England vs New Zealand Test Series - May/June 2015

Less than two weeks to go before the Selectors announce England's squad for the first test, starting on 21st May. At the culmination of the West Indies first innings in Barbados you would have said that the test team had perhaps taken two steps forward and one backwards. The rest of that test were however several huge backward steps as we look to progress.

So what can we expect when the squad is announced in 12 days time? The guys on the current tour who have not played (Lyth, Bairstow, Rashid, Plunkett & Wood) will have just one first class game to try and make their cases for selection - and now you have to say that there are definitely places up for grabs.

Certain to be in Squad:

Cook, Ballance, Bell, Root, Buttler, Broad, Anderson

Cook will continue as captain in the near future, while his runs in the Caribbean have secured his spot at the top of the order for a while yet.
Broad will be included, but I feel his place is increasingly at risk.


Probably in Squad:

Stokes, Ali

Likely to both be in squad. Real question is should both be in the team at the same time? Stokes is surely a 4th seamer, while this tour has reminded us that Ali had a fantastic introduction to International cricket as a bowler, but as someone who has always been a batsman who bowls a bit he is still learning his trade. Should he really be the main spinner?


Likely to miss out

Trott, Jordan, Tredwell

The experiment with Trot at opener is surely over. Jordan has not looked good enough to fill the 3rd seamer role, and does not bat well enough to be 4th seamer. Tredwell can return to Canterbury to be Kent's second choice spinner.



So who will be asked to step up?

At opener Lyth is the next cab on the rank, but will have played bugger all cricket. Robson made a big hundred at the weekend, but bugger all in Middlesex first two CC matches. Hales is scoring runs for Notts, but at number 3.
Plunkett and Wood may be looked at but have the same problem as Lyth with no cricket under their belts. Who is there in county cricket who bowls with real pace, can offer something different and can get good batsmen out?  not sure there is anyone. If fit Woakes may well be looked at.
Finally we need a genuine spinner in the squad. Coach (should he survive) and skipper do not rate Rashid - so who do we look at next?




The good news, for England team, is that NZs preparations will be disrupted with several players not arriving from IPL until the eve of the first test.


NZ Squads:

Test squad:
Brendon McCullum (captain), Corey Anderson, Trent Boult, Doug Bracewell, Mark Craig, Martin Guptill, Matt Henry, Tom Latham, Luke Ronchi (wk), Hamish Rutherford, Tim Southee, Ross Taylor, Neil Wagner, BJ Watling (wk), Kane Williamson.

ODI and T20 squad:
Brendon McCullum (captain), Corey Anderson, Trent Boult, Grant Elliott, Martin Guptill, Matt Henry, Tom Latham, Mitchell McClenaghan, Nathan McCullum, Adam Milne, Luke Ronchi (wk), Mitchell Santner, Tim Southee, Ross Taylor, Kane Williamson.

Nice summary. Haven't got chance to comment at length but I am dreading this series and I will go 2-0 new Zealand weather permitting.

Unless our one man bowling attack, and theoretical long batting line up/reality being a pathetic collapse every innings can produce miracles

What's the story with James Taylor?
I know he's only played 2 tests but he strikes me as someone with the right balance of good temperament and hard grit.
Do you think he deserves another chance at some stage this summer?

It is difficult to fit Taylor into the test team at the moment, probably until Bell departs. A spot only appears if they decide to pick a specialist batsmen at 6 rather than the all-rounders they have been picking.

I would actually like to see Buttler moved to 6 with the All-rounder moved to 7.

I will try to address a few things here. Firstly, Moores admitted last night post-match that he should have played Rashid so perhaps he is not so lowly rated as the OP says.

As to the certs to be in the squad I agree with them. As in probably in the squad I'd place Ali with Rashid and Jordan (his slip fielding keeps him in the side). As for those likely tro miss out I'd take out Treadwell as he may make it and have Trott and Ali.

