So it was all for nothing. Those of us who have kept a close eye on the county championship recently, trying to identify an opening partner for Cook, a solution at number three, a spinner with potential, and perhaps even a reliable wicket-keeper, were wasting their time. In the end the selectors decided that England didn’t need any new players – despite the obvious fact that they do. The only change sees James Vince, who I’ve always seen as a top order player (1-4), replace the retired James Taylor at five. Had Taylor still been available for selection, I doubt we would’ve seen any changes at all.
I find England’s selection for the first test frustrating. Whitaker, Fraser and Newell have done absolutely nothing to solve the team’s problems. Despite winning in South Africa it became obvious that Alex Hales had neither the technique nor temperament to open the batting at test level against world-class opposition. Imagine how badly he would’ve fared if Dale Steyn and Vernon Philander had been fully fit? However, because Hales scored some runs in the ODIs and T20s – a completely different form of the game – the selectors have bottled it and kept the faith. One imagines they hope some easy runs against Sri Lanka will make their initial decision to turn him into a opener look less naïve.
It was also clear after the South Africa tour that Nick Compton, who some see as a county journeyman whose reputation was built on the back of one prolific season at Somerset, wasn’t the answer at three either. Compton simply doesn’t deserve his place. He’s done nothing of particular note at county level for a while – despite Angus Fraser’s insistence that he played on some poor pitches last year – and he looked out of his depth yet again in South Africa. This year he has scored a paltry 100 runs at an average of 20. His inclusion cannot be justified at all.
Personally I think that Compton is a tease. I’m easily seduced by orthodox players who drive pleasantly through the covers, and I like the way Compton remains still at the crease and generally plays straight. However his ceiling is clearly low at this point. What’s more, he played some appalling shots at some very odd times this winter. If his best assets are supposed to be stickability and patience, then why does he have a penchant for the absurd?
I’m afraid that test cricket at the highest level looks beyond Compton. I assume he’ll score a few runs against Sri Lanka then struggle mightily when Pakistan arrive. Retaining him does the long-term prospects of the team no good whatsoever.
Although the selectors can rationalise their ‘faith’ in Hales and Compton (although I see it as a lack of imagination) by claiming it’s too early for the likes of Tom Abell, Alex Lees, Joe Clarke and Daniel Bell Drummond, a home series against Sri Lanka represents an excellence chance to blood some new talent. Once again, however, conservatism and short-termism have triumphed.
I feel a little sorry for county cricket’s openers to be honest. They were challenged to score some early-season runs and force their way into the test side and they all duly obliged: Sam Robson has been prolific, Lyth has had his moments, DBD has exceeded all expectations and even Alex Lees has been impressive. However, all these performances have been ignored. Instead the selectors have kept faith with someone who has looked the poorest of all Cook’s recent opening partners – a batsman who skipped most of the early season matches.
The problem the selectors have of course – and it’s a problem of the ECB’s making – is that nobody can be certain how impartial they are. It will escape no one that Hales and Compton play for Notts and Middlesex respectively. I’d never suggest that men of integrity like Mick Newell and Angus Fraser are deliberately biased, but I do think it’s possible on a subconscious level. Can anyone really be one hundred per cent objective when assessing players they work with every day at county level and who they know well personally.
Even if there is no bias, the problem is one of perception. Let’s not forget Caesar’s wife. Cynics in the Midlands will find it remarkable that Jake Ball (the other new face in the squad), who has never represented England at any level, can suddenly leapfrog Chris Woakes. Ball, of course, also plays for Notts. Meanwhile Warwickshire fans (indeed all cricket fans around the world) might wonder how anyone can think that Compton, a Middlesex stalwart, is a better player than Ian Bell.
The decision to retain Jonny Bairstow as wicket-keeper will also lead to head-scratching around the shires. Although his batting has come a long way, and he’s been in absolutely imperious form with the willow for Yorkshire, Bairstow’s keeping has nothing to do with his batting. He scored plenty of runs in South Africa but looked extremely clumsy and awkward behind the stumps.
Once again, a home series against a struggling Sri Lanka side presented a perfect opportunity to blood a proper keeper – or at least identify one who might turn into a top keeper. Barstow’s keeping has looked so unnatural that some observers wonder whether he has the pure ability to improve. Not every aspiring keeper can do a Matt Prior. Many others fall by the wayside.
The retention of Moeen Ali as the only spinner is also very curious indeed. I’m a Worcestershire man and a singed up member of the Mo fan club, but I also want England to identify a quality spinner – or at least one with the potential to become one – before this winter’s tour of India. We’ve all seen enough of Mo to know his limitations as a bowler at this point. He was excellent against India in his first summer of international cricket but this has proven to be an aberration.
I’m afraid the selectors have failed with this squad because they’re falling into an all too familiar trap: good performances against a poor Sri Lanka side will kid them into thinking that average talents can make it at the highest level. Subsequently, when these players come up against world-class bowlers, they’ll fail as they’ve done in the past. See Ballance, Gary.
I firmly believe a selector’s job is to identify top talent that can succeed against the very best, not muddle through against middling teams with mediocre attacks. Runs against Sri Lanka will prove little. Their attack is on a par with some county teams. It’s what happens when we come up against Pakistan, or Australia next winter, that really counts.
