RugbyRebels

So play on Sat is lost by Lords...bad planning that.
The freaky conditions won't have helped but Broad & Woakes are useful in such.
Not sure if this has helped the Ashes thinking much.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
The problem still occurs, same as it did when he was given the job - who else is there to give it to?

Puja

In the first instance I'd take Root getting his batting average back to how he was scoring before he was made captain, that would help more than whoever the actual captain is.

There's no guarantee that he'd drop straight back into form though, but appointing a shunt captain would cost us immediately. The only name that springs to mind is Broad and it's rarely a good idea to make a bowler captain.

Puja

We're run shy, and our best batter (and actually a batsman that looks oddly gifted to be English) has been shunt since taking over as captain. It might not restore him, but I'd take the risk, also he shouldn't be rewarded for failure.

Looking at the game you'd assume England have been on the lash since the WC win, and that Ireland went on the lash all last night assuming they'd won

I assume looking at who's coming back into the side that Curran is again done for? Harsh, only one batsman scored more and he took 3-28, but unless we drop Ali for him it's hard to see where he plays

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
In the first instance I'd take Root getting his batting average back to how he was scoring before he was made captain, that would help more than whoever the actual captain is.

There's no guarantee that he'd drop straight back into form though, but appointing a shunt captain would cost us immediately. The only name that springs to mind is Broad and it's rarely a good idea to make a bowler captain.

Puja

We're run shy, and our best batter (and actually a batsman that looks oddly gifted to be English) has been shunt since taking over as captain. It might not restore him, but I'd take the risk, also he shouldn't be rewarded for failure.

Try suggesting an alternative, not that I disagree. That's a weird line about 'oddly gifted to be English'- what do you mean?

Digby wrote:I assume looking at who's coming back into the side that Curran is again done for? Harsh, only one batsman scored more and he took 3-28, but unless we drop Ali for him it's hard to see where he plays

If we produce typical English conditions, keep Curran and drop Ali. Leach is plenty. When Archer returns, we'd have a lovely balanced attack.

Just need to find at least 1 Batsman from somewhere, if not 3...

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
There's no guarantee that he'd drop straight back into form though, but appointing a shunt captain would cost us immediately. The only name that springs to mind is Broad and it's rarely a good idea to make a bowler captain.

Puja

We're run shy, and our best batter (and actually a batsman that looks oddly gifted to be English) has been shunt since taking over as captain. It might not restore him, but I'd take the risk, also he shouldn't be rewarded for failure.

Try suggesting an alternative, not that I disagree. That's a weird line about 'oddly gifted to be English'- what do you mean?

We've not had many top flight batting talents, those with technique and an actual range of scoring shots, allied to a desire to bat long. KP is (was) certainly the most talented pre Root I've seen, but not in all ways a talent we can lay claim to developing, and I'd probably have ranked Thorpe as the best I'd seen before Root, Gooch was excellent once he'd removed most of his scoring shots outside the V

I'd take a punt on almost anyone to get Root's average 10-15 runs higher again, and I concede we might end up going back to Root which would be messy

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
We're run shy, and our best batter (and actually a batsman that looks oddly gifted to be English) has been shunt since taking over as captain. It might not restore him, but I'd take the risk, also he shouldn't be rewarded for failure.

Try suggesting an alternative, not that I disagree. That's a weird line about 'oddly gifted to be English'- what do you mean?

We've not had many top flight batting talents, those with technique and an actual range of scoring shots, allied to a desire to bat long. KP is (was) certainly the most talented pre Root I've seen, but not in all ways a talent we can lay claim to developing, and I'd probably have ranked Thorpe as the best I'd seen before Root, Gooch was excellent once he'd removed most of his scoring shots outside the V

I'd take a punt on almost anyone to get Root's average 10-15 runs higher again, and I concede we might end up going back to Root which would be messy

Oh you mean in your own time frame....I'd chuck in Ian Bell for a good chunk of his career, Alec Stewart when not keeping, Michael Vaughan in his pomp, Trescothick ditto. All gifted, all English, all with a range of shots, all capable of batting long. Before them you had Gower, and a huge set of talents before that, the very English Compton, Dexter, Cowdrey, Hutton, and Boycott (who may have been obdurate and selfish, but did have all the shots, ditto Barrington). So I don't think its odd to be a gifted English batsman.

