England v New Zealand, First Test Lord's

First topic message reminder :

So after all the drama and acrimony of the last couple of weeks, its time for the action to begin on the field. The first test of the English summer gets underway at the HQ from tomorrow. An upcoming New Zealand against an embattled England. But England are on home turf, New Zealand don't have a good record in England, most of their recent success has come at home, the core of their test side are just coming on the back of T-20 cricket at the IPL rather than much getting used to English conditions.
England on the other hand are without a coach and questions on Kevin Pietersen are going away nowhere. There are unsettled issues about the combination of the side, with the position of one of the openers, the 3rd seamer and the spinner being open questions.
Adam Lyth is likely to make his debut for England tomorrow, and there is a chance that Mark Wood might come in for Chris Jordan.
For New Zealand, it is being suggested that Matt Henry might get to debut and offer backup to Tim Southee and Trent Boult. Martin Guptill, on the back of a spectacular world cup and 150 in the warmup game is set to come back as test opener, and Corey Anderson, coming back from injury, is set to take the all-rounder position.
Set for some very interesting cricket.......

kingraf wrote:The real problem here is that Guildfordbat isn't a particularly good agent.

Here's how you spin it:

Chris Jordan took three crucial wickets in a one wicket win over (insert county). It was a tight game, and in tight games, the really good players stand out... sometimes in ways that you can't foresee. No one is suggesting Chris Jordan is an all rounder, but anyone who can bring a team back from the brink which was 45/5 has the can do self belief required to succeed at international level.

Raf - I'm not sure if you picked it up earlier but I have already fully acknowledged my failings as an agent which is probably one of the major reasons why Chris Jordan is yet to engage me.

The ECB should have picked Raf for that director's job! Would have avoided a lot of the unwanted mess!

msp83 wrote:The ECB should have picked Raf for that director's job! Would have avoided a lot of the unwanted mess!

Indeed Msp. I even had a KP press conference on call in case they came calling.

Kevin Pietersen has been a wonderful servant to English cricket, and had produced some of the greatest knocks of all time in a three Lions jersey. It is unfortunate however that at Kevin's age, with his lack of first class matches over the last year and a bit, we do not trust KP to as yet be fit enough for five days of gruelling test cricket, especially in an Ashes summer. We trust KP understands our stance, and as such have no qualms with him returning to the ODI squad in an advisory capacity, given the fact that if he had it his way he'd have retired from ODI four years ago anyway.

Would have taken that! over the unbridled disaster served up by Andrew Strauss!!!

Strauss out, Raf in!

Gooseberry wrote:Theres not really a lot in Jordans record to suggest he really can bat, certainly not in a Woakes/Ali/Rashid level. A Plunkett at best. Thats only his 7th senior 50 in all formats in his entire career. Never hit one in 37 internationals.
Can we please drop the idea hes in anyway an all rounder. With him or Broad at 8 the tail is look long.
If hes in the side it has to be on bowling.

I think this is fair. I would also caveat Woakes and Rashid, we might have to be prepared for less than stellar returns with the bat if/when they play again (or for the first time in Rashid's case). For all we know, they might not be able to make the step up. There have been plenty of decent first-class all-rounders who could not cut it with the bat at Test level.

I like Jordan, or rather I see clear "potential" (whatever that word means) there. I think his batting *could* be good enough to classify him as an all-rounder, or at least make a good number 8.

I think England seem to have found a good talent in Wood, but I doubt they've completely jettisoned Jordan from their minds (he was after all in the squad for this game).

I don't see much potential with the ball, which is why he should be picked, being the third seamer, not because he can bat a bit, and field at slip. He could of course prove me wrong, as I'm no expert.

Mike Selig wrote:
...

Oh and for what it's worth that final catch wasn't especially difficult. The pressure made it so, and Moeen made it a bit tougher due to a small misjudgement right at the start, but you would expect that catch to be taken at that level; even with the early misjudgement Moeen still had 2 hands to it comfortably, at a good height, and with the boundary not really in the picture. Good yes, especially under pressure, but nowhere near as tough as it has been made out.