In my opinion, batsmen like Compton and bowlers like Moeen will never be the long-term answer. England should be searching for players who are. Instead we lurch from series to series, trying to win in the short term to ease the pressure on selectors with a mixed record.
James Morgan
England Squad: Cook (capt), Hales, Compton, Root, Vince, Stokes, Bairstow, Ali, Broad, Finn, Anderson, Ball.
Playing devil’s advocate a touch here (I’d have brought Westley in alongside Vince myself) but what did you expect? They were hardly going to tear up a side that won in South Africa on the evidence of four weeks of county cricket and Bayliss was pretty clear last year in his philosophy that he’d much rather give someone too many games than too few. All pointed to continuity, and if Compton and Hales still struggle against Sri Lanka we will see changes for the Pakistan series.
As for the queries regarding specific areas of team selection: in the opening slot, I’d imagine Robson has put himself back at the front of the queue but all of his 100s have been on flat pitches at Lord’s (in fairness most pitches everywhere have been pretty flat though!) and until the start of this season he had barely made a big score in two years: the selectors are right to wait a little bit longer to see if he’s back to being consistent or if this is a purple patch. Same goes for Lees; he made runs in the televised game against Notts but until that point he’d had a very slow start to the season and had a poor season last year too. As for Bell, people were desperate to get him out of the side as he’d barely scored a run in two years but the second he’s out of it want him back in. His days as a Test batsman are over are in my opinion: if you can’t see the same pattern of decline that was there in Prior and in Trott you’re either blind or willingly overlooking it. They might have been tempted to make a change at keeper if Foakes had scored runs (and therefore shifting Bairstow up to five) as he’s comfortably the best of the young keepers going around, but again a lack of keepers scoring big runs apart from Bairstow is the issue. I know Clarke’s had an excellent start to the season and can keep but he doesn’t get the chance at Worcestershire with Cox there as primary gloveman and he’s played only a handful of games, better to leave him to develop for a while yet.
And as for Ball v Woakes, or even Plunkett, absolutely no contest in my opinion. The idea of Plunkett is far better than the reality: if you can play short-pitched bowling, he won’t get you out. He doesn’t even run through sides at county level yet people talk of him as a fire-breathing unplayable quick. He doesn’t swing the ball regularly and he doesn’t land the ball on the seam either, so if he’s not banging it in it’s gun-barrel straight and easy for the best batsmen to play. Woakes meanwhile has seven wickets from six Tests and what’s more not looked remotely close to taking any more than that. People will talk about the bad match in Centurion but in truth that’s all that was, a bad game: everyone has them. It’s the other games, where he’s bowled well but looked less threatening than a marshmallow mattress that are the issue. Ball has troubled everyone he’s bowled at this season and moves the ball both in the air and off the seam and in the words of Mike Selvey ‘just looks right.’ You’re complaining that England aren’t identifying those with the potential to take on the best but that’s exactly the call they’ve made with Ball in picking him above others. He might not be of course, but it’s worth finding out.
Sorry, this turned into a bit of an essay! Oh for the gift of brevity…
in the words of Mike Selvey “just looks right”.
The usual fascinating and insightful analysis from Selvey. How that complete chump keeps his job is beyond me.
Simple. He is always willing to be a conduit for the party line of the authorities and so gets the access journalists crave.
This…
He, like Newman and co are awful and a disgrace
Hi there SDH. I wasn’t expecting England to tear up the side that won in SA but I did expect them to address problem areas. Instead the victory seems to have been used as an excuse for inertia. The best sides always look to improve whether they’re winning or not. I personally have no issue with the Ball selection (I’ve not seen enough of him to be honest) but I do have an issue with Compton’s nonsensical retention and I have my suspicions re: Hales.
Just for the record, I think Bell simply needed a break. I can’t think of a single England player who has played for so long, on the treadmill of international cricket, as Bell. He’s played non stop for his country since 2005. We often talk about burnout in the international game. I would’ve thought that Bell fits the typical profile.
Quite a few players have gone away for a bit and then come back stronger. Strauss himself once had a tour away from the side and then started making hundreds when he came back. It saved his career in some ways. Just my 2p.
Bell has had some breaks: he was dropped briefly in 2009, he had a lengthy injury that kept him out all season in 2010 pretty much and he was never a guaranteed presence in limited overs squads until about 2012. It’s definitely a fair enough point however, but at his age he is far less likely to come back than if he was, say 27. Just think it’s time to move on, just like it was from Trott. There’s enough batting talent out there to be optimistic, although I do think that the youngsters just breaking through – Burnham, Clarke, Lawrence – are more exciting than the Lees/Vince/Ballance generation.
At his age? He’s only just 34. Unless beset by injury how does that feature? Bell’s got more runs than any other England player in ODIs so he must have been in the side before 2012 despite his lack of guaranteed presence, perhaps even more taxing. Personally I think the strain of the last three years outweighs the work of the previous seven – and nothing to do with age. It’s called stress under poor management and it happens all the time. Four coaches in 3 years. Top bosses sacked. Terrible fracas over KP. Poisoned the team for years. I’m not sure the poison is out of the system the way Strauss is motivated to settle scores. It must have been wearing. Promotion of Cook at all costs as Man of Steel. Awful captaincy. Opener auditions to find someone who can bat with him. Broad and Anderson were lucky to get injured were they? They got a break. Cook got the winter off.
