Ashes Squad

[Parkside]

Yes but faults had been identified which led to him being dropped. The faults hadn't been rectified so how can his re-selection be justified. Presumably he'dalso been scoring profically before his original selection - nothing had changed.

 

[Steak Pie]

Yes but faults had been identified which led to him being dropped. The faults hadn't been rectified so how can his re-selection be justified. Presumably he'dalso been scoring profically before his original selection - nothing had changed.

I've just said, he was averaging 40 in Tests. England would kill for that now.

Have you put forward your suggestion?

 

[Eggman]

Cook
Hales
Buttler
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Ali
Patel
Broad
Roland-Jones
Anderson

Blow them away

Buttler at 3 ? Jeez !!

On the Woakes, Roland Jones debate. Woakes every time.

Is wasn't that long ago the experts on here were slating him and he proved his worth as the number 3 seamer and a great number 8 or 9. One bad game, returning after injury, doesn't make him that bad player again

 

[Parkside]

I've just said, he was averaging 40 in Tests. England would kill for that now.

Have you put forward your suggestion?

Yes. In a previous post I said he should be given another chance when he'd shown he'd overcome the identified weakness. Test opposition are ruthless at exploiting identified weakness-as was shown on his return. Are you not advocating keep making the same mistake and expecting a different outcome? Why was Ballance given a 2nd opportunity before Westley was given a 1st one? I'd have given Sam Northeast an opportunity personally but until they're given that opportunity we'll never find out.
Balance was averaging 40 in tests before his weakness was identified so that's an irrelevance now.

 

[Steak Pie]

Yes. In a previous post I said he should be given another chance when he'd shown he'd overcome the identified weakness. Test opposition are ruthless at exploiting identified weakness-as was shown on his return. Are you not advocating keep making the same mistake and expecting a different outcome? Why was Ballance given a 2nd opportunity before Westley was given a 1st one? I'd have given Sam Northeast an opportunity personally but until they're given that opportunity we'll never find out.
Balance was averaging 40 in tests before his weakness was identified so that's an irrelevance now.

He may well have improved, he was certainly the standout from the County game. That's kind of the point: There's isn't a batsman on the planet who doesn't have weaknesses, I think rather than eradicating all of them it's more a question of managing them. Batsmen should be judged on the runs they make, and the situations they make them in. Ballance has runs in the bank, a lot more than any of the others they tried, so he was the choice.

Northeast might be a shout (I'm please to see someone else isn't going back to Buttler), Livingstone was my choice at the start of the summer.

 

[Parkside]

Yes and Sky's 3 wise men looking for faults and highlighting them doesn't help England's cause. My bone of contention was Ballance getting a 2nd chance before others got their 1st-that hinted at favouritism imo. Others look at it differently-no problem with that.

 

[DaveAngel]

Buttler at 3 ? Jeez !!

On the Woakes, Roland Jones debate. Woakes every time.

Is wasn't that long ago the experts on here were slating him and he proved his worth as the number 3 seamer and a great number 8 or 9. One bad game, returning after injury, doesn't make him that bad player again

It's not about that

It's not a balanced attack with him Jimmy n broad

Why does nobody get that?

Yes. In a previous post I said he should be given another chance when he'd shown he'd overcome the identified weakness. Test opposition are ruthless at exploiting identified weakness-as was shown on his return. Are you not advocating keep making the same mistake and expecting a different outcome? Why was Ballance given a 2nd opportunity before Westley was given a 1st one? I'd have given Sam Northeast an opportunity personally but until they're given that opportunity we'll never find out.
Balance was averaging 40 in tests before his weakness was identified so that's an irrelevance now.

Because Ballance is a much better player

He's got 4 test 100s

And he scores a lot more runs in county cricket

I'd play him at 5 and would do all summer

He's the best option we have

He is not and will never be however a number 3

 

[Parkside]

Because Ballance is a much better player

He's got 4 test 100s

And he scores a lot more runs in county cricket

I'd play him at 5 and would do all summer

He's the best option we have

He is not and will never be however a number 3

As I repeat-we all have our opinions and are fully entitled to them.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

It's not about that

It's not a balanced attack with him Jimmy n broad

Why does nobody get that?



Because Ballance is a much better player

He's got 4 test 100s

And he scores a lot more runs in county cricket

I'd play him at 5 and would do all summer

He's the best option we have

He is not and will never be however a number 3

I think Ballance has too many flaws even for 5. He gets away with them in the CC, he looks a walking wicket in tests

 

[stephen cartwright]

The chat on sky yesterday about the reserve wicketkeeper was that foakes might be selected

The joy of stokes, foakes and woakes in the team could be on.

Leads to headlines of good blokes if we win, or useless soaks if we lose

 

[Voice of fair play]

Yes and Sky's 3 wise men looking for faults and highlighting them doesn't help England's cause. My bone of contention was Ballance getting a 2nd chance before others got their 1st-that hinted at favouritism imo. Others look at it differently-no problem with that.

I think it's fair to say he got his second chance due to his exceptional form early in the county season, nothing more to it IMO.

