Tests v India

I would imagine if Stokes is chosen over Jordan there will be some horse-trading between Robinson and Moores.
So, not all is lost yet or are we clutching at straws?

At present, there are 6 seamers in the squad. Surely, England won't use more than 4. Which probably
means Woakes and Jordan will be left out given Plunkett's success against Sri Lanka. The question is:
Who will be the 12th man at Trentbridge? And that is where the horse-trading begins. There's a lot of
positive history between Moores and Robinson, so however unlikely, one cannot discount a major favour
from the England Coach when he makes Woakes 12th man and allows Jordan to play for Sussex.

We shall see.

I can't see us getting much of Jordan given England's desire for fresh bowlers in back to back tests.the only way would be for him to play in the first innings and then sub out-and as far as I know even the ecb haven't provided for that in the rules? All a bit awkward now the championship runs on a completely different weekly schedule to tests

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk

Prior is playing. Stokes replaces CJ.

Why, you old cynic, HHS. Are you suggesting that the money's more important than the cricket?!  

Watching this match today took me back years. 45 years, to be precise, and to a year of tangled emotions.

In 1968 England, under Cowdrey, with Underwood and Snow as arch-destroyers and the solidly prolific Edrich batting had brought Australia to a drawn series, whcih was actually a bigger deal than it sounds after a decade of defeats at home and overseas draws. There was a feeling that we were on the verge of achieving something special after years in the doldrums. D'Oliveira had made a flawed but stirring 100 in the Oval Test, Knott had come through as one of the most exciting new players in years and there was a solid phalanx of established, and classy, batsmen: Milburn, Barrington, Graveney, Cowdrey himself. For added resonance there had been a cameo comeback by Lord Ted that achieved very little but reminded everyone of the continuity of the game.

And then came 1969. Barrington the first to fall, victim of a heart attack in Australia the previous autumn. Then Milburn, driving pointlessly and late at night from one match to the next. Cowdrey's achilles twanged and the selectors rather shockingly went for Illingworth as his replacement, perpetuating the South/North, Amateur/Professional duologue that they seemed to enjoy in those days as an alternative to finding new talent. And after a pleasant 75 in the First Test against West Indies, as a penalty for being so rash as to go out and earn himself some benefit money by playing on the Sunday rest day, Graveney was dropped.

All of which contributed to framing a series that should have been a very big deal featuring the fabled 60s West Indians of Sobers. Kanhai, Lloyd, Gibbs, Butcher...but there too the well had run dry and there was no Seymour Nurse, and neither Hall nor Griffiths. John Shepherd had a couple of games and injured himself, and did little internationally after that, and the attack was spearheaded by Holder and Shillingford. And despite the best efforts of England to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (26-4 at Lords and hundreds for Hampshire and Illingworth) the series became memorable, or forgettable, for slow scoring, uninspired play, the decline of talent and a monumental exhibition of hubris. The mighty Sobers also picked up an injury, made one score over 50 and delivered one fine spell of bowling.

I can recall the reports in Playfair Cricket Monthly tut-tutting the typical scoring rates of 250 runs in a full days play, waving an admonitory finger that this would be the end of Test cricket if this became the standard. Later in the year it got worse: England played New Zaealand at Trent Bridge and in 305 overs 811 runs were scored. Fortunately the weather came to the rescue and that one was drawn.

I don't remember that the pitches were particularly dull and uneventful for these games, rather it was the dour, unterprising spirit of the times that seemed to prevail. Captaincy under Illingworth was tactically much sounder than we've recently become used to, but life was presentesd as a series of attritional challenges, to be endured and overcome, and certainly not to be relished. It could have been worse: Boycott after a couple of centuries against the West Indies had one of his periods of introspection and failure, recorded some low scores and ducks and retired to his tent for the rest of the summer.

All of this comes back, along with the memories of a summer of glorious weather and otherwise full of opportunity - well I was 15 and did my O-levels that year and life was all in front of me - when I watched over after over of well-intentioned, well-directed bowling failing to carry on the deadest of wickets, played by talented batsmen who didn't seem to have the energy to master the situation, and against a clueless field-setting by a well-meaning but incompetent captain. How long will this go on for, and how long can the game survive this bland, meaningless rubbish? At least in 1969 hope was at hand in the new Sunday League, which revitalised the game and brought urgently needed cash to the counties. It still took a few years before attrition was replaced by aggression and enterprise, and some of the stars of 1969, such as Hampshire and Alan Ward, didn't really enjoy the full fruition of their talents.

I don't know which is worse: the thought that somebody might write this sort of thing in 2059 about the dreadful England/India series played on such unsporting wickets with such complacency, or the prospect that long before then, Test cricket will have ceased to exist, except as a name given to some of the 10 and 20 over SpeedBatting Challenge matches between the great triumvirate of England Lions, Australian Fighting Kangaroos and the Indian Cobras.