No bollocks at all in this test.too many of this team think they've got a god given right to be in this team.Bell and Anderson can do no wrong in the selecters eyes but both were awful in this test and need a kick up the arse.its all ok because Kevin Pietersen will get the blame.
No bollocks at all in this test.too many of this team think they've got a god given right to be in this team.Bell and Anderson can do no wrong in the selecters eyes but both were awful in this test and need a kick up the arse.
Two torrid days in the field because of our in effectiveness to take wickets lost us this test. There's no way the likes of Anderson and Broad can bowl for the lengths of time they are being asked to due to the fact that we don't have a credible spinner that can hold an end up for a considerable spell!
Two torrid days in the field because of our in effectiveness to take wickets lost us this test. There's no way the likes of Anderson and Broad can bowl for the lengths of time they are being asked to due to the fact that we don't have a credible spinner that can hold an end up for a considerable spell!
Rashid?
Plus a bit too soon to call for ali's head, he's been a good performer this series. Everyone played badly this test.
Lyth doesn't know where his off stump is. The review of his dismissals this summer was damning.
Ballance looks like a rabbit in headlights. His body language is all wrong. He looks scared.
Bell has been out of form for a while, he's increasingly looking like the player who the Aussies destroyed mentally at the start of his career.
I'm not sure Hales is the answer as an openner. Personally I'd give Moen Ali a go again. It then opens up a spot for another spinner. Not sure Rashid is the answer, but who else have we got?
Root definitely needs to move up the order. I'd bring James Taylor in at 3 and have Root at 4. Number 5 is a tricky one as I don't think Bairstow is up to it at test level - having said that, if Buttler keeps failing with the bat he'll probably come in anyway. Stokes could quite easily bat 5.
One thing is for sure, the top order was broken way before this series and should have been addressed after the West Indies tour.
Lyth doesn't know where his off stump is. The review of his dismissals this summer was damning.
Ballance looks like a rabbit in headlights. His body language is all wrong. He looks scared.
Bell has been out of form for a while, he's increasingly looking like the player who the Aussies destroyed mentally at the start of his career.
I'm not sure Hales is the answer as an openner. Personally I'd give Moen Ali a go again. It then opens up a spot for another spinner. Not sure Rashid is the answer, but who else have we got?
Root definitely needs to move up the order. I'd bring James Taylor in at 3 and have Root at 4. Number 5 is a tricky one as I don't think Bairstow is up to it at test level - having said that, if Buttler keeps failing with the bat he'll probably come in anyway. Stokes could quite easily bat 5.
One thing is for sure, the top order was broken way before this series and should have been addressed after the West Indies tour.
I pretty much agree with all of this. A right dilemna.
I'm not sure Hales is the answer. But at least he's not scared.
I'm not sure Taylor is the answer.
I'd be surprised if they dropped all 3. I think Bell might be saved.
There's something about Ballance, he looks like a nervous boy when batting, there's no swagger, and his technique is clearly flawed at the moment. Lyth inspires no confidence either.
It begs the question whether all those openers tried and dumped (Robson, Compton, Carberry) might have done a better job.
The case for sticking with the same side is utterly detonated by Bairstow's form. If they don't pick him now he might as well retire. Flip a three-sided coin to decide which of Lyth, Ballance or Bell to drop
Hales for Lyth, Taylor for Ballance, Bairstow for Bell.
Then move Root to 4.
Lyth, Ballance & Bell are walking wickets.
Then produce a green seamer for Trentbridge.
If we don't change the momentum, it's gonna be 1-4.
Win the toss and put them in on a green seamer is our best hope.
It's Edgbaston next.
Possibly an argument for giving Bell one more go on his home patch.
England capitulated ignominiously in this test but in reality how many players can be dropped and replaced with anybody better?
Root, Stokes, Broad, Buttler, Ballance and Cook all deserve another opportunity based on Cardiff or Lords and, as I've said, I'd give Bell one more chance at Edgbaston.
Ali has not really done a lot wrong given that he is a victim of circumstance and being asked to perform a role for which he is unsuited. He is a useful batsman who bowls a bit yet we expect him to perform as a frontline spinner! That said there really is no other 'proper' spinner worthy of selection. Rashid arguably falls into the same category as Ali.