I do agree on getting an extra 5 or so runs onto Root's average, but you haven't answered the question specifically, other than chucking it at any of Burns, Roy, YJB, Stokes, Buttler, Broad, Anderson, Ali etc.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Try suggesting an alternative, not that I disagree. That's a weird line about 'oddly gifted to be English'- what do you mean?

We've not had many top flight batting talents, those with technique and an actual range of scoring shots, allied to a desire to bat long. KP is (was) certainly the most talented pre Root I've seen, but not in all ways a talent we can lay claim to developing, and I'd probably have ranked Thorpe as the best I'd seen before Root, Gooch was excellent once he'd removed most of his scoring shots outside the V

I'd take a punt on almost anyone to get Root's average 10-15 runs higher again, and I concede we might end up going back to Root which would be messy

Oh you mean in your own time frame....I'd chuck in Ian Bell for a good chunk of his career, Alec Stewart when not keeping, Michael Vaughan in his pomp, Trescothick ditto. All gifted, all English, all with a range of shots, all capable of batting long. Before them you had Gower, and a huge set of talents before that, the very English Compton, Dexter, Cowdrey, Hutton, and Boycott (who may have been obdurate and selfish, but did have all the shots, ditto Barrington). So I don't think its odd to be a gifted English batsman.

I do agree on getting an extra 5 or so runs onto Root's average, but you haven't answered the question specifically, other than chucking it at any of Burns, Roy, YJB, Stokes, Buttler, Broad, Anderson, Ali etc.

I don't know enough about any of them to give an answer on how they think about cricket, bowling lineups and changes, field placings, leadership and so on, I don't really know anything about Root in this regard beyond he seems better than Cook and a distance behind Vaughan. Stewart was another talent, and it was weird we gave away a batter averaging over 50 in a side that couldn't bat, Gower was decent until the Windies rocked up (although he was hardly alone in struggling against Malcolm et al), Vaughan like Root had a purple patch before becoming captain but over his career wasn't top end, Trescothick had all the natural foot movement of a monolith and averaged less accordingly, Bell looked very good in training but didn't do it often enough in matches.

Root does look better than almost anyone else who's batted for England to me, that I've seen, he's one of the top talents going and should be pushing Kohli (almost certainly not catching Kohli as the foot movement and timing isn't quite the same, but he should be pushing him)

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
We're run shy, and our best batter (and actually a batsman that looks oddly gifted to be English) has been shunt since taking over as captain. It might not restore him, but I'd take the risk, also he shouldn't be rewarded for failure.

Try suggesting an alternative, not that I disagree. That's a weird line about 'oddly gifted to be English'- what do you mean?

We've not had many top flight batting talents, those with technique and an actual range of scoring shots, allied to a desire to bat long.

Just in my cricket watching span and just off the top of my head: Cook, Strauss, Trescothick, Vaughan, Stewart, Ealham, Flintoff in his pomp, Hussain, Thorpe. All of those would have made a World XI in their prime.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Try suggesting an alternative, not that I disagree. That's a weird line about 'oddly gifted to be English'- what do you mean?

We've not had many top flight batting talents, those with technique and an actual range of scoring shots, allied to a desire to bat long.

Just in my cricket watching span and just off the top of my head: Cook, Strauss, Trescothick, Vaughan, Stewart, Ealham, Flintoff in his pomp, Hussain, Thorpe. All of those would have made a World XI in their prime.

Puja

All decent, but if at the top of the pile you'd have the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and now Kohli then I still wouldn't be putting any of them next rung down on the ladder alongside batters like Ponting and Kallis. Also did you mean Mark Ealham? Wasn't he just a really short version of Derick Pringle?

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Try suggesting an alternative, not that I disagree. That's a weird line about 'oddly gifted to be English'- what do you mean?

We've not had many top flight batting talents, those with technique and an actual range of scoring shots, allied to a desire to bat long.

Just in my cricket watching span and just off the top of my head: Cook, Strauss, Trescothick, Vaughan, Stewart, Ealham, Flintoff in his pomp, Hussain, Thorpe. All of those would have made a World XI in their prime.

Puja

The unusual thing in an England context is that Root has, up to this last year been fairly consistent in performance. He has had a poor year by his standards but still averaging 49 or 50 over his 80 test career so far.