I’d add the impact of losing the vice-captaincy as well.
Bell as a batsman is a class above Prior and Trott. If he’s back to his best – not quite there yet – then tales of his decline have been much exaggerated. Batsmen differ regarding age. Vaughan had injury issues and so did Atherton which ended their careers prematurely. Alec Stewart batted until he was 40 and so did Gooch. Bell has been one of the most athletic in the squad. If he keeps his fitness up then why not keep going? He needed a break from the toxic team spirit and to get refreshed from the grind of 11 years. He doesn’t have the personal stress problems of Trott to contend with. Look – he’ll either restore himself or not. He looks on the way to doing that. What have you got against a revitalised Bell back in the side? He’s still one of our top leading run scorers of all time. No other side in the world would scorn his return the way you do. Do you think Compton is good enough to keep Bell out? There’s a certain grandiosity in ending a Test career at 34 by the opinion that no one can redeem themselves. I feel fine either way. If Bell’s good enough to return he deserves to. If not, then his service to Warwickshire will be invaluable.
This summer will prove nothing other than boost people’s avg and then supporters of said players (whether it be hales, vince, cook, stokes, mo etc) will crow. SL are so so so so poor and Pakistan aren’t that good to care what players do.
I wouldn’t worry about anything cricket wise his summer as there is nothing to gain from these series other than egos for supporters who pay over the odds to attend games and people who are already in a players camp to crow (not that it’s a good crow given the weak Oppos)
What SDHoneymonster said.
Comp clearly doesn’t merit his call up on form but i think, perhaps understandably so, that Hales/Compo deserve a bit more than an away series in SA to cement their place. If either look remotely iffy during the SL series then I think changes will be made.
I’m a Middx fan albeit one who doesn’t get to see much, but what I saw of Robson’s previous Test exposure I’m just not sure he’s cut out for it unless he’s made drastic changes to technique since then.
Again, its all fine and well talking of call ups for some of the early season runners up top but it smacks of ye olde system of picking players based on short term form rather than identifying long term class. Let’s give Hales et al a few more games and in the meantime, give those county form players a chance to display their talents over an extended period and really demand a place in the side.
And James, as for defending Woakes as hard done by, I’m nearly speechless. As the above commenter says he’s looked poor in all his Tests so far and looks only just about suitable as a 4th seamer (i.e. poor man’s backup to Stokes), absolutely NOT as first change!
Plus i think we’d all love to have a ‘proper’ frontline spinner in the side but general consensus seems to be that the cupboard is pretty bare, so who are we talking about here? No point picking someone for the sake of it, at least Mo offers batting depth. Kerrigan clearly has scope to get back in and seems to have started the season nicely for Lancs, but after his previous Test experience, and in my view appalling captaincy by Cook in handling him, we can;t just chuck him back into the lion’s den after one good game. If he’s still there or thereabouts towards the latter end of the season then by all means though.
In summary – I would have advocated dropping Compton but retaining Hales. However, I absolutely see the selectors’ view and think the position may change for the following Test series.
Hi Sopyrano. I didn’t say Woakes was hard done by, I said some Warwickshire fans might think he is.
I think we’re actually arguing the same thing here. Like you, I want England to identify top class players and give them time to develop. The difference in opinion is that I don’t think either Hales or Compton qualify as top notch test players; therefore I’d ditch them. I’m all for consistency of selection, but only if the players being persevered with are the right ones. I haven’t seen enough promise in either Hales or Compton to justify the selectors faith in them. Just my opinion.
Whether Woakes is hard done by in test selection requires a rather deeper analysis than has been the case in the press. He has now had 6 tests spread over 3 years and has never had a run in the side. I do not recall one test in which he has had a helpful wicket and in those tests other bowlers have struggled more often than not. It is useful to compare this with Broad, who did nothing in his first nine tests but was given every chance until he eventually came good on a helpful wicket.
Whether Woakes is a test bowler is an interesting question but what is unquestionable is that he has been badly served by selectors.
The Oval in the last Test against India was a green top on which he struggled for wickets and Durban was a low scoring Test in which he again just never really looked like taking any wickets. He had Amla dropped in that game (a rite of passage for England bowlers it seems, given how eager England fielders seem to be to watch Amla bat!) but never even came close to creating another chance on a pitch where every other bowler, seam or spin, looked dangerous. I think his lack of a run in Test cricket is a decent point but it’s also a vicious cycle: he’s hardly going to get given a run if he doesn’t look like taking any wickets.
Woakes actually took 4-54 in 21 overs on the ‘green top’ at the Oval. Not bad for a change seamer. In the Durban test he only took one wicket but repeatedly passed the bat and went at 2 an over, with better figures than Stokes. Those performances seem to confirm he does have value if the wicket offers any help.
Pakistan aren’t that bad. They just beat us 3-0!
Very different proposition away from home (like most sides in fairness). The last time they batted outside of Asia in Test cricket they were ripped to shreds in South Africa and by Pakistan standards their seam attack is pretty tame, when taking into account Amir is unlikely to get a visa. Playing in the UAE has turned them into more of a traditional Indian or Sri Lankan side in that they rely much more on spin rather than seam to take wickets: the seamers are there to get the seam a bit softer for the spinners to grip more easily. I think they’re going to struggle quite badly, personally. Then again, I’ve been wrong before, many, many times…
Haven’t we all! I fully expect Hales to turn into the new David Warner now I’ve written him off!
