“Hey look everyone. We might be as dull as dishwater, with all the charisma of damp dish cloths, but us selectors are a funky bunch. We don’t care about age. You can be 19 or 38. It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t really matter how you perform in the county championship either. We know best. Which is why, presumably, Andrew Strauss is thinking of sacking us all.”
As you can probably tell, I’m a bit of a cynic when it comes to England’s selectors. I have no confidence in James Whitaker, who rarely says anything remotely insightful, and neither do I rate amiable old Gus Fraser, who despite being a good bloke I wouldn’t mind sharing a pint with, never really impressed me as a journalists or pundit. And as for Mick Newell, well, haven’t Notts just been relegated?
Consequently – and I really hate to sound so miserable – I’m in a negative frame of mind before our selectors do anything. I don’t believe that Fraser and Newell should have been made selectors in the first place because of the conflict of interest with Middlesex and Notts. Therefore, it is from a rather cynical and jaundiced perspective that I cast my eye over the squad for Bangladesh. I advise taking a deep breath folks …
Now before I get to the two big stories – the inclusion of the artefact and the embryo – I’d just like to mention that I have doubts about several other picks too. Jos Buttler should not be in the squad. He’s played little first class cricket and hasn’t earned his place. Ben Foakes, who has played a full season of red ball cricket for Surrey and done well with both bat and ball, should be going instead. Foakes is the best pure wicket-keeper in the country and, although I doubt the selectors even considered this, chances might be at a premium in India.
Talking of India, why did the selectors only name a squad for Bangladesh? There’s about a week between the 2nd test in Dhaka and the first test in India. Any replacements will be as undercooked as pink chicken. Surely the squad for India will be identical? Sometimes I just don’t get the logic.
I’m afraid that I’m not a fan of Ansari’s selection either. It’s not because I don’t rate him; I’ve seen him make a hundred live and there’s a lot to like about him as an all-round cricketer. The problem is that he’s not the best left-arm spinner in the country. He might not be in the top three if we’re being honest. Why do we insist on picking spinners for their batting?
While Ansari has had an injury ravaged season, and taken 22 championship wickets at 31, Somerset’s Jack Leach has 58 wickets at just 23. We keep hearing there’s no spin bowling talent in the country, yet we ignore a bloke who’s just taken 6 wickets in an innings against the champions at Headingley. Although his county captain says that Leach is immature – although he could simply be scared of losing him to a central contract – all I care about is whether Leach can bowl. Monty Panesar was loved for his childlike persona. And Shane Warne was always a bit of a big kid too.
And now we move on to the two headline decisions. We’ll start with young Haseeb Hameed -the first teenager to be picked by England since Ben Hollioake. From what I’ve seen he looks like a classy player with a great deal of promise. I hope he goes on to score shedloads of runs. There’s just one problem: two other young openers scored more runs than him this season. In fact, Durham’s Keaton Jennings scored a lot more runs than him: 1522 runs at an astonishing average of 69 no less.
Has Hameed actually earned his place? I bet you a pound to a penny that Hameed wouldn’t be going if Sami Aslam hadn’t looked so good for Pakistan. Is the Hameed pick too reactionary? Hardly anyone has seem him play. Three weeks ago Ashely Giles warned against picking him too early – “this winter might be a little too early for him”. Now he’s actually been picked Giles seems to have changed his tune. I guess the ECB can always depend on our Ash to toe the party line.
I also worry about Hameed’s scoring rate – not because I necessarily believe we need an attacking foil for Cook (anyone who has seen me bat will know that I’m a patient opener myself) but because the last time we picked a stodgy opener it didn’t really work out. If you remember correctly, Nick Compton was initially dropped because games usually ground to a halt at the start of England’s innings.
When pressed on this issue on Sky this morning, Whitaker spouted the usual guff about Cook having ‘all the shots’ these days. Seriously folks, I really worry about Whitaker’s cricketing IQ. Cook scored quickly against Pakistan because they kept feeding his cut shot. He hasn’t suddenly metamorphosed into Matthew Hayden after one month of scoring more quickly than he has done for the last eight years.
