*Official* New Zealand in England 2021

[Bahnz]

Anderson might, I reckon Broad will keep going.

 

[Bijed]

England need to identify players and persist with them, not chop and change more. Then they will forever have this new wheel of mediocrity in their batting.

I agree with this in principle, but in our case right now you've got Pope and Crawley (and arguably Sibley) who have been persisted with and looked like they'd broken through on the international stage, but since that point have dropped right off a cliff.

It's a bit of a tough one because I also believe that you should think twice about dropping someone if there isn't a convincing replacement to call on, but when your recent ceiling is getting to 20-30 and getting out, the axe might have to fall tbh.

In actuality I suspect Pope will start the India series, whether he bats above or below Stokes I'm not sure, but I think Crawley will be dropped with some sort of re-jigging with Root and Lawrence going on.

 

[StephenZA]

As an outsider and without wanting to get into a great big debate.

Dropping Pope is stupid. Keeping Crawley is also stupid. I`m unsure about Sibley because he has shown some grit as an opener.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The trouble is you'd normally only have one or two novices in the side. At the moment, England have Sibley, Burns, Crawley, Pope and Lawrence. There's only one guy with any long term track record in there. It's lunacy - no one's there with the experience to steady things when the balloon goes up. Even with Jonny Bairstow in there instead of, say, Crawley, would massively increase that experience (even though I have doubts of Bairstow as the go-to guy in adversity). There's a risk that England turn Pope into the next Hick or Ramprakash. He needs to be persisted with - he's got undoubted quality - but the England set up seem dead-set on taking an approach to boil off any mental strength that these young batsmen have.

Contrast Henry Nicholls. I'm sure I said he should be in the team early on - he looked awful at times - and it took him 10 tests to really make a decent score. He was starting in a team with Williamson, Taylor (missed Nicholls' first test due to injury) and McCullum. Alongside them, Guptill (very experienced international cricket, albeit failed at Tests), Latham with 17 tests and Watling. A much better environment for a young batsmen to step into. Plenty of experience and people to turn to for support and advice.

England have just epically codsed up their selection here and some talented young batsmen are being used as scapegoats.

 

[Prince EWS]

As an outsider and without wanting to get into a great big debate.

Dropping Pope is stupid. Keeping Crawley is also stupid. I`m unsure about Sibley because he has shown some grit as an opener.

I largely agree. Pope has more competition for his spot than Crawley though which changes things a bit.

I'd drop Crawley too but I'm not sure I'd say disagreeing with me is "stupid" given the paucity of other options for a top order spot... and with Stokes coming back in Pope is effectively competing with Lawrence, who at least played one decent knock in this series.

They'll probably move Pope, Lawrence or Root up to #3 to avoid the hard decision, but I don't see that lasting either.

 

[StephenZA]

Root should be at three anyway. Can play Pope at 4 (I know!) but he has the potential and leaves Stokes at 5 and Lawrence at 6 for now.

 

[Apex Predator]

Lawrence showed he has some game against high class spin in lanka & India. I think it will be blunder to drop him for India series.
Crawley should be the one to get dropped Ideally.

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with this in principle, but in our case right now you've got Pope and Crawley (and arguably Sibley) who have been persisted with and looked like they'd broken through on the international stage, but since that point have dropped right off a cliff.

It's a bit of a tough one because I also believe that you should think twice about dropping someone if there isn't a convincing replacement to call on, but when your recent ceiling is getting to 20-30 and getting out, the axe might have to fall tbh.

In actuality I suspect Pope will start the India series, whether he bats above or below Stokes I'm not sure, but I think Crawley will be dropped with some sort of re-jigging with Root and Lawrence going on.

I see the sentiment but I honestly think Crawley has a better ceiling than Pope. Lawrence looks good too. And if you are moving Lawrence or Pope to 3, I dont think they are naturals at that position either. You start putting square pegs in round holes.

I honestly think, and I mentioned this last year after his 270 odd too, Crawley would be better opening. There is something about an aggressive batsman getting to bat when the bowlers are yet to find their rhythm than batting at 3 when usually you are walking in when at least one, if not both, opening bowlers have hit their groove.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

England need to identify players and persist with them, not chop and change more. Then they will forever have this new wheel of mediocrity in their batting.

