England Squad For New Zealand Tests

[East Riding Mackem]

IMO Root should bat 3, he opened a few times early on in his career, and as he's the best batter in England he's the one most capable of batting in any position and doing the hard yards at 3. If not Root then Malan as he can move up or down in terms of strike rate - Pope, Lawrence, Crawley, etc just go for it. Root at 3 allows you to play Pope at 4 and Brook at 5, whereas now there will be no Brook and Pope is in at the deep end. That would be the selfless thing to do.

With Stokes at 6 it creates the question of what to do with Bairstow? His record at 5 isn't great, which just leaves 7 and getting the gloves back. That would be harsh on Foakes, but Bairstow has the better batting test record and will bat better with the tail.

I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the summer Root was at 3 and Bairstow 7. As it stands, it seems like Pope has been told he has to succeed at 3 to get in the team.

 

[The Rat]

I feel for Harry Brook mind. The sort form he's in would normally grant you a place.

Wonder if they will surprise us and pick him. But I see them backing Root Bairstow Stokes.

Personally despite backing foakes for a long time. Would prefer to see Brook at 5 and Jonny back at 7 with the gloves. 7 is still his best position.

Brook will be delighted to be in the squad, I dont mind them taking a look at hi

Root, Stokes n Bairstow had to play, so he only really gets in if they drop Foakes.

I have just read all the cricket pieces in the papers on the train down and I have to say more at piece with the decisions

You have to remember no selector, so its McCullum basically deferring to Stokes until he gets his feet under the table

 

[Bri]

He's never a number three like.

I'd have picked another opener (e.g. Robson/Jennings/Compton) and put Crawley at three.

That's right. I don't think it's a bad move to have three players who can play opener, should stiffen the top order, in theory.

But Bairstow at three! England have made that mistake before. It doesn't help a player to play too high up the order and you see the sequence of events over the years. Player scoring great, player gets promoted, player stops scoring great, player gets dropped.

 

[The Rat]

IMO Root should bat 3, he opened a few times early on in his career, and as he's the best batter in England he's the one most capable of batting in any position and doing the hard yards at 3. If not Root then Malan as he can move up or down in terms of strike rate - Pope, Lawrence, Crawley, etc just go for it. Root at 3 allows you to play Pope at 4 and Brook at 5, whereas now there will be no Brook and Pope is in at the deep end. That would be the selfless thing to do.

With Stokes at 6 it creates the question of what to do with Bairstow? His record at 5 isn't great, which just leaves 7 and getting the gloves back. That would be harsh on Foakes, but Bairstow has the better batting test record and will bat better with the tail.

I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the summer Root was at 3 and Bairstow 7. As it stands, it seems like Pope has been told he has to succeed at 3 to get in the team.

I think Root's days at batting number 3 are long over like, he bats better at 4 and Stokes had decided that when he is captain he will bat 4, so we need to move on from that conversation

Pope at 3 is a risk, but he is clearly one of the best most talented batsman in England, his average at CC level is outstanding, and he has played 23 tests. I think its fair enough by Key and Stokes to say, this is your opportunty now, you need to grab it.

Key talked well in the press about how he thinks McCullum might get best out of him, it might not work but its not the worst shout in the word

He is extremely extremely lucky to be in the squad, a lot luckier than Crawley who has just scored a 100, but lets see how it goes.

I do agree with you on the Bairstow thing, we are going to have a long tail now and will do going forward, its absolutely vital you have an agressive number 7 who can play well with the tail and score quick runs

Ben Foakes is a fine cricketer but he doesnt fit that role I'd argue.


However by the same token Bairstow form since he came in as a specialist number 6 is very good so its worth backing him for a bit. The IPL thing people are mentioning, I do agree a bit, but worth remembering half thr NZ team are still in the IPL too, including their captain.

That's right. I don't think it's a bad move to have three players who can play opener, should stiffen the top order, in theory.

But Bairstow at three! England have made that mistake before. It doesn't help a player to play too high up the order and you see the sequence of events over the years. Player scoring great, player gets promoted, player stops scoring great, player gets dropped.

Bairstow is batting 5. Thats only as Stokes wants to bat 6 too.