Last, but not least, we move on to Gareth Batty. Now before I get stuck in I want to make one thing clear: I love Gareth Batty. As a Worcestershire fan I know only too well what he brings to the table: he’s a good bowler and a great character. However – and I hate to put the boot in – there is no rationale whatsoever for his selection. Batty’s had a solid but unremarkable season, taking 41 wickets at 31, plus he’s 38 years old. That’s 4 years older than Ian Bell, who apparently has no future.
I bet you the selectors see Batty as the new Shaun Udal. What they forget is that Udal had Monty at the other end. Age isn’t my primary beef re: Batty though. Once again there was a far more deserving candidate who has been ignored. Ollie Rayner has been the best off-spinner in England by a country mile this summer. He’s taken 50 wickets at 22. What’s more, we also shouldn’t forget that six of India’s likely top seven are right handers. It’s probably a daft idea to be looking at off-spinners in the first place, especially as Moeen Ali will be in the team. No cricket teams needs two right-arm orthodox twirlers.
Anyway, before I sign off, I’d should mention the one, single positive aspect of the squad. And no, it’s not the retention of Gary Ballance, who I would’ve dropped. I’m referring, of course, to the inclusion of Ben Duckett.
I’ve seen Duckett a couple of times now and he looks like a really exciting talent. If England insist on batting Moeen at four – another daft idea they’re apparently considering – it could be that Duckett and Hameed are competing for the same opener’s spot. If so, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bayliss watches them both side-by-side in the nets, falls in love with Duckett, and Hameed carries the drinks all tour.
James Morgan
Well said as usual James.
I can only agree regarding Hameed. I’d never heard of him until a couple of weeks ago and lets not forget that most commentators were gushing about Daniel Bell Drummond a few weeks ago and where is he now?
Batty, gets on my nerves with eye popping, fist pumping manic look of a rabid dog on amphetamines. Nothing more to say on that subject, just don’t like him.
Whitaker said on Sky today that he often goes to Batty for advice! What a bizarre chairman of selectors we have.
Totally bizarre! The whole panel should be dropped (as I thought had been mooted, not that long ago).
Re Growltiger’s comment: buried away in the storm about Morgan, Strauss said he is not going to reform the selection panel. He said the system worked, but they could use video evidence better.
I suspect the real reason is that the selectors are a useful lightening rod for flak that would otherwise fall on Strauss and Bayliss. As things are, Strauss can get anyone he really wants into (or out of!) the team but doesn’t get much of the blame. That’s not a bad arrangement from his viewpoint.
Picked his mate then !!! selection is pointless jobs for the boys
I guess that Ansari was picked for this tour mainly because he was picked for the previous one. He is a seriously good cricketer, though, so that isn’t an entirely fatuous reason. We have just seen what he can do, batting long on a difficult wicket against a top-class attack. I cannot see why they didn’t drop Ballance (who really didn’t convince when recalled, on insufficient evidence of improvement) and send Jennings as well as Hamid.
Has Tredwell gone down the pan then? He bowled well when he was out in the UAE last time. Always thought he was underrated. I don’t follow much of the county cricket scene now so am not sure how he has performed. (I know he dropped down the pecking order last season for Kent)
Tredwell has been playing since the first few weeks of the season but has just 20 wickets at 45 (one could add D2 wickets but apparently that isn’t an issue any more – I wonder why not?).
He lost his place in 2014 and some of 2015 to Adam Riley who was the great hope of English spin bowling in 2014. He’s played 3 matches and taken 0/146 this season. There was some talk his decline coincided with a visit to Loughbrough.
Thanks Simon, appreciate your time.
Buttler, Batty and Ansari selections do grate me, I must confess. Buttler has just played his first FC game in nearly a year (the last being the 2nd test in the UAE, upon which he was dropped from the test team). I’ve watched a fair bit of Batty as I go to the Oval a fair bit and he’s become a solid enough bowler in county cricket but the fact that bowlers who’ve been more successful such as Leach and Raynor having been overlooked is daft, or one might say batty!
