Ed Smith Gets Clever. Apart From The Daft Bit.

First of all let’s pat the selectors on the back for really freshening up England’s test squad. There are some really exciting names in the 15 selected for the two tests against New Zealand. Not all of them have outstanding domestic records but Ed Smith has finally done something I’ve been pleading with him to do for a long time: take a punt on some talented county players (a la Duncan Fletcher) rather than going back time and again to the worn out white ball well.

Jason Roy has gone. Thank God. Jonny Bairstow has also gone. A tough call but one that couldn’t be ducked any longer. And there are no places for archetypal English medium fast seamers like Craig Overton or Lewis Gregory. Well done, Ed.

Their replacements are a mixture of red ball specialists (has Smith finally seen the light?!) and young players with potential: Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley, Saqib Mahmood, and Matt Parkinson. Ollie Pope is also in the squad. Let’s quickly talk about them one by one.

Not even Jason Roy’s mum could argue with the inclusion of Sibley. He was the outstanding batsman in the championship this summer and thoroughly deserves his spot. Although there’s some concern that he could turn out to be a one-season wonder, England aren’t exactly blessed with alternatives at this point. Picking Sibley was the natural choice and I’m glad that Ed Smith has made the obvious call rather than getting too cute.

The next inclusion nobody will argue with – except perhaps Sam Hain’s mum – is Ollie Pope. We’ve all known about Pope for a year or so now. He’s the outstanding young batsman on the county scene and he’s made an excellent return from a nasty injury that limited his opportunities earlier this summer. At one point it looked like he might have to fight for a place in the middle-order with Jos Buttler – more about that later – but now it looks like he’s odds on to start.

The slightly more surprising picks are Crawley, Mahmood, and Parkinson. Nobody can question their talent and potential but some may question the timing of their promotion – not least because they haven’t exactly set the championship on fire quite yet.

Zak Crawley is a very talented young player with the aptitude to occupy the crease. He’s tall, drives well, and generally looks the part. But at the age of 21 this does seem a tad early for him. He averaged 34 this season – not bad for an opener considering the conditions most championship games are played in these days, but clearly there’s room for improvement.

What’s more, at 6ft 5 there’s a slight danger, weird as it sounds, that he might be too tall for international cricket. Not many players that tall make it. He’s a couple of centimetres taller than Graeme Hick and just a centimetre taller than the giant Tom Moody. Players like that have a long reach, which can help them to play spin, but they do make an enticing target for pacemen. He can expect a plenty of short stuff into his armpit when he eventually faces Australia.

Saqid Mahmood is another exciting young cricketer who somewhat underachieved in the championship this year. His 31 wickets in division 2 cost just over 31. This is slightly worrying because wickets fell like frogs from an Egyptian sky in division two this year. He had the 61st best average of all bowlers in the second tier despite playing 9 games (which is a good sample size).

However, at just 22 years of age, young Saqib clearly has talent. He bowls at a brisk fast-medium (at least he did every time I watched him) and his performances in the soon to be defunct Royal London One Day Cup were outstanding. I’d much rather England try to develop a bowler with potential than go back to honest county pros like Craig Overton or Toby Roland Jones who might only ever play a role in English conditions.

Mahmood’s Lancs teammate Matt Parkinson is the real joker in this pack. And I really like this pick. Yes he might become the next Mason Crane but personally I think he looks like a more natural leggie than Hampshire’s forgotten man. I’ve been impressed every time I’ve seen him so I’m delighted that he’s on England’s radar.

The only worry is that it may be too early for Parkinson too. He’s just 22 years old and only played 4 championship games this summer (although he did take his wickets at an eye catching 18). The problem, however, is that most of the candidates for second spinner are very wet behind the ears. Amar Virdi is one hell of a talent, and I would’ve been pleased if he’d been picked too, but maybe Ed Smith has an eye on the Ashes next winter. Leg-spinners tend to be more effective than finger spinners down under.

Overall I’m really excited by the mixture of potential and experience in this squad. It may take some of them time to find their feet (like Rory Burns did) but it’s so encouraging that Smith seems to be turning his back on his previous policy of preferring white ball players and all-rounders come bits and pieces cricketers.

Although Ed’s options were somewhat limited by Adil Rashid’s shoulder problem, Moeen Ali’s unavailability, plus the lack of other obvious players with IPL exposure, a year ago we might have seen recalls for Alex Hales (or a similar attacking player) Eoin Morgan, or possibly even Sam Billings. Instead we’ve got players who might turn out to be the next Alastair Cook rather than the next Craig Kieswetter.

The only danger, as I mentioned above, is that the likes of Crawley, Mahmood, and Parkinson are very inexperienced. However, I see this as a bit of a development tour for them. They’re unlikely to play unless there’s an injury, so I see no harm in exposing them to the international environment. What’s more, there’s always the old adage to justify the inclusion of young players: if you’re good enough you’re old enough.

So having praised Ed Smith for fifteen paragraphs (is that a record on TFT?) now it’s time for the caveat i.e. the kick in the crotch he was probably expecting. Spread your legs and brace yourself, Mr Smith. This is gonna sting …

Why the hell have England only picked one keeper? And why, of all people, is that keeper Jos Butter, a mercurial batsman who probably isn’t even in the top ten glovemen in the country? He’s a stopper not a keeper.