 

[Jack Torrance]

There are literally loads of examples:

- Joe Root averages 16 more at 5 than 4.
- Ollie Pope averages 12 more at 5 than 4.
- Dan Lawrence averages 21 more at 4 than 3.
Etc

You could make an argument for pushing any batsman down the order where he will score more runs.

Why on earth would you pick a batsman who doesn't know where his off stump is to face the new ball at #3, when you have a batsman of Root's quality who was good enough to open the batting when he first played for England? Pope or Bairstow will be no better than a human shield. If its all about protecting Joe's average then you might as well pick Sibley as a third opener.

Not moving Root to 3 to accommodate Lawrence and Pope like.

This is Stokes decision to move Root back to 4, he thinks it’s best for the team

 

[The Rat]

Not moving Root to 3 to accommodate Lawrence and Pope like.

This is Stokes decision to move Root back to 4, he thinks it’s best for the team

exactly

 

[East Riding Mackem]

I think Root's days at batting number 3 are long over like, he bats better at 4 and Stokes had decided that when he is captain he will bat 4, so we need to move on from that conversation

Pope at 3 is a risk, but he is clearly one of the best most talented batsman in England, his average at CC level is outstanding, and he has played 23 tests. I think its fair enough by Key and Stokes to say, this is your opportunty now, you need to grab it.

Key talked well in the press about how he thinks McCullum might get best out of him, it might not work but its not the worst shout in the word

He is extremely extremely lucky to be in the squad, a lot luckier than Crawley who has just scored a 100, but lets see how it goes.

I do agree with you on the Bairstow thing, we are going to have a long tail now and will do going forward, its absolutely vital you have an agressive number 7 who can play well with the tail and score quick runs

Ben Foakes is a fine cricketer but he doesnt fit that role I'd argue.


However by the same token Bairstow form since he came in as a specialist number 6 is very good so its worth backing him for a bit. The IPL thing people are mentioning, I do agree a bit, but worth remembering half thr NZ team are still in the IPL too, including their captain.


Bairstow is batting 5. Thats only as Stokes wants to bat 6 too.

I just can't fathom how Brook isn't getting a game to be honest. I suppose the argument that McCullen wants to take a look at the current squad before moving on makes sense and maybe Key is right and he will get a tune out of Crawley and Pope, maybe. I suppose if Root is sticking to 4 come what may then, if the Crawley-Pope experiment fails, they'll have to revert back to the likes of Sibley, Robson, Malan, etc. Certainly any decent county batsman now should be looking to make runs at 3. Duckett is in that slot and Vince should probably go back there.

 

[The Rat]

I just can't fathom how Brook isn't getting a game to be honest. I suppose the argument that McCullen wants to take a look at the current squad before moving on makes sense and maybe Key is right and he will get a tune out of Crawley and Pope, maybe. I suppose if Root is sticking to 4 come what may then, if the Crawley-Pope experiment fails, they'll have to revert back to the likes of Sibley, Robson, Malan, etc. Certainly any decent county batsman now should be looking to make runs at 3. Duckett is in that slot and Vince should probably go back there.

He isnt getting a game as our number 5 is now captain and moving to number 6, his best position, and our old number 6, now number 5 is our in form test batsman.

I get your point, but Baristow, Root and Stokes needs to play

Tghe only way to get Brook in is to drop Foakes aint it?

As he couldnt bat 4 or 3

 

[Jack Torrance]

Is it confirmed Bairstow will play? Isn’t he still at IPL?

I’d probs go Brook for 1st test for that reason

 

[Steak Pie]

There are literally loads of examples:

- Joe Root averages 16 more at 5 than 4.
- Ollie Pope averages 12 more at 5 than 4.
- Dan Lawrence averages 21 more at 4 than 3.
Etc

You could make an argument for pushing any batsman down the order where he will score more runs.

Why on earth would you pick a batsman who doesn't know where his off stump is to face the new ball at #3, when you have a batsman of Root's quality who was good enough to open the batting when he first played for England? Pope or Bairstow will be no better than a human shield. If its all about protecting Joe's average then you might as well pick Sibley as a third opener.

And there are loads of examples of players being comfortable in their positions, Root at 4 being the obvious one. It's impossible to say what would have happened if Root had been at 3 for the last two seasons, and who would have scored what. All we really have is that Root's form collapsed when he moved to 3.

