England Team for the Third Test

I would only make two changes, Samit Patel out for Ian Bell, who I assume is available for the third Test. Patel's in for his batting, so I feel we should get a proper Test batsman in. I know Bell doesn't play well in the subcontinent, but a good score has to be around the corner. Secondly, Finn in for Broad if he's fit which would give our pace attack that extra edge and pace. Leaving us with this team:

1) Cook
2) Compton
3) Trott
4) Pietersen
5) Bell
6) Bairstow
7) Prior
8) Swann
9) Anderson
10) Panesar
11) Finn

Longer tail, but the top 7 should be able to muster enough runs between them.

Reasonable. Not sure a Bell return is automatic ? Anyway will need to see the pitch ...if it turns out like the first Test one an extra bowler might well be required.

They have time to think about it ...

Patel is only in the team because of his bowling option. If we select two spinners there is no need for that option (Especially as the two Saffas offer part-time bowling options). So Bell in for Patel would make sense.

Broad has to be dropped rotated. There are however serious doubts about finns fitness. even if he is fit, would you want to risk him as one of two seamers (admittedly on a pitch such as that used for 2nd test it would not be an issue.

thus asssuming finn is fully fit I would make the same changes as the OP Bell and Finn in, Patel and Broad out.

However I expect the only change england will make will be Bell in for Bairstow.

Cook
Compton
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Morgan
Prior
Swann
Anderson
Finn
Paneser

Patel has struggled, Bairstow looked uncomfortable and Morgan can play spin, he's showed it in ODI's. Bell has to come back. A very good player, who will score sooner or later.
We also need pace, that's why I would bring in Finn for Broad, who looks well below his best.
The tail is long, I grant you but if like this match, two or three of our batsmen can score runs, then a 20 from Bresnan isn't going to matter much.

Not saying you're wrong , Stella - there is often more than one combination which will serve the team's purpose - but England have just achieved a pretty impressive win in alien conditions ...and you are advocating three changes ?

Obviously fitness of key players and pitch conditions are big considerations. But the player I don't expect to be dropped is Patel. He batted OK in this match , and I'm not sure it's a given that either Bell or Morgan would have done any better in view of their UAE form. Plus he does supply more of a fifth bowling option than either KP or Trott , who really are just occasional/partnership breaking options.

Frankly , if the pitch is similar to this one , I would be happy with an unchanged team. If it is more like the first one there will be some heavy thinking to do.

alfie wrote:But the player I don't expect to be dropped is Patel. He batted OK in this match , and I'm not sure it's a given that either Bell or Morgan would have done any better in view of their UAE form. Plus he does supply more of a fifth bowling option than either KP or Trott , who really are just occasional/partnership breaking options.

I think his part-time spin can still be useful, but it is essentially a defensive option, he's not going to get that partnership breaking wicket realistically. I don't think he batted "ok" here though, I thought he looked all over the place, and very much less comfortable than Bairstow.

I do agree it's by no means certain that Bell, Morgan or Bairstow will score more runs.

Having said all that, Bell should come back into the side, because no one who's replaced him has made any kind of score to suggest they should stay in front of him in the queue. It's then between Bairstow, Patel and Morgan for the final spot. Morgan hasn't had a knock on tour, so tough to throw him in.

Morgan has had one knock and scored a fifty.

Stella wrote:Morgan has had one knock and scored a fifty.

Sorry! Ignore me, it's early for us students...

You're a student?

Nothing personal but I was guessing you were about 40, down to Cricketing knowledge/history.

Stella wrote:You're a student?

Nothing personal but I was guessing you were about 40, down to Cricketing knowledge/history.

Absolutely brilliant! The day just gets better and better.

2013 CC fixture lists out this afternoon as well - grapevine says Warks playing Surrey at Guildford in early June ....

Mike Selig wrote:

alfie wrote:But the player I don't expect to be dropped is Patel. He batted OK in this match , and I'm not sure it's a given that either Bell or Morgan would have done any better in view of their UAE form. Plus he does supply more of a fifth bowling option than either KP or Trott , who really are just occasional/partnership breaking options.

I think his part-time spin can still be useful, but it is essentially a defensive option, he's not going to get that partnership breaking wicket realistically. I don't think he batted "ok" here though, I thought he looked all over the place, and very much less comfortable than Bairstow.

I do agree it's by no means certain that Bell, Morgan or Bairstow will score more runs.

Having said all that, Bell should come back into the side, because no one who's replaced him has made any kind of score to suggest they should stay in front of him in the queue. It's then between Bairstow, Patel and Morgan for the final spot. Morgan hasn't had a knock on tour, so tough to throw him in.