Ansari, I’ve never seen as anything more than a competent, accurate spinner at first class level, whose main forte is with the bat.
Overall a bit depressing really. I do think England will probably win in Bangladesh, or at least not lose as they have no Mustafizur and haven’t played test cricket in over a year. However the lack of spin options will cost England in India
Bangladesh also seem likely to be without Taskin (who was cited in very odd circumstances in the T20I WC and there’s no record his action has since been cleared) and Rubal who’s fallen out with the board.
Super article. I agree with it all. Very insightful
Bring back Geoff Miller is all I can say. We have dispensed with all logic in selecting squads and teams. What message does the selection of Batty send to young talented players knocking on the door who would have gained great experience from this tour even if only on the fringes?
Another Geoff Miller-ism that comes back is they’ve picked 17 and left it to the coach to form a team out of that. 17 seems ridiculous for a two-Test series.
I thought that too, but I’m being told it’s the squad for India also (not sure if that’s correct)
And that Bangladesh is basically our warm up game as we have none in India?
“Bring back Geoff Miller”? As a selector, or as an off spinning all rounder? Nothing is entirely out of the question with England’s selectors. By the way, if you ever get a chance to listen to Geoff Miller as an after dinner speaker, take it. He’s brilliant!
Agree, his take on the Geoff Boycott wife beating allegations is hilarious, as is the story of when he got Viv Richards out at Headingley.
The record of teenaged opening batsmen in Tests isn’t very encouraging (I’d post the table but WordPress doesn’t seem to like them). England of course have never picked one (or a 20 year old opener, come to that). The only teenager to open in more than two Tests and average more than 30 is…. Shahid Afridi! A few who opened as teenagers went on to have good Test careers (like Hanif) but most reside in the where-are-they-now file.
Is Jennings actually England qualified? I believe he was born in Sedeffriker.
Yes Jennings qualified in March but there has been a bit of misinformation out there that also confused my good self the other day. He was definitely available for selection.
The selectors are useless, since Bruce been there they’ve been useless and it’s a matter of time before Strauss drops them. Strauss should be head of selectors, with a panel of farnrace and Bayliss plus either Hussein or key imo.(knight has to be a one day selector!). Is there a rule that the selectors can’t be media men? Nass and key are very good on sky but other countries have selectors working in the media.
Ben Duckett has the Midas touch and I’ve been impressed ever since I saw the under19 World Cup. My own prediction is he will probably end up being a middle order player -4/5.
The non selection of Jennings or leach is a farce. A disgrace.
They’ve picked hameed because he’s always been tipped to be a great player and I guess are fed up of picking the 25-27 year olds who’ve been through the lions set up and ticked all the boxes I guess. It’s a risk but I wouldn’t bet against him being here to stay
Yes there’s a convention in England that you can’t be a selector if you work prominently in the media. Yet it’s fine to be a selector if you work full time for a county. Absurd.
Confirmation that they prefer conflict of interest to openness ?
Selection will always be a difficult one. My view is that as an opener you have to have more than one good season behind you in order to play for England. Jennings has been sensational for Durham but before this has been little more than average. Hameed is the same but they obviously think there is something in him , he’s young so let’s hope he can do the business.
The one that baffles me is the Batty selection. I’ve got nothing against him but u have a feeling that he will be utter fodder in the sub continent . Just pick Ali and Rashid with a young back up spinner with promise such as Jack Leach and have done with it. Horses for courses selections don’t wash with me.
I haven’t seen Leach bowl, but I notice he’s got 100 first class wickets in 32 matches, and is 25. Surely old enough to be given a go, if he’s good enough? As for Hameed – saw him Sept. 2015 – he scored 14 & 44 but, at 18 years old, looked extremely composed and quite stylish. I’m not surprised he’s been selected this year.
For me, by the way, I’d have left out Ballance and Buttler (Duckett can be reserve keeper) and would have selected Jennings and Northeast in their place.
