Mistakes in selection on this tour by England

[stephen]

Strauss and Cook I meant to say.

 

[TheJediBrah]

@ opening post. Pisses me off when people call wickets flat that have all given a result and caused both teams problems at times.

Rule no1: If you lose 20 wickets per match, it is not because wickets are flat. It is because you are ****.

Calling these wickets flat is just ignorant. They've all easily produced results, despite rain

 

[Spark]

As for the OP, Gary Ballance at 4 in Australia against this attack? And this side is supposed to be better?

 

[cnerd123]

What club cricket league has spinners of Moeen Ali's calibre playing in them?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What club cricket league has spinners of Moeen Ali's calibre playing in them?

Clubs all over Australia have first-class and occasional international players in them. When I was a kid in Melbourne every club had at least 1 or 2 overseas professionals who played First-class cricket regularly in somewhere Asia or England or wherever.

 

[TNT]

What club cricket league has spinners of Moeen Ali's calibre playing in them?

The ones with not very good spinners.

 

[marc71178]

1. Not picking a front-line spinner. They didn't take Leach to the sub-continent and once again refused to pick him (or another front-line spinner here)
2. Persisting with Moeen Ali. Let's be honest they are plenty of club bowlers who would be just as effective and the same level of control...pointless selecting a player not good enough with bat or ball for these conditions. He's arguably no better of a bowler than Malan either.

Yes, by this point you'd clearly lost the plot. If a bloke with 30 wickets at 21.30 in the last summer isn't a front line spinner then you're clearly talking out of your arse.

I can only assume you reside in the North East, Durham maybe?

 

[Furball]

Vaughn and Flintoff fell off a cliff when picked as captain. Admittedly Strauss and Root didn't. The fact that you have to go back 20 years to find a counter example says it all.

Pretty sure it was a pedalo that Flintoff fell off tbh

 

[GuyFromLancs]

1. Not picking a front-line spinner. They didn't take Leach to the sub-continent and once again refused to pick him (or another front-line spinner here)
2. Persisting with Moeen Ali. Let's be honest they are plenty of club bowlers who would be just as effective and the same level of control...pointless selecting a player not good enough with bat or ball for these conditions. He's arguably no better of a bowler than Malan either.
3. Not playing Bairstow as a batsman and picking Foakes as keeper who is a very good batsman himself..
4. Not batting Root 3. Captain doesn't have to be 3, or the best player. He does when the openers and number 3 are all fragile. Especially when he's the best player.
5. Ballance could have been a great option on flat wickets, especially if put at his natural number 4 position.
6. England didn't pick a team to win with. They picked a team to try to avoid getting bashed game after game. And it happened anyway.
7. Aus have 3 seamers and a spinner plus part-timers. England could have used the same balance..

Team I'd have selected pre-series


1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Root (c)
4. Ballance
5. Bairstow
6. Malan
7. Foakes (wk)
8. Overton
9. Broad
10. Leach
11. Anderson

I think this team would have had more of a chance. I'm interested what sort of a team you'd have picked pre-series (not in hindsight) and what you'd pick for the 4th test?

Test 4 (using players from the squad England have picked)

1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Root (c)
4. Ballance
5. Bairstow
6. Malan
7. Foakes (wk)
8. Overton
9. Curran
10. Crane
11. Anderson

I think for the 4th test I'd drop Broad and play Curran looking at the touring party. Crane would have to play instead of Leach. I'd like to give Ballance a game now the series is dead, Vince did ok though in the 3rd test. I'd rotate Vince for Ballance however just to see what happens, not like England have anything to lose from it.

Traditionally our spinners have been so ineffective in Australia, it probably made no odds to the selectors. Since Swann (by far the best England spinner I've seen in my near-30 years of watching the sport) felt compelled to retire after 2 tests last time out, who else do you want to sacrifice?

I agree with much of the rest

 

[oblongballs]

1. Not picking a front-line spinner. They didn't take Leach to the sub-continent and once again refused to pick him (or another front-line spinner here)
2. Persisting with Moeen Ali. Let's be honest they are plenty of club bowlers who would be just as effective and the same level of control...pointless selecting a player not good enough with bat or ball for these conditions. He's arguably no better of a bowler than Malan either.
3. Not playing Bairstow as a batsman and picking Foakes as keeper who is a very good batsman himself..
4. Not batting Root 3. Captain doesn't have to be 3, or the best player. He does when the openers and number 3 are all fragile. Especially when he's the best player.
5. Ballance could have been a great option on flat wickets, especially if put at his natural number 4 position.
6. England didn't pick a team to win with. They picked a team to try to avoid getting bashed game after game. And it happened anyway.
7. Aus have 3 seamers and a spinner plus part-timers. England could have used the same balance..

Team I'd have selected pre-series


1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Root (c)
4. Ballance
5. Bairstow
6. Malan
7. Foakes (wk)
8. Overton
9. Broad
10. Leach
11. Anderson

I think this team would have had more of a chance. I'm interested what sort of a team you'd have picked pre-series (not in hindsight) and what you'd pick for the 4th test?

Test 4 (using players from the squad England have picked)

1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Root (c)
4. Ballance
5. Bairstow
6. Malan
7. Foakes (wk)
8. Overton
9. Curran
10. Crane
11. Anderson

I think for the 4th test I'd drop Broad and play Curran looking at the touring party. Crane would have to play instead of Leach. I'd like to give Ballance a game now the series is dead, Vince did ok though in the 3rd test. I'd rotate Vince for Ballance however just to see what happens, not like England have anything to lose from it.

You wouldn't pick Ali who has had an exceptional 18 months in tests and was THE test player for England in the summer?

I think not selecting Rashid and Plunkett to even be in the squad are the two big omissions. Not bringing the best fast bowler in England over was another problem, speaking of Porter. I agree with Root being at 3.

Other than that, theres not much England could do. They dont really have an exceptional batsman doing the rounds that is really standing up for selection and could strengthen the middle order. There is no such opener either.

Basically, Australia have the same problem in reverse, or HAD. They were unable to come to England and win a series, maybe this team could be different.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

You wouldn't pick Ali who has had an exceptional 18 months in tests and was THE test player for England in the summer?

I think not selecting Rashid and Plunkett to even be in the squad are the two big omissions. Not bringing the best fast bowler in England over was another problem, speaking of Porter. I agree with Root being at 3.

Other than that, theres not much England could do. They dont really have an exceptional batsman doing the rounds that is really standing up for selection and could strengthen the middle order. There is no such opener either.

Basically, Australia have the same problem in reverse, or HAD. They were unable to come to England and win a series, maybe this team could be different.

Porter is injured anyway. No idea if he will be fit for NZ if we need him there though.

 

[Gremlin]

England have made selection errors even within the current squad, it's been highlighted in this thread already that Bairstow should have played above Ali all along and Ball wasn't match fit.

I think Ali hasn't been match ready either, the injuries have prevented him having meaningful time out in the middle, however, in selecting a rookie spinner as back up then there has been no alternative but to play him. People who have been calling for Ali to be dropped have short term memories, he has been bowling very well in the 12 months prior to this tour and his batting has blossomed.

I have long been an advocate of Bairstow playing as a specialist batsman only and picking Foakes but in the absence of Stokes I can see why the selectors were nervous about this option.

Selector positives? Malan obviously, I wasn't sure about him but he has grown into the role and I genuinely hope he goes forward. Stoneman done just enough although he probably should have been an opener for England over the last three years and been completely comfortable at the top of the order for some time. Vince? It could still happen for him I guess. He has this winter to prove it finally.

England have been unlucky with injuries too of course but that should never be an excuse for some of the more obvious selection shortcomings.

 

[Furball]

Bairstow batting above Moeen is a minor quibble, it hardly counts as a major error.