If they can't play a little bit of swing from the likes of Jason Holder and Shannon Gabriel, lord knows how they'll handle Trent Boult and Tim Southee swinging it...

Maybe a little left field - but I think that Bell's place should be under a little more threat than it is. He didn't have a particularly good summer last year (averaged under 40 against a fairly average Indian attack), and despite the century in the first test barely averaged over 30 in the WIndies. 

With the likes of Taylor (who is the ideal replacement), James Vince etc etc waiting in the wings, I'd certainly not be totally opposed to a change if he starts off the summer like recent times.

Fitness providing this is the side I'd go with for the first test against NZ;

Cook
Lyth
Ballance
Bell
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Broad
Wood/Plunkett/Finn
Anderson

I think Lyth deserves a shot at the top of the order based on what he did last season.

I'd have Stokes at 6, move Buttler to 7 and have Moeen at 8 (and have Moeen concentrate on his development as a spinner)

If Woakes was fit I'd have him as the 3rd seamer, but he won't be for the 1st test so I'd like to see us go with one of Wood, Plunkett or Finn. I like Chris Jordan in the ODI stuff but for me in tests he isn't upto the 3rd seamer role, and I'm not picking a third seamer because they can catch.

I'd say that in there that Bell's position, and Ali's are under threat (if they have a poor NZ series) - Stokes's is lukewarm, but I think we should give him the summer to see what we really have there. 

I'm always reluctant to criticise Broad because I do rate him, but I do wonder how his knee is going to hold up

I would agree with you about Bell. Also I'd move Broad down to bat at No.11. Also move Buttler up above Stokes in the batting line-up and replace Ali with Rashid.

Bell's position should be under discussion - but I feel he has done enough to earn a stay from execution - for now.

I too am worried that Broad's body will not survive the summer.

Unlike you I am not sure that Ali's bowling can put him in the team as a front line bowler. However he does have a bit of time now to try and get overs into his arm. We just need them to stop fiddling with him. I am convinced he was tugging the ball down due to being asked to give it a rip AND bowl quicker. It would be hard enough for one of the great spinners to achieve that, let alone a guy who until 10 months ago was only an occasional bowler.

Deleting duplication...

Didn't hear the Moores interview : he actually said he wished he'd played Rashid , did he ? Interesting. Because a lot of reports - from other observers - had suggested Rashid just wasn't performing in the nets. This tends to contradict it.
Incidentally , I'm not sure Rashid would have made the difference anyway : one we cannot know how he would have bowled , and two I doubt he could have helped England avoid that ridiculous collapse in the second innings : it was not an easy pitch to bat on ; but never  123 all out pitch .  But that's all speculation anyway. The issue is whether Rashid is a viable bowling choice going forward ; and as I'm not in a position to watch him play I have no way to judge. But clearly he is under consideration or they wouldn't have taken him on tour.
My hunch would be he is more likely to make his debut in the UAE. Unless the pitches in England this summer arevery suited to spin.
I absolutely get the enthusiasm for picking a specialist spinner. In fact I was unhappy last year when they plumped for Moeen Ali ; but the fact that he took twenty wickets against batsmen who cut their teeth on finger spinners suggested he might be a little better than just a part timer . Do two rather disappointing Tests on return from injury cancel that series out ?
I'm not firm on this ; but I feel if you are going to sacrifice a player who had shown a bit of promise in his early games - and has the added advantage of being able to bat - then you need to be pretty sure the man you bring in is really going to take wickets. (Unless you just want a steady , control type - in which case Tredwell is probably your man)
If they try Rashid against NZ I won't say they're nuts. But I expect Ali to stay alongside four pacemen ( though perhaps batting at seven or eight). And I wouldn't assume that will necessarily be wrong either...

