yeah, England have to be big favourites now, SA batting line-up looks decidedly thin without ABDV and Faf. However, Lords has been known to be a bowlers graveyard recently.
Big mistake on recalling Ballance, and particularly batting him at number three.
Just listened to Michael Vaughan on the BBC, and he more or less said that Ballance can't bat at three, and that all of the runs he has scored for Yorks have been at five (where he can't find a place in this line up).
With his technique of batting so deep in his crease (which he is unwilling to change), he is going to always struggle against top quality quick bowling, and we will be facing plenty of that in the Ashes in OZ (if they go ahead).
Some players are destined to score buckets of runs at county level, without being able to make the leap to test cricket and Ballance looks like he belongs firmly in that category.
Big mistake on recalling Ballance, and particularly batting him at number three.
Just listened to Michael Vaughan on the BBC, and he more or less said that Ballance can't bat at three, and that all of the runs he has scored for Yorks have been at five (where he can't find a place in this line up).
With his technique of batting so deep in his crease (which he is unwilling to change), he is going to always struggle against top quality quick bowling, and we will be facing plenty of that in the Ashes in OZ (if they go ahead).
Some players are destined to score buckets of runs at county level, without being able to make the leap to test cricket and Ballance looks like he belongs firmly in that category.
If they think Ballance can score runs at test level (I am not so sure) then perhaps Root 3, Bairstow 4 and Ballance 5 is only way to go.
Clearly Root wants him in, and that is why he is there, whilst it is also clear that Root wants to bat at 4, so somebody needed to be at three.
It's a real problem, as Hamed is out of form, and plenty of others tried in the top order (Duckett, Lyth, Hales, Vince etc) have all looked short of what is required.
agreed, we are two batsman short of having the best top 7 in the world, Jennings probably deserves some time, Ballance is not the answer, possibly try Stoneman. He is in form but his first class average of just over 30 isn't that great.
agreed, we are two batsman short of having the best top 7 in the world, Jennings probably deserves some time, Ballance is not the answer, possibly try Stoneman. He is in form but his first class average of just over 30 isn't that great.
To be fair to Stoneman, he had a poor start to his career but has now scored over 1,000 runs for the last five seasons so his overall first class average of 34.63 has to be taken in that context.
It's actually the opposite of Ballance who had a Test average of over 70 to begin with against weak bowling attacks but has been found out by facing the better ones subsequently.
Big mistake on recalling Ballance, and particularly batting him at number three.
Just listened to Michael Vaughan on the BBC, and he more or less said that Ballance can't bat at three, and that all of the runs he has scored for Yorks have been at five (where he can't find a place in this line up).
With his technique of batting so deep in his crease (which he is unwilling to change), he is going to always struggle against top quality quick bowling, and we will be facing plenty of that in the Ashes in OZ (if they go ahead).
Some players are destined to score buckets of runs at county level, without being able to make the leap to test cricket and Ballance looks like he belongs firmly in that category.
This is the one thing about Ballance that I just don't get - that's twice now that he's gone away and failed to address this issue but ended up kidding himself that he has resolved it by scoring stacks of runs against a bunch of 80 mph bowlers.
The only thing I can think of is that it is a classic case of "a strength over done" - the very thing that got him to the top was his confidence, bordering on arrogance, in his own ability. But the best players listen and work things out - Cook, Strauss and Root have all been dropped to do that and come back better players for it but Ballance, sadly, hasn't.
Funnily enough, two years ago I was banging on about how Cook's time had come to an end and that Ballance's runs masked his poor technique. The former sorted it but the latter hasn't and the fear is that, with his mate Root at the helm, Ballance will get at least two if not three Tests. And he may well get that score that will keep him in the side for longer even though the best attacks already know how to get him out. Including Australia. The no. 3 slot is a red herring (Root and Bairstow will probably move back up to accommodate him at 5) as they will get him out wherever he bats.
agreed, we are two batsman short of having the best top 7 in the world, Jennings probably deserves some time, Ballance is not the answer, possibly try Stoneman. He is in form but his first class average of just over 30 isn't that great.
To be fair to Stoneman, he had a poor start to his career but has now scored over 1,000 runs for the last five seasons so his overall first class average of 34.63 has to be taken in that context.
It's actually the opposite of Ballance who had a Test average of over 70 to begin with against weak bowling attacks but has been found out by facing the better ones subsequently.
Westley not dissimilar. I don't think Westley is the answer btw
Stoneman's home ground though was Durham though, where batting is harder, so his average is lower than it would be if he's been somewhere more batting friendly. He's the obvious next choice at 3.
Ballance has been given lots of chances but he is not the answer to the no3 position. I would leave the openers as they are and bat Stoneman at three. I am loath to move Root to 3 but good judges say you bat your best player at 3. Our top order has been a problem for a while and we don't seem able to fix it at the moment.
Yet another fine innings from Moeen Ali and a shame that he didn't make another hundred. Surely he must be our greatest ever batsmen when batting at 7 or lower?
Overall average - 36.62 (63 innings/ 7 not outs) Batting at 1-6 - average 26.27 (30 innings / 0 not outs) Batting at 7 - average 87.75 (11 innings / 3 not outs) Batting 7-9 - average 47.04 (33 innings / 7 not outs)
33 innings in that lower position is no small sample (albeit 7 not outs) especially as it forms more than half of his overall outings at the crease.
Comments
I'd be fuming if I was a South Africa fan.
To have his average when he spends most of his time playing in England is absolutely ridiculous.
357-5
Root 184 n/o
Moeen 61 n/o
Oh, and well played England after a terrible start but of all the players to give so many lives to. 2 drops, 2 no balls!
Just listened to Michael Vaughan on the BBC, and he more or less said that Ballance can't bat at three, and that all of the runs he has scored for Yorks have been at five (where he can't find a place in this line up).
With his technique of batting so deep in his crease (which he is unwilling to change), he is going to always struggle against top quality quick bowling, and we will be facing plenty of that in the Ashes in OZ (if they go ahead).
Some players are destined to score buckets of runs at county level, without being able to make the leap to test cricket and Ballance looks like he belongs firmly in that category.
It's a real problem, as Hamed is out of form, and plenty of others tried in the top order (Duckett, Lyth, Hales, Vince etc) have all looked short of what is required.
It's actually the opposite of Ballance who had a Test average of over 70 to begin with against weak bowling attacks but has been found out by facing the better ones subsequently.
The only thing I can think of is that it is a classic case of "a strength over done" - the very thing that got him to the top was his confidence, bordering on arrogance, in his own ability. But the best players listen and work things out - Cook, Strauss and Root have all been dropped to do that and come back better players for it but Ballance, sadly, hasn't.
Funnily enough, two years ago I was banging on about how Cook's time had come to an end and that Ballance's runs masked his poor technique. The former sorted it but the latter hasn't and the fear is that, with his mate Root at the helm, Ballance will get at least two if not three Tests. And he may well get that score that will keep him in the side for longer even though the best attacks already know how to get him out. Including Australia. The no. 3 slot is a red herring (Root and Bairstow will probably move back up to accommodate him at 5) as they will get him out wherever he bats.
Always does a bit in the morning at Lord's...
Overall average - 36.62 (63 innings/ 7 not outs)
Batting at 1-6 - average 26.27 (30 innings / 0 not outs)
Batting at 7 - average 87.75 (11 innings / 3 not outs)
Batting 7-9 - average 47.04 (33 innings / 7 not outs)
33 innings in that lower position is no small sample (albeit 7 not outs) especially as it forms more than half of his overall outings at the crease.