The Ashes - official thread

[Gooseberry]

First topic message reminder :

SR that's not how mental fatigue works.
Also Stokes had a long break last year ...which he came back from err ...mentaly fatigued. Buttler and Bairstow haven't had that luxury.

But anyway it's not a case of "attitude" , ask Trott and Trescothick.

[VTR]

I'd agree with Curran for Denly based on the squad, but the team will look really lopsided, basically a collection of allrounders and wicketkeepers outside of the top 3. Obviously there aren't good batting options around, but it's either a team with depth of you're being positive, or a team lacking quality specialist batting and therefore prone to collapse if you want to take the other view.

[Gooseberry]

I really dont get the point in dropping Denly for Curran unless they feel Stokes isnt fit to bowl. 
4 seamers in a shortened game is ridiculous, especially given one of them is your 7th choice. 

How does Curran go from not being good enough to play even when folk are injured to good enough to play ahead of a batsman? 

Or how does Denly from being so important to England that they will shift Root to three to accommodate him to being so rubbish a bowler gets picked ahead of him? (Although Id argue Denly never should have played tests for England in the first place) Is there really no batsman they could dream of being in the side playing in CC? 

Sure England will feel they need to take 20 wickets and try and win a match quickly. But I dont see how 5 bowlers adds to that. if anything Leach becomes an issue, how much will he actually get to bowl? Is there any point in having a front line spinner (who is a genuine tail end bat despite Ireland)  in a shortened game in seam friendly conditions when your side has 5 seamers in it. 

This is also chucking Stokes Buttler and Bairstow further under the bus bumping them up the batting order, despite them supposedly suffering from world cup hang overs and burn out. So lets put more pressure on them to bat another place too high? 

It all just smacks of England not having a clue what they are doing and the sort of revolving door selection policy we were supposed to have moved on from and the selectors drawing lots on who gets to pick the team week to week.

[KP_fan]

There is a lot of buzz around Archer and rightly so......not too often do you see a 95mph+ pacer coming into test cricket and having made waves already in international cricket.
Devil's advocate as I like to play often....I would like to keep an eye on him and take note for:

1-Is he able to sustain his speeds beyond first 4 overs and second spells and 3rd spells

2-Is he able to get movement ( swing) that is often times available in test matches in Eng & if he gets it, can he use it with test match fields

3-Is he another case of good limited over bowling with surprises shorter ones, slower ones etc.....too many variations but too frivolous for good old test cricket.

I am reminded of Agarkar who in late 90s and early 2000s skiddy, fast ( 147 kph was his fastest which was quite fast for an Indian in that era)
And was very successful with his skiddy pace and variations in ODI but showed all those traits from 1 thru 3 & ended up moderate in test cricket

I have a feeling Archer could go down like Agarkar & would be happy to be proven wrong....and wish good luck to an exciting youngster on debut

[Duty281]

Looks like the main band of rain will clear away by 1. Just need to avoid the persistent English drizzle. I'm optimistic.

[alfie]

I see what KP_fan is getting at re Archer. I think he has good prospects ; but the media is certainly setting him up for a fail with all the buildup.
He did very well in the WC . Totally justified his late inclusion in the team. Even so the praise lavished on him was a little over the top at times ...His economy rates were generally excellent throughout ; but he didn't actually have much wicket taking impact against the "Big" teams : just five of his twenty wickets came in the six games against Australia , NZ , India and Pakistan. So to expect him to destroy opponents with pace might be a little oversimplification ... Australians are brought up on pace.
On the other hand I hear he may actually prefer the red ball game ( despite not playing it for a year !) and if that is true I think he might produce a little more than the Aussies expect. At the very least he should help remove the tail a bit quicker - something that has been a problem for England in recent times.
Looking forward to seeing how he goes.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

It should be noted on Jofra, as it was before his white ball debut, his red ball stats are much much better than his white ball ones, and he himself has said he prefers bowling in the longer format.

[Soul Requiem]

It should be noted on Jofra, as it was before his white ball debut, his red ball stats are much much better than his white ball ones, and he himself has said he prefers bowling in the longer format.

I don't think people are looking at the bigger picture at all, he's not a limited overs bowler adapting to the long form, he's a long form bowler who adapted to limited overs.