I dont think he batted well either. The six was a miss hit top edge. Not that many of the England players looked much good, but hes always strugggled in international cricket The difference is Bell has been one of the worlds top batsmen for a period, and one would assume is capable of reproducing that. Bairstow over Patel thogh? Less definate. Morgan bought in to just give him a go...hmmm.

But is 4 bowlers the right solution? Well England got through this match with 3...so Broad out for Finn? Seems risky in a way and as KP Fanc would say it seems almost onceivable that Flower would drop his man ...especially as it could be aseen as a reaction to the criticism from the likes of Bothbum. Will Finn be fit is the next question of course

Easist thing of course would be to not change a winning team

I really dont think theres an obvious right or wrong answer

I hope Mike takes it as a compliment?

Can't believe I'm arguing for Patel over Bell But I'm not sure that his twenty odd in the second innings in the first Test was vastly superior to Patel's efforts on this pitch where only a few players got past thirty...and the memory of his frozen footed groping in Arabia is still giving me nightmares...

Don't get me wrong : I really rate Bell. Most places I'd have him straight on the team sheet. But in the middle of a series in which he has been flying back and forth to England and not making many runs I am not convinced he promises enough to oust the "all rounder" on spinning pitches.
Bell for Bairstow ? Maybe. I won't go to war over it. But I think a lot depends on where his head is , and the management should have a better idea than we have.

Suppose if England were to pick five bowlers the value of Patel would decrease somewhat...but to be honest I am happy to leave it to Flower...

Think Bell must return.

And if Finn is fit he replaces Broad - who if Finn isn't fit I keep ahead of Onions/ Bresnan/ Meaker on credit built up, and the potential to suddenly click into gear seen in the past.

Patel would, for me, be the unlucky one to miss out. I think Bairstow's 9 was more promising in many ways than Samit's efforts have been. Makes Trott the 5th bowler, which isn't ideal, but its not like Samit bowled a huge deal in this match.

Shelsey93 wrote:

... Makes Trott the 5th bowler, which isn't ideal, but its not like Samit bowled a huge deal in this match.

I don't claim Pietersen is a Test class bowler but I do think he's a lot better than Trott.

That said, I would still like to see Patel play the next match with Bell returning to replace Bairstow.

Pietersen can rip em. He could fill in with Trott if needed.

guildfordbat wrote:

Stella wrote:You're a student?

Nothing personal but I was guessing you were about 40, down to Cricketing knowledge/history.

Absolutely brilliant! The day just gets better and better.

Nah, I'm one of those young rebels intent on stirring things up when needed (and some would argue occasionally when not...) hence I think guildford's reaction. But taken as a compliment. I can only plead the "cricket-mad" defence - read Wisden religiously, think about cricket all the time, etc. Lucky enough to be involved as a volunteer in the game I like in a way which enables me to meet some legends.

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

... Makes Trott the 5th bowler, which isn't ideal, but its not like Samit bowled a huge deal in this match.

I don't claim Pietersen is a Test class bowler but I do think he's a lot better than Trott.

That said, I would still like to see Patel play the next match with Bell returning to replace Bairstow.

Is anyone claiming Patel is a test class bowler?

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Stella wrote:You're a student?

Nothing personal but I was guessing you were about 40, down to Cricketing knowledge/history.

Absolutely brilliant! The day just gets better and better.

Nah, I'm one of those young rebels intent on stirring things up when needed (and some would argue occasionally when not...) hence I think guildford's reaction. But taken as a compliment. I can only plead the "cricket-mad" defence - read Wisden religiously, think about cricket all the time, etc. Lucky enough to be involved as a volunteer in the game I like in a way which enables me to meet some legends.

I just thought being ''about 40'' didn't sit too comfortably on the shoulders of a self-proclaimed young rebel.

The only change I'd make is Finn (or Meaker) for Broad.

I wouldn't include Bell, classy player as he is, as he is going through one of his bad periods, and seems to have lost all confidence.

How about this England XI for the 3rd test :-

1 Cook
2 Compton
3 Trott
4 Pietersen
5 Bairstow
6 Bell
7 Prior
8 Patel
9 Swann
10 Anderson
11 Panesar

Which means that England can fight fire with fire by having 3 spinners against India's 3 spinners.

Will Panesar now have the mental edge over the Indians that Ajmal had over England. Or was it just this pitch that suited him?

Itll be interesting to see what kind of wicket India go for..will they try and bore England out the game again or stick to their turning wicket lottery philosophy?

