England Ashes Squad announcement today

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Mon 23 Sep - 10:26

First topic message reminder :

Many rumours floating about that Stokes, Ballance and Rankin are in, Onions is out.

Announced at 12 today

Who do you think should be in

by GSC Mon 23 Sep - 23:27

I'd have to seriously question the value of performing in county cricket and earning your chance. Seems you have to fit into a certain physical criteria. Carberrys form in no way warrants a place.

by ShankyCricket Mon 23 Sep - 23:37

msp83 wrote:A very interesting squad from England. Cook, Root, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn pick themselves.
I would have liked Garry Ballance to play international cricket for Zimbabwe rather than England, but unlike say Trott, he has developed a lot of his formative cricket in English school system and so fair enough, perhaps Zimbabwe's loss would be England's gain, the lad is certainly talented, and has a good attacking game that could suit the number 6 position. Between him and Bairstow, I would like Ballance to get the go ahead for that first test. A bit harsh on James Taylor, but Ballance has earned his chance.
Think there is place for Chris Tremlett in a 17 man squad. There is Finn and there is Rankin in case Tremlett isn't quite up to the demands of a test match, but a Chris Tremlett on form is certainly a match-winner.
Rankin bowled very well in the ODI series against Australia, and besides not having a standout First Class record, there are some fine attributes for a test bowler in there.
I would even see a logic to the axing of Graeme Onions. Onions has evolved into a first choice backup for James Anderson, and he would be getting some match time with the A side and could always come in if he is really needed.
Very happy to see Ben Stokes in there. He had a decent ODI series, is a terrific potential as an all-rounder. I would say England should promote Matt Prior up to 6, he's more than capable of doing the job at 6, and bat Stokes at 7. India did something recently, the all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja batted at 7, with the skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni promoting himself up to 6 and that provided the side with a much better balance. Anderson, Broad and Steven Finn could then constitute the core of the seam bowling unit with solid support from Stokes, who does look capable of picking wickets at the international level. Being one of 5 man attack would suit Finn better than being part of a 4 man unit, and the Finster is a wickettaker of terrific quality.
Panesar is the 2nd best spinner in England, so he rightly gets his chance.
Bairstow's abilities with the gloves makes him a decent pick in a 17 member squad, don't think Buttler's longer format game is developed enough to be a serious challenge for Bairstow as the backup keeper, and Jos is anyways available with the performance squad.
Don't think I like too much the selection of Michael Carberry. He's at the wrong side of 30, and doesn't have a Chris Rogers like record that demands selection, neither are England struggling like Australia, just that young Joe could have been given more time to evolve into the classy opener that he can become. If England needed a backup, they should have gone for Nick Compton or Varun Chopra, the former has a pretty decent FC record and often managed to see out the new ball even though he didn't produce the big scores as often as was needed in international cricket. The latter has shown considerable signs of improvement over the last 2-3 seasons, and is younger as well. Carberry's FC record isn't great, and he did look a rather limited player as far as his range of shots are concerned.

Agree with a lot of that post but not sure why you'd start with Finn ahead of Rankin? Rankin comfortably outbowled him in the recent ODIs and in the county season. Also don't agree that Finn "picks himself". For me, he's a contentious selection. I'd definitely have Rankin and Onions ahead of him but with Bresnan injured, I'd prefer Finn to Tremlett on the latter's current form.
Also, Onions isn't in the A squad, he's going to play FC cricket in SA. I'm flabbergasted that Finn and Tremlett are picked ahead of him.

Don't agree with you about Buttler. His FC record isn't great but IMO has a much better technique than Bairstow (who doesn't? unless you are Hughes and Khawaja) and is a better keeper. I think he'd have been a better pick than Bairstow though I may have gone for Steven Davies over both.