I generally agree with your views but have to disagree about Hameed and Jennings. Jennings has scored a few more than Hameed (1522 to 1411). But my real disagreement is around red ball potential. The very reason I like Hameed is his strike rate and pure technique. It is for Cook, with 100+ tests, to manage tempo. Yes, Jennings has done well this season but his record before 2016 looks far less impressive and he has some of the baseball technical flaws common to Buttler, Hales etc. Hameed is a risk, but one worth taking. I just hope Lancashire do not damage his technique as Warwicks have with Sam Hain by pushing him in ODI/T20.
The Batty selection is barmy but pales into irrelevance next to the idiocy of taking Buttler. Why take a man whose red ball technique has been repeatedly exposed and who is a good club standard keeper when there is a player who is a decent keeper with proper batting technique (when he is not being pushed as a white ball specialist) – Sam Billings.
And finally, a small prod. Rayner may have done well but 50 at 22 but I assume your view should read the best English qualified off spinner. As for the last 4-5 years Jeetan Patel’s 64 at 24 on less helpful wickets in a strangely struggling team is more impressive (especially as he does it year after year).
Isn’t Jeetan Patel a New Zealander?
Precisely my point. Patel is ‘the best off spinner in England’, not Rayner. Rayner may be the best English off spinner.
I meant the best off spinner available in England. Or the best English off spinner. Patel is an excellent bowler.
A great post with fascinating comments following. I have read all with interest but have to confess that as a potential selector I’m none the wiser. Bring it on Bayliss, Farbrace and Cook! It’s going to be an interesting two tests.
Hameed has scored an unbelievable amount of runs in his first full season. He is in the squad because he is prodigiously talented. Whilst Jennings can count himself unlucky given the runs he has scored he hasn’t really scored enough until now, likewise with Gubbins. Whilst Duckett has scored more runs he doesn’t deserve to be above Hameed in th pecking order. Division 1 runs are more valuable after all.
As for strike rate he has the shots he is just conservative and plays the bowling on merit. Against Yorkshire he scored 100 of about 120. And lets face it playing the way any given situation requires and playing the bowling on it’s merit is better than getting out to a stupid shot.
Hameed is also a rarity ,as generally youngsters play more list A than first class games. Hameed is an exception to the rule in the sense that he has learnt to block first and slog later not the other way around. For all those who bemoan the death of this type of player Hameed is a godsend.
Hi Alex. I’m one of the people who bemoan the lack of classical test batsmen. I like what I’ve seen from Hameed (but like most people what I’ve seen is very limited) and I hope he scores shit loads of runs and breaks all records. I’m just worried because his county coach said this winter would be too soon for him. I assume Leach was left out for similar reasons but Hameed is 5/6 years younger. It just seems like a massive gamble. It may well pan out, and I really hope it does, I’m just a little concerned. I don’t trust our selectors and I never know whether they’re making decisions for sensible reasons or because they’re worried what people might think of them. Fraser is notoriously touchy and sensitive. I wonder whether Hameed and Batty came up in the same conversation: ‘they can’t complain about us being uber conservative and picking a 38 year old if we simultaneously pick a 19 year old’. That might sound far fetched but these guys are very sensitive to criticism.
There has unfortunately never been any rational formula for selection. Occasionally being in good form gets you called up Lyth and Bairstow ect but for some consistently performing for years gets them nowhere. Just ask James Hildreth or Mark Stoneman. When the cricket watching public say they are unimaginative they come up with downright stupid selections. Stupid not imaginative. Gareth Batty? As you and others said other spinners such as Leach or Rayner deserve a place. The selection of Ansari leaves many asking why as he appears to do nothing which sets him apart from players like Moeen and Rashid. I was disappointed Gary Ballance was recalled for the Sri Lanka series. His championship form since his dropping had been unspectacular. It seemed like the perfect opportunity to give a player like Borthwick a go, an easy reintroduction to test cricket and the opportunity to see a potential candidate (an in form one by all accounts) have a go at filling a spot in the brittle middle order with the added bonus of looking at his spin option before a challenging winter on the subcontinent
I would have taken Rather or Leach to Bangledash and it they did not impress , take Batty to India. Typical lack of foresight.
