As far as I known, I don't think the England batting coach has any say in the selection of players for the team.
Jason Roy was picked because he played so well in the World cup, It was a gamble that never came off, but I think a lot of people in cricket wanted him to play, but I don't think Thorpe had any say in the selection
No "say" but will undoubtedly have "input". Selectors will always ask those who know the most about players.
But yes he was picked on the back of the World Cup success. But Mr Magoo could have seen that he plays too far in front of him and will always get found out against serious pace with the red ball and four or five close fielders. As I say every single Surrey coach over the course of the last six years knew it too but the selectors still persisted in picking him to open.
Good job Mr Magoo, never had a say in picking the ODI team we might not have won the world cup, Jason has played 84 times for England in one day cricket a lot of them with Bayliss as coach who never played for Surrey, I don't think there is any bias towards Surrey, Burns Foakes and Curran have done ok, none of the selectors played for Surrey
George Dobell has pointed out that Jason Roy has never batted for two whole sessions opening the batting in his entire first-class career.
I wonder whether it occurred to the selectors whether there was a reason for this. And why Alec Stewart was so forthright in his commendation of Roy's ability to do the job when clearly he had no evidence to back it up and has never trusted himself enough to do the job!
I hardly think you can blame stewart for backing his player. Would be poor management not to. A lot of the media were picking Roy to open as were plenty on here even if like me they didnt think it was the role he was suited to. Given that talk and Roy's selection to open in the Ireland test then what else could Alec say? Nah I don't think he's good enough and not got the technique? You have to back your own players.
And to be fair to him he did say all along something like "he'd be much better suited at 5/6/7 but I will still back him to do well anywhere, he has shown he has the big match temperament". Hardly calling for him to open.
Agreed Stewart could hardly say "there is a very good reason why Jason hasn't opened for us for six years" but, if he was being totally honest, he should have been a bit more forthright at the outset (and no doubt in his discussions with the selectors which he undoubtedly would have had) in saying that he should not be opening. Saying he was "better suited to the middle order" was a "get out of jail free card " for Roy if and when he failed at opening - so he could be given another opportunity in the middle order to the possible detriment of Denly who had already earned the right to stay at 4.
Notwithstanding all of that, what if Stewart does become England coach? Is the slate clean or might there just be a bit of bias albeit of the "unconscious" variety. We'll have to wait and see about that one but anyone who has been around as long as I have has seen how much influence the England coach and captain have - just look at some of the teams we've had littered with players from Surrey/Lancs/Yorks etc etc at various times, many of which should never have been anywhere near wearing an England shirt.
Sadly for someone like Sam Northeast he's never had that "leg up".
I agree to a certain extent. I think Stewie would have been saying something different in private to the selectors to what he said publicly to the media.
Sometimes its not about being at an attractive county but also having a face that fits and being part of the in crowd. Look at Burns. Always overlooked for the england youth teams despite weight of runs. Always overlooked for the lions. Despite 6 years of over 1000 championship runs doing well with the captaincy and all round being very impressive he didnt come into england selection conversations until very late. And that despite a dozen or so others had tried and failed to open. He only got a lions call up when the selectors realised he was the only option for the test side and had never played for the lions.
Foakes is a bit different as he was always highly thought of and played through england youth and the lions setup. But, not part of the in crowd so dropped despite being the best keeper in the country if not world and having a test batting average over 40 (higher than most batsmen in the side).
As far as I known, I don't think the England batting coach has any say in the selection of players for the team.
Jason Roy was picked because he played so well in the World cup, It was a gamble that never came off, but I think a lot of people in cricket wanted him to play, but I don't think Thorpe had any say in the selection
No "say" but will undoubtedly have "input". Selectors will always ask those who know the most about players.
But yes he was picked on the back of the World Cup success. But Mr Magoo could have seen that he plays too far in front of him and will always get found out against serious pace with the red ball and four or five close fielders. As I say every single Surrey coach over the course of the last six years knew it too but the selectors still persisted in picking him to open.
Good job Mr Magoo, never had a say in picking the ODI team we might not have won the world cup, Jason has played 84 times for England in one day cricket a lot of them with Bayliss as coach who never played for Surrey, I don't think there is any bias towards Surrey, Burns Foakes and Curran have done ok, none of the selectors played for Surrey
Yes but I've also heard that the teas at the Oval and Champagne is the best in the country!
