Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

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, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

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


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th September 2017, 18:21   #41
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestie View Post
Several commentators have said that he's played across the line a lot this season to the quicks and his shoulder often drops low. Against India he certainly looked more comfortable against the spinners, although it's a bit of a stretch to describe his performances there against the quicks as "weak".
Thanks. I think he's a bit of a gamble to take but I'd rather him than Westley who I reckon would either being a candidate for a leading edge or mistimed pull.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2017, 19:42   #42
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notts Exile View Post
No one in their right mind is considering Hales at the top surely? Number five might be a good slot for him but I reckon he's well down the pecking order.

Would you bring Ballance back? I have a horrible feeling that they will but it won't be a positive decision, more a case of "well, he's the least bad option".
There's a lot to be said for going for the "least bad".

To be selected, Ballance only has to be considered at least as good as the other options (surely he is) and for the selectors to be mindful that he has much more experience of test cricket.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2017, 20:49   #43
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
There's a lot to be said for going for the "least bad".

To be selected, Ballance only has to be considered at least as good as the other options (surely he is) and for the selectors to be mindful that he has much more experience of test cricket.
Last 5 series averages:
9
24
27
6
21

Whilst I agree the other options aren't great it's hard to see that Ballance has improved with test experience.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2017, 20:59   #44
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
There's a lot to be said for going for the "least bad".

To be selected, Ballance only has to be considered at least as good as the other options (surely he is) and for the selectors to be mindful that he has much more experience of test cricket.
To be sure, one of the reasons why he has more experience is that he did pretty well in his first stint as a test player. But the other reason is that on the back of that he's had two further stints in the team, both of which were complete disasters. That's far worse than Hales and Hameed, who've both had pretty disastrous seasons so far, and worse than Duckett too.

Personally I think that Bayliss's comments about not involving new players might well be a red herring. He's only one of the selectors and just because he's the one with the biggest media mouth doesn't mean he can swing it. It's worth remembering that he really has no idea what other available players exist, whereas the other selectors have it as part of their job to know that.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2017, 21:12   #45
Bestie
International Material
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
To be sure, one of the reasons why he has more experience is that he did pretty well in his first stint as a test player. But the other reason is that on the back of that he's had two further stints in the team, both of which were complete disasters. That's far worse than Hales and Hameed, who've both had pretty disastrous seasons so far, and worse than Duckett too.

Personally I think that Bayliss's comments about not involving new players might well be a red herring. He's only one of the selectors and just because he's the one with the biggest media mouth doesn't mean he can swing it. It's worth remembering that he really has no idea what other available players exist, whereas the other selectors have it as part of their job to know that.
Whilst that's true, of course, I am also struggling to recall an incident where he's said something regarding likely selection which turned out to be patently false. I believe there's some nice homogeneity of thoughts within the selection panel and they're quite keen to buy into Bayliss' mantra of giving people too many tests all the time rather than too few. Bearing in mind how reluctant they've historically been to actually select "breakthrough" players and the fact that it is the Ashes, after all, I think the odds on any debutants have to be extremely low.
Bestie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2017, 21:17   #46
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
Last 5 series averages:
9
24
27
6
21

Whilst I agree the other options aren't great it's hard to see that Ballance has improved with test experience.
C Woakes last 6 series
52
35
55
14
84

Has batted as high as 4 for Warwickshire ... If he doesn't regain his pace I'd pick him over Ballance and one or two others getting picked as batsmen ... who actually only have similar county records. I don't think he's a top batsman but he's better than quite a few we've picked.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2017, 21:18   #47
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestie View Post
Whilst that's true, of course, I am also struggling to recall an incident where he's said something regarding likely selection which turned out to be patently false. I believe there's some nice homogeneity of thoughts within the selection panel and they're quite keen to buy into Bayliss' mantra of giving people too many tests all the time rather than too few. Bearing in mind how reluctant they've historically been to actually select "breakthrough" players and the fact that it is the Ashes, after all, I think the odds on any debutants have to be extremely low.
I think Livingstone would be a good shout though. Regarding Bayliss and the selectors, there were apparently some serious differences of opinion last winter between the people who picked the squad for India and the people who picked the playing XIs from that squad, particularly in regard to Duckett and Ballance. Hard to know how much of that was down to Cook, of course, but it certainly added up to one of the most dismal selection c0ck-ups I can remember.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2017, 21:20   #48
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestie View Post
Whilst that's true, of course, I am also struggling to recall an incident where he's said something regarding likely selection which turned out to be patently false. I believe there's some nice homogeneity of thoughts within the selection panel and they're quite keen to buy into Bayliss' mantra of giving people too many tests all the time rather than too few. Bearing in mind how reluctant they've historically been to actually select "breakthrough" players and the fact that it is the Ashes, after all, I think the odds on any debutants have to be extremely low.
The problem with a lot of breakthrough players is they have one good season then disappear. Second season is harder often because flaws get identified. A lot of players have flattered to deceive in an early season in their careers.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2017, 22:03   #49
Redmachine
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
The problem with a lot of breakthrough players is they have one good season then disappear. Second season is harder often because flaws get identified. A lot of players have flattered to deceive in an early season in their careers.
Yep, I'd never pick a player on the back of one good FC season. Jennings had a brilliant 2016 but nothing before that.

I think that Stoneman and Westley were fair enough picks as they had done well over a three year period. Some might say that Stoneman's stats aren't that great, but they were decent in very tough conditions. Malan's selection was just a bit weird and largely based on his OD form for the Lions.
Redmachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2017, 22:19   #50
Bestie
International Material
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think Livingstone would be a good shout though. Regarding Bayliss and the selectors, there were apparently some serious differences of opinion last winter between the people who picked the squad for India and the people who picked the playing XIs from that squad, particularly in regard to Duckett and Ballance. Hard to know how much of that was down to Cook, of course, but it certainly added up to one of the most dismal selection c0ck-ups I can remember.
The Ballance selection was a stupid one, certainly. It's partly why I'm expecting a similarly underwhelming squad this winter!

Livingstone may also come under the bracket of having been in the set-up by virtue of his T20 caps, although that's stretching it a bit. Wouldn't mind him playing - he did well for the Lions in totally unfamiliar conditions, too, so has done his time in that sense. And he can boast having had two good seasons, even having moved up the order. I'd back him to succeed over Ballance who, despite nobody since his first dropping having been much cop, still does not inspire confidence. Wouldn't think he'll go other than as standby, myself, despite all that, but we live in hope.
Bestie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 00:03   #51
square leg umpire
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
Last 5 series averages:
9
24
27
6
21

Whilst I agree the other options aren't great it's hard to see that Ballance has improved with test experience.
He suffered by being played too high at no3. He isn't a no3 even for Yorkshire ley alone England. A good candidate for the no5 spot though.
square leg umpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 00:51   #52
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
Do Gooder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyguntheballs View Post
I think Rashid is not going to feature, as England seem to have completely ignored him for tests so either of Dawson or Crane will get a shout. I don't see the point in Finn and Wood, the former is done at the highest level and the latter just isnt good enough.

As for the batting, I'd prefer Hales than Ballance and Buttler in the squad would be a boost, although he cant play while Bairstow is around ,especially since Jonnys keeping has gotten SO much better.

The players I would personally want going over there are (and some of their positions):

1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Root
4. Bairstow wk
5. Ali
6. Stokes
7. Rashid
8. Broad
9. TRJ
10. Plunkett
11. Anderson
12. Woakes
13. Porter
14. Buttler
15. Malan
16. Hales
17. Hameed/Jennings/Westley/Burns

I would not necessarily pick Rashid to start but a leggy is always a good idea, especially someone with the skill and experience of Rashid. I'd pick him over any spinner in England.

root at three and you all know how I feel about that but it seems very unlikely, so Westley or Ballance are likley to get a shout.

Plunkett and Porter for me are the two guys who should be part of the ENgland test set up but barely get spoken about. Pporter in particular has been impressive, especially watching him live. He has enough pace and more than enough accuracy to cause problems for guys like Warner and Smith who often play across the line of the ball.
N
Alas, this is too "edgy" a line up for Bayliss to pick lol
I don't think we can consider an XI for Australia that doesn't include Wood - pace is everything. TRJ and Woakes are going to be completely ineffective down under.

I would be looking at something like this

Cook
Hameed
Root
Ballance (not totally convinced but suspect he's inked in)
Buttler
Bairstow
Stokes
Ali
Broad
Wood
Anderson
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 01:00   #53
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 33
Posts: 18,494
Wood's ****ered though. He won't last more than one test. You have to put eggs in a different basket if you fancy pace out pace.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 07:18   #54
Redmachine
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
I don't think we can consider an XI for Australia that doesn't include Wood - pace is everything. TRJ and Woakes are going to be completely ineffective down under.

I would be looking at something like this

Cook
Hameed
Root
Ballance (not totally convinced but suspect he's inked in)
Buttler
Bairstow
Stokes
Ali
Broad
Wood
Anderson
You think they'll drop Stoneman, Westley and Malan?

Pace is important but Wood doesn't bowl fast in test matches. He finds multiple day cricket hard.
Redmachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 10:07   #55
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by square leg umpire View Post
He suffered by being played too high at no3. He isn't a no3 even for Yorkshire ley alone England. A good candidate for the no5 spot though.
Indeed. Ballance is not a candidate for the problem #2 position nor should he be considered one for the problem #3 position. For the problem #5 position, however, his successors have shown little aptitude and have far less test match experience.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 10:42   #56
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by square leg umpire View Post
He suffered by being played too high at no3. He isn't a no3 even for Yorkshire ley alone England. A good candidate for the no5 spot though.
I totally agree. IMO certainly a better player at No.5 than Malan
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 10:48   #57
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 715
Batting wise, in the absence of a proven No.3, I believe we should play three openers in an attempt to blunt the new ball.
The middle order has far more options.
Bairstow to 5 without the gloves. Not going to happen, but I believe it should.
Stokes to 5 - I quite like this.
Ballance, Duckett, Vince & Hales - or slightly from out of the fold Livingstone. Would all be realistic selections - far better than Butler as a specialist batsman or Malan as a result of an impressive T20!
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 11:27   #58
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,693
I'm in agreement that perhaps Ballance isn't such a bad shout at no.5 and would potentially provide more solidity than Malan. However if he was to be given a go and failed in that spot for a few games then there really is nowhere left to go with the guy. After all he did get a go at 5 in the Pakistan home series last year there and didn't exactly pull up any trees.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 11:39   #59
billyguntheballs
County Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
I don't think we can consider an XI for Australia that doesn't include Wood - pace is everything. TRJ and Woakes are going to be completely ineffective down under.

I would be looking at something like this

Cook
Hameed
Root
Ballance (not totally convinced but suspect he's inked in)
Buttler
Bairstow
Stokes
Ali
Broad
Wood
Anderson
I don't think pace is everything, especially considering how dry and flat the pitches over there have become...and even if we want pace, Wood is hardly Starc pace is he? Porter is just as quick on his best day and gets to 85-87 comfortably this season. PLus he has a lot of accuracy and a lot more guile. No point in having a county season if we dont pick the best the o****ies produce.

Wood has been tried at every level in the international game and has very little control and not the same level of fitness required.

As for Ballance, I think he may be inked in :/

Good to see Root is being declared no. 3 agin, was just watching the Sky ashes squad verdict, they too presumed Root would be back at three, which is very important for the batting line up.
__________________

I can accept failure...I can not accept not trying again.
billyguntheballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2017, 11:46   #60
billyguntheballs
County Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 617
Onto Australia's XI and possible squad, this is how Warnie thinks they should go:

Matt Renshaw
David Warner
Usman Khawaja
Steve Smith (c)
Peter Handscomb
Glenn Maxwell
Matthew Wade (wk)
Mitchell Starc
Pat Cummins
Nathan Lyon
Josh Hazlewood

Khwaja back at three makes sense to me and as much as Wade is criticised for his batting, he is turning into a good keeper and I always believe in keeping skills > batting skills.

Maxwell is my issue. At no stage has he seemed like a test batsman...admittedly he has played a lot in Asia and got a century, so many home wickets would suit him better, who knows.

Warner, Khawaja, Smith and Handscomb are a better core than what England have and the bowling, if fit, with Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins and Lyon may be a bit too much for the weak top order England put out.
__________________

I can accept failure...I can not accept not trying again.
billyguntheballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:28.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org