First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

[sussexpob]

Ballance is also representative of more than one failure of selection and coaching. It seems that the selectors are dogmatic in their hopes of him coming good, but one has to say that if they truly had belief in him, why has been dropped so much? If he has the technique, then he plays and rides out the form, if he does why repick him? I said before this test, he was dropped averaging 57 I believe, its hardly like his form was that much of a question. Deep down the coaches and selectors knew he was a player that wasnt good enough at all, if they did believe it they would had stuck with him another 15 tests before they dropped him. It was hardly like the team was flooded with batting talent making runs, in fact quite the opposite.

I personally think yesterday is entirely relevant. Ballance was old Ballance, he hadnt changed. Trapped on the crease. Number 3 or number 5, makes no difference, hiding a bad technique down the order doesnt make a test player. A decent and worthy test player should bat anywhere well. Do we need to see anymore of Ballance after a few deliveries yesterday confirmed his technique hasnt improved? Id personally drop him. The again, I wouldnt have picked him anyway.

[sussexpob]

I also think now, England need to embrace Moeen Ali a little bit more, since start of 2016 he now averages over 50..... how long before England start thinking about moving him up the order? I think he did well at 4 previously, scoring a 100 in a short experiment.

Maybe the two openers, Root at 3, Mo at 4, Bairstow 5, Stokes 6 is the future.

[backfootpunch]

I dont think anyone wants English players to fail per se, but what you do find is that players come to represent systems of management, selection or team politics that you simply dont agree with. My dislike of Ben Stokes is obviously well known, but in short, no cricketer in my lifetime has had it so easy in comparison. The press love him, the fans love him, even when he throws away a world cup win single handed people rush to support him Every failure or negative is taken in context of simply bends on the road to greatness, yet in complete opposite, Chris Woakes has a better FC record and took 10 years of first class cricket to get a place in the side for more than one test in a row. If Chris Woakes had rightfully been test capped at 22, he'd probably be a great cricketer now. One was hype hollywood style, the other was not quick enough, or his average just under 40 was explained away as being easy runs, or what have you. If both are given the same treatment, Woakes would be better.

How can Dawson be in the side, and Roland Jones turn 29 with no test cap? How can Mark Wood be considered a better bowler than Roland Jones when RJ has been around far longer, took more wickets, for less? I find it hard to really justify England's selection policy, and often these selections bring with them ECB writing hacks on the payroll to hype anything these picks do.

The press, the fans, the management and his team mates love him

And I'd bet if any other nation got to pick one England player for their side they'd pick stokes

Looks like it's just you

[sussexpob]

Root gone....

[sussexpob]

The press, the fans, the management and his team mates love him

And I'd bet if any other nation got to pick one England player for their side they'd pick stokes

Looks like it's just you

Id suggest a batter averaging 55 would be first on most lists, but a player of Stokes luck is useful.

Has he, for instance, made any scores recently without being bowled by a no ball, being bowled without stumps dislodging, or being dropped? Its pretty incredible how lucky he has been recently, even yesterday he wildly edged early through the gap in slips, went for some slog off the spinner that landed a yard away from the outfielder, and was bowled off a no ball. His recent OD hundred he was dropped twice in his first two balls, and he was dropped or miss stumped in all of his innings in India.

If teams took their chances, his recent international performances wuold be pretty poor. Hes made loads of mistakes and is not paying for any of them.

[sussexpob]

Dawson proves the doubters wrong..... lasts two balls

[budgetmeansbudget]

Let's hope the umpires continue to raise those fingers every time the ball hits the pad in SA's innings.

Two marginal clips and a total miss of the stumps so far in ours.

[Hampshire]

The press, the fans, the management and his team mates love him

And I'd bet if any other nation got to pick one England player for their side they'd pick stokes

Looks like it's just you

Id suggest a batter averaging 55 would be first on most lists, but a player of Stokes luck is useful.

Has he, for instance, made any scores recently without being bowled by a no ball, being bowled without stumps dislodging, or being dropped? Its pretty incredible how lucky he has been recently, even yesterday he wildly edged early through the gap in slips, went for some slog off the spinner that landed a yard away from the outfielder, and was bowled off a no ball. His recent OD hundred he was dropped twice in his first two balls, and he was dropped or miss stumped in all of his innings in India.

If teams took their chances, his recent international performances wuold be pretty poor. Hes made loads of mistakes and is not paying for any of them.

