With Jimmy and Stokes due to come back for next Test, and also that its at Old Trafford - so bound to be pissing down for 3 of the 5 days, we need to replace Ball and Ali and play 5 seamers. If we dont have any good spinners then whats the point of playing any - especially a sub-standard one who clearly has lost the plot whilst batting.It seems that Woakes is here to stay now (very impressed as much with his batting as bowling - a real all-rounder now). So, team should be... Cook Hales Root Vince Ballance Bairstow Stokes Woakes Broad Finn Jimmy
The sky commentators said two spinners!! I would drop Finn for the leading English wicket taking spinner (no clue who it is) and either northeast or Borthwick for Vince. My Kent bias says notheast
With Jimmy and Stokes due to come back for next Test, and also that its at Old Trafford - so bound to be pissing down for 3 of the 5 days, we need to replace Ball and Ali and play 5 seamers. If we dont have any good spinners then whats the point of playing any - especially a sub-standard one who clearly has lost the plot whilst batting.It seems that Woakes is here to stay now (very impressed as much with his batting as bowling - a real all-rounder now). So, team should be... Cook Hales Root Vince Ballance Bairstow Stokes Woakes Broad Finn Jimmy
5 right arm seamers would be a bit excessive! OT does normally give some assistance to spinners as well
The real issue is with our batting, the bowlers did their job, but the batsmen didn't. Vince to me doesn't look secure enough to be a Test batsman, he looks the sort to play a few nice shots then get out
I heard Moeen say the other day that his religion was all that really mattered to him and that he could walk away from cricket at anytime without any regrets. He didn't sound like a player who's head was in the right place
Actually thought ball bowled really well yesterday, was very unlucky. Still Anderson and stokes for ball and Finn.
Can't believe people slagging off balance. Test cricket is as much between the ears as it is technique and ballance has more mental strength than most, as he proved today. Yes he has a few technical flaws, but so many batsmen do, and the bloke has an average of like 45. How can you argue with that.
Actually thought ball bowled really well yesterday, was very unlucky. Still Anderson and stokes for ball and Finn.
Can't believe people slagging off balance. Test cricket is as much between the ears as it is technique and ballance has more mental strength than most, as he proved today. Yes he has a few technical flaws, but so many batsmen do, and the bloke has an average of like 45. How can you argue with that.
Northeast for vince though please.
I think you can argue a Test average of 45 if you look at current form and who that player has got those runs against.
In Ballance's last 12 innings he has scored just one 50 and averages 17.83
If we then break his career average down by opposition we find this:
Sri Lanka 67.00 India 61.63 West Indies 66.20 New Zealand 9.00 Australia 20.50 Pakistan 24.50
Virtually all of his innings have been at home bar those against the West Indies who hardly possess the most potent of Test match attacks. India didn't turn up when they played us and Sri Lanka are lucky to be playing Test cricket at the highest level.
I am not saying that Ballance doesn't deserve this chance but we shouldn't get carried away with his overall Test average.
Atherton made an interesting point about the selection process and rings a bell with me so far as how coaches/managers/selectors choose their squads. He used the example of the recall of Compton, basically questioning why we drop say Bell and replace him with someone like Compton who is just a year younger.
Atherton believes that we should be throwing in up and coming players rather than keep going back to ones that have major doubts about them. But he also recognises that those decision makers will lean towards who they know - this is exactly what happened in the past when we had such a Surrey and Lancashire bias. The same thing is happening now with Yorkshire. Selectors tend to watch the successful teams so the likes of Ballance and Lyth do have a head start in that respect.
You have to play Rashid in the next Test. Moeen Ali is not good enough as a batsman or a bowler. Rashid may go for a few but he can take wickets. Shane Warne who knows a thing or two about leg spin is very complimentary about him.
Actually thought ball bowled really well yesterday, was very unlucky. Still Anderson and stokes for ball and Finn.
Can't believe people slagging off balance. Test cricket is as much between the ears as it is technique and ballance has more mental strength than most, as he proved today. Yes he has a few technical flaws, but so many batsmen do, and the bloke has an average of like 45. How can you argue with that.
Northeast for vince though please.
I think you can argue a Test average of 45 if you look at current form and who that player has got those runs against.
In Ballance's last 12 innings he has scored just one 50 and averages 17.83
If we then break his career average down by opposition we find this:
Sri Lanka 67.00 India 61.63 West Indies 66.20 New Zealand 9.00 Australia 20.50 Pakistan 24.50
Virtually all of his innings have been at home bar those against the West Indies who hardly possess the most potent of Test match attacks. India didn't turn up when they played us and Sri Lanka are lucky to be playing Test cricket at the highest level.
I am not saying that Ballance doesn't deserve this chance but we shouldn't get carried away with his overall Test average.
Atherton made an interesting point about the selection process and rings a bell with me so far as how coaches/managers/selectors choose their squads. He used the example of the recall of Compton, basically questioning why we drop say Bell and replace him with someone like Compton who is just a year younger.
Atherton believes that we should be throwing in up and coming players rather than keep going back to ones that have major doubts about them. But he also recognises that those decision makers will lean towards who they know - this is exactly what happened in the past when we had such a Surrey and Lancashire bias. The same thing is happening now with Yorkshire. Selectors tend to watch the successful teams so the likes of Ballance and Lyth do have a head start in that respect.
But then we have the likes of Hales and Vince in the batting lineup, so it's not as if the selectors haven't given "new" batsmen a chance.
Theoretically Ballance is attractive, as his tempo is much steadier. We have a lot of dashers in the team, who seem to play in "white ball" style in Tests as well. A more solid Number 5 should provide balance (no pun intended)
Rashid doesn't have the control for Tests imo. But then, who is there? I'd probably give Moeen one more, give a thought or two to a Simon Kerrigan recall (although his new teammate Parkinson is the one I really want to see thrown in at some point), maybe play Borthwick as top-order stabiliser and third spinner.
Rashid doesn't have the control for Tests imo. But then, who is there? I'd probably give Moeen one more, give a thought or two to a Simon Kerrigan recall (although his new teammate Parkinson is the one I really want to see thrown in at some point), maybe play Borthwick as top-order stabiliser and third spinner.
While we of course want to win this series, it's also a good chance to evaluate our spin options, with seven Tests in the subcontinent before Christmas.
I imagine Ansari will be on the selector's radar, seeing that he's been called up already and only missed out through injury
Actually thought ball bowled really well yesterday, was very unlucky. Still Anderson and stokes for ball and Finn.
Can't believe people slagging off balance. Test cricket is as much between the ears as it is technique and ballance has more mental strength than most, as he proved today. Yes he has a few technical flaws, but so many batsmen do, and the bloke has an average of like 45. How can you argue with that.
Northeast for vince though please.
I think you can argue a Test average of 45 if you look at current form and who that player has got those runs against.
In Ballance's last 12 innings he has scored just one 50 and averages 17.83
If we then break his career average down by opposition we find this:
Sri Lanka 67.00 India 61.63 West Indies 66.20 New Zealand 9.00 Australia 20.50 Pakistan 24.50
Virtually all of his innings have been at home bar those against the West Indies who hardly possess the most potent of Test match attacks. India didn't turn up when they played us and Sri Lanka are lucky to be playing Test cricket at the highest level.
I am not saying that Ballance doesn't deserve this chance but we shouldn't get carried away with his overall Test average.
Atherton made an interesting point about the selection process and rings a bell with me so far as how coaches/managers/selectors choose their squads. He used the example of the recall of Compton, basically questioning why we drop say Bell and replace him with someone like Compton who is just a year younger.
Atherton believes that we should be throwing in up and coming players rather than keep going back to ones that have major doubts about them. But he also recognises that those decision makers will lean towards who they know - this is exactly what happened in the past when we had such a Surrey and Lancashire bias. The same thing is happening now with Yorkshire. Selectors tend to watch the successful teams so the likes of Ballance and Lyth do have a head start in that respect.
AA, you would very well know that you can pick and choose stats for cricketers whether they be bowlers/batsmen/keepers...anything. As Athers pointed out yesterday, most batsmen have idiosyncrasies - you only have to look at Steve Smith- and most batsmen get 'sussed' at some stage in their career- including the likes of Cook and Root but its how they come back after that defines them. The bottom line is Ballance has a Test average of 46 across many countries, Cook has an average of 47,Vince 19,Hales 30,Bairstow 40,Root 52. The point is all batsmen have to play all countries - you way you put it is almost as if that its not good enough to have an average of 60+ against India , coz they're shit- yet they just so happen to be no 2 in the Test rankings.
Its the continual sniping of someone who has got the 3rd best average in the England team , and along with Bairstow and Woakes yesterday was the only person to show any real application. Its the English way, oh lets slag him off coz he isn't smashing a hundred every other innings by whacking the bowlers all round the park. I don't think its right. And I hope he proves it in the best way he can this series.
TP - firstly I have said that Ballance deserves his chance.
Secondly there has to be context. You say that India "happen to be no 2 in the Test rankings" but they lost to us 3-1 and totally gave up in the last three Tests as evidenced by their final 5 scores in that series of:
178 152 161 148 94
Ballance hasn't played against South Africa, failed against Australia and New Zealand and the jury is still out in this series against Pakistan. He scored runs against an Indian side at the time totally out of love with Test Cricket away from home, against a Sri Lankan team that is now at the bottom rung of Test playing nations and the Windies who had just one/two bowlers of any threat.
As for Smith - he is inventive. Ballance isn't. He is mechanical. But he night be able to sort out his technical issues.
As I repeat - he deserves this chance but is still probably lucky based on his average at county level of 36 this season. Others are probably wondering what they need to do but that doesn't, necessarily, mean that it was wrong to recall Ballance.
A 14 man squad seems a bit silly unless they aren't certain about the fitness of Anderson and Stokes, and it seems that Ball has a slight niggle as well. Would it be too much of a risk to bring back Anderson and Stokes? Maybe Rashid might come in, instead of one of the seamers?
It is amazing how short some peoples memories are, and how you are always a better plater when you are out of the team, particualrly in the case of Adil Rashid.
When we last played Pakistan in the UAE, after taking five wickets in the second innings of the first test, the Pakistani's then decided to go after him and for the rest of the series he was going at around 5/6 an over, and barely took a wicket.
I honestly believe that if we want a decent spinner, then Panesar is the best option, though I appreciate that he also comes with baggage/drawbacks.
It is amazing how short some peoples memories are, and how you are always a better plater when you are out of the team, particualrly in the case of Adil Rashid.
When we last played Pakistan in the UAE, after taking five wickets in the second innings of the first test, the Pakistani's then decided to go after him and for the rest of the series he was going at around 5/6 an over, and barely took a wicket.
I honestly believe that if we want a decent spinner, then Panesar is the best option, though I appreciate that he also comes with baggage/drawbacks.
Sorry but your comments apply far more to Monty than Rashid and you clearly haven't seen much of Monty recently. But, there again, not many have.
This season he has played five one day games for Bedfordshire and three for Northants in Division 2 of the CC in which he has taken 5-425 in total. Compare that to Rashid's recent figures for his only 1st Division game this season against Surrey two weeks ago of 27-3-84-3.
Two weeks ago Panesar was playing for Lashings against Leigh Academy - a bunch of 16 and 17 year olds. His bowling was average to say the least and if you thought his fielding was bad before, you should see it now. Lashings and helping others who have gone through what he has is his future. Not England.
Rashid will go for runs. But he will also take wickets. Broad, Anderson and Woakes will contain whatever the conditions but may struggle to bowl sides out on flat tracks and that is why we need to give Rashid a proper go.
It is amazing how short some peoples memories are, and how you are always a better plater when you are out of the team, particualrly in the case of Adil Rashid.
When we last played Pakistan in the UAE, after taking five wickets in the second innings of the first test, the Pakistani's then decided to go after him and for the rest of the series he was going at around 5/6 an over, and barely took a wicket.
I honestly believe that if we want a decent spinner, then Panesar is the best option, though I appreciate that he also comes with baggage/drawbacks.
Sorry but your comments apply far more to Monty than Rashid and you clearly haven't seen much of Monty recently. But, there again, not many have.
This season he has played five one day games for Bedfordshire and three for Northants in Division 2 of the CC in which he has taken 5-425 in total. Compare that to Rashid's recent figures for his only 1st Division game this season against Surrey two weeks ago of 27-3-84-3.
Two weeks ago Panesar was playing for Lashings against Leigh Academy - a bunch of 16 and 17 year olds. His bowling was average to say the least and if you thought his fielding was bad before, you should see it now. Lashings and helping others who have gone through what he has is his future. Not England.
Rashid will go for runs. But he will also take wickets. Broad, Anderson and Woakes will contain whatever the conditions but may struggle to bowl sides out on flat tracks and that is why we need to give Rashid a proper go.
Rashid is not the answer. He is too inconsistent to ever put pressure on top quality batsmen. His magnificent debut for England (supposedly on a spin-friendly track too) last season , was the worst EVER by any debutant with magnificent figures of 0-163. If they want some spinners they would do well to bring in one of the youngsters coming through like Josh Poysden,Mason Crane or Matt Parkinson- please not Rashid.
It is amazing how short some peoples memories are, and how you are always a better plater when you are out of the team, particualrly in the case of Adil Rashid.
When we last played Pakistan in the UAE, after taking five wickets in the second innings of the first test, the Pakistani's then decided to go after him and for the rest of the series he was going at around 5/6 an over, and barely took a wicket.
I honestly believe that if we want a decent spinner, then Panesar is the best option, though I appreciate that he also comes with baggage/drawbacks.
Sorry but your comments apply far more to Monty than Rashid and you clearly haven't seen much of Monty recently. But, there again, not many have.
This season he has played five one day games for Bedfordshire and three for Northants in Division 2 of the CC in which he has taken 5-425 in total. Compare that to Rashid's recent figures for his only 1st Division game this season against Surrey two weeks ago of 27-3-84-3.
Two weeks ago Panesar was playing for Lashings against Leigh Academy - a bunch of 16 and 17 year olds. His bowling was average to say the least and if you thought his fielding was bad before, you should see it now. Lashings and helping others who have gone through what he has is his future. Not England.
Rashid will go for runs. But he will also take wickets. Broad, Anderson and Woakes will contain whatever the conditions but may struggle to bowl sides out on flat tracks and that is why we need to give Rashid a proper go.
I did say that I know about Monty's limitations!! However he was still a steady and reliable bowler for us, and when we go to India in the winter we are going to need a spin bowler like him, whom can be trusted to keep it steady.
I would love Rashid to succeed, but to me he has that fatal flaw of bowling too many 'four' balls, which in a test match is fatal as it puts that much pressure on your seamers if the spinner is going at 6/7 an over.
Unlike yourself I remain unconvinced by his wicket taking ability at test level, where good players on good wickets will simply block the good ones and wait for the pies to arrive on cue.
One player that I think we will see in an England shirt sooner rather than later is Ben Duckett.
A former England U19, he is already averaging over 41 in First Class cricket, 46 in one day matches and 29 in T20 - and is still 21. Yesterday he scored an unbeaten 163 for the Lions against Pakistan A.
My only frustration is that he should be playing for Kent - he was born in Farnborough - although he would have had a fight on his hands for the gloves with Billings!
It is amazing how short some peoples memories are, and how you are always a better plater when you are out of the team, particualrly in the case of Adil Rashid.
When we last played Pakistan in the UAE, after taking five wickets in the second innings of the first test, the Pakistani's then decided to go after him and for the rest of the series he was going at around 5/6 an over, and barely took a wicket.
I honestly believe that if we want a decent spinner, then Panesar is the best option, though I appreciate that he also comes with baggage/drawbacks.
Sorry but your comments apply far more to Monty than Rashid and you clearly haven't seen much of Monty recently. But, there again, not many have.
This season he has played five one day games for Bedfordshire and three for Northants in Division 2 of the CC in which he has taken 5-425 in total. Compare that to Rashid's recent figures for his only 1st Division game this season against Surrey two weeks ago of 27-3-84-3.
Two weeks ago Panesar was playing for Lashings against Leigh Academy - a bunch of 16 and 17 year olds. His bowling was average to say the least and if you thought his fielding was bad before, you should see it now. Lashings and helping others who have gone through what he has is his future. Not England.
Rashid will go for runs. But he will also take wickets. Broad, Anderson and Woakes will contain whatever the conditions but may struggle to bowl sides out on flat tracks and that is why we need to give Rashid a proper go.
Rashid is not the answer. He is too inconsistent to ever put pressure on top quality batsmen. His magnificent debut for England (supposedly on a spin-friendly track too) last season , was the worst EVER by any debutant with magnificent figures of 0-163. If they want some spinners they would do well to bring in one of the youngsters coming through like Josh Poysden,Mason Crane or Matt Parkinson- please not Rashid.
Warne, who knows more about leg spin bowling than anyone on the planet rates him, which will do for me. Yes he gives a few runs away but he has good variations and can get good players out. Moeen is meat and drink to the Pakistan batsmen and he is also not scoring enough runs. The shot in the second innings was terrible.
It is amazing how short some peoples memories are, and how you are always a better plater when you are out of the team, particualrly in the case of Adil Rashid.
When we last played Pakistan in the UAE, after taking five wickets in the second innings of the first test, the Pakistani's then decided to go after him and for the rest of the series he was going at around 5/6 an over, and barely took a wicket.
I honestly believe that if we want a decent spinner, then Panesar is the best option, though I appreciate that he also comes with baggage/drawbacks.
Sorry but your comments apply far more to Monty than Rashid and you clearly haven't seen much of Monty recently. But, there again, not many have.
This season he has played five one day games for Bedfordshire and three for Northants in Division 2 of the CC in which he has taken 5-425 in total. Compare that to Rashid's recent figures for his only 1st Division game this season against Surrey two weeks ago of 27-3-84-3.
Two weeks ago Panesar was playing for Lashings against Leigh Academy - a bunch of 16 and 17 year olds. His bowling was average to say the least and if you thought his fielding was bad before, you should see it now. Lashings and helping others who have gone through what he has is his future. Not England.
Rashid will go for runs. But he will also take wickets. Broad, Anderson and Woakes will contain whatever the conditions but may struggle to bowl sides out on flat tracks and that is why we need to give Rashid a proper go.
I did say that I know about Monty's limitations!! However he was still a steady and reliable bowler for us, and when we go to India in the winter we are going to need a spin bowler like him, whom can be trusted to keep it steady.
I would love Rashid to succeed, but to me he has that fatal flaw of bowling too many 'four' balls, which in a test match is fatal as it puts that much pressure on your seamers if the spinner is going at 6/7 an over.
Unlike yourself I remain unconvinced by his wicket taking ability at test level, where good players on good wickets will simply block the good ones and wait for the pies to arrive on cue.
