England's Team for Thursday

I would go for:

1) Cook
2) Root
3) Trott
4) KP
5) Bell
6) Bairstow
7) Prior
8) Broad
9) Swann
10) Anderson
11) Tremlett

Just the one change for me: Tremlett in for Finn. Tremlett will offer better control to England, something Finn seems to lack. Bairstow's place isn't very secure, and he will need a good Test match to cement his position. Likewise, Root may need a good innings to prove he can hack opening the batting for his glorious country.

To be honest I really wouldn't pick Tremlett at this stage.  He is making a gradual recovery from injury.  He doesn't look at all mobile in the field and while he has now recovered enough to justify selection for a county side, he does not actually look like an England bowler at the moment.

If they do replace Finn, reckon Bresnan'll come in.

Onions for Finn.

Not many better line bowlers than Onions in world cricket.

Compton for Bairstow...but that's not happening

Think finn should make way for the next test as he seems short on confidence and rhythm. However, who to replace him with is a difficult one. I would plump for onions as he will be able to offer cook some consistency and reliability with the ball as a 3rd seamer. I think though england will choose bresnan for his ability to contribute also with the bat. As for the top seven, I would keep them the same. Barstow hasn't performed any worse than his colleagues in this game and so deserves another go, which leaves a straight fight between root and compton and there will only ever be one winner of that particular contest.

Gerry SA wrote:Onions for Finn.

Not many better line bowlers than Onions in world cricket.

Compton for Bairstow...but that's not happening

Pretty much agree with this. Unless Bresnan has got his sharpness back - needs to bowling 85mph+ like he did in 2011 not floating it up at 75mph.

For the batting Root the opener I was never struck on as he as going well in the middle order. Looked very nervous opening and we miss him in the middle order now.

What I expect though is one change: Bresnan for Finn.

Is Jimmy a confirmed player for Thursday? I just felt he was fighting through the barrier for the win. Is he alright? I always liked Graeme... Pretty good player.

I'd prefer Onions over Bresnan. But I doubt Finn will be dropped.

If he plays poorly at Lords, then he'll likely be dropped.

So same team for me.

Same team.

Finn's match statistics:

1st innings: 15/0/80/2
2nd innings: 10/3/37/0

Not good, in other words.

2/117? Yikes. Finn reminds me of a young Morne Morkel. The thing about Morkel is that he hasnt actually gone on to become a great. Sometimes, as fans we just need to understand that some players' ceiling is a lot smaller than we would like to think. Bresnan on the other hand, has reached his ceiling, you know what he has... But does it beat what Finn may or may not be capable of?

It's a no brainer.....

1) they will keep Root on top...to pretend it wasn't a mistake in the first place to send him up there

AND
2) Bring that trundler back in place of the only 95mph bowler

Eng got out of jail by a wafer thin margin today.....the question is how much can you keep sc.rewing up with selections and yet get away next time from being stuck in jail

Kp, putting root in to open wasn't a mistake Compton is... not test class, root is. However, I'm in mixed minds about Finn and Bresnan, if Bres was bowling 83/4 plus then I would have no problem with the change but recently he hasn't. (I think that extra yard of pace is important in test cricket). But saying that Finn needs to be more consistent, you can't allow a weak link in test cricket (if possible). I'm going to throw this out there, tymal mills or Stuart meaker? If it's flat you need that extra pace sometimes.

KP_fan wrote:It's a no brainer.....

1) they will keep Root on top...to pretend it wasn't a mistake in the first place to send him up there

AND
2) Bring that trundler back in place of the only 95mph bowler

Eng got out of jail by a wafer thin margin today.....the question is how much can you keep sc.rewing up with selections and yet get away next time from being stuck in jail

KP_fan, you appear to have not answered my question. So, if you please, why is a man with a similar bowling average to Zaheer Khan and a superior economy rate a trundler?

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:It's a no brainer.....