The good thing about being a blogger rather than a pro journalist is that you can make wild uncertain predictions without worrying about one’s reputation. We’re all fans here. We can just call it as we see it at the time without hedging our bets :-)
Or you can be Newman and beyond challenge! Classic toys out of pram this week! ?
I disagree about Hales and Compton but don’t really want to go over that ground again. I very much agree with the conflict of interests with national selectors also acting as team coaches – it’s an indefensible system that should be scrapped (Strauss said twelve months ago he was going to look at it but hasn’t).
Not much can be read into the SL series for the next Ashes. SL were thrashed by NZ who were thrashed by Australia. It won’t mean much in that context.
The selectors showed plenty of creativity in getting their selections into the papers before the formal announcement. A few hours here and there may not matter if they hadn’t been so unctuous about the sanctity of the dressing room. Once again there’s one rule for the officer class and one rule for the poor bloody infantry.
Elsewhere, Manohar has been elected unopposed as ICC Chairman. Pity poor Giles! The ICC is going to be worth careful watching in the next few weeks as some serious announcements are likely.
Reckon I’ll apply next time there’s a vacancy for a selector. I’m a dab hand at copy and paste
Clever! :)
Going to disagree with you for once James on this one. I think we’ve made mistakes in recent years by only changing batsmen between series. We did it with Carberry, Robson, Lyth and probably others I can’t remember. International bowlers in a 4 or 5 match series have the opportunity to work out a batsman and probe his weaknesses, which in my view is why you we’ve tended to see a decline in performance as the series has gone on. By giving Hales and Compton a chance in different conditions against a different attack will test whether they possess one of the fundamental requirements of an international batsman, namely to go away between series, address weaknesses and make the next set of bowlers find a new way to get them out. Personally, I think both Hales and Compton will fail the test, but I’m pleased that for once they’ve been given the opportunity.
Hi Hungerpang. I understand the argument. It’s certainly worth investing in players. I just think it’s odd that we jettisoned Carberry so quickly, plus a number of other candidates, yet we’re keeping faith in the one opener who has looked (imho) the worst of the lot. It seems arbitrary to keep faith in a particular player just because you haven’t kept faith in others.
Re: Compton, he averages just 31 in 13 tests (a reasonable sample size) and will be 33 years old later this summer. Why are the selectors investing in someone like this? Bell is just a year older than Compton but has 20 odd test tons and averages 43. I just don’t get the logic.
There is no logic, which is why you can’t find any. This is England’s Cricket Selectors we’re talking about here! I wouldn’t have recalled Compton and didn’t think Hales had done enough to earn his place in the first place, but given where we are, I’m just glad they seem to have abandoned the policy of ditching players between series for reasons stated above. It wasn’t working, so at least they’re trying a different approach. Age is an interesting thing though. These guys are super-fit nowadays and should easily be capable of playing into their late thirties. My gut feel, without having any stats to back it up, is that England have a tendency to view players as over the hill once they’re in their early thirties, whereas other sides tend to look more at whether the batsman is good enough now than how old he is. Chris Rogers and Adam Voges are recent cases in point. If you get 3 or 4 years of good performances out of someone in his mid thirties, isn’t that better than 3-4 years of chopping and changing players 10 years younger as they struggle to develop their game in the Test arena?
Worth pointing out Australia only turned to Rogers and Voges because they literally had no other choice.
Of course they had a choice. They went for experience rather than youth.
It is tough to change a winning team.
Yes, the SA bowling attack was under-gunned but it is still no mean feat to win away so you can see why they are playing a waiting game to see if this team can really gel, both batting and bowling.
Cook has had so many partners, you’d want them to stick rather than twist even if it is Hales that they are sticking with.
No one seems to be reminding us that the ‘No 1 team in the world’ is now sixth.
The rankings were updated a couple of weeks ago and England are now 4th:
http://www.icc-cricket.com/team-rankings/test
Sky are bigging up this series and over and over again in the trailer we are hearing “No fear cricket” “Young team” ” Young Lions” etc etc. They have been a Young Team for some time now. When will they start becoming an Old Team? Of course a young team who are “learning” has to have allowances made……
Agreed.. Someone should actually look at the ages and realise it’s not actually young at all!!
One of the ironies of the last ashes was that despite the presentation of the series as England’s “young team” against Australia’s experience, England had more test experience (total tests played) than Australia in every test played and by then end of the series with Haddin and Watson gone, more experience by miles and the age gap was minimal (Voges and Rodgers pushing up the average).
One thinks it a deliberate ploy to change the language from a “rebuilding phase” to something that sounds more positive.
It will only get more sickening as the ECB and Sky use every bit of persuasion they can to get us to part with our cash and fill these empty seats!
It’s a tricky one. We just don’t have an array of options that scream “pick me!”. I feel that the likes of Robson / Lees need to show a more sustained period of form than just a couple of games given they didn’t set the world alight last year, otherwise it’s a step back on the merry go-round. If they’re good enough to solve the problem, they should be able to sustain their form for longer. If they can’t, then maybe they’re not the solution?
