England's Summer of Cricket 2022 as Joe Root Steps Down

First topic message reminder :

Joe Root has decided to step down from the captaincy. Main problem now is - who should take over?

Stokes is the only one really in contention. But should he be lumbered with the captaincy? His workload is immense as it is. But if he doesn't take the job, then who?

Let's hope Root's stepping down doesn't effect his batting! Captaincy cares hardly showed in his stats over the last few months.

If murmurs are to be believed Pope is a good example of where looking deeper than just average is important.

I've heard/read some suggestions that analysts who looked deeper at Pope's domestic stats in more detail picked up on the potential issue with spin. It wasn't due to his average though, he actually averaged well against spinners. It was his low strike rate and high proportion of those runs coming in boundaries. Which is indicative of a player struggling to rotate the strike then spanking the rank balls you get more of from domestic spinners. If a spinner put the ball in vaguely good areas it seemed all Pope could really do was survive.

Due to his average being OK against spin and that being as deep as many look it was apparently brushed over a bit. The thought was that a low strike rate doesn't matter if he's not getting out. Problem is that if you can't rotate the strike against CC spinners on tracks that barely spin you will be a very easy target against Test quality spinners. They'll just pin you at one end and hit the same spot until the mistake comes. As we've seen with Pope, a player I've always rated and still hope comes good, he had absolutely no game plan whatsoever against decent spin.

I think it will be interesting to see how much more the 'advanced metrics' such as weighted averages, percentage of runs scored in an innings, runs above average, etc come into the game over the next few years. Stats being readily available and easier to break down due to technology means more and more people are working on these sorts of areas.

Cricket has an attachment to flawed stats and arbitrary benchmarks. Average over 40 for a good batter and over 50 for a great. Under 30 for a good bowler, under 25 for a great. So much more than how good a player is influences those numbers though.

The strength of the batting line up you come into makes a big difference too and how established the players are. Root for instance came into a side containing Cook, Trott, Bell, Pietersen and Prior with Bresnan and Swann at 8/9. Feeding off that experience is a huge benefit to a young player, the current side doesn't allow that.

Dobell reporting the following likely lineup for the first test

Lees
Crawley
Pope
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Foakes
Robinson/Overton (Craig version)
Broad
Leach
Anderson

Robinson and Lawrence to make the squad and asked to prove fitness.
Potts and Brook to get call ups but very likely reserves
Pope to bat 3
No Parkinson

As said - this is only reported, new regime his sources might not be as spot on…

Dobell is usually on the money to be fair. I try my best to be optimistic but it doesn't particularly inspire confidence if so.

I really don't think Lees is a better player than Burns, Sibley or Hameed.

Given Pope hasn't consistently scored runs in the lower middle order it's hell of a leap to shift him to 3.

Bairstow in the top 5 hasn't worked many times before now.

I'm far from convinced by COverton at Test level even if he is a much better bowler than Jamie.

Leach for me remains a strong second spinner who you play when conditions and opposition suit but as a front line spinner he just has too many holes in his armoury. He's consistently struggled with left-hand batters, bowling in the first innings, bowling on flatter tracks and keeping the RR down if he isn't taking wickets.

If it isn't seaming and swinging everywhere we will have an astonishingly one dimensional bowling attack. Even that doesn't look like a strength when compared to the variety and quality of Jamieson, Boult, Southee and Wagner.

On their day Jimmy and Broad could still take 5-fer very little of course. It just feels the days where they bowl economically, usually pretty short lengths compared to most new ball bowlers these days, with very higher strike rates are getting more frequent and the days where they run through sides less frequent.

Cheers Olly.

Well...that's some team, if true I suppose Lees gets in almost by default. I don't think he's better than Burns/Sibley/Hameed, he's probably worse to be fair, but he's only had three tests so far (admittedly he scored little on good pitches) and has had a tidy start to the county season, so not yet enough to drop him. As he struggled through the West Indies series, I think the higher level that New Zealand/India/South Africa will bring will mean his average goes down and he'll be dropped at some point in the summer, probably just before the South Africa series, and England will have to scurry around for another opener (Yates or Jennings most likely).

