England players and selection discussion thread

[Uppercut]

Might as well drop the pretence that we have any batsmen not named 'Root'.

Curran
Stokes
Moeen
Root
Woakes
Buttler
Robinson
Stone
Wood
Broad
Anderson

COverton unlucky. Archer to return when fit.

The purpose of the English top order is to see off the new ball, making it easier for the tail to troll runs. It's really quite innovative.

 

[wpdavid]

I just had a look at this Jimmy Anderson quiz. I couldn't be arsed to do the quiz itself, but I had a look at the answers just to confirm that not all players the England selectors choose are necessarily steeped in greatness.

James Anderson quiz: Name all his 96 Test team-mates - BBC Sport

78 out of 96. Not very good, especially for missing Finn and Ballance.

 

[wpdavid]

The purpose of the English top order is to see off the new ball, making it easier for the tail to troll runs. It's really quite innovative.

I remember talking about the need for a couple of pinch blockers back in the days when our lower middle order was outstandingly good. I suppose we've sort of got those with Burns and Sibley, but unfortunately the lower order is very different nowadays.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

78 out of 96. Not very good, especially for missing Finn and Ballance.

I didn't have the will to do the quiz, but looking at some of the more obscure names I wouldn't have got them even with the hint. I doubt I would have reached 78, though I would probably have got Finn and Ballance.

 

[andruid]

Might as well drop the pretence that we have any batsmen not named 'Root'.

Curran
Stokes
Moeen
Root
Woakes
Buttler
Robinson
Stone
Wood
Broad
Anderson

COverton unlucky. Archer to return when fit.

Any contenders named Irons, or Bronze that can be shoehorned in?

 

[wpdavid]

Any contenders named Irons, or Bronze that can be shoehorned in?

I gather that Jeremy and Lucy are, regrettably, otherwise engaged.

 

[Uppercut]

I remember talking about the need for a couple of pinch blockers back in the days when our lower middle order was outstandingly good. I suppose we've sort of got those with Burns and Sibley, but unfortunately the lower order is very different nowadays.

Yeah it's frustrating for you guys, but I still think it's the right strategy. They may eventually decide Sibley is too limited or his ceiling is too low, but I definitely think you'd rather have Sibley than a different type of batsman of equivalent ability.

I just don't think you can do the job any other way. Just having a look at the leading run scorers in the past ten years: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting. The most expansive opener to succeed in England this past decade is Chris Rogers.

Until Conway, that is. I assume there's no one like Conway in county cricket.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Until Conway, that is. I assume there's no one like Conway in county cricket.

This is a very safe assumption.

And there is the biggest cause for concern/resignation for England fans at the moment: there's nobody left to try. Anyone who's even hinted at dominance at County level or performed at Lions level we've tried. We tried Denly as an experienced county pro, solid hand type pick and we picked Crawley purely on potential. We've tried everyone that we felt had a decent chance of succeeding, then everyone with some chance of succeeding and from there moved through everyone who we didn't really expect to succeed but we kinda hoped they might.

I don't think there're any uncapped English batsmen left now who could be expected to do well at Test level. Pope has looked a cut above the rest on the County circuit, but is struggling to cope in Tests. The choice for England seems to be between reshuffling the current deckchairs and moving Pope or Lawrence up the order (when they're struggling enough down at 5 & 6) or recalling a Bairstow/Malan/Vince type who'd very likely fail again but at least them failing wouldn't ruin a younger player.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

This is a very safe assumption.

And there is the biggest cause for concern/resignation for England fans at the moment: there's nobody left to try. Anyone who's even hinted at dominance at County level or performed at Lions level we've tried. We tried Denly as an experienced county pro, solid hand type pick and we picked Crawley purely on potential. We've tried everyone that we felt had a decent chance of succeeding, then everyone with some chance of succeeding and from there moved through everyone who we didn't really expect to succeed but we kinda hoped they might.

I don't think there're any uncapped English batsmen left now who could be expected to do well at Test level. Pope has looked a cut above the rest on the County circuit, but is struggling to cope in Tests. The choice for England seems to be between reshuffling the current deckchairs and moving Pope or Lawrence up the order (when they're struggling enough down at 5 & 6) or recalling a Bairstow/Malan/Vince type who'd very likely fail again but at least them failing wouldn't ruin a younger player.

Bowling stocks look alright though.

 

[Uppercut]

This is a very safe assumption.

And there is the biggest cause for concern/resignation for England fans at the moment: there's nobody left to try. Anyone who's even hinted at dominance at County level or performed at Lions level we've tried. We tried Denly as an experienced county pro, solid hand type pick and we picked Crawley purely on potential. We've tried everyone that we felt had a decent chance of succeeding, then everyone with some chance of succeeding and from there moved through everyone who we didn't really expect to succeed but we kinda hoped they might.

I don't think there're any uncapped English batsmen left now who could be expected to do well at Test level. Pope has looked a cut above the rest on the County circuit, but is struggling to cope in Tests. The choice for England seems to be between reshuffling the current deckchairs and moving Pope or Lawrence up the order (when they're struggling enough down at 5 & 6) or recalling a Bairstow/Malan/Vince type who'd very likely fail again but at least them failing wouldn't ruin a younger player.

Does failing at test batting ruin players? I would have said failing at something difficult is the only way to get good at it.

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah it's frustrating for you guys, but I still think it's the right strategy. They may eventually decide Sibley is too limited or his ceiling is too low, but I definitely think you'd rather have Sibley than a different type of batsman of equivalent ability.

I just don't think you can do the job any other way. Just having a look at the leading run scorers in the past ten years: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting. The most expansive opener to succeed in England this past decade is Chris Rogers.