George Dobell has pointed out that Jason Roy has never batted for two whole sessions opening the batting in his entire first-class career.
I wonder whether it occurred to the selectors whether there was a reason for this. And why Alec Stewart was so forthright in his commendation of Roy's ability to do the job when clearly he had no evidence to back it up and has never trusted himself enough to do the job!
I hardly think you can blame stewart for backing his player. Would be poor management not to. A lot of the media were picking Roy to open as were plenty on here even if like me they didnt think it was the role he was suited to. Given that talk and Roy's selection to open in the Ireland test then what else could Alec say? Nah I don't think he's good enough and not got the technique? You have to back your own players.
And to be fair to him he did say all along something like "he'd be much better suited at 5/6/7 but I will still back him to do well anywhere, he has shown he has the big match temperament". Hardly calling for him to open.
Agreed Stewart could hardly say "there is a very good reason why Jason hasn't opened for us for six years" but, if he was being totally honest, he should have been a bit more forthright at the outset (and no doubt in his discussions with the selectors which he undoubtedly would have had) in saying that he should not be opening. Saying he was "better suited to the middle order" was a "get out of jail free card " for Roy if and when he failed at opening - so he could be given another opportunity in the middle order to the possible detriment of Denly who had already earned the right to stay at 4.
Notwithstanding all of that, what if Stewart does become England coach? Is the slate clean or might there just be a bit of bias albeit of the "unconscious" variety. We'll have to wait and see about that one but anyone who has been around as long as I have has seen how much influence the England coach and captain have - just look at some of the teams we've had littered with players from Surrey/Lancs/Yorks etc etc at various times, many of which should never have been anywhere near wearing an England shirt.
Sadly for someone like Sam Northeast he's never had that "leg up".
Coincidentally I have just received a text from a "trusted source" that Stewart will be the next England coach albeit under a different title.
Please do not shoot the messenger - especially if he is wrong!
Not sure how I feel about this. Stewie is brilliant and I'd be disappointed to see him leave surrey.
I suspect he will have some kind of manager title rather than coach as he isn't coach at surrey. Although there have always been questions over who does what as he is incredibly hands on. With all the specialist coaches and the likes of Collingwood there as an assistant coach then I think the role is mich more management than coaching anyway.
Might mean the end of the Yorkshire clique and Bairstow finally having to bat where it's best for the team rather than where it's best for him. Will likely mean Foakes and Pope get a go (as they should whoever is coach) although Stewie may well be keen to avoid being seen as too surrey.
As far as I known, I don't think the England batting coach has any say in the selection of players for the team.
Jason Roy was picked because he played so well in the World cup, It was a gamble that never came off, but I think a lot of people in cricket wanted him to play, but I don't think Thorpe had any say in the selection
No "say" but will undoubtedly have "input". Selectors will always ask those who know the most about players.
But yes he was picked on the back of the World Cup success. But Mr Magoo could have seen that he plays too far in front of him and will always get found out against serious pace with the red ball and four or five close fielders. As I say every single Surrey coach over the course of the last six years knew it too but the selectors still persisted in picking him to open.
Good job Mr Magoo, never had a say in picking the ODI team we might not have won the world cup, Jason has played 84 times for England in one day cricket a lot of them with Bayliss as coach who never played for Surrey, I don't think there is any bias towards Surrey, Burns Foakes and Curran have done ok, none of the selectors played for Surrey
Yes but I've also heard that the teas at the Oval and Champagne is the best in the country!
As far as I known, I don't think the England batting coach has any say in the selection of players for the team.
Jason Roy was picked because he played so well in the World cup, It was a gamble that never came off, but I think a lot of people in cricket wanted him to play, but I don't think Thorpe had any say in the selection
No "say" but will undoubtedly have "input". Selectors will always ask those who know the most about players.
But yes he was picked on the back of the World Cup success. But Mr Magoo could have seen that he plays too far in front of him and will always get found out against serious pace with the red ball and four or five close fielders. As I say every single Surrey coach over the course of the last six years knew it too but the selectors still persisted in picking him to open.
Good job Mr Magoo, never had a say in picking the ODI team we might not have won the world cup, Jason has played 84 times for England in one day cricket a lot of them with Bayliss as coach who never played for Surrey, I don't think there is any bias towards Surrey, Burns Foakes and Curran have done ok, none of the selectors played for Surrey
Yes but I've also heard that the teas at the Oval and Champagne is the best in the country!