 

[Eggman]

It's not about that

It's not a balanced attack with him Jimmy n broad

Why does nobody get that?



Because Ballance is a much better player

He's got 4 test 100s

And he scores a lot more runs in county cricket

I'd play him at 5 and would do all summer

He's the best option we have

He is not and will never be however a number 3

If we had a left armer I may think you had a point about the balance of the attack. We don't and so Woakes is the man.

Why don't you get that ? Far better judges than me think the same. Sky's experts for a start.

As for Gary Ballance - he's a poor mans Graeme Hick. He might be a county level bully, but take away his initial centuries, he's been crap ever since. His old flaws come to the fore immediately

 

[DaveAngel]

I think Ballance has too many flaws even for 5. He gets away with them in the CC, he looks a walking wicket in tests

Yes thats fine just don't agree with view that it was a jobs for the boys call up

He deserved it, screwed him by playing him at 3 mind

I understand the reservations just think he's been better than the others

Mind it's been very difficult to bat this summer

I think some people expect blokes to come in and average 50 odd

You can't

30 or so it's fine early in a career

Shouldn't be picking westley just if he made one good innings last test, pick the blokes you want and back them

I'd take Hales mind, the pitches will suit him

I'd also 100% take Buttler as back up keeper. He could handle the pressure if Bairstow pulled his hamstring, not a tour for risks

 

[Keith S30S]

Bairstow batting simply because we are short of quality.

Plenty of balls, not many grinders. Shit or bust but not boring.

Squad made up with:

Woakes
Westley
Ball
Rashid
Willey for variation

 

[Bri]

Bairstow batting simply because we are short of quality.

Plenty of balls, not many grinders. Shit or bust but not boring.

Squad made up with:

Woakes
Westley
Ball
Rashid
Willey for variation

I think Bairstow is 1 too high .... and I'd worry about the seamers. Ben Stokes is carrying a knee problem and Wood if he can paly won't bowl a lot of overs either ... so I'd have to fit another seamer in there or replace Wood with a seamer that is capable of getting through a lot of overs.

 

[brandon]

I sincerely hope Archer or Plunkett is picked to go - purely from a pace/hostility point of view.

 

[rentaghost]

Yes but faults had been identified which led to him being dropped. The faults hadn't been rectified so how can his re-selection be justified. Presumably he'dalso been scoring profically before his original selection - nothing had changed.

Because the players that have been tried instead also have faults and look poorer bets than Balance?

I think Bairstow is 1 too high .... and I'd worry about the seamers. Ben Stokes is carrying a knee problem and Wood if he can paly won't bowl a lot of overs either ... so I'd have to fit another seamer in there or replace Wood with a seamer that is capable of getting through a lot of overs.

While I agree ive yet to see someone come up with a batting order where there isn't strong reservations. I cant think of anyone that I would trust at 3 other than Root but it then ends up with a problem at 4. Who would your 3 and 4 be?

 

[Bri]

Because the players that have been tried instead also have faults and look poorer bets than Balance?



While I agree ive yet to see someone come up with a batting order where there isn't strong reservations. I cant think of anyone that I would trust at 3 other than Root but it then ends up with a problem at 4. Who would your 3 and 4 be?

Well, yea. Hameed and Jennings have ruled themselves out in their various ways over the last couple of weeks.

I'd take Malan for one, certainbly in the squad and he could play - I think Stoneman has shown that the benefit of an older player - ie more knowledgeable and more certain of his own game and won't get knocked off his stride as easily. Number 3 is the problem position for me, it may have to be Westley but he's not convincing but I'm going to plump for Burns of Surrey looks a likely lad from the stats over several seasons and we get confused and not mention him he's a wicketkeeper but he plays up the order for Surrey - so I think I'll take a punt on him at 3. There's also Woakes, I'd take him. Yea, he was rusty in he last but one test match but bowlers returning from injury often don't hit their stride straight away.

Cook
Stoneman
Burns
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Ali
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Anderson

 

[TheRey]

Bairstow batting simply because we are short of quality.

Plenty of balls, not many grinders. Shit or bust but not boring.

Squad made up with:

Woakes
Westley
Ball
Rashid
Willey for variation

I took no value in your opinion the minute I saw Jos Buttler.

 

[rentaghost]

Well, yea. Hameed and Jennings have ruled themselves out in their various ways over the last couple of weeks.

I'd take Malan for one, certainbly in the squad and he could play - I think Stoneman has shown that the benefit of an older player - ie more knowledgeable and more certain of his own game and won't get knocked off his stride as easily. Number 3 is the problem position for me, it may have to be Westley but he's not convincing but I'm going to plump for

I took no value in your opinion the minute I saw Jos Buttler.

- so I think I'll take a punt on him at 3. There's also Woakes, I'd take him. Yea, he was rusty in he last but one test match but bowlers returning from injury often don't hit their stride straight away.

Cook
Stoneman
Burns
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Ali
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Anderson

What would your 3-8 be? I guarantee whatever it is there will be at least one selection that seems blatantly and obviously wrong to others.