As for the other bowlers nobody (other than Matt Coles with my Kent glasses on) is shouting out come and pick me. Bresnan, Onions and Finn for instance are doing OK but not exceptionally. Ryan Sidebottom is bowling better than most and has the advantage of being a leftie but I still think that Anderson and Wood probably deserve another opportunity alongside Broad.
Hales Cook Ballance Bell Root Bairstow Stokes Buttler Ali Wood Broad Anderson Sidebottom
would be my thirteen for Edgbaston. Broad would play for sure and, dependent on conditions, I'd perm two from Wood, Anderson and Sidebottom.
Again, dependent on conditions, I'd play Bairstow rather than Ali and let Root bowl spin if required. However if a spinner is thought to be required then Ali probably has to play for Bairstow.
You'd possibly play Hales ahead of Bairstow?! Jeez. Make Joe Root open, or something - we just need to pick Bairstow, and pick him now. Course, we could give Lyth one more and pick Bairstow ahead of Ballance or Bell, which is what I'd do.
Question.for those who watch the county game more than me: What has happened to Scott Borthwick? Wasn't he supposed to be the spinner in line after Swann? Never hear him mentioned now.
I read somewhere that Borthwick is now largely a batsmen, whom bowls his leggies very occasionally for Durham. Apparently the two/three seamers up there take 95% of all the wickets, so he simply wasn't getting a bowl, hence the switch to batting.
What is abundantly clear is that we have two distinct areas where our players struggle to make the step up to Test cricket at the highest level:
The inability to play fast bowling and to produce spinners.
Going back donkeys years we had overseas fast bowlers (and the odd spinner) who stayed for the whole summer with the same county, year in year out.
Now we have journeyman who would rather play IPL, BPL, CPL - in fact any PL you care to name so it is not "commercially viable" for them to stay a summer here. In any event, we tend to produce wickets that help neither the real quickies and certainly not spinners. Hence the longevity of, with all due respect to him, someone like David Masters. In Australia, NZ and South Africa there isn't a shortage of quick, bouncy tracks hence the never ending production line of quickies and batsmen who can play them.
The other aspect I would question is this - how much practice do our batsmen actually do against short pitch 90 mph balls in the nets?
It is evident that half of our order really don't "fancy it" and if the opposition know that they will play to that weakness. I only caught a bit of Alec Stewart talking about how he asked Boycott to help him. Boycott's way of "helping him" was to let him Stewart face short pitched fast balls - from 16 yards! Stewart did say that this was a massive help and that facing the great West Indies quickies thereafter wasn't so daunting.
I am also a great believer that the modern day's perception of protection has caused them not to watch the ball. If you look at footage of batsmen without helmets you will see that they do actually look at the ball and then sway or duck. Nowadays batsmen don't watch the ball but duck or turn their heads and sometimes flay the bat in doing so. And inevitably only one of two things will happen - the batsmen will either be hit or caught.
Until we produce wickets that help spinners and we aren't going to produce them either. And even if we do what's the chances that counties will then turn to the ready made "magicians" from the Indian sub continent?
You'd possibly play Hales ahead of Bairstow?! Jeez. Make Joe Root open, or something - we just need to pick Bairstow, and pick him now. Course, we could give Lyth one more and pick Bairstow ahead of Ballance or Bell, which is what I'd do.
Yes on the basis of 'round pegs in round holes.'
Root is a successful middle order batsman so play him there as is Bairstow.
Lyth has not excelled so we need another opener. Hales is an opener.
Ballance was disappointing at Lords but instrumental in holding our first innings together at Cardiff. For that reason he deserves another chance. He does try to bat properly (the snail) so will come good in my view.
Addick Addict....in fairness the England players do practice against the very quick stuff, with the bowling machine and in the past they've had the likes of Tymal Mills bowling at them in nets. But...they don't face it in live conditions, with match pressure, week-in, week-out (apart from the clutches of Test Matches).
Even years ago, England players struggled with quick bowling....because let's face it...if quick bowling is of a high standard then it IS a struggle. But at least then they got regular match practice at County level against the likes of Hadlee, Proctor, Rice, Daniel, Clarke, Holding, Le Roux, Roberts, Imran Khan, Garner etc. These days....there are very few proper fast bowlers in County cricket and the regular England blokes don't play any county cricket!! There's never been an easier time to be a batsman in County cricket than now.
Addick Addict....in fairness the England players do practice against the very quick stuff, with the bowling machine and in the past they've had the likes of Tymal Mills bowling at them in nets. But...they don't face it in live conditions, with match pressure, week-in, week-out (apart from the clutches of Test Matches).
