Since the two divisions of the county championship were introduced in 2000, Gloucestershire, Derbyshire and Glamorgan have spent the least time in division 1, having spent two years a piece in the top division. Derbyshire haven't won a major trophy since they won the Benson and Hedges Cup in 1993. Since then every other county has won at least 2 trophies, Warwickshire have been the most successful with 13 trophies.
Derbyshire's recent finishes in division 2 have been 7th(2018, 8th(2017), 9th last (2016), 8th(2015) 4th(2014).
Gloucestershire's recent finishes are 5th(2018), 6th(2017), 6th(2016), 6th(2015), 7th(2014), 6th(2013), 9th Last (2012).
Glamorgan's recent finishes are 10th last (2018), 7th(2017), 8th(2016), 4th(2015), 8th(2013), 6th(2012), 6th(2011).
They haven't been close to promotion in any of these years. None of these counties are producing England cricketers either. Jack Russell, Dominic Cork and Robert Croft are the last semi regular England cricketers to come from these counties.
You have to wonder quite what these counties are doing, and how they could try and change things around. It interests me why a struggling division 2 club has not taken a cue
from the example of Somerset in the first division and produced spinning
wickets on the regular. It would seem the most obvious way of turning
home advantage in your favour and narrowing the gap quickly between
those at the bottom and top.
With 3 up and 1 down in the county championship in 2019 there is a real opportunity for division 2 clubs to make progress, although there are 4 division 2 counties who are significantly stronger than the rest in 2019 - Lancashire(2-1 bookies favourite), Middlesex(7/2), Sussex(9/2), Worcesterstershire(8/1), rest (20-1+).
Worcestershire will be one club who will be massively fancying their chances of getting one of the three promotion spots but their current story sums up why it's so hard to build a club over a number of years to achieve success. Worcestershire have produced many excellent young cricketers in recent time, but they are also losing these players to 'test ground' counties, as they yo-yo between the divisions. Joe Clarke and Tom Kohler-Cadmore have moved to first division counties in a bid to gain selection for England, and for bigger contracts. It doesn't exactly provide a lot of hope to those at the bottom of division 2 that Worcestershire are doing so well in developing young players and yet still can't keep hold of them and are seemingly stuck as a yoyo club, with the 'international' counties stockpiling all the talent. Nottinghamshire is a polar opposite of Worcestershire. Few players have broken through from the academy to become regulars in recent years, but they've upgraded the squad continuously with the best young English talent, (Duckett, Joe Clarke, Ben Slater and Zac Chappell all moved this year), and whilst they had a setback when relegated in 2016, they bounced straight back the next year and once again are settled in division 1.
I propose that unless you have an exceptional bunch of young players that all come through together that it's seriously hard to build a club from the position Derbyshire or Glamorgan or Gloucestershire are. They can't compete financially with a lot of other counties, and they also struggle with a limited catchment area of their counties to produce players. They don't have the strong record of Yorkshire or Durham of strong local leagues producing players. In recent years a lot of division 2 counties have focused on the 50 over and 20 over cups.
Maybe a different approach is required and Somerset may be the team that others can learn from. Somerset have produced turning wickets at Taunton for the last three years and have had great success at it. They've had two England players come through, Jack Leach and Dominic Leach, and were unbeaten at home in 2018 in the championship finishing in second place.
Any of a number of counties at the bottom of division 2 could move to a
spin dominant tactic in the championship. The tactical advantages are
obvious. If you play on turning wickets every other week, whilst every
other team
plays once a year on a turning deck then you have a pretty significant
home advantage. You might have a worse squad than a Sussex or Middlesex
but the gap will narrow due to your heightened home advantage. In time
the county will possibly become attractive to other spin bowlers, and
batsman wanting something other than the standard low green seamer. For a
county now like Derbyshire who have little going for it, in the future
they may be know as a spin friendly county. Like Taunton is now known
colloquially as 'Ciderabad', Chesterfield may well become known as
'Bunsenfield'.
There were a number of decent spinners released by counties over the 2018 season. Simon Kerrigan, Ravi Patel, and Azeem Rafiq have all had good careers and find themselves without contracts currently. Rob Sayer and Sunny Singh are two younger bowlers with decent promise who also find themselves without contracts. Euan Woods is a promising off-spinner who couldn't make the breakthrough at Surrey. Even someone like Ollie Rayner, whilst still contracted to Middlesex, has struggled for chances over the last couple of years and may be willing to to play somewhere where he gets more opportunities. Produce a turning wicket and there are enough options available on the free market to sufficiently staff a county squad however limited the spinning options are currently. From an injury point of view, spinners are a more reliable option than fast bowlers so would allow counties dealing with small budgets to continue to do so. Another option would be to look for an overseas player who is a spinner - this might be the quickest way to close the gap between the strong counties and those who aren't.
Derbyshire are well placed already with two promising young spinners in Matt Critchley and Hamidullah Qadri. Bring in a Rafiq or Patel to add experience and they could have a promising spin attack. They also have a couple of good quick bowlers so they could produce dry flat wickets that turn that don't offer anything for the opposing medium pace plodders, and give Derbyshire a balance. They have a couple of batting allrounders who bowl medium pace to allow them to increase their options to 4 seamers as required, even with 3 spinners in the team.
Proposed Derbyshire Side - Reece, Godleman, Lace, Madsen, Hughes, Smit, Critchley, Van Beek, Vijoen, R Patel, Qadri
Even if it doesn't go well it will still producing interesting cricket on spinning wickets. Somerset home games of recent years have always been interesting to follow. As an example the Bristol wickets in recent times have been fairly awful slow flat horrors which are a turn off to the fans.
Glamorgan have had quite a few young spinners (Salter, Morgan, Sisodiya, Bull) come through their academy in recent years and whilst none have kicked on massively that's probably as much to do with the conditions as their own potential. Many of them bat too. Sophia Gardens has in the past been known as a slow turner although not so in recent years, maybe they could go back to the turning wickets. 10th,7th and 8th place finishes in division 2 over the last three years certainly suggest they need to change tact.
Glamorgan - Selman, Murphy, Marsh,Carlson, Lloyd, Cooke, Salter, Morgan, Van der Gugten, De Lange, Hogan,
Glamorgan actually have some decent cricketers that could make up a decent side. De Lange and Van der Gugten are both capable of bowling 85mph+, and have played a decent amount of good quality cricket overseas. Salter and Morgan, the two spinners in my proposed side have both opened the batting for Glamorgan in the past. Lukas Carey is a good young bowling prospect, and Michael Hogan an experienced campaigner. Really it's a squad that should be doing so much better than it currently does. The kind of team I've selected really covers it's bases and should make better use of their assets. Van der Gugten and De Lange's pace is nullified on slow green wickets that swing and seam a little. Ideally you'd create fast wickets for these two but that seems unlikely. Second best is flattish wickets (that turn) which would nullify the medium pace and put a premium on having pacey bowlers in the team. David Lloyd makes a fourth seamer when conditions necessitate.
