They won't drop Bairstow, he's far too precious for that. Add to the fact when he gets negative press he does tend to deliver as he did in the World Cup. Being a Surrey fan I am biased in that I would want Foakes and Curren in my England team but I don't know how you fit them in. Curren has been in great form in the CC in a poor Surrey side this year and proving again how valuable his runs are down the order as time and again our top order fails. There is a reason why he was player of the series last year v India.
Curren has played really well almost every time he has played for England, which is more than can be said for most. Saying that he isn't one of England's best 4 seamers. You can't keep picking him jist because the top order keep failing. The reason they are failing is because they are getting the selection wrong time and again. Wrong people, wrong order. The balance is totally wrong.
What eleven would you pick for next week?
On the assumption they are all fit and Stokes can't or won't be able to bowl the 4th seamers overs.
Burns or Denly Roy Root. Bairstow Stokes Foakes (w) Woakes Ali Archer. Broad Anderson
It's still not perfect, if Stokes could bowl as the 4th seamer I would leave out a seamer and pick a batsman.
Looking at that eleven, it seems what you're saying that England have been doing wrong is picking Jos Buttler.
Is there anything specific about the vice captain and England's third-ranked batsman that means he should be dropped?
They won't drop Bairstow, he's far too precious for that. Add to the fact when he gets negative press he does tend to deliver as he did in the World Cup. Being a Surrey fan I am biased in that I would want Foakes and Curren in my England team but I don't know how you fit them in. Curren has been in great form in the CC in a poor Surrey side this year and proving again how valuable his runs are down the order as time and again our top order fails. There is a reason why he was player of the series last year v India.
Curren has played really well almost every time he has played for England, which is more than can be said for most. Saying that he isn't one of England's best 4 seamers. You can't keep picking him jist because the top order keep failing. The reason they are failing is because they are getting the selection wrong time and again. Wrong people, wrong order. The balance is totally wrong.
What eleven would you pick for next week?
On the assumption they are all fit and Stokes can't or won't be able to bowl the 4th seamers overs.
Burns or Denly Roy Root. Bairstow Stokes Foakes (w) Woakes Ali Archer. Broad Anderson
It's still not perfect, if Stokes could bowl as the 4th seamer I would leave out a seamer and pick a batsman.
Looking at that eleven, it seems what you're saying that England have been doing wrong is picking Jos Buttler.
Is there anything specific about the vice captain and England's third-ranked batsman that means he should be dropped?
That's not true, nor can you have deffered that from the team I picked. I picked Foakes cos he he is a better keeper. If you pick both you have to leave out another batsman or a bowler. I would be happy with either, probably not both, unless Stokes is bowling, as per my presumption.
They won't drop Bairstow, he's far too precious for that. Add to the fact when he gets negative press he does tend to deliver as he did in the World Cup. Being a Surrey fan I am biased in that I would want Foakes and Curren in my England team but I don't know how you fit them in. Curren has been in great form in the CC in a poor Surrey side this year and proving again how valuable his runs are down the order as time and again our top order fails. There is a reason why he was player of the series last year v India.
Curren has played really well almost every time he has played for England, which is more than can be said for most. Saying that he isn't one of England's best 4 seamers. You can't keep picking him jist because the top order keep failing. The reason they are failing is because they are getting the selection wrong time and again. Wrong people, wrong order. The balance is totally wrong.
What eleven would you pick for next week?
On the assumption they are all fit and Stokes can't or won't be able to bowl the 4th seamers overs.
Burns or Denly Roy Root. Bairstow Stokes Foakes (w) Woakes Ali Archer. Broad Anderson
It's still not perfect, if Stokes could bowl as the 4th seamer I would leave out a seamer and pick a batsman.
Looking at that eleven, it seems what you're saying that England have been doing wrong is picking Jos Buttler.
Is there anything specific about the vice captain and England's third-ranked batsman that means he should be dropped?
That's not true, nor can you have deffered that from the team I picked. I picked Foakes cos he he is a better keeper. If you pick both you have to leave out another batsman or a bowler. I would be happy with either, probably not both, unless Stokes is bowling, as per my presumption.
OK. Let me get this right. You'd take the gloves from Bairstow and give them to Foakes, because you consider Foakes is a better keeper than Buttler? That's absolutely mad.