The truth is , England were spoiled with Swann - as Australia were with Warne.  He enabled them to go with a four bowler attack and include the extra batsman ; he filled a crucial spot in the slip cordon . And above all he took wickets.  Now he's gone England are forced to pick five bowlers , unless they want Andrrson and Broad carried off in a box... and they still can't dismiss anyone cheaply unless one or both of those men does most of the damage.  To be quite honest I think getting the right two seamers to complete the attack might be more important right now than embarking on a mission to find a true spinner when none is standing out for selection. If that brands me as over cautious then so be it.
I thought Jordan looked quite good in this match (though I missed his later spell which I hear wasn't so tidy) ; and if he can develop consistency he might not be the worst choice - that catching is an asset not to be despised.  Pity his batting so far has been all promise and no runs... Even so ; if he does get a start against NZ , I think he needs to present as a bit more of a wicket taking threat. Can't leave it all to Jimmy !
Stokes is a worry.  Promising ...and promising again. But although he has bowled well in patches , he hasn't taken wickets , hasn't offered control - and just hasn't made the runs you'd expect from a number six on placid pitches.  Not saying dump him ; but he needs to deliver soon.
Does that all sound as if I am advocating an unchanged team ?  Isn't meant to : for one thing Lyth must replace Trott (if he was first choice to tour he surely has first chance to prove he is up to it : Hales and possibly another chance for Robson are options for later)
And while the other bats and keeper are unlikely to change at present those three spots for bowler/all rounder types are quite open. Just saying the three in possession may be the best choices at the moment , despite faults in their games which have been somewhat highlighted by the unexpected defeat in Barbados.
There is a natural - and understandable - instinct to call for change
after a bad defeat. But change for the sake of change is basically just gambling . You have to pick what you think is the best combination for the game you are about to play ; whether that involves one , two or three different bowlers ...
And we should remember that match was lost because the core batting failed in the second innings ; if we want to punish someone it would probably have to be Bell
Jokes aside he won't be happy with his pair ; think he'll be anxious to prove he is still an automatic choice for the middle order. As he should be : in an ideal world all players should be maintaining a standard if they want to hold their places. Including the "fringe " bowlers.  Just think you should give them a reasonable chance to prove themselves rather than chop and change every other game.

Yes alfie Moores did say afterwards in an interview with (think it was Nasser Hussain) said they realised now it was a mistake not going with Rashid in the third test.

Took me so long to write all that (slow , one finger) that I hadn't read the last few posts above...
Can't disagree too much with Olly. Maybe Buttler might bat in front of Stokes ?  I would also have Woakes if fit ...but he won't be for a while , I fear.
Of the seamers touted above I would be happy to see Plunkett (actually disappointed he didn't play in West Indies ; though conditions may not have suited him)  He didn't actually return great figures last year , I should point out.  But he did look like a man who could take a bag of wickets  in an innings ; which the others aren't doing.  Wood I  haven't seen so can't comment.  And a back to form Finn would be lovely but I've just about given up on that...
I am just not quite so certain Jordan should be written off. Yet.

And as agree Broad may struggle to play seven Tests I think we might see a few of these fellows over the summer...

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes alfie Moores did say afterwards in an interview with (think it was Nasser Hussain) said they realised now it was a mistake not going with Rashid in the third test.

Thanks , Craig.

My TV cover cut off before they got to Moores. Did he indicate whether he meant instead of Ali or one of the pace bowlers ? Probably wouldn't have been that specific , I guess...

It does suggest he has a more positive view of Rashid than some sources have been implying.

I think it was Ali that was hinted. Hussain picked up on not having a specialist spinner which the pitch was crying out for and mentioned Ali not being ready and then Moores admitted Rashid should have been picked. That is how I remember it anyway.

A little intrigued by this series. England are rarely, if ever in a boring test series (although the back to back Ashes thing did drag on - Was well worth it for the Summer of Johnson as a neutral).

Reckon it's two sides reasonably well placed, with NZ maybe having a slightly higher trajectory. Boult and Southee are slippery customers, and in English conditions I expect them to be a real handful. Wagner is the workhorse of the side, but recently, he too has seemed capable of slight hints of genius undertones. On the batting front, Mccullum is coming on the back of a superlative 2014, Williamson being possibly the premier #3 in world cricket, and Ross Taylor still being reasonably classy. All hands need to be on deck for England or they could realistically lose this series, and head into the Ashes having lost 3/4 series post Ashes 2013-14

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think it was Ali that was hinted. Hussain picked up on not having a specialist spinner which the pitch was crying out for and mentioned Ali not being ready and then Moores admitted Rashid should have been picked. That is how I remember it anyway.

OK. You know it is funny in a way ; I actually wished they wouldn't rush Ali out for this series : but if they hadn't , would Tredwell - who bowled quite well in Antigua - have kept his place ?
Incidentally , one should note in Moeens defence that he was the only batsman part from Cook to make a serious score for England in this match ; so it's never quite that simple...

Craig / Alfie - I only came in on the Moores interview after it had started but I didn't think he was as definitive about Rashid as Craig suggests. He seemed to acknowledge a mistake in reading the wicket before the start and not appreciating the value of including another spinner. Hussain had a Rashid agenda in his questions but I'm near certain that Morres said at one point, ''Rashid or Tredwell''. [Apologies if there was more I didn't get.]

Moores did emphasise that Trott had earned the right to be included but pretty much acknowledged it hadn't worked.

guildfordbat wrote:Craig / Alfie - I only came in on the Moores interview after it had started but I didn't think he was as definitive about Rashid as Craig suggests. He seemed to acknowledge a mistake in reading the wicket before the start and not appreciating the value of including another spinner. Hussain had a Rashid agenda in his questions but I'm near certain that Morres said at one point, ''Rashid or Tredwell''. [Apologies if there was more I didn't get.]

Moores did emphasise that Trott had earned the right to be included but pretty much acknowledged it hadn't worked.

Pretty sure Hussain did say to him was it a mistake letting Rashid go home when he could have done a job on that pitch and Moores admitted that. It is rather foggy in my mind though that is how I read it. The fact, in any case, that Rashid is joining one day squad does suggest he still remains in their plans. Not saying your recollection of interview is wrong as like I said my recollection is foggy. If highlights are on today they may repeat the interview.

Cheers, Craig. I do feel the likes of Boycott and Botham want it both ways and often belatedly. I don't recall either screaming at the selectors just before the last toss that Rashid had to play. Also, if he had played and flopped, I feel it would be those same two now telling us in no uncertain terms that a Test place has to be earned and questioning what he had done to merit selection.

To be fair to Beefy I am pretty sure he said before the test it was wrong the way Rashid was treated ie taken on tour and not used and then packed off back home early.

I'm not sure I really subscribe to that view. You don't give a guy a game in a deciding Test match of the series just because hasn't had one yet. He has to earn it and, by all accounts, Rashid bowled like a drain in the nets and the warm up games.

Would like to see this team for the first Test vs NZ:

Cook, Lyth, Ballance, Bell, Root, Taylor, Buttler, Stokes, Ali (or whomever they think the best spinner is), Broad, Anderson.

Although it is almost nailed on to be Ali at 6, with Wood/Jordan/Plunkett in for Taylor.

JDizzle wrote:I'm not sure I really subscribe to that view. You don't give a guy a game in a deciding Test match of the series just because hasn't had one yet. He has to earn it and, by all accounts, Rashid bowled like a drain in the nets and the warm up games.

Would like to see this team for the first Test vs NZ:

Cook, Lyth, Ballance, Bell, Root, Taylor, Buttler, Stokes, Ali (or whomever they think the best spinner is), Broad, Anderson.

Although it is almost nailed on to be Ali at 6, with Wood/Jordan/Plunkett in for Taylor.

Well Ali had bowled like a drain and it may have cost England the series in that third test. Heck even the part-time part-time spinner Root offered more control. If you don't axe players for awful performances then when are you going to axe them?

Think Ali has some credit in the bank from bowling well last summer. Add that to the fact our spin resources our a mess, probably means he gets another chance. Balance of the side still isn't right at the moment though, neither Ali or Stokes can be relied on to be a fourth bowler in a four man attack or bat number six successfully, which poses a serious conundrum and I have no idea on the solution to be honest.

No I don't agree at all. The team should be selected on current form and not of that of a year ago. He had his chances since then and not proved himself and he bowled stinking long hops all day yesterday where a rookie spinner for the Windies got more wickets than him. Sticking with Ali is settling for mediocrity and allowing poor performances to go unpunished really beggars belief.

Tiger - a neat opening post although I don't agree with it all.

Whilst you're certainly consistent, I feel you're too dismissive of Tredwell. I probably would say that, wouldn't I, as he's ''my man Tredwell'', per the esteemed Alfie. There's no arguing with your recurring theme of him not being first choice spinner at Division Two Kent, at least last season. However, he's better rated on the county circuit than that suggests. It's often overlooked that Division One Sussex were happy to take him on loan and play him.

I'm also in no rush to ditch Jordan. I agree fielding shouldn't get or keep someone in a Test team (otherwise Jim Foat would have had 50 caps, who? Exactly!) but have a feeling that his catches are a pointer to all round ability rather than the extent of his talents. Admittedly, Jordan has to deliver more and soon in the other areas to justify that. In my book, a little more time will do little harm and just possibly ... etc.

I do believe this is an important summer for Buttler. Imo he was elevated to Test cricket before he was quite ready and could have done with some extra learning time at Lancs. Anyway, too late to dwell on that now or change things but he does have to step up further. Yes, he's done ok but we really need more than 'ok' for such a pivotal role. If Australia had the choice, I doubt they would be in a rush to swap him for Haddin.

I agree with you that Lyth should be next in line to replace Trott. However, such terrible scheduling (the norm these days) means he and England start at a serious disadvantage with the Yorks opener not having a first class innings since heaven knows when.

I also share your doubts about Broad.

If not Buttler then whom?

Bairstow is scheduled to keep against Ireland, suggesting he is ranked ahead of Billings as a keeper - the Kent man scheduled to play as a batsman only. Bairstow however is a long way from test quality with the gloves. (Hodd is a much better keeper for us).

After that the cupboard looks a little bare. Foster and Read will be deemed too old, Steve Davies no longer wears the gloves it seems and......

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I don't agree at all. The team should be selected on current form and not of that of a year ago. He had his chances since then and not proved himself and he bowled stinking long hops all day yesterday where a rookie spinner for the Windies got more wickets than him. Sticking with Ali is settling for mediocrity and allowing poor performances to go unpunished really beggars belief.

Form's not the only determining factor for selection though. Proof that someone can perform at Test level is a strong lure, given their are no stand out candiates to replace Moeen. They earn him at least one more Test match.

JDizzle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I don't agree at all. The team should be selected on current form and not of that of a year ago. He had his chances since then and not proved himself and he bowled stinking long hops all day yesterday where a rookie spinner for the Windies got more wickets than him. Sticking with Ali is settling for mediocrity and allowing poor performances to go unpunished really beggars belief.

Form's not the only determining factor for selection though. Proof that someone can perform at Test level is a strong lure, given their are no stand out candiates to replace Moeen. They earn him at least one more Test match.

Sorry but how can you say that when none have been given the chance? Ali, at present, showed he isn't up to the task. Heck even Treadwell proved a better option.

When Ali clearly isn't the answer you give somebody else a chance, i'd sooner bring Ashley Giles out of retirement than see him continue as our first choice spinner.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:When Ali clearly isn't the answer you give somebody else a chance, i'd sooner bring Ashley Giles out of retirement than see him continue as our first choice spinner.

Fully agree. Settle for Ali and you are saying bowling rank long hops are acceptable standard for the test side. Already in this one series it can be said Treadwell is a better option than Ali for a start. Jeez I'd even say Root is as well.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I don't agree at all. The team should be selected on current form and not of that of a year ago. He had his chances since then and not proved himself and he bowled stinking long hops all day yesterday where a rookie spinner for the Windies got more wickets than him. Sticking with Ali is settling for mediocrity and allowing poor performances to go unpunished really beggars belief.

Form's not the only determining factor for selection though. Proof that someone can perform at Test level is a strong lure, given their are no stand out candiates to replace Moeen. They earn him at least one more Test match.

Sorry but how can you say that when none have been given the chance? Ali, at present, showed he isn't up to the task. Heck even Treadwell proved a better option.

Because they haven't earned a chance? You don't pick someone because you hope they will be better. You pick someone because you think they will be better. And I don't think anyone will be better at this moment than Moeen. With the caveat if you are playing a 4 man attack then Tredwell is probably the better option, as he is more reliable but Moeen has a higher ceiling and should be better with some more bowling (even net bowling) under his belt.

And you don't pick someone on the hope that they can get better (as in Ali). His role V West Indies in the 3rd Test was a key one (or should have been) and he was rank. If you are saying that Rashid, Treadwell or whoever else is out there couldn't have done better then I am gobsmacked.

LondonTiger wrote:If not Buttler then whom?

Bairstow is scheduled to keep against Ireland, suggesting he is ranked ahead of Billings as a keeper - the Kent man scheduled to play as a batsman only. Bairstow however is a long way from test quality with the gloves. (Hodd is a much better keeper for us).

After that the cupboard looks a little bare. Foster and Read will be deemed too old, Steve Davies no longer wears the gloves it seems and......

I feel we have to stick with Buttler now but am emphasising the importance and value of him upping his game. I don't feel that's unfair or unreasonable.

I would have brought Read back a year ago but accept that ship has now sailed. 

From the little I've seen of him keep, I agree with you about Bairstow. Meanwhile, Davies shows no signs of wishing to wear the gloves again.

Just to add that my point being England cannot afford to stumble along blindly backing players that are flopping going into the Ashes Series. They need 11 players playing at a top level consistently. Ali is not in that position we know that from the West Indies Series so you look to options in the New Zealand Series and see what is available. Send Ali back to the county scene and let him find what form he can there in the meantime - it is better for all concerned.

JDizzle wrote:I'm not sure I really subscribe to that view. You don't give a guy a game in a deciding Test match of the series just because hasn't had one yet. He has to earn it and, by all accounts, Rashid bowled like a drain in the nets and the warm up games.

I've seen this point 're:Rashid a few times - since when did a few nets overrule a good county season?

And by all accounts the warm up games in the west Indies were a complete farce anyways.

Not saying he should've been included, but to say he's not earned it is too much imo

CaledonianCraig wrote:And you don't pick someone on the hope that they can get better (as in Ali). His role V West Indies in the 3rd Test was a key one (or should have been) and he was rank. If you are saying that Rashid, Treadwell or whoever else is out there couldn't have done better then I am gobsmacked.

I'm not denying that Tredwell almost certainly would have bowled better than Ali did in that Test, but we aren't picking a team for that Test. We are picking one for the next Test. And I still think Ali is a better option than Tredwell in a 5 man attack. I think he was rushed back from injury for this series and wasn't bowling anywhere near 100%, or like we saw he could last summer.

Olly; I think the point there is that bowling in a Test match is completely different is completely different to bowling in the CC. David Masters takes stacks of wickets in the CC and is nowhere near a Test Match call up. I presume the England management wanted to see if Rashid could come into the set up and tweak his game for the next level (like Moeen did last summer) and it looked like he couldn't.

Almost certainly? Change that to definitely and you'd be correct. And if Ali stays in the side after such rankness then boy have England got big problems because it says Ali bowling rank deliveries is the best England have without giving anybody else a chance.

JDizzle wrote:I'm not sure I really subscribe to that view. You don't give a guy a game in a deciding Test match of the series just because hasn't had one yet. He has to earn it and, by all accounts, Rashid bowled like a drain in the nets and the warm up games.

Feedback i have had from people who were out there is that is only partially true. Rashid had bowled really well in Yorkshire's win over the MCC and shown the ability to clean up tail enders. Then arriving in St Kitts he was bowling well and turning the ball square - until instructed to increase his pace from between 45-50mph to 55mph. At that point he did indeed start to struggle in the nets. He only got 10 overs in first warm up game (2-23) and indeed bowled poorly in second when his county team-mates Bairstow and Root took a shine to his bowling.

I accept this will be an unpopular suggestion but if we are going to go down the route of selecting a spinner with a view of 'see what happens', I think I'd almost prefer chucking Monty back in to throwing a youngster in. At least he has proven himself to be international quality when on form.

1.Cook
2.Lyth
3.Ballance
4.Bell
5.Root
6.Stokes or Ali - Depending on the pitch
7.Buttler
8.Plunkett, Woakes, Jordan, Wood, Rushworth?
9.Broad
10.Anderson
11.Panesar or Tredwell

I'd keep Buttler at 7 where he can offer impetus to a set innings or counter attacking to a stuttering one. At the moment he hasn't got temperament for a top 6 role. Just look at how much keeping Adam Gilchrist at 7 did for his effectiveness.

In the 6 spot for the NZ series I'd look at Stokes or Ali as the undecided nature of the 3rd seamer and spinner mean we will need that 5th bowler. If by some miracle we can find a 3rd seamer who complements Anderson/Broad and a reliable spinner during the NZ series then I'd really consider picking James Taylor at 6 for the Ashes to strengthen the batting line up.

I know it isn't great but I fear that's about the best we could be looking at. Whatever we go for there will likely be a real element of hope rather than expectation in some of the selections.

LondonTiger wrote:

JDizzle wrote:I'm not sure I really subscribe to that view. You don't give a guy a game in a deciding Test match of the series just because hasn't had one yet. He has to earn it and, by all accounts, Rashid bowled like a drain in the nets and the warm up games.

Feedback i have had from people who were out there is that is only partially true. Rashid had bowled really well in Yorkshire's win over the MCC and shown the ability to clean up tail enders. Then arriving in St Kitts he was bowling well and turning the ball square - until instructed to increase his pace from between 45-50mph to 55mph. At that point he did indeed start to struggle in the nets. He only got 10 overs in first warm up game (2-23) and indeed bowled poorly in second when his county team-mates Bairstow and Root took a shine to his bowling.

Yeah, that's the pretty much what I read. Admittedly, I over-egged it. But, as I said further up, bowling the same way you do in the CC won't always cut the mustard. England have a pretty terrrible record in nuturing young fast bowler/spinners, but I think this is fairly reasonable from England tbh.

That is one issue out of the way with Trott retiring.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That is one issue out of the way with Trott retiring.

Solves a problem for the selectors as I wouldn't have put it past them to carry on selecting him. It is a shame he went out on a downer after a Test career full of highs but all things must come to an end.

Deleted.

I'm not sure who the cricket mods are but I'll be putting this into the mods section.

JD,

I wonder if Mushy was involved they would have asked Dilly to bowl quicker? Take away flight from any spinner and you remove more than half their weapons. I reckon many mistakes were made on tour - but what is done is done.

We are unlikely to need spinners for much of the summer, so thw Winter in emirates is when the time will come.

How do I report Gerry's racist post?

Trott has been a great servant, and at best, a great number three. The right decision has been made though.
Good luck to Lyth.

VTR wrote:How do I report Gerry's racist post?

I banned him

VTR wrote:How do I report Gerry's racist post?

i already did, would like it removed - or amended.

Glad i'm not the only one who thought that was a bit vile and racist.

Yes agreed, Gerry is well out of order with that comment.
Can we have the 1st line at least removed please.