Mackem DJ
Striker
Staggering isnt it. Shows how bad our top order talent pool is.
Burns
Roy
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler+
Ali
Woakes
Archer
Broad
Anderson
Last edited:
-
The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Ashes first test squad
- Thread starter Scotty 1978
- Start date
- Status
Burns
Roy
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler+
Ali
Woakes
Archer
Broad
Anderson
Super Ted
Striker
I think we will include Burns and drop a bowler however i don't see the point.
It looks to me like we are going to massivley struggle with the bat in the hope that Root has an outstanding series, then the all-rounders + Roy contribute signicantly.
The squad selection is very strange but from what's available, that's what i would go with.
I see the reasoning, but I don't think that adds to the team. I think Curran could be an excellent number 3 if he focuses on his batting primarily and putting him there would be a long term move. As we know, Root's best position is 4, so this keeps him there and hopefully keeps him contributing most runs to the team.Move Root to three and Curran to six.
alicedonut
Midfield
Sri Lanka Series figures:-
| Player | Mat | Inns | Overs | Mdns | Runs | Wkts | Ave | Econ | SR | 5 |
| MJ Leach | 3 | 6 | 142.4 | 16 | 385 | 18 | 21.38 | 2.69 | 47.5 | 1 |
| MM Ali | 3 | 6 | 124 | 14 | 441 | 18 | 24.5 | 3.55 | 41.3 | 0 |
Leach didn't play in the West Indies. Not sure it can be said Ali won.
Ali averaged 13 with the bat. Leach averaged 5
Comeback_Kenwyne
Striker
For the match Thursday I would go:
Burns
Roy
Root
Curran
Buttler
Stokes
Bairstow
Ali
Woakes
Broad
Anderson
I think I would bring Archer in for Lords, dropping Anderson. Obviously this is not form related - but I think it's a case of managing him and Archer through these back to back tests, with each playing one. And I think based on a swing at Edgbaston, seam at Lords analysis I'd go that way round. If all were fit I'd probably, after much deliberation, drop Broad. Tough call though - nice problem to have.
The batting line up selected puts a lot of pressure on Curran, but lets have him in and see how he does. His future is as a batsman and because of his technique I am hopeful he can, like Steve Smith and Stuart Broad at similar stages of their career, change from a bowler to a batter (or reverse in case of Broad). If he is anything like a successful as those conversions we will have a player on our hand. Suspect he ends up being a five, rather than a four, but I don't want to move anyone else around anymore. I've also picked it so we are left-right all the way down to Broad/Anderson, when we go to left-left. This will mess with the Aussies, I hope.
If selection was open beyond this, I'd seriously look at (fitness permitting) Ben Foakes in for Bairstow. I think we will soon be calling Sibley in, so I'd have him on standby for Burns, and Northeast on standby if the Curran gambit doesn't work. Either/or really, because I'd still be happier with Root at four and Roy at three. God knows where the next test opener really comes from.
The only question people have raised is Ali - but people need to get over his form with the bat. Since he came back into the side it is a fact that he is the leading wicket-taker in test cricket - with 45 at 23. They are basic facts and people who want to drop him are seeing things in Leach that just aren't there, ball-wise. Absolute madness in other words.
Times had a good stat today - Ali is leading test wicket taker since he came back into the side last year, not just of England of all nations, with 45 @ 23. That's mainly inclusive of stats on English pitches - which is what we're playing on. Mad to leave him out.
What I will say about those stats is I don't think my memory of Sri Lanka is letting me down - so perhaps it is a case of Ali being consistent (i.e. winning more innings) but Leach having one where he stacked them up, so that overall they come out basically equal.
Burns
Roy
Root
Curran
Buttler
Stokes
Bairstow
Ali
Woakes
Broad
Anderson
I think I would bring Archer in for Lords, dropping Anderson. Obviously this is not form related - but I think it's a case of managing him and Archer through these back to back tests, with each playing one. And I think based on a swing at Edgbaston, seam at Lords analysis I'd go that way round. If all were fit I'd probably, after much deliberation, drop Broad. Tough call though - nice problem to have.