But who else would you drop if Stokes could be relied on to bowl?
I see no point in getting all wound up about this Test and display, there was always going to be a hangover from the WC win, and also we seem to do this type of thing on a semi-regular basis nowadays before getting on to do the real stuff.
Historically, over the last couple of décades, the 5th bowler has only had to bowl 8-10 overs at max in an innings, and most of the time the 5th bowler is not even needed. Therefore, i see absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers plus Ali and Stokes.
My 11 would be Sibley,Roy,Bairstow,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Ali,Foakes,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.
Heard a lot of good things about Sibley with his mental attitude, and his obvious ability to score some runs.
I see no point in getting all wound up about this Test and display, there was always going to be a hangover from the WC win, and also we seem to do this type of thing on a semi-regular basis nowadays before getting on to do the real stuff.
Historically, over the last couple of décades, the 5th bowler has only had to bowl 8-10 overs at max in an innings, and most of the time the 5th bowler is not even needed. Therefore, i see absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers plus Ali and Stokes.
My 11 would be Sibley,Roy,Bairstow,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Ali,Foakes,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.
Heard a lot of good things about Sibley with his mental attitude, and his obvious ability to score some runs.
Are you sure three wicket keepers will be enough though?
I see no point in getting all wound up about this Test and display, there was always going to be a hangover from the WC win, and also we seem to do this type of thing on a semi-regular basis nowadays before getting on to do the real stuff.
Historically, over the last couple of décades, the 5th bowler has only had to bowl 8-10 overs at max in an innings, and most of the time the 5th bowler is not even needed. Therefore, i see absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers plus Ali and Stokes.
My 11 would be Sibley,Roy,Bairstow,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Ali,Foakes,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.
Heard a lot of good things about Sibley with his mental attitude, and his obvious ability to score some runs.
Are you sure three wicket keepers will be enough though?
In the 70s it was a straight choice between Alan Knott and Bob Taylor. Both were excellent keepers but Knott was a Test 7 or 8 whereas Taylor was a 10 or 11 which is why Knott played more matches. This is not the case now.
There would actually be four in the side who can keep wicket - Buttler, Bairstow, Foakes and Burns but they are all batsmen who keep wicket. Foakes would get in the team because he is the best keeper in the country and the other three might do so because, in theory, they are the best of the batsmen available to us. Buttler is not a Test keeper, Burns certainly isn't and Bairstow just about is but still prone to basic errors and is clinging to the job because he doesn't want to be judged on the one discipline.
Surrey have had at times five batsmen who can keep wicket. But they weren't selected because of their keeping but because they could hold their own with the bat - or should Sangakarra have been forced to take the gloves or not play because you shouldn't have more than one keeper in the side? The same would apply to Davies, Wilson, Burns, Foakes. Pope etc etc.
I am just surprised that you haven't advocated Sarah Taylor doing the job - after all, she is in your opinion the best keeper in the world and the selectors could then get rid of Bairstow, Foakes and Buttler and concentrate on selecting non keeping batsmen!
I see no point in getting all wound up about this Test and display, there was always going to be a hangover from the WC win, and also we seem to do this type of thing on a semi-regular basis nowadays before getting on to do the real stuff.
Historically, over the last couple of décades, the 5th bowler has only had to bowl 8-10 overs at max in an innings, and most of the time the 5th bowler is not even needed. Therefore, i see absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers plus Ali and Stokes.
My 11 would be Sibley,Roy,Bairstow,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Ali,Foakes,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.
Heard a lot of good things about Sibley with his mental attitude, and his obvious ability to score some runs.
Are you sure three wicket keepers will be enough though?
In the 70s it was a straight choice between Alan Knott and Bob Taylor. Both were excellent keepers but Knott was a Test 7 or 8 whereas Taylor was a 10 or 11 which is why Knott played more matches. This is not the case now.
There would actually be four in the side who can keep wicket - Buttler, Bairstow, Foakes and Burns but they are all batsmen who keep wicket. Foakes would get in the team because he is the best keeper in the country and the other three might do so because, in theory, they are the best of the batsmen available to us. Buttler is not a Test keeper, Burns certainly isn't and Bairstow just about is but still prone to basic errors and is clinging to the job because he doesn't want to be judged on the one discipline.
