England players and selection discussion thread

[Moonsorrow999]

I'd say Kohli is on another level to Williamson and Root, and Smith is even above that. QdK will be up there if he can be comfortable at 4.

Smith>Kohli>Williamson=Root for me, but I haven't seen Kane as much as I should have.

Kane 17 100s, 61 matches. 53.57
Root 12 100s, 55 matches. 51.16
Kohli 16 100s, 57 matches. although recently much improved. 49.41
Smith 20 100s, 54 matches. 61.05 jeez and he started as a bowler, right?

Okay Smith is miles ahead.

 

[fredfertang]

Hameed needs to be picked again soon, although I think Westley and Malan are decent choices - I do hope Malan gets the gig ahead of Dawson next week

 

[grecian]

'dI say Kohli is on another level to Williamson and Root, and Smith is even above that. QdK will be up there if he can be comfortable at 4.

Smith>Kohli>Williamson=Root for me, but I haven't seen Kane as much as I should have.

Kane 17 100s, 61 matches. 53.57
Root 12 100s, 55 matches. 51.16
Kohli 16 100s, 57 matches. although recently much improved. 49.41
Smith 20 100s, 54 matches. 61.05 jeez and he started as a bowler, right?

Okay Smith is miles ahead.

Honestly I think conversion rate for Root is a slight problem, but just to judge players on it, is nonsensical, to be utterly simplistic I think I'd much prefer 2 99s, then a 100 and 0. What averages are you using there?

Kohli in Tests clearly not on thesame level as Kane or Joe yet would be a better way of putting it, if you want to be melodramatic about levels. Yet in reality they could all go either way.

 

[Bijed]

Think they're full career averages, just Root & Williamson are the wrong way around

 

[Bijed]

I'd say Kohli is on another level to Williamson and Root, and Smith is even above that. QdK will be up there if he can be comfortable at 4.

Smith>Kohli>Williamson=Root for me, but I haven't seen Kane as much as I should have.

Kane 17 100s, 61 matches. 53.57
Root 12 100s, 55 matches. 51.16
Kohli 16 100s, 57 matches. although recently much improved. 49.41
Smith 20 100s, 54 matches. 61.05 jeez and he started as a bowler, right?

Okay Smith is miles ahead.

Thing to note here is incredible as his run of form was, he proceeded to turn into an absolute walking wicket. Obviously I'm not saying he's going to be a tailender from here on in, but it does make it a bit difficult to accurately assess him right now. Fair to say he's had the best golden run but also the worst of the low points of the Big 4?

 

[theegyptian]

On the bowlers I think Coverton coming along very nicely now. Bit pacier, relentless around the top of offstump and can get disconcerting bounce. TRJ possibly deserves a chance in test cricket but Overton pushing him close at the moment imo.

Impressed by T Curran and Crane in white ball cricket this summer. Showing big improvement.

TCurran has that extra 1/2 yard of pace that makes his slower balls and yorker that much more penetrative. Possibly still lacks a bit of pace for test cricket at present. Doesn't have great figures over the last 16 months although Oval offers little to pace bowlers.
Crane has flattened his spin out a bit in 20 over cricket. Going more for the overspinners, googlies, and less for the big spinning leg breaks. Looking for those lbw and bowled in white ball cricket. Helped his white ball cricket - but doubtful whether it will do his first class cricket much good.

 

[AndrewB]

I'd say Kohli is on another level to Williamson and Root, and Smith is even above that. QdK will be up there if he can be comfortable at 4.

Smith>Kohli>Williamson=Root for me, but I haven't seen Kane as much as I should have.

Kane 17 100s, 61 matches. 53.57
Root 12 100s, 55 matches. 51.16
Kohli 16 100s, 57 matches. although recently much improved. 49.41
Smith 20 100s, 54 matches. 61.05 jeez and he started as a bowler, right?

Okay Smith is miles ahead.

Not really disputing that Smith is miles ahead, but he was only a bowler (batting at 8) for his first 2 Tests; for the 2010-11 Ashes he batted at 6 for 2 Tests and 7 for the 3rd (scored a few runs, didn't take any wickets). When he came back into the team after being dropped for a couple of years, he was a top 5 batsman who could bowl a bit.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Jennings is just out of nick, continuing a poor domestic run.

 

[Pothas]

On the bowlers I think Coverton coming along very nicely now. Bit pacier, relentless around the top of offstump and can get disconcerting bounce. TRJ possibly deserves a chance in test cricket but Overton pushing him close at the moment imo.

Impressed by T Curran and Crane in white ball cricket this summer. Showing big improvement.

