Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 10:27:24 GMT
Bayliss has just said "two or three places" are up for grabs.
For me Bell, Moeen Ali and Patel have to be dropped.
Ali has a test batting avge of 27 and a bowling avge of 38. If it was the other way around he would be worth his place.
So who comes in? Lyth, who scored a Test hundred last summer and was cast aside too early, Tredwell ... and possibly Ballance at number three?
Ballance has four centuries in 15 Tests. Ali has one in 19 and Bell has two hundreds in his last 24 Tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Nov 5, 2015 10:45:46 GMT
Think the main priority is to get it right at the top of the order, finding an opening partner for Cook Hales would be my preference. Doubts remain as to whether he is true international class, and he certainly can be hit and miss, but he does provide us with the preferred left/right combination. He can also be a match winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 5, 2015 11:01:39 GMT
Bayliss has just said "two or three places" are up for grabs. For me Bell, Moeen Ali and Patel have to be dropped. Ali has a test batting avge of 27 and a bowling avge of 38. If it was the other way around he would be worth his place. So who comes in? Lyth, who scored a Test hundred last summer and was cast aside too early, Tredwell ... and possibly Ballance at number three? Ballance has four centuries in 15 Tests. Ali has one in 19 and Bell has two hundreds in his last 24 Tests. I don't agree. Lyth had 5 Tests against much stiffer opposition and each time got out just when he should have been settled, usually nicking off. Good player of 2nd class (Championship) cricket. |
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Nov 5, 2015 11:02:45 GMT
Michael Vaughan said yesterday that despite Bell's poor form of late he was against dropping him. He felt that a top 5 containing only Cook & Root with any test experience was too much of a gamble against SA. I am inclined to agree. He suggested that Vince be taken as cover for Bell which also seems reasonable to me. I would also reinstate Compton to open. He was brought up in SA and has a point to prove. He is also capable of long innings not dashing 40's like some of the others. It is very hard to pick people from outside the current squad as none have had any recent cricket so you are really picking on hunches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 11:29:49 GMT
Michael Vaughan said yesterday that despite Bell's poor form of late he was against dropping him. He felt that a top 5 containing only Cook & Root with any test experience was too much of a gamble against SA. I am inclined to agree. He suggested that Vince be taken as cover for Bell which also seems reasonable to me. I would also reinstate Compton to open. He was brought up in SA and has a point to prove. He is also capable of long innings not dashing 40's like some of the others. It is very hard to pick people from outside the current squad as none have had any recent cricket so you are really picking on hunches. Yes, I'd settle for Compton. Both he and Lyth are more likely to score Test runs at the top of the order than Moeen or Hales. Can't agree with hh about Lyth being a dud. He scored a century against one of the best opening attacks in the world in Boult and Southee at Headingley less than six months ago. He put on 177 for the first wicket with Cook, which must be England's best opening partnership in years. Discarded far too soon, as Boycott said on TMS this morning. In the last two summers England has had an opening batsman who made a domestic Test century but was jettisoned by the time the winter tour came around. Last last year it was Robson who was dropped in favour of Trott . This year it was Lyth, replaced by Moeen Ali. Are we so blessed with quality openers that we can toss them aside so carelessly? Both decisions turned out to be utterly disastrous. The summer before that (2013) it was Compton, who made two centuries in three Tests over the winter v New Zealand and was then dropped after just two Tests at home. The way we have treated our opening batsmen has been ridiculous, particularly in comparison to how middle-order batsmen have been allowed to fail without censure, such as Bell (still there after two centuries in his last 24 Tests) and Moeen, (one century in his 19 Tests, but apparently regarded as a better bet as an opener than Compton, Robson, Carberry or Lyth). |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 5, 2015 11:54:27 GMT
Michael Vaughan said yesterday that despite Bell's poor form of late he was against dropping him. He felt that a top 5 containing only Cook & Root with any test experience was too much of a gamble against SA. I am inclined to agree. He suggested that Vince be taken as cover for Bell which also seems reasonable to me. I would also reinstate Compton to open. He was brought up in SA and has a point to prove. He is also capable of long innings not dashing 40's like some of the others. It is very hard to pick people from outside the current squad as none have had any recent cricket so you are really picking on hunches. Yes, I'd settle for Compton. Both he and Lyth are more likely to score Test runs at the top of the order than Moeen or Hales. Can't agree with hh about Lyth being a dud. He scored a century against one of the best opening attacks in the world in Boult and Southee at Headingley less than six months ago. He put on 177 for the first wicket with Cook, which must be England's best opening partnership in years.