Agree the selectors are a joke how can Gus be a selector he should be spending every hour working to make modes better.
The selection panel ought to be disbanded and a shortlist should be created based on stats. A team of full time scouts, who have no jobs with counties on the side, should be paid to watch these players play and report on them to Cook and Bayliss. The ultimate decision should rest with them.
Based on stats, neither Vaughan or Trescothick would ever have played for England.
The implied theme that the biggest problem with English cricket is the selectors seems the real issue. I do not know the answer. I agree that Whitaker, Fraser and Newell are unfit both for reasons of conflicting loyalties and inadequate personal abilities. However Bayliss does not seem any better. Reports suggest that Bayliss is the great supporter of Buttler as a test bat and keeper. What is it that he sees? Why does he think white ball brilliance means a player can succeed in tests? Perhaps the time has come to give cricket followers a real stake in the national team by having county members elect a 3 man selection panel; it would be interesting to see the choices of the masses rather than those imposed from the medieval towers of the ECB and MCC.
Everybody tars Fraser and Newell with this ‘conflict’ tag yet as far as I can see only Robson, Hales and Ball have made debuts for the test team from their counties and Hales was already in the England set up.
As far as the current squad, I kind of like the selection of Batty because there’s something Cork-ish about his jaggy nature which I like. I understand Ansari because whatever they saw in him last year presumably still stands. The one I don’t get is Buttler over Foakes. I admit I only saw Foakes for the first time recently but he looked the real deal, and I’ve never really rated Joss in red ball cricket. Perhaps they thought that Ansari, Hameed and Duckett they had enough greenhorns.
The thing I’m most disappointed with is the fact that they are sticking with the current system because that’s what I would change. I don’t think the current team are as bad as people on here make out (barring the ‘Ali’s an opener’ idea, they certainly haven’t had a Darren Pattinson moment). I disagree with some selections, but by and large I can’t really argue with the majority of players that turn up to play. I would change the whole structure of the system with a selection panel responsible for identifying an elite squad to make up the England and Lions teams and the England coach/captain having carte blanche to pick the team from that.
Quite like that. Notice how hard it was for Taylor to get selected, although it was blindingly obvious he should have been, Mike Newell. Lumb – brilliant for England white ball and dropped for Notts gain…….
I simply think our selectors are poor. I’d have Collingwood – understands what’s needed, know what’s out there, but it won’t happen.
Collingwood? The man who, on Woakes ODI debut when he hit the Australians for 6 to win the game, said that he didn’t know that Woakes could bat? And this was 5 years after Woakes FC debut.
Just a quick point re: the conflict of interest. I imagine it’s possible there are Notts and Middlesex players who don’t get picked precisely because the selectors don’t want to be accused of bias. The whole situation works both ways and just makes things incredibly messy. And there’s really no need for it. It’s just a very daft situation – and one that Geoff Miller specifically warned against. The problem is one of perception. Guys like Fraser are impeccably honest, and I really don’t think there would ever be any intentional bias, but the situation makes things complicated and can create a perception of bias. Caesar’s wife etc
Regardless who the selectors pick, the batsmen will feast and people will crow (as well as massage stats for a later crow). Bowling wise… Well, bang can’t bat so that doesn’t matter either.
Pointless tour, England will learn nothing about their players. Sad to say I’ll watch the tests still as I always watch tests but I won’t have any interest in it.
The big issue is Bayliss doesn’t know enough about county cricket.
Or Test cricket. He’s a white ball man. But that’s what Strauss wanted. Not sure the ‘selectors’ are doing much selecting anyway. The media throw some names in the hat and banish others and the selectors have a lucky dip. The Test side is a mess.
Somewhat off-message, but there’s an object lesson in how to grow a sport here:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/17/rugby-world-cup-legacy-programme-future-rfu