Crawley, I just don't get it. He's nowhere near test level and we've seen enough to know that. I was initially hopeful of his potential, but he doesn't have the technique, footwork or mental stamina to survive at test level. He averaged under 30 through the winter and has had a dismal start to the county season, averaging under 20 in a very run-friendly season. His confidence is shot.

Pope at 3. Typical England nonsense. Pope has struggled immensely coming in at around the 20-30 over mark, now he'll be coming in at the 2-3 over mark against a new ball. At least Bairstow has experience at 3!

Bairstow and Foakes. Big test for Bairstow coming in straight from the IPL. Big series for Foakes, also, who hasn't yet impressed, and the media seem to give the sense that he isn't liked or trusted as much as Buttler was. Buttler got umpteen chances, Foakes won't. Stokes, his batting has declined recently and I'm prepared for it to fall entirely off the cliff with the captaincy demands.

The bowling does look one-dimensional, but not really much choice to be fair. I'd probably like to see Potts over C Overton, we know what Overton is like. Relief to have Anderson and Broad back.

Difficult to see England winning a test in this series and, honestly, all summer.

That (alleged ) Dobell side is hardly inspiring - but realistically what likely side would be at present ?  It doesn't seem an unreasonable selection , though eyebrows might be raised at the Pope at three choice ; and the lack of serious pace is a bit of a worry - if perhaps unavoidable given the absence of contenders.

IF this were the actual line-up I would not be too displeased. I do share Duty's reservations about Less ; but he is in good CC form and I guess it is either bury him now after just three Tests or give him an opportunity while he is hot so fair enough for the moment : not as if any of the alternatives are overwhelmingly attractive , is it ? Crawley I am less concerned about : would rather see him at three but he plays a contrasting style to Lees and might come off - when he does he can make quite a difference.
Pope ? In a very key position ; and frankly I wouldn't pick him ; but if he is going to play at all three seems logical ,  as he is unlikely to be greeted by a spinner so has a chance to show what he can do against a pace attack. Think he will be very much on trial : if he can't crack it this series he might be waiting a while for another chance. He has form coming in : maybe this time he will produce what his many admirers have been expecting ?
Root and Stokes fine ; and Bairstow at five , while not ideal given past records , makes sense considering he has made innings saving centuries after coming in at 40/4 twice in his past four matches - plus a good record in partnerships with both Stokes and Root. Ideally he wouldn't be coming straight from IPL - but half the NZ side will be doing the same so not a huge concern really.
Foakes  , like Pope , has had a good season so far with Surrey. Like Pope he also needs to show he can transfer those skills to the top level. Deserves more chances ; but really needs to take this one. With a bit of a tail to follow , the keeper's batting contribution might be rather important.

As for the bowlers , it seems a case of who is still upright. Ironic that the "old men" are the most durable at present ! I am not enthusiastic about C Overton (surely they cannot trust Robinson's fitness ?) but with no Woakes or S Curran they need his batting. I would have liked to see Potts but unless they go without a spinner (and without Lawrence as an extra option that seems unlikely) I can't see a place for him.

Of course , Dobell may be overruled by Key and co   But if that is the XI I give them a puncher's chance.

I suppose one way to mitigate Pope's weakness against spinners is to get him in early before the spinner is on

Its evolution rather than revolution, although I think I would have quite liked a bit more towards revolution.

Yeah not a lot can be done about the makeup of the seam attack with current injuries - it is going to be what it is this summer on that front really. Won't see Archer/Mahmood for sure, very very unlikely to see Stone...has there been any word on recovery time for Wood?
I don't think Jamie Overton is a serious answer/consideration to be honest - I'm not sure he is *that* quick, and combined with his wayward tendencies, I fancy he'd be joining the Saj Mahmood bastion of England players if he was picked tbh.