For some of those you mention their pomp wasn't that long a period compared to the top talents of their era. And that's maybe why England haven't been able to dominate for a prolonged period like the great Aistralian side did pre 2005. For example Vaughan's prime batting years was really a year IIRC. In the summer where they played Sri Lanka and India then the ashes tour. That was his real purple patch where many of his hundreds came and about a quarter of his total runs.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
We've not had many top flight batting talents, those with technique and an actual range of scoring shots, allied to a desire to bat long. KP is (was) certainly the most talented pre Root I've seen, but not in all ways a talent we can lay claim to developing, and I'd probably have ranked Thorpe as the best I'd seen before Root, Gooch was excellent once he'd removed most of his scoring shots outside the V

I'd take a punt on almost anyone to get Root's average 10-15 runs higher again, and I concede we might end up going back to Root which would be messy

Oh you mean in your own time frame....I'd chuck in Ian Bell for a good chunk of his career, Alec Stewart when not keeping, Michael Vaughan in his pomp, Trescothick ditto. All gifted, all English, all with a range of shots, all capable of batting long. Before them you had Gower, and a huge set of talents before that, the very English Compton, Dexter, Cowdrey, Hutton, and Boycott (who may have been obdurate and selfish, but did have all the shots, ditto Barrington). So I don't think its odd to be a gifted English batsman.

I do agree on getting an extra 5 or so runs onto Root's average, but you haven't answered the question specifically, other than chucking it at any of Burns, Roy, YJB, Stokes, Buttler, Broad, Anderson, Ali etc.

I don't know enough about any of them to give an answer on how they think about cricket, bowling lineups and changes, field placings, leadership and so on, I don't really know anything about Root in this regard beyond he seems better than Cook and a distance behind Vaughan. Stewart was another talent, and it was weird we gave away a batter averaging over 50 in a side that couldn't bat, Gower was decent until the Windies rocked up (although he was hardly alone in struggling against Malcolm et al), Vaughan like Root had a purple patch before becoming captain but over his career wasn't top end, Trescothick had all the natural foot movement of a monolith and averaged less accordingly, Bell looked very good in training but didn't do it often enough in matches.

Root does look better than almost anyone else who's batted for England to me, that I've seen, he's one of the top talents going and should be pushing Kohli (almost certainly not catching Kohli as the foot movement and timing isn't quite the same, but he should be pushing him)

Good effort moving the goalposts from gifted to best of all time.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Oh you mean in your own time frame....I'd chuck in Ian Bell for a good chunk of his career, Alec Stewart when not keeping, Michael Vaughan in his pomp, Trescothick ditto. All gifted, all English, all with a range of shots, all capable of batting long. Before them you had Gower, and a huge set of talents before that, the very English Compton, Dexter, Cowdrey, Hutton, and Boycott (who may have been obdurate and selfish, but did have all the shots, ditto Barrington). So I don't think its odd to be a gifted English batsman.

I do agree on getting an extra 5 or so runs onto Root's average, but you haven't answered the question specifically, other than chucking it at any of Burns, Roy, YJB, Stokes, Buttler, Broad, Anderson, Ali etc.

I don't know enough about any of them to give an answer on how they think about cricket, bowling lineups and changes, field placings, leadership and so on, I don't really know anything about Root in this regard beyond he seems better than Cook and a distance behind Vaughan. Stewart was another talent, and it was weird we gave away a batter averaging over 50 in a side that couldn't bat, Gower was decent until the Windies rocked up (although he was hardly alone in struggling against Malcolm et al), Vaughan like Root had a purple patch before becoming captain but over his career wasn't top end, Trescothick had all the natural foot movement of a monolith and averaged less accordingly, Bell looked very good in training but didn't do it often enough in matches.

Root does look better than almost anyone else who's batted for England to me, that I've seen, he's one of the top talents going and should be pushing Kohli (almost certainly not catching Kohli as the foot movement and timing isn't quite the same, but he should be pushing him)

Good effort moving the goalposts from gifted to best of all time.

Top flight in this instance did mean the very top players, not players good enough to do well in test cricket. I may of course be alone or in a minority in thinking Root is talented enough to challenge for a spot in such pantheon, but he's the best English player positioned to do so I've seen yet.

