Oh, and hell of a game, eh? Perfect conditions for England’s seamers, they’d have run through a lot of very good teams today, but you’ve still got to turn up and do it, and a potential banana skin averted.
Genuine question: how does this compare with any of England’s top 3 over the same period? At the moment I’d settle for our top 3 averaging 29 apiece this series! 87/3 isn’t a collapse, it’s a solid start by recent standards especially in the prevailing conditions. I’m not even joking.
On the other hand, I do agree with you in that if Bairstow fails with the bat in the first test, we should bring Foakes in instead. I also agree with you about the top 3. As we have all said, it’s not as if anyone is smashing on the door to replace them.
Got to feel for Curran, he has the misfortune to be competing for selection against two players (Stokes and Woakes) who do similar things with a bit more experience, who both happen to be in good form at the same time. Still, his time will come I feel, not least if and when one of those two picks up an injury.
Oh, and reviewing earlier posts: Cumbrian’s “this judgement… is at variance with the facts” is the nicest way I’ve been called a fucking idiot in some time, nicely played sir :).
You mean that top three that has been constantly chopped and changed as players are dropped and brought back?
Bairstow has also opened in that time, I don’t see any of the other failed openers coming in further down.
Well, except Ali.
Warner
Harris
Khawaja
Smith
Wade
Burns
Paine
Cummins
Starc
Pattinson
Siddle
Burns should open rather than Harris but that selection horse has bolted.
They are going to pick either Marnus Lambruschagne or Mitchell Marsh at #6 but fucked if I can.
Not convinced Starc is fit but he’s the best leftie they have in some form
Team really needs the GOAT (Lyon) but why pick a spinner who needs bounce when the tracks are more likely shooters and Tests probably over in 3 days?
Why is Lyon the GOAT? Just heavy sarcasm or is there more to it?
From my uninformed perspective, there are only three names in that line up to worry about (Warner, Smith, and Starc) - which probably means several of the others will play blinders. But it certainly doesn’t feel as scary as the days of the likes of Waugh, Ponting, Hayden, Langer, McGrath, Lee, Warne, Gilchrist et al.
Lyon is Australia’s most successful finger spinner.
It’s a skill Aussies have an uneasy relationship with, like the classic medium pacer, the stereotypical work horses of English county cricket.
Australian spinners are (usually) wrist spinners who bowl a few overs in the first innings and then are expected to turn ‘em square on a deteriorating pitch and bowl the team to a win.
McGill rather than Warne.
Lyon doesn’t do that. Even on deteriorating pitches.
What he can do is get top order wickets in the first session of a Test.
He gets his wickets more with bounce than spin. He fields well and doesn’t give his wicket away.
100% honest performer who has simply earn his place amongst the first picked.
England covering their bases by naming a 14 man squad for the first game on Thursday. No Leach, no Rashid, and a variety of pace bowlers to choose from.
There’s a piece on cricinfo about Trevor Bayliss suggesting to Root to bat at 3, but I’d be surprised if he did it.
Me too, but apparently they have. Root’s rationale for batting 4 was that he needed the extra time to put captaincy stress behind him and get in a batting frame of mind. A cruel person would suggest that the switch back to 3 is motivated by the reflection that in practice it really wasn’t buying him that much time.
To misquote Douglas Adams, “Rumours that the England no. 6 starts getting padded up as soon as the openers leave the dressing room were all vigorously denied and absolutely true.”.
I don’t see the point of Root at 3, if someone is going to fail there it would be better for the team if it were Denly, I would have thought. Or perhaps they are going to play an extra bowler - just accept the batting is awful and try to bowl the Aussies out for 150 every time.
Team has been selected:
Rory Burns, Jason Roy, Joe Root ©, Joe Denly, Jos Buttler, Ben Stokes, Jonny Bairstow, Moeen Ali, Chris Woakes, Stuart Broad, James Anderson.
Think I would have Woakes coming in ahead of Mo. This is what I’d expected though, as a general selection. Attack looks a bit one paced but you’re not going to play Archer and Anderson (both coming back from injury) in the same team together in case both break down at once and you’re then royally screwed. Mo, at the moment, has to be selected as pure bowler, where his stats support that. The minute Australia really get on top of him though, I’d be looking at Leach.
I fancy the look of Australia in this series, without wishing to rehash stuff I’ve said above. Good chance they’re not going to be playing Starc tomorrow. What’s worrying is that it could well be the right call. In English conditions, Siddle and Pattinson are potentially lethal. Save Starc for a flatter deck later in the series and make sure he’s fit.
Re: Root at 3. Two points, one I have made before, one exclusively on the current merits:
The idea your best batsman should play 3 is rubbish. IVA Richards played most of his Tests away from 3, Tendulkar didn’t really play 3, nor did Lara, nor does Kohli or Smith, nor did KP, Kallis, Sangakkara and many others besides. Pick your best batsman where he is comfortable, don’t shoehorn him in wherever because of some mythical piece of logic.
Root’s average as captain at 4 is 45.28. His average at 3 is 28.54. Are we really saying that either a) Root is going to turn this around, b) Denly will score 17 runs an innings more at 4 than he would have at 3 or c) a combination of the above? Seems unlikely to me - seems instead like it’s weakening an already brittle batting order.
Drop Buttler and you can play another bowler.
Why would we do that when, after Ben Foakes (who isn’t playing because management is scared of Jonny Bairstow’s temper, it seems), he averages the most with the bat for England in Tests over the last 18 months? The one to drop was Denly or Burns for Archer or Curran. They’d probably have gone for Curran on the grounds that the top order is still brittle and tehy like to bat all the way down if possible. I’d have picked Archer - because he’s a point of difference and probably better than anyone in the attack not named Anderson (and even then he’s coming back from injury).
I still say YJB will prove the doubters wrong, I’d back him to average at least 50 in the first test. If proved wrong I’m quite prepared to eat my words and hope he is swapped for Foakes, or even a bowler with Buttler taking the gloves.
Cumbrian, can you square “not playing Starc could be the right call” with “I’d have picked Archer”? Seems to me that if Australia do indeed not play Starc, and it’s the right call, then not playing Archer (in favour of strengthening the batting and having a 4-5 seam attack) could also be the right call. Then again, I could be missing an important difference between Starc and Archer (other than left-arm/right-arm, which I don’t think is relevant here?).
I think, for me, it’s about variety of the seam up bowling attack. All of England’s pace bowlers are of similar pace and try to seam it around a bit. Good for these conditions, but if it goes flat or the overhead conditions don’t work, you’ve no point of difference. Archer has raw pace that no one else in England has.
Australia by contrast are going to play Cummins who will supply that raw pace. They can afford to then play the guys who will exploit the conditions better - imo, that’s Pattinson and Siddle, rather than Starc - knowing that Cummins is fit and definitely in their side.
I think Starc, with the injury, is a gamble Australia don’t need to take. I don’t think England can take their gamble with Archer since two of the guys they would select (if Archer is fit, I think I’d drop Broad rather than Woakes but it’s a tough call) are coming back from injury and they would be screwed if they had to rely on Woakes/Broad, Stokes and Ali for a long stretch.
The alternative is to pick both and drop a bat, as AK84 intimates; for me, either Denly or Burns. If everyone can bowl full bore though, then you’ve got 6 bowlers and a different problem. Might be an easier one to solve though…
It’s been a while since Pattinson was fit to play but when he was he is quicker than Cummins.
Agree that Pattinson, Cummins and Siddle is the best pace attack for Edgbaston with one claveat … they are all right armers.
Given that the most fanciful result is a 5 day batting display, I’d bring in Starc for Lyon and go straight pace.
Langer is sending redemption signals and so it will probably be Bancroft to open. JL really likes his home WA boys regardless of how gronky muppets they are.
Burns isn’t in the squad and Head is vice captain so the line-up now becomes:
Warner
Bancroft
Khawaja
Smith
Head
Wade
Paine
Cummins
Pattinson
Siddle
Lyon
Am trying to convince myself that lot can reliably bat for two sessions in English conditions. It’s a struggle.
Only Smith of that lot has scored a Test century in Blighty.
Well, I’d back at least Warner and Khawaja to add themselves to that list before the series is out.
I think there’s fair enough reasoning here. If it doesn’t look like it will spin much, don’t bother with Lyon. He’s pretty useful against the several left handed batsmen England have but it might not be required.
Pattinson is an odd one - I’ve never thought of him as super quick (though evidently he is) mostly because all the highlights I’ve ever seen of him on the web from his time at Notts are him seaming the ball around and making everyone look useless. Pace and seam movement to exploit English conditions? Arguably he should be first name on the team sheet.
We haven’t even discussed Hazelwood…
Before he got hurt the the combination of Pattinson & Starc promised to be a better opening partners than Holding and Garner. Combined with Hazlewood or Siddle with Lyon would have been as good as we have ever fielded, though Lille, Thomson, Walker and Mallet weren’t bad either.
I don’t know if he has remodelled his action but a swing & seam merchant isn’t how I know and rank him, but he was a top shelf quick.
Hazlewood was considered the successor to McGrath but he hasn’t proved to be as disciplined and accurate and he hasn’t taken on the hack work forcing captains to over bowl Cummins. This is why his CA contract has been downgraded and he may lose his spot to Siddle.