England v India, 3rd Test, Headingley, 25-29 August, 2021

[skully]

With the cupboard so bare, what can the England selectors possibly do to fire up the English XI?

[beamer]

I was going to title this thread “Joe Root v India, 3rd Test…”

Due to the SixteenPointFour16.4 Cup and the Second XI NatWest Trophy, there’s been no red-ball cricket to speak of since roughly when the clocks went forward. So if we change, it’s probably back to the tried and failed. Can we get some scouts out to Yarpland ASAP?

Sibley’s likely to be the sacrificial lamb, he’s gone full Nick Compton frozen in the headlights with no release valve for the bowling pressure. So Hameed will be promoted to open after his 0 and 9 at Lord’s. Another non-specialist number 3, probably Pope, will be thrown to the wolves.

Maybe a bowling reshuffle as well, can’t see Curran keeping his place after a shocker and they can’t take any chances with Wood’s fitness.

[lardbucket]

Is Ian Bell available?

[beamer]

Is Ian Bell available?

Retired last year, unfortunately…

[skully]

Maybe a bowling reshuffle as well, can’t see Curran keeping his place after a shocker and they can’t take any chances with Wood’s fitness.

23 Tests for 45 wkts at 36 is hardly Jimmy Anderson material.

I've long thought he wasn't really a Test bowler but it seems his batting was helping to keep him in the side.

The King Pair sorted that.

[beamer]

Maybe a bowling reshuffle as well, can’t see Curran keeping his place after a shocker and they can’t take any chances with Wood’s fitness.

23 Tests for 45 wkts at 36 is hardly Jimmy Anderson material.

I've long thought he wasn't really a Test bowler but it seems his batting was helping to keep him in the side.

The King Pair sorted that.

Yeah, he’s always seemed a lively player who can make things happen, but doesn’t have enough pace or guile to get wickets or keep it tight when conditions aren’t in his favour, and handy with the bat on his day but not consistently enough to give him true all-rounder status. Largely a bits-and-pieces player at Test level, unless he can add a yard of pace or something else.

I’ve always seen a strong similarity with Dominic Cork, who did get 130 Test wickets @ under 30 but rarely fulfilled the promise of that debut series against the West Indies.

[beamer]

Anyway, he may get a reprieve given our bowling stocks are starting to look somewhat depleted, with no Broad, Archer, Stone, Woakes, and of course Stokes… I know there’s always a “next seamer up” who can do a job at home, but the idea of rotating suddenly looks a fanciful one, as it’s become a case of looking around and seeing who’s left standing.

[beamer]

Maybe a bowling reshuffle as well, can’t see Curran keeping his place after a shocker and they can’t take any chances with Wood’s fitness.

23 Tests for 45 wkts at 36 is hardly Jimmy Anderson material.

Actually… after 23 Tests, Jimmy had 75 wickets, but at an average of nearly 38! Take out his first two against the Zimmers and it would look even uglier…

His 22nd Test was the one where he was brainlessly bowling bouncers at Chris Martin while a young Southee teed off at the other end, and I was all for stamping him NTPFEA at that point.

[PeterCS]

I'm going to stick my neck out and post something more than a line or two about England again. (Hoping what I say is not yet again accused of being driven by a loathing for TMS/Agnew/Swann or whoever...)

Just the nine changes for Leeds, then?

It seemed for a while Curran was a good addition to the team, even while Stokes was in it. The left-armer slanting it across right-handers and swinging it into southpaws, who when he first came on the scene regularly "made something happen" - and a doughty fighter with the willow too, with the occasional substantial contribution there.

And maybe that will return. But, for whatever reason, just standard loss of form and confidence, wasted by the shorter forms, I'm not sure, he should be stood down, at least for a match or two. It may be his preferred slanting swing doesn't work in Australia anyway, he hasn't really got the pace to give batmen much of a hurry-up and if the conditions are not swinging it, he's curran-tly not showing enough consistency or fizz to nag them out.

Similarly, Sibley, another great disappointment with an increasingly crabbed looking stance and a hopelessness to match. Get him in the nets, with some clear and unfussy guidance.

Either of those might come good in the Third Test, but going on form and percentages, not a good gamble.

Burns is looking increasingly weird in the address too. He looks like a miniature Colossus of Rhodes undergoing a physically obvious nervous breakdown, about to buckle at every visible joint, keel over and collapse in a heap. I'm not sure I've seen such a comedic batting since Kim Barnett took up a stance facing mid-on. "Yes, but when he actually executes the stroke, he's fairly orthodox"... maybe, but with so many moving parts, he's constantly shaping to miss one, or nick it, or slice it to whatever fielder is most convenient. Even when he makes a score, it's after any number of Ooohs and Aaahs and by the grace of Godfrey Evans.

But sensibly, you can't stand them all down at once.

I suppose I could go through all the batting bar Root. ...

HOWEVER: let's not forget, it was just one lousy day - terrible bowling strategy and field settings, shredding of already wonky batsmen's nerves - and a fantastic display, England's mirror image of nerveless endeavour, nous and application by India - which made all the difference in that match.