I am disappointed there is reportedly still no Parkinson though. Thought this may have been an ideal opportunity to blood him this summer, especially with a tour to Pakistan on the horizon this winter. He's been bowling better than Leach in the county stuff too so far from reports...makes me wonder if he'll ever be given a go tbh

Batting wise - I agree with consensus that Burns/Sibley et al are probably better than Lees, but he has had a good start to the county season, and seeing as he was picked probably deserves a fairer chance than three tests in an interim side overseas.

I am really not sure about Pope at 3...surely he would have been best served coming back into the side at 5? I am happy they are bringing him back into the fold, he is clearly the best talent we have batting wise at the moment in England outside the established guys and I think we should be doing all we can to make him work in test cricket....just really not sure throwing him in at 3 is the best way to do that. I would have quite liked to see them give Bracey a proper shot in the top three personally, he got dealt a rough hand in his debut.
Hopefully it will work I guess!

Do agree, a big few tests upcoming for Foakes - strong county form to start the year will help, but he was really quite poor in West Indies and since that initial burst onto the scene in Sri Lanka, has rather flattered to deceive I think. Bairstow/Buttler still lurking glove wise in the background too.

king_carlos wrote:
Due to his average being OK against spin and that being as deep as many look it was apparently brushed over a bit. The thought was that a low strike rate doesn't matter if he's not getting out. Problem is that if you can't rotate the strike against CC spinners on tracks that barely spin you will be a very easy target against Test quality spinners. They'll just pin you at one end and hit the same spot until the mistake comes. As we've seen with Pope, a player I've always rated and still hope comes good, he had absolutely no game plan whatsoever against decent spin.

Brushed over by who? You'd like to think a batting coach would have been able to instil at least the foundations of a game plan to rotate the strike, without turning him into Joe Root, but there isn't much evidence of one for Pope, as much as I like the kid. These are supposed to be elite coaches, at the absolute top of English cricket. What were Thorpe or the previous batting coaches actually doing with him.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
Due to his average being OK against spin and that being as deep as many look it was apparently brushed over a bit. The thought was that a low strike rate doesn't matter if he's not getting out. Problem is that if you can't rotate the strike against CC spinners on tracks that barely spin you will be a very easy target against Test quality spinners. They'll just pin you at one end and hit the same spot until the mistake comes. As we've seen with Pope, a player I've always rated and still hope comes good, he had absolutely no game plan whatsoever against decent spin.

Brushed over by who? You'd like to think a batting coach would have been able to instil at least the foundations of a game plan to rotate the strike, without turning him into Joe Root, but there isn't much evidence of one for Pope, as much as I like the kid. These are supposed to be elite coaches, at the absolute top of English cricket. What were Thorpe or the previous batting coaches actually doing with him.

I've long wondered what the batting coaches have been up to, Thorpe was Englands premier player of spin for a long time and was a very good manipulator of the field. I appreciate it's not as simple as Player A was good so should be a good coach but there hasn't been any semblance of a gameplan to spin for any of Sibley, Burns or Pope.

Squad is as expected, with the starting XI likely to be as Dobell said with C Overton at 8. No Robinson due to fitness problems, and Brooks and Potts in reserve. Brooks may bat at 5 ahead of Bairstow. This is the squad for the first two tests. It is apparently Pope's first ever time batting at 3 in his career, it's like when Southgate put Trippier at left-back.

Also Mott has been confirmed as the England white ball head coach, with a four-year deal.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Dobell reporting the following likely lineup for the first test

Lees
Crawley
Pope
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Foakes
Robinson/Overton (Craig version)
Broad
Leach
Anderson

Robinson and Lawrence to make the squad and asked to prove fitness.
Potts and Brook to get call ups but very likely reserves
Pope to bat 3
No Parkinson

As said - this is only reported, new regime his sources might not be as spot on…

Squad announced...and the reported XI above is semi right...