Gloucestershire actually have two or three good young batsman who I have high hopes upon. Hankins, Bracey and Charlseworth are all promising but if Gloucestershire want to keep them in the long term they need progress in the championship. Losing Norwell and Miles to Warwickshire is a hammer blow of their chances going forward. Gloucestershire probably have the weakest of the spin bowlers from the teams mentioned . Tom Smith is a fairly non threatening left arm spinner, George Drissell has no real pedigree as yet, and other are part timers, so they would have to go into the transfer market. Whilst finances are tight, with Miles and Norwell gone, and the likely low wages of any potential spinner they could certainly pick up one spinner at a minimum. Ravi Patel is the best of the spinner available and really shouldn't be lost to the professional game, but Gloucestershire already have Tom Smith and Graeme Van Buuren bowling left arm spin, and with the prevalence of left arm over fast bowlers making rough outside the offstump of the right handed batsman, an offspinner is the better acquisition.
Gloucestershire - Dent, Hammond, Bracey, Hankins, Roderick, Higgins, Van Buuren, Rafiq, T Smith, Worrall, Payne
The 2019 schedule is very conducive to the tactic of producing spinning wickets with more championship cricket been played in the middle of the summer than in recent years, or will do in 2020. 2020 and on is the big reason why counties will probably think twice before going down this route. The schedule from 2020 on is of championship cricket mainly been pushed to the edges of the season. Still Somerset haven't had too many problems making turning wickets in September when they were desperate for wins in recent years.
As an aside it's a shame that they are playing the 50 over cup, rather than the championship, concurrently with the new hundred competition in 2020. The 50 over cup without any of the best 100 or so short format players in the country is going to be of a derisory standard, and the next generation of England cricketers will go without any kind of practice for 50 over world cups. If they had put the championship on at this point you would still have a reasonable standard with long format players such as Cook, Anderson, Broad, Hameed playing and you would have allowed young spinners to get some cricket during the middle of the summer - plus county members would have been happy. It would also have allowed a nice contrast for cricket supporters with both short format and long format games being played simultaneously, to allow maximum exposure to cricket fans of all varieties.
Saturday, 29 December 2018
Monday, 10 December 2018
Root and Bayliss look at the big picture
Bairstow
Looking at the big picture and England need Bairstow to make a go of it at 3 or as opener. He may desperately want to keep the gloves but the team needs him to bat 3. After his excellent century in the third test he let off some anger in his interviews after the day's play. Most of it was misjudged and gave the impression of a person who was focused on his self and didn't have concern for the team. There was no mention of the contributions of Ben Foakes in the previous two tests, only anger over his non selection. That Bairstow had only averaged 31 over the previous two years, hadn't scored a century in 11 tests in Asia, or that England had just won a series in Sri Lanka for the first time since 2001, with Ben Foakes being the key player didn't seem to cross his mind. Bayliss, Root and the selectors are looking at the big picture. Bairstow in this moment was looking at his own personal situation. Is it really surprising now that Bairstow wasn't even considered when Root was made captain?
On a purely motivation and personal level players need to find what works for them. If Bairstow requires this kind of motivation to make him work then that's all the better for England. Both Bairstow and Broad have dealt well with the threat of being dropped in recent times, upping their efforts and coming back better. That's the sign of top quality performers with strong mental characteristics. On a team level Bairstow seems like he is a little tough to get on with.
England now have 15-18 players who are international quality who bat between 4 and 11. Between 1 and 3 they have no proven quality. Rory Burns had a promising start, Keaton Jennings plays spin pretty well, and Jonny Bairstow just scored a hundred in his first innings at number 3 for England, but there is no guarantee any of them will be there in a year's time. For England's sake, Bairstow needs to make a go of it at 3, whether he likes it or not.
Archer
Jofra Archer is a game changer for England but does it risk the team equilibrium in 2019 in a year when they were already favourites for the 50 over WC and the Ashes?
The current iteration of the England ODI side has been built on 3 and 1/2 years of solid development and improvement. They are now favourites for the WC with/or without Archer. The selectors are left with an interesting dilemna. There's no doubt in my mind that Archer is good enough to be in the England ODI squad. Whilst England's batting is very strong the bowling still remains average and lacks a degree of penetration on flat wickets. Archer is a better bowler than Willey, Wood, Sam Curran, and Olly Stone who were competing for the last couple of spots in England's fifteen. By bringing Archer in though are they risking the squad's equilibrium. Currently as a result of the 3 and 1/2 years all the players in teh squad know their exact role in the team. It's a well oiled team at present. Eoin Morgan and Trevor Bayliss knows exactly how the team plays and how to get the best out of the personalities in the team. Tactically things may change if you have Archer in the side. Bringing in Archer at late notice does bring a certain pressure onto him and the team. Graeme Hick is a cautionary tale. Hick, like Archer, was dominant at county level and there was a groundswell of anticipation of his debut for England after serving a qualificiation period. As it was the pressure and expectation meant England never quite got the best out of Hick. The pressure will be large upon Archer's shoulders. There is also a pressure on the England management. England were favourites even before this announcement, there is a feel good factor around the side with the press and with fans. Bringing in Archer will only increase the expectations and the ECB will get some criticism for their cynical change of rules to suit their own purposes. Even moreso than before these critics will be looking for England to slip up.
At the end of the day though Morgan, Bayliss and selectors will have to do what is best for the side. They'll have to determine whether Archer offers enough to balance out the potential upset from bringing him in.
Post World Cup I think he'll be a regular whatever happens at the World Cup. He's a good fielder when motivated, useful lower order bat, and most importantly offers pace, hostility and has good skills for ODI cricket.
For test matches I feel he's a massive gamechanger for England. Away from home especially his ability to bowl on flat wickets should come in handy. Archer offers pace, bounce and hostility. His consistent pace is something that England don't naturally produce. We are good at the 80mph swing/seam bowler. In England there are maybe 12 or so guys (Anderson, Broad, TRJ, S Curran, C Overton, Woakes, Rushworth, Coad, Archer, Porter, Ball and T Curran) who could do a job at international level and average less than 30, away from home this might be 1 or 2 (Anderson and Archer). England can use him two ways. He's got incredible speed endurance and for Sussex has bowled upto 25 overs a day at close to 85mph average speed. They could also use him in short bursts of genuine pace. For Australia where England bowlers have struggled for a long time he has all the attributes required. He has pace, he gets bounce and possibly most importantly he has the pace endurance to bowl 20+ overs in the day.
For this summer at least he may actually not make the side on merit. Home wickets have been fairly good for the bowlers in recent years, especially swing, and England will expect to beat Australia comfortably with or without Archer. For the time being he may have to wait to get past Broad, Anderson, Woakes and Curran. Once he does though I'd expect him to get 300+ test wickets at less than 30 all things being equal.
Looking at the big picture and England need Bairstow to make a go of it at 3 or as opener. He may desperately want to keep the gloves but the team needs him to bat 3. After his excellent century in the third test he let off some anger in his interviews after the day's play. Most of it was misjudged and gave the impression of a person who was focused on his self and didn't have concern for the team. There was no mention of the contributions of Ben Foakes in the previous two tests, only anger over his non selection. That Bairstow had only averaged 31 over the previous two years, hadn't scored a century in 11 tests in Asia, or that England had just won a series in Sri Lanka for the first time since 2001, with Ben Foakes being the key player didn't seem to cross his mind. Bayliss, Root and the selectors are looking at the big picture. Bairstow in this moment was looking at his own personal situation. Is it really surprising now that Bairstow wasn't even considered when Root was made captain?
