I do wonder who could be next off the production line in terms of actual openers. A lot of the leading runs scorers in Div 1 last season were either overseas or players that have been and gone in terms of an international career.
There's not a lot of obvious names in county scene , not that scoring bulk runs at championship level seems to bother Key or Baz. Someone like Tom Haines has had an average last 12-18 months and probably isn't on the list anymore and the Lions squad in SA doesn't offer any real clues either.
It's not just the average, it's the speed and aggressiveness that is important to the Bazball ethos. An Alastair Cook type accumulator isn't what they are after.
Indeed you feel that they'd rather a Crawley type, averaging 30ish, rather than a slow accumulator, averaging 40.
I’d rather a Boycott than a Crawley as one opener, as long as you don’t have a Tavaré coming in at No. 3 and the innings grinding to a halt.
Worse then W Indies (Kanhai, Sobers, etc.) being bowled out by Ireland for 26?
Relative to their respective standings in the game, that Windies innings was definitely worse. They were, actually, 25 all out and although they had rested the likes of Kanhai and Sobers, they still had legends of the game such as Clive Lloyd and Clyde Walcott in their side as well as Kent's very own John Shepherd. This was the late 1960s and there was no Associate structure.
Nigeria are currently ranked 5/18 in the African Region of World rankings (behind Namibia, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania) whereas the Ivory Coast were only granted Associate Membership in 2022 and have no ranking as yet. Ivory Coast's scores this year have been 26, 41, 31, 7 & 21 which rather says it all in terms of their ability.
Chizz choose to be somewhat pedantic in saying 26 is a better score than 7. But, then, that's really missing the point of you asking the question. Perhaps their comment was an attempt at being humourous or perhaps they even mistook who posed your question.
Possibly, even I thought you’d written that, not me.
This is interesting, I expected it to be a clean sweep of IPL team owners. Not that private investment is going to make me in any interested in The Hundred.
I can't recall the last time England left it until the day of the Test to announce the side. To some extent this is a "dead rubber" so they might elect to change things for that reason or are the injuries sustained by Stokes and/or Brook likely to keep them out?
For New Zealand, Conway has left for the birth of his child and will be replaced by Young.
I can't recall the last time England left it until the day of the Test to announce the side. To some extent this is a "dead rubber" so they might elect to change things for that reason or are the injuries sustained by Stokes and/or Brook likely to keep them out?
For New Zealand, Conway has left for the birth of his child and will be replaced by Young.
Conway's parental absence was quite convenient for the selectors, who couldn't leave Young out again.
It's still a day and a half to go, so England could announce their team Friday morning NZ time, a day ahead of the start of the match. With the pace of both matches, resting bowlers won't be necessary, though the issues with Stokes do complicate things. If he can't bowl, then England might have to drop a batsman and pick an extra bowler if they want 5 bowlers, but who? Or drop Bashir, and use Root and Bethell as the spin options.
I can't recall the last time England left it until the day of the Test to announce the side. To some extent this is a "dead rubber" so they might elect to change things for that reason or are the injuries sustained by Stokes and/or Brook likely to keep them out?
For New Zealand, Conway has left for the birth of his child and will be replaced by Young.
Conway's parental absence was quite convenient for the selectors, who couldn't leave Young out again.
It's still a day and a half to go, so England could announce their team Friday morning NZ time, a day ahead of the start of the match. With the pace of both matches, resting bowlers won't be necessary, though the issues with Stokes do complicate things. If he can't bowl, then England might have to drop a batsman and pick an extra bowler if they want 5 bowlers, but who? Or drop Bashir, and use Root and Bethell as the spin options.
If Stokes can't bowl then playing Bashir would have to be purely to give him experience because dropping a batsman would be extremely harsh unless they elect to mover Bethell to opening. Bashir has 6-244 and his ER of 4.78 proves that he hasn't been able to do the holding role though NZ using Phillips as a front line spinner (1-142 and ER of 4.89) has been even less of a success on these wickets. The fact that only 5 of the 68 wickets have been taken by spinners says it all.