Do you want to have look back on here to 2018/19 and look at some of the posts about Root? He's not top class, not in the same bracket as Williamson and Kholi, he doesn't have the concentration to turn 50s into 100s, it's all on this message board. Mental, but there you go.

It's no co-incidence that when he moved back to 4 he pretty much immediately started to shatter batting records. Nice that he carried his form into the winter and scored a couple of hundreds at 3, but back to 4 please.

So why on earth would you do it again? How many times do we have to make the same mistakes?

 

[Liverpool Beachball]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[mikemanc]

50* for Crawley, hopefully he can take some form into the tests

 

[Voice of fair play]

And there are loads of examples of players being comfortable in their positions, Root at 4 being the obvious one. It's impossible to say what would have happened if Root had been at 3 for the last two seasons, and who would have scored what. All we really have is that Root's form collapsed when he moved to 3.

Do you want to have look back on here to 2018/19 and look at some of the posts about Root? He's not top class, not in the same bracket as Williamson and Kholi, he doesn't have the concentration to turn 50s into 100s, it's all on this message board. Mental, but there you go.

It's no co-incidence that when he moved back to 4 he pretty much immediately started to shatter batting records. Nice that he carried his form into the winter and scored a couple of hundreds at 3, but back to 4 please.

So why on earth would you do it again? How many times do we have to make the same mistakes?

Personally I think that it is exactly what it is a co-incidence.

Root is a brilliant top class batsman at the top of his game and has matured into somebody who knows his game inside out.

Are we really saying that when he scores runs coming in very early in the game ( which he does most of the time) at 4.

That if he played in exactly the same game, with exactly the same bowlers and exactly same conditions that if he had a number 3 on his back rather than a number 4 his runs would suddenly be less?

If so just don’t get it, it’s only a number.

If he comes to the crease in the 8th over of a game at 4 or 8th of the game at 3 what is the difference?

He is still facing the same bowlers on the same wicket!

He very recently in the last series ( most recent form to go off) got 153 and 109 batting at 3.

Imo that had absolutely nothing to do with the fact he was batting 3, but absolutely everything to do with the fact he a brilliant batsman at the top of his game.

The question I keep asking is what is more relevant form 3 months ago or form 4/5 years ago?

Root will score a boat load of runs at 3,4,5 or 6.

But we need at 3 at the moment for the team!

Buttler averages 46 in test cricket at 6, should we go back to him?

 

[Steak Pie]

Personally I think that it is exactly what it is a co-incidence.

Root is a brilliant top class batsman at the top of his game and has matured into somebody who knows his game inside out.

Are we really saying that when he scores runs coming in very early in the game ( which he does most of the time) at 4.

That if he played in exactly the same game, with exactly the same bowlers and exactly same conditions that if he had a number 3 on his back rather than a number 4 his runs would suddenly be less?

If so just don’t get it, it’s only a number.

If he comes to the crease in the 8th over of a game at 4 or 8th of the game at 3 what is the difference?

He is still facing the same bowlers on the same wicket!

He very recently in the last series ( most recent form to go off) got 153 and 109 batting at 3.

Imo that had absolutely nothing to do with the fact he was batting 3, but absolutely everything to do with the fact he a brilliant batsman at the top of his game.

The question I keep asking is what is more relevant form 3 months ago or form 4/5 years ago?

Root will score a boat load of runs at 3,4,5 or 6.

But we need at 3 at the moment for the team!

Buttler averages 46 in test cricket at 6, should we go back to him?

It's a staggering co-incidence then. Moves to 3 and his form tails off, moves back to 4 and it comes back. Amazing.

As has been said hundreds of times. Top level sport is about the finest of margins, and if Root is psychologically more comfortable at 4, which he demonstrably is, then leave him be. Just as we should have left Stokes/Ali/Bairstow alone when it was the best middle order in world cricket, instead we moved them around and destroyed them.

And anyway, if you are so certain that there's no difference between batting at 3 and 4 then just put Pope at 3. There's no difference, right, so what's the problem?

If you were going to recall Saint Jos for the 7th time, then yes you would. I wouldn't recall him, again.

 

[The Rat]

Personally I think that it is exactly what it is a co-incidence.

Root is a brilliant top class batsman at the top of his game and has matured into somebody who knows his game inside out.

