England v South Africa, 3rd Test, The Oval, 27-31 July, 2017

Well I think Kuhn deserves another go on the basis that his 30 odd in the first innings was vital in seeing off Broad and Anderson on what was a tricky pitch to bat on.

Henry wrote:Well I think Kuhn deserves another go on the basis that his 30 odd in the first innings was vital in seeing off Broad and Anderson on what was a tricky pitch to bat on.

Goes well with his 1, 9 and 8

Taips, regarding Markram V Kuhn -

who is the better technically, and who is better suited mentally to a hard time in test cricket?

Ideally you'd want mental toughness combined with good technique, but which do you consider more important overall?

Well as they don't show FC cricket on TV here it is hard to judge. Kuhn is a journeyman pro who I see to keep and has been around for years. Markram is the young kid on the block who did well with the under 19s.

Personally I would make the brave choice, the way SA used to do with Smith, AB, Kallis etc.

Of course there's also an incentive to get Markham involved before he ups stumps and takes up a kolpak deal.....

I suspect they're also using Kuhn as an example as someone who kept faith and stayed loyal to South African cricket when he could have taken a kolpak years ago. Saying to other players, "see? If you persist, you can be rewarded."

And it's not just Kolpaks but potential England careers for those who defect at a relatively young age.

The Pomgolian hunt for overseas recruits to prop up their performance remains one of the more disappointing features of international cricket.

It's actually quite a difficult choice for a really decent young South African IMO. It's quite possible that it will be easier to get selected for England - but what will the team look like in 2 or 3 years time ?

We need another top quality opener, a middle order bat, and consistently fit first change seamer *now*.

By summer 2020, in addition to the three above, we will need an opener to replace Alastair Cook, a solid No 3 bat a definite replacement for Jimmy A, and possibly a successor to Stu B. A quality spinner would be a bonus. Moeen Ali can do a job - but he's not of Graeme Swann quality is he ?

That's 6 minimum we need to establish ( 2 x openers, 1 x No 3, Root likes 4 so a No 5/6, 2 possibly 3 quick bowlers and a spinner.

If we don't, then a young Saffer could get selected and be the star in a poor team. Staying loyal may well mean far more success, should he be good enough to break through as batsman, bowler or all-rounder.

But surely with such a huge population, Pomgolia should be capable of building a competitive cricket team. It is not like there are other sports where the locals excel, aside from darts. Therefore there should be stacks of locally grown talent.

Henry wrote:FWIW, this would be my England team for this match-

1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Westley
4. Root (c)
5. Bairstow
6. Stokes
7. Malan
8. Moeen
9. Roland-Jones
10. Broad
11. Anderson

Yes, quite a few changes. Some because of form, some because of injury, some because of both.

Or we could go:

1. Cook
2. Trott
3. Bell
4. Root
5. Ballance
6. Batty
7. Read
8. Willey
9. Dernbach
10. Kerrigan
11. Finn

Bit of experience there.

What's happened to Bell-Drummond, by the way?

Is he still on the perimeter?

... and whither Dernbacb....shirley he is the true heir of Lady Di?

horace wrote:But surely with such a huge population, Pomgolia should be capable of  building a competitive cricket team. It is not like there are other sports where the locals excel, aside from darts. Therefore there should be stacks of locally grown talent.

There is a problem, despite much talk of reinvesting money from the top, of cricket still receding or staying away from too many state schools. Despite the democratic programme (to put the thing more abstractly), the game has if anything become more elite at school level.

I don't know all the causes why, or their relative importance. Whether the lure of less active or inactive activities activities (worldwide hazard), the appeal of still better-paid alternative sports, whether the funding is getting too concentrated in few and/or in the wrong places - or other factors (the relative dearth of cricket on terrestrial TV is often mentioned, how far that plays a role, not sure) - but the human fund and perhaps critical mass of young players learning the sport is probably not as extensive as you might imagine.

England & Wales have 18 FC counties, and you'd think that's a massive pool of professional talent to feed the international teams. But on top of the old moan of low-quality in the county game (these days more obviously true in lower reaches of Div.2 than with the top six or so counties), there are not only the non-English internationals, but a lot of kolpaks.

horace wrote:... and whither Dernbacb....shirley he is the true heir of Lady Di?

Whither? To Tattooland, I say!

Fair points. But still mystifying. Seems to me that in Oz team sports the best young talent is swallowed by AFL. Cricket and Rugby League are the next cabs off the rank. Kids without much talent or whose parents worry about contact sport play soccer or aspire to going on Master Chef. Of course I forgot about Union. It is now behind hockey.

horace wrote:Fair points. But still mystifying. Seems to me that in Oz team sports the best young talent is swallowed by AFL. Cricket and Rugby League are the next cabs off the rank. Kids without much talent or whose parents worry about contact sport play soccer or aspire to going on Master Chef. Of course I forgot about Union. It is now behind hockey.

Hehehe, noice, h.

Actually that team of Henry's looks the goods, if you're criteria is form.

This could be a pivotal chance to look at something different given what they have to face at the end of the year.

