England Lions squad for 3 one-dayers vs Bang A

England Lions squad: Luke Wright (capt), Gary Ballance, Danny Briggs, Jos Buttler, Michael Carberry, Chris Jordan, Jamie Overton, Boyd Rankin, Ben Stokes, James Taylor, James Vince, David Willey

Young whipper snapper Carbs getting another gig.

I guess this means Jordan's preparing to go all in with England...?

The Willey has been unsheathed. Good pick.

Puke Shite captaining an England side? Never expected to see that... still, Tredwell's done so for a senior side, even if it was just to toss a coin and watch his batsmen face two balls, so "cheaping the England captaincy" is nothing new!

This side doesn't look as TAYPOC as most of them do. Some players worth a look there. Watch them get whitewashed by the Manics reserve team now I've said that...

Danny Briggs eh? - well that's the non-spinning spinner spot taken then.

Basil wrote:Danny Briggs eh? - well that's the non-spinning spinner spot taken then.

This is Gilo's squad, apparently, so a non-spinning SLA is right up his alley.

I'm not sure Jordan and Jamie Overton are one day bowlers. Still, good to seer they're on some sort of radar.

I saw Jordan playing at Hove during my recent tour ... batted well and looked impressive with the ball.

Potentially he's very good. Has taken a move away from the pampered, party life at Surrey to finally start producing the goods.

To be honest, I think the Windies are a bit foolish to not push harder to have him play for them. Perhaps he thinks there will be more money for him in England.

I think this series might be a bowl-out for the last seamer's spot on the tour to Oz

Well, he's been living there in England for a fair while now, so it makes sense for him to play for England rather than the Windies ... IF he thinks he can get a gig for England. His chances of playing for the Windies may be greater, but their selection processes have been far from transparent in the recent past, and if he chooses to play for them, even his 'home' series will end up being 'away' series.

Jordan has been on the radar for a while. He seemed to go awol while he was at Surrey - but then, a few decent young players there don't seem to have kicked on. Moving to Sussex seems to have reinvigorated him and I would put him just ahead of the others in terms of chances to make to Oz this winter.

... ahead of Stokes?

lardbucket wrote:... ahead of Stokes?

Close call, but I think so. It wasn't that long ago that Stokes' batting was deemed to be his stronger suit - so maybe he needs to decide (or have it decided for him) what his role actually is. Whereas Jordan has always been a bowler who can bat.

On top of that, Stokes is more of a hit-the-deck-hard merchant - we've got that position covered with Finn, Tremlett and to a lesser extent - Broad. Jordan on the other hand is a swing bowler and the competition for that place is less keen - apart from Jimmy of course.

Not seen Jordan recently but saw clips of him v Australia and it seemed to consist of him bowling short wide pap being smashed for 4 by Phil Hughes

I'm assuming that a seamer's spot is available - you have to assume that all the quicks (apart from Shazhad) will go for that theory to work. I don't see the selectors looking beyond the seamers picked for the A team, unless they gamble on Mills.

Stokes must at least have the 'seamer with an over-protective mother' spot sewn up.

JKL: he probably did bowl some PAP at Hughes, but overall he looked impressive.

They could pick both Stokes AND Jordan. Having Stokes in the squad would at least give the option of a 5 man attack.

Blimey, have you learned nothing over the last 15 years? Stokes' batting has regressed - he's a bull's roar away from being a potential test number seven let alone a number six in the batting order. His choice is clear - either be a number six batsman who can bowl or be third seamer who can bat a bit.

It's a particularly English obsession to bang on about allrounders. All of the great sides over the past 30 years had, essentially the same make-up - six batsmen, a keeper and four bowlers - and don't mention Imran Khan, he was a bowler who batted at eight - sometimes at seven.

And while I'm at it - yes I have changed my mind about allrounders - i.e. players who bat at six and come on first change or open the bowling. Such players come along once a lifetime and it's a fools' errand to build your team around the possibility of finding one.

Stokes is just having a bad season in first class cricket with the bat. In List A and T20 he's been fine. He hasn't just suddenly lost his ability to bat. I seem to remember Flintoff struggling with the bat in 2001-2002, as his bowling became more prominent. He turned out alright....

Prior at six, Stokes at seven, Broad at eight, Swann at nine....Having Stokes in there hardly lengthens the tail, and I'd back him to at least do as well as Bairstow, who averages 31.

Basil wrote:Blimey, have you learned nothing over the last 15 years? Stokes' batting has regressed - he's a bull's roar away from being a potential test number seven let alone a number six in the batting order. His choice is clear - either be a number six batsman who can bowl or be third seamer who can bat a bit.

It's a particularly English obsession to bang on about allrounders. All of the great sides over the past 30 years had, essentially the same make-up - six batsmen, a keeper and four bowlers - and don't mention Imran Khan, he was a bowler who batted at eight - sometimes at seven.

And while I'm at it - yes I have changed my mind about allrounders - i.e. players who bat at six and come on first change or open the bowling. Such players come along once a lifetime and it's a fools' errand to build your team around the possibility of finding one.

A game-changing all-rounder does give you something extra though, particularly if you don't have too many superstars. Freddie was a prime example - career stats were mediocre largely due to fitness issues of different types at the start and end of his career, but he could turn a game in a session with bat or ball.

In some ways though the need for all-rounders has reduced with the prevalence of bowlers who can average high 20s or better with the bat, and the keeper having to be a genuine batsman in his own right. The tail does play an important part these days, and there are fewer genuine rabbits.

Speaking of Bangladesh cricket.

Currently in the Bangladee Under 19 team - Sadman Islam
Great name. He might possibly become my favourite cricketer.

46 in today's game & 86 in the the previous one.

I'd like to see a partnership between Sadman Islam & Pistoff Panesar.

Maybe Habibul Bashar could mentor Sadman Islam.

As long as it didn't make him too depressed.

Dello wrote:
The Willey has been unsheathed.

Zing.

Dello wrote:

Good pick.

No notes, please.

beamer wrote:

Basil wrote:Blimey, have you learned nothing over the last 15 years? Stokes' batting has regressed - he's a bull's roar away from being a potential test number seven let alone a number six in the batting order. His choice is clear - either be a number six batsman who can bowl or be third seamer who can bat a bit.

It's a particularly English obsession to bang on about allrounders. All of the great sides over the past 30 years had, essentially the same make-up - six batsmen, a keeper and four bowlers - and don't mention Imran Khan, he was a bowler who batted at eight - sometimes at seven.

And while I'm at it - yes I have changed my mind about allrounders - i.e. players who bat at six and come on first change or open the bowling. Such players come along once a lifetime and it's a fools' errand to build your team around the possibility of finding one.

A game-changing all-rounder does give you something extra though, particularly if you don't have too many superstars. Freddie was a prime example - career stats were mediocre largely due to fitness issues of different types at the start and end of his career, but he could turn a game in a session with bat or ball.

In some ways though the need for all-rounders has reduced with the prevalence of bowlers who can average high 20s or better with the bat, and the keeper having to be a genuine batsman in his own right. The tail does play an important part these days, and there are fewer genuine rabbits.

A lottery win would be a game changer as well - for me at any rate. And that's just as likely as England finding a match-winning allrounder to bat at six and bowl at 90mph. We have to get real and deal with the player resources at our disposal.