So the news is mixed. Jason Roy’s scan has indeed revealed a hamstring tear. But it’s not a bad one. Allegedly.
England are insisting he’ll miss just two games – the somewhat inconsequential match ups against Afghanistan, who England will be expected to beat in their sleep, and Sri Lanka, who England will be expected to beat half-asleep. Roy’s injury therefore shouldn’t affect England’s chances of winning the World Cup. We’ll still be worth a 12bet bonus IF he’s back in time for the Australia game on 25th June at Lord’s.
The problem is, I fear it’s a big IF. Can someone really reach full fitness just two weeks after tearing a hamstring? Hmmmmm.
If there’s any doubt at all I think it would be prudent to rest Roy until he’s 100%. Even if this means we don’t see him again until the semi-finals. Why rush him back for a game against Australia – I expect both teams to qualify for the semis anyway – if it’s going to risk a setback and possibly rule him out of the business-end of the tournament.
I do wonder, however, whether England are extra desperate for Roy to play against Australia (in particular) because they see this game as an audition for The Ashes. There’s been lots of chat about Roy opening (or batting 3) in the test side; therefore Ed Smith and the management will be desperate to see how he fares against Starc and Cummins.
Personally I don’t think Lord’s will tell us much about Roy’s chances of success if he does play in The Ashes – white ball cricket is completely different in terms of tempo and technique. However, it could tell us a lot about whether Roy is likely to get that opportunity.
If Roy scores runs at Lord’s, and hits the Aussies pacemen around the park, then I doubt Smith and the selectors will be able to resist calling him up. We all know that the current regime values runs on big occasions in front of big crowds more than it values more relevant runs (i.e. championship runs) on lesser occasions in front of sparser crowds.
Can you really see Ed Smith leaving out Roy for someone like Joe Denly or Dominic Sibley if he scores a ton against Australia in the World Cup? Not me.
Whether you think Roy deserves a test debut seems to be quite a contentious issue judging by the debate I’ve seen on social media. Personally I would NOT ask Roy to bat in the top 3 in test cricket in an ideal world. Until very recently he averaged not much more than 30 in first class cricket and his defensive method looked extremely porous.
However, and this is quite a big however, England are not living in an ideal world. There are two vacancies at the top of the order (if one assumes that Burns takes one opener’s spot and Root insists on batting four) and I have absolutely no idea who should occupy them. The cupboard is as bare as a newborn’s bottom.
Even though I wouldn’t particularly fancy Roy’s chances of scoring runs against Hazlewood and Co on the first morning of a test match (when there’s three slips in place and assistance for the bowlers), I wouldn’t particularly fancy any candidate’s chances. At least Roy would give the Aussies something to think about.
The big problem, of course, is that as a purist I hate seeing white ball specialists get a premature leg-up into the test team. It just doesn’t sit right. Roy hasn’t done the hard yards in the championship, he’s rarely batted up the order for Surrey in the first class cricket, and I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever that he can vary the tempo of his innings.
Basically I think picking Roy in the Ashes would be a terrible idea. But it could be the least terrible idea we’ve got.
James Morgan
PS I went to watch Kent versus Notts at Tunbridge Wells yesterday. Cricket at out-grounds is always fantastic. There was a good crowd in (I estimate approx 2,000 souls) and the cricket was riveting too. Kent were reduced to 100-5 but recovered to 309 thanks to a fantastic hundred from homegrown youngster Zak Crawley.
Crawley opened the batting in tricky conditions against a very good attack which included James Pattinson, Luke Fletcher, and Jake Ball. He’s certainly one to watch. He played Pattinson better than anyone else and is particularly strong on the drive and off his pads.
Talking of Pattinson, I think he looked tremendous. If Cummins, Starc, or Hazlewood pick up and injury ahead or during The Ashes, they have a superb replacement waiting in the wings.
James Morgan
Written in collaboration BR Agency
He’s got to be better than Jennings! Roy was good for Surrey in the Championship batting at 5 when there is a score on the board, but earlier in his career when tried a few times opening it really didn’t work. Ok like anyone he might get away with it once or twice, but mostly I doubt he’d make double figures. But who else is around?