Better than Lords?
I wouldn't know. It's bacon butty and asti spumante for us Kent supporters
Interesting thoughts coming out about role of selector... is it an out dated role? Especially considering Ed Smith still has to report to Ashley Giles, seems like a convoluted and unnecessary role. Especially since no other sport has such a structure.
There’s no doubting Ed Smith is a highly intelligent man, and I was a big fan of his at Kent and was gutted when he left, but is it wise giving some one with no coaching experience and a not very successful international career such a big say in selection?
As for smith being a reason why denly has been selected, I always thought denly batted in a similar way to smith, as in, loves to play with a straight bat and when it clicks are/were wonderful players to watch.
Imagine being as good as Darren Stevens and not getting picked for england!
Seriously, interesting that Pope was batting at 4 today, as his problem has been that until this summer England were weak in the top 3, but had a really strong lower middle order where Pope wants to play. The following were all ahead of him Root Bairstow Buttler Stokes Curran Moeen Now things have changed, you can imagine a vacancy or 2
Imagine being as good as Darren Stevens and not getting picked for england!
Seriously, interesting that Pope was batting at 4 today, as his problem has been that until this summer England were weak in the top 3, but had a really strong lower middle order where Pope wants to play. The following were all ahead of him Root Bairstow Buttler Stokes Curran Moeen Now things have changed, you can imagine a vacancy or 2
Pope started batting 4 after his England call up last season and continued to do so this season before and after his bad shoulder dislocation injury. His good form has continued at 4.
However he should be picked for England at 5. That's the best way to do things and how they always were done. Let the new players (other than specialist openers and number 3's) start off at 5 or 6 and then gradually move up the order. We saw it with Bell, KP, Colly and even Trotty made his debut at 4 before moving up the order.
The lack of spinner would concern me, especially if Stokes can't bowl...
I do feel Denly has been underbowled in this series though. It would be interesting to see Australia batting on a day 5 pitch where his part time leggies would be more of a threat
The lack of spinner would concern me, especially if Stokes can't bowl...
I do feel Denly has been underbowled in this series though. It would be interesting to see Australia batting on a day 5 pitch where his part time leggies would be more of a threat
Have an overall “director of cricket” and then separate players, coaches and even selectors for red ball and white ball cricket.
It’s clear that we are not Australia and our players cannot be the best at one without dragging down the quality of the other.
The simplest and most drastic way to fix that is to treat these two teams as separate entities as much as possible.
Red ball form does not get you picked for the white ball team (Cook, Ballance...) and white ball form does not get you picked for the red ball team (Roy, Buttler, Bairstow...).
Have an overall “director of cricket” and then separate players, coaches and even selectors for red ball and white ball cricket.
It’s clear that we are not Australia and our players cannot be the best at one without dragging down the quality of the other.
The simplest and most drastic way to fix that is to treat these two teams as separate entities as much as possible.
Red ball form does not get you picked for the white ball team (Cook, Ballance...) and white ball form does not get you picked for the red ball team (Roy, Buttler, Bairstow...).
That should be the end of it.
Agreed. And only the world class players (Root Stokes Archer) and all rounders (Moeen, Woakes) should play both and when they do their workload should be very carefully managed.
The lack of spinner would concern me, especially if Stokes can't bowl...
I do feel Denly has been underbowled in this series though. It would be interesting to see Australia batting on a day 5 pitch where his part time leggies would be more of a threat
Leach?
Oops, for some reason I misread Leach as someone else
In that case it's Curran as 3rd seamer that concerns me if Stokes can't bowl. A 4th seamer really
Have an overall “director of cricket” and then separate players, coaches and even selectors for red ball and white ball cricket.
It’s clear that we are not Australia and our players cannot be the best at one without dragging down the quality of the other.
The simplest and most drastic way to fix that is to treat these two teams as separate entities as much as possible.
Red ball form does not get you picked for the white ball team (Cook, Ballance...) and white ball form does not get you picked for the red ball team (Roy, Buttler, Bairstow...).
That should be the end of it.
Agreed. And only the world class players (Root Stokes Archer) and all rounders (Moeen, Woakes) should play both and when they do their workload should be very carefully managed.
Have an overall “director of cricket” and then separate players, coaches and even selectors for red ball and white ball cricket.
It’s clear that we are not Australia and our players cannot be the best at one without dragging down the quality of the other.
