*Official* Fifth Test at the Oval

[Howe_zat]

This match is the first one England are favourites to win.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah I was all for dropping him, largely because of Root.

Since then I don't think the selectors have actually done all that much wrong, it looks kind of ridiculous but I don't actually think any of the individual decisions have really been that bad.

I would definitely accuse them of being ad hoc. Most of the forum (including me) would have dropped Cook and Bell several times over between 2007 and 2010, but the selectors stuck with them as part of a long-term strategy to allow batsmen to play enough tests to improve. That marked a major departure from previous selectors, and ultimately worked. They were right, we were wrong.

The musical chairs in the opener spot seems to me to be a step back. Of course none of the openers look good, they've hardly played any test cricket before. Everyone is **** at stuff when they do it for the first or second time. You have to think if they'd picked any one player and stuck with them then that player would at least be a competent opener by now. It's different if there's a player that's obviously better than the one who's currently failing, but all of the openers are all much of a muchness. Nobody really knows who's better out of Robson or Lyth or Carberry or Compton. In that situation the development strategy is the way forward imo.

 

[Cabinet96]

I would definitely accuse them of being ad hoc. Most of the forum (including me) would have dropped Cook and Bell several times over between 2007 and 2010, but the selectors stuck with them as part of a long-term strategy to allow batsmen to play enough tests to improve. That marked a major departure from previous selectors, and ultimately worked. They were right, we were wrong.

The musical chairs in the opener spot seems to me to be a step back. Of course none of the openers look good, they've hardly played any test cricket before. Everyone is **** at stuff when they do it for the first or second time. You have to think if they'd picked any one player and stuck with them then that player would at least be a competent opener by now. It's different if there's a player that's obviously better than the one who's currently failing, but all of the openers are all much of a muchness. Nobody really knows who's better out of Robson or Lyth or Carberry or Compton. In that situation the development strategy is the way forward imo.

I agree with most of this to an extent. But I don't know if any of the recent openers have been anywhere near as impressive as Cook and Bell were, or shown any signs of similar potential. Yeah, they both had a couple of **** years, but they also did a decent amount of good stuff at a young age. Cook for instance, has never actually averaged below 40. I'd definitely like us to find a talent and stick with one, but I just don't know how practical it is when guys are averaging below 30. Some of them aren't even that young.

 

[Furball]

I agree with most of this to an extent. But I don't know if any of the recent openers have been anywhere near as impressive as Cook and Bell were, or shown any signs of similar potential. Yeah, they both had a couple of **** years, but they also did a decent amount of good stuff at a young age. Cook for instance, has never actually averaged below 40. I'd definitely like us to find a talent and stick with one, but I just don't know how practical it is when guys are averaging below 30. Some of them aren't even that young.

Bell's initial Test career consisted of a debut 70 against the Windies, flogging Bangladesh then being made to look like a complete rabbit by Warne and McGrath.

If the selectors had shown the same patience with him as they've shown to Cook's opening partners then Owais Shah would have spent most of 2006 at number 3 and Bell would've been sent back to County Cricket.

 

[Cabinet96]

That's better than what Robson did, and he was four years younger than all the other opening options were. Also there were injuries by the next time we played after the Ashes in 05. So they had enough to justify his trip to Pakistan, where his performances bought him time.

 

[Dan]

Sure I read a report recently that said Compton's somewhat intense personality was a factor in him getting the arse.

If England are prepared to dump KP for being a prick, there's no hope for a journeyman opener with technical flaws.

Not saying it's right, but our record of handling the spikier souls is pretty dire at best.

This is very true, ftr. I'm in the process of writing up an interview I did with Compton, and FMD he's intense when it comes to his views on being an opening batsman.

 

[Gnske]

This is very true, ftr. I'm in the process of writing up an interview I did with Compton, and FMD he's intense when it comes to his views on being an opening batsman.

Sounds juicy, can't wait.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree with most of this to an extent. But I don't know if any of the recent openers have been anywhere near as impressive as Cook and Bell were, or shown any signs of similar potential. Yeah, they both had a couple of **** years, but they also did a decent amount of good stuff at a young age. Cook for instance, has never actually averaged below 40. I'd definitely like us to find a talent and stick with one, but I just don't know how practical it is when guys are averaging below 30. Some of them aren't even that young.

I think in a sense what the selectors are really hoping for is an early run of good luck or easy batting situations that buys the player time to become actually good. They're getting 6-7 tests each and in that span of time it doesn't take much to shift an average from 30 to 40.

Also worth repeating that opening the batting for England is incredibly difficult. Home conditions are a nightmare for openers and away conditions are just as unfamiliar as they are for everyone else. Expectations need to be set low; averaging just under 30 after your first 6 or 7 times doing it shouldn't necessarily make your position untenable.

And Ballance is out of the team having not averaged below 45 since his first test. Which is a separate debate altogether, but the selectors are definitely less patient than they were before.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

This match is the first one England are favourites to win.

Which clearly means we won't then.

 

[GIMH]

Bell's initial Test career consisted of a debut 70 against the Windies, flogging Bangladesh then being made to look like a complete rabbit by Warne and McGrath.

If the selectors had shown the same patience with him as they've shown to Cook's opening partners then Owais Shah would have spent most of 2006 at number 3 and Bell would've been sent back to County Cricket.

He actually was going to be dropped for Pak away though, as Cabs said. Vaughan missed the first test, I think Strauss missed one too, Bell did pretty well and earned his spot along with Collingwood. Can't remember his figures away to India, I know he had a bad time as stand-in opener but certainly nobody was calling for him to be dropped at that point and he then went on to have a golden summer on debut in 06.

One thing that's worth noting though in response to Uppercut's point is that he was actually dropped in the Caribbean. He only got back in when KP was injured in the Ashes and had a few great years, cementing his place in South Africa.

Edit - also Shah wouldn't have been at 3 in 06 anyway. Cook was batting there after showing he belonged in the team away in India, but no way were we going to jettison a returning Tresco at that point.

 

[theegyptian]

Bell had natural talent and age (and performance*) on his side.

You pick a 30 year old and your expecting them to be the finished article or at least they aren't going to improve their game much. It just isn't worth investing a couple of years in improving a 30 year old- or at least there are better uses of time.

They persisted with Bell and here he is 11 years later with a good test career behind him. Looking back it was a decent investment.

* You look at his average over his career and Bell ducked under 40 once after 14 tests and for 3 tests 48-50 just after he was dropped in 2009. Compare that to all the other players mentioned and he's outperformed them all except for Gary Ballance who had such a dismal decline that he probably had to be dropped but in all likelihood will get back in because he is young.

 

[GIMH]

Bell had natural talent and age (and performance*) on his side.

You pick a 30 year old and your expecting them to be the finished article or at least they aren't going to improve their game much. It just isn't worth investing a couple of years in improving a 30 year old- or at least there are better uses of time.

They persisted with Bell and here he is 11 years later with a good test career behind him. Looking back it was a decent investment.

* You look at his average over his career and Bell ducked under 40 once after 14 tests and for 3 tests 48-50 just after he was dropped in 2009. Compare that to all the other players mentioned and he's outperformed them all except for Gary Ballance who had such a dismal decline that he probably had to be dropped but in all likelihood will get back in because he is young.

Yeah. I said on CW comms during the Lord's Test that I would drop Ballance rather than Lyth, because once you drop Lyth that's it for him. Ballance can go away and come back stronger.

 

[91Jmay]

Dobell has always fancied Ballance to open. I'm not sure what it is based on tbh though.

 

[Gnske]

Dobell has always fancied Ballance to open. I'm not sure what it is based on tbh though.

Apparently Ballance himself said he would like to open.

 

[91Jmay]

His technical flaws will be issue, so if he goes away and corrects them I suppose it is plausible.

 

[theegyptian]

Dayum. Ballance and Cook opening partnership.That would be some show. At least Cook and Trott in their long partnerships had a little contrast of styles. Imagine watching Cook and Ballance batting all day.

Kinda disappointed by Ballance heading back to Yorkshire and batting 5 again. Really should be batting higher if he wants to bat high in the England order.

 

[burr]

So has there ever been an Ashes series where none of the tests went to a fifth day?

 

[wpdavid]

So has there ever been an Ashes series where none of the tests went to a fifth day?

Says something about the standard of batting doesn't it.

1978/79 might be worth checking; Australia's 3rd XI against Willis, Botham and co, England looking fragile against Hogg and a series of fairly lively tracks.
Doubt if none of the tests went to five days though.

 

[ripper868]

I've got tickets to Day 4 of this. Hoping it lasts that long, and if it does, that it isn't just a case of either side needing 3 wickets/20 runs to win. Still, happy to tick off another Ashes 'dream' having been to Lords on Day 1. Backing Clarke to finish with a 70 odd in the first dig, and a 50 in the second. Test to be a draw pending weather.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Haddin's flying home early for family reasons. Not that he was likely to play anyway.