Hales hasn’t impressed so far but I would like to give him the SL series because I think there’s a glimmer of potential there; I think / hope that given confidence he can be a weapon and I feel like a (on paper) straightforward home series could be the means. Thus far it seems like he hasn’t played his natural game. And if not, at least we can conclusively rule him out.
Compton I think hasn’t done too badly and would be a bit hard done by -as long as he sticks to his strengths of selling his wicket dearly I think he brings a balance to the squad and provides protection to the batsmen that follow with more firepower. As such, potentially controversially, I would be tempted to measure his success more by balls faced rather than runs scored. In my view the legitimate concern is when he isn’t doing this. If he can’t stay around during SL, then time to go.
Not sure this one has been discussed already, but a potential elephant in the room regarding all of this is Root? I take the point about his preference for batting at 4 and his superb performance there (and if it ain’t broke and all that) but if he could replicate the form at 3 then it would be in the team’s best interests and help reduce the top order issues.
And given how quickly he normally comes in during an innings, he’s practically batting there (and succeeding) as it is so I wouldn’t anticipate a massive drop off in form. In my mind if he can average >45 at 3 and offer greater protection to the middle order, this may be more valuable than the current ~55 at 4.
Thoughts? Is 3 where the best batsman on a team should bat?
I like Compton, but just facing a load of balls doesn’t really help anyone. 40-3 is 40-3, it doesn’t matter whether 10 overs have gone or 30.
Yes, the bowlers might have got marginally more tired, but they’ve also been given a chance to find a rhythm and get in a groove against a non-scoring statue. Fielder’s nerves will have evaporated, the audience will have become restless, and the pressure on the incoming batsman to score quickly becomes untenable.
In cricket, if you don’t apply pressure on the opposition, you are inviting them to apply pressure onto you.
” Is 3 where the best batsman on a team should bat?”
I hate this idea that a certain quality batsman should bat at a certain number. Batting line-ups aren’t a ranking system. 3 isn’t better than 4 and 4 better than 5 etc. Different batting positions means batting in different situations and different situations require different skills.
Given that very few opening sessions go by that at least 1 wicket isn’t lost early, the skills required of a 3 are very similar to the skills required of an opener. Good defensive technique (particularly against pace and seam), the patience and concentration to play long innings, the ability to identify the right time to play circumspectly and the right time to kick on once set.
Should your “best bat” bat 3? Only if he has the skill-set to do so.
Agree entirely. And other factors come into it. In the 60s the best bat in a great Windies side was Sobers, who regularly went in at 6. No doubt this was because of his all rounder status as well as his ability to accelerate. And in the same side the second best bat – Kanhai – often batted at 5 as it suited his temperament and technique.
I’m not going to trawl through England’s fixtures to confirm, but I imagine since Root has been at 4 and given our consistent issues in the top 3 he has regularly been doing a rebuilding job early in the innings, against the new ball. The fact that he has been able to recover and accelerate the innings suggests to me that he evidently does have the skill-set to do so at 3.
I see the main benefit being for the rest of the team. Assuming he can do the job, batsman X, potentially not established in the team, who would otherwise play at 3 and certainly see the new ball would instead have the benefit of coming in much later against an old ball and a platform.
I’m not saying I necessarily subscribe to the idea, I can see pros and cons both ways, but I’m surprised it’s hasn’t been garnered more support.
Also another good point I’ve just read which supports the selection is that it’s quite smart to bring Vince alongside Compton in the middle order. That way if Compton fails and Vince is earmarked to replace him at 3, he will at least have some experience lower down the order to his name rather than going straight in at the deep end.
Some of us may think it astonishing not just that Ball has leapfrogged Woakes, but that he is ahead of Barker. I do not think many, even Warwicks followers, think Barker is a test player but his bowling numbers this season are even better than Balls and he can bat. Add in that Willey is grounded and Topley will never make a test bowler and Barker gives a left arm option (and a left arm swing option which SL would find difficult). In selecting there are two approaches; select on form in recent matches (in which case Barker deserves a place ahead of Ball) or select on long term talent (in which case Woakes is ahead of Ball). Today’s announcement just smells of the old boy network.
The other smell from this selection is inconsistency. Ball is no faster than (and not as good as) Woakes when he (Woakes) was told to go away and add 3-4 mph if he wanted to play test cricket. One rule for some and another rule for the favoured? To me this all seems like the fiasco of white ball selections of Dernbach and Meaker, just because they play for Surrey, when the guys at Guildford and Normandy (their Surrey Championship clubs) fell about laughing at the idea they were England standard.
The other point I should have made in my article is that Notts and Middlesex players have more opportunity to impress the selectors. They’re seen in the nets more often, and have ample opportunities to prove their worth in all kinds of conditions. Mick Newell has personally seen most of Ball’s best performances over the years. The same cannot be said of other candidates at other counties. To the selectors, who are often restricted to watching their own counties play (although they do get on the road sometimes to be fair), performances by the likes of Jack Brooks or Woakes are just numbers in the Cricket Paper. The system really is untenable. Even if there is no bias – and I repeat I don’t believe there is any intentional bias – the perception of bias, or possible bias, is also important. There’s a clear conflict of interest here.
Fair points but I think you are generous to the selectors. Ball is now 24 and did nothing until last year, despite coming through the England youth set up. A bowler who fails to make any impact until he is 23, despite the England and family background, and who is then selected for a test the next year is either selected on short term form or family connections. The only other possibility is a fundamental change in technique producing results – and no one has suggested that is the case. I also suspect that England selection is compromised by having two of three selectors who could not cut it at top level and judge as county standard players. I agree with you that the system cannot work as it stands.
