The Ashes: Australia in England 16th Jun - 31 July

[GarlicJam]

English papers claiming its going to be Brook moving to 3. I am not sure I like that idea at all. On paper, Brook has done ok this series, but I think out of all the batsman from both sides, he has had the most luck of all of them. Been dropped 3? times I think. And he has never really looked that comfortable at the crease, looks one ball away permanently.

Id personally have got Foakes in, and put Jonny at 1-2, Crawley at 3.

I think Brook at three is a good thing for Aus.

I see him as a hit or miss threat, but likely to be more successful down the order. More likely to be found out at 3.

[Durhamfootman]

Root should have moved up to 3. He was prepared to, seemingly

[Arthur Crabtree]

Root might have batted at three ahead of Pope. Seems to be a plan to keep him at four.

[bigfluffylemon]

Desperation moves. They seldom end well.

Not sure if Anderson is injured, but presumably being rotated out. There was no way he was playing five back-to-back tests at his age. Unfortunately it is finally looking as if age might have caught up with him.

[alfie]

I'm OK with that XI , given what they have ready. I'd have preferred another batsman instead of Moeen but who knows ? Maybe his finger will be fine this time and he will get some vital wickets...

Bowler rotation seems reasonable. In theory having more fresh options might give some advantage against Australia - though of course the fact that the amount of time each team spend in the field is so different will always rather negate that. Glad to see Wood is apparently fit and ready to go.

Brook at three is risky ; and Bairstow at five while also keeping isn't quite the same as having him play there as a pure batsman ; but if either or both come off they could put a lot of pressure back on the Aussies.

Take the chances , avoid the no balls : manage those two things better and they should be right in the contest again.

[sussexpob]

The English press and commentators have always had a wet dream about someone who can bowl 90mph, and unsurprisingly they are in overdrive about England finding the missing piece of the jigsaw now Wood is back. I have some sympathy for this argument when you are faced with conditions that don't swing or seam, and where good line and length bowling can be blocked out; having a brute force option in these situations isn't a bad idea just to get the batsman a little on their toes.

But in English conditions, its all about accuracy and using the assistance in the air or off the pitch. And Wood's brute force approach of slamming quick short balls into the centre of the pitch and wasting the conditions on offer isn't really a compelling tactical approach. I mean, lets just look at some stats.....Since Wood debuted in tests on 21 May 2015...

England have a win ratio at home of 1.77 in matches Wood has not played. They win far more than they lose.
England have a win ratio at home of 0.5 in matches Wood has played. They lose two matches for every win.

You then look at individual bowling. For any bowler that has played 3 matches during Wood's career span at home.....

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engin ... pe=bowling

Ah yes. There is Wood, bottom of the list by quite a margin. Interesting that all the top 5 are on the medium side of fast. Craig Overton has the same strike rate as Jofra Archer. It would seem increased pace leads to thinning returns as a trend.

Maybe he is going to tear Australia apart now, but I don't really get the hype.

[sussexpob]

Picking Moeen also feels like even more of a risk than it was a couple of weeks ago. He didn't bowl well at all, and I think it says a lot that England compromised their tactical approach at Lords to drop him. He averaged nearly 60 at Headingley during his career, so its going to be debatable what use he will have this match. Part of me thinks there maybe some goodwill involved - they dragged him out of self-imposed retirement to play, and probably dont want to drop him after one test after he answered the call. But at 2-0 down, I think England need to be prepared to take some risks. I'd have gone elsewhere

[alfie]

I know you are not a Wood fan , Sussex. And I wouldn't disagree his record at home is ordinary at best . Not expecting him to be a wrecker here either - but I do think his extra pace will provide a bit of useful variety to the attack. Especially if we get another lifeless track ; which hopefully we won't !

Reckon with Woakes providing more Anderson-type stuff and the two retained seamers they have at least reasonable variety . Could make a case for the left arm of Sam Curran but it may be we will see that later , perhaps at The Oval ?

[alfie]

Picking Moeen also feels like even more of a risk than it was a couple of weeks ago. He didn't bowl well at all, and I think it says a lot that England compromised their tactical approach at Lords to drop him. He averaged nearly 60 at Headingley during his career, so its going to be debatable what use he will have this match. Part of me thinks there maybe some goodwill involved - they dragged him out of self-imposed retirement to play, and probably dont want to drop him after one test after he answered the call. But at 2-0 down, I think England need to be prepared to take some risks. I'd have gone elsewhere

Might be right about not wanting to abort the experiment after just one try ! Though I suppose if you say they need to take risks - and he is certainly a risk - then they are doing as you recommend

Seriously he wouldn't have been my choice (I didn't like the original "call up") . But I also have to admit there weren't too many alternates leaping out .

Curious to know where you would prefer to have gone ? Ahmed , perhaps ?

[sussexpob]

Reckon with Woakes providing more Anderson-type stuff and the two retained seamers they have at least reasonable variety . Could make a case for the left arm of Sam Curran but it may be we will see that later , perhaps at The Oval ?

Considering Anderson and Broad are expected to retire soon, Wood is 33 with a long injury past, Woakes is 34 and has had injury issues, and Stokes has concerns on his long term fitness, I think its almost impossible to predict who will be on the radar for the selectors to consider for England's bowling future....

But I think moving to Potts/Tongue says a lot to me. I would be surprised if Curran and Craig Overton play another test for England, I think the team has moved on to other options.

[sussexpob]

Curious to know where you would prefer to have gone ? Ahmed , perhaps ?

I'd have considered Bess based on his experience at the ground. But probably have gone Ahmed.... he did take a 5-for on debut, and he is the future. Seems a bit weird to me they took a blind punt on him out the blue, he did well, then they got shy about playing him. If he does terribly, so be it, but at least its part of the learning curve.

I like Moeen, and I'd like to see him do well before fading back to retirement. I dont have much faith he will!

[alfie]

Potts and Tongue are offering a bit of hope for the future , indeed. But I will be surprised if we don't see Curran again at some point ; possibly in Asia. His batting ability stands out from the rest which can't be ignored. Plus the left arm angle.

[sussexpob]

Potts and Tongue are offering a bit of hope for the future , indeed. But I will be surprised if we don't see Curran again at some point ; possibly in Asia. His batting ability stands out from the rest which can't be ignored. Plus the left arm angle.

I looked at Curran sometime ago, and seen the potential of a proper batsman there. But I think he's focused on both disciplines, and neither have developed into enough to keep him in the side now. Back in the late 2000s, I'd have said the same of Broad. If Broad had dumped bowling and really wanted to be a batsman, I think if he'd switched early enough, he'd been a decent one. But he became a top bowler, and ditched it, and has digressed into a proper lower order bat now. A shame, because when he was younger, he had a lovely technique.

And he's not young enough to really correct that anymore. Maybe slightly contradictory to my original point regarding the usefulness of pace, but there is a limit. Curran can on occasions boomerang the ball with swing, but at 70mph its just way too tame for good test players. And away from home without the swing, it's not good enough at test level.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The main wicket taking tactic in the last Test was the bouncer. Maybe that encouraged England to go to their quickest bowler. Perhaps they always planned it. I'd have kept Tongue though.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Boland and Murphy are in for Haze and Lyon. So big changes to both atttacks.