England Team Discussion

[Willoughby63]

Sibley opening, I have a bad feeling about Crawley

Intended to post this in the Ashes series thread originally, but felt this thread would be more suited to it. These are just the thoughts of an outsider who has seen England's performances in tests over the past year.

• Jason Roy does not look like a test batsman to me. His defence is absolutely poor and he seems to have no patience to grind it out for extended periods of time. On a flatter pitch, he might be of use as a middle order batsman for some quick runs but as a long term test prospect? The bloke needs to be removed ASAP before it affects his ODI form.
  
• Bairstow has a glaring issue with his technique that is being ruthlessly exploited at the moment. He isn't the best keeper in England currently and can't bat/isn't willing to bat in the top order currently either. As of now, he deserves no spot in the side.
  
• Burns is someone I have been backing ever since before the Ashes started even when there were doubts over his ability here. A solid and deserved selection and someone who should be backed for the next few years.
  
• Was a bit surprised to see some names being suggested like Malan, Mo and Ballance in the Ashes thread. Malan is barely of use in English conditions and isn't a good fielder either. If I remember correctly, it was reported that he would be in contention for selection in away tours where he would fare better with his technique which is the right choice.
  
• Ali has a solitary century in the last two years of first-class cricket (which to be fair is a double hundred). England's main issue with the current batting lineup is the lack of someone who could make those big hundreds. Burns' domestic stats don't suggest someone who is capable of scoring hundreds consistently (might be wrong here) and it isn't fair to expect your opener to score centuries consistently when openers all over the world are struggling due to bowler friendly pitches over the last two years. Ali hasn't performed well when he has been the solitary spinner except in England and failed there too in the first test. Test cricket is no place for a player who isn't good with either bat or ball and Ali shouldn't be an option unless playing in spin friendly conditions where he should be replacing a pacer and not any one of the batsmen.
  
• I don't think Root needs to bat at four in order for the team to perform optimally. It might be a better option for him as an individual but he hasn't performed well enough this year to be an automatic choice at four. 3 centuries in 40 innings in 2018 and 2019 is very poor from a batsman of his ability and in all of those innings, he has always arrived at the crease after an extended period of time. This is further proven by his average being the highest when he has batted at five rather than four. I've noted three problems with Root that is affecting his batting at the moment. First one is this where he walks in too early due to the lack of a competent opener (including Cook who's mediocre record has been masked by the total lack of competency at the other end) and number three. This leaves him a lot more vulnerable to the very good to virtually unplayable deliveries that can easily happen with the new ball and a bowling attack that has already picked up 2-3 quick wickets and is on fire. Get another competent opener in to partner Burns, back them with clear instructions to not lose their wicket for as long as possible and you have a much greater chance of Root performing well at three. Either Sibley or Crawley need to get a chance here. I'm completely against Jennings' selection in pacer friendly conditions, but he has shown that he can play spin decently and can be a decent opener in Asia if chosen.
  
• Root's selection at three also allows England to select a proper number four where England have a lot more options. It makes sense to have a natural number four who is inexperienced at the test level to bat at four while a senior batsman plays at three. This could really be a sign of maturity from Root too if this is persisted with. Hildreth, Northeast, Clarke, Livingstone and Lawrence are all new options to try out here. I don't have much knowledge about them so would be interested in hearing who would be the ideal choice.
  
• Pope at five is a no-brainer. He averages close to 60 in first-class cricket, is highly rated, young , can actually convert his 50s into big scores and has already played for England. An inevitable selection that should be happening in no time.
  
• Stokes should be playing at six in light of his workload as the all-rounder and potential captaincy. Probably the most nailed-on player in this side.
  
• Denly to me is a proper test batsman. A very average one, but at least he has the ability and patience to play a test knock. But the only reason I would have him in the side is if Root is adamant on returning to four and he proves himself to be more than just average at test level. He shouldn't be in the side for his part-time spin, Root can already offer that. IMO, I wouldn't have him in the side due to his age and mediocre record. Buttler is the one that has confused me the most, he has a lot of ability and can also grind it out if clearly instructed to unless the pitch is a monster but is it really worth having a secondary keeper who can't bat in the top five with a very average first-class record? I do not think his keeping is good enough either, he has made a number of elementary errors in ODIs that will be heavily scrutinized in tests. If he is serious about playing test cricket, he should forego a season of IPL and play county cricket to completely prove himself. A pretty unlikely prospect given the potential earnings that he would miss out on and his status as an established player.
  