The simplest and most drastic way to fix that is to treat these two teams as separate entities as much as possible.
Red ball form does not get you picked for the white ball team (Cook, Ballance...) and white ball form does not get you picked for the red ball team (Roy, Buttler, Bairstow...).
That should be the end of it.
Agreed. And only the world class players (Root Stokes Archer) and all rounders (Moeen, Woakes) should play both and when they do their workload should be very carefully managed.
I would include broad as world class
In terms of all formats? Whilst he is a legend and a world class test bowler, I wouldn't have him near the limited overs sides.
Feel sorry for Overton. Clearly a wholehearted cricketer and didn't let himself down in a poor team performance.
Yep showed a hell of a lot of guts and character. However has to be judged on his bowling first and foremost and in any world hes not in our best 3 bowlers.
Comments
Good job Mr Magoo, never had a say in picking the ODI team we might not have won the world cup, Jason has played 84 times for England in one day cricket a lot of them with Bayliss as coach who never played for Surrey, I don't think there is any bias towards Surrey, Burns Foakes and Curran have done ok, none of the selectors played for Surrey
Sometimes its not about being at an attractive county but also having a face that fits and being part of the in crowd. Look at Burns. Always overlooked for the england youth teams despite weight of runs. Always overlooked for the lions. Despite 6 years of over 1000 championship runs doing well with the captaincy and all round being very impressive he didnt come into england selection conversations until very late. And that despite a dozen or so others had tried and failed to open. He only got a lions call up when the selectors realised he was the only option for the test side and had never played for the lions.
Foakes is a bit different as he was always highly thought of and played through england youth and the lions setup. But, not part of the in crowd so dropped despite being the best keeper in the country if not world and having a test batting average over 40 (higher than most batsmen in the side).
I suspect he will have some kind of manager title rather than coach as he isn't coach at surrey. Although there have always been questions over who does what as he is incredibly hands on. With all the specialist coaches and the likes of Collingwood there as an assistant coach then I think the role is mich more management than coaching anyway.
Might mean the end of the Yorkshire clique and Bairstow finally having to bat where it's best for the team rather than where it's best for him. Will likely mean Foakes and Pope get a go (as they should whoever is coach) although Stewie may well be keen to avoid being seen as too surrey.
Better than Lords?
There’s no doubting Ed Smith is a highly intelligent man, and I was a big fan of his at Kent and was gutted when he left, but is it wise giving some one with no coaching experience and a not very successful international career such a big say in selection?
As for smith being a reason why denly has been selected, I always thought denly batted in a similar way to smith, as in, loves to play with a straight bat and when it clicks are/were wonderful players to watch.
Imagine being as good as Olliie Pope and not getting picked for england!
Root
Bairstow
Buttler
Stokes
Curran
Moeen
Now things have changed, you can imagine a vacancy or 2
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27571263/england-not-good-think-are
Not sure if this has been posted before. But a great analysis of England’s red ball problems.
However he should be picked for England at 5. That's the best way to do things and how they always were done. Let the new players (other than specialist openers and number 3's) start off at 5 or 6 and then gradually move up the order. We saw it with Bell, KP, Colly and even Trotty made his debut at 4 before moving up the order.
Burns
Root
Denly
Pope
Stokes
Bairstow
Curran
Archer
Leach
Broad
Is the team I'd have played at The Oval.
I do feel Denly has been underbowled in this series though. It would be interesting to see Australia batting on a day 5 pitch where his part time leggies would be more of a threat
Have an overall “director of cricket” and then separate players, coaches and even selectors for red ball and white ball cricket.
It’s clear that we are not Australia and our players cannot be the best at one without dragging down the quality of the other.
The simplest and most drastic way to fix that is to treat these two teams as separate entities as much as possible.
Red ball form does not get you picked for the white ball team (Cook, Ballance...) and white ball form does not get you picked for the red ball team (Roy, Buttler, Bairstow...).
That should be the end of it.
In that case it's Curran as 3rd seamer that concerns me if Stokes can't bowl. A 4th seamer really
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/49648578
Roy and Overton dropped.
Just announced.
Curran & Woakes in for Overton & Roy
If Stokes has an injury and can't bowl we need the extra all rounder, which meant that either Roy or Buttler would be dropped
And it's confirmed Stokes is playing as a batsman only.
He won't be bowling
Clearly a wholehearted cricketer and didn't let himself down in a poor team performance.