Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Surely it should be Willey In.

Did feel that Plunkett was the bowler who did most to advance his claims in these matches - though it may not automatically win him a place when Stokes and Woakes return. Nice options , with Willey looking underdone and a bit of a concern ; they would like a leftie for variety I'm sure.
May be a bit of a horses for courses selection anyway : if it looks like a swingy day surely Willey is a must ; some pitches may lend themselves better than others to more overs of spin.
Was interesting to see Root bowl so much. Looks a strong hint that he could be the sixth bowler at least in some games. (Which could also open up a spot for Bairstow - though they may feel the batting is long enough already)

Beating Ireland convincingly proves nothing much . But it confirms they have a pretty handy outfit tuning up for the tournament . Only Roy's form is perhaps a bit of a worry -Rashid came in for some stick in the second game but that is going to happen sometimes to a wrist spinner.

I think they are looking a very strong chance leading in.

Aidan11 wrote:Surely it should be Willey In.

alfie wrote:I think they are looking a very strong chance leading in.

With Stokes making a sixth bowler (I read he's advanced in IPL) there is quite a bit of versatility within the six man attack. If Willey (or whoever) only bowls with the new ball, it doesn't matter. If Wood (or whoever) only bowls in the last 20, that's fine. If Rashid only bowls a spell, that can be accommodated.

I hope they don't pick seven batters, or five seamers. That speaks of a conditioned response and a lack of confidence (though everyone should be conditioned to expect negative outcomes to this reflex). And England having JB1or2 or Stokes coming in at seven is really a downgrading of their ability. Pick a wrist spinner and an orthodox spinner (they all bat) and be flexible and sympathetic in their use. And ignore the typically knee jerk predictability of the commentators and press.

I've seen posters getting Bairstow in the side by dropping Buttler down to seven and squeezing out a bowler. That feels so depressingly fearful and outmoded.

Morgan said in an interview the day after the match that putting a specialist batsman at 7 would be a waste.

Bairstow's obviously a good player, but it's not some travesty that he doesn't fit into the first choice XI. It's great that England have to make these kind of decisions and that they have someone so capable to step up if someone gets injured or loses all form.

Pleased to see Roy getting a brisk forty odd for Surrey the other day...he needs some batting to tune up after a lean patch.

Picking up on the comments above : I don't expect - or want - England to change from the current formula with a full book of bowlers ; though I don't totally agree with the notion that a batsman at seven is "a waste" : if you are 220/3 after forty it probably is ; but if you were to be four or five down on a bowler friendly pitch halfway through it might be rather welcome !

In any case , as Arthur points out , they can all bat , so it doesn't matter that much. I do feel though that if , say , the match against Australia were to be played in what looked like seam bowler helpful conditions there might be a case for Bairstow in place of a Moeen who may not be needed to bowl...Root is quite capable of providing a few overs if necessary. I can't see any situation in which they'd want five fast bowlers.

The squad does look pleasingly well equipped to cover for injuries.

@Alfie - I think a *specialist* batsman at 7 is a complete waste. However our first choice XI has Ali (2 ODI centuries) at 7 and Woakes (top score 95*) at 8, so we do bat deep and have the batting to recover from being 4-5 down early.