England Lions tour of South Africa

Lions are currently 160-0 against what looks like a pretty weak Gauging Invitation XI. Robson has hit a hundred, and Lyth is crabbing along on 58.

Henry wrote:Lions are currently 160-0 against what looks like a pretty weak Gauging Invitation XI. Robson has hit a hundred, and Lyth is crabbing along on 58.

Nice spellcheck.

An F for Esio. And one for Dello's guy Vince.

Not a great start for the Lions in the first official 'test' against South AfricaA. SAA 219/2.

Wood and Rankin the only 2 (of 5) going at less than 4 an over.

And Plunkett the only wicket-taker so far.


Early doors, perhaps. Early exit doors for some, possibly.

.

And a double ton for Trott. Straight back into the test team?

taipan wrote:And a double ton for Trott. Straight back into the test team?

Not until Ballance gets found out by Mitchell and Co.

There's no middle order vacancies right now, and I can't see them bringing him back to open.

No real benefit to taking him to the Caribbean, but he's a useful backup option for the Ashes if there's an injury or loss of form.

True, I had forgotten about the rock solid English middle order.

So, who's winning the race to open the batting with Chef then?

Lyth 7
Robson 41
Lees 9

The answer appears to be Nick Compton!

Basil wrote:So, who's winning the race to open the batting with Chef then?

Lyth         7
Robson   41
Lees         9

The answer appears to be Nick Compton!

Should never have been dropped.

taipan wrote:

Basil wrote:So, who's winning the race to open the batting with Chef then?

Lyth         7
Robson   41
Lees         9

The answer appears to be Nick Compton!

Should never have been dropped.

Probably not.

At least I said so at the time.

taipan wrote:True, I had forgotten about the rock solid English middle order.

Well, there may not be any world beaters but who's instantly droppable without a couple of low scores? A knee-jerk reinstatement of Trott would be pretty short-sighted, he will always be a potential liability on tour (though SA next winter might fall conveniently for him) and the chances are if Mitchell Johnson's on fire he will blow him away pretty easily.

In terms of openers... does Moeen fancy a go at it in Tests? May be time for a wild card move like NZ did with McCullum opening for a while. Of course, there could be two vacancies at the top of the order by the end of the summer.

taipan wrote:At least I said so at the time.

He's not quite good enough, same as Carberry and (at this point in time) Robson. Anyway, we need an aggressive counterbalance to Cook at the top of the order.

There's only one really top quality opener in worldwide Test cricket at the moment, and he started out as a GCS...

McCullum opening was hardly a wild card.

beamer wrote:

taipan wrote:At least I said so at the time.

He's not quite good enough, same as Carberry and (at this point in time) Robson. Anyway, we need an aggressive counterbalance to Cook at the top of the order.

There's only one really top quality opener in worldwide Test cricket at the moment, and he started out as a GCS...

Compton had done enough to be given more chances.

So he was sacrificed on the Cook altar.

There was just no upside with him - limited in terms of shots, lacking a change of gear and not young enough to develop his game.

He might have averaged 35 at the top of the order for 4 or 5 years, but that was probably his ceiling. I'd rather have the revolving door until we find someone who is genuine Test quality.

So the decision was to open with Root against the Aussies. That worked well.

He was never going to be a great player but could have done the job for a couple of years. Harshly treated IMHO remembering Carberry is three years older.

Do we want to accept players who can "do a job" (Alviro Petersen as a comparison for SA?) or keep looking for players who might develop into greats? And we need someone who is very different to Cook. Even Strauss was too similar, despite their long lasting and at times prolific partnership.

It's not inconceivable that Cook could be out of the side, temporarily or permanently, within the year so it could be a completely clean slate for the selectors anyway.

If we're talking about people who shouldn't have been dropped, then we should talk first about Liam Edward Plunkett.....

beamer wrote:Do we want to accept players who can "do a job" (Alviro Petersen as a comparison for SA?) or keep looking for players who might develop into greats? And we need someone who is very different to Cook. Even Strauss was too similar, despite their long lasting and at times prolific partnership.

It's not inconceivable that Cook could be out of the side, temporarily or permanently, within the year so it could be a completely clean slate for the selectors anyway.

If there is no obvious alternative, yes you do. Root we saw was a failure. Ditto Carberry. Are there any England prospects that can develop into greats?

Alviro Petersen is a totally different kettle of fish. There are other reasons for his selection and anyway he mostly played in a top order of Smith, Amla, Kallis, De Villiers and Prince/Duminy/ du Plessis which was a fairly solid batting order.

Well, I'm sure there's players out there who could play 100 Tests @ 45 (which is what passes for "great" with players who have to play half their Tests in English conditions). County cricket doesn't really help identify them, though (nor, it seems, do other domestic FC competitions). You have to try people out, while keeping a balance in terms of giving players a fair shot without rewarding mediocrity with central contracts and guaranteed places.

We stumbled across Vaughan and Trescothick. Cook was thrown in by circumstance before he would otherwise have come under serious consideration. Trott was a genuine late developer who proved he had it at the top level. There's many ways a top player can emerge from under the radar. No reason to stick with someone who's almost good enough.