*Official* 3rd Test at Edgbaston

[Pothas]

I'll elaborate on this later but this chat about the top order is nonsense.

Nonsense in that we are actually not constantly being 30/3?

 

[Cabinet96]

It's because he plays across the line to straight balls. People who think weight of runs should trump technical flaws probably don't want Ballance dropped anyway.

First time I read this post I thought you were talking about Bell (didn't have the quote in I don't think) and I was getting really confused.

 

[Gob]

i was not cut across the line

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

One major problem with Ballance which is important to point out I think that he lets bowlers to go on top way too easily. He goes into a shell and always gives the feeling that he's going to be out any ball.

 

[GIMH]

Nonsense in that we are actually not constantly being 30/3?

Yeah not sure what he could possibly mean

 

[Antihippy]

I think the problem with ballance, which I used to compare to steve smith in terms of having a weird technique, is that he goes back across but doesn't put himself in a position where he could get his head over the ball. Steve Smith goes back tons too but what he actually does really well is to position his head inline with the ball. I wonder if this is why he had so much success against india, sri lanka and the windies because he seems to want to stay back to have the max amount of time to react, and those attacks really just either do not have the pace nor the discipline in line and length to test that technique.

 

[Tangles]

It's because he plays across the line to straight balls

Shane Watson says hi.

 

[Tangles]

You can get away with camping on the back foot like Ballance does but he's missing some vital components against good fast bowling. His off stump play is awful for a leftie. He needs better judgement there so he can not play balls he doesn't need too. He also needs a proper front foot defense. Then he at least keeps out the full ones that cause him issues. With that base he can then start to punch of the front foot once he is in.

 

[Furball]

Nonsense in that we are actually not constantly being 30/3?

Yeah not sure what he could possibly mean

All the knee jerking and panic button pressing that's going on sorrounding the top order.

Yes, it's under performing. Badly. I've got a crazy theory as to why this is the case. Brace yourselves.

It's because they're facing a good bowling attack.

Now sure, I understand people's concerns about Gary Ballance and Adam Lyth in particular. I share them. And my opinion on Ian Bell is well documented to the point where I apparently have an agenda against him (more on these three later.) But some of the suggestions I've seen on here since yesterday are just utterly ridiculous, so I'll address them.

1. England should move Root/Bell to 3 and drop Ballance down the order.

No. This doesn't address any issues whatsoever with the side. And secondly, it will actually exacerbate the issues in the side. Joe Root may be in great form and has spanked attacks left right and centre for the last 15 months in his position at 5, but we've already tried him at the top of the order against Australia before. He had an average time of it opening in the home series, spending most of the time being a shotless sitting duck before being dismissed for a low score, was dropped down the order for the return series, re-promoted once Trott went crazy and had such a bad time of it that he was dropped for Sydney. Ian Bell has had a career full of failure at 3 and 4. Root is the one thing about our batting that is really working just now, tinkering with that, and moving him into a position where he has failed before, is a recipe for disaster. I take the argument that it was 2 years ago, he's matured, blah blah, but it's far too much of a risk in my opinion. He is having success at 5, leave him there.

2. England should drop one/more/all of Lyth, Ballance and Bell.

Again no. The only one there is logic for is Bell* - and I'll explain why. Remember, we've just come off a very successful ODI series against New Zealand where the players were singing the praises of a new, positive era in English cricket and batting. We heard talk before the first Test about how we wanted to carry that positive attitude into the Ashes - and we did. These are mostly young, inexperienced batsmen who are newish to Test cricket and to the Ashes experience; they will make mistakes, they have flaws. You stick with them and help them iron out their flaws so that they flourish as Test batsmen. Particularly if you want to encourage a culture of positivity and risk taking within the team. Slamming your fist into the panic button and dropping batsmen after one bad Test is completely at odds with that mentality and creating that culture - you cannot expect players to express themselves and play with freedom if they are looking over their shoulder after one bad result or performance. Look at the Ashes 2005 generation of players. The core of the England batting lineup from 2005-2010 was Strauss, Cook, Bell, KP and Collingwood, with a bit of a revolving door around the number 3 position owing to Michael Vaughan's fitness, form and eventual retirement before Trott took up the reigns. Post 2005 Ashes, England had 6 Tests in the subcontinent. Bell (8 Tests), KP (5 Tests) and Strauss (19 Tests) all scored 1 ton each combined, and averaged 37, 34 and 28 respectively. They weren't dumped. They were persisted with and between them scored over 22,000 Test runs and scored over 65 Test tons between them. This current new generation of batsmen needs the same patience shown to them.

*my "give them time" logic obviously does not apply to a 33 year old 112 Test veteran, but I would be loathe to drop someone - yes, even Bell - for an inexperienced batsman at this point in an Ashes series.

Lord's was a dismal result. There are legitimate concerns over Lyth, Ballance's technique and whether Bell might just actually be done. But chopping and changing the top order at this moment in time is a nonsense that is more likely to be counter productive.

 

[harsh.ag]

Lord's was a dismal result. There are legitimate concerns over Lyth, Ballance's technique and whether Bell might just actually be done. But chopping and changing the top order at this moment in time is a nonsense that is more likely to be counter productive.

Do you think Bairstow will score more runs than Ballance?

 

[Cabinet96]

The position we're in with our batting is kind of similar to where Australia were after the Lords test two years ago. Certain players aren't performing and as much as it would be ideal to give them time, it's kind of hard because we're starring down the barrel of another 10 test matches that are going to be hard as **** for the top order again. But on the other hand there isn't really a short term fix available. So I'd be inclined to stick with them for another test or two, at the last, and hope things get better.