‘Ball did nothing until last year.’
Mainly because last year was the first proper opportunity he was given with Notts, who aren’t exactly noted for their endless porduction line and willing promotion of home-grown talent. Clocked in in the early 90s in limited overs cricket on TV last year, moves it both ways with swing and seam, has worked on his fitness so he can keep it up for longer. Compared to Woakes, who seems to find it offensive to take a Test wicket, I know who I’d pick.
See my reply to the earlier comment above re Woakes and his treatment. If Ball was good enough before last year he would have got his chance, especially in a not very special Notts team. Your point only reinforces the fact that he was not good enough. The likes of Broad, Anderson and – yes – Woakes were all established county bowlers in their teens. As for pace, many bowlers produce the odd ball in the 90s (including Woakes who did it in the SA tests). The question is what is their ‘standard’ pace? Ball seems no faster usually than low to mid 80s (which led to Woakes being told to add 3-4mph even though he had then taken 300+ FC wickets compared with Balls current 80 odd. Beware this fate for Ball as Woakes gained little by adding pace. But with Newell and Uncle Bruce looking out for him I guess the same rules may not apply.
And see my point above in reply to your point that it’s all very well (and indeed fair) to point out Woakes hasn’t been given a consistent spot in the team but to be given a consistent spot he does actually need to give them something to hold on to, which he hasn’t. I’m not saying Woakes has bowled badly in Tests. In fact, and I think this is far more concerning, I think he’s generally bowled pretty well, but has provided absolutely zero wicket-taking threat. Unless he’s there purely to do a holding role – and he isn’t – it’s very difficult for the selectors to justify giving him a run.
Good stat from Peter Miller on Twitter – 26 of the 30 players in the Performance Squad are from D1 teams.
Also, the collapse of the drugs’ case against Kusal Perera should be a grave concern about cricket and PEDs. Whether it’s more concerning that the case collapsed or was ever brought in the first place is another matter
“26 of the 30 players in the Performance Squad are from D1 teams.”
what does that show? That the bigger teams in the higher league produce the better players or that the better players gravitate towards to the bigger teams in the higher league?
Neither would be particularly surprising, surely?
Not surprising – but it does show the gap is widening.
How many of those higher league teams’ players are produced by themselves? In the recent Notts/Yorks match Read, Broad, Plunkett, Brooks and Willey all started at other counties.
I was utterly depressed when the squad was inexplicably leaked again last night though it’s pointless discussing it. Picture Taylor has not retired, surely the selectors would have chopped Compton before Taylor and surely they would have made a change. England’s batting line up was not as good in SA as the Ashes, even if they were both reliant on root stokes etc. Compton should never have gone on tour, there is absolutely no way it can be argued he has more talent, more runs, more potential, a better temperament or has more potential than ballance, davies, Clarke, malan, or countless other batsmen on the circuit. They’ve bottled it, someone chuck them a magners. Not only does Compton not return highly, he doesn’t help those around him, this side feed of players who play strokes and run hard and can score without premeditation (think those times Compton played full on drives to balls that just weren’t there). Scyld berry is bang on that England should be picking a side for India and Australia and this one isn’t that. Robson may well deserve a recall though it doesn’t fit into Bayliss’ ideal of stroke players with cook at the top which I think there are the players out there to do this. Hales needs to play to his strengths, he plays best when he doesn’t leave everything because it allows him to dominate, his returns were poor but I’d like to see him play the series as he has the potential to open in aus. Root to three is equally frustrating as he is technically and temperamentally perfect for it but instead he wants to bat with stokesy. I quite like Vince and think he has potential but he isn’t a 5, especially with stokes at 6. He could bat 3, though he hasn’t done anywhere near enough in Cc to be nailed on like he has been for the last few weeks. I wonder is bell would have been recalled to bat 5, he always looks a class above when he returns to Counth cricket, this would allow Vince to bat 3 which is what the selectors told the papers a few weeks ago. I think bell could maybe last until the ashes and is more motivated than any other player in the country to do so, he could be unparalleled if he did. Even if he didn’t, I think the very young batsmen are better than the guys around 25 at the minute. I can see Clarke at 5 for the Pakistan series, he is a better player than root was at his age and is seriously, seriously good. Bairstow looks to have an incredible pressence at the crease these days, like he hadn’t before, wonder if buttler can play much CC this summer to allow him to bat!
“Scyld berry is bang on that England should be picking a side for India and Australia”
Patronising and disrespectful to Pakistan. The more people talk like this, the more I am tempted to start supporting Pakistan.
By this I mean England need to build a lineup that could dominate, not just scrap for results (Compton). They are the big series both in cricket and financial terms. We need to get ready for it. Joe Clarke is the guy!
James, you’re bang on the money. This squad is yet again a complete and utter joke. I’m lost what some of these players have to do to get dropped. This England team have been blessed by playing during a dire era of test cricket and God only knows what results they would have crashed too if we played any decent opposition. Hales, Compton and Ali have clearly demonstrated they’re not up to it,
As you say county cricket is a complete waste of time and the role of selectors should be investigated. If I was a young aspiring player I would do everything I could do to get a move to Notts or Middlesex. Were these two counties once known as England Lions?