Lees
Crawley
Pope
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Foakes
Overton
Broad
Leach
Anderson

With Potts and Brook on the sidelines looks most likely then. No Robinson or Lawrence in the squad, as pointed out this now means Robinson will have played one of the first 7 tests England have played in 2022 and in the one he did play he pulled up lame anyways. Not good!
No Parkinson - but if he isn't going to be in the squad, not having him carry drinks again does make sense.

NZ's team by contrast likely to be:

Latham, Young, Conway, Williamson, Nicholls (? with injury), Blundell, CdG, Jamieson, Southee, Wagner, Boult. I suppose they could put Patel in as a spinner, but I wouldn't bother to be honest.

They've also got Bracewell, Duffy, Tickner, and Fletcher who could make test debuts. Matt Henry is in reserve for the bowlers, undoubtedly we'll see him for at least one test. Also got Mitchell as the all-round back-up, and Ravindra as the second spinner. Rutherford, who made his test debut in 2013 and hasn't played a test since 2015, is also in the squad.

Be interesting to see how Root handles CdG, as Root has had issues with the right-arm medium pacers over the winter, being dismissed twice by Green and twice by Mayers.

Either way, NZ are a lot stronger than England. I reckon two or three nil, depending on weather. That Kiwi seam bowling attack will destroy England's brittle batting.

Cam Green isn't right-arm medium!!

In the Ashes he was consistently bowling mid to high 80s and passed 90 on occasion. All that with accuracy from 6'6", getting some impressive bounce. If that's medium pace then what will our expected attack of Anderson, Broad and Overton be bowling? Arm balls?!

That said Root has spoken in the past about making massive changes such as batting 2m out his crease when facing medium pacers in County games. So I expect NZ will use CdG with the keeper up to the stumps to pin Root to the crease.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
Due to his average being OK against spin and that being as deep as many look it was apparently brushed over a bit. The thought was that a low strike rate doesn't matter if he's not getting out. Problem is that if you can't rotate the strike against CC spinners on tracks that barely spin you will be a very easy target against Test quality spinners. They'll just pin you at one end and hit the same spot until the mistake comes. As we've seen with Pope, a player I've always rated and still hope comes good, he had absolutely no game plan whatsoever against decent spin.

Brushed over by who? You'd like to think a batting coach would have been able to instil at least the foundations of a game plan to rotate the strike, without turning him into Joe Root, but there isn't much evidence of one for Pope, as much as I like the kid. These are supposed to be elite coaches, at the absolute top of English cricket. What were Thorpe or the previous batting coaches actually doing with him.

The selectors and coaches if rumours are to be believed. Or more ignored than brushed over. The view seemed to be that if he didn't have a problem staying in then rotating the strike wouldn't be too tough. Worked a treat with Sibley...

Pope passes the eye test though which still has a lot of sway in cricket. Vince is another good example there IIRC. If you breakdown his stats beyond FC average his Test struggles actually make perfect sense. I'd have to look at exact numbers again, plus update them for recent years, but he averaged a lot in Div 2, not a lot in Div 1, even less for the Lions and peanuts in Tests. Despite how fantastic he looks there was a very clear and alarming decline as bowling quality increased that indicated he may struggle.

Soul Requiem wrote:I've long wondered what the batting coaches have been up to, Thorpe was Englands premier player of spin for a long time and was a very good manipulator of the field. I appreciate it's not as simple as Player A was good so should be a good coach but there hasn't been any semblance of a gameplan to spin for any of Sibley, Burns or Pope.

I was hoping Burns would back himself to use his feet and sweep, which he plays quite well. Then he got out reversing and seemed to put everything in the locker in favour of trying to nurdle around his front pad whilst stuck on the crease. Which looks less silly than getting out reversing but as a leftie facing spin in the DRS era makes you a prime LBW candidate.

Sibley and Pope seem to have no real game against spin other than survival. That's something that realistically needs sorting in domestic cricket, hence the need for more turning pitches. Trying to learn from nearly scratch against Ashwin, Jadeja and Axar is never going to be pretty.