Agree with you about the Carbs vs Compo vs Chopra situation. Also agree about Ballance deserving his chance and that he should play at 6 over Bairstow. Also agree about Stokes.

by ShankyCricket Mon 23 Sep - 23:43

GSC wrote:I'd have to seriously question the value of performing in county cricket and earning your chance. Seems you have to fit into a certain physical criteria. Carberrys form in no way warrants a place.

Whilst I don't necessarily always agree with the "you have to perform in FC cricket to get a Test chance or the "ODI form can't be considered for Test selection" nonsense (see my last post about Buttler vs Bairstow in Tests, for example), the thing with Carberry is that he didn't even impress in the ODIs, a format which is supposed to be his stronger suit at county level, so its hard to see him do well in Tests. He has a very limited range of shots and looked out of his depth against Mitch in the ODIs IMO. I wasn't too impressed with his Test debut in Bangladesh either.

by kingraf Tue 24 Sep - 0:39

I see Englands once again going for the Basketball unit... I cant see why they keep reverting to this tactic...

by msp83 Tue 24 Sep - 6:44

ShankyCricket wrote:
msp83 wrote:A very interesting squad from England. Cook, Root, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn pick themselves.
I would have liked Garry Ballance to play international cricket for Zimbabwe rather than England, but unlike say Trott, he has developed a lot of his formative cricket in English school system and so fair enough, perhaps Zimbabwe's loss would be England's gain, the lad is certainly talented, and has a good attacking game that could suit the number 6 position. Between him and Bairstow, I would like Ballance to get the go ahead for that first test. A bit harsh on James Taylor, but Ballance has earned his chance.
Think there is place for Chris Tremlett in a 17 man squad. There is Finn and there is Rankin in case Tremlett isn't quite up to the demands of a test match, but a Chris Tremlett on form is certainly a match-winner.
Rankin bowled very well in the ODI series against Australia, and besides not having a standout First Class record, there are some fine attributes for a test bowler in there.
I would even see a logic to the axing of Graeme Onions. Onions has evolved into a first choice backup for James Anderson, and he would be getting some match time with the A side and could always come in if he is really needed.
Very happy to see Ben Stokes in there. He had a decent ODI series, is a terrific potential as an all-rounder. I would say England should promote Matt Prior up to 6, he's more than capable of doing the job at 6, and bat Stokes at 7. India did something recently, the all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja batted at 7, with the skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni promoting himself up to 6 and that provided the side with a much better balance. Anderson, Broad and Steven Finn could then constitute the core of the seam bowling unit with solid support from Stokes, who does look capable of picking wickets at the international level. Being one of 5 man attack would suit Finn better than being part of a 4 man unit, and the Finster is a wickettaker of terrific quality.
Panesar is the 2nd best spinner in England, so he rightly gets his chance.
Bairstow's abilities with the gloves makes him a decent pick in a 17 member squad, don't think Buttler's longer format game is developed enough to be a serious challenge for Bairstow as the backup keeper, and Jos is anyways available with the performance squad.
Don't think I like too much the selection of Michael Carberry. He's at the wrong side of 30, and doesn't have a Chris Rogers like record that demands selection, neither are England struggling like Australia, just that young Joe could have been given more time to evolve into the classy opener that he can become. If England needed a backup, they should have gone for Nick Compton or Varun Chopra, the former has a pretty decent FC record and often managed to see out the new ball even though he didn't produce the big scores as often as was needed in international cricket. The latter has shown considerable signs of improvement over the last 2-3 seasons, and is younger as well. Carberry's FC record isn't great, and he did look a rather limited player as far as his range of shots are concerned.
Agree with a lot of that post but not sure why you'd start with Finn ahead of Rankin? Rankin comfortably outbowled him in the recent ODIs and in the county season. Also don't agree that Finn "picks himself". For me, he's a contentious selection. I'd definitely have Rankin and Onions ahead of him but with Bresnan injured, I'd prefer Finn to Tremlett on the latter's current form.
Also, Onions isn't in the A squad, he's going to play FC cricket in SA. I'm flabbergasted that Finn and Tremlett are picked ahead of him.