Until Conway, that is. I assume there's no one like Conway in county cricket.

Yeah, I wouldn't consider ditching Sibley right now. I remember discussions a few years ago where the consensus was we'd settle for a couple of openers averaging 30+, especially if they lasted long enough to see off the new ball. Mind you, I wouldn't bat him at 3, as was discussed elsewhere the other day; he's far too one-paced for that position. And apologies if that was you btw, it wasn't intended to be a dig.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, I wouldn't consider ditching Sibley right now. I remember discussions a few years ago where the consensus was we'd settle for a couple of openers averaging 30+, especially if they lasted long enough to see off the new ball. Mind you, I wouldn't bat him at 3, as was discussed elsewhere the other day; he's far too one-paced for that position. And apologies if that was you btw, it wasn't intended to be a dig.

I think that is a liability no matter where you bat, tbh. And the point of Sibley batting 3 was that it would help Crawley and Burns more and Sibley can still bat within his bubble and do a Pujara, if you will.

Its interesting to see Malan come into the discussion. I do think Crawley could benefit from some time away from the spotlight and maybe some Lions tours etc.

Burns
Sibley / Crawley
Stokes
Root
Pope /Lawrence
Buttler / Bairstow
Moeen / S Curran
Woakes
Broad / Wood
Leach
Anderson

won't be the worst way to go. You can bin Leach for another seamer when playing in England or places where Moeen can be the lone spinner. In Australia though, you can bench one of B or A for a Wood and maybe play Sam Curran for Moeen and keep Leach as the main spinner with Root for support. Actually, you can do that in England too but then you need to figure out how to play the out and out quick like Wood or Stone in there.

The upshot of this is that Stokes can basically become a Kallis and concentrate on his batting and slip fielding and be a real 5th bowler in the side. And if you can play Sam Curran regularly, I feel he can be great value at 7 or 8 and adds the left arm angle to the attack.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Does failing at test batting ruin players? I would have said failing at something difficult is the only way to get good at it.

Depends on the player I guess. There are certainly examples of players failing at Test level and coming back stronger later. But I suspect there are plenty more who have their confidence blown and either never resurface at that level or when they do they're only given a short leash because they're (probably unfairly) still tainted by their past failure.

I imagine the intensity of the media spotlight and increased pressure to justify your spot in the national side every game is probably not the most helpful environment for making technical corrections to one's game or getting back into match batting rhythm. Being forced to keep trying and failing at a level too difficult for you can be pretty confidence shattering for almost any activity or level, let alone it happening in the public eye. For most players I suspect they'd reach a point where they'd be better off going back and scoring runs at County and Lions level.


But then, I dunno. Thirimane has scored runs recently, hasn't he? Maybe long-term, sustained failure does eventually work?

 

[wpdavid]

I think that is a liability no matter where you bat, tbh. And the point of Sibley batting 3 was that it would help Crawley and Burns more and Sibley can still bat within his bubble and do a Pujara, if you will.

Its interesting to see Malan come into the discussion. I do think Crawley could benefit from some time away from the spotlight and maybe some Lions tours etc.

Burns
Sibley / Crawley
Stokes
Root
Pope /Lawrence
Buttler / Bairstow
Moeen / S Curran
Woakes
Broad / Wood
Leach
Anderson

won't be the worst way to go. You can bin Leach for another seamer when playing in England or places where Moeen can be the lone spinner. In Australia though, you can bench one of B or A for a Wood and maybe play Sam Curran for Moeen and keep Leach as the main spinner with Root for support. Actually, you can do that in England too but then you need to figure out how to play the out and out quick like Wood or Stone in there.

The upshot of this is that Stokes can basically become a Kallis and concentrate on his batting and slip fielding and be a real 5th bowler in the side. And if you can play Sam Curran regularly, I feel he can be great value at 7 or 8 and adds the left arm angle to the attack.

It looks a batsman light to me, especially if Stokes ends up being wasted batting that high in the order.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I would have said failing at something difficult is the only way to get good at it.

Happily the BMA takes a different view when it comes to brain surgery.

 

[Uppercut]

Happily the BMA takes a different view when it comes to brain surgery.

Ha. Speak for yourself but I’ll take someone doing their 500th brain surgery over someone doing their first.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Well I can't see why Hameed doesn't get a chance now, be it as an opener or at 3. He has sorted his career out and done well of late so must be given a chance given we have a top order worse than any 80's/90's shower of ****.

 

[Jack1]

Burns
Sibley
Stokes
Root
Pope
Lawrence
Buttler
Moeen
Woakes
Broad
Anderson

Bring back the bat down to number 9 thing and yeah I know Stokes at 3 is a terrible idea.

Team looks ok apart from no number 3. I would move Stokes to 5 and play someone else at 3. Stokes isn't good enough to bat top 4. Hameed is the most tempting considering Crawley's form. An idea is moving Crawley to opener and Sibley to 3, but on form Hameed at 3 probably makes more sense with the added bonus that his 3 tests were against India and he performed in them. Meaning Pope or Lawrence miss out.

 

[Blenkinsop]

And there is the biggest cause for concern/resignation for England fans at the moment: there's nobody left to try.

Seems a bit pessimistic considering how many batsmen have done well in the CC this year. Off the top of my head there's Tom Haines, Alex Davies, Lewis Hill, Jordan Cox, the other Ollie Robinson... plus David Bedingham and Ricardo Vasconcelos who will be England qualified at some point.

Or we could just say sod it and select Darren Stevens.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Or we could just say sod it and select Darren Stevens.

Remember when Martin Bicknell got a Test and did more to threaten Smith and Gibbs than everyone else had done all summer?

Yes that was as bowler but Stevens could probably take some troll wickets amid his lusty slashes from No 8