I really don’t understand Ed Smith’s thinking here. Yes there are only two test matches in New Zealand, but what happens if there’s an injury on the morning of the game? I’ve heard people mention that Ollie Pope and Rory Burns can keep but that would be ridiculous. Can you really imagine Pope making his long awaited England return with the gloves?! When was the last time these two kept in a professional cricket match?

What this shows, in my opinion, is a worrying lack of respect for the key position of wicket keeper. Ben Foakes hasn’t had the best summer with that bat – he’s not the only one who struggled with the awkward timing of championship games – but he’s still the best wicket-keeper in the world and worth his weight in gold.

The decision to give Buttler the gloves is also something of a cop out and many will see it as favouritism. This winter it looked like England would have to choose between Pope and Buttler at number 5 or 6. Giving Buttler the gloves, even though he’s struggled to justify his place with the bat, enables England to pick both in the same XI. But in doing so it weakens England behind the stumps.

Wicket-taking chances are like gold dust in test cricket. You have to snaffle every one. And England need to do this to win in places like India and Australia. Unfortunately, shoving Jos behind the stumps damages the team in this regard. And many will see it as a desperate attempt to keep Buttler in the team at all costs in the hope that Ed Smith will eventually, eventually, be proved right that the flagship selection of his tenure was a good one.

In the meantime what will become of Jonny Bairstow – who only averaged a run less than Buttler against Australia despite the burden of keeping. Will he be back? I certainly hope so. He’s a slightly better keeper than Buttler and my gut tells me he’s potentially a better test batsman too. After all, he does have 6 hundreds to his name (rather than Jos’s one) and he averages almost ten runs more than Buttler in first class cricket too.

The problem with Jonny is that his defence looked almost as bad as Jason Roy’s this summer – possibly a direct consequence of his efforts to become a world class ODI player. I really hope that Jonny goes away, works on his game, and comes back stronger.

Having said that, it was absolutely the right decision to drop Bairstow. England cannot pick underperforming players indefinitely. This decision sends the message that underachievement will only be indulged for so long. Our test batsmen have had a long rope. Some would argue far too long. So now it’s only fair that someone else gets a chance.

James Morgan

26 comments

  • In a discussion on the radio about Jason Roy as a test player, MV asked the question what was the point of changing his method of playing to make him a better test batsman if it ended up making him worse as a white-ball cricketer where he is brilliant. He thought it wasn’t the right thing to do. Does the same apply to Bairstow? Is he good enough to be able to play both LF and SF cricket at the top level? Few are. We do have alternatives as the latest squad has shown. Just interested to know what people think.

    • Bairstow was a very good test player before he changed into a very good white ball player. Yes maybe it is difficult to be world class at both. Personally I’d prefer Roy to stick to white ball cricket, and I’d like Jonny to turn his back on white ball cricket to focus on red ball again.

      • One of the things I noticed this year was that the England players tend to adopt a “one day” stance (bat raised, knees bent, legs apart) in test cricket. Probably makes playing attacking shots easier, and defensive ones more difficult.

      • Not sure I agree with you James. For one, I can’t see Bairstow giving up white ball cricket but more importantly, I think it would be very misguided of us to abandon the very successful Roy/Bairstow opening pair in 50-over cricket, especially as 50 overs will probably take a bit of a back seat now we’ve won the WC, such is the strange thinking at ECB Towers. And all in the hopes that Bairstow can become what? A test number 3, 5, wicket-keeper batsman at 7? Those are my thoughts anyway.

  • Buttler is a white baller and shouldn’t be anywhere near the test team. Foakes should be in the squad instead.

  • I said earlier in the year that Jason, Jonny and Jos we’re all “class”. They still are. I do though accept that their class may be Class B only; the one where they teach 50 over cricket.

    I think the selections for the winter are great but agree that a place should have been found for Foakes.

    Despite the reality that Buttler is a short-form guru and there it should stay, I’m still pleased he’s in the squad because I so want him to succeed. In the same way; I so want Moeen Ali to find his form. England look soooo good with him popping up at 8!

  • Foakes and Bairstow both left out because Buttler is seen as a better batsman, even though they’re both better wicket keepers.

    And yet when it comes to bowlers, nobody cares how many runs they get. Leach opened and scored 92 and was dropped. And many tests did Woakes miss after scoring that century?

  • In a 17 man squad for a six test series, I’d have taken both Foakes and Bairstow as our two best wicket keepers.

    In a 15-man squad for a two test series where the reserve wicket keeper has to also play the role of reserve batsman, then maybe I’d have picked Buttler over Bairstow. So that’s Foakes in place of Crawley.

    We won’t play two spinners and Mahmoud is sixth choice seamer, so both he and Parkinson are there to carry the drinks. Parkinson May play at some point in the subcontinent when we need a second or maybe third spinner but Mahmoud may wait a long time to play in a test with Archer, Broad, Woakes, Stokes, Curran, Anderson, Stone and Wood all ahead of him in the queue. He’d have been nowhere near this squad without all these injuries.