Discarded far too soon, as Boycott said on TMS this morning. In the last two summers England has had an opening batsman who made a domestic Test century but was jettisoned by the time the winter tour came around. Last last year it was Robson who was dropped in favour of Trott . This year it was Lyth, replaced by Moeen Ali. Are we so blessed with quality openers that we can toss them aside so carelessly? Both decisions turned out to be utterly disastrous. The summer before that (2013) it was Compton, who made two centuries in three Tests over the winter v New Zealand and was then dropped after just two Tests at home. The way we have treated our opening batsmen has been ridiculous, particularly in comparison to how middle-order batsmen have been allowed to fail without censure, such as Bell (still there after two centuries in his last 24 Tests) and Moeen, (one century in his 19 Tests, but apparently regarded as a better bet as an opener than Compton, Robson, Carberry or Lyth). Not a dud, but short of the class that is necessary, and borne out by his innings against Australia.  That is 6 times that he batted for around 30 balls, at least 30 minutes batting, made a few 4s and then got out. He never looked in particularly poor form, and each time he got set and then got out to a slight variation in the delivery. Those bowlers were pretty good too. |
|
|
|
Post by bgroad on Nov 5, 2015 12:51:07 GMT
Carberry for me - discarded way too quickly after Australia and perhaps his comments that he expressed for not being picked for the one day team didn't help him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 12:55:27 GMT
Don't see how that proves that Lyth is "short of the class that is necessary" after he showed at Headingly that he was high class.
Cook had a far longer spell than Lyth getting out cheaply; it seemed to drag on for about 18 mionths. Did that prove he was "short of the class that is necessary" ? No, of course not and England stuck with him and he came good again.
Lean spells can be due to any number of reasons - low confidence, opposition exploiting a flaw in technique, trigger movment going wrong, the pressure of feeling you are playing for your place every time you walk to the wicket etc etc. With quality players, a good coach can usually get them back on track.
Lyth, Compton, Carberry or Robson in my view were all better equipped to do a job in the Caribbean last spring and in the UAE this autumn than the messed-up Trott and the natural number eight that is Moeen Ali.
I've seen nothing in Hales to suggest that he has the technique of a Test match opener and when he fails in South Africa, I confidently predict you will be back on this thread in a few months time dismissing him as "short of the class that is necessary", calling for him to join Lyth, Compton, Carberry, Robson, Trott and Moeen Ali on the discarded openers pile and demanding that the next hapless cab on the rank takes his place!