On a purely motivation and personal level players need to find what works for them. If Bairstow requires this kind of motivation to make him work then that's all the better for England. Both Bairstow and Broad have dealt well with the threat of being dropped in recent times, upping their efforts and coming back better. That's the sign of top quality performers with strong mental characteristics. On a team level Bairstow seems like he is a little tough to get on with.
England now have 15-18 players who are international quality who bat between 4 and 11. Between 1 and 3 they have no proven quality. Rory Burns had a promising start, Keaton Jennings plays spin pretty well, and Jonny Bairstow just scored a hundred in his first innings at number 3 for England, but there is no guarantee any of them will be there in a year's time. For England's sake, Bairstow needs to make a go of it at 3, whether he likes it or not.
Archer
Jofra Archer is a game changer for England but does it risk the team equilibrium in 2019 in a year when they were already favourites for the 50 over WC and the Ashes?
The current iteration of the England ODI side has been built on 3 and 1/2 years of solid development and improvement. They are now favourites for the WC with/or without Archer. The selectors are left with an interesting dilemna. There's no doubt in my mind that Archer is good enough to be in the England ODI squad. Whilst England's batting is very strong the bowling still remains average and lacks a degree of penetration on flat wickets. Archer is a better bowler than Willey, Wood, Sam Curran, and Olly Stone who were competing for the last couple of spots in England's fifteen. By bringing Archer in though are they risking the squad's equilibrium. Currently as a result of the 3 and 1/2 years all the players in teh squad know their exact role in the team. It's a well oiled team at present. Eoin Morgan and Trevor Bayliss knows exactly how the team plays and how to get the best out of the personalities in the team. Tactically things may change if you have Archer in the side. Bringing in Archer at late notice does bring a certain pressure onto him and the team. Graeme Hick is a cautionary tale. Hick, like Archer, was dominant at county level and there was a groundswell of anticipation of his debut for England after serving a qualificiation period. As it was the pressure and expectation meant England never quite got the best out of Hick. The pressure will be large upon Archer's shoulders. There is also a pressure on the England management. England were favourites even before this announcement, there is a feel good factor around the side with the press and with fans. Bringing in Archer will only increase the expectations and the ECB will get some criticism for their cynical change of rules to suit their own purposes. Even moreso than before these critics will be looking for England to slip up.
At the end of the day though Morgan, Bayliss and selectors will have to do what is best for the side. They'll have to determine whether Archer offers enough to balance out the potential upset from bringing him in.
Post World Cup I think he'll be a regular whatever happens at the World Cup. He's a good fielder when motivated, useful lower order bat, and most importantly offers pace, hostility and has good skills for ODI cricket.
For test matches I feel he's a massive gamechanger for England. Away from home especially his ability to bowl on flat wickets should come in handy. Archer offers pace, bounce and hostility. His consistent pace is something that England don't naturally produce. We are good at the 80mph swing/seam bowler. In England there are maybe 12 or so guys (Anderson, Broad, TRJ, S Curran, C Overton, Woakes, Rushworth, Coad, Archer, Porter, Ball and T Curran) who could do a job at international level and average less than 30, away from home this might be 1 or 2 (Anderson and Archer). England can use him two ways. He's got incredible speed endurance and for Sussex has bowled upto 25 overs a day at close to 85mph average speed. They could also use him in short bursts of genuine pace. For Australia where England bowlers have struggled for a long time he has all the attributes required. He has pace, he gets bounce and possibly most importantly he has the pace endurance to bowl 20+ overs in the day.
For this summer at least he may actually not make the side on merit. Home wickets have been fairly good for the bowlers in recent years, especially swing, and England will expect to beat Australia comfortably with or without Archer. For the time being he may have to wait to get past Broad, Anderson, Woakes and Curran. Once he does though I'd expect him to get 300+ test wickets at less than 30 all things being equal.
Wednesday, 21 November 2018
A missed opportunity as deference is shown.
So Joe Root has kissed the ring and Stuart Broad (and Jonny Bairstow) will return for the final test of the Sri Lanka series. It's not really surprising that Root and Bayliss are showing deference to two of their senior players - they are still likely to be important players going forward and to leave them out again may well have caused ructions in the camp. I can't help but feel that this is a missed opportunity to blood Olly Stone in what is effectively a dead rubber. We know what Broad can do; he's average away from home and has limited value on flat wickets. He also will possibly be retired by the next time England play in Asia. We don't know what Stone can do. Surely he could benefit from the experience. Chances are like the first two tests, the fast bowlers will have minimal influence on the game, so there is no great risk to playing Stone - he just won't bowl much if he bowls badly. England's main problem still remains the ability to win on flat wickets; The batsmen don't have the mentality and/or defense, and the bowlers lack penetration and variety. What chances a debut for Stone when England are desperate and chasing a series in the future? As an aside quite why they had to name the team two days in advance of the game is missed on me.
Captain Satisfaction.
It must certainly be a satisfiying test series win for Root in particular. Playing without Cook, Bairstow and Broad, and with only minimal impact from Anderson, Root's position as captain and his authority over the group will only strengthen. Defending two lowish totals in fourth innings against India in the summer will have also massively increased his confidence.
It's better to be lucky than good.
Bairstow getting injured may well have been the defining moment of the series. It allowed Ben Foakes to come into the squad, and then the team, and to put in a man of the match performance in the first test. For all his quality Bairstow has gone 11 tests in Asia without scoring a hundred, and his keeping whilst serviceable does have the odd mistake in it, especially when keeping to spin. Foakes came in and perfectly complimented those around him whilst finding a more natural pace to bat at than anyone else in the squad. Bairstow, like Stokes, fights hard in the conditions of Asia, but is never going to be prolific in the conditions. Foakes is the more natural player in the conditions with a solid defense and ability to accumulate in a risk free manner. Foakes may still not have made the team were it not for Joe Denly's troubles in the warmup games. Denly was seemed to be groomed for a position at 3, but in the end they fancied Foakes to score more runs than him. It never hurts to win the toss either!
So Joe Root has kissed the ring and Stuart Broad (and Jonny Bairstow) will return for the final test of the Sri Lanka series. It's not really surprising that Root and Bayliss are showing deference to two of their senior players - they are still likely to be important players going forward and to leave them out again may well have caused ructions in the camp. I can't help but feel that this is a missed opportunity to blood Olly Stone in what is effectively a dead rubber. We know what Broad can do; he's average away from home and has limited value on flat wickets. He also will possibly be retired by the next time England play in Asia. We don't know what Stone can do. Surely he could benefit from the experience. Chances are like the first two tests, the fast bowlers will have minimal influence on the game, so there is no great risk to playing Stone - he just won't bowl much if he bowls badly. England's main problem still remains the ability to win on flat wickets; The batsmen don't have the mentality and/or defense, and the bowlers lack penetration and variety. What chances a debut for Stone when England are desperate and chasing a series in the future? As an aside quite why they had to name the team two days in advance of the game is missed on me.