    • How can you put Bairstow in the same bracket as top county keepers. If he’s our number 2 behind Foakes then I’m a proverbial Dutchman. He’s only in there because of his batting, and now that’s gone awry there’s no point to him at test level. Like Butler he’s athletic, but standing up both are ‘heavy’ handed liabilities.
      We’re going to a country where the ball will swing, seam and spin, so you need your best keeper, it’s not rocket science and shows the bits and pieces philosophy of this brain’s trust continues to sabotage our efforts to produce effective test match players.

  • I think this is unfair on Jason Roy: he was asked to come into the test side as an opener and be England’s David Warner. In 6 innings he scored 57, an average of 9·5.

    Meanwhile Warner was allowed to play all 10 of Australia’s innings, scoring a total of 95 runs — an average of, yes, 9·5.

    So Roy had 100% success rate of opening precisely like David Warner, yet still gets dropped!

    • Jason Roy was crap. Let’s make no bones about it. He was repeatedly out to the same stupid shot. He’s a gifted white ball player.

      As for Foakes and Bairstow, I would have taken Foakes because of his wicketkeeping prowess. As for Bairstow, I doubt that while he’ll be upset when he’s signed for 1 crore by the IPL and makes a ton of change in the Big Bash he’ll be massively teary. I wouldn’t be.

      I like Smith’s attempts to blood in youth. I think this is him admitting it will take a while to get back to full strength.

      Now all we need is patience.

      • Sorry, it was supposed to be a joke — Roy ‘succeeded’ in doing as well as Warner, only because Warner’s results were spectacularly worse in this series than previous ones.

        I agree about Foakes. But then, so does seemingly absolutely everybody. It’s nice for us to have something in common. I fear if Ed surprises us all by actually selecting him, we’ll all lose that sense of unity …

  • Failure to drop Roy and Bairstow from the test squad would have been indefensible. Of the incomers my only real question marks are Crawley and Mahmood, neither of whom have the figures to back up claims about their talents (Parkinson, with 60 first class wickets at 24 in his fledgling career does, albeit it is a punt to pick someone that early in their career). However, Parkinson as back up spinner is an incomparably better notion than selecting someone who even at county level is primarily a batter and expecting them to morph into a frontline bowling option at test level, or picking a so-called “all-rounder” whose record indicates that they are actually not up to the job with either bat or ball. I disagree with you re Gregory – New Zealand would probably be a good place for a seam bowling all-rounder to start a test career, and his figures warrant elevation.

  • Buttler not in the top 10 glovemen in the country? He is not in the top 100. I have seen several better glovemen in club cricket. He should either play as a specialist bat or make way for Foakes, who is worth 10-20 runs per game over Buttler just for his keeping. Personally I would take both, but not let Buttler anywhere near the gloves unless Foakes falls under a bus.

    • It’s more an injury on the morning of the game (or the day before) that I’m worried about.

      There’s also the fact that the series is in NZ. It takes 24 hours to get there plus there’s the time difference / jet lag factor. We can’t just parachute someone in at short notice like we could at home.

  • James, you haven’t mentioned the exclusion of Jimmy Anderson in your article. He isn’t fit so hasn’t been picked. Yet you replied to me recently and basically said you’d take him and let prove his fitness whilst on tour.

    • I’m not sure how many warm up games there are. I assumed there were at least one or two. The word is that Anderson wouldn’t be fit in time for NZ anyway so that’s why he’s been left out. If there was a chance he’d make the trip I’m sure the selectors would have taken him – probably instead of Mahmood.

  • We clearly need specialist selectors for test cricket, where specialist players are recognised and we can have an end to the bits and pieces formula thinking of this no-brain’s trust. Butler has yet to establish himself as a test batsman, so why encumber him with keeping duties that are unlikely to help him progress.
    It’s such a mind blowingly stupid decision that it trumps all the good stuff this tour party has included. Even if you don’t want Foakes, though I’m not sure what more he has to do to get selected, there are a number of clearly superior glovemen who can bat as well. To me this selection could be the end of the Butler experiment, its almost akin to sabotage. He’s such a unique talent his failure would be down to Smith.

    • Ed smith sees Buttler as a future Test captain, which is why he continues to persist with him. We have the same situation with Ravi Shastri & Rohit Sharma in our Indian test team.

      • Surely if Smith sees Butler as a future captain he should do all he can to help him cement his place in the side as a batsman, where his real talent and usage lie. We dont want to see him continuing at 7 and getting himself out as he runs out of partners. This is a waste of his potential and has happened most of the summer. The added distraction of keeping certainly doesn’t help his batting. It seems clear to everyone, apart from our esteemed brain’s trust, he will cost us in the field as a keeper, as he has done a number of times in the past, especially standing up, where his heavy hands let the ball bounce out of his gloves. Do this with the like of Williamson and the team will pay.

  • I would have taken Foakes, but I wouldn’t rate him as “the best keeper in the world”. Sadly, Sarah Taylor has just retired from international cricket.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting