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

[Durhamfootman]

perhaps that's why we like talking about cricket so much. perhaps it should be like that

[Arthur Crabtree]

I get the feeling that if ZBGB came out and scored a lovely fluid ton in the second innings, it would be written off as only scoring when the match was in the bag anyway

There will be some scepticism, but that is justified on past performances. He will overcome that by doing consistently well, as Bairstow has. No one now writes off good JB performances as being meaningless.

Probably could segue this point into a consideration of the career of Ian Bell, but we don't need to do that anymore. Perhaps some people do never live down their reputations.

[Arthur Crabtree]

i didn't think Ballance's dismissal was anything to do with his previous technical isues, he just played down the wrong line to a ball that was angling him to him from around the wicket

He was stuck way back in the crease to a full ball though and couldn't get forward. and the angle of delivery was reminiscent of a previous weakness.

[Durhamfootman]

There will be some scepticism, but that is justified on past performances. He will overcome that by doing consistently well, as Bairstow has. No one now writes off good JB performances as being meaningless.

Certainly he has proved his worth in shorter stuff, but has YJB done it at test level though? (Forgive me if he has, I don't watch much test cricket these days)

[rich1uk]

i didn't think Ballance's dismissal was anything to do with his previous technical isues, he just played down the wrong line to a ball that was angling him to him from around the wicket

He was stuck way back in the crease to a full ball though and couldn't get forward. and the angle of delivery was reminiscent of a previous weakness.

he wasn't anywhere near as deep as he was getting before he got dropped, yes he got caught a bit flat footed but that happens to every batsman and i think the comaprisons to his previous flaw have been a bit of an over-reaction

previously he was going back into his crease and getting trapped right on top of his stumps, his front foot today was actually in front of the crease for that lbw

might be just a minor distinction but i think its an important one

[rich1uk]

There will be some scepticism, but that is justified on past performances. He will overcome that by doing consistently well, as Bairstow has. No one now writes off good JB performances as being meaningless.

Certainly he has proved his worth in shorter stuff, but has YJB done it at test level though? (Forgive me if he has, I don't watch much test cricket these days)

he averaged 58.8 last year over a 17 test stretch

[Arthur Crabtree]

To be fair (and I did say I was taking his dismissal in isolation) he did play some pretty good drives in a fairly text book (if ungraceful) style.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Stats for Test batting since JB came back into the England side in July 2015. For England, behind only Root.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

[rich1uk]

To be fair (and I did say I was taking his dismissal in isolation) he did play some pretty good drives in a fairly text book (if ungraceful) style.

i think there is an element of now that Ballance has a reputation for having technical problems that his dismissal today is being judged with that preconception rather than just looked at on its merits

its alot harder to shake a reputation than get it in the first place and we tend to keep associating players with that reputation for years even if it doesn't apply

[Dr Cricket]

Pathetic another 3 overs lost to overrated.

[bigfluffylemon]

Root

I guess we were all right then. Lord's invites early wickets, but get through the first session and a half, and runs are there for the taking. And how many times have we seen the 'England are 3-4 down for not much, Root plus Stokes/Moeen/YJB to the rescue?'. If only England could sort out batting positions 2 and 3 (and find a world class spinner), they'd be a top side.

I think lots of people have players they like having in the side and seeing doing well, and others that they don't enjoy the success of. And it's hard to say why anyone is in either camp. For instance, I always want/ed Broad and KP to do well purely I think because they were criticised so much and unrealistically. Not because they are easy to warm to as people. I like Woakes and Mo because they, in the context of international sport, they seem to be above average mensch. I'm always going to be more tolerant of these players' performances than I will be of others.

I don't know. There are players that I wouldn't support being picked, but once players are picked, I want everyone playing for England to be successful. But I know there are some people who seem to find fault with certain players, no matter how well they perform (KP and Stokes seem to fall into that category for a lot of people, perhaps because of their off-field personalities).

[m@tt]

There will be some scepticism, but that is justified on past performances. He will overcome that by doing consistently well, as Bairstow has. No one now writes off good JB performances as being meaningless.

Certainly he has proved his worth in shorter stuff, but has YJB done it at test level though? (Forgive me if he has, I don't watch much test cricket these days)

I think it's more that he's proved his worth in the longer stuff! From the South Africa tour onwards, he's come on leaps and bounds as a Test batsman.

The clamour to get him in the ODI side was a bit exaggerated - I read some people claiming that he was our best ODI batsman (despite him not having an ODI century), and even once saw someone claiming he was our best T20 bat (after his first international T20 innings for about 2 years).

[Durhamfootman]

fair enough

I haven't really watched test cricket for some time. For some reason I had it in my head that Buttler had been keeping of late

stupid of me, I know

blame Sky!

[alfie]

I'm not a ZBGB apologist, btw, even though I thought he deserved his call up, but the narrative seems to be that he has to fail so that everyone else can be right about him, and I don't think he deserves that.

It may well be that he is doomed to fail in this series, but it's barely started, so it all seems a bit premature

Ballance might make a Test number five ....but he will never be a number three.

Edit : I am not normally so dogmatic ; but I'm pretty convinced on this. And I do feel some sympathy for him being saddled with this spot on his (justified) return. I fear for team and player if he were tasked with this job in Australia later this year !
Still like to see a proper three next match and maybe Ballance given a shot lower down.

[sussexpob]

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.