 

[marc71178]

I think not selecting Rashid and Plunkett to even be in the squad are the two big omissions. Not bringing the best fast bowler in England over was another problem, speaking of Porter.

Rashid - proven not up to Tests.
Plunkett - doesn't have stamina for red ball cricket.
Porter - injured.

Glad you're not a selector.

 

[Woodster]

Bairstow batting above Moeen is a minor quibble, it hardly counts as a major error.

I also don't think decisions such as that are decided by the selectors, so would be most unfair to hold them accountable for that.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

You wouldn't pick Ali who has had an exceptional 18 months in tests and was THE test player for England in the summer?

I think not selecting Rashid and Plunkett to even be in the squad are the two big omissions. Not bringing the best fast bowler in England over was another problem, speaking of Porter. I agree with Root being at 3.

Other than that, theres not much England could do. They dont really have an exceptional batsman doing the rounds that is really standing up for selection and could strengthen the middle order. There is no such opener either.

Basically, Australia have the same problem in reverse, or HAD. They were unable to come to England and win a series, maybe this team could be different.

It makes little odds. Finger spinners achieve zero in Australia.

Swan played pretty well 10/11 but he was part of a team on a rampage. He was then forced into retirement after 2 tests in 13/14 because (IMO) he wanted his legacy to be a bowling average of <30, and that was about to be exploded.

Ali was never going to anything with the ball. With the bat maybe, yes. He deserved looking at by that metric.

Personally down under (as a general rule of thumb), I'd go 4 seamers and a one or two pie chucking offies in the batting order. IN short, if Ali makes it as a batsman, he plays. If not, it becomes irrelevant

 

[S.Kennedy]

Rashid - proven not up to Tests.
Plunkett - doesn't have stamina for red ball cricket.
Porter - injured.

Glad you're not a selector.

In case you didn't realise, we are not exactly spoilt for choice by way of fast bowlers and spinners. I mean I'd agree with you about those selections if we were still producing Harmys, Flintoffs and Swanns (or were producing Cumminses and Lyons) but we are not. Currently, amidst all of these medium-paced dibbly dobblers we seem to produce, Rashid and Plunkett look like perfectly valid selections. The only fast bowlers we have are Wood, Plunkett and Jamie Overton, the first of which you deem ''rubbish'', the second lacking ''stamina'' and I'm not sure I'd want to hear your opinion on J. Overton but he is injured irrespective. And if Rashid is ''not up to tests'' what does that say about Moeen Ali?

I keep seeing people criticise people's England selections yet I'm yet to hear a much better alternative.

 

[TNT]

england were much better when they were selecting South Africans.

 

[Woodster]

In case you didn't realise, we are not exactly spoilt for choice by way of fast bowlers and spinners. I mean I'd agree with you about those selections if we were still producing Harmys, Flintoffs and Swanns (or were producing Cumminses and Lyons) but we are not. Currently, amidst all of these medium-paced dibbly dobblers we seem to produce, Rashid and Plunkett look like perfectly valid selections. The only fast bowlers we have are Wood, Plunkett and Jamie Overton, the first of which you deem ''rubbish'', the second lacking ''stamina'' and I'm not sure I'd want to hear your opinion on J. Overton but he is injured irrespective. And if Rashid is ''not up to tests'' what does that say about Moeen Ali?

I keep seeing people criticise people's England selections yet I'm yet to hear a much better alternative.

That's the thing you see, it's easy to say he's got weaknesses here, he shouldn't play because of this that and the other. You can make a case for plenty of the options not getting selected but that's where we're at right now. It's easy to say no way should he play, it's not so easy offering a really viable option. I personally didn't agree with the Vince selection, he's done ok and maybe it was a hunch selection that Aussie conditions would suit him, however, it's difficult to lambast the selectots too much because they didn't really have many better options that were beating down the door to be included.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

england were much better when they were selecting South Africans.

Yeah but one of them was a huge ****.