The fact they haven’t revealed what grade Roy’s tear is – plus his known long-standing condition – suggests his injury could well be worse than they’re letting on.
If he’s fit for the Ashes, he’ll get a shock to discover that bowlers can move the ball and it doesn’t always sit up and say”whack me”. Remember that it’s ICC policy to prepare bowler-friendly wickets – this is of course because they’re so concerned for poor bowlers and nothing at all to do with getting matches over in 3-4 days. Roy looks a better option in the middle order but that’s just where further options aren’t needed – but then I guess the other opening options look even worse.
It’s amusing how all the journos ready to praise the ECB for inventing “specialisation” are the first to start calling for any one-day player who enjoys success to be promoted immediately to the Test team.
I do enjoy your writing but sometimes you do allow your personal bias in certain situations to get in front of the facts. Jason Roy has consistently averaged nearly 40 throughout his first class career and did indeed start out as a specialist opener. To state that he only recently has started to average above 30 is factually incorrect and I suspect purposefully misleading to emphasise the theory of your piece,
As a more general point Roy is an outrageous natural talent, the shots which he plays are of the ilk that only the very best can manage and personally I’d rather have him selected and playing then having one of the more moribund openers from the County Game have a crack, let’s face reality he really cannot do worse than others tried for the past few years but unlike those others he will at certain points play an incredible innings as he is that good.
I do agree with your general thoughts on the game, the traditions of the county game etc but in this case I think that the point is missed, if you were Mitchell Starc would you rather be bowling against a guy who has smashed bowling attacks all over the world out of grounds and has proven his big match temperament and averages nearly 40 in the first class game or would he rather bowl against either a previously failed player e.g. Jennings, Stoneman, Lyth et al take your pick or a fresh player feeling his way?
Personally I’d have our captain take on more responsibility and bat in the top 3, technically as well as ability wise he is better suited for such a role than others and that might reduce the pressure to play a Jason Roy in the top 3 when even though I’d select him I’d bat him middle order and yes you say we have other options but that is partly because Joe Root is occupying one of those positions and he should not be.
“You do allow your personal bias in certain situations to get in front of the facts. Jason Roy has consistently averaged nearly 40 throughout his first class career”.
Hi Robert. I stand by what I said. It IS accurate. Although perhaps I should have said ‘not much more than 30’ rather than ‘about 30’ (I’ve now edited). The fact Roy still only averages 38 today, despite boosting his average over the last couple of years in limited appearances, tells the story in itself.
Here’s the full story of his championship career season by season:
2012 – 612 runs at 32 (div 1)
2013 – 49 runs at 8 (div 1)
2014 – 1042 runs at 52 (div 2)
2015 – 810 runs at 48 (div 2)
2016 – 745 runs at 39 (div 1)
2017 – 257 runs at 43 (div 1)
Overall record 4,646 runs at 38 (over half these runs were in div 2)
Overall record in division 1 – 1859 runs at 35.
These stats aren’t exactly stellar. Before his big hundred at the end of 2018 (and a good 2017 in limited appearances) he was indeed averaging in the low 30s in division one, and not much above that overall. In fact, he’s only averaged over 40 once in division one in five attempts, and that was in 2017 with a very low sample size / limited appearances. We can’t include 2018 as it was just 4 innings, one of which was on a faetherbed in a high scoring game I recall?
Michael Vaughan’s Championship record wasn’t stellar when he was picked either. Roy wouldn’t be my first choice to open against the Aussies, but I’m not sure who would (if you see what I mean).
Yes that’s my opinion too. His first class record isn’t necessarily relevant. It’s just a guide although, to be fair, Vaughan etc aren’t perfect comparisons because they always had pretty sound techniques – so there wasn’t anything in particular to suggest they couldn’t be successful at test level. It’s almost like the first class record didn’t make sense.