Don't agree with you about Buttler. His FC record isn't great but IMO has a much better technique than Bairstow (who doesn't? unless you are Hughes and Khawaja) and is a better keeper. I think he'd have been a better pick than Bairstow though I may have gone for Steven Davies over both.

Agree with you about the Carbs vs Compo vs Chopra situation. Also agree about Ballance deserving his chance and that he should play at 6 over Bairstow. Also agree about Stokes.

Shanky, I know you think Finn is only good enough against Bangladesh but we've had that debate already. I think Finn will be leading the England bowling attack in 2-3 years time, he's young, he's tall, he's quick and he takes wickets. He does go for a few now and then, and he seems to be a bit confused about his run-up, but the recent mis-management by the England coaching setup too has contributed to his recent confusions. Ones that bit is addressed, he'll be back to the path of improvement that he showed for a year and half before the start of the summer, and when that happens, he would be an asset for England. He has to start ahead of Rankin as he's a bit more experienced at test level and would be a smart long term investment.

by msp83 Tue 24 Sep - 6:53

Mike Selig wrote:Msp makes some valid points, but I disagree on Stokes. I liked his bowling a lot during the ODIs and would have no issue with him playing as part of a 5-man attack, and the point that Finn may be a better bowler in a 5 man attack is an interesting one (although Anderson and Broad are certainly more effective when used in longish spells so a 4-man attack suits them better). My issue is that I don't think Stokes is good enough to bat at 7 (yet?) in tests. He strikes me as very similar to an early version of Flintoff; 8 is fine, but 7 a slot too high particularly with England's lately somewhat fragile batting. Whilst you could argue that Stokes, Broad and Swann collectively are good enough to make up 7, 8 and 9, that kind of reasoning has seldom worked.

The comparison with India is flawed, because the two sides have very different make-ups - India needed some control from a spinner because their 2nd spinner was underperforming, whilst you never really feel England need another wicket-taking option, which is what Stokes provides. Also, Jadeja for all his perceived flaws was technically a far better batsman than Stokes is currently. If England are after some control (which is what they may miss due to Bresnan being injured, particular if Broad has an off-day and/or Swann gets attacked) then I'm far from convinced Stokes is the solution, and in fact then Woakes may have been the better option all along.

One thing which nobody seems to have said about Stokes yet is how brilliant he is in the field.

I think England very much see Buttler as the long term replacement for Prior; as such it is best that he gets game time rather than hanging around the fringes - he already has enough experience of the HP environment with the ODI side. I don't think Bairstow is a serious option to keep in tests, but his being there means that if Prior breaks a finger on the morning of a match there is at least another option there.

With an fc average of 36, I would think Stokes can do a job with the bat at 7 in test cricket. Anderson was feeling the effects of work overload by the 3rd game of the recent ashes. He's since been rested and should be fresh for the fresh challenge, but having a proper additional bowling option with the capability to pick wickets could reduce the demands on Jimmy, and we should also remember that Stuart Broad too has had more than his fair share of injury concerns over the last couple of years, Swanny, England's most important difference vs Australia, too has had fitness concerns, and I am sure he'd appreciate a bit less of containing demands that he'll have to do particularly during the early part of the tests. Finn could be more effective in quick sharp short spells rather than longish ones too.

by Mike Selig Tue 24 Sep - 10:02

Big step up from FC to international cricket though msp. Plenty of players have averaged 35ish in FC matches without being good enough to play at 7 in tests. Chris Read would be a good example say. Buttler averages 32 but is clearly a better player than Stokes at this moment in time. As I say, I haven't seen Stokes bat this year, so can only base myself on what I saw during the ODIs, and on that basis I saw a decent number 8, but nowhere near a number 7. A bit reminiscent of an early days Flintoff.