1) they will keep Root on top...to pretend it wasn't a mistake in the first place to send him up there

AND
2) Bring that trundler back in place of the only 95mph bowler

Eng got out of jail by a wafer thin margin today.....the question is how much can you keep sc.rewing up with selections and yet get away next time from being stuck in jail

KP_fan, you appear to have not answered my question. So, if you please, why is a man with a similar bowling average to Zaheer Khan and a superior economy rate a trundler?

if cricketing selections were all about stats....you would need a computer program to select top-15 and top-11 sides.
Cricketing skills is a largely subjective analysis......and i have made my opinion on Bresnan known....loudly , repeatedly and unambigously....a trundler....good to be a 5th bowler but nowhere close to top3 seamers in a top side.

just as i did on Root.

Eng can do as they like....and surely they will....and live and die by their selections

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:It's a no brainer.....

1) they will keep Root on top...to pretend it wasn't a mistake in the first place to send him up there

AND
2) Bring that trundler back in place of the only 95mph bowler

Eng got out of jail by a wafer thin margin today.....the question is how much can you keep sc.rewing up with selections and yet get away next time from being stuck in jail

KP_fan, you appear to have not answered my question. So, if you please, why is a man with a similar bowling average to Zaheer Khan and a superior economy rate a trundler?

if cricketing selections were all about stats....you would need a computer program to select top-15 and top-11 sides.
Cricketing skills is a largely subjective analysis......and i have made my opinion on Bresnan known....loudly , repeatedly and unambigously....a trundler....good to be a 5th bowler but nowhere close to top3 seamers in a top side.

just as i did on Root.

Eng can do as they like....and surely they will....and live and die by their selections

Thank you KP_fan.

But England have 3 match-winning bowlers in their locker, through Anderson, Broad, and Swann. Reliable Tim, hero of Melbourne, would add control for England if selected. He wouldn't be under pressure to take wickets, merely to restrict the flow of runs. And if you're lucky, he'll hang around a bit with the bat, frustrate the opposition, and chip in a 30-40 odd run score.

Not that I would pick him. I would take Tremlett or Onions over him. But the Bres wouldn't be a bad selection.

Broad is not a match winning bowler in the best of times...unless conditions are really ultra-seaming...and now he is carrying a tender shoulder.

But I do agree that Bresnan on paper looks more likely of scoring runs...then Finn...and probably that's why he keeps getting picked because England don't trust their batting so much.

England should trust their batting. No reason not to.

Cook, KP, and Prior would be in a world XI easily. Cook and Pietersen are two of England's greatest ever batsman. Trott averages around 50 and is reliable. Ian Bell has just carved out the greatest ton of his life, and is level with Vaughan in tons made. Joe Root averages over 50 in FC cricket as an opener. Bairstow averages 45 in FC cricket. Prior is a proven test batsman; average of 43, and 7 Test tons. Broad has proven he can bat.

In England's batting I trust.

I would go with the same team, with Finn really needing a good game to retain his place for the 3rd test.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:To be honest I really wouldn't pick Tremlett at this stage.  He is making a gradual recovery from injury.  He doesn't look at all mobile in the field and while he has now recovered enough to justify selection for a county side, he does not actually look like an England bowler at the moment.

Sad though it is to say, I believe it would be a serious mistake to recall Tremlett now. The Corporal is absolutely right in his comments.

We back here Duty???

Fair enough after a win, I suppose. What does a FC average of 50 mean in County now? Honest question, Dont watch it at all. Are County averages reflective of what to expect on a global scale? Bell is safe, for a week or two, until he has to score the next most important ton of his life. Cant see Root being dropped so soon. I must be honest I'm not convinced about little Jonny.

kingraf wrote:We back here Duty???

Fair enough after a win, I suppose. What does a FC average of 50 mean in County now?  Honest question, Dont watch it at all. Are County averages reflective of what to expect on a global scale?  Bell is safe, for a week or two, until he has to score the next most important ton of his life. Cant see Root being dropped so soon. I must be honest I'm not convinced about little Jonny.

I'm not too convinced about Bairstow either, but it does seem as if we are going with him, and all the best too him. I prefer James Taylor personally.

First class averages are a useful indicator but sometimes you just have a feeling about a player. Root has looked like a Test player so far, Bairstow hasn't. But I'd keep him for the next Test at least. Finn also stays for one for Test for me, hopefully bowling at Lords should get him into some rythmn again. And Broad is the definition of a match winning bowler! He can take games away from sides in a session. But him and Anderson both carrying niggles is a worry.

