at The Oval, London

[Lillian Thomson]

Stokes might not be able to bowl. Whether that would mean leaving Roy out and moving everyone up one and playing Curran at 7, who knows.

 

[the big bambino]

Its the way I'd go. So presuming Stokes can play but not bowl then Burns, Denly, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Bairstow, Curran, Overton, Archer, Leach, Broad. Actually even if Stokes can bowl I'd still probably play this side and spell Roy.

Assuming the Oval is true they'd be playing Usman, Wade, Labuschagne, Smith, Head, Marsh, Paine, Starc, Cummins, Lyon, Haze.

I don't think its in the team's or the player's interest to continue exposing Warner to Broad. I've picked Marsh because he's the best chance to flum some runs on a true wicket and I've been hearing that Cummins was looking cooked late in the day at OT so he's there to bowl some relieving overs. Plus if I'm not going to play Warner I can't pick either Harris or Bancroft either. So Marsh is the last one left on the bench.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Clearly Agent Bayliss wants a 3-1 Aussie win.

 

[wpdavid]

England have named the same 13 for the Final Test.

Which would be unbelievable if there was actually any FC cricket being played domestically. Instead of which, for all the talk of Ollie Pope, he hasn't actually played a FC game since his double against Hampshire three weeks ago.

 

[Gremlin]

Which would be unbelievable if there was actually any FC cricket being played domestically. Instead of which, for all the talk of Ollie Pope, he hasn't actually played a FC game since his double against Hampshire three weeks ago.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That the structure of the season isn't fit for purpose is such an obvious point I can't even summon up the blood for a whinge about it.

I do now think the largesse given to under performing batsman is probably a wee bit too generous nowadays. I'm not advocating for a return to the bad old chop-and-change days of yore, but I don't think I'm being overly harsh on Roy to say 5 tests is a long enough sample size for him to have shown something.

With the Ashes staying crimside now I would suggest a look at another candidate might be prudent with a busy winter ahead.

 

[Woodster]

It's a very tough introduction to Test cricket for any opening batsman. My personal choice would have been Essex's Nick Browne, unfortunately he didn't weigh in with the kind of CC runs that he needed in order to give the selectors more than a gentle nudge.

 

[Sheen1979]

That the structure of the season isn't fit for purpose is such an obvious point I can't even summon up the blood for a whinge about it.

I do now think the largesse given to under performing batsman is probably a wee bit too generous nowadays. I'm not advocating for a return to the bad old chop-and-change days of yore, but I don't think I'm being overly harsh on Roy to say 5 tests is a long enough sample size for him to have shown something.

With the Ashes staying crimside now I would suggest a look at another candidate might be prudent with a busy winter ahead.

Only thing with Roy, is that if hes being picked, should he not get a fair crack of the whip in his best FC position......his technique looks flawed, but if he was able to come in at say 150/2, he has the potential to take the game away from a side in an hour or so.

 

[wpdavid]

Only thing with Roy, is that if hes being picked, should he not get a fair crack of the whip in his best FC position......his technique looks flawed, but if he was able to come in at say 150/2, he has the potential to take the game away from a side in an hour or so.

Given the state of our top 3, I don't think anyone's going to be coming in at 150 for 2 very often.

 

[Sheen1979]

Very true.......but in the last Test, Burns and Denly have both struck 50s....if they could......do it together

 

[Groundking]

It's absolutely ****ing ridiculous that we've refused to blood any of the young kids who have done well in the CC now that the Ashes are gone, all this means is that we'll be blooding them in away tours which are a **** load harder to get to grips with test cricket than getting a chance at home with conditions they're more familiar with.

 

[Bijed]

I do now think the largesse given to under performing batsman is probably a wee bit too generous nowadays.

I'm really not sure where I stand on this any more tbh. A little while ago I'd have agreed with you, but I'd have dropped Burns after the Ireland test and now he's sort-of come good, and whilst it's very much an exceptional occurence, someone mentioned in his retirement thread that Hashim Amla averaged 26 after 15 tests - I assume his FC credentials were rather good anyway at this point and I don't think for one minute we have a potential Amla in or around the scene, but it shows that even extremely good players can take a while to find their feet.

Given that we have almost no options, I'm happy on the whole to give players a bit more of a chance right now tbh, although Roy has done very badly even by our recent standards and should probably be dropped anyway

 

[Spark]

Andrew Miller makes the point that this is kind of like a reverse 2011-12 in the sense of a highly prepared away side, a dominant batsman demoralising the opposition, an outstanding disciplined attack and a false dawn in the 3rd Test for the home side. Although these games have been a lot tighter than any of those were.

 

[Pothas]

I'm really not sure where I stand on this any more tbh. A little while ago I'd have agreed with you, but I'd have dropped Burns after the Ireland test and now he's sort-of come good, and whilst it's very much an exceptional occurence, someone mentioned in his retirement thread that Hashim Amla averaged 26 after 15 tests - I assume his FC credentials were rather good anyway at this point and I don't think for one minute we have a potential Amla in or around the scene, but it shows that even extremely good players can take a while to find their feet.

Given that we have almost no options, I'm happy on the whole to give players a bit more of a chance right now tbh, although Roy has done very badly even by our recent standards and should probably be dropped anyway

You also have Denly who is 33, so there is really no point in giving him 25 Tests. He will probably keep his place but he averages 25 and has had a fair bit of luck doing that. There really is not much point in him playing again after the Oval. There are not really any 'prospects' in this batting lineup.

 

[Bijed]

Tbh, I'd keep Denly for the winter, at 3, with Root at 4 and Sibley opening (Roy gone). He's shown a willingness at determination to succeed in test cricket and whilst the results have been average, with no-one looking like an obvious replacement, might as well reward the right attitude, such is the situation our team is in

 

[Pothas]

I don't really buy the attitude thing. His results are similar to Vince but he looks worse so he gets away with it.

 

[Bijed]

I don't really buy the attitude thing. His results are similar to Vince but he looks worse so he gets away with it.

Yeah, fair, there probably is an element of that,

 

[Groundking]

Denly isn't good enough either, but both his 4th innings 50's did show good mental strength, something that Vince doesn't have at all imo.

If we're gonna persist for a while with **** middling 20's averaging players at 3 we should go back to Malan imo.

 

[GIMH]

Andrew Miller makes the point that this is kind of like a reverse 2011-12 in the sense of a highly prepared away side, a dominant batsman demoralising the opposition, an outstanding disciplined attack and a false dawn in the 3rd Test for the home side. Although these games have been a lot tighter than any of those were.

10-11

Sorry I'm only pointing this out because I got so confused for a minute

 

[Burgey]

Only thing with Roy, is that if hes being picked, should he not get a fair crack of the whip in his best FC position......his technique looks flawed, but if he was able to come in at say 150/2, he has the potential to take the game away from a side in an hour or so.

How likely are either of these sides to be 2/150?