I think we may see them hastily rescindingthe request for a bunsen. A flat deck would ensure they are unlikley to lose the series, whilst having some confidence that England are capable of imploding on a pancake after T1.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Itll be interesting to see what kind of wicket India go for..will they try and bore England out the game again or stick to their turning wicket lottery philosophy?

I think we may see them hastily rescindingthe request for a bunsen. A flat deck would ensure they are unlikley to lose the series, whilst having some confidence that England are capable of imploding on a pancake after T1.

After Dhoni's press bombarbment, that is the only way that they could go. Back to the days when the press decided the England team to an extent in the nineties. SAD.

I expect Kolkata to be a better track on the first couple of days, and then turn later... so more like Ahmedabad than Mumbai.

Finn for Broad and Bell for Bairstow.

Why would you play Bairstow ahead of Patel? Is he a better player of spin?

ShankyCricket wrote:
Why would you play Bairstow ahead of Patel? Is he a better player of spin?

Based purely on how they played in this test match, yes.

However I'm not fussed either way.

evening shanky, a bit of humble pie concerning Monty might be in order? (and yes, I'll happily admit I got it wrong too, I genuinely thought England's balance would look better with Patel at 6 and three seamers + Swann, but I wasn't anticipating the pitches doing so little for the seamers and so much for the spinners, happy to be proved wrong )

as for the next test, if Finn is fit I'd want to pick him instead of Broad, though it probably won't happen. If not I'm not sure Onions, Meaker or Bresnan will do better. Bell to come back in if he has time to re-acclimatise properly (Jimmy's worst test in Aus by some distance was when he only just made it back to Perth after flying back for the same reason as Bell). I'd drop Patel, whose bowling isn't useful with two spinners (with only one spinner, he'd bowl 10-15 overs per day, maybe more, but with two he's unlikely to bowl more than 4 or 5 if that, which can be done by KP/Trott), and who's looked really fidgety with the bat so far. Bairstow's fielding of course an added bonus (him and Bell close in would be a great pair, and allow Cook to concentrate on his captaincy).

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Itll be interesting to see what kind of wicket India go for..will they try and bore England out the game again or stick to their turning wicket lottery philosophy?

I think we may see them hastily rescindingthe request for a bunsen. A flat deck would ensure they are unlikley to lose the series, whilst having some confidence that England are capable of imploding on a pancake after T1.

well to be fair to Dhoni in his press conference he stuck to his guns, basically saying he thought this was a great test wicket (it was) and that Panesar had been the main difference between the two sides (maybe) while the Indian spinners had been too short (probably true). He also called for the final pitches to be similar to this one.

Whether the BCCI will listen to him after a humbling defeat and the loss of a full day's revenue is another matter entirely of course.

Fair play to him if he is asking for another sporting wicket. the guy wants to play cricket, you have to commend him for that. He also seems to have avoided sulking and blaming umpires etc.
Im being won over by Dohni in the last two series. India as a team are far more gentlemanly than they were around 2007

Mad for Chelsea wrote:evening shanky, a bit of humble pie concerning Monty might be in order? (and yes, I'll happily admit I got it wrong too, I genuinely thought England's balance would look better with Patel at 6 and three seamers + Swann, but I wasn't anticipating the pitches doing so little for the seamers and so much for the spinners, happy to be proved wrong )

as for the next test, if Finn is fit I'd want to pick him instead of Broad, though it probably won't happen. If not I'm not sure Onions, Meaker or Bresnan will do better. Bell to come back in if he has time to re-acclimatise properly (Jimmy's worst test in Aus by some distance was when he only just made it back to Perth after flying back for the same reason as Bell). I'd drop Patel, whose bowling isn't useful with two spinners (with only one spinner, he'd bowl 10-15 overs per day, maybe more, but with two he's unlikely to bowl more than 4 or 5 if that, which can be done by KP/Trott), and who's looked really fidgety with the bat so far. Bairstow's fielding of course an added bonus (him and Bell close in would be a great pair, and allow Cook to concentrate on his captaincy).

A lot of it, indeed! Struggling to digest it at the moment.

Mike Selig wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:
Why would you play Bairstow ahead of Patel? Is he a better player of spin?

Based purely on how they played in this test match, yes.

However I'm not fussed either way.

Didn't watch a lot of Bairstow's batting. Did he play well?

If Finn is not fit, I'd pick Meaker ahead of Broad. Need a bit of pace on these wickets. And Broad is not exactly bowling with good control either.

Broad has bowled appallingly and hasn't offered anything with the bat. He's down on pace and I'd much rather Finn if fit in the side. He's got a great track record in the sub-continent, especially India and deserves a run in the side. Just because your name is Broad doesn't make you un-droppable.