The batting line up selected puts a lot of pressure on Curran, but lets have him in and see how he does. His future is as a batsman and because of his technique I am hopeful he can, like Steve Smith and Stuart Broad at similar stages of their career, change from a bowler to a batter (or reverse in case of Broad). If he is anything like a successful as those conversions we will have a player on our hand. Suspect he ends up being a five, rather than a four, but I don't want to move anyone else around anymore. I've also picked it so we are left-right all the way down to Broad/Anderson, when we go to left-left. This will mess with the Aussies, I hope.
If selection was open beyond this, I'd seriously look at (fitness permitting) Ben Foakes in for Bairstow. I think we will soon be calling Sibley in, so I'd have him on standby for Burns, and Northeast on standby if the Curran gambit doesn't work. Either/or really, because I'd still be happier with Root at four and Roy at three. God knows where the next test opener really comes from.
The only question people have raised is Ali - but people need to get over his form with the bat. Since he came back into the side it is a fact that he is the leading wicket-taker in test cricket - with 45 at 23. They are basic facts and people who want to drop him are seeing things in Leach that just aren't there, ball-wise. Absolute madness in other words.
Times had a good stat today - Ali is leading test wicket taker since he came back into the side last year, not just of England of all nations, with 45 @ 23. That's mainly inclusive of stats on English pitches - which is what we're playing on. Mad to leave him out.
What I will say about those stats is I don't think my memory of Sri Lanka is letting me down - so perhaps it is a case of Ali being consistent (i.e. winning more innings) but Leach having one where he stacked them up, so that overall they come out basically equal.
Last edited:
Moeen has more test wickets in the last 12 months than anyone in the world?
D
Deleted member 35923
Guest
Didn’t initially think taking the gloves away from Bairstow was a good idea but I would now and I’d open him up with Roy. They seem to have a good understanding as an opening pair in ODI cricket and whilst they’re very different formats, I’d give it a go given that the other options are poor and Bairstow has struggled in the middle order. The extra responsibility may spur him on a bit.
I’d go with:
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Denly
Buttler
Stokes
Ali
Woakes
Curran
Broad
Anderson
Archer in when fully fit for either Broad or Curran
I’d go with:
Roy
Bairstow
Root
Denly
Buttler
Stokes
Ali
Woakes
Curran
Broad
Anderson
Archer in when fully fit for either Broad or Curran
alicedonut
Midfield
The innings are fairly even as well. Probably makes sense to stick with Ali but I don't think Leach is that far behind especially with Ali's dip in batting form.
To be fair the batting is obviously the main concern and Leach wouldn't help with that.
rentaghost
Striker
Roy
Bairstow
Curran
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Woakes
Ali
Broad
Archer
Anderson
As I've been saying since last summer, Curran's best chance of staying in the team is as a batsman, he has the right temperament and technique. Also handy to have a completely different option to chuck the ball to if we need a few overs here and there.
The rest of the team gives us as much proven strength in each position as we can as well as giving us a very strong bowling attack
It amazes me that just because you have a player that is great at smacking an old ball around low in the order that they could suddenly develop the defensive technique needed to bat 3 against the moving ball against the worlds best quicks when they have never done it before. It’s utter nonsense.
I'm basing the idea on the technique he has shown when batting in tests previously. He's been far more than just a lower order slogger and has looked very comfortable with the bat. I'm sure he also faced the 2nd new ball on a couple of occasions last summer, which is what prompted thinking he could do a job.
The point is largely moot anyway as the selectors aren't going to put him up the order.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Striker
According to the Times this morning, yes.
Article here, (behind paywall):
You must be logged on to see external links
And these are the key stats...