Roy is slightly different in that he only plays one way, and we’ve only seen him score runs at a high tempo on very good batting wickets. A couple of years ago he was really struggling with his technique too. Therefore I do have some reservations.
However, as you say (and as my article says too) we’ve got to pick someone, and none of the candidates fill me with confidence. At least Roy would go down swinging. And yes there’s a slim chance he might come good. A slim chance is better than none!
Roy has also not been an opener for several seasons now–he’s been a number five. And we really don’t need another hard-hitting number five to add to the thirty-seven we’ve already got!
One factor that hasn’t been considered to me is how relatively out of practice he is in the format. He hasn’t played a f-c match since November, he’s only played three in almost two years and he’s only played seven (I think) since the end of the 2016 season. That’s a lot to ask of someone playing out of position and whose main skills are in a different format. I don’t see a huge amount different there than asking (say) Bairstow or Buttler to open.
As you say, although it’s a fairly crazy idea I would at least consider it for the reasons you give; there really isn’t anyone in the county game apart from Sibley who has both the record and the recent form to warrant consideration.
It crossed my mind during the Sri Lanka series–when we should have had the same dilemma had we had the gumption to do the blindingly obvious and drop Jennings–whether there might be worse ideas than giving Chris Woakes a go. He is, after all, a more orthodox batsman than many of England’s current ones, he made his debut as a batting all-rounder and he isn’t likely to have a very much longer Test career as a specialist bpwler.
Cumulative averages always (by definition) understate improvement. If you look at the table you have constructed, which leaves out 2018, there is only one year in the last 5 when he has averaged under 40 (but that was 745 runs at 39 in the First Division). I am not sure that Roy is able to play late enough to adjust for the sort of movement that obtains with the Duke ball in Test Matches in England, but the statistics are fine (better than your argument).
I’m not terribly convinced by the statistics. Roy’s average is almost identical to that of James Vince (who’s a very similar age and has spent virtually his whole career in the first division)–and his number of centuries per match is much worse. And I wouldn’t have Vince in the team in a month of Sundays!
Root isn’t that good vs the moving ball. Plus, he’s the best batsmen and is best at 4. It’s also where he wants to bat. We have enough hitters at 5/6/7.. what we lack is 3 players who can bat all day…
Roy isn’t one of them and never will be. He is a white ball specialist and it’s time people admitted it
The problem with leaving Root at 4 to me is that we then have to either choose three (!) of Burns (ave 25 in Tests, albeit not very many), Roy, Sibley and Denly–whilst leaving out Foakes, who may well make a better Test batsmen than any of those; or play Foakes in the top three whilst a far inferior w-k is given the wicketkeeping gloves. That’s just absurd.
Surely either Smith or Bayliss should force the situation so that Foakes is recalled in place of a top three batsman, but it’s made clear that he’s the w-k (ie the change made in the last Test match is reversed). This would effectively mean that Bairstow had to bat in the top four. More than the Root situation, what’s unbalancing the batting order at the moment to me is Bairstow’s insistence on keeping wicket while there’s a better w-k around but not many potentially better specialist batsmen.
Bairstow isn’t a top 4 batsmen either !! Lol
The fact is England have a number 4 and then a barn shed full of 6/7’s. Sadly, you pick your best 4/5/6/7 and the rest fill in the gaps until county cricket bothers it’s backside in producing some proper batsmen.
Also, England need to be honest about players rather than BS’ing them up as something they are not. Sure putting Bairstow at three is a case of slotting him in but don’t pretend it’s because he’s top 4 quality etc .. the guy has become a white ball player (good one) but that has come at the cost of being a good red ball player
As a Kent fan can I ask you NOT to praise Zak Crawley….The last promising young Kent player was looked at closely by the England coaches, his bowling action suddenly fell apart and now, a few years later, he’s on his way out of the club (and possibly professional cricket).
Many thanks!