[VTR]

Archer needs to be treated as a good option/change bowler at this stage. Broad and Woakes are the lead bowlers, everyone else to support them by offering something different. Agree though with posts above, some of the media expect him to be opening the bowling and taking a five for, including Smith, on his first spell. I'd be happy if he can take two or three wickets over several spells

[Duty281]

We'll probably get in about 270-300 overs of play. Two days look fine (Thursday/Sunday), one day looks a washout (Wednesday), two days will be interrupted (Friday/Saturday), though these forecasts tend to get better, not worse.

Looking loads better already. Saturday's outlook has improved substantially, and it looks as though we'll get a few hours in today.

On Archer, if he can just get one wicket - Smith! - and get it cheaply, England can be happy with that.

[VTR]

As for team balance, I'd like to see England works towards a Top 5 who only bat, allrounder, wicketkeeper, 4 bowlers (2 of which can hold a bat). That top 5 could contain Buttler, Stokes I prefer as the allrounder unless he is actually giving up bowling. Then your Woakes/Curran type players become a threat at 8 or 9 rather than being asked to bat at 7

[Gooseberry]

Archer also bowled 50 overs in a 4 day game recently.
Root has specifically said he's going to be used in short spells with the aim of retaining speeds 88-92mph range. He's also more than just pure pace, he can move the ball both ways.

There is a degree of hype but I don't think most people are expecting him to come in and win every game single handed, but as shown in the world cup he has the ability to add something England have missed for some time.
Unlike some players who have come in he has genuine talent and confidence.

[alfie]

As for team balance, I'd like to see England works towards a Top 5 who only bat, allrounder, wicketkeeper, 4 bowlers (2 of which can hold a bat). That top 5 could contain Buttler, Stokes I prefer as the allrounder unless he is actually giving up bowling. Then your Woakes/Curran type players become a threat at 8 or 9 rather than being asked to bat at 7

That is , of course , the usual format for teams which enjoy consistent success. Given there are a number of competent bowlers who can bat around at present , the only real problem in settling that is a distinct lack of "top five who only bat" types...
England , understandably , are keen to fill one of those spots with either Buttler or Bairstow : at the moment neither has really shown the consistent capacity to make number five a lock. This series might tell us more. Root is always either three or four. The other three ....well that is where we've been threshing around for ages . Burns put a useful marker down last week. But remains to be seen whether this leads on to him becoming the new Cook - or the next Lyth , Robson , Jennings...

Can't altogether blame the selectors for messing about a bit at present . No county form current to go on (wretched programme this year !) and they have to find a way to win a tough series now: team building must wait , I suppose.

Think the winter tours will see some changes . For now they will be plugging leaks as they can...

[VTR]

Yes, the easy part is writing "find a top 5"

In the post-Bayliss era though, Tests are surely going to get more focus. I would not trade any of the junk results in Tests that we've had for that World Cup win, but now seems to be a window of at least a couple of years to identify those players. Have to remember the new coach and selectors are well paid, as are many people at county level that are ultimately being funded by the ECB money generated from the England team. So basically the whole setup's responsibility to find 5 decent batsman

[robbo277]

As for team balance, I'd like to see England works towards a Top 5 who only bat, allrounder, wicketkeeper, 4 bowlers (2 of which can hold a bat). That top 5 could contain Buttler, Stokes I prefer as the allrounder unless he is actually giving up bowling. Then your Woakes/Curran type players become a threat at 8 or 9 rather than being asked to bat at 7

Which is fine. But if your top 5 aren't scoring runs, then why are they in the team?

Burns, Roy, Root, Stokes, Buttler would be my top 5 - Stokes straddling the line between a batsman who bowls and a batting all rounder. With 4 other seamers, we could restrict him to a couple of short spells only.

6, 7, 8, 9 would be my wicket keeper (Bairstow), my all rounder (Woakes) and 2 bowlers who bat (Curran and Archer). Leach and Broad at 10 and 11, either way round.

If we had stronger top 5 bats, then
Either; Stokes would be in the mix with Woakes/Curran/Archer for 3 of those lower-middle order positions, with Stokes probably coming in at 6, Woakes dropping to 8 and Archer staying at 9.
Or; Buttler would be in competition for the gloves with Bairstow and Foakes as the sole wicket keeper batsman.
Or; both of the above.

