Third Test: England v South Africa, The Oval, July 27-31

[sussexpob]

The reasoning we agree with, the only difference is that ali has shown glimpses (average of 47 last year) of top 6 quality, so I'd give him the 6 slot and assess at the year end. Forcing Stokes down and bringing wakes back to 8 makes me much happier

[rich1uk]

i just think if we are going to play the extra bowler then play the extra bowler, dont fudge the issue by picking a bit and pieces player like Dawson

[sussexpob]

Yeah. It seems an acceptance we have no stand out spinner so may as well go for a batter who can turn their arm

[sussexpob]

Oh for Graeme swann to be 25 again...

[westoelad]

Yeah. It seems an acceptance we have no stand out spinner so may as well go for a batter who can turn their arm

Yes, it's a sad inditement of the dearth of quality spinners rather than the quality of Dawson himself.For reasons of their own they've discarded Rashid in favour of a bowler who hopefully offers economy over wicket taking. Hard to think of any alternatives nor is the situation likely to improve given the truncated and scheduling of CC programme.

[bigfluffylemon]

Bottom line. Stokes isn't a 6, ali needs to be dropped unless he performs as a top 6. Dawson needs the boot, and replaced with a bowler.

Woakes is a perfect 8

Sussex, for once I'm in 100% agreement with your assessment of Stokes!

Some good stuff here from all posters. Hard to disagree with any of it, and what's making the selection really confused is the fact that there just isn't a decent spinner in England at the moment to be a main bowling option. The selectors get themselves into a muddle where they feel any spinner picked has to be a competent bat to make up for not being a great bowler, and end up picking bits and pieces players who don't add enough in either disciplince.

Still, this isn't exactly new territory for England, in fact it's familiar. Between the retirement of Underwood in 1982 and the emergence of firstly Panesar in 2006 then more importantly Swann in 2008, England never had a decent spinner. It's almost certainly no coincidence that England lost an awful lot during that period, and were at their best they've been for 30 years when Swann was there, but there were periods of success too. For example the 1986-7 Ashes, with John Embury as spinner, a man who finished with a test average of over 38, and the 2003-2005 golden period with Ashley Giles as the man in the spinner seat (test average over 40). However those two were also competent number 8 bats, and picked for that as well as their spin bowling (and thus contributed to a balanced side that was able to win against tough opposition), the difference is that they were still picked as bowlers first, with the batting giving them the edge over other (also not very good) spinners, rather than being picked as allrounders, as Botham and Flintoff took those spots. However, the thinking that a spinner has to either be a Warne/Swann or bat a bit seems to have infected the selectors thinking.

I'd argue that Moeen is at least as good a bowler as Giles or Emburey, although he offers less control (but a considerably better SR, so the average ends up about the same). There's also no-one in county cricket who's obviously a far superior spinner, as evidenced from the India tour. Outside the subcontinent, there should be no issue with Moeen being the main spinner in the side, with backup from Root, apart from the fact that apparently he doesn't want to be. But the selectors need to decide what role Moeen needs to play and pick him for that, with his other skills being gravy, rather than trying to shoehorn him in where he doesn't fit and then picking bits-and-pieces players to cover perceived gaps.

[sussexpob]

The point about lack of spin is generally sound, but Jack leach provides the exception to the rule. I guess it depends on how you feel about the chucking accusation, and by that I mean if you believe it.

Personally I really don't. Peter Trego, his county captain, was bang on for me when he said at the start of the year that it's Somerset's belief the England team sold him down the river as an answer to the pretty loud criticism of him not going to india, especially when Dawson went.

Aside from why a coaching team would go into a detailed assessment of the legality of an action that had never been questioned by anyone else, the story didn't add up at all.

They didn't even seem to be able to agree on a timeline. He was found out in September, but when it was pointed out he was with his county it changed to October. Then he wasn't given a spot on the Lions tour in February till after the tour got under way due to his remedial work not being ready after testing....Obviously they forgot that they picked him in UAE in December and January, there was no gap in his playing that they refer to.

Pretty shambolic, but through a needless action change and questions of attitude (which was the original reason for none selection leaked, but uturned on it when it proved it didn't silence questions).. he averages 30 a wicket in div 1

If a guy can come through all that and still be doing well, then I'm sure it's a testament to his character to take pressure.

There have been rumours his personality, a little trampy of the field and a bit of a grunger, are held against him.

[bigfluffylemon]

There have been rumours his personality, a little trampy of the field and a bit of a grunger, are held against him.

There is clearly some element of picking players on personality rather than performance, and that's been the case since the Fletcher years.

[westoelad]

Excellent article by Atherton in today's Times on the England selection process. Brearley also arguing against Crane's England selection at present.

[dan08]

Westley and Malan named in the squad.

[dan08]

Dawson survives...

[Dr Cricket]

Find it crazy Ali not allowed at 8.
If he the best spinner he bats at 8 end of.
If he bats higher England wasting all rounder spot and playing 10 men.
They in a muddle because Ali not allowed at 8 and broad not trusted at 8 either.

[Aidan11]

Looks like Westley will definitely play and Malan will play only if they decide to go with an extra batsman.

[alfie]

Looks like Westley will definitely play and Malan will play only if they decide to go with an extra batsman.

Might be wishful thinking on my part ; but I would have thought there is not much point in calling up Malan unless they wish to play him.
England squads always used to be like this : thirteen , including a bit of injury cover in the bowling and a final choice as to which type of bowlers fills the last spot...

Not an extra batsman ; so much as a reversion to normal.

Whether Westley and Malan are the right choices remains to be seen. But I am glad to see they are apparently trying to establish a working batting order instead of just hoping it will all fix itself...

[rich1uk]

from what i've read they didn't go with Stoneman as they wanted to keep Jennings in the opener spot and didn't want to continue with three left-handers in the top 3