Are we really saying that when he scores runs coming in very early in the game ( which he does most of the time) at 4.

That if he played in exactly the same game, with exactly the same bowlers and exactly same conditions that if he had a number 3 on his back rather than a number 4 his runs would suddenly be less?

If so just don’t get it, it’s only a number.

If he comes to the crease in the 8th over of a game at 4 or 8th of the game at 3 what is the difference?

He is still facing the same bowlers on the same wicket!

He very recently in the last series ( most recent form to go off) got 153 and 109 batting at 3.

Imo that had absolutely nothing to do with the fact he was batting 3, but absolutely everything to do with the fact he a brilliant batsman at the top of his game.

The question I keep asking is what is more relevant form 3 months ago or form 4/5 years ago?

Root will score a boat load of runs at 3,4,5 or 6.

But we need at 3 at the moment for the team!

Buttler averages 46 in test cricket at 6, should we go back to him?

Mate

He’s batted absolutely loads at 3 n 4

The stats speak for themselves

It’s remarkable you are still doing this, it’s like a weird tick you have

It's a staggering co-incidence then. Moves to 3 and his form tails off, moves back to 4 and it comes back. Amazing.

As has been said hundreds of times. Top level sport is about the finest of margins, and if Root is psychologically more comfortable at 4, which he demonstrably is, then leave him be. Just as we should have left Stokes/Ali/Bairstow alone when it was the best middle order in world cricket, instead we moved them around and destroyed them.

And anyway, if you are so certain that there's no difference between batting at 3 and 4 then just put Pope at 3. There's no difference, right, so what's the problem?

If you were going to recall Saint Jos for the 7th time, then yes you would. I wouldn't recall him, again.

also he isn’t in at 10-2 every time

He’s in earlier than he should but loads of times he isn’t

For example Denly averaged 32 at number 3 and regular faced loads of balls

Genuinely no idea what he’s on about the poster

 

[Voice of fair play]

It's a staggering co-incidence then. Moves to 3 and his form tails off, moves back to 4 and it comes back. Amazing.

As has been said hundreds of times. Top level sport is about the finest of margins, and if Root is psychologically more comfortable at 4, which he demonstrably is, then leave him be. Just as we should have left Stokes/Ali/Bairstow alone when it was the best middle order in world cricket, instead we moved them around and destroyed them.

And anyway, if you are so certain that there's no difference between batting at 3 and 4 then just put Pope at 3. There's no difference, right, so what's the problem?

If you were going to recall Saint Jos for the 7th time, then yes you would. I wouldn't recall him, again.

I think that’s my point I don’t think Buttler should come back, but based off your logic and averages at a certain number in his case 6, you could make a argument for that, but I won’t because he shouldn’t.

The difference is we struggling at 3 and have been for years finding us 2 down for next to nothing, the best person to stop that happening is Root, for all intensive purposes the majority times Root has batted at 4 he has been in as early as a 3 anyway, so why now when he is at the absolute top of his game make any difference to his game?

Surely there has to be a cut off point at some point where after you have tried player after player at 3 who has failed that you consider moving your best player just one space.

Or do we continue to not learn our lessons and keep throwing players in at 3 like lambs to slaughter

You have to move players depending on the make of your team.

For example you would not keep a player averaging 50 at 7, if your tail then became very weak and he was keeping getting stranded with the tail and getting left not out for next to nothing.

You would move him up to effect the game more, even if history told you he had been excellent at 7.

Players should bat where it suits any given team at any given time, not just where they themselves have been successful in the past.

Mate

He’s batted absolutely loads at 3 n 4

The stats speak for themselves

It’s remarkable you are still doing this, it’s like a weird tick you have


also he isn’t in at 10-2 every time

He’s in earlier than he should but loads of times he isn’t

For example Denly averaged 32 at number 3 and regular faced loads of balls

Genuinely no idea what he’s on about the poster

You just not getting it mate you never have, everybody knows what the stats says.

It what the team needs right now!

 

[The Rat]

I think that’s my point I don’t think Buttler should come back, but based off your logic and averages at a certain number in his case 6, you could make a argument for that, but I won’t because he shouldn’t.