But for this squad selected, I'd say Stokes and Buttler are both better batsman then Denly, so if we're picking our best 5 batsman first for the top 5, then they're in and we can fill the team from there.

[VTR]

Think you've misread my posts, I'm talking about what England should be working towards over the next couple of years. Based on the players we have now, the combination is about as good as it gets, but will not make for a consistent team

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Is there really no one who could come in and bat? Bit of an insult if the theory is that Curran is better with the bat, even if he is good

[Duty281]

Build towards a top five of: Hain, Sibley, Northeast, Roy, Root.

And while we're at it, take the captaincy off Root - apart from the fact he's dreadful at it, his batting has really suffered since he assumed the leadership. Once upon a time, he was on the elite table with Kohli/Smith/Williamson, and now he's very far from that prestigious company.

[sirfredperry]

You feel for those with tickets for this first day. Wonder if some of them had first-day Eng v India tickets last year at Lord's and saw no play then, too.

Thursday weather looks OK, although Fri and Saturday don't look great. Very likely there'll be fifth-day play for a second successive Test.

[robbo277]

Think you've misread my posts, I'm talking about what England should be working towards over the next couple of years. Based on the players we have now, the combination is about as good as it gets, but will not make for a consistent team

Okay. In which case we agree

[Soul Requiem]

Sam Curran has a FC average of 29 with no centuries to his name, from what I've seen he's just a slogger who can come off now and then, his actual batting ability is being blown out of all proportion.

[Soul Requiem]

Sam Curran has a FC average of 29 with no centuries to his name, from what I've seen he's just a slogger who can come off now and then, his actual batting ability is being blown out of all proportion.

[VTR]

Those with tickets today though, might well see England's best day of the series!

[Dolphin Ziggler]

He was batting 3 (?) the other day in a T20, so he’s clearly got more than just a swinger’s chance, even considering it’s a slogger’s game at times.

[Duty281]

I think with Lord's super-duper drainage facilities, we're on for a 15:00-15:30 start time.

[sirfredperry]

Eng v A at Lord's has escaped fairly rain-free in recent years. Those with long memories will recall 1964 when the first TWO days were washed out.

There was a memorable downpour in the 1968 match which left the Tavern side waterlogged, while in 1997 there was no play on day one and only around 90 minutes on day two.

[Soul Requiem]

He was batting 3 (?) the other day in a T20, so he’s clearly got more than just a swinger’s chance, even considering it’s a slogger’s game at times.

Batting number 3 in a game purely designed for slogging?

[Gooseberry]

He was batting 3 (?) the other day in a T20, so he’s clearly got more than just a swinger’s chance, even considering it’s a slogger’s game at times.

Well Roy should be doing better then. 

But yes Curran is just a good striker, and not quite a Woakes. His batting has improved though so his career FC average is misleading, I know some of the Surrey folk have long noted his potential with the bat outweighed his returns. 

Then think about Broad who when he was first on the test scene had excellent technique and had flirted with being an opening batsman in his youth. That didnt really count for much. Those of a cheeky disposition might note that pretty much noone in Englands top 7 is a proper batsman, and even point to Steve Smith as just being a bad leg spinner with a horrible technique. 

That aside the idea that Curran is a proper all rounder in the Kallis or even Stokes sense is a bit dodgy to say the least. Hes better than someone like Cummins with the bat, but will be at least one place higher in the order. 

England have a lot of potential to make big runs quickly in their tail, Woakes and Archer (scored a century the other day) are also big strikers who could change a game pretty quickly. But none of them are really hang around and marshal a rear guard types to bat out a final day or wear down the opposition bowling. 

Really the selections smack to me of desperation and muddled thinking both now and previously. Seems the mindset of the players has spread to the backroom staff.

[Gooseberry]

Yes, the easy part is writing "find a top 5"

In the post-Bayliss era though, Tests are surely going to get more focus. I would not trade any of the junk results in Tests that we've had for that World Cup win, but now seems to be a window of at least a couple of years to identify those players. Have to remember the new coach and selectors are well paid, as are many people at county level that are ultimately being funded by the ECB money generated from the England team. So basically the whole setup's responsibility to find 5 decent batsman

Its more than that too. You have the role that Strauss and now Giles have above that to look beyond just the test team and at the wider set up and pathways to test cricket. Thats where the real failing has been to me. Ive banged on about this at length in other posts but the CC is just not set up to produce test ready batsmen, and theres little incentive for counties to employ test type batsmen above all rounder sloggers. The quality of player in the CC has continued to decline too. Add to that players are tending to go to overseas T20 tournaments rather than spending a winter playing FC abroad. Are England offering coaching support outside of the squad? Is there a batting programme in the same way they had a fast bowling one a few years back which helped Stone and Tom Curran come through? (no)

[Gooseberry]

Do folk really think Jos Buttlr test average 34 is a top 5 batsman? Like his top score of 106 in 56 innings doesnt smack of match winner. 