Captain Satisfaction.
It must certainly be a satisfiying test series win for Root in particular. Playing without Cook, Bairstow and Broad, and with only minimal impact from Anderson, Root's position as captain and his authority over the group will only strengthen. Defending two lowish totals in fourth innings against India in the summer will have also massively increased his confidence.
It's better to be lucky than good.
Bairstow getting injured may well have been the defining moment of the series. It allowed Ben Foakes to come into the squad, and then the team, and to put in a man of the match performance in the first test. For all his quality Bairstow has gone 11 tests in Asia without scoring a hundred, and his keeping whilst serviceable does have the odd mistake in it, especially when keeping to spin. Foakes came in and perfectly complimented those around him whilst finding a more natural pace to bat at than anyone else in the squad. Bairstow, like Stokes, fights hard in the conditions of Asia, but is never going to be prolific in the conditions. Foakes is the more natural player in the conditions with a solid defense and ability to accumulate in a risk free manner. Foakes may still not have made the team were it not for Joe Denly's troubles in the warmup games. Denly was seemed to be groomed for a position at 3, but in the end they fancied Foakes to score more runs than him. It never hurts to win the toss either!
Saturday, 17 November 2018
Some Ramblings
The Lions are off to UAE to face Pakistan soon. As I said here I'd have liked to see more fc cricket and no t20 cricket. It's probably some reciprocal deal between the boards and a result there is just the one fc game. Pity the few who are just going out for the one first class game before returning home. I haven't seen the schedule for the tour to India after christmas but if it's another one off test then it really seems farcical.
Four-Day Squad
Dom Bess, Sam Billings(c), Joe Clarke, Nick Gubbins, Max Holden, Tom Kohler-Cadmore, Liam Livingstone, Craig Overton, Jamie Overton, Jamie Porter, Jason Roy, Josh Tongue, Amar Virdi and Mark Wood.
50-over and T20 Squad
Dom Bess, Joe Clarke, Alex Davies, Lewis Gregory, Nick Gubbins, Sam Hain, Max Holden, Tom Kohler-Cadmore, Liam Livingstone, Saqib Mahmood, Craig Overton, Jamie Overton, Jamie Porter and Mark Wood.
On the squad selected and I think Kohler-Cadmore is lucky to gain selection. He's someone I liked at Worcestershire but his game has stalled at Yorkshire and his batting looks increasingly mechanical. I don't mind the selection of Roy, Billings or Wood for the fc stuff. Wood they need to keep ticking over when fit. Billings and Roy are good quality players who don't play enough fc cricket. It's hard to see how Billings will play test cricket for England given the keepers and middle order options they have. I don't feel Billings has quite done justice to his talents over the last few years and his game has rather stalled, so hopefully he can start dominating domestic cricket at some point and pushing for international selection in ODI and T20s - Morgan will likely retire after this WC so there is a position possibly open. Roy has his supporters at 3 for England in test cricket but I just don't see it.
I'd have liked to have seen Tom Abell in the 4 day squad. I think he sets up well against spin, getting well forward and back, and sweeps excellently. Against pace he's more suspect and needs to work on his technique. Bowls some useful medium pacers these days too, plus an excellent fielder. He's also county captain at Somerset at the age of 24 which is young these days and suggests a good character and leadership qualities. He also apparently tops the fitness ranks at Somerset. Keaton Jennings with his 146* showed excellent fitness in sprinting twos at the end of his innings whilst batting with Ben Foakes. These are the kind of 1% that get you in the team when it's tight. Jennings also apparently rates excellently in the loughborough testing on personality and leadership. These additional reasons are why I'm surprised that Abell hasn't been selected for a lions four day tour to this point.
Lancs fast bowler Tom Bailey is someone I've been impressed. Runs in and hits the pitch hard looking for seam in the early 80s mph. To be honest I'd pigeonholed him initially as just some random second team medium pacer they were given a few games to but he's shown real quality over the last couple of years. I'd have liked to have seen him given a chance with the lions to work on his game and see how he does in different conditions.
Harry Brook looks a player of immense promise but struggled a bit with what was an unkind promotion at Yorkshire to the top of the order. He's playing grade cricket in Sydney this winter which is probably right but is someone I could see making rapid progress. There's a few good young batsmen out in Australia currently playing grade cricket who I will eagerly follow their progress. Joining Brook and all ages 21 or younger are Tom Banton, Will Jacks, James Bracey, Ollie Robinson (the kent one) and Zac Crawley. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there are a few international cricketers of the future from that group.
On the subject of the lions I'd like to talk about Rory Burns. He had two unfortunate dismissals on debut but I feel like he may have problems ahead. Against spin and in particular off-spin he really struggled. He tends to play from the crease too much, rather like Ben Duckett did on debut. The trend with most of the English players is to look to get right back or right forward - I assume that's the best method. Jennings his partner tends to get a large stride forward which has worked well for him. Jennings credited the work he'd done with Graeme Thorpe and Andrew Flower on Lions tours for his play against spin. Duckett nor Burns had been on a lions tour when selected. Certainly with Burns this seems a mistake. He put together 3 or 4 consistent seasons before this last standout season, and with a scarcity of openers it seems to be an error in their scouting that he was overlooked. I think that we can gleam that he certainly wasn't someone they considered even last year as a possibility for selection. It seems strange with this in mind that again the Lions squad is lacking in fc openers. Gubbins is the only realistic option for next years ashes from the squad. Max Holden is included and is a good young player but has had most of his limited success in the middle order. Will Rhodes is someone they might have considered having scored 4 hundreds in the championship this summer (as did his opening partner Dom Sibley) who seems to be starting to put it together. I think the fact that no-one at the top of the order has kept a position for long with England has meant they've fast forwarded through the progression of some young batsmen into the England test team when they haven't been quite ready. Ben Duckett and Haseeb Hameed are obvious examples. Rory Burns, slightly older but without lions cricket, may be the next.
An update on the previous paragraph and Burns has come on massively in his second test. Now using the sweep and looks entirely more decisive and convincing against spin. If he learns that quickly on the job then England could have a good player on the cards.
Ollie Pope may well have benefited going on the Lions trip this winter. Maybe he could transfer over now seeing as he is very unlikely to play in the second or third test. Pope looks a very talented bat in the same vain as a young Joe Root, possibly with greater options. He uses his hands well when batting to find gaps in the field and is always on the lookout for runs. He shouldn't have debuted at 4 for England given he hadn't batted higher than 6 at Surrey. He's way too loose and undisciplined to bat 4 in test cricket at present. The main concerns are the lack of discipline outside the offstump and he seems to be a happy puller/hooker, which tends to be fine against guys bowling 80mph at county level but soon found out when they are bowling 7-10mph quicker at international lever. His biggest stumbling block to international selection now is the logjam of batsmen wanting to bat 6-8 for England.
And the day after I wrote the previous paragraph it was announced that Pope would be joining up with the lions. Good thinking.
Four-Day Squad
Dom Bess, Sam Billings(c), Joe Clarke, Nick Gubbins, Max Holden, Tom Kohler-Cadmore, Liam Livingstone, Craig Overton, Jamie Overton, Jamie Porter, Jason Roy, Josh Tongue, Amar Virdi and Mark Wood.
50-over and T20 Squad
Dom Bess, Joe Clarke, Alex Davies, Lewis Gregory, Nick Gubbins, Sam Hain, Max Holden, Tom Kohler-Cadmore, Liam Livingstone, Saqib Mahmood, Craig Overton, Jamie Overton, Jamie Porter and Mark Wood.
On the squad selected and I think Kohler-Cadmore is lucky to gain selection. He's someone I liked at Worcestershire but his game has stalled at Yorkshire and his batting looks increasingly mechanical. I don't mind the selection of Roy, Billings or Wood for the fc stuff. Wood they need to keep ticking over when fit. Billings and Roy are good quality players who don't play enough fc cricket. It's hard to see how Billings will play test cricket for England given the keepers and middle order options they have. I don't feel Billings has quite done justice to his talents over the last few years and his game has rather stalled, so hopefully he can start dominating domestic cricket at some point and pushing for international selection in ODI and T20s - Morgan will likely retire after this WC so there is a position possibly open. Roy has his supporters at 3 for England in test cricket but I just don't see it.
I'd have liked to have seen Tom Abell in the 4 day squad. I think he sets up well against spin, getting well forward and back, and sweeps excellently. Against pace he's more suspect and needs to work on his technique. Bowls some useful medium pacers these days too, plus an excellent fielder. He's also county captain at Somerset at the age of 24 which is young these days and suggests a good character and leadership qualities. He also apparently tops the fitness ranks at Somerset. Keaton Jennings with his 146* showed excellent fitness in sprinting twos at the end of his innings whilst batting with Ben Foakes. These are the kind of 1% that get you in the team when it's tight. Jennings also apparently rates excellently in the loughborough testing on personality and leadership. These additional reasons are why I'm surprised that Abell hasn't been selected for a lions four day tour to this point.
Lancs fast bowler Tom Bailey is someone I've been impressed. Runs in and hits the pitch hard looking for seam in the early 80s mph. To be honest I'd pigeonholed him initially as just some random second team medium pacer they were given a few games to but he's shown real quality over the last couple of years. I'd have liked to have seen him given a chance with the lions to work on his game and see how he does in different conditions.
Harry Brook looks a player of immense promise but struggled a bit with what was an unkind promotion at Yorkshire to the top of the order. He's playing grade cricket in Sydney this winter which is probably right but is someone I could see making rapid progress. There's a few good young batsmen out in Australia currently playing grade cricket who I will eagerly follow their progress. Joining Brook and all ages 21 or younger are Tom Banton, Will Jacks, James Bracey, Ollie Robinson (the kent one) and Zac Crawley. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there are a few international cricketers of the future from that group.
On the subject of the lions I'd like to talk about Rory Burns. He had two unfortunate dismissals on debut but I feel like he may have problems ahead. Against spin and in particular off-spin he really struggled. He tends to play from the crease too much, rather like Ben Duckett did on debut. The trend with most of the English players is to look to get right back or right forward - I assume that's the best method. Jennings his partner tends to get a large stride forward which has worked well for him. Jennings credited the work he'd done with Graeme Thorpe and Andrew Flower on Lions tours for his play against spin. Duckett nor Burns had been on a lions tour when selected. Certainly with Burns this seems a mistake. He put together 3 or 4 consistent seasons before this last standout season, and with a scarcity of openers it seems to be an error in their scouting that he was overlooked. I think that we can gleam that he certainly wasn't someone they considered even last year as a possibility for selection. It seems strange with this in mind that again the Lions squad is lacking in fc openers. Gubbins is the only realistic option for next years ashes from the squad. Max Holden is included and is a good young player but has had most of his limited success in the middle order. Will Rhodes is someone they might have considered having scored 4 hundreds in the championship this summer (as did his opening partner Dom Sibley) who seems to be starting to put it together. I think the fact that no-one at the top of the order has kept a position for long with England has meant they've fast forwarded through the progression of some young batsmen into the England test team when they haven't been quite ready. Ben Duckett and Haseeb Hameed are obvious examples. Rory Burns, slightly older but without lions cricket, may be the next.
An update on the previous paragraph and Burns has come on massively in his second test. Now using the sweep and looks entirely more decisive and convincing against spin. If he learns that quickly on the job then England could have a good player on the cards.
Ollie Pope may well have benefited going on the Lions trip this winter. Maybe he could transfer over now seeing as he is very unlikely to play in the second or third test. Pope looks a very talented bat in the same vain as a young Joe Root, possibly with greater options. He uses his hands well when batting to find gaps in the field and is always on the lookout for runs. He shouldn't have debuted at 4 for England given he hadn't batted higher than 6 at Surrey. He's way too loose and undisciplined to bat 4 in test cricket at present. The main concerns are the lack of discipline outside the offstump and he seems to be a happy puller/hooker, which tends to be fine against guys bowling 80mph at county level but soon found out when they are bowling 7-10mph quicker at international lever. His biggest stumbling block to international selection now is the logjam of batsmen wanting to bat 6-8 for England.
And the day after I wrote the previous paragraph it was announced that Pope would be joining up with the lions. Good thinking.
Wednesday, 7 November 2018
Happy with England selection
So after day 1 of the series and I am feeling rather pleased with myself. England managed to avoid most of the pitfalls in their selection of the team, the exception being picking Ali at 3 and as if to make the point he was out first ball. Otherwise I liked the side they picked and the batting order. Foakes proved he can play spin well and unlike others in the side he isn't boundary reliant and is happy just ticking the strike over. Sam Curran again looked very comfortable against the ball turning away from him. He's very sound defensively, rarely playing and missing and seems to judge flight very well (his lack of height is a help in that respect). Compared to guys like Cook and Stokes who have a wealth of experience he seems more natural in his defence against the off-spinner.
The top order batting was terrible, specifically their two most experienced bats in Root and Stokes. The shots they played to get out were awful executions of needlessly aggresive shots. The conditions were tougher in the first session but they were shown up by the batting maturity of the likes of Foakes and Curran; Root and Stokes should be embarrassed by their dismissals. If this was Bayliss and Root's bright idea of a new bold tactic then we really do have no hope- hopefully they'll quickly change tact and learn from Foakes and Curran.
With the success of Foakes it adds one more player to the group who are best suited batting somewhere between 6 and 8. The group: Ali, Woakes, Stokes, Foakes, Pope, Bairstow, S Curran, Buttler. This is going to take some deciphering in the future. All are test quality players (with the exception of Pope) and would start for some of the other strong test sides. A trading game on the international level would be now very welcome - Swap out a keeper for a top order batsman. In the real world however England are going to have to work out someway of fitting most of the talent into the side. The top order is the biggest area of concern for the team but none of these players seem obvious solutions. Stokes could bat at 4 but he's struggled with the bat since the Bristol 'incident'. Ali has been proven to fail at 4 and higher. Bairstow has struggled when batting higher than 6 and doesn't want to give up the gloves. Pope was too loose on debut, especially for the number 4 spot, and would ideally be slotted in at 6. Foakes is the best keeper and isn't a good enough batsman to bat higher than 6 at a push but is a decent 7. All the players are good quality batsmen at 6,7 or 8, but above not so.