• With all of that in mind, I'm opting for England's best gloveman and a more than handy batsman as the number seven in Ben Foakes.

This leaves me with a lineup of..

1. Burns
2. Sibley/Crawley
3. Root
4. Hildreth(if age isn't a barrier)/Northeast(if his current form isn't an issue)/Clarke(unlikely due to his misbehaviour)/Livingstone/Lawrence(if you want someone with potential)
5. Pope
6. Stokes
7. Foakes

Haven't spoken about the captaincy as this post is already long enough without it, will do so if this gains traction! My lineup is pretty similar to @Aislabie's with just one significant alteration in Root's position.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Intended to post this in the Ashes series thread originally, but felt this thread would be more suited to it. These are just the thoughts of an outsider who has seen England's performances in tests over the past year.

• Jason Roy does not look like a test batsman to me. His defence is absolutely poor and he seems to have no patience to grind it out for extended periods of time. On a flatter pitch, he might be of use as a middle order batsman for some quick runs but as a long term test prospect? The bloke needs to be removed ASAP before it affects his ODI form.
  
• Bairstow has a glaring issue with his technique that is being ruthlessly exploited at the moment. He isn't the best keeper in England currently and can't bat/isn't willing to bat in the top order currently either. As of now, he deserves no spot in the side.
  
• Burns is someone I have been backing ever since before the Ashes started even when there were doubts over his ability here. A solid and deserved selection and someone who should be backed for the next few years.
  
• Was a bit surprised to see some names being suggested like Malan, Mo and Ballance in the Ashes thread. Malan is barely of use in English conditions and isn't a good fielder either. If I remember correctly, it was reported that he would be in contention for selection in away tours where he would fare better with his technique which is the right choice.
  
• Ali has a solitary century in the last two years of first-class cricket (which to be fair is a double hundred). England's main issue with the current batting lineup is the lack of someone who could make those big hundreds. Burns' domestic stats don't suggest someone who is capable of scoring hundreds consistently (might be wrong here) and it isn't fair to expect your opener to score centuries consistently when openers all over the world are struggling due to bowler friendly pitches over the last two years. Ali hasn't performed well when he has been the solitary spinner except in England and failed there too in the first test. Test cricket is no place for a player who isn't good with either bat or ball and Ali shouldn't be an option unless playing in spin friendly conditions where he should be replacing a pacer and not any one of the batsmen.
  
• I don't think Root needs to bat at four in order for the team to perform optimally. It might be a better option for him as an individual but he hasn't performed well enough this year to be an automatic choice at four. 3 centuries in 40 innings in 2018 and 2019 is very poor from a batsman of his ability and in all of those innings, he has always arrived at the crease after an extended period of time. This is further proven by his average being the highest when he has batted at five rather than four. I've noted three problems with Root that is affecting his batting at the moment. First one is this where he walks in too early due to the lack of a competent opener (including Cook who's mediocre record has been masked by the total lack of competency at the other end) and number three. This leaves him a lot more vulnerable to the very good to virtually unplayable deliveries that can easily happen with the new ball and a bowling attack that has already picked up 2-3 quick wickets and is on fire. Get another competent opener in to partner Burns, back them with clear instructions to not lose their wicket for as long as possible and you have a much greater chance of Root performing well at three. Either Sibley or Crawley need to get a chance here. I'm completely against Jennings' selection in pacer friendly conditions, but he has shown that he can play spin decently and can be a decent opener in Asia if chosen.
  
• Root's selection at three also allows England to select a proper number four where England have a lot more options. It makes sense to have a natural number four who is inexperienced at the test level to bat at four while a senior batsman plays at three. This could really be a sign of maturity from Root too if this is persisted with. Hildreth, Northeast, Clarke, Livingstone and Lawrence are all new options to try out here. I don't have much knowledge about them so would be interested in hearing who would be the ideal choice.
  
• Pope at five is a no-brainer. He averages close to 60 in first-class cricket, is highly rated, young , can actually convert his 50s into big scores and has already played for England. An inevitable selection that should be happening in no time.
  
• Stokes should be playing at six in light of his workload as the all-rounder and potential captaincy. Probably the most nailed-on player in this side.
  
• Denly to me is a proper test batsman. A very average one, but at least he has the ability and patience to play a test knock. But the only reason I would have him in the side is if Root is adamant on returning to four and he proves himself to be more than just average at test level. He shouldn't be in the side for his part-time spin, Root can already offer that. IMO, I wouldn't have him in the side due to his age and mediocre record. Buttler is the one that has confused me the most, he has a lot of ability and can also grind it out if clearly instructed to unless the pitch is a monster but is it really worth having a secondary keeper who can't bat in the top five with a very average first-class record? I do not think his keeping is good enough either, he has made a number of elementary errors in ODIs that will be heavily scrutinized in tests. If he is serious about playing test cricket, he should forego a season of IPL and play county cricket to completely prove himself. A pretty unlikely prospect given the potential earnings that he would miss out on and his status as an established player.
  
• With all of that in mind, I'm opting for England's best gloveman and a more than handy batsman as the number seven in Ben Foakes.

This leaves me with a lineup of..

1. Burns
2. Sibley/Crawley
3. Root
4. Hildreth(if age isn't a barrier)/Northeast(if his current form isn't an issue)/Clarke(unlikely due to his misbehaviour)/Livingstone/Lawrence(if you want someone with potential)
5. Pope
6. Stokes
7. Foakes

Haven't spoken about the captaincy as this post is already long enough without it, will do so if this gains traction! My lineup is pretty similar to @Aislabie's with just one significant alteration in Root's position.

I'd put Root at 4 and leave him there. It works for Smith and Kohli and it's where he wants to bat. I think Stokes is perfect at 5. He's been our best batsman for the last year and I think at six there's a risk we wouldn't get the best out of him.

I suggested Balance and Malan because they have at least showed the kind of domestic form that Buttler and Roy could only dream of. They, plus Bairstow, would be fast tracked back into the side with those runs at county level.

Personally I'd give Northeast or Crawley a go at three, Pope at six and Sibley opening. Foakes keeping.

Bairstow could be told no gloves or you're out. Show us the batsman you should be. Buttler could be given a run behind the stumps but why not just get Foakes in.

I don't see England rocking the boat in the winter, unless Giles wields an axe on captain and chief selector.

We might see Sibley go as a third opener ( if Denly keeps his place). Pope will be in the squad.

 

[Aislabie]

*snip*

1. Burns
2. Sibley/Crawley
3. Root
4. Hildreth(if age isn't a barrier)/Northeast(if his current form isn't an issue)/Clarke(unlikely due to his misbehaviour)/Livingstone/Lawrence(if you want someone with potential)
5. Pope
6. Stokes
7. Foakes

Haven't spoken about the captaincy as this post is already long enough without it, will do so if this gains traction! My lineup is pretty similar to @Aislabie's with just one significant alteration in Root's position.

Okay so to pick it apart:

• Burns - Absolutely agree, he has earned an extended run in the side. Interestingly seems to be much more vulnerable against high seventies than high eighties in terms of pace, goes feeling for the ball if it's not hitting the bat hard. This should settle down as he becomes more assured that he belongs at Test level, but at the same time I think Mitch Marsh will get him out at least once at The Oval.
• Sibley - Definitely needs to be the next cab off the rank. He's completely earned his chance, and deserves to be given an extended time to succeed or fail. Like a minimum of ten Tests, ideally more.
• Crawley - 1,804 runs @ 32.21 (2 centuries, best 168) in 33 matches. Picking him at this stage would in my opinion be a perfect Ed Smith selection to try to deal with the problems of Ed Smith's selections. He has a BSR of over 35 in first-class cricket, but an RSR of only 25 and this is highly indicative of a player with an incomplete game who won't yet cut it at Test level. It's indicative of someone who cashes in on poor balls when they come, but can't rotate the strike from good balls. As the batsman steps up to a higher level and the bad balls become fewer, they then get stuck and build up pressure. Two examples of batsmen with high BSR and low RSR values are the Marsh brothers, and we all know how they've flattered to deceive in Test cricket. BUT I'd have said the same thing when Duncan Fletcher picked Vaughan and Trescothick when they were averaging 32.
• Root - I agree that he's not done well at all for England of late, but he still has the highest ceiling of any of the available batsmen. Therefore, he should bat somewhere that allows him to get closer to that ceiling. The ultimate answer to that would be number five, where he averages seventy-odd; I would absolutely advocate this if there was a strong top four to bat behind, but currently there isn't so if he came to the crease with England at 30/3 it would heap pressure on him before he'd faced a ball. On balance, I still maintain that batting Root at four is the best choice for England.
• Hildreth - I love the guy and he'd have been a perfect selection a few years ago in what we shall quietly call The Vince-Westley Years, but now he seems as if he is starting to regress as a batsman. He has also been shuffled up to four, and has been far from a strong point in Somerset's very good team. At the same time though, he's played on all the same pitches where Lewis Gregory has averaged 14 with the ball so that won't have helped him out.
• Northeast - Absolutely deserves a place in the side, and if he were willing to give it a go I think he might be suited to three; although he's batted a bit lower than that for Hampshire (who have been opening the batting with Felix Organ and Ian Holland, yet somehow STILL look like they will escape relegation), he is someone who has trained for years to have the skill-set of an opener and might be worth a try at three.
• Clarke - Not likely. Shame - if he hadn't been such a dumb fearsome tweak he'd have a guaranteed berth in the team right now.
• Livingstone - Not a bad shout; his average has plateaued at about 40, and he's not helped by being the kind of guy who gets bored easily (a lot like a Ravi Bopara) and tries silly things. Sometimes he channels this through his batting, sometimes through his filthy bowling, and sometimes through his captaincy.
• Lawrence - Another decent suggestion. Horrible form (his average has dropped from 43 to 38 in between my last two visits to his Cricinfo page) but he's a proven century-scorer with potentially fifteen years of service still in his legs. If you want to try a young batsman he's a better choice than Crawley.
• Denly - He's obviously not the future. But he does at least average about 60 balls per Test innings before he gets out so he's doing at least some fraction of a job.
• Pope - Obviously yes. Absolute superstar but should be allowed to flourish in his natural role of middle-order batsman.
• Stokes - Currently the incumbent five. I would prefer to have him at six, but if he stays at five and Pope can ease into his career at six then that works too. I'm cool with that.
• Bairstow - Horribly exposed technical flaw, and I think his very presence in the side undermines the leadership structure somewhat given his propensity to throw his toys out of the pram and then to get what he wants.
• Buttler - I really want the Legend of Jos to arrive in Test cricket, but he's currently playing in a role that doesn't exist. A role that does exist is number three batsman, but he's really not suited to it.
• Foakes - He's the best keeper in England, except maybe Joe Simpson. He averages 40 with the bat in Tests. He is prepared to bat for long periods and not just to Play His Natural Game. Get him in that team, I say.

So based on that:

1. Rory Burns
2. Dominic Sibley
3. ???
4. Joe Root
5. Stokes / Pope
6. Pope / Stokes
7. Foakes

(Bold is for incumbents in the Test team)

That leaves a five-way shootout between the following players for the next Test number three:

• Zak Crawley - Not ready; originally an but included here because everyone seems to want him.
• Joe Denly - Not very good.
• Dan Lawrence - In dreadful form.
• Liam Livingstone - Lacking attention span.
• Sam Northeast - Bats in middle-order for Hampshire.

Seeing them placed side-by-side, I would be inclined to either be proactive and pick Northeast, or to put my fingers in my ears, shut my eyes, and pick Joe Denly while hoping that a number three batsman will appear in front of me if I wish hard enough.

Also, although this looks like a huge amount of tumult, it would only mean selecting one or possibly two debutants in the side. All the others have had a taste of Test cricket at some point, some have played quite a bit.

 

[Aislabie]

I'd put Root at 4 and leave him there. It works for Smith and Kohli and it's where he wants to bat. I think Stokes is perfect at 5. He's been our best batsman for the last year and I think at six there's a risk we wouldn't get the best out of him.

Agreed re: Root, but unsure re: Stokes.