So:

1. Burns (looking away)
2. Hameed (bring him in? - put him where he belongs)
3. Davies (Warks) - fresh blood on the pitch. Everyone fails at 3 for England. At least give someone with a lot of confidence but not brashness a shot)
4. Root (the fixed point)
5. Bairstow or Lawrence (toss-up, look them in the eye before the match and see who blinks first - but Jonny might buck up and also stop spilling them on his home ground?)
6. Moeen (give him the responsibility, now you've reintroduced him)
7. Buttler (faute de mieux, he flatters to deceive, bt you can't change them all)
8. Robinson (with his mouth taped up)
9. Rashid (heh) or ffs, why not Parkinson (he is no Kerrigan). Maybe Leach if it weren't Headingley.
10. Mahmood (DEFINITELY)
11. Anderson if fit, if not, Broad if fit, otherwise Wood if fit, or whoever's fit. JAMIE Overton? - because we don't want a carthorse. Tom Bailey wouldn't let you down, he never does. Willey...? I dunno. (None of them is fit: Archer, Stone, whatever happened to Tobleronald-Jones??....)

Something of that sort.

[PeterCS]

We need Brass Monkey back, to get among 'em.

[PeterCS]

Or bring back bits-and-pieces Joe Denley.

He can be posted deep, to catch out Bumrah etc. at the back of the stands.

[beamer]

I don’t see any reference to or conflict with the published opinions of TMS, Aggers, Swanny or any other -ers or -y you might care to mention in there, so not quite sure why you bring that up again… I think most people agree, England are a bit shit and there’s no obvious quick fix, other than restoring a competitive red-ball competition to be played in summer. Otherwise Tom Harrison will go down as the man who killed Test cricket, given it clearly cannot survive now without a competitive England team as it could 30 years ago.

Toby Lerone was just destroyed by injuries, he’s hardly had any cricket since that impressive debut series. Think this season’s another write-off for him. Sure there’s plenty of others like him who could do a job at home if the ball moves, it’s the one thing (other than Root) that keeps us from being complete no-hopers, the fact that most overseas Test batsmen really can’t play swing bowling particularly well now they don’t come over here for county contracts. Doesn’t help us in Australia/India/Bangladesh though.

[beamer]

Anyway, following on from my comments on the SPF16.4 thread, maybe we shouldn’t discount picking Test players on white-ball form, particularly given there’s no red ball cricket being played right now.

While the games might have increasingly diverged in recent times, I still essentially believe that good cricketers are good cricketers and should be able to adapt to all formats, even if some may have particular strengths that make them more likely to stand out in one or another. We’re perhaps too quick to pigeonhole players these days. It’s a game of talent and temperament, which top players in all formats have, anything more specific can be learnt.

I know, experiments like Roy and Hales in the Test side failed, but was that just because they weren’t used in the right way? It would be ideal if we could find a way to leverage the success of the great England white ball sides of the last 5 years into the longer game.

[PeterCS]

I was thinking about that too.

On the face of it, any professional worth his or her salt should have the capability of being a different horse on different courses.

However:

I think there may be those players who CAN adapt quite well, and those who can't, or not at all so easily.

To adapt, I think you generally have to have a pretty sound technique, which can be used variably - and also a bit of "nous", not too much "bull sees rag waved".

To hazard a couple of examples:

I would imagine, once he has gathered the confidence and experience (mutually beneficial with some) that he didn't possess two years ago, Livingstone might possibly adapt to the longest game.

He can give the ball a proper old belt, but he tends to strike through the ball pretty cleanly ... except of course when he miscues, as everyone does, esp. in the 16.4, sooner or later. And he seems an athletically strong, not just a musclebound fellow.

Of course I may be wrong, and usually am (see Curran, S).

Whereas, at this stage I'm not sure, say, Jason Roy will ever develop beyond being a racer (also, his fielding.... lordy), who can take sometimes take a limited overs game - whether 50, 20 or 16.4 overs - by the scruff of the neck, but generally is too much of a whacker/risk-taker to be a good bet in Tests.

That's not to say he can't make the odd score in Tests - "the cat shall mew, and the dog shall have his day" - but the calculations are mostly a bit different in different formats, with different expectations, different priorities, different innings spans, different fielding restrictions, etc.

And - ok, to bang on about Mahmood just one more time, thereby consigning him to the great Mudgebin of history - even though Saqib sometimes takes a bit of tap in the 16.4 and 20, I don't think the batsmen who slog at him in that format, even if prepared to take the same risks, would be likely to prosper in the same way over 30, 40, 50, 60 overs in 4 and 5 days. 24 and out off 12 is a good contribution in t' Hundred, but not so great (unless of course you're batting at 10 or 11, and the bowler is serving up medium-fast bouncer pies) in a Test match.

That is, even if you get to that 24 ... and are not caught along the way by a fielder not permitted in a supermegapowerplay, with a hit-me white ball.

[beamer]

If every batsman gets 24 off 12 balls then we’d get 264 all out off 22 overs. Which would probably win us more Tests than our current approach…

That’s why I wouldn’t dismiss the pinch-hitter idea. Out for a duck - well, happens with Burns, Sibley and whoever else often enough anyway. But if even once every two or three Tests we’re 80-0 off 10 overs, the slips will disappear and it will be carnage, and fielding sides will lose their heads like ours did against Bugs Bunny and Roger Rabbit yesterday. Imagine Root on current form striding out before lunch with 150 on the board already. Time for a bit of reinventing Test cricket?

[beamer]

Anyway, selectors meeting this evening, could be a late night. Pass the Red Bull, Tyrion… did someone say Martin McCaddick?

[horace]

In their conditions, England need a clever Chris Old or Mike Hendrick.

No idea about the batting. I think stick with what you have.

I listened on the radio to the finish of the previous Test. They described Jimmeh holding his fwd prod ages after his stumps rattled. The commentators pointedly said Jimmeh had not done the Broad back away.

I later saw the vision.

I wonder if Jim was sending a message to Broad or the top order. Either way I felt for him.

[beamer]

In their conditions, England need a clever Chris Old or Mike Hendrick.

No idea about the batting. I think stick with what you have.

If we’re talking historic players, we’d take a Boycott, Gooch, Atherton, Trescothick, Strauss or Cook… or a couple of them. Opening batsmen used to be our strength, with at least one long-established name at the top of the order at any given time (though most of the above had at least a spell of having a revolving door of partners).

A Nasser or Trott would be handy at first drop, with a gritty Thorpe or Collingwood in the middle order. Where are all these types of players these days? Though everyone bar, strangely, New Zealand seems to be struggling for “plug and play” Test batsmen.

I kind of miss the days of anticipation of a ‘90s Test squad announcement with five new players in it… you knew at least four of them would be rubbish, but once in a while they’d unearth someone who would stick around, by the law of large numbers.

[PeterCS]

If every batsman gets 24 off 12 balls then we’d get 264 all out off 22 overs. Which would probably win us more Tests than our current approach…

...

I realise we're both in sardonic mode here, beams, but mainly for fun .... and the actual main point at the end ....

I'm not sure that maths quite works!

Even when you add a helping of extras to that putative total.

For one, it would be unusual that the 11th (not-out) batsman got to his full complement before his partner was dismissed and innings closed.

More importantly - despite the oblique allusion to England's Bumrah/Shami fiasco (well batted them, given the opportunity!) in the sentence with "medium-fast bouncer pies" - I was specifically talking of the team's BATSMEN making about 24 at most, whenever not intercepted by catchers (or discomfited by splayed stumps) on the way there.

Hence I think the Test side's innings would be more likely closer to a "16.4" total of 70-170, rough estimate, rather than (11 x 24 =) 264.


And yes. Ironic illustration. In the way that yours was also a sidelong glance at England's latest woes.

FWIW, my serious point was: the sort of swipebuckling batting mentality that can pay off in the shortest formats, might for a variety of reasons bring worthwhile dividends far less often in the acme format ...

HENCE (this was me actual point):

GIVE SAQ A CHANCE! (And maybe even Matt, too? He can give it it a right old rip, and has a deceptive googly like the best leggies usually do. And is tough as an old boot. If he shapes up, then not far down the road, the Aussies might well want to take him on and take him out - but at some risk.)

If they flog, heave, yahoo, snick, scoop and slice the new Mood around the park, and he ends up pawing the turf like a new Darren Gough, so be it, mea culpa for making the suggestion. I was wrong again. But with all the injuries and ailments to the quicks, England need to try something fast... and not broken.

[beamer]

I still think sending someone out there to swing for the fences first up potentially wouldn’t be any worse than what we’ve got. Maybe not when it’s overcast and every ball’s going to beat or find the outside edge, but in that case you switch tactics and throw a couple of day-watchmen in to try and just stick around long enough to take the shine off the ball and hopefully let the sun come out and the moisture leave the pitch by the time Root walks out to bat.

[furriner]

Fire Kohli as captain.

Chet and Rahane scrape by. But last chance saloon.

Depending on the wicket Ashwin for Jadeja.

[beamer]

Sibley dropped, unsurprisingly. Crawley also omitted from the squad with Malan returning. Will he come in at 3 or will there be more of a reshuffle? He’s averaging 199 in FC cricket this season, anyway (from one innings…)

Mahmood also included as cover for Wood, and Leach also released back to his county for this one.

[lardbucket]

Gavaskar lets rip at the useless Poms ...

LINK

[beamer]

No shit, Sunil…

I’m not sure “technique” is everything, though, certainly in this day and age. Batsmen this century, from the two Smiths to Pietersen, Trescothick and Chanderpaul have had a lot of success in Test cricket despite unorthodox methods. But it’s about judgement, mindset and adaptability, and England’s batsmen, Root apart, generally fail on all those counts.

[beamer]

Added to that it’s 10 times harder to start off in a dysfunctional batting unit. We used to have new batsmen and keeper-batsmen able to ease themselves in batting at 6 or 7 behind a well-established top five. Come in at 250-4 and help yourself to a debut century. Now they’re thrown to the wolves from day 1, whether opening or in the middle order. But every Test team except probably India and New Zealand has that issue to some extent now.

[Sponsored content]