Other than the curious 4-69 in the first innings of the 1st test, Bashir has had little impact and been expensive in conditions that haven't suited him. 0-65 at 5.41 in the 2nd innings and 2-110 at 5.78 an over in the 2nd innings of the 2nd Test.
Given the choice of dropping a batsman or only playing 3 seamers, he does look expendable. And with the way Bethell has been way better than his 1st class batting stats would predict, who knows how well he might bowl!
I do wonder if Bashir is earmarked as the main spinner for next summer , how many overs is he going to manage to bowl before the Zimbabwe test? Feels like he's going to be completely under prepared if he's not in Somersets plans.
I think they want him to get experience of bowling down under, even if it’s not the same country. I heard someone suggest part of the problem with Bashir is he bowls a bad ball, over corrects and then bowls the right ball which made a lot of sense to me. It often leads to a couple of really bad balls in a row which looks awful but how does he fix that without playing more? He won’t play much in county cricket because spinning wickets don’t really exist here anymore (for reason we’ve covered many times) so really the only option is to play him in tests
Rotation of our seam/pace bowlers will be paramount in 2025 or else the new guys in Atkinson, Carse and Potts will emulate the injury prone Wood, Archer and Stone.
After the legends retired, Anderson and Broad, plus Ollie Robinson (non legend !) had difficulty with general fitness and attitude, then this could've been a period where we were bereft of new talent in fast bowling.
Potts for Woakes the only change. Wouldn’t bet against this being our bowling line up for at least one Ashes test next winter
Agree that we have a stability in the fast bowling department but so much can change between now and then especially as fast bowlers are so prone to injury. Equally, one of Archer and/or Wood might play in each of those Tests. Both have two year central contracts after all and if fit both will be on that plane. That said, for the first time in ages we now have half a dozen bowlers with pace. Whether that alone in Aussie conditions will be enough remains to be seen.
For the rest of the side there are still question marks about Bashir who will have to have a decent summer to retain his place and Crawley can't carry on the way he has been in his last three series and still be selected. Moreover, will Pope get his chance back at 3 and be a success there or will Bethell permanently usurp him? As both Steve James (The Times) and Ben Gardner (Wisden) have indicated in the last week, this regime tends to pick the best seven batters and then sort the order out. Crawley isn't in that seven currently and when Smith returns he might find that Bethell has been elevated to open. Of course, all that changes if Crawley scores a double ton in this match.
I feel really sorry for Robinson as he might never get another chance. Hopefully, he will go as number two keeper to Australia but this regime might stick to one (and Pope) and equally Cox (who would have been playing instead of Bethell) might still be ahead of him despite his poor show against pace in white ball. Then there is the likes of Rew floating in the background. Another friend of mine, Gavin Hamilton, got to play once for England and bagged a pair with Allan Donald getting him out both times in South Africa. But at least Gavin got to wear the shirt in anger. Ollie's friends and family flew out there in the hope that he would be playing and if it weren't for Bethell immediately showing what a precocious talent he is in that First Test, Ollie would have got his chance. Such is the fickle fate of international cricket. One man's gain and all that but, hopefully, Ollie will have thoroughly enjoyed the experience of being part of the England set up anyway and his relatives the trip too.
The likes of Stone, Rehan and Leach have all sat around for the duration. Whatever people think, for some, that isn't good for the soul or mind albeit this was a short tour. One can understand why those not centrally contracted, such as Dawson, would rather be playing for more money and elevating their position in world white ball cricket than watching from the stands. They can watch at their leisure, after all, when they retire. Which is probably why we have a nigh on "catch all" of almost 30 centrally contracted now including Bairstow who might consider himself fortunate should be end up being paid for 16 months for doing nothing and not even have to tour either as a non playing member of the squad. Money for old rope as they say.
Zak Crawley: His attacking game remains ideal for combating Australia’s pace-heavy attack and making the most of fast, bouncy pitches.
Ben Duckett: A left-hander who complements Crawley well, Duckett’s low-risk, compact style against the new ball is a valuable counter to Australia’s bowlers.
