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.
No comments:
Post a Comment