Quite exciting.  Whoever plays  you can be sure they'll give their best and do everything to try to keep that little urn.

 
I like it dizzle. Don't be reactionary like my idiotic spoof alt.  You've picked them so you have to show some faith until they've truly proven themselves unworthy.

Duty281 wrote:England should trust their batting. No reason not to.

Cook, KP, and Prior would be in a world XI easily. Cook and Pietersen are two of England's greatest ever batsman. Trott averages around 50 and is reliable. Ian Bell has just carved out the greatest ton of his life, and is level with Vaughan in tons made. Joe Root averages over 50 in FC cricket as an opener. Bairstow averages 45 in FC cricket. Prior is a proven test batsman; average of 43, and 7 Test tons. Broad has proven he can bat.

In England's batting I trust.

 All fair points.  The Aussie tail looks stronger at the bottom end but, conversely, they look to have a few more worries at the top and middle.

No need to change the side. Finn didn't have the best of matches I agree. But he provided them a fine start to their efforts with the ball after a dreadful batting performance to help shift the momentum back to them with a double strike over. He wasn't his usual confident self after that though. However, the HQ is his home ground and he has done well there in the past. On potential and performance, he remains a better bowler than Tim Bresnan.
In the batting department, England have made the choice to go in with Root up the order, and more importantly, Bairstow at 6. I am sure Root will come to the part sooner rather than later, and I think Bairstow needs a run beyond a single test, and in fact he was their 2nd top scorer in the first innings.

Raymond wrote:..... I'm going to throw this out there, tymal mills or Stuart meaker? If it's flat you need that extra pace sometimes.

 Meaker has been sidelined by injury for some while.  His season hasn't really got going so far.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Raymond wrote:..... I'm going to throw this out there, tymal mills or Stuart meaker? If it's flat you need that extra pace sometimes.

 Meaker has been sidelined by injury for some while.  His season hasn't really got going so far.

The Corporal is spot on about Meaker.

Mills is fast and a potential danger to health but so is an Inter City 125 and you wouldn't give it the new ball.

A lot to be said for continuity... wouldn't drop Finn because of just one bad match, I think that sends entirely the wrong message. Similarly you can't really ditch Root as an opener after one (admittedly nervous) game.

Mills is nowhere near test class (and Meaker is injured) - the Saj Mahmood experiment showed that playing someone with pace for pace's sake doesn't really work...

Onions has as usual become a much better bowler since being out of the side. The last time he actually played a test match he didn't do that well...

Seriously people have to get over their knee-jerking.

Bresnan for Bairstow. We need to not over bowl Jimmy and Swanny. Bresnan can score as many as JB....

Drop Finn. Bloody useless of late - no consistency and until he achieves it he simply cannot form part of a 3 man pace attack.

Onions, for me, though I fully expect to see Bresnan lining up (the man who also cannot take Test wickets).

England missed a trick by not playing Bresnan at Nottingham and holding back Finn for Lord's. Now it seems that Bresnan will play at Lord's and Finn will miss out.
  My main worry with a four-man bowling attack, espcially with the weather set fair, is that Anderson will get overbowled. And what happens if someone gets injured, or Swann goes all round the ground? Anderson really should not be asked to bowl around 24/25 overs a day.
 With Prior quite capable of batting at six, we should be playing five front-line bowlers. Can't see us doing it as we seem to keep winning with the current system. Still not that happy about it, though.

England won't play 5 bowlers. The reason is quite simple: I can only recall one or two occasions over the last few years where England would have liked a genuine 5th bowling option, whereas I can recall quite a few where they've been grateful for the extra batsman.

If England had more bowlers like Finn who like to bowl short sharp spells then the reasoning would have more merit, but both Broad and Anderson are happy bowling long spells - indeed Anderson is more effective that way.

I am not convinced Bresnan is good enough to bat at 7 in any case (Prior is certainly capable of batting at 6).

The "if one of our bowlers gets injured" is not really a valid line of thought; if the whole squad goes down with food poisoning then England are in trouble also. You don't plan a test match team around the possibility of injury...

If there are to be changes then Finn would be the obvious candidate to be dropped. Personally, I'd opt to bring Onions in as he has proven himself against the Aussies in the past more than Bresnan has. Still I do think Bresnan can do the job.