Looking to the ashes and I come up with something like this.
Ashes XI - Burns,X,X, Root, Buttler, Stokes, Bairstow, Ali, Woakes/Curran, Broad, Anderson
I did initially have Woakes and Curran playing with no Buttler but that would be 5 pace bowlers, surely excessive, and I don't think Woakes or Curran are better bats than Buttler. Foakes will lose out long term to Bairstow I'd imagine given the latters superior batting- unfortunate though it may be for Foakes.
It would leave two, possibly 3 if Burns fails, spots at the top of the order which is just ridiculous. They may trial Bairstow (or Stokes) there given they give the side more utility than a inferior top order batsman. Opportunity abounds for some talented top order batsman in the county. Nick Gubbins is the only realistic challenger from the lions (Max Holden is the other option in the lions squad but lacks experience and has struggled when opening in fc cricket, Jason Roy is not good enough) squad this winter. Ian Bell is someone given the scarcity of options that may well work his way into the reckoning, adding some experience at the number 3 slot.
Day 2 Update - It couldn't have gone much better for England. All the bowlers (with the exception of Stokes) did quality jobs and England are in a great position. Even Jennings second time around looked very assured after this slightly sketchy 46 in the first innings. Burns looks suspect against spin which is a worry given the winter schedule.
Thinking about it now and Bairstow at the top of the order may be something they have to try. He probably isn't good enough, but if he was to average 30-35 at least for a short time that would be an improvement on whoever else they are likely to pick. It's probably the best way to utilise the players they have. Bairstow may average 40 at 7 as keeper but you're not losing much when you play Buttler or Foakes instead in that position, and that's with Woakes and Curran still to come at possibly 8 and 9. Certainly I can't see any of Buttler, Foakes, Curran, Pope or Woakes batting in the top 3. Obviously Bairstow would have to buy into this - and whilst he has in the last few months shown his annoyance at people questioning his position as keeper, with the success of Buttler and now Foakes, he may now realise that he has serious competition for his place not just as keeper but also in the team.
Revised - Burns, Bairstow, Bell, Root, Stokes, Pope, Buttler(wk), Ali, Woakes/S Curran, Broad, Anderson
Maybe even Broad is a non starter and play both Curran and Woakes. Or Pope drops out and play the 5 seamers and 1 spinner - normally this is too much bowling but if Stokes isn't bowling much, and/or Woakes and Curran are close to Pope in terms of batting then it could make sense. Or just Rashid instead of Woakes/Curran. The allround options they have allows them the freedom to consider different options, although whilst the top order issue is open they are still going to be mighty vulnerable in all conditions.
The top order batting was terrible, specifically their two most experienced bats in Root and Stokes. The shots they played to get out were awful executions of needlessly aggresive shots. The conditions were tougher in the first session but they were shown up by the batting maturity of the likes of Foakes and Curran; Root and Stokes should be embarrassed by their dismissals. If this was Bayliss and Root's bright idea of a new bold tactic then we really do have no hope- hopefully they'll quickly change tact and learn from Foakes and Curran.
With the success of Foakes it adds one more player to the group who are best suited batting somewhere between 6 and 8. The group: Ali, Woakes, Stokes, Foakes, Pope, Bairstow, S Curran, Buttler. This is going to take some deciphering in the future. All are test quality players (with the exception of Pope) and would start for some of the other strong test sides. A trading game on the international level would be now very welcome - Swap out a keeper for a top order batsman. In the real world however England are going to have to work out someway of fitting most of the talent into the side. The top order is the biggest area of concern for the team but none of these players seem obvious solutions. Stokes could bat at 4 but he's struggled with the bat since the Bristol 'incident'. Ali has been proven to fail at 4 and higher. Bairstow has struggled when batting higher than 6 and doesn't want to give up the gloves. Pope was too loose on debut, especially for the number 4 spot, and would ideally be slotted in at 6. Foakes is the best keeper and isn't a good enough batsman to bat higher than 6 at a push but is a decent 7. All the players are good quality batsmen at 6,7 or 8, but above not so.
Looking to the ashes and I come up with something like this.
Ashes XI - Burns,X,X, Root, Buttler, Stokes, Bairstow, Ali, Woakes/Curran, Broad, Anderson
I did initially have Woakes and Curran playing with no Buttler but that would be 5 pace bowlers, surely excessive, and I don't think Woakes or Curran are better bats than Buttler. Foakes will lose out long term to Bairstow I'd imagine given the latters superior batting- unfortunate though it may be for Foakes.
It would leave two, possibly 3 if Burns fails, spots at the top of the order which is just ridiculous. They may trial Bairstow (or Stokes) there given they give the side more utility than a inferior top order batsman. Opportunity abounds for some talented top order batsman in the county. Nick Gubbins is the only realistic challenger from the lions (Max Holden is the other option in the lions squad but lacks experience and has struggled when opening in fc cricket, Jason Roy is not good enough) squad this winter. Ian Bell is someone given the scarcity of options that may well work his way into the reckoning, adding some experience at the number 3 slot.
Day 2 Update - It couldn't have gone much better for England. All the bowlers (with the exception of Stokes) did quality jobs and England are in a great position. Even Jennings second time around looked very assured after this slightly sketchy 46 in the first innings. Burns looks suspect against spin which is a worry given the winter schedule.
Thinking about it now and Bairstow at the top of the order may be something they have to try. He probably isn't good enough, but if he was to average 30-35 at least for a short time that would be an improvement on whoever else they are likely to pick. It's probably the best way to utilise the players they have. Bairstow may average 40 at 7 as keeper but you're not losing much when you play Buttler or Foakes instead in that position, and that's with Woakes and Curran still to come at possibly 8 and 9. Certainly I can't see any of Buttler, Foakes, Curran, Pope or Woakes batting in the top 3. Obviously Bairstow would have to buy into this - and whilst he has in the last few months shown his annoyance at people questioning his position as keeper, with the success of Buttler and now Foakes, he may now realise that he has serious competition for his place not just as keeper but also in the team.
Revised - Burns, Bairstow, Bell, Root, Stokes, Pope, Buttler(wk), Ali, Woakes/S Curran, Broad, Anderson
Maybe even Broad is a non starter and play both Curran and Woakes. Or Pope drops out and play the 5 seamers and 1 spinner - normally this is too much bowling but if Stokes isn't bowling much, and/or Woakes and Curran are close to Pope in terms of batting then it could make sense. Or just Rashid instead of Woakes/Curran. The allround options they have allows them the freedom to consider different options, although whilst the top order issue is open they are still going to be mighty vulnerable in all conditions.
Sunday, 4 November 2018
England Lions
Burns(2018) Pope (2018), Stoneman(2017), Jennings(2016), Gubbins(2016), Hameed(2016), Duckett(2016) and Hameed(2016).
These were the standout English batsmen of the last 3 county seasons. None had been on an overseas Lions tour to that point.
Dan Lawrence, Joe Clarke, Keaton Jennings, Nick Gubbins, Haseeb Hameed, Liam Livingstone, Alex Davies, Ben Foakes, Ben Duckett and Sam Northeast.