TCurran has that extra 1/2 yard of pace that makes his slower balls and yorker that much more penetrative. Possibly still lacks a bit of pace for test cricket at present. Doesn't have great figures over the last 16 months although Oval offers little to pace bowlers.
Crane has flattened his spin out a bit in 20 over cricket. Going more for the overspinners, googlies, and less for the big spinning leg breaks. Looking for those lbw and bowled in white ball cricket. Helped his white ball cricket - but doubtful whether it will do his first class cricket much good.

Yeah I am slightly worried Crane will play too much white ball cricket and not enough first class, it is a basic problem of the schedule though. Need to make sure he gets plenty of red ball cricket during the winter.

How quick is Coad at the moment?

 

[S.Kennedy]

Yeah I am slightly worried Crane will play too much white ball cricket and not enough first class, it is a basic problem of the schedule though. Need to make sure he gets plenty of red ball cricket during the winter.

How quick is Coad at the moment?

Would that be'' red back cricket in the winter'' in England (bit of a joke at the current scheduling which does not see the championship resume to late August or some ungodly time).

 

[Groundking]

Honestly I think conversion rate for Root is a slight problem, but just to judge players on it, is nonsensical, to be utterly simplistic I think I'd much prefer 2 99s, then a 100 and 0. What averages are you using there?

Kohli in Tests clearly not on thesame level as Kane or Joe yet would be a better way of putting it, if you want to be melodramatic about levels. Yet in reality they could all go either way.

Erm, no he's no. Can we please kill this idea that Kohli is even close to Root and Williamson, let alone Smith at the minute? Since the start of 2014 (after Root's sketchy start where he managed 955 runs @ 36.75 in just over a year) Root's scored 3920 runs @ 60.30, and Williamson 3322 @ 66.44 (Smith 4281 @ 72.81), whilst Kohli has only managed 2990 @ 52.45, about as good Warner, Younis and McCullum in that time period. Ontop of this Root and Williamson have only once barely blipped below a 50 average for a calendar year during this point (last year with 49.23 and 47.06 respectively), whilst Kholi has had 2 full years averaging sub 45, and is currently in his 3rd season sub 45. Ontop of this Kohli has only had the one year at a 60+ average, whereas Root and Williamson have had 2, and are currently in their 3 year of 60+ average. Now granted a lot can still change this year and we are still talking about the start of all these players careers, but from evidence so far Kohli has shown nothing to say that he can keep scoring runs at the monstrous rates that Root, Williamson and Smith have all shown, and if you're to ask me who looks like they won't smash the 10k run barrier (when they all should), it'll be Kohli, and I think he'll be alongside Cook and Jayawardene in the sub 50 average range in the 10k runs club.

Thing to note here is incredible as his run of form was, he proceeded to turn into an absolute walking wicket. Obviously I'm not saying he's going to be a tailender from here on in, but it does make it a bit difficult to accurately assess him right now. Fair to say he's had the best golden run but also the worst of the low points of the Big 4?

He's not even had the best golden run ffs. His best run he averaged 75.93, all 3 of the other have had years at a higher average, Smith @ 81.85, Williamson @ 90.15, Root @ 97.12, whilst Smith has also had 3 back to back years scoring at an average higher than 70 (2014, 2015, 2016, and could still yet finish 2016 at 70+).

 

[honestbharani]

Erm, no he's no. Can we please kill this idea that Kohli is even close to Root and Williamson, let alone Smith at the minute? Since the start of 2014 (after Root's sketchy start where he managed 955 runs @ 36.75 in just over a year) Root's scored 3920 runs @ 60.30, and Williamson 3322 @ 66.44 (Smith 4281 @ 72.81), whilst Kohli has only managed 2990 @ 52.45, about as good Warner, Younis and McCullum in that time period. Ontop of this Root and Williamson have only once barely blipped below a 50 average for a calendar year during this point (last year with 49.23 and 47.06 respectively), whilst Kholi has had 2 full years averaging sub 45, and is currently in his 3rd season sub 45. Ontop of this Kohli has only had the one year at a 60+ average, whereas Root and Williamson have had 2, and are currently in their 3 year of 60+ average. Now granted a lot can still change this year and we are still talking about the start of all these players careers, but from evidence so far Kohli has shown nothing to say that he can keep scoring runs at the monstrous rates that Root, Williamson and Smith have all shown, and if you're to ask me who looks like they won't smash the 10k run barrier (when they all should), it'll be Kohli, and I think he'll be alongside Cook and Jayawardene in the sub 50 average range in the 10k runs club.



He's not even had the best golden run ffs. His best run he averaged 75.93, all 3 of the other have had years at a higher average, Smith @ 81.85, Williamson @ 90.15, Root @ 97.12, whilst Smith has also had 3 back to back years scoring at an average higher than 70 (2014, 2015, 2016, and could still yet finish 2016 at 70+).

