• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

England players and selection discussion thread

Red_Ink_Squid

Global Moderator
Yeah don't see them changing the batting after one Test which they won, even if Root basically solo'd it. Would be happy to see Compton in for any of the top 3 but don't think it'll happen. Stokes was full of praise for Bairstow's, erm, 16, so don't think Brook is a chance either.

Only spot up for grabs is the spinner slot, depending on Leach's fitness and then whether they choose to play a spinner at all.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I've already said something about this on the other thread, but yeah don't see any change, ah well, maybe they'll feel a bit of confidence coming out of a win, but if Pope ever makes it as a Top-class international number 3 I'll buy A plymouth Argyle shirt, and wear it to work.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do we think part of Archer’s injury issues are down to Root overbowling him?
Archer bowls with one of the least durable actions I've seen, which gave England two options. They could have tried to remodel it, but that's always a difficult process. Lots of the "science" behind which bowling actions cause injury is a bit fake, and there are at least as many disaster stories as success stories. I also think that psychologically a player usually needs to have experienced quite a bit of injury to fully commit to overhauling their action.

The other option was to carefully manage his injury risk. There are lots of ways to do this - typically you would want a bespoke strength and conditioning program, and different physios would quibble over the details. But the most basic, well-established principle would be avoiding spikes of activity at a much higher intensity or length than the player is used to. And they're allowing him to come into his first test ever and bowl 10-over spells flat-out.

I don't know if you could say that it "caused" his injury problems, but it's indicative of a team culture that either doesn't have competent conditioning staff, or (much more likely) doesn't pay any attention to them. If Archer's bowling 10-over spells, there's a lot else they're not taking very seriously too. I don't want to be overcritical - there's a balance to be struck, because medical staff are always very risk-averse, and any decent top-level sports team will ignore them a lot. But if there's one player who should have been handled very carefully, it was Archer, and they didn't do it.

Australia have really got their **** together on this stuff lately. Archer's 10-over debut spell was in a series where their attack outlasted England's by using heavy rotation. It wasn't commented on much, but if they'd lost I think all of their rotation would have become a major talking point.
 

Nintendo

Cricketer Of The Year
Archer bowls with one of the least durable actions I've seen, which gave England two options. They could have tried to remodel it, but that's always a difficult process. Lots of the "science" behind which bowling actions cause injury is a bit fake, and there are at least as many disaster stories as success stories. I also think that psychologically a player usually needs to have experienced quite a bit of injury to fully commit to overhauling their action.

The other option was to carefully manage his injury risk. There are lots of ways to do this - typically you would want a bespoke strength and conditioning program, and different physios would quibble over the details. But the most basic, well-established principle would be avoiding spikes of activity at a much higher intensity or length than the player is used to. And they're allowing him to come into his first test ever and bowl 10-over spells flat-out.

I don't know if you could say that it "caused" his injury problems, but it's indicative of a team culture that either doesn't have competent conditioning staff, or (much more likely) doesn't pay any attention to them. If Archer's bowling 10-over spells, there's a lot else they're not taking very seriously too. I don't want to be overcritical - there's a balance to be struck, because medical staff are always very risk-averse, and any decent top-level sports team will ignore them a lot. But if there's one player who should have been handled very carefully, it was Archer, and they didn't do it.

Australia have really got their **** together on this stuff lately. Archer's 10-over debut spell was in a series where their attack outlasted England's by using heavy rotation. It wasn't commented on much, but if they'd lost I think all of their rotation would have become a major talking point.
I mean tbf just after that ashes we said **** it and just played cumm-starc-haze 4 matches in a row vs India, wh
 

kevinw

International 12th Man
The vast bulk of Archer's cricket is T20. He's played 120+ T20 matches, whilst he's only played 43 FC matches (13 of those Tests) and 31 50 over matches (17 of those ODIs).

He's bowling around 33 overs per Test. He obviously got through a lot of overs in the Summer/Winter of 2019 but was still playing Tests until early 2021. Is that a big workload for a lad in his mid-20s?

I'd be surprised if we really see much of him in longer formats. He could very easily be a Tymal Mills, albeit far more effective. T20 was his strongest suit anyway.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I remember Goughy (the poster, not Darren) had a unique take on Paul Collingwood. He thought he'd created a reputation as an honest grafter, but really he was too lazy to develop proper technique, and becoming a decent test batsman with such an ugly style just revealed immense hand-eye co-ordination that was going to waste.

I don't know if it was true, but it really changed how I think about talent. Crawley is thought of as talented because his form is so good when he plays attacking shots, but maybe that's actually a sign that his talent is maxed out. If there were technical issues you could fix them, but if he's technically not bad but keeps getting out because his eye isn't sharp enough, where do you even go from there?
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I remember Goughy (the poster, not Darren) had a unique take on Paul Collingwood. He thought he'd created a reputation as an honest grafter, but really he was too lazy to develop proper technique, and becoming a decent test batsman with such an ugly style just revealed immense hand-eye co-ordination that was going to waste.

I don't know if it was true, but it really changed how I think about talent. Crawley is thought of as talented because his form is so good when he plays attacking shots, but maybe that's actually a sign that his talent is maxed out. If there were technical issues you could fix them, but if he's technically not bad but keeps getting out because his eye isn't sharp enough, where do you even go from there?
I think it's a more prevalent view than you may think, I remember Bumble babbling on about various bats getting out only being a technical problem, when he was leader. Seemed bizarre to me at the time, and TBH I still think it is.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Surely Crawley can't get another life now?

What better time to blood a newb when the series is already tucked in your sky rocket?

Although I note Compton failed in his last innings; only scored 80, the hack fraud. :ph34r:
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Surely Crawley can't get another life now?

What better time to blood a newb when the series is already tucked in your sky rocket?

Although I note Compton failed in his last innings; only scored 80, the hack fraud. :ph34r:
It's an interesting one isn't it, do they take the victory as a sign this side is great and we can remain unchanged, or just give a few a chance. As much as I love him Leach underperformed here, not sure bringing back moeen is going to help things in the long run, give Parky another game.

I just hope, if Stokes has buggered his knee to any extent they just let him rest, the just play him as bat when he won't be allowed a runner seems so stupid.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I would never openly oppose the selection of a leggie but Parkinson surely needs another gear to make it in tests.

I’ve wanted them to stick with someone at opener and give them a chance to improve, but I never liked the Crawley selection. Any other summer I’d say I was conflicted but Compton banging the door down in the CC makes this an easy call.
 

Top