Thorpe was one of my heroes. My dad worked in London and had a flat by the Oval in the early Noughties. I spent a fair bit of time watching cricket there. As a young keeper batter Stewie and Thorpe were idols. Thorpe is also a complex character with some well documented struggles. From reports I've seen it would seem he was a difficult presence around the group during the Ashes. That and raising the huge difference between being a County coach and being constantly on the road with England is as much as I'd really like to say given his current health. Regardless of his recent coaching he was one of England's few good batters for a long time and I have many happy memories of him as a player. I desperately hope he pulls through.

Could do with Thorpe now, someone who could and often did make the tough runs, especially towards the end of his career. Still think it's a shame he wasn't selected for 2005 in favour of the very young walking wicket version of Ian Bell

VTR wrote:Could do with Thorpe now, someone who could and often did make the tough runs, especially towards the end of his career. Still think it's a shame he wasn't selected for 2005 in favour of the very young  walking wicket version of Ian Bell

From memory, the choice was between Thorpe and KP, wasn't it? I've had a sleep since then so could be wrong but seem to remember the media debate around it at the time.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

VTR wrote:Could do with Thorpe now, someone who could and often did make the tough runs, especially towards the end of his career. Still think it's a shame he wasn't selected for 2005 in favour of the very young  walking wicket version of Ian Bell

From memory, the choice was between Thorpe and KP, wasn't it? I've had a sleep since then so could be wrong but seem to remember the media debate around it at the time.

It was but it shouldn't have been; Bell went on to be a top test batsmen but at the time Thorpe should have been in the team while selecting Pietersen was a no brainer. Bell did some valuable work at short leg however during that series, that one grab off Langer in particular was incredible.

Despite being such a huge Thorpe fan I still tend to think it was probably the right choice to move on from him then. His back had been troubling him for a while and he'd made himself unavailable for England selection twice previously I believe for personal reasons. Touring had taken a toll on him physically and mentally.

Bell started his career well prior to the Ashes and despite only getting the two fifties in the series scored runs away in Pakistan against a good attack immediately after the Ashes too. I think Bell and Pietersen were ready for the chance and had earned it with domestic runs.

Thorpe was getting runs in 2004 but even as a huge fan there was an element of him not quite looking the same player. Three of his tons that year came against two really weak Windies attacks and a weak NZ attack. Then there was the 2nd innings ton against SA which was a good knock but the pitch had died, Tres and Strauss had laid a huge foundation with that mammoth opening partnership, SA had Boje as a spinner who only ever played a holding role for them.

There's a bit of hindsight in my opinion, but Bell was dreadful in that series. I would have liked to see one of the 90s stalwarts get the hand on the urn and he seemed the most deserving. Even Paul Collingwood got in on the act plus an MBE for his 10 runs

Bell had a tough series but in fairness 6 of his dismissals were to Warne and McGrath - 3 times apiece.

As said, I think Thorpe was on the wane by then anyway and I struggle see him as a player who would still make a significant contribution in that series at that stage.

Ifs, buts and maybe's though to be fair. If McGrath hadn't tripped on that ball we might have never had to hear Vaughan commentate though. "Humans need fantasy to be human", Terry Pratchett.

Worth noting as well that Thorpe much preferred batting 5 and scored most his runs there. The coaches didn't want KP as high as 4 at that stage and Bell was then viewed as a potential top order bat long term. Hence Bell as their option to bat 4 with KP and Thorpe viewed as the options for the 5 spot.

An interesting statistical quirk from Thorpe's record I've just spotted is that he has a really poor record in the 1st innings of the match averaging 29. In the 2nd and 3rd innings he averages well over 50 and in the 4th innings 35. Clearly loved batting in the middle of Tests for whatever reason.