The only player I'd consider bringing in is Bairstow, but it's dependent on whether he's improved the technical deficiencies which were exposed last time. I'd guess most of the people on here have only seen bits of him since his last test, so we probably can't judge whether picking him would be good or bad, but the selectors, assuming they're competent, should be able to.

 

[Furball]

Do you think Bairstow will score more runs than Ballance?

No.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

At this precise moment 46 years ago there was a man walking on the moon. Now there isn't even one capable of batting at number 3 for England.

 

[Compton]

All the knee jerking and panic button pressing that's going on sorrounding the top order.

Yes, it's under performing. Badly. I've got a crazy theory as to why this is the case. Brace yourselves.

It's because they're facing a good bowling attack.

Now sure, I understand people's concerns about Gary Ballance and Adam Lyth in particular. I share them. And my opinion on Ian Bell is well documented to the point where I apparently have an agenda against him (more on these three later.) But some of the suggestions I've seen on here since yesterday are just utterly ridiculous, so I'll address them.

1. England should move Root/Bell to 3 and drop Ballance down the order.

No. This doesn't address any issues whatsoever with the side. And secondly, it will actually exacerbate the issues in the side. Joe Root may be in great form and has spanked attacks left right and centre for the last 15 months in his position at 5, but we've already tried him at the top of the order against Australia before. He had an average time of it opening in the home series, spending most of the time being a shotless sitting duck before being dismissed for a low score, was dropped down the order for the return series, re-promoted once Trott went crazy and had such a bad time of it that he was dropped for Sydney. Ian Bell has had a career full of failure at 3 and 4. Root is the one thing about our batting that is really working just now, tinkering with that, and moving him into a position where he has failed before, is a recipe for disaster. I take the argument that it was 2 years ago, he's matured, blah blah, but it's far too much of a risk in my opinion. He is having success at 5, leave him there.

2. England should drop one/more/all of Lyth, Ballance and Bell.

Again no. The only one there is logic for is Bell* - and I'll explain why. Remember, we've just come off a very successful ODI series against New Zealand where the players were singing the praises of a new, positive era in English cricket and batting. We heard talk before the first Test about how we wanted to carry that positive attitude into the Ashes - and we did. These are mostly young, inexperienced batsmen who are newish to Test cricket and to the Ashes experience; they will make mistakes, they have flaws. You stick with them and help them iron out their flaws so that they flourish as Test batsmen. Particularly if you want to encourage a culture of positivity and risk taking within the team. Slamming your fist into the panic button and dropping batsmen after one bad Test is completely at odds with that mentality and creating that culture - you cannot expect players to express themselves and play with freedom if they are looking over their shoulder after one bad result or performance. Look at the Ashes 2005 generation of players. The core of the England batting lineup from 2005-2010 was Strauss, Cook, Bell, KP and Collingwood, with a bit of a revolving door around the number 3 position owing to Michael Vaughan's fitness, form and eventual retirement before Trott took up the reigns. Post 2005 Ashes, England had 6 Tests in the subcontinent. Bell (8 Tests), KP (5 Tests) and Strauss (19 Tests) all scored 1 ton each combined, and averaged 37, 34 and 28 respectively. They weren't dumped. They were persisted with and between them scored over 22,000 Test runs and scored over 65 Test tons between them. This current new generation of batsmen needs the same patience shown to them.

*my "give them time" logic obviously does not apply to a 33 year old 112 Test veteran, but I would be loathe to drop someone - yes, even Bell - for an inexperienced batsman at this point in an Ashes series.

Lord's was a dismal result. There are legitimate concerns over Lyth, Ballance's technique and whether Bell might just actually be done. But chopping and changing the top order at this moment in time is a nonsense that is more likely to be counter productive.

I agree with a number of those points. However this isn't about a dismal result at Lord's. This is about a complete failure of England's first three wickets to fall for anything even closely resembling. They failed against West Indies, they failed against New Zealand, they're failing against Australia. How much time do you give them?

(I do note that Trott actually played in the West Indies, but generally I feel the point still stands)

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah this is a longer term thing, it is not knee jerk. It's a fairly easy stance to take that this is knee jerk and reactionary but it happened in the tests we have won recently as well. I don't see how Ballance will ever score runs against top sides. Sometimes watching a bloke and you just know and Ballance has that look about him.

 

[Pothas]

I don't know if that is definitely the case. Sure there are glaring technical issues but he looked a different player last year and I don't think that is just because he is facing better bowling now, he is just in woeful form as well. I don't think his England career should be anything like over if he gets dropped, he just looks so awful right now that I am not sure they can keep playing him. I am reluctant as most to go back to Bairstow but people are allowed to improve, maybe he has.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree with Furball on the whole. I'd add that the options aren't really there, Bairstow would only be a fair shout if the vacancy was at 5.

 

[GIMH]

How is it kneejerk when we've had three series in a row of 30-3

Edit - I can agree with the rest of the logic on some level. But it is a problem.

 

[Furball]

Yeah we're really looking at Taylor or Bairstow, both not number 3s, or the boy Leaning at Yorkshire.

 

[theegyptian]

All the guardian journalists are replacing Ballance with Bairstow whilst leaving Lyth and Bell. Testing times for England: our writers pick the top six for Edgbaston | Sport | The Guardian