This is exactly what they have been doing in the past, they persist with the players hoping that they would finally mature at some point and start scoring runs consistently like other top bats in the world , then sadly they end up giving OBE's to 35.55 and 37.7 averaging batsman just bcoz they played 100 matches.
They need to prepare more batting friendly pitches, that's all.

 

[StephenZA]

I see the sentiment but I honestly think Crawley has a better ceiling than Pope. Lawrence looks good too. And if you are moving Lawrence or Pope to 3, I dont think they are naturals at that position either. You start putting square pegs in round holes.

I am surprised at the opinion. Think that Pope has a much higher potential.

 

[honestbharani]

I am surprised at the opinion. Think that Pope has a much higher potential.

I said it after seeing him last year for the first time. Pope is good but see how he got played in India by our spinners. Crawley could at least smash the quicks for a 50.

 

[StephenZA]

I said it after seeing him last year for the first time. Pope is good but see how he got played in India by our spinners. Crawley could at least smash the quicks for a 50.

But that is about experience and technique in SC rather than pure ability... the number of SENA batsmen (even the best of them) take a few tours to get used to the different conditions against the Indian spinners.

 

[honestbharani]

But that is about experience and technique in SC rather than pure ability... the number of SENA batsmen (even the best of them) take a few tours to get used to the different conditions against the Indian spinners.

Yeah but I mean to say he was getting mind****ed while Crawley at least looked like he was gonna stick to a plan, even if it did not help him much. We will see, I guess. But to me, if Crawley can sort out his shot selection, he has the game to be the mainstay of this batting line up in the future.

 

[Starfighter]

If you saw Pope playing Yasir last year you knew he was going to be in big trouble in India. I like him, he's a good looking batsman, but a very poor player of spin from what I've seen. Like SA in SL kind of bad.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you saw Pope playing Yasir last year you knew he was going to be in big trouble in India. I like him, he's a good looking batsman, but a very poor player of spin from what I've seen. Like SA in SL kind of bad.

I wonder how England's best young batting talents can so be clueless at playing spin.

Wait, no I don't. It's because - unless they play for Somerset - they only play at Taunton once a year.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think Crawley is done for a while. He very obviously has the ability for tests (the selectors saw something in it that earned a young bloke with a ~32 FC average a call up) but he looks out of nick and, with with the grim irony the sporting gods amuse themselves with, likely to nick anything floated up outside his off stump.

Yesterday's dismissal at least got him pinged in front for variety. It was an actual decent delivery but even then he allowed his skipper to talk him into a review which was, to be charitable, on the foolhardy side of optimistic.

Pope I would stick with because he looks so classy whenever he's at the crease, but pretty 20-30s aren't cutting it. His national batting coach knows a thing or two about putting a price on your wicket, so hopefully he will justify the love.

As to who comes into #3, I've seen Tom Abell (cf grecian above) and Jake Libby touted and, at 27 & 28 respectively, should both know their games pretty well. Both in good form (or were when we were playing FC cricket in England still) but both have career averages of <35, so is it madness to think they can do better in tests?

I think I'd be going back to Malan as a stop gap. He's at least had a go before and (as that's what seems to matter) has a ton in Oz.

If he fails we at least haven't ****ed with another young chap's head.

 

[Starfighter]

I wonder how England's best young batting talents can so be clueless at playing spin.

Wait, no I don't. It's because - unless they play for Somerset - they only play at Taunton once a year.

The ECB's stance on turning pitches just continues to stagger me in its silliness. It's hardly a secret that the Taunton pitch is the type that any non-Asian side will face rather a lot in Asia.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Why do England have so many Ollies? There's like three of them.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Why do England have so many Ollies? There's like three of them.

skyrocketed in about the early 1990s (and as is generally the case with skyrocketing names, this probably started with the public schoolgirl class, maybe they all liked Oliver Twist or something)

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Skateboarding maybe?