These were the batsman used last winter by the England Lions in four day games. It what was admittedly a tough season for batsmen, none of these advanced their claims in the 2018 county season season. Keaton Jennings did well at county level before again struggling at test level. Jennings aside who averaged 47.26, the rest couldn’t better Ben Foakes who averaged 36.7, some like Lawrence, Livingstone and in particular Hameed had retched seasons.
Saqib Mahmood, Richard Gleeson, Toby Roland Jones, Jamie Porter, Paul Coughlin, Jack Leach, Dom Bess, Mason Crane, Sam Curran*, Matt Parkinson*.
These were the main bowlers used by England lions over the winter of 2017/2018. Of those Mahmood, Roland-Jones, Coughlin and Crane either didn’t play or barely played all 2018 season due to injury. Gleeson, Porter, Leach and Bess had reasonable seasons but not upto previous best seasons.
Tom Helm and George Garton made the Australia training camp but never reached the West Indies due to injury, and both had shocking 2018 seasons.
Newcomers (and relative newcomers) to the squad for England’s winter tours have been Rory Burns, Sam Curran, Joe Denly, Ollie Pope and Olly Stone. Only Curran played any part in last winters lions tour and his part was small, playing the ODIs on the West Indies tour. The rest played grade cricket in Australia for parts of the winter (Stone, Pope); prepared for the season and captaincy at home (Burns); or travelled the world playing T20 leagues and for Kent in the West Indies domestic 50 over competition (Denly).
You might ask is it better to miss the Lions winter tours if you are a potential England player?
The Lions in recent years have had two tours. A pre christmas preparation tour, and a main tour after christmas. This winter there are two proper tours, to the UAE to play Pakistan before Christmas, and to India after Christmas. A Lions player will come straight out of a gruelling 6 month county season, maybe have a break for two or three weeks, and then will be straight back into training and fitness at Loughborough in preparation for a month or so long tour - last years training camp lasted a month in Australia from November 14 to December 17. After a break for Christmas they’ll be right back into it, normally with a full tour - to the West Indies they went in early 2018 for a 7 week playing tour returning on March 12. For those who are included the whole time it’s a long winter after a long summer. You may say that the England players have similar schedules and it’s true they are on the road more than the lions players through the winter, but they are also looked after. The England players have central contracts and often rested from international and domestic games. Those Lions who are involved the whole winter have little more than a months rest a year and go into the season lacking a decent pre season.
There is no doubt in my mind that Lions overseas tours are a good idea in theory. It gives potential England players experience of playing in foreign conditions against different types of players. It allows these players to work with some of the better coaches in the English game to try and better prepare them for the international game. County cricket isn’t always the best preparation for the international game; Darren Stevens averaging sub 20 with the ball, or the complete lack of spinners in 4 day cricket hardly point to the best preparation for facing Ashwin and Jadeja in India, or Starc and Cummins in Australia.
A modern concern is what happens to these young players if they don’t play lions over the winter. Two of this winter's Lions, Tom Kohler Cadmore and Liam Livingstone, were lining up deals in 20 and 10 over tournaments this winter before the lions callup came. The pull of the $$$ for a young player is heavy now with player agents heavily involved and for many the IPL is towards the top of their targets. As one of England’s brightest young prospects, Harry Brook says ‘I got a few thirties and forties, but they don’t get you the wins, the big money and the next game.’
There may be other reasons why Lions players are struggling the year after. It may be that the coaching right now isn’t great and/or the player are taking advice from too many people on their game.. It may just be a case of a bad couple of years. It should also be said that the non lions players (Pope, Duckett, Hameed, Malan, etc) who have gone onto play for England straight away have generally failed in recent years .
Undoubtedly there are a myriad of reasons for the lack of form of lions players over the last few years - I do believe that workload is a definite issue that needs to be addressed. I personally would suggest one long tour (maybe 2 months over November and December) over the winter made up of 4 day games and maybe 50 over games. There is no need for Lions T20 cricket - there is plenty of short form cricket to be found at home and away throughout the year for those wanting it. In this age it’s the 4 day stuff that needs a proper nurturing. More and more in county cricket with the advent of T20 cricket and the substandard wickets you find batsman who are unwilling to grind and will always take the aggressive option. A lot of players simply don’t have a solid defensive game. Medium pace bowlers feast on green wickets, whilst the genuinely quick bowlers tend to struggle to maintain fitness over the course of a season. After Christmas players would return to the counties to work further on their game and prepare for the season ahead. This consolidated tour should benefit the ECB’s finance department which is looking to cut costs in the lead upto the hundred, and in all likelihood will please the counties who get their players back after christmas.
England in Sri Lanka 2018 Test Series
Lets face it - England could go numerous different ways in their selection for this test series against Sri Lanka, and there is no logical choice that most people will agree upon. That's not to say the selectors can't make errors in selection.
Starting with the errors or how they could get it wrong:
Picking Woakes - Excellent at home, rubbish away. Maybe if Anderson wasn't around he would be an option but Anderson will play and Woakes' bowling is redundant as a result, and his batting alone not good enough to warrant consideration. England need to move in another direction.
Batting Ali at 3 - His spin bowling is key to England's chances of success and as such he should be concentrating on his bowling. Not a long term solution at 3 anyway.
Hedging their bets too much - Picking Denly because he bowls some part time leg spin, or picking Rashid over Leach because he bats a bit is not the way to go. Team balance and depth is important but with the likes of Stokes and Ali already embedded in the team they should find a good balance of side whoever the rest of the players are selected. Choose the best batsmen and bowlers for the conditions.
Not picking Leach - Probably the best spinner they have, and certainly a better bet than Rashid. I don't think Bayliss or Root particularly like him but they have to take a leap of faith and trust his figures over the last few years. Along with Burns, Root, Stokes, Ali, Buttler and Anderson he makes up the 7 definites.
Otherwise I don't really see how they can go particularly wrong whichever way they go to fill the remaining 4 spots. They will though bring about plenty of debate.
Who to bat 3? Root doesn't want to bat there; Stokes and Ali have workload issues; as does Buttler if he keeps; Denly batted terribly in the warmup games.
Ideally Root should bat there. Long term he stays at 4 as his wish but he should realise that batting at 3 in Sri Lanka is probably better than batting 4. This isn't England where he needs protection from the new ball. However he's going to be reluctant - realising if he succeeds then there will be a clamour for him to bat 3 back in England, and that if he fails then England's best chance of putting runs on the board is gone. If you can talk Root around to bat 3 and he's happy with it then he should, if not we have to find an alternative.
If they play 3 seamers plus Stokes then Stokes could bat 3 given his bowling workload is likely to be insignificant. 3 seamers + Stokes doesn't make a whole lot of sense though. Ali is a non starter for me - he's likely to be bowling a considerable amount of overs so best not to overburden him with the important number 3 batting spot.
I didn't really like the thought of Denly batting 3, not so much because of him, moreso because it would mean a top 3 of Denly, Jennings and Burns which is desperately weak and or/untested. On top of that he was thoroughly unconvincing in the warmup games with the bat. Denly should compete with Jennings for the second openers spot.