The Monty of old would have been a definite pick. Sadly Monty has been nowhere near that level for a couple of years now, and hasn't had a decent run of games for a long time now
One player that I think we will see in an England shirt sooner rather than later is Ben Duckett.
A former England U19, he is already averaging over 41 in First Class cricket, 46 in one day matches and 29 in T20 - and is still 21. Yesterday he scored an unbeaten 163 for the Lions against Pakistan A.
My only frustration is that he should be playing for Kent - he was born in Farnborough - although he would have had a fight on his hands for the gloves with Billings!
Mark Wood played in that Pakistan A match as well, as he comes back from injury. We seems to have a lot more options in the seam department than we do elsewhere at the moment!
As its England, I expect them not to pick the best spin bowlers, but the ones with the best batting averages. Rashid has a first class average of 35 with 10 centuries, Moeen averages 38 with 16 centuries.
For what its worth, I think they should give Rashid the chance on Friday. If they need an off spinner, Root is not much worse than Ali anyway;
As its England, I expect them not to pick the best spin bowlers, but the ones with the best batting averages. Rashid has a first class average of 35 with 10 centuries, Moeen averages 38 with 16 centuries.
For what its worth, I think they should give Rashid the chance on Friday. If they need an off spinner, Root is not much worse than Ali anyway;
As its England, I expect them not to pick the best spin bowlers, but the ones with the best batting averages. Rashid has a first class average of 35 with 10 centuries, Moeen averages 38 with 16 centuries.
For what its worth, I think they should give Rashid the chance on Friday. If they need an off spinner, Root is not much worse than Ali anyway;
Comments
The real issue is with our batting, the bowlers did their job, but the batsmen didn't. Vince to me doesn't look secure enough to be a Test batsman, he looks the sort to play a few nice shots then get out
Isn't Rashid a better bet than Ali?
Can't believe people slagging off balance. Test cricket is as much between the ears as it is technique and ballance has more mental strength than most, as he proved today. Yes he has a few technical flaws, but so many batsmen do, and the bloke has an average of like 45. How can you argue with that.
Northeast for vince though please.
In Ballance's last 12 innings he has scored just one 50 and averages 17.83
If we then break his career average down by opposition we find this:
Sri Lanka 67.00
India 61.63
West Indies 66.20
New Zealand 9.00
Australia 20.50
Pakistan 24.50
Virtually all of his innings have been at home bar those against the West Indies who hardly possess the most potent of Test match attacks. India didn't turn up when they played us and Sri Lanka are lucky to be playing Test cricket at the highest level.
I am not saying that Ballance doesn't deserve this chance but we shouldn't get carried away with his overall Test average.
Atherton made an interesting point about the selection process and rings a bell with me so far as how coaches/managers/selectors choose their squads. He used the example of the recall of Compton, basically questioning why we drop say Bell and replace him with someone like Compton who is just a year younger.
Atherton believes that we should be throwing in up and coming players rather than keep going back to ones that have major doubts about them. But he also recognises that those decision makers will lean towards who they know - this is exactly what happened in the past when we had such a Surrey and Lancashire bias. The same thing is happening now with Yorkshire. Selectors tend to watch the successful teams so the likes of Ballance and Lyth do have a head start in that respect.
Theoretically Ballance is attractive, as his tempo is much steadier. We have a lot of dashers in the team, who seem to play in "white ball" style in Tests as well. A more solid Number 5 should provide balance (no pun intended)
Cook
Hales
Root
Vince
Ballance
Bairstow
Stokes
Woakes
Rashid
Broad
Anderson
I imagine Ansari will be on the selector's radar, seeing that he's been called up already and only missed out through injury
As Athers pointed out yesterday, most batsmen have idiosyncrasies - you only have to look at Steve Smith- and most batsmen get 'sussed' at some stage in their career- including the likes of Cook and Root but its how they come back after that defines them.
The bottom line is Ballance has a Test average of 46 across many countries, Cook has an average of 47,Vince 19,Hales 30,Bairstow 40,Root 52.
The point is all batsmen have to play all countries - you way you put it is almost as if that its not good enough to have an average of 60+ against India , coz they're shit- yet they just so happen to be no 2 in the Test rankings.
Its the continual sniping of someone who has got the 3rd best average in the England team , and along with Bairstow and Woakes yesterday was the only person to show any real application. Its the English way, oh lets slag him off coz he isn't smashing a hundred every other innings by whacking the bowlers all round the park.
I don't think its right. And I hope he proves it in the best way he can this series.
Secondly there has to be context. You say that India "happen to be no 2 in the Test rankings" but they lost to us 3-1 and totally gave up in the last three Tests as evidenced by their final 5 scores in that series of:
178
152
161
148
94
Ballance hasn't played against South Africa, failed against Australia and New Zealand and the jury is still out in this series against Pakistan. He scored runs against an Indian side at the time totally out of love with Test Cricket away from home, against a Sri Lankan team that is now at the bottom rung of Test playing nations and the Windies who had just one/two bowlers of any threat.
As for Smith - he is inventive. Ballance isn't. He is mechanical. But he night be able to sort out his technical issues.
As I repeat - he deserves this chance but is still probably lucky based on his average at county level of 36 this season. Others are probably wondering what they need to do but that doesn't, necessarily, mean that it was wrong to recall Ballance.
A 14 man squad seems a bit silly unless they aren't certain about the fitness of Anderson and Stokes, and it seems that Ball has a slight niggle as well. Would it be too much of a risk to bring back Anderson and Stokes? Maybe Rashid might come in, instead of one of the seamers?
When we last played Pakistan in the UAE, after taking five wickets in the second innings of the first test, the Pakistani's then decided to go after him and for the rest of the series he was going at around 5/6 an over, and barely took a wicket.
I honestly believe that if we want a decent spinner, then Panesar is the best option, though I appreciate that he also comes with baggage/drawbacks.
This season he has played five one day games for Bedfordshire and three for Northants in Division 2 of the CC in which he has taken 5-425 in total. Compare that to Rashid's recent figures for his only 1st Division game this season against Surrey two weeks ago of 27-3-84-3.
Two weeks ago Panesar was playing for Lashings against Leigh Academy - a bunch of 16 and 17 year olds. His bowling was average to say the least and if you thought his fielding was bad before, you should see it now. Lashings and helping others who have gone through what he has is his future. Not England.
Rashid will go for runs. But he will also take wickets. Broad, Anderson and Woakes will contain whatever the conditions but may struggle to bowl sides out on flat tracks and that is why we need to give Rashid a proper go.
He is too inconsistent to ever put pressure on top quality batsmen. His magnificent debut for England (supposedly on a spin-friendly track too) last season , was the worst EVER by any debutant with magnificent figures of 0-163.
If they want some spinners they would do well to bring in one of the youngsters coming through like Josh Poysden,Mason Crane or Matt Parkinson- please not Rashid.
I would love Rashid to succeed, but to me he has that fatal flaw of bowling too many 'four' balls, which in a test match is fatal as it puts that much pressure on your seamers if the spinner is going at 6/7 an over.
Unlike yourself I remain unconvinced by his wicket taking ability at test level, where good players on good wickets will simply block the good ones and wait for the pies to arrive on cue.
A former England U19, he is already averaging over 41 in First Class cricket, 46 in one day matches and 29 in T20 - and is still 21. Yesterday he scored an unbeaten 163 for the Lions against Pakistan A.
My only frustration is that he should be playing for Kent - he was born in Farnborough - although he would have had a fight on his hands for the gloves with Billings!
For what its worth, I think they should give Rashid the chance on Friday. If they need an off spinner, Root is not much worse than Ali anyway;
Cook
Hales
Root
Vince
Ballance
Bairstow+
Stokes
Woakes
Rashid
Broad
Anderson