Of course its a bit more viable than trying to pretend Stokes is a number 4. The guy averages 33 in tests. That only 3 more than Woakes. 

Yet the same people that think this is sensible also cry that Bairstow (who has a better record than both and who can actually stay in and craft and innings) should have been dropped to accommodate a tin of custard.

[Soul Requiem]

Do folk really think Jos Buttlr test average 34 is a top 5 batsman? Like his top score of 106 in 56 innings doesnt smack of match winner. 

Of course its a bit more viable than trying to pretend Stokes is a number 4. The guy averages 33 in tests. That only 3 more than Woakes. 

Yet the same people that think this is sensible also cry that Bairstow (who has a better record than both and who can actually stay in and craft and innings) should have been dropped to accommodate a tin of custard.

Again Bairstow has a better overall record than both but his recent form has been abysmal, not a great advocate for Buttler in the test side anyway, it shows the paucity of talent that he's in the side, Stokes has the best technique in the middle order and is slowly performing more consistently with the bat.

[Gooseberry]

Do folk really think Jos Buttlr test average 34 is a top 5 batsman? Like his top score of 106 in 56 innings doesnt smack of match winner. 

Of course its a bit more viable than trying to pretend Stokes is a number 4. The guy averages 33 in tests. That only 3 more than Woakes. 

Yet the same people that think this is sensible also cry that Bairstow (who has a better record than both and who can actually stay in and craft and innings) should have been dropped to accommodate a tin of custard.

Again Bairstow has a better overall record than both but his recent form has been abysmal, not a great advocate for Buttler in the test side anyway, it shows the paucity of talent that he's in the side, Stokes has the best technique in the middle order and is slowly performing more consistently with the bat.

Stokes' average has been dropping since it peaked two years ago. Its hardly a ringing endorsement that hes a test quality 4 or in brilliant form.

[robbo277]

The argument with Stokes up the order only works with him reducing his bowling workload. I think in that situation Stokes could have a future in the top 5 which Buttler and Bairstow possibly wouldn't.

From my desired top 5 this test (Burns, Roy, Root, Stokes, Buttler) I'd ideally have a proper opener and push Roy, Root and Stokes all down one. You could then play Buttler at 6 and Bairstow at 7 if you trusted a 4 man attack (with Root and Stokes able to chip in) or you'd have to play a wicketkeeper batsman and 5 bowlers, with the likes of Woakes, Curran and Archer having to make some meaningful contributions.

The other option would be to keep Stokes at 6 long term, but that would require finding an additional two top 5 batsman and assume that Burns and Roy hold their places. Which is trickier.

[Duty281]

I think with Lord's super-duper drainage facilities, we're on for a 15:00-15:30 start time.

Scratch that, more rain on the way. A 17:00 start seems the most likely now.

[Gooseberry]

The argument with Stokes up the order only works with him reducing his bowling workload. I think in that situation Stokes could have a future in the top 5 which Buttler and Bairstow possibly wouldn't.

From my desired top 5 this test (Burns, Roy, Root, Stokes, Buttler) I'd ideally have a proper opener and push Roy, Root and Stokes all down one. You could then play Buttler at 6 and Bairstow at 7 if you trusted a 4 man attack (with Root and Stokes able to chip in) or you'd have to play a wicketkeeper batsman and 5 bowlers, with the likes of Woakes, Curran and Archer having to make some meaningful contributions.

The other option would be to keep Stokes at 6 long term, but that would require finding an additional two top 5 batsman and assume that Burns and Roy hold their places. Which is trickier.

I just dont get how you improve the batting by replacing a specialist batsman with a bowler and asking an all rounder to move up a place further out of his comfort zone but forget the bowling which when he was first selected was his main suit. OK Steve Smith but .... 

Unless hes actually injured it just seems backwards. 

Sibley surely could have been considered to replace Denly, Roy moved to 3 or 4 and everyone else retaining a reasonable spot. 

Or for this game not pick Leach. As it is there's 6 bowlers for 4 days ( at best ) play, plus Root. 

Or go with Foakes and allow Bairstwo the same "luxury" that Stokes is being given to concentrate on just one suit, if that is whats happening. 


Of all the odd selections England have made in tests recently going with Curran in this game is right up there. if we were arguing the last team was the worst batting line up England had fielded in living memory, then this one is notably worse again. Two players who have batted in the top order dropped for two bowlers and an all rounder with a mediocre batting record asked to bat at 4. This is how we fix the batting issues. 


(England to make 500/6dec and bowl Aus out twice in a day)

[sirfredperry]

Toss at 3pm with a view, presumably, of starting at 3.30pm. Raining here in Harrow area. What does a captain do? Insert in hopes of some play today or bat, looking forward to better conditions tomorrow?

[Duty281]

A tough call, but the captain really should decide to bat first. Pleasant conditions tomorrow and also the pitch is dry and expected to crumble as play progresses, bringing either Lyon or Leach into prominent contention for the fourth innings.

Rain coming down again. Pessimism returning.

[sirfredperry]

Toss delayed. Bet both captains relieved. Very difficult to know what to do when you're unsure just how much play there will be today and knowing it should be a full day tomorrow.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

He was batting 3 (?) the other day in a T20, so he’s clearly got more than just a swinger’s chance, even considering it’s a slogger’s game at times.

Batting number 3 in a game purely designed for slogging?

I think there's more to it than that, otherwise your orders in that game would be insane. You'll see that very good batsmen do well in that game, it's talent. His eye and hand speed seem very impressive, but I don't think you go to 3 if your technique is trash.

I'm not saying it's an equivalent, but I don't think he's a lucky number 8/9 who just seems to get bat to ball and away it goes.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

With all that said, I'd have brought in one of the openers they (must) have had an eye on and put them in at four.

Unless their masterplan to Smith is for the bowlers only to ever get one over at him and to make him uncomfortable because he doesn't like change

[robbo277]

If there is any play today, what chance England win the toss, bat first and open with Leach? Knock it about for an hour today and make hay while the sun shines tomorrow?

[Soul Requiem]

He was batting 3 (?) the other day in a T20, so he’s clearly got more than just a swinger’s chance, even considering it’s a slogger’s game at times.

Batting number 3 in a game purely designed for slogging?

I think there's more to it than that, otherwise your orders in that game would be insane. You'll see that very good batsmen do well in that game, it's talent. His eye and hand speed seem very impressive, but I don't think you go to 3 if your technique is trash.

I'm not saying it's an equivalent, but I don't think he's a lucky number 8/9 who just seems to get bat to ball and away it goes.

There's plenty of players who do well in T20 who are non existent in FC cricket, orders in that game are insane.

[Gooseberry]

Dolphin theres a big difference between a player with clean attacking shots and a good eye, and one with a sound technique against the moving ball in tests.
Curran is a good striker of the ball. That doesn't make him a proper test batsman. Even by England standards.

Ask Roy.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Gonna have to show me all the times I said he was a top class test player. My only point is that he’s not some trash amateur.

I started it off saying it was a bit of an insult to other batsmen that he’d be the Denly replacement!

Comprehension skills

[Dolphin Ziggler]

More over, far from this nonsense, any sign of the toss beyond just "delayed"?

[Duty281]

Rain will stop around 16:30. Might be able to squeeze in the toss at 17:15-17:30, play at 17:45-18:00, get in 15-18 or so overs before stumps? That's probably the most optimistic estimate right about now!

[Dolphin Ziggler]

And it was too optimistic, play abandoned

[Duty281]

Probably for the best. Now we get 98-over days and the follow-on set at 150, not 200.

[VTR]

Excellent day for England. Didn't lose any wickets, and Smith failed to score a hundred. Things are looking up.

[Gooseberry]

Good to see the 5 seamers didn't get over bowled too

[robbo277]

By all accounts Archer was presented his cap, Denly was having some hits, Leach was practising his bowling and Curran was backing up some slip catches, which suggests he may be the one to miss out.

However with no toss today England could still change their team tonight.

[Sponsored content]