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 5, 2015 13:54:59 GMT
Don't see how that proves that Lyth is "short of the class that is necessary" after he showed at Headingly that he was high class. Cook had a far longer spell than Lyth getting out cheaply; it seemed to drag on for about 18 mionths. Did that prove he was "short of the class that is necessary" ? No, of course not and England stuck with him and he came good again. Lean spells can be due to any number of reasons - low confidence, opposition exploiting a flaw in technique, trigger movment going wrong, the pressure of feeling you are playing for your place every time you walk to the wicket etc etc. With quality players, a good coach can usually get them back on track. Lyth, Compton, Carberry or Robson in my view were all better equipped to do a job in the Caribbean last spring and in the UAE this autumn than the messed-up Trott and the natural number eight that is Moeen Ali. I've seen nothing in Hales to suggest that he has the technique of a Test match opener and when he fails in South Africa, I confidently predict you will be back on this thread in a few months time dismissing him as "short of the class that is necessary", calling for him to join Lyth, Compton, Carberry, Robson, Trott and Moeen Ali on the discarded openers pile and demanding that the next hapless cab on the rank takes his place! I didn't make any reference to Hales, nor have I called Lyth a dud, nor have I used the phrase " the class that is necessary", all of which you have attributed to me. It is not a case of X is better than Y, but if X is Lyth my concern, as illustrated by the figures, is that in those 5 Tests when the pressure was on he got in 6 times out of 9, did the hard work, and then got out to a weak shot or a mis-applied one. He didn't struggle for form, not was he ought unluckily after 2 or 3 balls, which could happen to anyone. The comedy Yorkshireman parody who has usurped Boycott's place behind the mic in the last few years had exactly the same to say this summer, and if he is recanting from it now, it is probably because he has run out of bandwagons to sit upon. In Cook's case the scores were not so markedly poor: there were at least a few 50s and I think you would agree that much of the pressure on him came from his limitations as a captain and the problems he had dealing with a succession of on- and off-field issues. Indeed it is a very obvious dividend of the much more balanced management set-up that England now have that Cook has come back into form, without changing the style of play that suits him best. I don't know why Lyth can't capitalise on his good starts. It doesn't look like a lack of confidence, else he would probably have got out much sooner playing the wrong shots. It may be a lack of concentration or perhaps he was too keen to try and impress, but none of that recommends him for opening against South Africa on their own pitches. I'd love for him to come back, Robson too, but I think that his coach needs to work with him first and to identify the problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 17:19:22 GMT
I didn't make any reference to Hales, nor have I called Lyth a dud, nor have I used the phrase " the class that is necessary", all of which you have attributed to me. Bit baffled by this, hh. It's like Jim May telling us he didn't know if the ECB report on academies was confidential or not after he had previously told us that it was...er, confidential. You did use the phrase " the class that is necessary". I just checked to see if you had since deleted it. But no, it's it is still there in black and white : Lyth is "short of the class that is necessary, and borne out by his innings against Australia." And I haven't attributed anything else to you, other than the phrase you wrote. I am aware that you didn't mention Hales. I mentioned him because he is about to become at least Cook's eighth opening partner since 2013 (there may be more; they change so regularly I may easily have missed one or two.) I'll settle for either Lyth or Compton to open with Cook in SA. Both have scored Test centuries and Cook and Lyth put on 177 v NZ, the best start England has had in a long, long time. But it is going to be Hales, whom I confidently predict will be discarded as swiftly as the rest of Cook's recent partners (the only one of whom has survived is Root, after being moved down the order.) |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 5, 2015 17:44:16 GMT
Bit baffled by this, hh. It's like Jim May telling us he didn't know if the ECB report on academies was confidential or not after he had previously told us that it was...er, confidential. You did use the phrase " the class that is necessary". I just checked to see if you had since deleted it. But no, it's it is still there in black and white : Lyth is "short of the class that is necessary, and borne out by his innings against Australia." And I haven't attributed anything else to you. I mentioned Hales because he is about to become at least Cook's eighth opening partner since 2013 (there may be more; they change so regularly I may easily have missed one or two.) I'll settle for either Lyth or Compton to open in SA. Both have scored Test centuries and shown that they have the potential to score runs in Test cricket. Absolutely right about the class etc quote and apologise for accusing you of misattribution: I'd forgotten I had written it and my hurried glance back missed it above the tabulation insert.  The Hales thing though is a non sequitur - I didn't mention him as a vice to Lyth so can't think why you confidently predict I'll be posting on this thread for him to join the ranks of the discards. I agree with you that he doesn't generally impress in county cricket, and in any event, his role there is not that of an opener. I would have liked to see Compton get further chances, and maybe on the pragmatic principle that you and I both agreed about yesterday as being prevalent in England's latest selections he should come back to do a job in South Africa at least. I think he would do a very good job there, but longer term we have almost as many concerns as we do on the spin front. Robson, when I last him last summer, seemed to have fallen a long way from the confident, easy style that we both recognised a couple of years ago, looking down from our illicit perch in the South Stand. Lyth, we will just have to agree to differ about. There may be others coming through but not in the First Division, or not occupying the opening position at the moment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 18:11:12 GMT
No worries, hh. If the Sussex CCC chairman can forget what he's written, then an old duffer like you can certainly be granted licence to do so (joke: I'm only a few months behind you in the race for the zimmer frame!!!)