England squad for first Ashes Test 

Joe Root (c)
Moeen Ali
James Anderson
Jofra Archer
Jonny Bairstow (w)
Stuart Broad
Rory Burns
Jos Buttler
Sam Curran
Joe Denly
Jason Roy
Ben Stokes
Olly Stone
Chris Woakes

Woakes & Broad probs.competing for 1 slot.
2 or 3 of other quickies /Curran and/or Ali, Whither Burns, only uncertainties on the day you'd think.

Based on his batting average (49.51) Root is the best English test batsman since Boycott (ave 47.72)
Some of our best recent players Pieterson (47.28), Gooch (42.58), Gower (44.25), Vaughan (41.44), Thorpe (44.66), Trescothic (43.79) and Stewart (39.54) cannot match his numbers.
The best English batsman in my lifetime in unquestionably Ken Barrington who averaged 58.67 over 82 tests.
He outstrips Cowdrey (44.06), Hutton (56.67), Compton (50.06), May (46.77) and Dexter (47.89)

Moeen looks like a shoe-in as only spinner, local lad & last-innings successes in Tests.
Woakes too should get nod after this week & home ground.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't know enough about any of them to give an answer on how they think about cricket, bowling lineups and changes, field placings, leadership and so on, I don't really know anything about Root in this regard beyond he seems better than Cook and a distance behind Vaughan. Stewart was another talent, and it was weird we gave away a batter averaging over 50 in a side that couldn't bat, Gower was decent until the Windies rocked up (although he was hardly alone in struggling against Malcolm et al), Vaughan like Root had a purple patch before becoming captain but over his career wasn't top end, Trescothick had all the natural foot movement of a monolith and averaged less accordingly, Bell looked very good in training but didn't do it often enough in matches.

Root does look better than almost anyone else who's battd for England to me, that I've seen, he's one of the top talents going and should be pushing Kohli (almost certainly not catching Kohli as the foot movement and timing isn't quite the same, but he should be pushing him)

Good effort moving the goalposts from gifted to best of all time.

Top flight in this instance did mean the very top players, not players good enough to do well in test cricket. I may of course be alone or in a minority in thinking Root is talented enough to challenge for a spot in such pantheon, but he's the best English player positioned to do so I've seen yet.

You could have saved us all a lot of time with that clarification . Oddly gifted to greatest of all time is a leap nicht wahr. Saying England hasn't produced many of the greatest batsman is an interesting start point.....

On a side note, averaging over 40 over a fair number of tests is a decent benchmark for a very good test batsman imo , though you need context; for example a batsman in the 70's and 80's didn't face the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, but had to face the west indies. This ranking list is interesting though represents a peak rather than consistency, but not bad. It does back up Diggers eventual point about Root being ahead of a lot of english batsmen.

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/alltime/test/

fivepointer wrote:Based on his batting average (49.51) Root is the best English test batsman since Boycott (ave 47.72)
Some of our best recent players Pieterson (47.28), Gooch (42.58), Gower (44.25), Vaughan (41.44), Thorpe (44.66), Trescothic (43.79) and Stewart (39.54) cannot match his numbers.
The best English batsman in my lifetime in unquestionably Ken Barrington who averaged 58.67 over 82 tests.
He outstrips Cowdrey (44.06), Hutton (56.67), Compton (50.06), May (46.77) and Dexter (47.89)

Missed Cook and Bell btw. I'd also argue that Root hasn't played against a great attack like the Aussies of the 90's and 2000's, but he very good and the best England have had for a while....but not by a huge distance.

Barrington very undersung, likely because his nickname of barnacle tells a story- but he was very flamboyant in his early career, as was Boycott occasionally. They both eliminated risk.

On Gower- he played a lot of tests v the Windies at their peak. But he was a glorious player.

Galfon wrote:England squad for first Ashes Test 

Joe Root (c)
Moeen Ali
James Anderson
Jofra Archer
Jonny Bairstow (w)
Stuart Broad
Rory Burns
Jos Buttler
Sam Curran
Joe Denly
Jason Roy
Ben Stokes
Olly Stone
Chris Woakes

Woakes & Broad probs.competing for 1 slot.
2 or 3 of other quickies /Curran and/or Ali, Whither Burns, only uncertainties on the day you'd think.

