England post-Ashes drubbing?

(someone had to start a knee-jerker of thread)

Assuming England continue to be shown up for the cricketing charlatans they've always hinted at being and take a spanking in Oz, what does the team look like after the blood letting and "official reports"? Who's on the scrapheap and who's in for the long haul rebuilding job (under Ashely f*cking Giles)?

1. Cook (like his r/r, he's going nowhere)
2. Root (is that his best position? An opening for an opener, probably)
3. Bell
4.
5. Ballance (he's good quality. In at the deep end on this tour, but I think he'll go well if backed)
6. Stokes (some kind of all rounder seems necessary. Batting and bowling both show promise. Both are pretty raw)
7. Bairstow + (is he really the next keeper in line? He's a better proper batsman than Buttler. Seven sounds about right)
8. Borthwick (the spin cupboard is bone dry. His leggies are so-so and he can bat. Might be as good as it gets for England for a while)
9. Broad
10. Anderson (although he looks out on his feet)
11. Mills. Meaker. Overton. (just anyone who isn't an 80mph dobber. Give the captain the option of trying a few other plans than line and length)

Is that cause for optimism or dread?

No-one is for the scrap heap, bar Tremlett - we simply will write it off as unlucky.

Early days yet, but Trott's place in the team must now surely be in deep poo.  Prior's too, as is Trembler's.
The shake-up as I see it . . .

Root up to 3.
Ballance in at 6.
The Ginga in for Prior.
Rankin in for the Trembler.

Perhaps try the reshuffle in Perth.

Fark me!
Three Yorkies in the side!
With an ex. Yorkie coaching the Aussies.

It's madness I tell you . . . utter madness.

Merlin wrote:Early days yet, but Trott's place in the team must now surely be in deep poo.  Prior's too, as is Trembler's.
The shake-up as I see it . . .

Root up to 3.
Ballance in at 6.
The Ginga in for Prior.
Rankin in for the Trembler.

Perhaps try the reshuffle in Perth.

Fark me!
Three Yorkies in the side!
With an ex. Yorkie coaching the Aussies.

It's madness I tell you . . . utter madness.

I was surprised the commentators were talking up Root as Trott's hypothetical replacement at three when it's Ian Bell's preferred position and where he's always stated he wants to play.

Rankin for Tremlett would be the only change I would make for Adelaide.

Dello wrote:
I was surprised the commentators were talking up Root as Trott's hypothetical replacement at three when it's Ian Bell's preferred position and where he's always stated he wants to play.

I'd agree under normal circumstances, but Bell prospered at 5 during the last Ashes series.
Root however, is an opener.

Hard one to call . . . if you work to the maxim "Bat your best batsman at 3" - then Bell would sleep walk it . . .
But I'd rather Root took up the challenge.

Boof a Yorkshireman????

I've never once heard him convincingly say 'Eh by goom there's trooble at t'mill' or 'it were always rainin' at Denley Moor', or whinge about how misunderstood Geoffrey Boycott was.

Merlin wrote:Early days yet, but Trott's place in the team must now surely be in deep poo.  Prior's too, as is Trembler's.
The shake-up as I see it . . .

Root up to 3.
Ballance in at 6.
The Ginga in for Prior.
Rankin in for the Trembler.

Perhaps try the reshuffle in Perth..

not sure if Perth is the best place for a batting reshuffle

No number 4 at all? Playing with 10 men is one idea I suppose... or Jimmy just bats there as nightwatchman whatever point in the day it is?

If Swann is finished and we don't have a spinner good enough, we just don't play one. Root can turn his arm over for a few overs to avoid the over-rate fines. Play an all-seam attack with some variety in terms of pace, height, right/left armers etc.

beamer wrote:No number 4 at all? Playing with 10 men is one idea I suppose... or Jimmy just bats there as nightwatchman whatever point in the day it is?

If Swann is finished and we don't have a spinner good enough, we just don't play one. Root can turn his arm over for a few overs to avoid the over-rate fines. Play an all-seam attack with some variety in terms of pace, height, right/left armers etc.

Errr ... KP.

Merlin wrote:

beamer wrote:No number 4 at all? Playing with 10 men is one idea I suppose... or Jimmy just bats there as nightwatchman whatever point in the day it is?

If Swann is finished and we don't have a spinner good enough, we just don't play one. Root can turn his arm over for a few overs to avoid the over-rate fines. Play an all-seam attack with some variety in terms of pace, height, right/left armers etc.

Errr ... KP.

Well he left the space blank at the top...

Maybe he was that angry at KP for midwicket and long leg as his choice of dismissals?

Anyway it will be same old line-up, crush Sri Lanka second XI in May and everything's fine... until we get handed a home thrashing by India's bright young side.

The first spotlight obviously falls on Trott, a senior player who did not bother to address a particular flaw that was standing up and shouting even in July.

And second on Tremlett, who was a controversial choice (hence people tend to think "last in - first out"), even though he did pretty well at first - good control, restricting scoring which helps the others to squeeze wickets, and later took wickets himself) despite his pace clearly being well down on his prime, and despite his falling away in the second innings. Maybe by then he didn't want to be conspicuous ...

There is also Prior - in a hopeless state for far too long with the bat - and Swann, whose attitude is again negligible.


But as argued above - and raising it for the fourth or fifth time at this stage - the one I would nudge smartly to the door before any others is the glaringly ineffectual Graham Gooch. In favour of the non-nonsense, no-favourites, do-your-farqin-technical-homework, gritty and knowledgeable other Graham, late of Surrey.

I hope no further explanation is necessary why. Since I will be tired of seeing myself saying it soon!

I am calling you ALL on this horrendous reverse woofing of the entire England team.

It is way to early to play this card and the fates* will not be happy**.

*me.

**to see the ashes won by lugubrious FB'ers.

I am not bluddy luggubruous!!!

I just think Goochie has to go. Shimpelsh!

I am glad to see The Fates back.

(Even if in perhaps a bit to chiding mode.)

England have barely cobbled together an innings in two years. Hardly what I'd call a reverse woof.

Are they really that bad? From a distance it seems like everything's golden, nothing is too hard, the ashes are a walkover. What went/is going wrong?

I thought this premature even for this forum, given the last couple of years.

Are you leg-pulling, Jill?

Since 2009, England have been in excelsis only where their opponents have been rather poor (or very poor).

Even then, final results have been a bit misleading. For the last 10 years in fact, every Ashes series has turned on initially small details, which have in some cases swung a pendulum hugely.

We'll see what happens this time.

Yorkie Jill wrote:Are they really that bad? From a distance it seems like everything's golden, nothing is too hard, the ashes are a walkover. What went/is going wrong?

I thought this premature even for this forum, given the last couple of years.

Since Jan 2012, by my reckoning we've had 50 Test batting innings. Of those 50, 13 of them have been 'incomplete'. Of the 37 completed innings, we've only passed 400 on 7 occasions. 8 times in all, if you include the incomplete innings of 421/6. Our batsmen underperform time and again. The bowlers dig us out of trouble as and when they can.

As Peter mentioned, Graham Gooch has no accountability for consistent underperformance and hence is completely entrenched within the England set up, with everyone saying he's great. He may be, it may be that he's done all he can.

But the fact is, as a batting unit, we're brittle at best.

It has been coming for some time. I know Strauss and Collingwood's best days were well behind them when they stepped aside, but they were stabilising presences that we haven't replaced. And with the other senior players having prolonged dips in form, there's just no batting unit to speak of. There's only so many times individual performances can drag us out of trouble.

Even New Zealand have shown up the weaknesses in the England side at the moment, and there's every chance we will be ranked alongside the Snoozers soon if things aren't shaken up.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Yorkie Jill wrote:Are they really that bad? From a distance it seems like everything's golden, nothing is too hard, the ashes are a walkover. What went/is going wrong?

I thought this premature even for this forum, given the last couple of years.

Since Jan 2012, by my reckoning we've had 50 Test batting innings. Of those 50, 13 of them have been 'incomplete'. Of the 37 completed innings, we've only passed 400 on 7 occasions. 8 times in all, if you include the incomplete innings of 421/6. Our batsmen underperform time and again. The bowlers dig us out of trouble as and when they can.

As Peter mentioned, Graham Gooch has no accountability for consistent underperformance and hence is completely entrenched within the England set up, with everyone saying he's great. He may be, it may be that he's done all he can.

But the fact is, as a batting unit, we're brittle at best.

Makes Belf's Ashes 2013 performance all the more momentous. He really was the difference between the eventual 3-0 win to England and even a possible loss of the Ashes (Aus was competitive in all Tests bar Lords). Even yesterday he looked supreme in technique and temperament. I expect him to score big in Adelaide.

PeterCS wrote:The first spotlight obviously falls on Trott, a senior player who did not bother to address a particular flaw that was standing up and shouting even in July.

Trott averages 36 in Tests since June 2011.

That's two and a half years of mediocre returns. He's kept his place purely by virtue of his deluge of runs when he first entered the international arena (i.e. when the opposition didn't know much about him).

Whether he addresses his glaring deficiencies against short bowling or not, his diminishing returns run much deeper than that.