Most wickets in past year:
Moeen Ali England 45 wickets, 9 Tests
Yasir Shah Pakistan 38, 7
Nathan Lyon Australia 37, 8
James Anderson England 35, 10
Jasprit Bumrah India 35, 7
Mohammed Shami India 34, 10
Trent Boult New Zealand 31, 7
Duanne Olivier South Africa 31, 5
Taijul Islam Bangladesh 30, 5
Ishant Sharma India 29, 8
Mitchell Starc Australia 29, 8
Ben Stokes England 29, 10
He's taken them at an average of 23.
Last edited:
TravellingMackem
Winger
Think Bairstow opening with his gate problems and lack of foot movement would never end well. He was an exceptional number 6/7 and worthless further up, not sure what the clamour is over moving him up tbh. Get him back at 7 with the gloves and get Jos up who has superior technique and foot movement.
Really struggling with the point in root and denly swapping either. They still seem confused about the best order for their players and seem like they’re guessing
Voice of fair play
Striker
The bottom line is the cupboard is extremely bare regarding top order batsman.
I mean people on this thread have suggested Curran at 3 and Woakes at 4, I mean f***ing hell!!
You could make a really good argument Denly is not good enough.
Burns too hasn't exactly pulled up any trees.
And as much as I love Roy as a batsman, still think it's unfair on him opening in the Ashes when does not even open for his county.
However what can do with what's available, it must be very diffcult for the selectors like.
I mean people on this thread have suggested Curran at 3 and Woakes at 4, I mean f***ing hell!!
You could make a really good argument Denly is not good enough.
Burns too hasn't exactly pulled up any trees.
And as much as I love Roy as a batsman, still think it's unfair on him opening in the Ashes when does not even open for his county.
However what can do with what's available, it must be very diffcult for the selectors like.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 35923
Guest
Final sentence is the issue. The cupboard is quite bare in terms of batting and we are still searching for some kind of formula that works. Which is why, despite some very valid arguments against it, I’d experiment with Roy and Bairstow at the top of the order. The order of who follows is equally problematic. We’re probably in our worst situation, batting wise, since the 90s.
Voice of fair play
Striker
I would put Root at the top of the order and Roy in the middle order to be able to express himself more when hopefully less movement by the time he gets in.
That’s certainly not ideal but all options are not ideal!
Comeback_Kenwyne
Striker
Yes, as a few people are saying, the whole moving people up the order and around is not ideal. We've been round the houses a lot and there are still people saying - no, round pegs for round holes. But who? The selectors have given people plenty of chances - Robson, Lyth, Vince (countless times), Ballance (a few times), Hales, Stoneman, Jennings (twice), Hameed, Burns, Denly - absolutely nobody is putting their hands up and saying "I'll do it". And now, the mainstay throughout that whole era, Cook has sacked it off too.
I prefer Root at four. I prefer Roy at three - which is where he has batted most recently at red ball level. I am not particularly worried about him, I think he has the mentality and technique to succeed. His technique has flaws - going too hard at the ball - but that can be worked around. It's not a disastrous flaw balanced by the fact he plays pace well, can deal with short stuff, and can leave on line and length. Unlike Bairstow and Hales, he doesn't play across the line, show his stumps or have a big swooshy backlift - his one day technique is actually pretty orthodox other than thrashing hard at the ball. He has less technical things to smooth out than most ODI specialists - and if he plays religiously straight until he's made about 25 then I think he can be a real player in this format. But he's a three for me.
Of England's middle order options, I think only really Stokes and Curran could feasibly, based on technique alone, bat higher than five in tests. And I don't think Stokes should be moved because we need an all-round contribution from him. Foakes too, has good technique and could come in as high as four perhaps, but I don't know.
Therefore, of the madcap options, the only one I'd countenance - and I think it's worth considering, I actually do - as a mad from leftfield option is getting Curran in the top three. The lad will never make an out and out bowler for me - you can't be bowling at 75mph when you're 5ft 9 - it only works if you've got height and bounce too. Making him open in the Ashes is mad, so I think we'll have Roy up there, with Root at three - but why not try him at four and see what happens? I think he could be a test match batsman if he focuses on that. Remember, Steve Smith was originally a bowler, and Stuart Broad a batsman at his age - and they turned out ok.
Still leaves a top-order player short like - we'll have to go with Burns for now. I think we'll be sending for Sibley soon though and hoping. f***ing Hameed man, he was supposed to come through - wtf happened there.
He did aye. And the Indian seam attack is pretty tasty these days too - I would say that Shami and Bumrah are the best new ball pairing in the world.
I prefer Root at four. I prefer Roy at three - which is where he has batted most recently at red ball level. I am not particularly worried about him, I think he has the mentality and technique to succeed. His technique has flaws - going too hard at the ball - but that can be worked around. It's not a disastrous flaw balanced by the fact he plays pace well, can deal with short stuff, and can leave on line and length. Unlike Bairstow and Hales, he doesn't play across the line, show his stumps or have a big swooshy backlift - his one day technique is actually pretty orthodox other than thrashing hard at the ball. He has less technical things to smooth out than most ODI specialists - and if he plays religiously straight until he's made about 25 then I think he can be a real player in this format. But he's a three for me.
Of England's middle order options, I think only really Stokes and Curran could feasibly, based on technique alone, bat higher than five in tests. And I don't think Stokes should be moved because we need an all-round contribution from him. Foakes too, has good technique and could come in as high as four perhaps, but I don't know.
Therefore, of the madcap options, the only one I'd countenance - and I think it's worth considering, I actually do - as a mad from leftfield option is getting Curran in the top three. The lad will never make an out and out bowler for me - you can't be bowling at 75mph when you're 5ft 9 - it only works if you've got height and bounce too. Making him open in the Ashes is mad, so I think we'll have Roy up there, with Root at three - but why not try him at four and see what happens? I think he could be a test match batsman if he focuses on that. Remember, Steve Smith was originally a bowler, and Stuart Broad a batsman at his age - and they turned out ok.
Still leaves a top-order player short like - we'll have to go with Burns for now. I think we'll be sending for Sibley soon though and hoping. f***ing Hameed man, he was supposed to come through - wtf happened there.
He did aye. And the Indian seam attack is pretty tasty these days too - I would say that Shami and Bumrah are the best new ball pairing in the world.
Last edited:
Steve Smith did it....
That said, I do agree with you
D
Deleted member 35923
Guest
Stuart Broad wasn’t a batsman at Curran’s age mind. He was opening the bowling for Leics against Durham at the riverside in his late teens IIRC. He was always seen as a bowler who was handy with the bat (with the hope he’d develop into a proper all rounder)
rentaghost
Striker
At the moment while our top 3 or 4 are what they are no ideas are daft. I don’t agree with this one though and think in terms of technique Woakes has an equally sound one as Curran has but you would never consider him either. The freedom of batting 8 and being free to take risks is what helps him in getting runs. I couldn’t see Curran doing better at 4 than the likes of Vince and Ballance imo
Last edited:
He’s got a lot more about him than Vince and especially Ballance mind. I like him. Gutsy cricketer and tougher than he looks I reckon. He maybe comes across slightly innocuous with his bowling and on the face of it, isn’t the type I would necessarily be eager to have in the side, but in actual fact he’s the complete opposite, he keeps having an impact on the game and I keep find myself trying to find ways to get him in our team.
I’d certainly be more confident in him to get more runs up the order than either of those two, who have had more than enough chances, unfortunately for them.
Given time, experience and the right opportunity I think Curran could easily turn himself into a reliable and classy number 3 with the added bonus of being able to bowl left arm seam as a useful variation when conditions suited, but he’d have to want to, and be happy to be used as a frontline batsman and 6th or 7th choice seamer imo.
Last edited:
- Status