Bit of a cop out tb, though no doubt checking on Anderson and Archer- Anderson has to be a big risk for rust reasons alone. Can't see Burns being dropped. Top 3 huge problem. Ali is very lucky.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
We've not had many top flight batting talents, those with technique and an actual range of scoring shots, allied to a desire to bat long.

Just in my cricket watching span and just off the top of my head: Cook, Strauss, Trescothick, Vaughan, Stewart, Ealham, Flintoff in his pomp, Hussain, Thorpe. All of those would have made a World XI in their prime.

Puja

All decent, but if at the top of the pile you'd have the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and now Kohli then I still wouldn't be putting any of them next rung down on the ladder alongside batters like Ponting and Kallis. Also did you mean Mark Ealham? Wasn't he just a really short version of Derick Pringle?

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Just in my cricket watching span and just off the top of my head: Cook, Strauss, Trescothick, Vaughan, Stewart, Ealham, Flintoff in his pomp, Hussain, Thorpe. All of those would have made a World XI in their prime.

Puja

All decent, but if at the top of the pile you'd have the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and now Kohli then I still wouldn't be putting any of them next rung down on the ladder alongside batters like Ponting and Kallis. Also did you mean Mark Ealham? Wasn't he just a really short version of Derick Pringle?

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

They weren't laughing when Botham or Flintoff played

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
All decent, but if at the top of the pile you'd have the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and now Kohli then I still wouldn't be putting any of them next rung down on the ladder alongside batters like Ponting and Kallis. Also did you mean Mark Ealham? Wasn't he just a really short version of Derick Pringle?

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

They weren't laughing when Botham or Flintoff played

Indeed. I started watching around... maybe 97ish I think. So it was basically Atherton and Stewart and once they were out, our innings was basically over and the Aussies would bat for the next two days, just seeing off Caddick and Gough to then tuck into the likes of Robert Croft and Mark Ealham.

I took very great satisfaction in some of the Ashes series of this century.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

They weren't laughing when Botham or Flintoff played

Indeed. I started watching around... maybe 97ish I think. So it was basically Atherton and Stewart and once they were out, our innings was basically over and the Aussies would bat for the next two days, just seeing off Caddick and Gough to then tuck into the likes of Robert Croft and Mark Ealham.

I took very great satisfaction in some of the Ashes series of this century.

Puja

They were tricky times, but it was a great Aussie tesm

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Just in my cricket watching span and just off the top of my head: Cook, Strauss, Trescothick, Vaughan, Stewart, Ealham, Flintoff in his pomp, Hussain, Thorpe. All of those would have made a World XI in their prime.

Puja

All decent, but if at the top of the pile you'd have the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and now Kohli then I still wouldn't be putting any of them next rung down on the ladder alongside batters like Ponting and Kallis. Also did you mean Mark Ealham? Wasn't he just a really short version of Derick Pringle?

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be putting the 5th high test run scorer if all time (and only one in the top 20 to spend his career as an opener) above the level of merely "decent".

And yes, Ealham was there to see if you were paying attention. The epitome of the Australian quip when I first started watching cricket of, "What do the English call someone who xan't bowl, can't field, and can't bat? A test all-rounder."

Puja

For me Cook was a steady as she goes player who failed to add scoring shots to his repertoire and was reliant on bowlers feeding his strengths and ignoring his weaknesses, and oddly many bowlers were compliant, though Cook's ability to focus on the game he had with such powers of concentration is admirable, it just doesn't for me make him a talent even on a par with someone like Langer. Langer is a useful rule of thumb when discussing Cook imo, as Langer came into the test area similarly unable to get the ball of the square beyond rank bad deliveries but really added to his game, not that that makes Langer an all time great, but it does highlight the lack of development in Cook. In England going back a few years a young Vaughan also struggled to get the ball off the square, but he too showed a willingness and capability to develop his game. Given how much a hard worker Cook is feted to have been I'm sure he tried to add in elements, but just wasn't able to make the progression I'm sure he'd have wanted.

Cook is more akin to someone like Graeme Smith for my money, both fine players, just a bit limited (and though it shouldn't matter both a little ugly to watch)

Yes obviously Cook scored a lot of runs, and that's only a positive, but Broad has more test wickets than Ambrose, and I know which one I think the better bowler