It's worth remembering that for all of the "best batsman for the last year" talk, prior to the first innings at Lord's, Stokes' highest score since Bristol was 79 and in that time he'd been averaging 25. He's only really been England's best batsman for the last three weeks - prior to that he just looked like England's best batsman.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Agreed re: Root, but unsure re: Stokes.

It's worth remembering that for all of the "best batsman for the last year" talk, prior to the first innings at Lord's, Stokes' highest score since Bristol was 79 and in that time he'd been averaging 25. He's only really been England's best batsman for the last three weeks - prior to that he just looked like England's best batsman.

That's fair. The emphasis seems to be on getting the best from his batting though. I think he's bowled so much in the Ashes cause Root hasn't had faith in his third seamer and spinner. I do think he possesses that unique thing in the England side of being able to play effectively at different tempos. I think at six you run the risk of him being too often batting with the tail rather than the top order. I'd like to see him and Root batting together as much as possible. I might be completely wrong, and they have a woeful record batting together, but I feel like you want the best batsman pushing one another.

 

[Aislabie]

That's fair. The emphasis seems to be on getting the best from his batting though. I think he's bowled so much in the Ashes cause Root hasn't had faith in his third seamer and spinner. I do think he possesses that unique thing in the England side of being able to play effectively at different tempos. I think at six you run the risk of him being too often batting with the tail rather than the top order. I'd like to see him and Root batting together as much as possible. I might be completely wrong, and they have a woeful record batting together, but I feel like you want the best batsman pushing one another.

This is fair; I feel like you'd achieve that with a four-five-six of Root, Stokes and Pope. They're inarguably the three batsmen with the highest ceilings for performance currently available to England. The primary job of the top three will be to protect them from arriving at the crease to face the new ball too often

 

[Ed Smith]

Agree with most of what's been said here. And feel it'll happen eventually. It's this inbetween shite that's going to be the killer. I never want to see Bairstow wear his test kit again.

 

[Willoughby63]

That's fair. The emphasis seems to be on getting the best from his batting though. I think he's bowled so much in the Ashes cause Root hasn't had faith in his third seamer and spinner. I do think he possesses that unique thing in the England side of being able to play effectively at different tempos. I think at six you run the risk of him being too often batting with the tail rather than the top order. I'd like to see him and Root batting together as much as possible. I might be completely wrong, and they have a woeful record batting together, but I feel like you want the best batsman pushing one another.

I actually just read Ben Stokes’ autobiography, he says he find batting with Root easier than with anyone else

 

[Aislabie]

I actually just read Ben Stokes’ autobiography, he says he find batting with Root easier than with anyone else

To be fair, compared to Jonny Bairstow and his crazy eyes, and all of those other batsmen who actually have to worry about their place in the team, it must be easier

 

[blockerdave]

To be fair, compared to Jonny Bairstow and his crazy eyes, and all of those other batsmen who actually have to worry about their place in the team, it must be easier

I feel strongly if Bairstow had been told strongly Foakes was the incumbent keeper and if he wanted to play for England he had to prove himself good enough to play at 3, he’d have done so.

Because he was indulged, he regressed. Epitome of a spoiled child

 

[Master Bates]

What is wrong with Dawid Malan? Has scored plenty of runs in the county circuit to prove that he can scores at home as well!

 

[blockerdave]

What is wrong with Dawid Malan? Has scored plenty of runs in the county circuit to prove that he can scores at home as well!

tbf his record wasn't great, but it's as much Ed Smith trying to be clever "oh mr English county pro who's record in England is good enough to be selected for England, your technique isn't suited to England..."

 

[Bevab]

What is wrong with Dawid Malan? Has scored plenty of runs in the county circuit to prove that he can scores at home as well!

Malan hasn’t even been the most impressive batsman for Middlesex this season. Added to that, he plays in the second division which is inferior in quality. The last time Malan played for England at home, he was unimpressive with the bat and made some costly errors in the field.

 

[Master Bates]

Malan hasn’t even been the most impressive batsman for Middlesex this season. Added to that, he plays in the second division which is inferior in quality. The last time Malan played for England at home, he was unimpressive with the bat and made some costly errors in the field.

Well 933 runs at 51.83 with 4 hundreds.

 

[Bevab]

Well 933 runs at 51.83 with 4 hundreds.

My bad, got confused with the previous season.

In that case, Malan should have played at least a game once Denly was moved to open.