England top order - the radical options...

Well, it seems we're no nearer to filling the number 2, 3 and 5 slots, with just one more Test before the Ashes. We can't be throwing in debutants Down Under, particularly if they're just more stick-a-pin-in-the-scorecards county journeymen. Few of those tried and discarded have done anything to send out a message that they deserve another go. So what other options are there, barring an unlikely resurgence of a veteran like Bell?

Firstly I think Root has to step up to number 3 or even opener. He's effectively doing the job anyway, when we're two down for next to nothing every innings. Beyond that, our strong suit is all-rounders, some of those we have are capable of batting top 5 so why not just do that and bring in a couple more all-rounders/bowlers who can bat below them? Something like:

Cook
AN Other
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Ali
Woakes
Rashid/other spin all-rounder
TRJ
Broad
Anderson

Numbers 4 to 8 could be completely fluid in terms of order, so if Bairstow has had a long day behind the stumps then move someone else up in his place, for example, and choose a next man in suited to the situation.

A couple of more "out there" ideas for the opener slot, maybe we could just use a "pinch blocker" or "morning-watchman" whose job is just to try and stay in for 10-15 overs and take the shine off the new ball? Or alternatively send someone out there to have a slog, which would panic the opposing captain if the new ball starts flying to all parts.

Anything's worth a go...

I'll go with Hameed to open with Cook. You know what they say, "form is temporary, class is permanent" and Hameed has the latter by the spadeful

Other middle-order options include Hales, Clarke and Lawrence.

Hameed certainly seems the long term prospect, but handle him badly and we could ruin him.

The Ashes away from home is no place for debutants either. I think all-rounder overload is the best of a bad bunch of options. Although there could be a case for picking a specialist batsman to come in at 8 and moving everyone else up one...

beamer wrote:Well, it seems we're no nearer to filling the number 2, 3 and 5 slots, with just one more Test before the Ashes. We can't be throwing in debutants Down Under, particularly if they're just more stick-a-pin-in-the-scorecards county journeymen. Few of those tried and discarded have done anything to send out a message that they deserve another go. So what other options are there, barring an unlikely resurgence of a veteran like Bell?

Firstly I think Root has to step up to number 3 or even opener. He's effectively doing the job anyway, when we're two down for next to nothing every innings. Beyond that, our strong suit is all-rounders, some of those we have are capable of batting top 5 so why not just do that and bring in a couple more all-rounders/bowlers who can bat below them? Something like:

Cook
AN Other
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Ali
Woakes
Rashid/other spin all-rounder
TRJ
Broad
Anderson

Numbers 4 to 8 could be completely fluid in terms of order, so if Bairstow has had a long day behind the stumps then move someone else up in his place, for example, and choose a next man in suited to the situation.

A couple of more "out there" ideas for the opener slot, maybe we could just use a "pinch blocker" or "morning-watchman" whose job is just to try and stay in for 10-15 overs and take the shine off the new ball? Or alternatively send someone out there to have a slog, which would panic the opposing captain if the new ball starts flying to all parts.

Anything's worth a go...

Three problems occur to me with that batting order - possibly four.

1) I seems a bit short on batting for Australia! :o)

2) Root has been tried as opener. Maybe his technique and confidence have grown. But he looked at his worst in his early Test career against the brand new cherry - slight swerve, hop or unexpected deviation, and he was finding edges like a Tavare or Crowley in their (non-)prime.

3) The received wisdom is that batsmen hate "general lineup fluidity" of that sort. They generally like to know their position, so that they are mentally prepared for the fall of the such-and-such wicket (or of course, steeled to stride out first if opening) and psych themselves up accordingly. Which would also explain the "domino effect". Many a batsman strapping on pads double-quick in a panic-affected dressing room is quite likely to be unstrapping them PDQ.

I'm not saying this is inevitably so - less still, that it should be true, in an age of high professionalism, "visualisations", psychology coaches and all the rest of it. Just, it's the received wisdom from experiences of batsmen unsettled, unsure of their position, timing (in terms of their innings) and role.

Admittedly, flexibility with regard to the wicketkeeper in particular should make every sort of sense, on the lines you suggest.

4) The pivotal role of #4 seems to me too high for Jonny. He's a fine batsman once he's in and set, but I'm not sure he's that reliable a rock as a batsman. Also, it's asking a lot of your keeper to be the linchpin of the batting as well - the position most obviously linking the top order to the middle order and all-rounders, and quite possibly batting with the tailenders too.


"So okay, smartarse - what do you suggest instead???"

Well, that's why it's a problem, raised here as elsewhere - no easy solution!