As I said, Finn is more effective in short spells than long ones. Anderson, Broad not so. Rankin looks to me like a rythm bowler also. Tremlett who knows when he gets back. I don't think Stokes will reduce the workload of Swann, because England bowl Swann on the first day when they want some control and cannot reasonably bring back Anderson - they won't turn to Stokes for control, so in that situation Swann is still their go to option. However playing Stokes may mean Anderson bowls fewer spells, and would undoubtedly help Finn.

I'm not sure Onions has been so hard done by. Whilst I would have picked him ahead of Tremlett, it strikes me that Onions is one of those players who improve a lot in the eyes of the fans when he's not in the side. In his last test against a perfectly hopeless West Indian team he wasn't all that great... I certainly can't see how he would have displaced Finn in the pecking order.

by Guest Tue 24 Sep - 10:03

Shame KP doesn't bowl anymore, he'd have saved us taking Monty and we could have taken another pace bowler.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Tue 24 Sep - 10:07

Mike Selig wrote:I'm not sure Onions has been so hard done by. Whilst I would have picked him ahead of Tremlett, it strikes me that Onions is one of those players who improve a lot in the eyes of the fans when he's not in the side. In his last test against a perfectly hopeless West Indian team he wasn't all that great... I certainly can't see how he would have displaced Finn in the pecking order.

Totally agree with this. Suffering from Kagawa syndrome (for you football fans amongst us)

by GSC Tue 24 Sep - 10:13

I think I would've taken Onions simply for variety. If Jimmy goes down (perish the thought), were going to be a pretty 1 dimensional seam attack.

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 10:15

Olly wrote:
Mike Selig wrote:I'm not sure Onions has been so hard done by. Whilst I would have picked him ahead of Tremlett, it strikes me that Onions is one of those players who improve a lot in the eyes of the fans when he's not in the side. In his last test against a perfectly hopeless West Indian team he wasn't all that great... I certainly can't see how he would have displaced Finn in the pecking order.
Totally agree with this. Suffering from Kagawa syndrome (for you football fans amongst us)

Onions has taken 150 odd wickets at 18 in the last two seasons. He most definitely deserves a tour at least. No point judging him on one game.

by Mike Selig Tue 24 Sep - 10:52

How he bowls (not necessarily his figures) in one test match is IMO more relevant than his figures over 2 first class season...

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 10:56

Mike Selig wrote:How he bowls (not necessarily his figures) in one test match is IMO more relevant than his figures over 2 first class season...

Really? Amazing. Everybody in the history of life has off days, Mike. Nobody should be judged purely on one game, especially when they have have had better days at the same level.

by guildfordbat Tue 24 Sep - 11:01

guildfordbat wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:Forgot about Onions. A somewhat harsh exclusion, maybe. Ranking looked very good in the ODIs, and is surely a real prospect. The debatable one is Tremlett, so I'll appeal to the Surrey fans there...
I've voiced concerns about Tremlett throughout this season whenever he's been named in an England squad.

He's never looked properly fit for Surrey this year and, other than the CC match at Durham, hasn't been much effective. He's been left out of some games to rest and when he has played he's often been handled with kid gloves by his county. Anything but a leading bowler to get us out of trouble, let alone put us on top. His bowling spells have (nearly) always been in short bursts of between 3 and 6 overs. He tends to only bowl around 15 to 17 overs in a full day; that has been a significant problem for Surrey playing only four front line bowlers, resulting in the ordinary de Bruyn having to fill in too much with predictably poor returns - I fear similar problems for England if Tremlett makes the starting eleven. He's also a poor fielder and wonder how much that has been taken on board.

Please don't think it's just me. There's a lot of damning comments about him on the Surrey Supporters' website. A fair bit there relates to a perceived lack of effort (although I'm inclined to be kinder and link it to a lack of fitness as above). I also saw comments recently on cricinfo from a Somerset supporter saying he should be nowhere near the Ashes squad after he watched him in the CC match at Taunton.