Adam Riley? Real shame. I’ll keep schtum next time, I promise :-)
I would hope that the selectors are continuing to monitor form players around the counties, especially after so many ex players, including the likes of Atherton, a definite red ball specialist, seem to be urging Roys inclusion, at least at the start of the Ashes series. There can be no doubting his talent and ability to make big scores, but can he resist his natural urges to improvise long enough to make an impact against what will be a decent bowling attack.
To me what you have to ask is who would the Aussies rather play against, an experienced and successful international cricketer who would clearly not be intimidated by the prospect or some unknown newcomer to that arena. Australia have a similar decision to make with Finch, who is clearly not expecting an automatic call up to partner Warner, despite his prolific World Cup form.
As you say James it could all be academic anyhow if the hamstring is more serious. In footie it usually means a 6-8 week lay off, which would give him no time at the crease before the off. Cricket is a more start stop game where more pressure is put on muscles and ligaments for batsmen and bowlers alike, even wearing pads with their straps restricting blood flow can be a factor if youv’e already got problems, so I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised after a couple of long innings. Rushing him back could end his season. Hopefully at some point summer will arrive, so the warmer weather will help.
A more interesting immediate issue is the possible recall of Hales, especially if Vince fails to get going.
I find myself in an interesting position:
1) I don’t think Roy should open in Tests.
2) I can imagine him in the middle order, but I don’t know that I would be in a hurry to drop someone to get him in there.
3) Yet, I think we need to note the reality that bowling in County Cricket is mostly at a low ebb. How often have any of the players opening well in CC faced an attack of the quality of Starc/Cummins ?
Lets look at the Div Averages. #2 & #3 are Ballance and Siddle… this is not a competition that is rewarding/moulding Test quality batsmen.
Top of the bowling: Gregory, Leaning, Abbott, Overton – some good bowlers there… but nothing to prepare you for facing Starc.
So, in the end, I’m not that surprised that selectors are less and less inclined to see CC as a measure of Test potential.
Yes but you have to measure Test potential on something, and there only is the 4 day Championship. The standard of which, at least in Div 1, is a lot higher than many people think. Ask Morne Morkel for starters. And not many of the selectors even watch it, Bayliss as well. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any Alistair Cookes around, potential yes, much of this spoiled by the proliferation of T20 and the need to “get on with it”.
On Roy, this is the second hamstring injury this season. I doubt you’ll see him play any more in the WC, the Ashes maybe, but it’ll be a very bold selection.
Yes there are still some good attacks around in Div 1, but I’m not sure they’re as good as they were 10 years ago. It’s definitely a problem for the selectors. Lots of the candidates seem to have one good year and then a bad year. Very few openers have been consistent for a number of years apart from Burns.
We can all easily say who we should not pick but not many people are giving their opinions on who we should go with as a batting line up. If most people agree (even the coach apparently) that root needs to step up to 3 then we already have one problem ‘solved’. The fact is that no one is guaranteed to step into that opening slot and succeed. Even the year on year stats suggest that Roy has improved and as most say he has talent, perhaps ‘the’ talent to play top class fast bowlers. We have to play to our strengths and I would go with following
Burns
Roy
Root
Bairstow
Buttler
Stokes
Ali
Woakes
Archer
Wood
Anderson
A few injury prone guys in there and with a long summer we have broad s Curran foakes leach and any one of Vince Clarke on call if we are struggling mid series.
I think the central problems here are:
1. Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins is a very good new red ball attack; and
2. England too often find themselves 30/3 in tests. The openers we’ve tried (based on CC records) haven’t worked. Can Roy (for example) do worse than Jennings?
It’s not ideal but has anyone got a better idea?
“Has anyone got a better one?” Not me. And that’s the nail on the head.
Yes, the point is that every other possibility looks worse – just as likely to get out quickly, but far less likely to score big runs.
Can I remind people about Marcus Trescothick? He got into the Test side by was of one-day cricket, and had a successful career in tests.
Yes but
1 Tresco brought his bat down straight
2 He swung through the line of the ball.
3 Encouraged by Fletcher he swung hard, through the line, from a firm platform even though he didn’t move his feet much.
4 He had a good defence
5 He was identified as a potential Test player at an early age and never regarded just as a one day specialist as Roy is.
6 His skills have never been replaced in the England side.
Tresco was a rarity in that he changed nothing from his county transition into the test arena. Like Roy he was a total natural. His problem was lack of foot movement, just like Roy he played through the line, throwing his hands at the ball. I wouldn’t say he had a great defence technically, but he certainly had a great eye, just like Roy. Now there’s enough basic similarities to make a comparison.
There have been plenty of examples of middle order batsmen graduating to opener. For me, as a Warwick man, Dennis Amiss was the classic example.
I have an immense amount of respect for Amiss for the way he worked on his game and completely altered his style to cope with the Australian and WI quicks.
For me he was never the same player once he started the helmet craze. If you want to see good examples of how to play short pitch bowling by leaving most of it, certainly not trying to hook anything over head high, watch footage of the likes of Cowdrey, Graveney and Barrington, who all swayed out of the way, so they kept their eye on it, never getting hit by ducking into a ball they’re not looking at. They had Sobers, Hall and Griffith to cope with as well.
I know Thompson was frightening. Remember watching him from sideways on at Edgbaston and I couldn’t see the ball. Lillee, then still quick, I could, so I don’t know how Marsh managed to take so much behind the stumps. Would have been interesting to see the likes of Butler and Bairstow trying to deal with that.
Couldn’t agree more with Giles – Zak Crawley doesn’t need to be mentioned as a possible England player yet at this stage in his career. He has loads of potential, bats in a lovely upright position, and needs a lot more experience at county level before he should be considered as a test prospect.
Subject to his fitness, I’d be quite happy to see Roy play in the Ashes. End of,
Perhaps a more contentious question – would you parachute Archer into the Test side?
The only thing I find contentious in that post is the use of the word parachute!
Yes, but when did Archer last play any red ball cricket?
I think I would give him a go – as someone else says, you have doubts about whether Mark Wood would get through 5 days.
Archer should definitely play in the Ashes. There’s no question about it in my mind.
Has Archer done enough? But yes I’d play him in front of Wood who is unlikely to last one test yet alone 5 in 6.5 weeks.
Quicks are a short lived species, so you need to take advantage of them. Most of them burn out of express pace by the mid twenties, Archer has a good economical action that takes little out of himself and bowls straight. What’s the risk as long as you bowl him in short spurts. Getting hit doesn’t seem to bother him and he’s used to playing against top players, having done well in the IPL. For me it’s a no brainer as long as he’s fit.
“I’d be quite happy to see Roy play in the Ashes. End of,”
So might the Australians.
They use a red ball in Test match cricket. There is no comparison with white (or pink) ball cricket. You have to be able to play the moving ball. Both at the start and at the end of a ball’s life. If you succeed in the top order you will probably have batted for at least 5 days or 15 sessions. Bowlers tend to learn about a batsman’s technique at a faster rate than a batsman can adapt.
If Root continues to insist on not batting at 3, England are likely to be giving the Australians a three wicket start.
The point is, though Downatthirdman, can you come up with a more likely candidate? I’m not happy with Roy as a Test opener either – his defensive technique isn’t up to it – but I haven’t seen anyone else (and I’m unconvinced by Burns as well!). If Roy comes off, he could turn a game – unlikely, admittedly, but it could happen.
P.S. Root must bat at 3!
No because Root is better at 4 and prefers that position as captain. To be honest even Burns is not doing it this year so really we’re looking at 1,2 & 3. And Foakes should also play as the best keeper but it won’t happen. There are far too many no. 6’s in this side.
Decent article from Lawrence Booth on how the WC is showing up the problems in worldc ricket post-B3 money-grab.
Absolute shower of shit from the Guardian as usual. Ten “talking points”, only the last one vaguely addresses what’s going on and then to tell readers “there can be little quibbling with the level of entertainment so far”. Level of entertainment = lots of sixes. If you want anything else from the game, then Foxtrot Oscar. The level of corporate media whoring has become ridiculous.