Yeah if you remove the worst periods of a couple of the top 4 they do end up above Kohli, shocking, isn't it? Also, wasn't this period the time India had spin friendly tracks at home which apparently means all wickets that Ashwin and Jadeja took were bogus? So apparently that does not apply when Kohli bats?


I am not saying Kohli as good as the others in the big 4 but lets not pretend there is this huge chasm either. This topic has been done to death and as I said before, the biggest chasm is between The Chump and KW... This is how I would rate them.


Smith >>> KW > Root >> Kohli.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think it's more important than England settle on exactly what they want their eleventh player to do than it is to decide on which fringe batsmen end up selected, honestly.

With just ten players England can select their best seven batsmen, an above average #8, a competent wicket keeper, their best three seamers, their best spinner, and have a fully functional five man attack. The eleventh man - Dawson - is adding very little presently, and I don't even think he's the best man for the job if what they want is a spinner-who-can-bat. It's a nice problem to have but it's still a real problem, and they risk either over-extending some of their best players or wasting them in bit-part roles while inferior "specialists" squander good opportunities.

 

[mr_mister]

ive just been playing a season as Hampshire in ICC17 and my god this James Adams bloke just scores runs for fun. He's averaged 70 for me this season after the first 8 FC games


PICK HIM ENGLAND

 

[mr_mister]

also regarding Lara, that 99 series against us(when he was around 55 tests and only had 10 tons) was very important for him. I won't say make or break because he was never getting dropped but like, it was the moment where we'd see if he was to go on and be a legend or just a wonder kid who never matched up to his early exploits

3 very famous and unique tons in 3 matches told the tale. A double ton, that famous rearguard unbeaten 150 to win a match from nowhere and then smashed 100 in 70 balls

 

[cnerd123]

I think it's more important than England settle on exactly what they want their eleventh player to do than it is to decide on which fringe batsmen end up selected, honestly.

With just ten players England can select their best seven batsmen, an above average #8, a competent wicket keeper, their best three seamers, their best spinner, and have a fully functional five man attack. The eleventh man - Dawson - is adding very little presently, and I don't even think he's the best man for the job if what they want is a spinner-who-can-bat. It's a nice problem to have but it's still a real problem, and they risk either over-extending some of their best players or wasting them in bit-part roles while inferior "specialists" squander good opportunities.

England has the perfect squad to play a specialist wicketkeeper who bats at 10 or something.

Would add most value to them too IMO.

 

[vcs]

Yeah if you remove the worst periods of a couple of the top 4 they do end up above Kohli, shocking, isn't it? Also, wasn't this period the time India had spin friendly tracks at home which apparently means all wickets that Ashwin and Jadeja took were bogus? So apparently that does not apply when Kohli bats?


I am not saying Kohli as good as the others in the big 4 but lets not pretend there is this huge chasm either. This topic has been done to death and as I said before, the biggest chasm is between The Chump and KW... This is how I would rate them.


Smith >>> KW > Root >> Kohli.

Yeah, this one has been done to death.

For me, I will still put Kohli alongside the other two, and a little behind Smith, don't care what the numbers say. He passes the eye-test. Hope he proves me right.

 

[TheJediBrah]

England need to sort their team balance out, then decide who the best players are to fit it. Having Stokes, Moeen and Bairstow who are both among the best 5-6 batsmen in the country and genuine all-rounders is confusing the **** out of their selectors IMO, and leading to them making ridiculous selections like a specialist 6th bowler.

 

[S.Kennedy]

England has the perfect squad to play a specialist wicketkeeper who bats at 10 or something.

Would add most value to them too IMO.

Does one even exist? The two rivals for Bairstow's gloves are Ben Foakes of 40ish average and Jos 'T20' Butler. Butler averages 30ish but that is just because he is too stupid to plays first-class cricket. Foakes you would still want to play as a vaguely specialist batsman - a six as he plays at Surrey.

I suppose you could have Butler+ at 8 (or possibly 9 if you think he is shitter than Liam Dawson!).

 

[S.Kennedy]

England need to sort their team balance out, then decide who the best players are to fit it. Having Stokes, Moeen and Bairstow who are both among the best 5-6 batsmen in the country and genuine all-rounders is confusing the **** out of their selectors IMO, and leading to them making ridiculous selections like a specialist 6th bowler.

I think really what is confusing them is Ali. They tried to make him a spinner-who-bats to solve England's spin crisis (he insists he is a batsman first and domestically a 3 or 4!) so initially had him at 7 or 8. They then realised he was a batsman-who-bowls so moved him up the order into various batting positions. Now they have reverted to playing him back at 7!