That said, I do believe he's still got ability and know history supports that. I just unfortunately have doubts that it will sufficiently be recovered and certainly not by this November.

Tremlett has been left out of the eleven for Surrey's final CC match of the season, at the Oval today against Yorks. He has just appeared on the field carrying the drinks.

by Hoggy_Bear Tue 24 Sep - 11:13

guildfordbat wrote:Tremlett has been left out of the eleven for Surrey's final CC match of the season, at the Oval today against Yorks. He has just appeared on the field carrying the drinks.

Probably good practice for the winter

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 11:14

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
guildfordbat wrote:Tremlett has been left out of the eleven for Surrey's final CC match of the season, at the Oval today against Yorks. He has just appeared on the field carrying the drinks.
Probably good practice for the winter

by Mike Selig Tue 24 Sep - 11:31

Stella wrote:
Mike Selig wrote:How he bowls (not necessarily his figures) in one test match is IMO more relevant than his figures over 2 first class season...
Really? Amazing. Everybody in the history of life has off days, Mike. Nobody should be judged purely on one game, especially when they have have had better days at the same level.

Off days sure, but even if someone's bowling badly you can usually make some things out, and the only way of doing that is by watching them, not looking at their statistics. How hard is he hitting the pitch? Is his run-up in good order, is he attacking the crease, getting through it, gliding through it? What's his wrist position like through the action and at point of release? etc. In short, why is he bowling badly, is it because there's something wrong (but correctable) in the action, is it just one of those days (but then he should be better tomorrow, right?) or is it something more serious? You can also tell a lot by how good batsmen are playing his good balls...

Take Stuart Clark in 2009. Did ok in the warm-up match, but reports from those who watched it said he'd lost his nip. That's it, end of game, you can't play test cricket except on a green-top if you're just putting the ball there. So it proved. Clark did well 1st innings at Headingley, got smashed around 2nd innings when the pitch was a bit flatter, and was ineffective at the Oval.

I'm not saying that that's what happened to Onions here, because I haven't seen him bowl for ages. But it is possible to get wickets at FC level without your nip (particularly if you play on helpful seaming wickets as Onions does, but not only, because Bicknell did it for a long long time at Surrey). It is very very difficult to do that at international level. The step up is big and real.

So no you can't judge purely on one game, but you can tell quite a bit. Besides, Onions has been involved in the squad at times this year, so he'll have bowled in the nets; obviously he hasn't convinced people he's good enough anymore - not saying they're right, but the guys making the decisions will undoubtedly have seen more of Onions than most of us...

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 11:46

Sorry Mike, I think you're looking to deep mate. Of course the selectors look beyond stats but the truth is, he's to similar to Jimmy (not the same) and they prefer tall quicks who are going to get awkward bounce for this tour. IMO, they have to many eggs in one basket. Onions has take wickets in tests before, continued to be the best seamer in county cricket but still cannot get on the plane. I find that more than confusing.

by ShankyCricket Tue 24 Sep - 12:02

Mike Selig wrote:
Stella wrote:
Mike Selig wrote:How he bowls (not necessarily his figures) in one test match is IMO more relevant than his figures over 2 first class season...
Really? Amazing. Everybody in the history of life has off days, Mike. Nobody should be judged purely on one game, especially when they have have had better days at the same level.
Off days sure, but even if someone's bowling badly you can usually make some things out, and the only way of doing that is by watching them, not looking at their statistics. How hard is he hitting the pitch? Is his run-up in good order, is he attacking the crease, getting through it, gliding through it? What's his wrist position like through the action and at point of release? etc. In short, why is he bowling badly, is it because there's something wrong (but correctable) in the action, is it just one of those days (but then he should be better tomorrow, right?) or is it something more serious? You can also tell a lot by how good batsmen are playing his good balls...