Mike Selig wrote: The "if one of our bowlers gets injured" is not really a valid line of thought; if the whole squad goes down with food poisoning then England are in trouble also. You don't plan a test match team around the possibility of injury...

but what if you have concrete knowledge that one or more of your bowlers are carrying niggles or not 100% recovered from injuries....
such as one bowler with cortisone injcetions to his shoulder, anotehr with with a groin niggle and 3rd one just recovered but possible not 100% from his elbow injury ?

Mills is nowhere near test class (and Meaker is injured) - the Saj Mahmood experiment showed that playing someone with pace for pace's sake doesn't really work...

Onions has as usual become a much better bowler since being out of the side. The last time he actually played a test match he didn't do that well...

Seriously people have to get over their knee-jerking.[/quote]

I never meant it to said that they should come straight in, I agree with the squad, it was an alternative idea. Saj Mahmmod was s**t and never had potential also was much slow 3/4 mph infact, Mills does have potential as he can swing it at express pace, just a reminder that he was hurrying up Cook on a very slow pitch. Even thought he isn't test class at the moment with his pace and movement he would get wickets, but would lack control (which is essential to Englands plans) However, i don't think he would do worse than Finn did. (Who i rate if he finds his rhythm.

He reminds me of a young Simon Jones.

Bresnan for Finn please. And if Bairstow fails again, bring in Ravi

Azzy Mahmood wrote:Bresnan for Finn please. And if Bairstow fails again, bring in Ravi

If bresnan can play as a specialist bowler...so can Bopara

I was only joshing on the Ravi front, I'm an Essex fan and even I don't want him to play for England again

If Bairstow can't hack this intense pressure, I'd suggest bringing in someone like Eoin Morgan, who at least knows the setup. You can't demote Root and bring Compton back in.

Same squad named - sugegsts any niggles for Anderson or Broad are pretty minor.

I'd put money on the same XI being named, although clearly Finn is under pressure. I'd go for Onions as the better choice for his replacement, as I see him as more likely to take wickets than Bres (given form in the last 12 months) while having almost equal ability to keep the bowling tight.

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that an Anderson, Broad, Finn bowling attack isn't quite right as a three man seam attack. Obviously Jimmy is just a class act, takes wickets consistently and rarely goes round the park. The problem I have is that both Broad and Finn are inconsistent - on their good days they can both blast an opposing line-up out, but if it isn't their day they can leak a lot of runs and be no threat. If both mis-fire on the same day it puts a lot of pressure on Jimmy and Swann to bowl both a lot of overs and take wickets.

Those advocating bringing in a genuine fast bowler have to consider the team balance - you can carry a Harmison type in a 4 man pace attack and have him bowl lots of short bursts (3 or 4 overs) on his good days, but as one of only 3 seamers?

Same squad named, hope we pick Onions for Thursday!

Looking at injuries you have to consider the workload involved in Test series these days. This week, in hot weather, the players are having back-to-back Tests and will still have three more after that.
It's ironic that when Tests were more spaced out they had a rest day which of course has long gone the way of the Dodo nowadays.
If the selectors had thought about it more, they would played Bresnan at Nottingham and then brought in a fresh Finn at Lord's. The real key is Swann - if he bowls well then the other three get a rest. The Aussies, if they want to win, need to seriously get after Swann

I don’t think that any change needs to made now. Perhaps if Finn doesn’t have a good match at Lord’s then swap him for Onions. I tend to agree with the idea of Root reverting to the middle order and Compton opening with Bairstow dropping out, for now at least.

That was a fantastic Test Match and I enjoyed the gritty, battling and determined Aussies (that really hurt saying that!) but remember that apart from two freak 10th wicket partnerships they would have been beaten by about 220

bradman99.94 wrote:   That was a fantastic Test Match and I enjoyed the gritty, battling and determined Aussies (that really hurt saying that!) but remember that apart from two freak 10th wicket partnerships they would have been beaten by about 220

the 10th wicket partnership happened twice in the same match.......would you still call it freak ?

If I recall Australia's 4 tests before this one in India.....they had about 5 to 6 partnerships in the range of 45 to 60 runs either the 9th or 10th wicket.

the way I look at it....they bat with 11 batters and right down to the end last man is capable of scoring 20 to 30 odd runs....not as a freak on off occurence but rather on a more consistent basis

bradman99.94 wrote:I don’t think that any change needs to made now. Perhaps if Finn doesn’t have a good match at Lord’s then swap him for Onions. I tend to agree with the idea of Root reverting to the middle order and Compton opening with Bairstow dropping out, for now at least.

That was a fantastic Test Match and I enjoyed the gritty, battling and determined Aussies (that really hurt saying that!) but remember that apart from two freak 10th wicket partnerships they would have been beaten by about 220

B99.94
The question though is whether Compton + Root gives you a stronger lineup than Root + Bairstow. Certainly need to see another game or two of Root opening to know for sure - he may well come good in the next match, which would mean that the selector's decision becomes the more setraightforward one of Bairstow or Bopara/Taylor/A N Other. Compton did an adequate job in India without really getting a big score, then did well in NZ but poorly in the home series, so his being dropped was not a big surprise.

Your point about the runs made by the Aussie 10th wicket partnerships is well made - if Agar's stumping had been given the whole feel of the match would have been very different, with England well on top throughout, taking an 80-odd run lead into their second innings rather than a 60-odd deficit. Yes the Aussies fought hard, but it was only some freakish occurrences that led to this game ending as close as it did.

That decision to give Agar not out on the stumping was one of the worst decisions I've seen in cricket, far worse even than not seeing Broad's edge. It is indisputable that Agar's foot had not crossed the line by even one centimetre, so he should have been given out.

It's a shame there are no other umpires to call upon, because this shower are pretty inept.

KP_fan wrote:

bradman99.94 wrote:   That was a fantastic Test Match and I enjoyed the gritty, battling and determined Aussies (that really hurt saying that!) but remember that apart from two freak 10th wicket partnerships they would have been beaten by about 220

the 10th wicket partnership happened twice in the same match.......would you still call it freak ?

If I recall Australia's 4 tests before this one in India.....they had about 5 to 6 partnerships in the range of 45 to 60 runs either the 9th or 10th wicket.

the way I look at it....they bat with 11 batters and right down to the end last man is capable of scoring 20 to 30 odd runs....not as a freak on off occurence but rather on a more consistent basis

Yep, they can all bat, but a 1st innings 10th wicket partnership of 163 followed by a 2nd innings 10th wicket partnership of 65 is far more than unusual; it’s a freak, a fantastic, admirable, greatly enjoyable freak but a freak none the less

@dummy_half
I’m happy for the batting not to change, certainly for this match, as like you I’d like to take another look at Root opening but Compton opening and Root in the middle has a very dependable feel to it

Azzy

You are right that the Agar stumping is a poor decision - just done a pseudo frame-by-frame on the youtube link, and at the point that Prior breaks the stumps Agar's foot is at best on the front edge of the crease line. This is the sort of decision that the thrid umpire should be getting right every time - it wasn't even as though the movements were all that fast, as sometimes happens in run-out decisions where there can be a big change from one frame tot he next in the recording.

Not a good match for technology, or at least for those relying on its use...

bradman99.94 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

bradman99.94 wrote:   That was a fantastic Test Match and I enjoyed the gritty, battling and determined Aussies (that really hurt saying that!) but remember that apart from two freak 10th wicket partnerships they would have been beaten by about 220

the 10th wicket partnership happened twice in the same match.......would you still call it freak ?

If I recall Australia's 4 tests before this one in India.....they had about 5 to 6 partnerships in the range of 45 to 60 runs either the 9th or 10th wicket.

the way I look at it....they bat with 11 batters and right down to the end last man is capable of scoring 20 to 30 odd runs....not as a freak on off occurence but rather on a more consistent basis

Yep, they can all bat, but a 1st innings 10th wicket partnership of 163 followed by a 2nd innings 10th wicket partnership of 65 is far more than unusual; it’s a freak, a fantastic, admirable, greatly enjoyable freak but a freak none the less

And considering that Agar should have been out stumped long before they even got to 50, let alone 163, it's certainly a freak partnership.

Spoiler: