The selectors will be thinking let's pick someone and stick with them.
Fine in principle but they have picked the wrong player to stick with.
I think they had to stick with him, there comes a point when you have to say "we have tried everyone else, we THINK he is our best bet so will stick with him". Don't think he would have gone if Cook had.
The selectors will be thinking let's pick someone and stick with them.
Fine in principle but they have picked the wrong player to stick with.
I think they had to stick with him, there comes a point when you have to say "we have tried everyone else, we THINK he is our best bet so will stick with him". Don't think he would have gone if Cook had.
Michael Vaughan did say at the end of the last Test that he had been told they wouldnt go to SL with two debutant openers - which left them with no other option. I wonder if they think Jennings is a good player of spin (he got a century on his debut in India) - this will clearly be make or break for him.
The selectors will be thinking let's pick someone and stick with them.
Fine in principle but they have picked the wrong player to stick with.
I think they had to stick with him, there comes a point when you have to say "we have tried everyone else, we THINK he is our best bet so will stick with him". Don't think he would have gone if Cook had.
If selected he will take wickets out there. On form a very stylish player now recovered from being ruined by Surrey
Wasnt it Middx he played for? Dont think he ever played for us.
IF he's taking wickets out there, then it means the likes of Ali and Rashid aren't - got to be something wrong in that. We all know that Root doesnt trust Rashid, but to lob the ball to Denly and expect him to get Test match wickets is asking a bit much - cant see it happening myself .
I think it's a bit of a fudge, looks like a selectors pick me. "We wanted to give the captain options" type thing. I can't see that Joe Denly is a mountain Root would be prepared to die on.
Could open the batting if Jennings has a mare in the first 2 tests?
Could bat at 3 and do a bit of bowling if we went with 2 front line spinners?
Could give cover if we had a middle order injury?
He wouldn't be my first choice for any of those 3, but maybe the only one who can do all 3?
I don't begrudge Joe Denly a place in the squad. A classy man and a very competent cricketer who fields, bats and bowls effectively and definitely had the emotional intelligence to stake a claim in the test side now
You can't help thinking that India really let themselves down with their pre series preparation.
Murali Vijay struggled for 2 matches and was dropped. Joins Essex in September (i.e. when conditions are tough) and so far has scored 56, 100, 85 and 80! Imagine what he'd be like in their Test team now.
Will we need 4 seamers in Sri Lanka? Surely a 3rd spinner would be more useful.
Parkinson is very promising, but England do seem to have got into a habit of picking spinners too early.
May be right re seamers, however, i remember SA some 15 years ago when Donald was still playing took no spinners to India beacuse they didnt feel they had anyone of sufficient quality in the spin department - and they still won the series- it would also mean dropping maybe the likes of Broad as Sam seems to have cemented his place now. Cant see Woakes 'easily' getting his place back tbh in the short term.
I just think that Parkinson is the real deal, and a spin friendly location might really help him improve- and ultimately a better bowler than Rashid.
One interesting option may be Patrick Brown for the white ball stuff (i assume there is some) - thought he bowled quite beautifully on Finals day, and could ultimately be the replacement for Jimmy.
Brown the replacement for Jimmy?! Absolutely no way. Brown is thoroughly geared towards limited-overs variations and doesn't have the accuracy, pace or swing of Anderson
Yet.
Jimmy only had pace at PB's age.
Nah, he swung it round corners
From BBC's James Anderson, the story....
"Anderson broke into the Lancashire first team in the early 2000s. Warren Hegg was the veteran wicketkeeper with the best view in the house.
"He was very raw and had real pace," remembers Hegg. "Even though that came with a slight lack of direction, the potential was there to bowl seriously quick. I've kept to some very quick bowlers in my time and, in his younger days, Jimmy was right up there with the quickest.
"In the early days he relied on that pace and his natural ability to take the ball away from the right-hander - it was later that he cut it back and learned to swing the ball both ways with control.
"We had open net sessions in the middle at Old Trafford and he was a real handful to the senior players, who were used to facing quick bowlers. I was hit on the toes on numerous occasions from his yorkers because, even in practice, Jimmy was aggressive.
"In his first season, when I was captain, he could take wickets on flat pitches. We were playing against Somerset at Blackpool on a very docile wicket and Jimmy took six wickets in the first innings and nine in the match. If you can bowl quickly at Blackpool, you can bowl quickly anywhere."
From my recollection of his early days, it was mainly his pace - his immaculate control and ability to swing it both ways came as he developed his action and experience and became the bowler he is now.
The really interesting thing about Jimmy Anderson, is what his stats would have been like if he hadn’t taken so long to establish himself in the test team.
In his first four years of test cricket (2003-2006), he played only FIFTEEN tests and took only 43 wickets at 39 apiece at a strike rate of 60. If memory serves various genius coaches kept trying to change his action, and I don’t think that Fletcher really rated him.
Since re-establishing himself back in the team in 2007, he has taken 521 wickets at average of 26 at a strike rate of 55, and if you look at his numbers for the last four years he has 184 wickets at average of 21 with a strike rate of 51, and these figures include five test tours of both India and Australia!
In essence he is getting better as he gets older, and those figures for the last four years puts him up with the all-time greats in terms of his average (Hadlee, Ambrose, Marshall, Warne and McGrath).
Will we need 4 seamers in Sri Lanka? Surely a 3rd spinner would be more useful.
Parkinson is very promising, but England do seem to have got into a habit of picking spinners too early.
May be right re seamers, however, i remember SA some 15 years ago when Donald was still playing took no spinners to India beacuse they didnt feel they had anyone of sufficient quality in the spin department - and they still won the series- it would also mean dropping maybe the likes of Broad as Sam seems to have cemented his place now. Cant see Woakes 'easily' getting his place back tbh in the short term.
I just think that Parkinson is the real deal, and a spin friendly location might really help him improve- and ultimately a better bowler than Rashid.
One interesting option may be Patrick Brown for the white ball stuff (i assume there is some) - thought he bowled quite beautifully on Finals day, and could ultimately be the replacement for Jimmy.
Brown the replacement for Jimmy?! Absolutely no way. Brown is thoroughly geared towards limited-overs variations and doesn't have the accuracy, pace or swing of Anderson
Yet.
Jimmy only had pace at PB's age.
Nah, he swung it round corners
From BBC's James Anderson, the story....
"Anderson broke into the Lancashire first team in the early 2000s. Warren Hegg was the veteran wicketkeeper with the best view in the house.
"He was very raw and had real pace," remembers Hegg. "Even though that came with a slight lack of direction, the potential was there to bowl seriously quick. I've kept to some very quick bowlers in my time and, in his younger days, Jimmy was right up there with the quickest.
"In the early days he relied on that pace and his natural ability to take the ball away from the right-hander - it was later that he cut it back and learned to swing the ball both ways with control.
"We had open net sessions in the middle at Old Trafford and he was a real handful to the senior players, who were used to facing quick bowlers. I was hit on the toes on numerous occasions from his yorkers because, even in practice, Jimmy was aggressive.
"In his first season, when I was captain, he could take wickets on flat pitches. We were playing against Somerset at Blackpool on a very docile wicket and Jimmy took six wickets in the first innings and nine in the match. If you can bowl quickly at Blackpool, you can bowl quickly anywhere."
From my recollection of his early days, it was mainly his pace - his immaculate control and ability to swing it both ways came as he developed his action and experience and became the bowler he is now.
The really interesting thing about Jimmy Anderson, is what his stats would have been like if he hadn’t taken so long to establish himself in the test team.
In his first four years of test cricket (2003-2006), he played only FIFTEEN tests and took only 43 wickets at 39 apiece at a strike rate of 60. If memory serves various genius coaches kept trying to change his action, and I don’t think that Fletcher really rated him.
Since re-establishing himself back in the team in 2007, he has taken 521 wickets at average of 26 at a strike rate of 55, and if you look at his numbers for the last four years he has 184 wickets at average of 21 with a strike rate of 51, and these figures include five test tours of both India and Australia!
In essence he is getting better as he gets older, and those figures for the last four years puts him up with the all-time greats in terms of his average (Hadlee, Ambrose, Marshall, Warne and McGrath).
That's where the ICC player ratings are so useful as they weight more recent performance more highly, but still consider a decent time period.
Jimmy is currently No 1 bowler in the world, with 899 points and a highest score of 903. 900 is generally seen as the sign of a truly great player. When you look at the list of highest ranked bowlers, that 903 makes him joint 19th in the all time list
It does sometimes happen with precocious players - they sail through age group cricket, the 2nd X1 and the first team and in Hameed's case beyond. Then something happens that causes doubts to creep in - the start of Hameed's was probably twice breaking his finger which coincided with a loss of form. It is because the likes of Hameed has never encountered serious issues with form that he probably doesn't know how to recover or deal with it.
The other aspect that has totally changed is analysis. Every single international, county and even club sides at the highest level know each and every batsman's strengths and weaknesses. For example, he might be a known "happy hooker" but not nail every one or be weak outside the off stump to the full swinging ball or not be able to play left arm spin well. Whatever it is, the opposition will know and the batsman has to find a way of overcoming those deficiencies.