Take Stuart Clark in 2009. Did ok in the warm-up match, but reports from those who watched it said he'd lost his nip. That's it, end of game, you can't play test cricket except on a green-top if you're just putting the ball there. So it proved. Clark did well 1st innings at Headingley, got smashed around 2nd innings when the pitch was a bit flatter, and was ineffective at the Oval.

I'm not saying that that's what happened to Onions here, because I haven't seen him bowl for ages. But it is possible to get wickets at FC level without your nip (particularly if you play on helpful seaming wickets as Onions does, but not only, because Bicknell did it for a long long time at Surrey). It is very very difficult to do that at international level. The step up is big and real.

So no you can't judge purely on one game, but you can tell quite a bit. Besides, Onions has been involved in the squad at times this year, so he'll have bowled in the nets; obviously he hasn't convinced people he's good enough anymore - not saying they're right, but the guys making the decisions will undoubtedly have seen more of Onions than most of us...

You can also get your nip back though, Mike. Look at Bresnan now and compare it to how he was last year. He's still not back to his best and probably will never be but is still good enough to succeed at this level. And using that Test against the WI actually weakens your argument really as I remember him comfortably outbowling Bresnan and Finn in that Test.

Finn simply doesn't have the control to succeed at Test level IMO. Its a shame that such a highly gifted bowler still hasn't got a clue of what the right length for him is despite being around the Test side for nearly 4 years now.

by Hoggy_Bear Tue 24 Sep - 12:05

Do think Stella, that the selections with regard to 'back-ups' has been a little confusing and inconsistent.
Up until a month or two ago Taylor, Woakes and Onions were all, seemingly, next cabs off the rank with regard to their respective roles, yet none have made the touring squad. Now I realise that there may be reasons for that, but it does smack a bit of rather confused selection. If Ballance is a better bet than Taylor now, was he not two months ago? Same with Stokes re Woakes. And, as you say, should we really be picking 3 bowlers who all fulfil, basically, the same role, at the expense of the best back-up to Anderson?

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 24 Sep - 12:07

they've had a look at all of these guys, not necessarily in matches, but in nets, etc. and made the call based on what they've seen. They've seen a fair bit of Woakes and Stokes, and decided Stokes is the better option.

It will be the same with Taylor and Ballance, Onions and Tremlett, etc. The selectors job is to make these calls, people may not agree with them, but they have certainly seen enough of the players to be in the right position to do so.

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 12:11

MFC

Of course the selectors know more about the game than me and you, well me anyway. The problem I forsee is they've gone horses for courses in the Tremlett pick. AS we've seen before with harmison, pace and bounce in Aus is not a gimme for taking wickets.

by Mike Selig Tue 24 Sep - 12:15

Past performances at test level going back several years and/or very good county figures don't mean you deserve a place on the plane though. That's what I was trying to explain, it's about whether your game as it is now has the potential to get good players out at the highest level.

I think the "too many eggs in one basket" is a bit of a red herring, as are claims that Onions is somehow the replacement for Anderson (I've no idea where this has come from as they are very different bowlers, but even if granted it is fairly irrelevant). I am reminded of the time when pundits claimed you couldn't play McGrath and Clark in the same side because they were too similar - in the same way if England could pick 3 versions of Anderson of course they would because he is the 2nd best seamer in the world right now (and the first isn't English).

I strongly suspect England have gone for the bowlers they feel can have the biggest impact for this tour, without any conscious effort to promote tall bowlers. If the 3 best available seamers in the country (say if Anderson gets injured) happen to be 3 tall hit the deck bowlers then you pick 3 tall hit the deck bowlers.

Shanky is right in that you can get your nip back (and Bresnan is a good example).

MfC is right to highlight that these calls will have been discussed at length based on a lot more evidence than we have at our disposal. And know a fair bit more about the game than us, although it is disingenuous to suggest that because of that we shouldn't discuss their calls, because otherwise this board would be a bit dull. Even I come in for criticism when I help pick a squad, it comes with the territory...