No. 3: Josh Bethell
Bethell, a talented left-hander, brings fresh energy to the squad. His adaptability and skill against pace make him a promising option at No. 3. The left-hand-right-hand combination with Duckett ensures a steady challenge for Australia’s attack.
No. 4: Joe Root
Root continues to anchor the lineup at No. 4, bringing unmatched experience and class. His ability to maneuver the ball in all conditions is crucial in blunting Nathan Lyon or Australia’s fast bowlers when they hit their stride.
No. 5: Harry Brook
Brook remains a key batter at No. 5, where his ability to attack spin and accelerate the scoring is vital. His natural counter-attacking instincts provide momentum shifts when needed.
No. 6: Ben Stokes (C)
Stokes, the team’s leader, plays at No. 6 to adjust between attack and consolidation. His ability to marshal the lower order, combined with his leadership and flair, makes him indispensable.
No. 7: Jamie Smith (WK)
Smith is a natural wicketkeeper-batter who provides excellent balance. As a reliable gloveman and a skilled batter, he ensures strength at No. 7. Smith’s ability to play under pressure and rotate the strike adds depth to England’s batting lineup.
Bowlers: Woakes, Wood, Atkinson, Bashir
Chris Woakes: His batting adds depth, while his ability to extract swing and maintain control with the ball is valuable on Australian pitches.
Mark Wood: Wood’s pace remains a key weapon against Australia’s batters. His knack for taking wickets in bursts is critical for breaking partnerships.
Gus Atkinson: Atkinson’s pace and accuracy bolster England’s bowling attack. His emerging skills as a fast-medium bowler offer a fresh challenge for Australia, particularly on bouncy surfaces.
Bashir: As an off-spinner, Bashir provides variety to the attack. His ability to exploit bounce and bowl accurately makes him a useful weapon, especially to counter Australia’s left-handers.
Batting Order Explanation
Top 3: Crawley and Duckett provide an aggressive yet controlled opening, followed by Bethell to stabilize or counter-attack.
Middle Order: Root anchors at No. 4, Brook at No. 5 adds aggression, and Stokes at No. 6 provides flexibility.
Lower Order: Smith at No. 7 anchors the tail, followed by Woakes and the pace-spin trio who can chip in with valuable runs.
Smith’s inclusion prioritises consistency behind the stumps, while his batting ability ensures the depth of England’s lineup. Though less explosive than Bairstow, Smith’s calmness and reliability make him a smart pick for this pivotal role.
(That's ChatGPT's selection. Interesting reasons for each selection. Pity ChatGPT doesn't know Jacob Bethel's first name).
If England were looking to replace Crawley at the top of the order and wanted someone similarly aggressive in their approach, why is Phil Salt never mentioned?
If England were looking to replace Crawley at the top of the order and wanted someone similarly aggressive in their approach, why is Phil Salt never mentioned?
They are much and the same in that respect except Salt hasn't had 52 matches and 95 innings to prove himself at Test level. The other issue is that Salt, despite having a better FC average, didn't play a single CC match last season due to his white ball commitments.
If England were looking to replace Crawley at the top of the order and wanted someone similarly aggressive in their approach, why is Phil Salt never mentioned?
This might explain a small part of the thinking of Stokes and McCullum. There's certainly something to be said for the habit of winning.
Most Test wins as an opener this year
BM Duckett (ENG) 8 YBK Jaiswal (IND) 8
Z Crawley (ENG) 7
RG Sharma (IND) 7
FDM Karunaratne (SL) 6
DP Conway (NZ) 5
T de Zorzi (SA) 5
UT Khawaja (AUS) 5
TWM Latham (NZ) 5
AK Markram (SA) 5
KNM Fernando (SL) 3
P Nissanka (SL) 3
Shadman Islam (BAN) 3
SPD Smith (AUS) 3
Abdullah Shafique (PAK) 2
A Balbirnie (IRE) 2
KC Brathwaite (WI) 2
DW Lawrence (ENG) 2
PJ Moor (IRE) 2
Saim Ayub (PAK) 2
Zakir Hasan (BAN) 2
T Chanderpaul (WI) 1
M Louis (WI) 1
Mahmudul Hasan Joy (BAN) 1
NA McSweeney (AUS) 1
OJ Pope (ENG) 1
KL Rahul (IND) 1
BA Stokes (ENG) 1
DA Warner (AUS) 1
Looking at that list, it's easy to conclude that England's and India's selectors are making better decisions on opening batsmen than those of many other countries.