The longer it goes on the longer the doubts remain. And many well meaning coaches and advisers will be happy to help but this can lead to even more confusion in the head of that individual. Sometimes you just need to get away from the game for a meaningful period of time and go back to what you were doing with a clear and uncluttered mind. You might just then find what got you to the top in the first place.
It does sometimes happen with precocious players - they sail through age group cricket, the 2nd X1 and the first team and in Hameed's case beyond. Then something happens that causes doubts to creep in - the start of Hameed's was probably twice breaking his finger which coincided with a loss of form. It is because the likes of Hameed has never encountered serious issues with form that he probably doesn't know how to recover or deal with it.
The other aspect that has totally changed is analysis. Every single international, county and even club sides at the highest level know each and every batsman's strengths and weaknesses. For example, he might be a known "happy hooker" but not nail every one or be weak outside the off stump to the full swinging ball or not be able to play left arm spin well. Whatever it is, the opposition will know and the batsman has to find a way of overcoming those deficiencies.
The longer it goes on the longer the doubts remain. And many well meaning coaches and advisers will be happy to help but this can lead to even more confusion in the head of that individual. Sometimes you just need to get away from the game for a meaningful period of time and go back to what you were doing with a clear and uncluttered mind. You might just then find what got you to the top in the first place.
I hope he can regain he's confidence and form, on that tour of India he looked excellant
Comments
Burns, Leach, Denly and Stone are the additions to the usual names...
Fine in principle but they have picked the wrong player to stick with.
I wonder if they think Jennings is a good player of spin (he got a century on his debut in India) - this will clearly be make or break for him.
IF he's taking wickets out there, then it means the likes of Ali and Rashid aren't - got to be something wrong in that. We all know that Root doesnt trust Rashid, but to lob the ball to Denly and expect him to get Test match wickets is asking a bit much - cant see it happening myself .
Could open the batting if Jennings has a mare in the first 2 tests?
Could bat at 3 and do a bit of bowling if we went with 2 front line spinners?
Could give cover if we had a middle order injury?
He wouldn't be my first choice for any of those 3, but maybe the only one who can do all 3?
End Of
Took 20 wickets in 13 matches - SL will be quaking in their boots.
Burns
Denly
Ali
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler
Curran
Rashid/Stone
Leach
Anderson/Broad
We've had a whole season of mainly seam friendly pitches
As a comparison, Leach has taken 29 wickets in 10 matches, playing at the most spin friendly county ground, and has scored a fraction of the runs.
Murali Vijay struggled for 2 matches and was dropped. Joins Essex in September (i.e. when conditions are tough) and so far has scored 56, 100, 85 and 80! Imagine what he'd be like in their Test team now.
In his first four years of test cricket (2003-2006), he played only FIFTEEN tests and took only 43 wickets at 39 apiece at a strike rate of 60. If memory serves various genius coaches kept trying to change his action, and I don’t think that Fletcher really rated him.
Since re-establishing himself back in the team in 2007, he has taken 521 wickets at average of 26 at a strike rate of 55, and if you look at his numbers for the last four years he has 184 wickets at average of 21 with a strike rate of 51, and these figures include five test tours of both India and Australia!
In essence he is getting better as he gets older, and those figures for the last four years puts him up with the all-time greats in terms of his average (Hadlee, Ambrose, Marshall, Warne and McGrath).
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/playerdisplay/test/bowling/?id=2467
Jimmy is currently No 1 bowler in the world, with 899 points and a highest score of 903. 900 is generally seen as the sign of a truly great player. When you look at the list of highest ranked bowlers, that 903 makes him joint 19th in the all time list
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/alltime/test/bowling/
Indeed Lancashire were probably too generous to him, seeing that he played 10 matches, and 1 bonus point would have saved them from relegation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/45665980
The other aspect that has totally changed is analysis. Every single international, county and even club sides at the highest level know each and every batsman's strengths and weaknesses. For example, he might be a known "happy hooker" but not nail every one or be weak outside the off stump to the full swinging ball or not be able to play left arm spin well. Whatever it is, the opposition will know and the batsman has to find a way of overcoming those deficiencies.
The longer it goes on the longer the doubts remain. And many well meaning coaches and advisers will be happy to help but this can lead to even more confusion in the head of that individual. Sometimes you just need to get away from the game for a meaningful period of time and go back to what you were doing with a clear and uncluttered mind. You might just then find what got you to the top in the first place.