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 12:19

But Jimmy and Onions are bowlers who like to pitch it up, and allow the ball to move, whereas the others can hot the deck hard and allow the bouncy wickets for aid. As seen, Jimmy and any good swing bowler can get wickets on hard tracks. All you need is minimal swing and you're there.

If you really believe Tremlett was picked as he is the third/fourth best seamer in the country then so be it. I believe it's a horses for course pick. It may work of course, but I would prefer to see Onions than Tremlett if Jimmy gets injured.

by ShankyCricket Tue 24 Sep - 12:22

With regards to Stokes' batting, I have to agree with Mike here. I have only really watched him in ODIs but he clearly isn't good enough to bat at 7 in Test cricket yet. At present, he's more a number 8 although not good enough to play in a 4 man attack. But I like his selection purely because if Swann gets injured and England have to play Panesar as the spinner, then I think they have no option but to shove Prior up to 6 and play Stokes as the 4th seamer/5th bowler at 7 because there's no way Panesar is good enough to play as a part of a 4 man attack on those surfaces, you have to just look at the NZ Tests in February/March earlier this year when Anderson and Broad were overbowled due to Panesar (and Finn's) spectacular ineffectiveness and Panesar was actually heading into that series in much better form and mental state than he is now. If Panesar plays (only if Swann is injured), it has to be in a 5 man attack (4+1) with Stokes playing as the 5th bowling allrounder.

Hopefully though Swann will remain fit and in that case, Ballance should bat at 6. Rankin would be my 3rd seamer unless Tremlett shows that he's back to his very best in the warm ups.

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 12:29

How will bowling Stokes help Panesar and England?

by ShankyCricket Tue 24 Sep - 12:36

Because it gives them an extra bowling option who can be used if and when Panesar is hit out of the attack by Australians?

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 12:38

ShankyCricket wrote:Because it gives them an extra bowling option who can be used if and when Panesar is hit out of the attack by Australians?

Then bring on another first choice seamer. Replacing him with Stokes, who's bowling is probably not of test standard won't help, unless you're thinking of Stokes filling in, to give the pacers rest bite. If so, give Trott the ball.

by Hoggy_Bear Tue 24 Sep - 13:13

ShankyCricket wrote:With regards to Stokes' batting, I have to agree with Mike here. I have only really watched him in ODIs but he clearly isn't good enough to bat at 7 in Test cricket yet. At present, he's more a number 8 although not good enough to play in a 4 man attack. But I like his selection purely because if Swann gets injured and England have to play Panesar as the spinner, then I think they have no option but to shove Prior up to 6 and play Stokes as the 4th seamer/5th bowler at 7 because there's no way Panesar is good enough to play as a part of a 4 man attack on those surfaces, you have to just look at the NZ Tests in February/March earlier this year when Anderson and Broad were overbowled due to Panesar (and Finn's) spectacular ineffectiveness and Panesar was actually heading into that series in much better form and mental state than he is now. If Panesar plays (only if Swann is injured), it has to be in a 5 man attack (4+1) with Stokes playing as the 5th bowling allrounder.

Hopefully though Swann will remain fit and in that case, Ballance should bat at 6. Rankin would be my 3rd seamer unless Tremlett shows that he's back to his very best in the warm ups.

If Stokes isn't good enough to bat at 7, nor good enough to play the Bresnan role in a four man attack, it again begs the question as to why he's got the nod ahead of Woakes. If the role they were competing for was that of all-rounder to bat at 6/7 and bowl as 4th seamer, then surely batting form would be the predominant requirement?
I personally think that they're trying to groom Stokes for more of a Bresnan type role as 3rd seamer who can bat a bit, and are taking him on tour to work on that. Whether he can fill that role is open to question, but that's why I think he's gone instead of Woakes.

by hodge Tue 24 Sep - 14:33

Not saying this due to being a Somerset fan, but Compton has been very harshly treated here, scores more runs than Carberry in the division above while not being able to play a full season, not much more you can do tbh if you're looking head to head on players. Shows the selectors don't really care about which division you play in, more which county which is why players move to the test match ground counties.

by GSC Tue 24 Sep - 14:39

I fully agree with you. Comptons scored more test 100s the last 2 seasons than Carberry has in division 2.