At the time I would have selected Thorpe over Bell and even with hindsight i'd do the same, he plays at 5 with KP at four. No one will be able to convince me that Pietersen at four is more of a risk than Bell, every man and his dog knew at the time he'd succeed and be in the team long term. Thorpe did average near on 46 against Australia, he wasn't the player he was a couple of years prior but I do think you're exaggerating how far he'd fallen by that point.

Some 20/20 hindsight there Soul.

Every man and his dog knowing KP would succeed is very much debateable. By the time KP came into bat for that 2nd innings at the Oval there were already murmurs of whether his technique could work long term. Fifties in his first three innings were followed by 6 low scores in a row. It's easy to say that now knowing his record but England had never had a successful Test bat that played like KP. To suggest his success in Tests was a foregone conclusion really isn't realistic.

I just think all the miles on the clock had taken a toll on Thorpe physically and mentally.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Yeah not a lot can be done about the makeup of the seam attack with current injuries - it is going to be what it is this summer on that front really. Won't see Archer/Mahmood for sure, very very unlikely to see Stone...has there been any word on recovery time for Wood?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/61491802

Update today on Wood with him saying he's making 'slow progress'. Don't think we'll see him this summer, maybe he can return for the World T20. Stone has ruled himself out of this summer, I'd be highly surprised if he played for England again.

Could desperately do with Woakes making a return. His record as a bowler is exceptional in England and he improves the batting depth of course.

The potential right-arm fast-medium make-up of the attack for the whole summer makes me very concerned that Stokes might over bowl himself though.

From the various reports, it seems the four man selection panel for this series consisted of McCullum, Key, James Taylor (Head Scout) and Mo Bobat (Performance Director). I can't imagine McCullum has had much chance to watch Ben Compton vs 90mph pace or study Tom Haines against the short ball so can't think he would have too much input. And then you have Taylor and Bobat who have been in their roles a while now, so it would make sense that the squad looks similar to previous - if there was a massive overhaul then they have messed up their picks at some point!

The openers are an interesting one. If you were picking a squad from scratch, Crawley certainly wouldn't be in given his CC form and Lees would be borderline. But I guess it comes down the the dynamics of how do you justify dropping Crawley when he outperformed Lees when they played together? It's tough for us outside the bubble to see how that would be noted by other players and affect other players but it absolutely will cross players minds.

I am a big advocate of Pope at 3. He's played 23 Tests and now I get he has been messed about a bit (debuting at 4, keeping in NZ for a Test) and he has undoubtedly had minimal (generous to even say minimal) support from the coaching staff - but he does have to take some personal responsibility too. If he can't see himself that he keeps getting out cutting spinners on non turning wickets then coaching won't help an awful lot more. It'll be a test of BMac's man management to put an arm round the shoulder and help develop Pope's game whilst also be clearing he will get a fair crack at 3 - but he needs to make it work.

Love Brook. Posted on the County thread a few weeks ago about how special he looked whilst batting. Outclassed Malan in the time they batted together when I saw them and Brook just hits it different - like Livingstone. Proper, proper player. Deserves his chance. Especially with Bairstow not having played red ball - YJB should have the gloves IMO, but it will be Foakes.

Bowling attack... what can you do. All the seamers are crocked. I worry about Robinson - whether there is something more sinister going on behind the scenes, from Lewis's comments in Aus, missing games in the WI with his back and games in the UK for dental reasons and other stuff. I do think his first year of Test cricket has been underrated a little bit - 39 @ 21 against India, NZ and in Aus is brilliant.

COverton will be picked because he can bat 8, in theory. And it very much is in theory in Tests and in the CC this year. As per Carlos's post above, they need Woakes back as he genuinely can bat 8 and is 100% worth his place just as a bowler in England. Hope Potts gets a go at some point though.

Leach was had really good start to the season too, after missing game 1 and not bowling in the Essex game he has averaged 20 with the ball. I am fully on the Parky bandwagon at this point though but you don't need two spinners in an England squad at home.

Probably closing in on a point with Robinson where he gets a permanent axe. On the one hand you've got Anderson, every inch the model, professional cricketer, working hard to preserve his longevity; on the other you've got Robinson half-arsing it all the way.