The difference is we struggling at 3 and have been for years finding us 2 down for next to nothing, the best person to stop that happening is Root, for all intensive purposes the majority times Root has batted at 4 he has been in as early as a 3 anyway, so why now when he is at the absolute top of his game make any difference to his game?

Surely there has to be a cut off point at some point where after you have tried player after player at 3 who has failed that you consider moving your best player just one space.

Or do we continue to not learn our lessons and keep throwing players in at 3 like lambs to slaughter

You have to move players depending on the make of your team.

For example you would not keep a player averaging 50 at 7, if your tail then became very weak and he was keeping getting stranded with the tail and getting left not out for next to nothing.

You would move him up to effect the game more, even if history told you he had been excellent at 7.

Players should bat where it suits any given team at any given time, not just where they themselves have been successful in the past.

You just not getting it mate you never have, everybody knows what the stats says.

It what the team needs right now!

The very very last thing the team needs now is to score less runs

Remarkable statement

 

[Voice of fair play]

The very very last thing the team needs now is to score less runs

Remarkable statement

Yeah somebody who batted at 3 and scored 153 and 109 in his last most recent series is really likely to score less runs if he continued to bat there!!!

I think really struggle to grasp the concept of moving players to suit a given team at a certain time.

And simply just look at stats and stats.

On your logic you would never move any player from any position at any time if they had been historically successful in that position in the past!

No matter how much a team may need that to happen.

 

[Steak Pie]

I think that’s my point I don’t think Buttler should come back, but based off your logic and averages at a certain number in his case 6, you could make a argument for that, but I won’t because he shouldn’t.

The difference is we struggling at 3 and have been for years finding us 2 down for next to nothing, the best person to stop that happening is Root, for all intensive purposes the majority times Root has batted at 4 he has been in as early as a 3 anyway, so why now when he is at the absolute top of his game make any difference to his game?

Surely there has to be a cut off point at some point where after you have tried player after player at 3 who has failed that you consider moving your best player just one space.

Or do we continue to not learn our lessons and keep throwing players in at 3 like lambs to slaughter

You have to move players depending on the make of your team.

For example you would not keep a player averaging 50 at 7, if your tail then became very weak and he was keeping getting stranded with the tail and getting left not out for next to nothing.

You would move him up to effect the game more, even if history told you he had been excellent at 7.

Players should bat where it suits any given team at any given time, not just where they themselves have been successful in the past.

Hold on, are you widening out the discussion to whether or not Root should be in the team? If you are, then what!?!?! If you're not, then what has recalling Buttler got to do with anything?

We've struggled at 3 for years and we haven't at 4, the reason is Joe Root playing at 4. When he went to 3 we continued to struggle (relatively) at 3, and started to struggle at 4. We turned one problem into two problems, which was entirely predictable.

If someone is averaging 50 but keeps being left stranded not out, then he's not scoring many runs.

And we come back to Jonny Bairstow who, in 2015/6/7 was batting at 7 and averaging close to 50. We moved him up the order and, as predicted by me and loads of others, it destroyed him. See also: Ali, Moeen.

At the very top level there's no room for error, when you have something good then hold onto it at all costs. And the thing that benefits the team most is having players who are scoring a shit ton of runs.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Hold on, are you widening out the discussion to whether or not Root should be in the team? If you are, then what!?!?! If you're not, then what has recalling Buttler got to do with anything?

We've struggled at 3 for years and we haven't at 4, the reason is Joe Root playing at 4. When he went to 3 we continued to struggle (relatively) at 3, and started to struggle at 4. We turned one problem into two problems, which was entirely predictable.

If someone is averaging 50 but keeps being left stranded not out, then he's not scoring many runs.

And we come back to Jonny Bairstow who, in 2015/6/7 was batting at 7 and averaging close to 50. We moved him up the order and, as predicted by me and loads of others, it destroyed him. See also: Ali, Moeen.

At the very top level there's no room for error, when you have something good then hold onto it at all costs. And the thing that benefits the team most is having players who are scoring a shit ton of runs.

You know the first part is not what I am saying!!

As for the rest you basically saying if someone is scoring runs in one position you would never move them, which personally I can never agree with.

As it has to judged imo on the make up of your team and what any given team needs at that time.

The Buttler argument is he averages 46 at 6 so based entirely of your logic not mine he should be in the side in that position!