Buttler can't bat 3 if he keeps. Simple as. However they do have Ben Foakes in the squad who plays spin well and is a better keeper. I'd probably trust Foakes to score more than Denly or Pope in the middle order too. Say they play Foakes. That leaves Buttler as a batsman. At some point Buttler is going to need to take on more responsibility with the bat; you can't bat 7 long term in a team with allrounders and keepers batting ahead of you. By moving Buttler to 3 they could accelerate his development. With more responsibility on him to score big runs he may crack test cricket as a batsman, or not. Him failing wouldn't be the end of the world and would mean one more question is answered in England's pursuit of the best team possible. Long term Buttler isn't going to bat 3 in England or Australia, much more likely he slots in at 5 or 6, his batting is simply not good enough against pace. But he's not going to face pace in the series. If Root doesn't want to bat 3 then Buttler should.
Jennings, Burns, Root, Buttler, Stokes, Ali, Foakes
I'm going with top 7 for now, plus Leach and Anderson
Which leaves two spots for bowlers. And this is possibly the hardest of the selections. I think I'd favour Rashid for one of the spots. 4 seamers is overkill. That leaves one of Broad, Curran or more unlikely Stone. Curran is someone they might want to invest in even if he won't provide much in bowling terms. Can he bowl dry defensive spells, can he take a vital wicket or two with the new ball? He should have been studying tapes of Chaminda Vaas in the leadup to the tour. Broad is the most trustworthy of the three but also has failed in Asia before - will this time be any different? Stone is the wildcard but at the time of writing seems unfancied to debut. He offers more pace and can reverse the ball. The problem they do have is that this is Curran and Stone's first tours and they won't be sure of their skills on flat wickets. Broad is the safe option. Curran is the superior batsman by some distance but he will be batting 8 so that shouldn't be a big consideration. Stone is more likely to play in test 2 or 3 when England need to gamble to keep the series alive. Flip a three headed coin for the final spot - I've changed my mind constantly whilst writing this.
Throwing a spanner into the works and play Sam Curran (or Woakes) as a batsman? Well I've already dismissed Woakes as a batsman away from home even though some will argue that he is better than Denly or Jennings. But what about Sam Curran? If anything he played Ashwin better than anyone in the English summer. He also look good in the warmup games. Against him is his middling first class average. Unlikely I'd say.
Jennings, Burns, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Foakes, Rashid, Stone, Leach, Anderson
is how I am going.
Starting with the errors or how they could get it wrong:
Picking Woakes - Excellent at home, rubbish away. Maybe if Anderson wasn't around he would be an option but Anderson will play and Woakes' bowling is redundant as a result, and his batting alone not good enough to warrant consideration. England need to move in another direction.
Batting Ali at 3 - His spin bowling is key to England's chances of success and as such he should be concentrating on his bowling. Not a long term solution at 3 anyway.
Hedging their bets too much - Picking Denly because he bowls some part time leg spin, or picking Rashid over Leach because he bats a bit is not the way to go. Team balance and depth is important but with the likes of Stokes and Ali already embedded in the team they should find a good balance of side whoever the rest of the players are selected. Choose the best batsmen and bowlers for the conditions.
Not picking Leach - Probably the best spinner they have, and certainly a better bet than Rashid. I don't think Bayliss or Root particularly like him but they have to take a leap of faith and trust his figures over the last few years. Along with Burns, Root, Stokes, Ali, Buttler and Anderson he makes up the 7 definites.
Otherwise I don't really see how they can go particularly wrong whichever way they go to fill the remaining 4 spots. They will though bring about plenty of debate.
Who to bat 3? Root doesn't want to bat there; Stokes and Ali have workload issues; as does Buttler if he keeps; Denly batted terribly in the warmup games.
Ideally Root should bat there. Long term he stays at 4 as his wish but he should realise that batting at 3 in Sri Lanka is probably better than batting 4. This isn't England where he needs protection from the new ball. However he's going to be reluctant - realising if he succeeds then there will be a clamour for him to bat 3 back in England, and that if he fails then England's best chance of putting runs on the board is gone. If you can talk Root around to bat 3 and he's happy with it then he should, if not we have to find an alternative.
If they play 3 seamers plus Stokes then Stokes could bat 3 given his bowling workload is likely to be insignificant. 3 seamers + Stokes doesn't make a whole lot of sense though. Ali is a non starter for me - he's likely to be bowling a considerable amount of overs so best not to overburden him with the important number 3 batting spot.
I didn't really like the thought of Denly batting 3, not so much because of him, moreso because it would mean a top 3 of Denly, Jennings and Burns which is desperately weak and or/untested. On top of that he was thoroughly unconvincing in the warmup games with the bat. Denly should compete with Jennings for the second openers spot.
Buttler can't bat 3 if he keeps. Simple as. However they do have Ben Foakes in the squad who plays spin well and is a better keeper. I'd probably trust Foakes to score more than Denly or Pope in the middle order too. Say they play Foakes. That leaves Buttler as a batsman. At some point Buttler is going to need to take on more responsibility with the bat; you can't bat 7 long term in a team with allrounders and keepers batting ahead of you. By moving Buttler to 3 they could accelerate his development. With more responsibility on him to score big runs he may crack test cricket as a batsman, or not. Him failing wouldn't be the end of the world and would mean one more question is answered in England's pursuit of the best team possible. Long term Buttler isn't going to bat 3 in England or Australia, much more likely he slots in at 5 or 6, his batting is simply not good enough against pace. But he's not going to face pace in the series. If Root doesn't want to bat 3 then Buttler should.
Jennings, Burns, Root, Buttler, Stokes, Ali, Foakes
I'm going with top 7 for now, plus Leach and Anderson
Which leaves two spots for bowlers. And this is possibly the hardest of the selections. I think I'd favour Rashid for one of the spots. 4 seamers is overkill. That leaves one of Broad, Curran or more unlikely Stone. Curran is someone they might want to invest in even if he won't provide much in bowling terms. Can he bowl dry defensive spells, can he take a vital wicket or two with the new ball? He should have been studying tapes of Chaminda Vaas in the leadup to the tour. Broad is the most trustworthy of the three but also has failed in Asia before - will this time be any different? Stone is the wildcard but at the time of writing seems unfancied to debut. He offers more pace and can reverse the ball. The problem they do have is that this is Curran and Stone's first tours and they won't be sure of their skills on flat wickets. Broad is the safe option. Curran is the superior batsman by some distance but he will be batting 8 so that shouldn't be a big consideration. Stone is more likely to play in test 2 or 3 when England need to gamble to keep the series alive. Flip a three headed coin for the final spot - I've changed my mind constantly whilst writing this.
Throwing a spanner into the works and play Sam Curran (or Woakes) as a batsman? Well I've already dismissed Woakes as a batsman away from home even though some will argue that he is better than Denly or Jennings. But what about Sam Curran? If anything he played Ashwin better than anyone in the English summer. He also look good in the warmup games. Against him is his middling first class average. Unlikely I'd say.
Jennings, Burns, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Foakes, Rashid, Stone, Leach, Anderson
is how I am going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)