Seriously, I do find England's selection policy infurating: they either keep faith with failure for too long (Bell and arguably Buttler and Moeen) or jettison them too early (Lyth/Robson/Compton). There is a happy medium, which involves a point where you say, OK, we're still with you, but you need to go back to county cricket and put some miles on the clock.
These people messed up Finn and Tremlett, they've come close to messing up Jordan (who, in my view, loses rhythm when he's not allowed to play sufficient competitive cricket), they completely buggered Adam Riley's action on the Lions' tour to SA lsst winter, they missed a trick with Buttler who should have been sent back to Lancs for the final month of the 2015 county season and they will no doubt disrupt the progress of other promising cricketers in the future (my tip is that Billings will be the next career they send off the rails).
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Nov 7, 2015 11:03:22 GMT
Wipe the slate clean for SA. We can't spin the ball or play spin very well right now but we won't have to in SA. Bell deserves another tour and I would give him it. Hales is the next in line to open so use him, don't go backwards to all the other flops and failures - should be his kind of tracks out there, he could shine as long as he's aggressive. I think we'll go back to Ali at eight. I'd prefer Rashid myself but Ali's done more good than bad there so that's what we'll do I spose.
No need to go nuts anyway, a completely different, and more familiar, challenge in SA to Pakistan in Agoo Daboo.
Cook
Hales
Bell
Root
Taylor
Stokes
Bairstow
Ali/Rashid
Broad
Finn
Anderson
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Nov 10, 2015 8:41:37 GMT
George Dobell shows he can do it when he forgets to chase the big splashy headlines. An excellent, well-argued and meticulously researched piece on Nick Compton's claims as an opener in South Africa in cricinfo (http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-england-2015-16/content/story/938997.html). He also sheds a little light on the circumstances of Compton's dropping from the Test scene: "Having taken a blow in the nets during the 2013 Headingley Test against New Zealand, Compton was sent for a scan and, while chatting to a doctor, was informed that he probably had a cracked rib. When the scans were analysed, however, he was shown to have suffered nothing more than deep bruising and it was alleged by the team management that he had shirked his fielding duties as he did not want to put himself in the firing line. Compton was offended - ironically he had played the previous Test with an undiagnosed broken finger - words were exchanged and he has never been selected since."
He also nails the "Cook and Compton are too similar, too slow" argument very well - "..why look for something different? Their problem is not scoring too slowly, but being bowled out too fast."
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Nov 10, 2015 9:29:37 GMT
George Dobell shows he can do it when he forgets to chase the big splashy headlines. An excellent, well-argued and meticulously researched piece on Nick Compton's claims as an opener in South Africa in cricinfo (http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-england-2015-16/content/story/938997.html). He also sheds a little light on the circumstances of Compton's dropping from the Test scene: "Having taken a blow in the nets during the 2013 Headingley Test against New Zealand, Compton was sent for a scan and, while chatting to a doctor, was informed that he probably had a cracked rib. When the scans were analysed, however, he was shown to have suffered nothing more than deep bruising and it was alleged by the team management that he had shirked his fielding duties as he did not want to put himself in the firing line. Compton was offended - ironically he had played the previous Test with an undiagnosed broken finger - words were exchanged and he has never been selected since." He also nails the "Cook and Compton are too similar, too slow" argument very well - "..why look for something different? Their problem is not scoring too slowly, but being bowled out too fast."Spot on. Let's hope the new England coaches are not constrained by Compton's fallout with their predecessors. |
|