With such an uninspiring and unimaginative team, not the best opposition, economy creaking and football tournament, this could be the summer that the ECB realise how much they have damaged the game as people county empty steals…
“this could be the summer that the ECB realise how much they have damaged the game as people county empty steals…”
More probably they’ll blame the tourists and arrange even more matches against Australia and India.
A horrifying but sadly realistic thought!
I’m a bit baffled by the squad selection too.
There is no mileage in Compton, this summer is an ideal opp to find a dynamic middle order player to compliment Root. Develop that relationship that can score big runs in India (and Australia next year) C
Ooops clicked post. Continued..
Compton will put too much pressure on Root to do the scoring.
I believe we had two options, give Hales a go at 3 or preferably try Vince there.
I would then play Bairstow at 5 (the form he’s in he deserves a proper place in the order. This would give us an opportunity to find a young wicket keeper.
Or if they want to ask Bairstow to keep (I’d give it up personally) play Mo at 7 and pick a specialist spinner (although perhaps too much of a luxury at Leeds in May)
But we’ll need two spinners if not 3 in India.
An opportunity wasted.
I also think that even before the subconscious bias that this selection panel is awful. Since they took over, almost every decision they have got wrong. I have no faith in them and home Strauss gets rid soon. Can come one tell me why we haven’t got Nasser on the board, or atherton, they are fantastic thinkers of cricket, perceptive, and a loss to the game just as comms, could do both!!!!
I think there’s a rule that people who work in the media cannot be selectors. I think that’s half the problem when it comes to choosing them and finding suitable candidates. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. My info may be out of date.
Given the absolutely miniscule amount of county cricket both Athers and Nasser bother to watch I think they’d be disastrous if asked to pick a team for England.
Nasser is regularly seen at Chelmsford I’m always told by Essex followers actually
Woakes is not a wicket taking bowler at test level …. never will be
Sam Robson cant play off his back foot so got found out by test quicks
Hales has poor technique as a test opener and continuing with him as opener when he is so glaringly not up to it is the biggest mistake in this squad.
Compton likewise …. he doesn’t have enough scoring shots in his armoury so if bowlers cant bowl him out they revert to stopping him scoring & then he gets himself out.
Comment on Bell …. he may well be good enough as a batsmen but he has proven to be a shocking fielder & heavens knows how many runs he has cost with far too many vital dropped catches in recent series.
I also agree Bairstow is not a good enough keeper ….. same as for Bell when a keeper makes a mistake it can end up costing the team 100 runs or more. Never underestimate the contribution a top keeper can make …. sometimes a brilliant bit of glove work can win a match as much as a five for or a ton.
As for the up & coming I haven’t seen enough to comment except I like the young keeper at Hants & feel he may be one for the future…. Westley has had a good start but don’t forget he is only facing 2nd division bowling.
Odd comments. On the basis of your analysis Broad would have been discarded early since he did nothing in his first 9 tests (Woakes has 6) and was far less successful at county level. You can only assess bowlers when they have had a run instead of odd tests and have seen a wicket other than a flat top. On Bell I agree he is a dreadful slip. Of course, he does not field there for Warwicks very often and it is a mystery why he was put there for England. Before Taylor he was acknowledged as the best short leg in England and we will need one now Taylor has gone (assuming Cook does not fancy going back in). At keeper the longer term solution is Billings. A better keeper than Bairstow and, with his batting technique, may grow into an Alec Stewart role. Regrettably the selectors seem to think he is a short form bat.
It’s just a hunch, but I think Bell’s dropped catches were further evidence that he was burned out. His mind just wasn’t there. He was always a nimble and reliable fielder in the past.
I think I’ve said this elsewhere James but Bell has never been a slip fielder. His strength has always been either at short leg or in the covers or near the square to cut off runs. He’s very active and mobile in the field and he’s certainly been throwing himself around for Warwickshire (hamstring included). Shows Bayliss’s ignorance that he put Bell in the slips and maybe Cook’s lack of awareness as captain. No fielding coach now. The lack of management in the team is something to worry about. The kind of thinking: Vince in at 5, Compton at 3, Hales to open. And then…Vince can go to 3 if Compton fails…? Will Vince turn into the dogsbody that Bell became? And Root won’t move from 4? Team spirit was supposed to be the keynote? A fielding coach should advise about specialist fielders and where they are most effective. No wonder the fielding was an inconsistent mess in SA.
Sorry but the fielding hit on Bell is ridiculous. He’s been one of the two best fielders in the England side for a decade. Once released from the slip cordon his fielding returned to its best – two run outs and a catch in the deep. He’s never been a slip fielder. It was mechanistic of Bayliss to put him in the slips simply because he was so rated as a fielder. He was a brilliant short leg for most of his career. Amazing how Taylor can do it for two games what Bell did for years without fuss or huge headlines. As for dropped catches, Bell wasn’t in the side when 11 catches were dropped in SA game. England have been inconsistent all year. You note Bell’s drops but not those by Root, Hales, Bairstow, Cook, Ballance. Buttler also made some terrible drops – doesn’t get mentioned. It’s all a matter of focus and perception isn’t it? But Cook was called a donkey in the field by Atherton. Bell was called a tiger by CMJ. I know whose opinion I respect. Blackening of character is typical these days but downright lies are another. Good fielders develop strong specialist skills. Any decent coach would be aware of that if we had a fielding coach of course. Once we dispensed with our fielding coach England’s fielding went downhill.