This might explain a small part of the thinking of Stokes and McCullum. There's certainly something to be said for the habit of winning.
Most Test wins as an opener this year
BM Duckett (ENG) 8 YBK Jaiswal (IND) 8
Z Crawley (ENG) 7
RG Sharma (IND) 7
FDM Karunaratne (SL) 6
DP Conway (NZ) 5
T de Zorzi (SA) 5
UT Khawaja (AUS) 5
TWM Latham (NZ) 5
AK Markram (SA) 5
KNM Fernando (SL) 3
P Nissanka (SL) 3
Shadman Islam (BAN) 3
SPD Smith (AUS) 3
Abdullah Shafique (PAK) 2
A Balbirnie (IRE) 2
KC Brathwaite (WI) 2
DW Lawrence (ENG) 2
PJ Moor (IRE) 2
Saim Ayub (PAK) 2
Zakir Hasan (BAN) 2
T Chanderpaul (WI) 1
M Louis (WI) 1
Mahmudul Hasan Joy (BAN) 1
NA McSweeney (AUS) 1
OJ Pope (ENG) 1
KL Rahul (IND) 1
BA Stokes (ENG) 1
DA Warner (AUS) 1
Looking at that list, it's easy to conclude that England's and India's selectors are making better decisions on opening batsmen than those of many other countries.
It would be easy to conclude that but only if you took those stats in isolation and failed to consider how many Test matches each of those countries played.
England have played the most Tests (16) this year, won 9 (56%) and lost 7 (44%). That's hardly a winning habit over the course of the year or a measure that Stokes and McCullum have been picking the right openers. Equally, Australia have only played 7 Tests, won 5 (71%) and lost 2 (29%) so it would have been impossible for Khawaja to overhaul England's openers even if Australia had won all their matches.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh!
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cre77xz485lo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKN4vVm7Ffs
Actually, 25. Always thought it was 26.
This is interesting, I expected it to be a clean sweep of IPL team owners. Not that private investment is going to make me in any interested in The Hundred.
For New Zealand, Conway has left for the birth of his child and will be replaced by Young.
It's still a day and a half to go, so England could announce their team Friday morning NZ time, a day ahead of the start of the match. With the pace of both matches, resting bowlers won't be necessary, though the issues with Stokes do complicate things. If he can't bowl, then England might have to drop a batsman and pick an extra bowler if they want 5 bowlers, but who? Or drop Bashir, and use Root and Bethell as the spin options.
Given the choice of dropping a batsman or only playing 3 seamers, he does look expendable. And with the way Bethell has been way better than his 1st class batting stats would predict, who knows how well he might bowl!
Rotation of our seam/pace bowlers will be paramount in 2025 or else the new guys in Atkinson, Carse and Potts will emulate the injury prone Wood, Archer and Stone.
After the legends retired, Anderson and Broad, plus Ollie Robinson (non legend !) had difficulty with general fitness and attitude, then this could've been a period where we were bereft of new talent in fast bowling.
For the rest of the side there are still question marks about Bashir who will have to have a decent summer to retain his place and Crawley can't carry on the way he has been in his last three series and still be selected. Moreover, will Pope get his chance back at 3 and be a success there or will Bethell permanently usurp him? As both Steve James (The Times) and Ben Gardner (Wisden) have indicated in the last week, this regime tends to pick the best seven batters and then sort the order out. Crawley isn't in that seven currently and when Smith returns he might find that Bethell has been elevated to open. Of course, all that changes if Crawley scores a double ton in this match.