Even years ago, England players struggled with quick bowling....because let's face it...if quick bowling is of a high standard then it IS a struggle. But at least then they got regular match practice at County level against the likes of Hadlee, Proctor, Rice, Daniel, Clarke, Holding, Le Roux, Roberts, Imran Khan, Garner etc. These days....there are very few proper fast bowlers in County cricket and the regular England blokes don't play any county cricket!! There's never been an easier time to be a batsman in County cricket than now.
Can't disagree with anything you've said which is why I said "Going back donkeys years we had overseas fast bowlers (and the odd spinner) who stayed for the whole summer with the same county, year in year out."
But the question I would pose is why, if they practice endlessly against the bowling machine at 90 mph, so many play the bouncer without watching the ball? You wouldn't play a cover drive doing so would you? So it has to be perceived self preservation. But the opposite is actually true - if you don't watch the ball then eight times out of ten you will get hit or be out.
On this subject, I have now managed to view the Alec Stewart interview and what he says is that before his England debut he went up to Headingly for a 1-2-1 with Boycott. First thing he did was to pick the stumps up at the bowlers end and march down six pace and told the bowlers that their job was to hit Stewart on the head. As Stewart put it "the fear factor was there and you got used to seeing the ball come at you".
Stewart then went out to the West Indies and during the series Boycott came up to him and suggested that the likes of Ambsose and Walsh weren't as tough as back at Headingly and Stewart says he was right. And fear of the short stuff doesn't necessarily mean you will get out to the bouncer. But it does mean that you are sufficiently unnerved to not play rest of a quick bowlers' armoury.
So, maybe we can't now replicate those circumstances simply because the bowling machine isn't the same and health and safety (and the fear of a coach being sued for a career ending injury) won't now allow the Boycott training methodology.
Comments
Morgan, 24 Test innings & an average of 30. I think he had enough chances.
PS Trescothick, Steele and Gooch were all decent Test players. I had no problem with those 3.
Leaves us too exposed...and we cannot rely on one or two all the time.
Plus a bit too soon to call for ali's head, he's been a good performer this series. Everyone played badly this test.
why do england players forever go after balls that don't need hitting, it happens time and time again.
behead them all, it's the only language they'll understand!
Then move Root to 4.
Lyth, Ballance & Bell are walking wickets.
Then produce a green seamer for Trentbridge.
If we don't change the momentum, it's gonna be 1-4.
Win the toss and put them in on a green seamer is our best hope.
Ballance looks like a rabbit in headlights. His body language is all wrong. He looks scared.
Bell has been out of form for a while, he's increasingly looking like the player who the Aussies destroyed mentally at the start of his career.
I'm not sure Hales is the answer as an openner. Personally I'd give Moen Ali a go again. It then opens up a spot for another spinner. Not sure Rashid is the answer, but who else have we got?
Root definitely needs to move up the order. I'd bring James Taylor in at 3 and have Root at 4. Number 5 is a tricky one as I don't think Bairstow is up to it at test level - having said that, if Buttler keeps failing with the bat he'll probably come in anyway. Stokes could quite easily bat 5.
One thing is for sure, the top order was broken way before this series and should have been addressed after the West Indies tour.
I'm not sure Hales is the answer. But at least he's not scared.
I'm not sure Taylor is the answer.
I'd be surprised if they dropped all 3. I think Bell might be saved.
It begs the question whether all those openers tried and dumped (Robson, Compton, Carberry) might have done a better job.
boycott reckons they'll stick with the same side, hope not.
if this is meant to be a new era of positive cricket for england then they do need to make changes, lyth is out of his depth, woeful!
So....
Cook
Hales
Root
Taylor
Stokes
Bairstow
Buttler
Ali/Rashid (toss of a coin)
Broad
Wood
Anderson
Won't happen though!
England capitulated ignominiously in this test but in reality how many players can be dropped and replaced with anybody better?
Root, Stokes, Broad, Buttler, Ballance and Cook all deserve another opportunity based on Cardiff or Lords and, as I've said, I'd give Bell one more chance at Edgbaston.
Ali has not really done a lot wrong given that he is a victim of circumstance and being asked to perform a role for which he is unsuited. He is a useful batsman who bowls a bit yet we expect him to perform as a frontline spinner! That said there really is no other 'proper' spinner worthy of selection. Rashid arguably falls into the same category as Ali.