Well for a start we don't need six bowlers. That's too many. With Stokes and keeper Bairstow both in the top six, we may as well have a specialist batsman at number 7 (and Malan bowls pretty handy leggies as a bonus). Ballance is definitely out with a broken finger, and that's probably a blessing in disguise for the selectors (and there were a couple of them) who didn't want him recalled. Root was apparently adamant that he was, though.

Wood apparently had a scan but has been cleared of injury. I wouldn't play him regardless. Down on pace and form, and likely to aggrevate any niggle he does have.

Is Stokes worthy of a place in the top 6?

No. Batting average in the low thirties & a bowling average in the mid thirties. Stokes is what they refer to as a "bits and pieces" cricketer. He's not good enough to bat in the top 6 & not good enough to be picked as a specialist bowler. Most countries around the world wouldn't select him in their test team.

Flintoff was the same... the common theme is that they have the ability to win matches, to turn series in a session. Players like that are priceless - stats can be misleading, you can get batsmen averaging in the 40s who rarely have any memorable match-winning efforts to their name, and boost their averages in what the Yanks call "garbage time" when there's nothing to play for. I'd be surprised if Australia or South Africa ignored him if he was available to them.

Of course he's not quite as pivotal to the balance of the side as Freddie was given we have a number of other all-rounders, whereas back then we were very much five specialist batsmen, a keeper and four specialist bowlers. But it's not as if we're overrun with quality specialists in either department as alternatives.

beamer wrote:Flintoff was the same... the common theme is that they have the ability to win matches, to turn series in a session. Players like that are priceless - stats can be misleading, you can get batsmen averaging in the 40s who rarely have any memorable match-winning efforts to their name, and boost their averages in what the Yanks call "garbage time" when there's nothing to play for. I'd be surprised if Australia or South Africa ignored him if he was available to them.

Of course he's not quite as pivotal to the balance of the side as Freddie was given we have a number of other all-rounders, whereas back then we were very much five specialist batsmen, a keeper and four specialist bowlers. But it's not as if we're overrun with quality specialists in either department as alternatives.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, isn't the contrary position that his sub par performances have cost England a number of tests?

Henry wrote:Well for a start we don't need six bowlers. That's too many. With Stokes and keeper Bairstow both in the top six, we may as well have a specialist batsman at number 7 (and Malan bowls pretty handy leggies as a bonus). Ballance is definitely out with a broken finger, and that's probably a blessing in disguise for the selectors (and there were a couple of them) who didn't want him recalled. Root was apparently adamant that he was, though.

Wood apparently had a scan but has been cleared of injury. I wouldn't play him regardless. Down on pace and form, and likely to aggrevate any niggle he does have.

And we don't need eight batsmen either!

The current balance of the side is fine by me - it's just the personnel.

Cook
Jennings
Root
Westley
Bairstow
Stokes
Moeen
Rashid
Woakes or Wood depending on fitness and overhead conditions
Broad
Anderson

I'm giving Jennings another go ahead of Stoneman on the basis that two debutants in the top four is probably unwise. You could easily give Westley's place to Malan if additional experience is required.

taipan wrote:

beamer wrote:Flintoff was the same... the common theme is that they have the ability to win matches, to turn series in a session. Players like that are priceless - stats can be misleading, you can get batsmen averaging in the 40s who rarely have any memorable match-winning efforts to their name, and boost their averages in what the Yanks call "garbage time" when there's nothing to play for. I'd be surprised if Australia or South Africa ignored him if he was available to them.

Of course he's not quite as pivotal to the balance of the side as Freddie was given we have a number of other all-rounders, whereas back then we were very much five specialist batsmen, a keeper and four specialist bowlers. But it's not as if we're overrun with quality specialists in either department as alternatives.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, isn't the contrary position that his sub par performances have cost England a number of tests?

Well, he has been part of the collective lemmings-off-a-cliff mentality when things have got tough, not sure he's been specifically to blame more than anyone else though. Not helped by the absence of a functioning top three, and they need to look at the structure of the side. You need mercurial, X-factor players at all levels though. If you'd rather replace him with a turgid blocker who averages 40, doesn't bowl and is a donkey in the field though, fair enough...

beamer wrote:

taipan wrote:

beamer wrote:Flintoff was the same... the common theme is that they have the ability to win matches, to turn series in a session. Players like that are priceless - stats can be misleading, you can get batsmen averaging in the 40s who rarely have any memorable match-winning efforts to their name, and boost their averages in what the Yanks call "garbage time" when there's nothing to play for. I'd be surprised if Australia or South Africa ignored him if he was available to them.

Of course he's not quite as pivotal to the balance of the side as Freddie was given we have a number of other all-rounders, whereas back then we were very much five specialist batsmen, a keeper and four specialist bowlers. But it's not as if we're overrun with quality specialists in either department as alternatives.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, isn't the contrary position that his sub par performances have cost England a number of tests?

Well, he has been part of the collective lemmings-off-a-cliff mentality when things have got tough, not sure he's been specifically to blame more than anyone else though. Not helped by the absence of a functioning top three, and they need to look at the structure of the side. You need mercurial, X-factor players at all levels though. If you'd rather replace him with a turgid blocker who averages 40, doesn't bowl and is a donkey in the field though, fair enough...

Never said I wouldn't pick him. Just don't consider him top 6 material. Better at 7 or 8.