...

Mike - I take your point and flagged yesterday that I was more impressed with Moeen's caught and bowled. However, I had to smile when I heard it subsequently asked elsewhere what would Cook, Broad and all of us watching have thought at the time if we had seen England's premier spinner - in the view of many - Monty Panesar going for that final catch?

Stella wrote:I don't see much potential with the ball, which is why he should be picked, being the third seamer, not because he can bat a bit, and field at slip. He could of course prove me wrong, as I'm no expert.

I would agree with that even though it means losing the very best slip fielder.

England's third seamer should solely be in for their bowling prowess regardless of how they bat. After all England are already on overkill with all-rounders what with Ali and Stokes and the one-time all-rounder Broad though that is no longer the case for him. That being the case then on bowling alone Jordan does not cut the mustard (yet I must add).

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:I don't see much potential with the ball, which is why he should be picked, being the third seamer, not because he can bat a bit, and field at slip. He could of course prove me wrong, as I'm no expert.

I would agree with that even though it means losing the very best slip fielder.

England's third seamer should solely be in for their bowling prowess regardless of how they bat. After all England are already on overkill with all-rounders what with Ali and Stokes and the one-time all-rounder Broad though that is no longer the case for him. That being the case then on bowling along Jordan does not cut the mustard (yet I must add).

Yes - I would back this too. With the ball he doesn't have great pace, doesn't swing or cut the ball and isn't that accurate. Its a mystery to me how/why he was ever picked as a front-line bowler in the first place.

I don't think it's ever as simple as picking someone solely for (and by implication on) their bowling TBH. If say there was a bowled marginally better than Wood, but whose batting resembled that of Ed Giddins and whose fielding was some horrible compound of Panesar/Malcolm/Tuffnell (BTW guildford, my thoughts would have been "oh ..., why is he at third-man?") then I suspect England would go for Wood, and I think that would probably be correct.

Of course I am being facetious and I understand that that is not really what you are suggesting. Rather I think you are saying that the 3rd seamer should be able to justify his place as a bowler alone and that anything else is a bonus.

I will disagree with people's assessment of Jordan - I think he does have the ability to perform as a specialist bowler. He hits the pitch hard, hurries batsmen and when he gets his seam presentation right does get movement off the pitch. Beyond that, it's his pure athletic ability which excites me - anybody with that natural athleticism has the potential to be a very good fast bowler IMO. Not saying he's there at all yet, but I've seen clear improvement over the last year or so, and I'm not willing to count him out.

I've seen him swing it, and he is quite tight, just not a very big wicket taking weapon. The mystery is, he can bat a bit. Bresnan was picked for these reasons also, and to be fair, he done ok for us, but we're going to need more than that when the Aussies come over.

Stella wrote:I've seen him swing it, and he is quite tight, just not a very big wicket taking weapon. The mystery is, he can bat a bit. Bresnan was picked for these reasons also, and to be fair, he done ok for us, but we're going to need more than that when the Aussies come over.

I'd say Bresnan (in Tests) was slightly more accomplished than Jordan with the bat and the ball and like you say isn't the sort of bowling figure England need. They need an out-and-out wicket taker even if he is useless with the bat.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:I've seen him swing it, and he is quite tight, just not a very big wicket taking weapon. The mystery is, he can bat a bit. Bresnan was picked for these reasons also, and to be fair, he done ok for us, but we're going to need more than that when the Aussies come over.

I'd say Bresnan (in Tests) was slightly more accomplished than Jordan with the bat and the ball and like you say isn't the sort of bowling figure England need. They need an out-and-out wicket taker even if he is useless with the bat.

I agree. Our batting line up, with Ali at eight has depth. Pick the best bowler (whoever that may be) and hope he takes wickets.

I think it was Skinner who said, "Give me a group of children, and I will produce a doctor, lawyer, and criminal from whichever one you choose" (paraphrasing). Then cricket equivalent, I suppose is, show me your most endurant runner, who can throw the ball the furthest, and I'll produce a fast bowler of high quality. A guy like Jordan personifies that. It's hard to imagine he'll make a poor bowler. Just to athletic. You look at the top two pace bowlers in the world. Johnson and Steyn... Sensational athletes, really elite level.

Meanwhile, Raf, it was an old work colleague and friend of mine who said to a Project Manager who thought he could solve any problem by bringing in extra resources - ''Give me nine women and I still can't give you a baby in a month!''

guildfordbat wrote:Meanwhile, Raf, it was an old work colleague and friend of mine who said to a Project Manager who thought he could solve any problem by bringing in extra resources - ''Give me nine women and I still can't give you a baby in a month!''

Point very well taken, Guildford. Luckily creating a good fast bowler isn't an insurmountable biological process!!

Mike Selig wrote:I like Jordan, or rather I see clear "potential" (whatever that word means) there. I think his batting *could* be good enough to classify him as an all-rounder, or at least make a good number 8.

I think England seem to have found a good talent in Wood, but I doubt they've completely jettisoned Jordan from their minds (he was after all in the squad for this game).

They used to say Broads could be good enough to be a number 7.
With Stokes and Ali in the side and Rashid and Woakes poking round the edges (plus Bresnan back on form) as decent bowlers who can bat far better than him, is there any need for Jordan to be spending time that could be going into his bowling on batting? He'd have to improve his bating a heckins of a lot for it to be a serious factor in regaining a place. With so many all rounders available it would be nice f he concentrated effort on getting his bowling so that it produces results in internationals.

It just strikes me as odd after the amount of flak england have taken in the last few years for picking guys like Bresnan because they can bat a bit that people are now flinging Jordan out as the new Kallis on the basis hes scored a handful of county 50's.

To be fair, I'm just his agent. Wait for my press release when he scores a hundred

Gooseberry wrote:
It just strikes me as odd after the amount of flak england have taken in the last few years for picking guys like Bresnan because they can bat a bit that people are now flinging Jordan out as the new Kallis on the basis hes scored a handful of county 50's.

Erm really nobody is. All that guildford, to a lesser extent Raf and I (I think we're the only ones anyway) are saying is that we think Jordan has potential, and that he shouldn't be discarded entirely. Nobody is arguing against the position that his bowling should be his primary asset and has to improve. I am just pointing out that IF his bowling does start realising its obvious potential then his clear ability in the field and potential (that word again) with the bat will be plus points.

And all I am saying is that it really is never quite so simple as "pick your best bowler, regardless of what he offers with the bat and in the field". Since you brought up Bresnan and Kallis, if the choice was between the version of both where Bresnan was marginally a better bowler, you would still obviously pick Kallis.

Good post, Mike. Young rebel shows signs of becoming senior diplomat.

Can Chris Jordan be a better bat than say Harbhajan Singh? Brett Lee? Must say I am not at all convinced. I don't think he's in their league with the bat at this stage of his career, and I don't see him being much better in the long run either. His FC batting average is 21, and at close to 27, he's nnot exactly a spring chicken either. So for me, he's a bowler who can bat. But his bowling is not polished enough for international cricket at the moment, so unless that improves, debates about his batting have to stay put, unless he's going to bring about a Mark Richardson like transformation........

guildfordbat wrote:Young rebel shows signs of becoming senior diplomat.

Sounds like a cryptic crossword clue.

Perhaps I should say his bowling is not up for test cricket rather than international cricket. He still can be a handy customer in ODIs, and in that format, his filding and loworer hitting can be far more impactful. So let him improve his long format bowling at the domestic level, and let him continue to test himself against international quality in limited over formats for now, and I agree he should not be completely disregarded ........

kingraf wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Young rebel shows signs of becoming senior diplomat.

Sounds like a cryptic crossword clue.

Try this one then, Raf -

Getting on fine without people like me (5, 1, 5, 4).

Oops