As for the other bowlers nobody (other than Matt Coles with my Kent glasses on) is shouting out come and pick me. Bresnan, Onions and Finn for instance are doing OK but not exceptionally. Ryan Sidebottom is bowling better than most and has the advantage of being a leftie but I still think that Anderson and Wood probably deserve another opportunity alongside Broad.
Hales
Cook
Ballance
Bell
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Wood
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom
would be my thirteen for Edgbaston. Broad would play for sure and, dependent on conditions, I'd perm two from Wood, Anderson and Sidebottom.
Again, dependent on conditions, I'd play Bairstow rather than Ali and let Root bowl spin if required. However if a spinner is thought to be required then Ali probably has to play for Bairstow.
The inability to play fast bowling and to produce spinners.
Going back donkeys years we had overseas fast bowlers (and the odd spinner) who stayed for the whole summer with the same county, year in year out.
Now we have journeyman who would rather play IPL, BPL, CPL - in fact any PL you care to name so it is not "commercially viable" for them to stay a summer here. In any event, we tend to produce wickets that help neither the real quickies and certainly not spinners. Hence the longevity of, with all due respect to him, someone like David Masters. In Australia, NZ and South Africa there isn't a shortage of quick, bouncy tracks hence the never ending production line of quickies and batsmen who can play them.
The other aspect I would question is this - how much practice do our batsmen actually do against short pitch 90 mph balls in the nets?
It is evident that half of our order really don't "fancy it" and if the opposition know that they will play to that weakness. I only caught a bit of Alec Stewart talking about how he asked Boycott to help him. Boycott's way of "helping him" was to let him Stewart face short pitched fast balls - from 16 yards! Stewart did say that this was a massive help and that facing the great West Indies quickies thereafter wasn't so daunting.
I am also a great believer that the modern day's perception of protection has caused them not to watch the ball. If you look at footage of batsmen without helmets you will see that they do actually look at the ball and then sway or duck. Nowadays batsmen don't watch the ball but duck or turn their heads and sometimes flay the bat in doing so. And inevitably only one of two things will happen - the batsmen will either be hit or caught.
Until we produce wickets that help spinners and we aren't going to produce them either. And even if we do what's the chances that counties will then turn to the ready made "magicians" from the Indian sub continent?
Root is a successful middle order batsman so play him there as is Bairstow.
Lyth has not excelled so we need another opener. Hales is an opener.
Ballance was disappointing at Lords but instrumental in holding our first innings together at Cardiff. For that reason he deserves another chance. He does try to bat properly (the snail) so will come good in my view.
Even years ago, England players struggled with quick bowling....because let's face it...if quick bowling is of a high standard then it IS a struggle. But at least then they got regular match practice at County level against the likes of Hadlee, Proctor, Rice, Daniel, Clarke, Holding, Le Roux, Roberts, Imran Khan, Garner etc. These days....there are very few proper fast bowlers in County cricket and the regular England blokes don't play any county cricket!! There's never been an easier time to be a batsman in County cricket than now.
I'd make the one change, keep Lyth, drop Ballance, move Root up to 3 and Stokes to 5, and bring the in form Bairstow in at 6
But the question I would pose is why, if they practice endlessly against the bowling machine at 90 mph, so many play the bouncer without watching the ball? You wouldn't play a cover drive doing so would you? So it has to be perceived self preservation. But the opposite is actually true - if you don't watch the ball then eight times out of ten you will get hit or be out.
On this subject, I have now managed to view the Alec Stewart interview and what he says is that before his England debut he went up to Headingly for a 1-2-1 with Boycott. First thing he did was to pick the stumps up at the bowlers end and march down six pace and told the bowlers that their job was to hit Stewart on the head. As Stewart put it "the fear factor was there and you got used to seeing the ball come at you".
Stewart then went out to the West Indies and during the series Boycott came up to him and suggested that the likes of Ambsose and Walsh weren't as tough as back at Headingly and Stewart says he was right. And fear of the short stuff doesn't necessarily mean you will get out to the bouncer. But it does mean that you are sufficiently unnerved to not play rest of a quick bowlers' armoury.
So, maybe we can't now replicate those circumstances simply because the bowling machine isn't the same and health and safety (and the fear of a coach being sued for a career ending injury) won't now allow the Boycott training methodology.