• 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

cnerd123

likes this
I think really what is confusing them is Ali. They tried to make him a spinner-who-bats to solve England's spin crisis (he insists he is a batsman first and domestically a 3 or 4!) so initially had him at 7 or 8. They then realised he was a batsman-who-bowls so moved him up the order into various batting positions. Now they have reverted to playing him back at 7!
What's confusing with Ali is that he is legit the best spin option England have
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
How about Bairstow-Stokes-Ali at 6-7-8(and you can rotate them when ones in batting better form they can have the 6 spot). You've got 5 bowlers,a keeper and now you can have a top 5 of specialist bats and odds are one will hang around with Root for a good partnership eventually


Pollock-Boucher-Klusener were used in this way sucessfully for a while right?
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
How about Bairstow-Stokes-Ali at 7-8-9(and you can rotate them when ones in better form they can have the 7 spot) to partner Broad(who is a number 10 these days anyway) and Anderson and then voilia. You've got 5 bowlers,a keeper and now you can have a top 6 of specialist bats and odds are one will hang around with Root for a good partnership eventually


Pollock-Boucher-Klusener were used in this way sucessfully for a while right?
That's only four bowlers. If you made 6-7-8 and included Woakes at 9 then that'd be five, and it's been suggested (and, in fact, tried, by England). EDIT: I see you've edited your post to reflect this now; all good.

The problem with this is that the batsmen up the order aren't as good as these guys, and it could leave at one of them seriously wasted while scrubs shunt it higher up. Of course there are problems with *not* doing that too - you either end up wasting the bowling or keeping of one of those players instead, or you end up burning them out, or you end up with a specialist batsman at #8 which seems like a waste of a spot entirely, or you pick Dawson who really is a waste of a spot entirely.

There's no "how about X and then voila" solution - there are problems with literally everything they could do with this. They need to basically do a cost/benefit analysis and decide which one of them has the least problems.
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
How about Bairstow-Stokes-Ali at 6-7-8(and you can rotate them when ones in batting better form they can have the 6 spot). You've got 5 bowlers,a keeper and now you can have a top 5 of specialist bats and odds are one will hang around with Root for a good partnership eventually


Pollock-Boucher-Klusener were used in this way sucessfully for a while right?
Do England even have any other decent specialist bats other than Cook and Root though? It seems as though everyone they try turns ****

SA had plenty of batsman who were better than Pollock/Boucher/Klusener (throw Boje in there too and you had some pretty strong tails)
 

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
Do England even have any other decent specialist bats other than Cook and Root though? It seems as though everyone they try turns ****

SA had plenty of batsman who were better than Pollock/Boucher/Klusener (throw Boje in there too and you had some pretty strong tails)
There is a bit of a drop off in quality after Cook and Root, Bairstow is the next best I'd say after those two.
 

Pothas

Hall of Fame Member
I am relatively confident they can find someone in county cricket who could bat at 5 and at least average between 35-40, honestly reckon Ballance could do that.

Finding top order players is the huge challenge.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I have to say, I seem to almost be on my own here (not for the first time) in not being remotely bothered by the positions of the England batting line-up, it's the personnel that is clearly the problem. It seems to me to be emminently simple and people are utterly confusing things.

First Test, as it seems to have been nearly forgotten, almost everyone apart from Jennings and maybe Bairstow (but he was decent behind the stumps) gave some kind of good performances or vital cameo with bat or ball, with two outstanding performances from Root and Moeen helping us win comfortably.

Second Test One good performance from Jimmeh, bit of a cameo from Root, rest of them pretty much dross. Same positions different results, because the players didn't perform, which is what happens when you lose mainly.

You can say, and plenty are that you are not utilising people in their best positions, but it doesn't matter if your top order is 41-3 most of the time. Bairstow likes to keep, it's where his best runs come from, his 'keeping has improved immeasurably (I was a doubter but he's proven me wrong), so you want to switch him into the top 4, weaken our lower middle-order to put in a Wicketkeeper that maybe worse at both jobs, to put him in a position he doesn't want to bat.

In the end the selectors are just doing the only thing they can, chop and change and hope someone can do a job in the top 3 along with Cook.

I'm sure Northeast will get a go one day, and I'm sure Stoneman will, people need to be patient as practically everyone that people have screamed for selection has got a go. None are good enough though, which is the fundamental and basic problem, and pissing around with batting line-ups won't change players being rubbish. Yet hey maybe Westley and Malan will be the ones:unsure:

Oh and Dawsons got to go of course, we talk about multi-faceted cricketers and I've yet to see his one facet. Pick another spinner, seamer, batsman (even if Moeen or Stokes have to bat at 8:shock:), strengthens the side.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This month of not playing first-class is a pain, Hameed needs games to get back in form, my choice Luke Wells was injured earlier in the season, now both relegated to second xi cricket, YAY.

On another note, as I'm ranting, George Garton is a problem too playing for Sussex, or not playing as the case is, seen glimpses of him, looks bloody sharp but can't get in the side because Wiese, Archer, Goffers, van Zyl (all illegible for England) and Jordan are ahead of him, and in T20 theres Mills*. Should ECB tell Sussex to get him on loan. Similar with Helm at Middlesex too really, Coad has managed to break through at Yorkshire though.

*BTW have Mills, Archer, Garton ever bowled together in seconds, imagine the poor county journeyman having to face that pace and bounce, all 90 miles plus.
 
Last edited:

Groundking

International Debutant
Yeah if you remove the worst periods of a couple of the top 4 they do end up above Kohli, shocking, isn't it? :laugh: Also, wasn't this period the time India had spin friendly tracks at home which apparently means all wickets that Ashwin and Jadeja took were bogus? So apparently that does not apply when Kohli bats? :p


I am not saying Kohli as good as the others in the big 4 but lets not pretend there is this huge chasm either. This topic has been done to death and as I said before, the biggest chasm is between The Chump and KW... This is how I would rate them.


Smith >>> KW > Root >> Kohli.
Even if you include the worse periods of the other 3 they're still around or above what Kohli has done in the past 4 years, which is including Kohli's best spell. Nah I don't agree with that at all, they're fantastic bowlers and have shown it time and time again, there's only really one series that I've thought was a little bit ridiculous, which was the South Africa series, but even then there were players who were rewarded who played with good application of technique and proper temperament, it just wasn't complete roads like we have seen so often in world cricket recently. Also during this period that I highlighted he actually played more away from home, and still averaged 58.08 at home...
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
Do England even have any other decent specialist bats other than Cook and Root though? It seems as though everyone they try turns ****

SA had plenty of batsman who were better than Pollock/Boucher/Klusener (throw Boje in there too and you had some pretty strong tails)

man when you also consider Kallis and even Hansie bowled plenty of overs at international level its bloody crazy how much depth they had with bat and ball. Its like they only really needed Donald as a specialist bowler
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
man when you also consider Kallis and even Hansie bowled plenty of overs at international level its bloody crazy how much depth they had with bat and ball. Its like they only really needed Donald as a specialist bowler
At also allowed them to play Jonty as a specialist fielder . . .
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
At also allowed them to play Jonty as a specialist fielder . . .

haha. And there was McMillan kept to the sidelines during all this (1999)


Jonty did have that amazing '98 series against England though. Was meant to be his breakthrough with the bat but meh. Was probably also Hansie's best series with the bat too, him and Jonty topped the scoring for probably the only time ever
 
Last edited:

Bijed

International Regular
Ok, so with the WI Test series now done and dusted, who do we stick with, who do we ditch and who do we bring in?

Stoneman for me has earned his place, he's shown that he can dig in and he's been dismissed by a couple of jaffas, so that's a mitigating circumstance against his relatively few runs scored

Westley I think I'd get rid of. I thought he showed promise against South Africa, but since then he's looked like he's been worked out already and his 44* felt very much like the exception rather than the rule.

Malan I'd keep too, because even though he looked totally out of his depth at first he's been going the right way and it looks like he might actually have the right temperament after all. I don't really expect big things from him or Stoneman tbh, but I hold out hope that they might be at least serviceable.

Bowler-wise, on the assumption we're going to take a leg-spinner to Australia, does the ODI series become essentially a bowl-off between Rashid & Crane?
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
Well Westley now averages higher than Malan after this last test. May as well toss them both in the scrap heap
 

Bijed

International Regular
How close is David Willey to being dropped from the ODI/T20 sides? When he first arrived on the scene I thought he might be someone who would be a useful guy to have around for a few years, but after a promising start, it doesn't feel like he's done anything good for a while
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
How close is David Willey to being dropped from the ODI/T20 sides? When he first arrived on the scene I thought he might be someone who would be a useful guy to have around for a few years, but after a promising start, it doesn't feel like he's done anything good for a while
He's already been dropped from the eleven on a few occasions - Ball and Wood were preferred in the Champions Trophy, and Wood was actually really good in that tournament.

If he's going to bat #10 or #11 I think Anderson would be much better at the role he's ended up with. Whether Anderson will still be playing when the World Cup rolls around is perhaps another question though.
 

Top