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 14:42

Compton's annoyance at being dropped may have something to do with it?

by Guest Tue 24 Sep - 14:42

I think Compton has been treated fairly. He was dropped - rightly so in my opinion - and then bad-mouthed everyone he could while England were winning the Ashes. I hear "Sour Grapes" is his new nickname.

Good luck to Carberry, now he doesn't have the pressure of trying to get in the Test side he may well surprise us all!

by hodge Tue 24 Sep - 14:50

So do you think Samit will get another chance after speaking to the media about being excluded vs Aus?

by GSC Tue 24 Sep - 14:52

Not a hope. Do wonder what James Taylor has to do.

by Stella Tue 24 Sep - 14:54

hodge wrote:So do you think Samit will get another chance after speaking to the media about being excluded vs Aus?

I bloody hope not.

by Guest Tue 24 Sep - 14:55

Taylor is going to have to score a shed load of runs next spring, and hope that KP or Bell pick up an injury. I like the guy, but he might not get the chance to play Test cricket for another 3-5 years.

by Mike Selig Tue 24 Sep - 15:41

As I said I think once Compo played himself out of the squad he was never playing himself back in it just with runs in county cricket, because England were well aware that he could score serious runs in county matches but had concluded that he wasn't quite good enough for international cricket. There are quite possibly well founded rumours which suggest that he wasn't the keenest to learn either. The England management obviously feel Carberry could be a better option.

It might have been harsh to ditch Compton so quickly, but it is silly to bring up his runs in the CC this year as an argument for him getting back in the side.

by guildfordbat Tue 24 Sep - 16:19

An impressive undefeated 50 today from Ballance at the Oval. Good use of footwork and seizing on anything short or wide. He'll clearly face greater challenges than Surrey's attack but he's still done well.

by Guest Tue 24 Sep - 16:19

Ssshhhh no-one wants to hear good news about England players.

by Guest Tue 24 Sep - 16:20

Having said that, Carberry posted 85 for Hampshire against my boys Whistle

by Hoggy_Bear Tue 24 Sep - 17:07

Chris Woakes on 87* as I type Wink

by Duty281 Tue 24 Sep - 22:32

guildfordbat wrote:An impressive undefeated 50 today from Ballance at the Oval. Good use of footwork and seizing on anything short or wide. He'll clearly face greater challenges than Surrey's attack but he's still done well.

Fingers crossed that he starts at number 6 in Brisbane - he seems a superb talent.

by guildfordbat Tue 24 Sep - 23:12

Duty281 wrote:
guildfordbat wrote:An impressive undefeated 50 today from Ballance at the Oval. Good use of footwork and seizing on anything short or wide. He'll clearly face greater challenges than Surrey's attack but he's still done well.
Fingers crossed that he starts at number 6 in Brisbane - he seems a superb talent.

I was impressed by Ballance. I've commented a little bit more about his performance today (and Bairstow's) on the domestic "Surrey v Yorks CC" thread.

by **Fists of Fury** Wed 25 Sep - 9:09

Century for Woakes under pressure. Super batting.

Averaging something like 24 with the ball and 53 with the bat this season...can consider himself very unfortunate not to be boarding a plane to Australia.

by Stella Wed 25 Sep - 9:10

He could go and watch.

by Guest Wed 25 Sep - 9:41

Knowing his luck he'd find that they'd sold his seat twice, and Onions was sat there when he arrived.

by **Fists of Fury** Wed 25 Sep - 9:49

by Sponsored content