I think I’m in the minority by saying….I agree with the squad…but I’m looking at you, Hales, Compton, Bairstow the keeper and Moeen the spinner
All things considered I think I’m with you there.
I was surprised that Compton was kept on and that Vince is to bat at 5 rather than 3. I would have picked Vince at 3 and put Bell in at 5 (a spot where he has had much of his success in test cricket). That would have made the balance of the side better for me. I am also surprised that Hales has been kept on too, though I can see the reasons why certain opening candidates are being viewed with a bit of caution.
Totally agree PK. I too would’ve chosen Vince at 3 and recalled Bell at 5. Although I’m not a Hales fan at this point, I do at least see the reasons for giving him another chance (although it’s not the decision I would’ve made). When it comes to Compton, however, I see no reason to invest in him at all. A soon to be 33 year old, in poor form, who averages just 31 in 13 tests. It’s just not worth it.
Just a word on behalf of the old people. Amla is older than Compton, AB is 32, you’ll remember Rogers and Voges and that’s just for starters. Agreed that Compton’s form is off at the moment but that’s never been a major factor in team selection and not always an indicator of how the individual will perform in the next series.
The building for the future has bemused me for ages. England have apparently been doing it for 2 years now and still haven’t completed it.
Good point about ‘rebuilding’. It keeps toppling down and still they get away with it.
Almost none of the young players from the 2014 ‘new era’ are still in the team. Robson, Ballance, Jordan, Buttler and Woakes have all been dropped. The only one who has survived is Moeen Ali who is no spring chicken (and helped by a paucity of alternatives).
The team’s success in the winter had much to do with going back to older players who’d been chewed up and spat out by the Flower era (particularly Finn and Bairstow – with some contributions from Taylor and Compton).
One of the biggest frustrations I see over the last 5 years or so…the inability of players to develop or coaches to improve them. Other than Root & Broad who can say they have actually improved their game in last 5 years?
The issue isn’t so much Compton’s age but his likely level of contribution. He did get harshly treated back in 2013 when he played with a broken bone in his hand but we can only go by what he did in South Africa. After a good test in Durban he really didn’t do enough to suggest he was worth retaining inmy view. Vince is a player that the England management as a potential batsman, but why are they starting him off at 5?
A bit tongue in cheek but……… I recall the best piece of selection since I started cricket, and it was to bring in a 35 year old for his test debut; so I cannot go along with calls for youth for the sake of it. The selection? David Steel against the terrifying Windies attack of the 70s. Sometimes experience and guts trumps the enthusiasm and promise of youth.
Sorry to let the facts intrude on a popular myth but he was 33 on debut.
Mea culpa; teach me to check the detail. But I would love to see the likes of Vince, Hales et al come in to face Holding and Roberts without helmets, arm guards, chest guards etc.
This is a mational side for the ‘best’ payers.. Not a club side to ‘develop’.. I don’t really care if you bring a 43yr old back in if he’s the best in that position at this time.. County cricket is to develop a player.. Internationals Isn’t and shouldn’t be used as such.
Buttler is no test batsmen and until he avg’s around 50 in county 4 day cricket shouldn’t be Even considered.. Same with Vikings, foakes and whoever else is now flavour of the month.
Thanks to everyone for getting involved in this debate. It has turned into a goodun. Lots of contrasting views. Thumbs up! :-)
Good to see some new faces joining in and some familiar faces return.
I should add that I interviewed Devon Malcolm yesterday – we played a T20 at the Lord’s Academy. I recorded the conversation and will upload it over the weekend. As you can probably guess, he’s still a top bloke. He describes his famous 9-57 against South Africa in lovely detail. Definitely worth popping back to TFT for that one.
There doesn’t seem to be much support for Bairstow batting at 5. Only Bumble and myself are beating that drum :-)
He’s not good enough that’s why! He’s a 7. If he’s in the best six batsmen we have then England have problems
Looking at his domestic form then I think there’s no doubt he’s one of our best 6 batsmen. Who’s better?
I would support the idea of swapping Bairstow and Stokes in the order. So Jonny at 6?
Stokes has 3 top class centuries to jonnys 1? I’d keep stokes 6 as I think long term he could even bat higher…
Should the selectors be guided more by the county averages – especially when selecting for home tests? Form comes and goes – so should players.
Are they over-influenced by past performances?
Are they hamstrung by central contracts?
Are they pressurised by the ECB to favour certain players?
Many questions there Max!!
Answering the county question, surely they have to be. If you’re scoring big runs in Div 1 then you must come into the equation? There have been instances where gut feel has got a player selected (Trescothick & Vaughan ) but I think in general county form gets you to the top of the queue.
I like a certain degree of loyalty so I’m always happy for past performances to count strongly (credit in the bank) but it can only go so far. There comes a time where you have to call time on everyone for a variety of reasons…
yes – but it needs to be a good average over 2-3 seasons, and they need to have a look at the type of bowlers it has been against, the type of pitches it has been on, and the type of situations they have failed or succeeded.
and all this in conjunction with a rigorous technical and mental assessment.