He's talented Robinson, no doubt, but it's not much use if he can't put a decent shift in.

I don't think it necessarily has to be permanently, but I would make it clear at this juncture that he's not going to be considered for selection until he sorts it out himself. If he doesn't then it's on him ultimately

Converton at 8 definitely seems theoretical from the returns so far. Not quite as bad as, but not far off Archer at 8, who was terrible despite supposedly being a half decent bat

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/61491807

Oh spiffing. Archer's comeback from an elbow injury is over as he suffers a lower stress fracture of the back. Puts him out of the summer and, most likely, the upcoming T20 World Cup in Australia.

Is there a reason why so many England bowlers are breaking down with back injuries?

Seam bowlers in general tend to pick up a lot of injuries. Quicker ones especially. It's a skill that breaks the body.

From the Australia bowlers all of Cummins, Richardson and Stanlake (at one point looked a Jamieson esque talent) have had very long layoffs. Starc also had a stress fracture in his leg. Hazlewood had injuries during the Ashes.

The front foot no ball was necessary due to bowlers dragging their back leg but there have been arguments made that it shortened the delivery stride, causing an increased force going through the front leg especially (8 times your body weight in some cases) and more stress on the rest of the body.

Quicks have always picked up injuries as well which some like to gloss over. The HYS comments on the BBC article is full of fans listing bowlers from years gone by who bowled a million overs and were never injured. Even though many of those listed struggled horribly with injury. The late great Bob Willis a good example there. He bowled in agony from the mid-70s onwards having had surgery on both knees, it affected him for the rest of his life.

It's not a popular thing to point out but it's also important to remember I think that many fast bowlers from less professional eras didn't bowl fast all the time regardless of what we like to think. Michael Holding bowled swing off half a run up many times during his career (Test as well as first-class) to preserve his body. I've heard many Test seamers speak about bowling at 75-80% a lot of the time in domestic cricket for the same reason.

3 format players such as Archer, Wood and Woakes just play constantly if fit, it inevitably leads to injury.

For the younger, up and coming bowlers I just don't think such a congested 6 month summer is a good breeding ground for seamers. If you were designing a summer with nurturing fast bowlers in mind you'd want a smaller number of high quality games where they bowl as close to full tilt as possible. That would be interspersed with time for rest, specialist coaching and training. Instead they currently spend much of 6 months on buses and bowling well below 100%. County coaches are forever talking about how once the summer starts the opportunity for one to one coaching and training is more limited than you think once adding up playing, travel and much needed time off when teams are actually at home for a few days in a row.

As with so many of my frustrations with the game I think it comes down to less cricket, higher quality when played.

County Select Team to face NZ this week:

Blatherwick, Burgess, Compton, Gibbon, Gubbins, Haines, James, Patel, Patterson-White, Porter, Robinson, Sibley.

Important to note it's not a Lions team - more a team of good players who don't play T20. Still, plenty of guys who are on the fringes of the Test team with a point to prove. Hameed made his Test comeback of the back of a hundred for this team vs India last year.

Robinson and Sibley with points to prove. Then Haines, Compton and LPW can all make big statements for the future, if not immediately.

Jamie Porter...there's a blast from selection debates of the past!

It's an odd County Select team. I'd have expected to see more names of those who are the fringes of test selection, such as Bohannon/Vince/Parkinson, maybe Jennings or Yates. Instead there's only a few and plenty who are nowhere near.

I suppose if Sibley makes a strong score he'll be next in if/when Crawley or Lees gets dropped.

Kiwis have already had one warm-up game, a rain-affected draw v Sussex. Robinson bowled 18 overs for no wickets and plenty of Kiwi batsmen made some contributions to find their feet in England.

Duty281 wrote:It's an odd County Select team. I'd have expected to see more names of those who are the fringes of test selection, such as Bohannon/Vince/Parkinson, maybe Jennings or Yates. Instead there's only a few and plenty who are nowhere near.