Surrey have had at times five batsmen who can keep wicket. But they weren't selected because of their keeping but because they could hold their own with the bat - or should Sangakarra have been forced to take the gloves or not play because you shouldn't have more than one keeper in the side? The same would apply to Davies, Wilson, Burns, Foakes. Pope etc etc.
I am just surprised that you haven't advocated Sarah Taylor doing the job - after all, she is in your opinion the best keeper in the world and the selectors could then get rid of Bairstow, Foakes and Buttler and concentrate on selecting non keeping batsmen!
She is. But being the best wicket keeper isn't sufficient to get selected.
I would argue that a proper batsman is currently needed far more than Foakes.
I see no point in getting all wound up about this Test and display, there was always going to be a hangover from the WC win, and also we seem to do this type of thing on a semi-regular basis nowadays before getting on to do the real stuff.
Historically, over the last couple of décades, the 5th bowler has only had to bowl 8-10 overs at max in an innings, and most of the time the 5th bowler is not even needed. Therefore, i see absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers plus Ali and Stokes.
My 11 would be Sibley,Roy,Bairstow,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Ali,Foakes,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.
Heard a lot of good things about Sibley with his mental attitude, and his obvious ability to score some runs.
Are you sure three wicket keepers will be enough though?
In the 70s it was a straight choice between Alan Knott and Bob Taylor. Both were excellent keepers but Knott was a Test 7 or 8 whereas Taylor was a 10 or 11 which is why Knott played more matches. This is not the case now.
There would actually be four in the side who can keep wicket - Buttler, Bairstow, Foakes and Burns but they are all batsmen who keep wicket. Foakes would get in the team because he is the best keeper in the country and the other three might do so because, in theory, they are the best of the batsmen available to us. Buttler is not a Test keeper, Burns certainly isn't and Bairstow just about is but still prone to basic errors and is clinging to the job because he doesn't want to be judged on the one discipline.
Surrey have had at times five batsmen who can keep wicket. But they weren't selected because of their keeping but because they could hold their own with the bat - or should Sangakarra have been forced to take the gloves or not play because you shouldn't have more than one keeper in the side? The same would apply to Davies, Wilson, Burns, Foakes. Pope etc etc.
I am just surprised that you haven't advocated Sarah Taylor doing the job - after all, she is in your opinion the best keeper in the world and the selectors could then get rid of Bairstow, Foakes and Buttler and concentrate on selecting non keeping batsmen!
She is. But being the best wicket keeper isn't sufficient to get selected.
I would argue that a proper batsman is currently need far more than Foakes.
But isn't that because England insist of picking 3, instead of 2, unproven test class batsman above Root. The biggest problem is Root not batting at 3 and Bairstow not having the grapefruits to be judged as purley a batsman, even though he is England's second best one. Who keeps wicket and who bat's at 6/7 are relatively minor details with the options avaliable.
So what is likely from here? Ireland need to get one wicket and then score 182 (plus whatever England manage before the last wicket is taken)? Is that much correct? Bookies seem to favour England heavily but ~200 doesn't seem that difficult given what was achieved on day one. Is there something I'm missing here, I know very little about cricket at all but its always nice to see an Irish team beat England!
I see no point in getting all wound up about this Test and display, there was always going to be a hangover from the WC win, and also we seem to do this type of thing on a semi-regular basis nowadays before getting on to do the real stuff.
Historically, over the last couple of décades, the 5th bowler has only had to bowl 8-10 overs at max in an innings, and most of the time the 5th bowler is not even needed. Therefore, i see absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers plus Ali and Stokes.
My 11 would be Sibley,Roy,Bairstow,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Ali,Foakes,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.
Heard a lot of good things about Sibley with his mental attitude, and his obvious ability to score some runs.
Are you sure three wicket keepers will be enough though?
In the 70s it was a straight choice between Alan Knott and Bob Taylor. Both were excellent keepers but Knott was a Test 7 or 8 whereas Taylor was a 10 or 11 which is why Knott played more matches. This is not the case now.
There would actually be four in the side who can keep wicket - Buttler, Bairstow, Foakes and Burns but they are all batsmen who keep wicket. Foakes would get in the team because he is the best keeper in the country and the other three might do so because, in theory, they are the best of the batsmen available to us. Buttler is not a Test keeper, Burns certainly isn't and Bairstow just about is but still prone to basic errors and is clinging to the job because he doesn't want to be judged on the one discipline.
Surrey have had at times five batsmen who can keep wicket. But they weren't selected because of their keeping but because they could hold their own with the bat - or should Sangakarra have been forced to take the gloves or not play because you shouldn't have more than one keeper in the side? The same would apply to Davies, Wilson, Burns, Foakes. Pope etc etc.
I am just surprised that you haven't advocated Sarah Taylor doing the job - after all, she is in your opinion the best keeper in the world and the selectors could then get rid of Bairstow, Foakes and Buttler and concentrate on selecting non keeping batsmen!
She is. But being the best wicket keeper isn't sufficient to get selected.
I would argue that a proper batsman is currently need far more than Foakes.
Just to be clear - what is your definition of a "proper" batsman? Foakes has a first class average of 39 and an even better Test average of 41.5. Those averages are better than any number of players that have been selected as an England batsman.
One of them, for example, is Jason Roy who has an inferior first class average to Foakes and bats in the middle order too for Surrey so the comparison is a very real one.
I see no point in getting all wound up about this Test and display, there was always going to be a hangover from the WC win, and also we seem to do this type of thing on a semi-regular basis nowadays before getting on to do the real stuff.
Historically, over the last couple of décades, the 5th bowler has only had to bowl 8-10 overs at max in an innings, and most of the time the 5th bowler is not even needed. Therefore, i see absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers plus Ali and Stokes.
My 11 would be Sibley,Roy,Bairstow,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Ali,Foakes,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.
Heard a lot of good things about Sibley with his mental attitude, and his obvious ability to score some runs.
Are you sure three wicket keepers will be enough though?
In the 70s it was a straight choice between Alan Knott and Bob Taylor. Both were excellent keepers but Knott was a Test 7 or 8 whereas Taylor was a 10 or 11 which is why Knott played more matches. This is not the case now.
There would actually be four in the side who can keep wicket - Buttler, Bairstow, Foakes and Burns but they are all batsmen who keep wicket. Foakes would get in the team because he is the best keeper in the country and the other three might do so because, in theory, they are the best of the batsmen available to us. Buttler is not a Test keeper, Burns certainly isn't and Bairstow just about is but still prone to basic errors and is clinging to the job because he doesn't want to be judged on the one discipline.
Surrey have had at times five batsmen who can keep wicket. But they weren't selected because of their keeping but because they could hold their own with the bat - or should Sangakarra have been forced to take the gloves or not play because you shouldn't have more than one keeper in the side? The same would apply to Davies, Wilson, Burns, Foakes. Pope etc etc.
I am just surprised that you haven't advocated Sarah Taylor doing the job - after all, she is in your opinion the best keeper in the world and the selectors could then get rid of Bairstow, Foakes and Buttler and concentrate on selecting non keeping batsmen!
She is. But being the best wicket keeper isn't sufficient to get selected.
I would argue that a proper batsman is currently need far more than Foakes.
But isn't that because England insist of picking 3, instead of 2, unproven test class batsman above Root. The biggest problem is Root not batting at 3 and Bairstow not having the grapefruits to be judged as purley a batsman, even though he is England's second best one. Who keeps wicket and who bat's at 6/7 are relatively minor details with the options avaliable.
We've got two, Test-class wicket keepers who also happen to be our second- and third-best batsmen. They should both play, either if them can keep. (I'd go with Buttler).
Our best batsman is also our captain, and for that reason, should be allowed (in fact, encouraged) to choose his own batting position.
If Stokes bats in the top six, that means we need to sort out the first three batsman and, whatever claims Foakes might have, can be ignored.
There are few good reasons to edit the top three from the current Test. (No-one has a strong claim to be included). But I'd consider swapping Denly and Roy.
That leaves places for four bowlers. So Moeen or Leech, plus three out of Anderson, Broad, Archer, Woakes and Curran (S). Probably the first three of those.
So, my XI would be
Burns Denly Roy Root (c) Bairstow Stokes Buttler (w, vc) Moeen Archer Broad Anderson
I don't think Australia will relish facing that team. Especially as it hasn't had to be weakened to incorporate yet another wicket keeper.
Hope not. Want to Ireland to win this. I think a) it will be good for the Irish team b) be good for the sport generally c) give England a kick up the arse before the ashes and most importantly d) be really funny
From a totally selfish perspective I'd be happy for the morning session to be washed out and play restart after lunch.
That'll allow me to finish watching the Collingwood v Richmond footy match taking place right now (mid-way through Q2 at the moment) and then I can concentrate on the cricket this afternoon.
Hope not. Want to Ireland to win this. I think a) it will be good for the Irish team b) be good for the sport generally c) give England a kick up the arse before the ashes and most importantly d) be really funny
I never want England to lose.
The performance so far has been good for the Ireland team. They can win their first Test against someone else.
I hope that the shambolic first innings and elements of the second (Bairstow, Root - I'm looking at you) will be enough of an embarrassment and a kick up the arse ahead of the Ashes.
If Burns Roy and Denly occupy the top three batting places in the Ashes I fear the worse.
Who would you pick?
There lies the problem Chizz. Everyone who has been tried over the last couple of years has failed. Personally I would try and persuade Root to bat at three and drop Roy to four. Not ideal I know.
Comments
Is there anything specific about the vice captain and England's third-ranked batsman that means he should be dropped?
But who else would you drop if Stokes could be relied on to bowl?
I see no point in getting all wound up about this Test and display, there was always going to be a hangover from the WC win, and also we seem to do this type of thing on a semi-regular basis nowadays before getting on to do the real stuff.
Historically, over the last couple of décades, the 5th bowler has only had to bowl 8-10 overs at max in an innings, and most of the time the 5th bowler is not even needed. Therefore, i see absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers plus Ali and Stokes.
My 11 would be Sibley,Roy,Bairstow,Root,Stokes,Buttler,Ali,Foakes,Woakes,Archer,Jimmy.
Heard a lot of good things about Sibley with his mental attitude, and his obvious ability to score some runs.
There would actually be four in the side who can keep wicket - Buttler, Bairstow, Foakes and Burns but they are all batsmen who keep wicket. Foakes would get in the team because he is the best keeper in the country and the other three might do so because, in theory, they are the best of the batsmen available to us. Buttler is not a Test keeper, Burns certainly isn't and Bairstow just about is but still prone to basic errors and is clinging to the job because he doesn't want to be judged on the one discipline.
Surrey have had at times five batsmen who can keep wicket. But they weren't selected because of their keeping but because they could hold their own with the bat - or should Sangakarra have been forced to take the gloves or not play because you shouldn't have more than one keeper in the side? The same would apply to Davies, Wilson, Burns, Foakes. Pope etc etc.
I am just surprised that you haven't advocated Sarah Taylor doing the job - after all, she is in your opinion the best keeper in the world and the selectors could then get rid of Bairstow, Foakes and Buttler and concentrate on selecting non keeping batsmen!
I would argue that a proper batsman is currently needed far more than Foakes.
One of them, for example, is Jason Roy who has an inferior first class average to Foakes and bats in the middle order too for Surrey so the comparison is a very real one.
Our best batsman is also our captain, and for that reason, should be allowed (in fact, encouraged) to choose his own batting position.
If Stokes bats in the top six, that means we need to sort out the first three batsman and, whatever claims Foakes might have, can be ignored.
There are few good reasons to edit the top three from the current Test. (No-one has a strong claim to be included). But I'd consider swapping Denly and Roy.
That leaves places for four bowlers. So Moeen or Leech, plus three out of Anderson, Broad, Archer, Woakes and Curran (S). Probably the first three of those.
So, my XI would be
Burns
Denly
Roy
Root (c)
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler (w, vc)
Moeen
Archer
Broad
Anderson
I don't think Australia will relish facing that team. Especially as it hasn't had to be weakened to incorporate yet another wicket keeper.
That'll allow me to finish watching the Collingwood v Richmond footy match taking place right now (mid-way through Q2 at the moment) and then I can concentrate on the cricket this afternoon.
The performance so far has been good for the Ireland team. They can win their first Test against someone else.
I hope that the shambolic first innings and elements of the second (Bairstow, Root - I'm looking at you) will be enough of an embarrassment and a kick up the arse ahead of the Ashes.
Everyone who has been tried over the last couple of years has failed.
Personally I would try and persuade Root to bat at three and drop Roy to four.
Not ideal I know.