If however, Finn isn't fit, I think its tough to ask Meaker to come in but Broad was going at over 5 an over from his first 10 over spell in the 1st innings and didn't fare much better second time around. Throw Meaker in like others have suggested and get a bit of pace at the Indian batters. Can always just throw the ball to Monty and Swann if he goes a bit wayward but I'm almost certain that he won't do any worse than Broad has done, and will probably take a wicket or two once he's found his feet.

Don't change a winning formula

There is a case for say moving Patel to bat at 7, Swann going up to bat at 8, Anderson at 9, then bring in Finn at 10 with Panesar at 11.

So by moving Patel to bat at 7, it creates the illusion that England have a much deeper batting depth than they actually do, similar to what South Africa did in England during the summer when they had JP Duminy coming in to bat at 7 for them.

I think Patel is batting at six and prior is at seven because England want to emphasize that he is being picked as a batsman not as a allrounder (or more accurately a bits and pieces player). In which case it should come down to a straight fight between bell, bairstow and Patel for two batting places. My choices being bell at 5 and Barstow at 6. Might be a tad harsh on Patel who has been a bit unfortunate with two of his three dismissals, but I think bairstow has the greater potential of the two and so should be given an extended run in the team.

India have named an unchanged squad for the Third Test.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:
Why would you play Bairstow ahead of Patel? Is he a better player of spin?

Based purely on how they played in this test match, yes.

However I'm not fussed either way.

Didn't watch a lot of Bairstow's batting. Did he play well?

Not particularly but he looked a lot more competent than during the T20WC. Poor mode of dismissal just before the break it has to be said. I just thought Patel looked a bit all over the place really.

To be honest I don't think whoever you pick between Bairstow and Patel is going to make that much difference. It's all about Cook, Pietersen, Trott (needs runs) and perhaps Prior.

I wish they'd play Prior at 6, where he'll have more chance of being in partnership with one of the batsmen rather than being under pressure to play risky shots batting with the bowlers.

Maybe prior prefers batting at 7 where he feels he can play with a bit more freedom, it could be his choice. However, I agree that he is good enough to bat 6 but I don't want him to bat 6. My reasoning being that with prior at 6 there will be a greater temptation to play an "allrounder" type of player at 7 which usually weakens the batting e.g. bresnan at 7. I much prefer six batsmen plus prior at 7.

Take your point Living but just this series it seems a waste. He's our 3rd best batsmen in these conditions and we need to give the most chance for him to get runs.

It wont happen but I'd happily see him batting at 5 for this series. I just want him out there batting with people who can build a partnership, as the tail can and have easily been cleaned up in these conditions.

If Prior was at 6 I would probably put Bairstow at 7 as someone who might be able to score quickly with the tail.

Not a bad idea vtr, I would have no problem batting prior higher up the order as long as we still have six recognised batsmen plus prior in the top 7.

Batting Bairstow at seven would be like asking your striker to play left back, because you don't trust him in front of goal.

LivinginItaly wrote:Maybe prior prefers batting at 7 where he feels he can play with a bit more freedom, it could be his choice. However, I agree that he is good enough to bat 6 but I don't want him to bat 6. My reasoning being that with prior at 6 there will be a greater temptation to play an "allrounder" type of player at 7 which usually weakens the batting e.g. bresnan at 7. I much prefer six batsmen plus prior at 7.

Whereas its fine to play one (Patel) at 6?

I wouldn't say so Stella. They'll know they are in the team for their batting, just that the others above them are the experienced players (Compton aside). Its not that unusual for a WK to bat in the top 6 if they are good enough. SA are currently doing it, England used to do it with Stewart and often play a batsman at 7.

I can recall Crawley batting at seven but that was in the days when the selectors were as bad as our team.

I would say "we're picking you cause we trust you to score runs in our top six, now go and prove it"
He did score 94 against South Africa.

John Crawley, how I miss those days

Nick Knight used to bat at 7 quite a bit. The thinking seemed to be we would be 300-5 after 90 overs so the top order batsmen at 7 could see off the second new ball and we push to 400+. In reality we usually ended up something like 90-5 off 30 overs!

Ok, I'm contradicting my owns argument here, but this isn't the 90's and I don't really care who is at 7 as I would see any score above about 10 as a bonus, but I do want Prior batting higher up.

Well, same era.

At the end of the day, it's not going to make much odds. Prior though has been very successful batting at seven, so why move him for the sake of a batsman? If say Freddie was still playing, who use to bat at six then I could see the sense but not in place of a batsman.

That was when we had Alec Stewart though