I suppose if Sibley makes a strong score he'll be next in if/when Crawley or Lees gets dropped.

Kiwis have already had one warm-up game, a rain-affected draw v Sussex. Robinson bowled 18 overs for no wickets and plenty of Kiwi batsmen made some contributions to find their feet in England.

The T20 has probably impacted that.

I'm interested to see how Haines gets on. I think he has potential future England player, and even captain, about him

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/61565565

No timescale on Woakes' return from injury. That doesn't sound promising. Knee and ankle injuries bothering him. England played him through the winter in conditions where he's no good, and the end result is he's injured for the summer in conditions where he's very good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/61569278

Key name checking Clarke followed by a prominent print interview covering the issue would suggest to me he's very close indeed to an England call. Floating the name allows them to check the waters hence articles from Dobbell, Liew, etc. Clarke now addresses it himself to try to clear those waters.

Had it not been for that disgusting WhatsApp group he was involved in it's reasonable to say he would have played for England by now given the lack of batting talent available.

Don’t really see Clarke playing soon, his red ball form has fallen off the face of the earth and England aren’t exactly limited for white ball batting options

I see Sky are going to be showing a documentary on Shane Warne next week during the 1st test - still hard to believe he isn’t with us. Going to be an emotional watch that

Robinson has had to pull out of the NZ Tour game with back stiffness

That's the most Ollie Robinson thing I've heard today.

https://wisden.com/play-and-win/quizzes/quiz-the-england-xis-from-the-first-test-of-every-summer-since-2000

201/242 - missed a couple of easy ones, and a lot in recent years actually!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:https://wisden.com/play-and-win/quizzes/quiz-the-england-xis-from-the-first-test-of-every-summer-since-2000

201/242 - missed a couple of easy ones, and a lot in recent years actually!

224

The majority I missed were bowlers, find it far easier to remember batting line ups for some reason.

Spoiler:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:https://wisden.com/play-and-win/quizzes/quiz-the-england-xis-from-the-first-test-of-every-summer-since-2000

201/242 - missed a couple of easy ones, and a lot in recent years actually!

224

The majority I missed were bowlers, find it far easier to remember batting line ups for some reason.

Spoiler:

229

Spoiler:

Cheers for the pointer to that quiz. Got 232, was mostly recent ones I missed, on the revolving door that has been the batting. Has also brought back my PTSD from Ian Ward ever being an England player

So from a NZ perspective, Williamson looks good for the first test after the birth of his first child, he should bat today in the tour game.

Boult is playing the IPL final on Sunday - I would highly doubt he plays on Thursday in the first test. Of course NZ have a good stock of pace bowling options, and I suppose there is an outside chance they seem Boult ready (this is me speculating btw, seen no “reports”)

Does Jamie Porter fancy an England call-up? He's completely wrecked NZ with figures of 5/18, including the wicket of Williamson, and the Kiwis are 41/6 (they were 19/6 at one point) in the third innings.

They might lose.

The First Class Counties XI chasing 264 to defeat New Zealand, and Sibley and Compton have manoeuvred them to 69/0.

Scrap the current England selection, call up the FCCXI.

Ah Jamie Porter. The modern mans Chris Rushworth as I liked to think of him when suggesting medium-fast County nibblers for England callups.

JDizzle wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:https://wisden.com/play-and-win/quizzes/quiz-the-england-xis-from-the-first-test-of-every-summer-since-2000

201/242 - missed a couple of easy ones, and a lot in recent years actually!

224

The majority I missed were bowlers, find it far easier to remember batting line ups for some reason.

Spoiler:

229

Spoiler:

229 for me with some similar absentees now I've opened the spoilers there. Maybe we're long lost relations JD!

Spoiler:

https://twitter.com/essexcricket/status/1530504129050726401?s=21&t=Oy6XoZpQinnwC6jDuHF3Cg

Some of those LBW decisions, are, erm, questionable…