Hameed, yes, though case still not (re-)proven since the hand incident and its apparent knock-on effect. Stoneman hasn't started with a bang (except of his stumps), and many others have been tried. I don't know if Robson's back in the frame, or Burns or Bell-Drummond has been considered. But as you suggest, chopping and changing around becomes a habit. A 1990s habit.

I wonder though if Foakes or Simpson or somebody might free Bairstow to concentrate on his batting strengths. After all the above, that might seem madness. But we're talking of ways of shoring up the batting ....

It's a source of dismay that Westley seems to be going backwards from a modest start and Malan, one innings apart, has not yet prospered either. Basil has mentioned three #5 options - jury still out on Hales in his new super-calm middle-order role, perhaps. But he knows Test cricket. Clarke, well maybe.

In the end, I have to admit I am not at all sure where from here. You'd hope someone would stake an obvious big claim - hard to see where that is.

Yeah, nobody's making a big statement in county cricket. Well, Ballance did, but without having addressed the flaws we saw before.

I think this is the first time since the late 80s/early 90s that we're seeing multiple stab-in-the-dark selections at the same time. Even through most of the 90s we largely tended to chop and change Hick, Ramprakash and Crawley, with only the occasional Alan Wells or Aftab Habib thrown in... I know, we had it with the bowlers back then as well (wait until Jimmy and Sturat retire...) But consensus batting options are really thin on the ground. Someone's going to suggest Martin McCaddick soon

We've also got the issue of three older newcomers, weighed down by bad habits from the county game, and no investment potential in developing them. If they don't establish themselves they won't be considered again. While I wouldn't rule out a Trott-like emergence from the county game, I think having an age limit of 25 or 26 on the England Lions side makes sense, then we can identify the best young players worth investing in, and not just pick county journeymen who had a decent season or two.

Well Liam Livingstone has made a pretty big claim to replace Westley at Lord's with 224 for Lancs. He made a stack of runs for the lions over the winter as well.

If Ian Bell can make a couple of centuries in the next few weeks I'd pick him for Aus, but he just seems to have lost it. Perhaps deep down he doesn't have the desire anymore.

Henry wrote:Well Liam Livingstone has made a pretty big claim to replace Westley at Lord's with 224 for Lancs. He made a stack of runs for the lions over the winter as well.

If Ian Bell can make a couple of centuries in the next few weeks I'd pick him for Aus, but he just seems to have lost it. Perhaps deep down he doesn't have the desire anymore.

Same squad for Lords.

Disappointed they've not taken the chance to look at another batsman. Really backs them into a corner if the top order fails again here.

Livingstone looked like a headless chicken in the couple of JAMITTs he featured in earlier this summer, which probably hasn't helped his cause for the time being, but anyone with weight of runs behind them stands a chance. Agree about Bell, a return to form would have made him a valuable option but he's found very little since being dropped, wouldn't be surprised if he retires at the end of the season if it still doesn't click for him after quitting the Warwickshire captaincy.

beamer wrote:Disappointed they've not taken the chance to look at another batsman. Really backs them into a corner if the top order fails again here.

Livingstone looked like a headless chicken in the couple of JAMITTs he featured in earlier this summer, which probably hasn't helped his cause for the time being, but anyone with weight of runs behind them stands a chance. Agree about Bell, a return to form would have made him a valuable option but he's found very little since being dropped, wouldn't be surprised if he retires at the end of the season if it still doesn't click for him after quitting the Warwickshire captaincy.

Scores of 14 and 15 in the current game do not suggest that the shackles have been removed.

Henry wrote:Well Liam Livingstone has made a pretty big claim to replace Westley at Lord's with 224 for Lancs. He made a stack of runs for the lions over the winter as well.

If Ian Bell can make a couple of centuries in the next few weeks I'd pick him for Aus, but he just seems to have lost it. Perhaps deep down he doesn't have the desire anymore.

Sage. C'mon I Ron. Just peel off a few centuries and it would be a heroic comeback of a proportion not seen since Lazarus was selected as a Kolpak player for Romans.

Imagine the shock and awe in Oz as the man famed for not requiring a protector returns to these shores.His exile coincided with the decline of the Pomgolian top and middle order. Bring back the future of English cricket.

Anyway, I guess we have to realise how spoilt we were with the settled top 5/6 line-ups we had in the past.

Strauss-Trescothick-Vaughan-Pietersen-Bell (2005-06)
Strauss-Cook-Trott-Pietersen-Bell-Collingwood (2009-11)

The 40 Club, the MBEs, the sense of entitlement, doing just enough to maintain their averages etc... we're now seeing what the alternative is.

2010-11 was one of the strongest English batting lineups of all time imo with Cook, Strauss (although the captaincy was starting to take its toll on his batting)Trott, Bell, KP, and Prior all at their peak. Only Colly was in decline.

Holy ****** - it's that bad that Bell is being talked of seriously on here. I didn't realise that during my absence from this forum that he had attained such a degree of fondness.

He's well past it surely? And even if his skills haven't totally desrted him I'm not sure he has the heart to face up to Starc at 95mph at the Gabba and WACA.

I do share all Eng fans worry on 3 of the top 5 just not being up to snuff (but maybe Stoneman of the current 3 might make a fist of it?) and as such I reckon we're in serious danger of being blown away if Oz's pace attack stays healthy.

I think Oz will go short stuff at Root too and look to destroy him, and in so doing destroy our team's morale (the old Steve Waugh mental disintegration mallarkey). And if that tactic fails then they've always got Starc throwing out those wide outside off stump drive balls which Root seems to like caressing into the slips.

Do we have any top/mid order guys in county cricket who are tough and aren't scared of seriously quick bowling, as that is what's coming down the pipe. If we can find some guys who can handle getting peppered for a bit that mightn't be too bad. They'd effectively be cannon fodder, drawing the sting of the Oz quicks and tiring them out at least a teensy bit so that Stokes, Bairstow and Ali can maybe do their rescue act a few times and keep us in the series.

A bit frustrating that we didn't really prove anything either way in terms of the incumbent batsmen in the revolving door positions. All had times when they showed something, none went on to make a big one.

I can't see them throwing in more uncapped batsmen in Australia now. Bell's clearly a busted flush now but we probably ditched him too early with hindsight. And there aren't really any other experienced players we can go back to.

So what's this about Hales at 5?

Can Hales handle the pace? He always seems a beat too slow for me. I have visions of him getting yorked, or bounced into submission and having filthy top edge cramped hooks lobbing up for close fielders to pouch with ease.

But I do like the idea of elevating someone successful from our ODI squad into the reckoning, so maybe it could be him. If you can hack it at ODI level, and do that well, then you kind of show the capability to handle the big stage and as such shouldn't be over-awed by the test arena.

So if not Hales at 5, why not Roy? Is he slightly better against pace?

Well, Hales has been in phenomenal limited overs form this season and Roy hasn't.

Is Hales's form you refer to at domestic level though?

One thing to carve county players around the ground - quite another to do it to Starc and co.

From what I've seen of Stoneman I'd give him the first 2 tests over there to see if he can hack it. He at least looks to score - we can't have two limpets at 1 and 2 - been there, done that, and we know how it plays out.

I liked Westley at first but he seems to either be in a slump or he's just been figured out extremely quickly (and that's by WI, who no offence to them, are not the same level as Oz at home).

And Malan doesn't do it for me either. Was surprised he got the call up originally tbh.

Can we please take Hameed - have him at 3 or 5 to add some stickability in amidst the attackers of root, Stokes, Bairstow. And if Stoneman crumbles then he can go up to his usual spot and someone else comes in to fill 3 or 5.

Which I think (in the Stoneman staying in scenario) leaves 1 place up for grabs, well for me at least. Get a selection of the probables in the nets - crank up the bowling machine to 95, get Tymal Mills to bowl some of his lefty stuff too and see who comes out on top. We need someone who can stare those Aussies down. When we got bombed by Mitch J we just looked terrified. If we show them any weakness then they'll be all over us again.

beamer wrote:A bit frustrating that we didn't really prove anything either way in terms of the incumbent batsmen in the revolving door positions. All had times when they showed something, none went on to make a big one.

I can't see them throwing in more uncapped batsmen in Australia now. Bell's clearly a busted flush now but we probably ditched him too early with hindsight. And there aren't really any other experienced players we can go back to.

KP totally finished with FC?

taipan wrote:

beamer wrote:A bit frustrating that we didn't really prove anything either way in terms of the incumbent batsmen in the revolving door positions. All had times when they showed something, none went on to make a big one.

I can't see them throwing in more uncapped batsmen in Australia now. Bell's clearly a busted flush now but we probably ditched him too early with hindsight. And there aren't really any other experienced players we can go back to.

KP totally finished with FC?

I think so... says he has played his last game of professional cricket in England. Can't imagine him playing red ball cricket anywhere else.

Strange to think of how many long-lost England players are still playing senior cricket of some description though. Trescothick, Trott, KP, Bell, Collingwood... that would still form the basis of a handy top six!