Never particularly like a batsman getting out of a no ball being termed 'lucky'. The bowlers breaking the rules and gaining an unfair advantage. Would be the equivalent in football of a player punching a ball into the goal with his hand and someone terming the keeper 'lucky' not to have a conceded goal against his name.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I dont think anyone wants English players to fail per se, but what you do find is that players come to represent systems of management, selection or team politics that you simply dont agree with. My dislike of Ben Stokes is obviously well known, but in short, no cricketer in my lifetime has had it so easy in comparison. The press love him, the fans love him, even when he throws away a world cup win single handed people rush to support him Every failure or negative is taken in context of simply bends on the road to greatness, yet in complete opposite, Chris Woakes has a better FC record and took 10 years of first class cricket to get a place in the side for more than one test in a row. If Chris Woakes had rightfully been test capped at 22, he'd probably be a great cricketer now. One was hype hollywood style, the other was not quick enough, or his average just under 40 was explained away as being easy runs, or what have you. If both are given the same treatment, Woakes would be better.

How can Dawson be in the side, and Roland Jones turn 29 with no test cap? How can Mark Wood be considered a better bowler than Roland Jones when RJ has been around far longer, took more wickets, for less? I find it hard to really justify England's selection policy, and often these selections bring with them ECB writing hacks on the payroll to hype anything these picks do.

Also true. And influences the way I approach the player as a fan. Not their fault though!

Although for me, my opinion of Stokes is swayed negatively more by the gob*****/lack of discipline factor, rather than preferment as he was always a worthwhile investment. Agree about Woakes.

[Arthur Crabtree]

But Stokes with the ball- one of the unluckiest bowlers (arguably because he was captained by Cook).

[Arthur Crabtree]

Ballance is also representative of more than one failure of selection and coaching. It seems that the selectors are dogmatic in their hopes of him coming good, but one has to say that if they truly had belief in him, why has been dropped so much? If he has the technique, then he plays and rides out the form, if he does why repick him? I said before this test, he was dropped averaging 57 I believe, its hardly like his form was that much of a question. Deep down the coaches and selectors knew he was a player that wasnt good enough at all, if they did believe it they would had stuck with him another 15 tests before they dropped him. It was hardly like the team was flooded with batting talent making runs, in fact quite the opposite.

It's what they call mental strength. My query i,s are the equating similar values and goals to mental strength?

If I did everything my manager at work wanted me to, how they wanted me to, and spoke in the same language, they would value me more, even if my work wasn't as good.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I also think now, England need to embrace Moeen Ali a little bit more, since start of 2016 he now averages over 50..... how long before England start thinking about moving him up the order? I think he did well at 4 previously, scoring a 100 in a short experiment.

Maybe the two openers, Root at 3, Mo at 4, Bairstow 5, Stokes 6 is the future.

Of course, Mo got two hundreds up the order in India. Since the 2015 Ashes, he has second most tons in the side behind Joe Root (who has one more).

Bairstow is playing like a number five too though. But as keeper I think it makes more sense to give him a bit less work with the bat. On averages, probably Stokes should be the seven.

[rich1uk]

just a couple of things on the above discussion

lets say we go with the middle order of moeen/root/bairstow/stoke at #3/#4/#5/#6

we then have the issue of who you bat at #7

do we have a specialist bat there, when the argument will almost certainly be whats the point of batting them that low down when they are wasted there. there is no point picking 5 bowlers and having a long tail and more bowling than you need.

what we are doing all the time is wasting the luxury we have of 2 all-rounders, by getting worried about someone batting lower than they individually should be, instead of just accepting we have an XI with 7 "proper" batsmen in it and someone has to bat last out of those 7.

on the Woakes issue, being devil's advocate, Woakes himself said that it was not getting picked for England that led him to work on his game, get stronger, get fitter and put the extra pace into his bowling. that improvement has made him the bowler he now is. Would he have made the same improvements from within the England team?

[sussexpob]

Its not Ballance's fault, but his position in the side in the last few years simply confuses me. He does very well, has a couple of odd bad tests, so if you have any belief he is a test cricketer you dont drop him. Which then makes his reselection out of nick make no sense whatsoever, as it seems to back him as a person and his potential when previously there was none. His reselection now makes more sense, but at the same time, makes zero sense..... the boat has sailed you seem to think, if anything simply on the fact its clear there isnt much faith there

[sussexpob]

on the Woakes issue, being devil's advocate, Woakes himself said that it was not getting picked for England that led him to work on his game, get stronger, get fitter and put the extra pace into his bowling. that improvement has made him the bowler he now is. Would he have made the same improvements from within the England team?

A guy who at one point averaged something like 40 with bat, and 22/23 with ball in county cricket, ignored for years on end, is not going to be the type of person who says "yeah, the management of this team are all tossers".