I feel really sorry for Robinson as he might never get another chance. Hopefully, he will go as number two keeper to Australia but this regime might stick to one (and Pope) and equally Cox (who would have been playing instead of Bethell) might still be ahead of him despite his poor show against pace in white ball. Then there is the likes of Rew floating in the background. Another friend of mine, Gavin Hamilton, got to play once for England and bagged a pair with Allan Donald getting him out both times in South Africa. But at least Gavin got to wear the shirt in anger. Ollie's friends and family flew out there in the hope that he would be playing and if it weren't for Bethell immediately showing what a precocious talent he is in that First Test, Ollie would have got his chance. Such is the fickle fate of international cricket. One man's gain and all that but, hopefully, Ollie will have thoroughly enjoyed the experience of being part of the England set up anyway and his relatives the trip too.
The likes of Stone, Rehan and Leach have all sat around for the duration. Whatever people think, for some, that isn't good for the soul or mind albeit this was a short tour. One can understand why those not centrally contracted, such as Dawson, would rather be playing for more money and elevating their position in world white ball cricket than watching from the stands. They can watch at their leisure, after all, when they retire. Which is probably why we have a nigh on "catch all" of almost 30 centrally contracted now including Bairstow who might consider himself fortunate should be end up being paid for 16 months for doing nothing and not even have to tour either as a non playing member of the squad. Money for old rope as they say.
England XI for First Ashes Test
Reasoning Behind Each Selection
Openers: Zak Crawley and Ben Duckett
No. 3: Josh Bethell
Bethell, a talented left-hander, brings fresh energy to the squad. His adaptability and skill against pace make him a promising option at No. 3. The left-hand-right-hand combination with Duckett ensures a steady challenge for Australia’s attack.
No. 4: Joe Root
Root continues to anchor the lineup at No. 4, bringing unmatched experience and class. His ability to maneuver the ball in all conditions is crucial in blunting Nathan Lyon or Australia’s fast bowlers when they hit their stride.
No. 5: Harry Brook
Brook remains a key batter at No. 5, where his ability to attack spin and accelerate the scoring is vital. His natural counter-attacking instincts provide momentum shifts when needed.
No. 6: Ben Stokes (C)
Stokes, the team’s leader, plays at No. 6 to adjust between attack and consolidation. His ability to marshal the lower order, combined with his leadership and flair, makes him indispensable.
No. 7: Jamie Smith (WK)
Smith is a natural wicketkeeper-batter who provides excellent balance. As a reliable gloveman and a skilled batter, he ensures strength at No. 7. Smith’s ability to play under pressure and rotate the strike adds depth to England’s batting lineup.
Bowlers: Woakes, Wood, Atkinson, Bashir
Batting Order Explanation
Smith’s inclusion prioritises consistency behind the stumps, while his batting ability ensures the depth of England’s lineup. Though less explosive than Bairstow, Smith’s calmness and reliability make him a smart pick for this pivotal role.
(That's ChatGPT's selection. Interesting reasons for each selection. Pity ChatGPT doesn't know Jacob Bethel's first name).
Most Test wins as an opener this year
YBK Jaiswal (IND) 8
Looking at that list, it's easy to conclude that England's and India's selectors are making better decisions on opening batsmen than those of many other countries.
Cant be that easy for the bowlers to adjust all of the time.
- Crawley & Duckett: 14 (out of 43 = 32.5%)
- Warner & Khawaja: 12 (out of 40 = 30%)
- Conway & Latham: 9 (out of 38 = 23.7%)
- Jaiswal & Rohit: 8 (out of 26 = 30.8%)
England have played the most Tests (16) this year, won 9 (56%) and lost 7 (44%). That's hardly a winning habit over the course of the year or a measure that Stokes and McCullum have been picking the right openers. Equally, Australia have only played 7 Tests, won 5 (71%) and lost 2 (29%) so it would have been impossible for Khawaja to overhaul England's openers even if Australia had won all their matches.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh!