England players and selection discussion thread

[grecian]

We get angry over having a specialist keeper or not but willing to shove anyone up to open.

We are willing to do it, because Crawley and almost everyone of the specialist openers since Cook retired and many partnered with Cook after Strauss have been mediocre or worse. Whilst Foakes over the last year has been a purely excellent Wicket-keeper bat. Despite talk about Bairstows earlier wicket-keeping form with the bat, the fact is the form that made Bairstow a key player for Baz ans Stokes have been as non-wk.


I keep on trying to find logic behind all this, but I can't. Pope has been okay at 3, but remember he hadn't played there much before, so why not open. Root I've said shouldn't be moved from 4, but hey his form isn't great ATM. Honestly I'd rather have Pope, Stokes, Root open then drop a man that has clearly sharpened up the entire slip cordon, from a liability to top-class, and if we win the Ashes that will be a major part, we can't be dropping Smith early. Catch percentages is pointless as judging a 'keeper, watch, see how foakes, who I was sceptical as a WK at the start, has grown with confidence and made us feel so much more certain we aren't spilling anything.

All to accommodate ****ing Crawley.

Yeah I left it a day to see if I'd see some logic in it, and yet I see **** all.

 

[Pothas]

Crawley having an incredible ashes after all this would be absolutely hilarious.

 

[Ali TT]

We are willing to do it, because Crawley and almost everyone of the specialist openers since Cook retired and many partnered with Cook after Strauss have been mediocre or worse. Whilst Foakes over the last year has been a purely excellent Wicket-keeper bat. Despite talk about Bairstows earlier wicket-keeping form with the bat, the fact is the form that made Bairstow a key player for Baz ans Stokes have been as non-wk.


I keep on trying to find logic behind all this, but I can't. Pope has been okay at 3, but remember he hadn't played there much before, so why not open. Root I've said shouldn't be moved from 4, but hey his form isn't great ATM. Honestly I'd rather have Pope, Stokes, Root open then drop a man that has clearly sharpened up the entire slip cordon, from a liability to top-class, and if we win the Ashes that will be a major part, we can't be dropping Smith early. Catch percentages is pointless as judging a 'keeper, watch, see how foakes, who I was sceptical as a WK at the start, has grown with confidence and made us feel so much more certain we aren't spilling anything.

All to accommodate ****ing Crawley.

Yeah I left it a day to see if I'd see some logic in it, and yet I see **** all.

We've been accommodating mediocre openers (and no3s) for a decade, most of them specialists, while having all sorts of arguments around specialist v non-specialist keepers and spinners. This is a consequence of the reality that English cricket has failed to produce any decent top order batters over that period, but usually more than enough players to fill the 5-8 slots, including plenty of all-round bowling and keeping options.

 

[grecian]

Crawley having an incredible ashes after all this would be absolutely hilarious.

I would be delighted to eat my words TBH, but it's really hard to see.

 

[Molehill]

Do we think this is effectively the squad for the First Ashes Test no matter what happens against Ireland? Or could a Crawley/Bairstow fail prompt a rethink?

 

[ashley bach]

Do we think this is effectively the squad for the First Ashes Test no matter what happens against Ireland? Or could a Crawley/Bairstow fail prompt a rethink?

Couple of ducks or failures for Crawley would lead to more than just a rethink. Ultimately it could end up very well for England if he fails against the Irish.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Do we think this is effectively the squad for the First Ashes Test no matter what happens against Ireland? Or could a Crawley/Bairstow fail prompt a rethink?

I think it's the squad for the first Ashes Test (baring any injuries).

Dramatic failure during the Ashes may be the only thing that could get Crawley dropped at the moment (and even then I wouldn't bet on it) but I've no doubt he's inked in to start that series.

 

[Ali TT]

Crawley having an incredible ashes after all this would be absolutely hilarious.

Tbh if England win I couldn't care if he averages 0 or 100, but I'd settle for victory and some consistent efforts to average around 35-40.

 

[Nintendo]

We are willing to do it, because Crawley and almost everyone of the specialist openers since Cook retired and many partnered with Cook after Strauss have been mediocre or worse. Whilst Foakes over the last year has been a purely excellent Wicket-keeper bat. Despite talk about Bairstows earlier wicket-keeping form with the bat, the fact is the form that made Bairstow a key player for Baz ans Stokes have been as non-wk.


I keep on trying to find logic behind all this, but I can't. Pope has been okay at 3, but remember he hadn't played there much before, so why not open. Root I've said shouldn't be moved from 4, but hey his form isn't great ATM. Honestly I'd rather have Pope, Stokes, Root open then drop a man that has clearly sharpened up the entire slip cordon, from a liability to top-class, and if we win the Ashes that will be a major part, we can't be dropping Smith early. Catch percentages is pointless as judging a 'keeper, watch, see how foakes, who I was sceptical as a WK at the start, has grown with confidence and made us feel so much more certain we aren't spilling anything.

All to accommodate ****ing Crawley.

Yeah I left it a day to see if I'd see some logic in it, and yet I see **** all.

Root is averaging 50+ under bazball and made runs in Nz. He's not exactly in bad form, jnkess your comparing him to 2021 root.

 

[igorbalis]

Zak Crawley is the biggest example of the sunk cost fallacy I can remember in professional sports, Also, I know it's an incredibly trite observation that's probably been made a million times before (probably about other players too, Vince comes to mind), but his extended place in the team always makes me think of that bit in Moneyball where all the silly old bastards are talking about how players pass the eye candy test, have a "great attitude" and all that bollocks.

I have obviously really enjoyed watching England recently, and recognise that's been all about #vibes and taking the handbrake off, and that Jonah Hill fannying around on excel isn't really in keeping with this, but ffs. I bet Crawley has **** bantz anyway.

 

[greg]

Crawley having an incredible ashes after all this would be absolutely hilarious.

If that happens it’ll just make England fielding the strongest fielding unit, including best keeper, all the more important.

 

[Pothas]

I would be delighted to eat my words TBH, but it's really hard to see.

It looks impossible but I so want it to happen now

 

[Starfighter]

Betcha Crawley produces a big innings to stuff us at a vital moment. Every dog has its day.

 

[Nintendo]

"A lot of people talk about scoring hundreds all of the time in cricket. I am coming to believe that is nonsense."- Zak crawley.

This is getting to langer justifying mitch marsh in the test team levels of ridiculous with crawley. Crawley is a fantastically talented player with a lot of upside, his ability to drive almost any length on the up is something you don't see often and not something your gonna learn very easily, but his defensive technique isn't up to test level atm. If he's spending all his time in an echo chamber of a dressing room being vindicated about how his "25 average, once every few innings make a game changing score but fail every other time" approach he's never gonna improve, and that would be a huge shame because there's I think there's a genuine test standard bat in crawley.

He needs to go back to county cricket for a few years, work his game out and kick the door down with a big 1200+ run season like duckett did. If england continue managing him the way they are now their gonna waste a huge, huge talent.

Edit: It's not like england lack options, either. 18 months ago I can get them going back to crawley, cause they'de tried every other opener in county cricket who'de made runs, and no matter who it was they failed, so crawley giving them a barbados 100 or a sydney 80 every once in a while and failing every other time was better than the other guys who just didn't make runs, period. But you've got compton whose made 1600 runs @54 opening in div 1 in the past year and a half + made runs vs a full strength NZ attack in a tour match, and jennings who's made a similiar amount of runs at an even more outrageous average while going at a healthy 55 SR.

 

[honestbharani]

but his defensive technique isn't up to test level atm.

Its just about understanding when and which balls he can attack instead of blindly trying to drive everything on the up. And I fully agree with your post.

 

[Burgey]

ust out of interest, what is the team Aus would least like to see coming out to face them? I'm guessing you'd be moving someone up to open (Pope) and slotting Bairstow back in at 5.

Hard to think of an England side post-1970-71 that I'd be genuinely worried about facing from an Australian fan's pov, but if we were talking purely hypothetical and on the assumption Stokes isn't bowling, the worst option from an Aus persepective would be him missing out as a batsman (which he probably should) and Bairstow batting six ahead of Foakes, While I think Duckett is ordinary, he's done enough to warrant starting the summer, as opposed to Crawley.

I think the worst case scenario England side for Australia (excluding Hutton, Hobbs, Hammond etc etc, the last of their actually great players) would be

Duckett
AN Other
Someone Else
Root
Brook
Bairstow
Foakes+
Robinson
Archer
Broad
Anderson

because I really don't expect Leach to offer a lot though who knows? But I think they'll kick off with

Duckett
Crawley
Pope
Root
Brook
Bairstow
Stokes
Robinson
Broad/ Wood
Leach
Anderson

I'd be tempted to play Wood over one of Broad or Anderson just for his pace but even more for his stamina. If Aus gets in and bats for a long time (which they more than likely will), without Wood you've got two ageing bowlers in a four man attack first up in a very congested series. Stokes not bowling upsets the balance of the side massively. Potentially a recipe for a shambles.

One of the down sides of modern scheduling is it's as much about workload management as it is about having the best attack on the park at all times, something we have learned to our detriment the last two Indian tours here.

Having said that, I think Robinson has to play every test he's fit these days. He's probably your best all-conditions bowler now. Assuming he stays fit he has to be a lock. Purely on ability/ performance it's him and the two old ducks who should play, but like I said it's a congested summer.

It's going to be interesting to see if 4-7 can consistently bail England out of strife, because they'll be neck deep in it more often than not with their top order. Brook's had a rails run at the start of his career but he's hit some average form at the worst time - just as Postman Pat comes calling. And tbf after his night out in Bristol, Stokes knows all about bail. And that tail doesn't look all that likely to do much to me, but you can never rule out a couple of blokes hanging around for a while I guess.

 

[ataraxia]

AN Other

probably AN Cook tbh

 

[Burgey]

probably AN Cook tbh

Yeah I actually thought about him tbh.

 

[Molehill]

Hard to think of an England side post-1970-71 that I'd be genuinely worried about facing from an Australian fan's pov, but if we were talking purely hypothetical and on the assumption Stokes isn't bowling, the worst option from an Aus persepective would be him missing out as a batsman (which he probably should) and Bairstow batting six ahead of Foakes, While I think Duckett is ordinary, he's done enough to warrant starting the summer, as opposed to Crawley.

I think the worst case scenario England side for Australia (excluding Hutton, Hobbs, Hammond etc etc, the last of their actually great players) would be

Duckett
AN Other
Someone Else
Root
Brook
Bairstow
Foakes+
Robinson
Archer
Broad
Anderson

because I really don't expect Leach to offer a lot though who knows? But I think they'll kick off with

Duckett
Crawley
Pope
Root
Brook
Bairstow
Stokes
Robinson
Broad/ Wood
Leach
Anderson

I'd be tempted to play Wood over one of Broad or Anderson just for his pace but even more for his stamina. If Aus gets in and bats for a long time (which they more than likely will), without Wood you've got two ageing bowlers in a four man attack first up in a very congested series. Stokes not bowling upsets the balance of the side massively. Potentially a recipe for a shambles.

One of the down sides of modern scheduling is it's as much about workload management as it is about having the best attack on the park at all times, something we have learned to our detriment the last two Indian tours here.

Having said that, I think Robinson has to play every test he's fit these days. He's probably your best all-conditions bowler now. Assuming he stays fit he has to be a lock. Purely on ability/ performance it's him and the two old ducks who should play, but like I said it's a congested summer.

It's going to be interesting to see if 4-7 can consistently bail England out of strife, because they'll be neck deep in it more often than not with their top order. Brook's had a rails run at the start of his career but he's hit some average form at the worst time - just as Postman Pat comes calling. And tbf after his night out in Bristol, Stokes knows all about bail. And that tail doesn't look all that likely to do much to me, but you can never rule out a couple of blokes hanging around for a while I guess.

I'd agree with a lot of that and I'm no Pope fan either. Someone needs to keep him off the haribo before he goes out to bat.

But a couple of points. Stokes has worked out how to use Leach both from an economical and wicket taking perspective. He's a key part of the attack now and it will allow 3 seamers (if that's all we have) to work round him. Even if he goes for a few, it won't bother the skipper who will continue to back him.

Also, be careful what you think about Brook. He was poor in the T20 World Cup before heading off to NZ and smashing 300 runs in 3 innings at better than a run a ball. I really think the kid is a bit special. If he gets to 50, the runs come seriously fast after.

Our tails are remarkably similar. One fella who used to know how to bat but seems to have forgotten how to, a lefty who could go for a duck or swish a quick 40, a spinner who knows how to block and a number 11. If Neser did get a game, he'd be a standout amongst this group.

 

[Prince EWS]

Our tails are remarkably similar. One fella who used to know how to bat but seems to have forgotten how to, a lefty who could go for a duck or swish a quick 40, a spinner who knows how to block and a number 11. If Neser did get a game, he'd be a standout amongst this group.

Even that situation is similar because of Woakes.