What Should England Do? And What Will They Do?

You’ll see two very different questions in the headline above. The first is what England should do. In other words, what changes they should make to their team for Antigua. This involves looking a problem rationally and objectively.

The second question asks what England will do. And this is rather complicated because it involves putting oneself in the shoes of the management, who will be feeling embarrassed, a little defensive, and wary of abandoning a selection policy based on packing the side with all-rounders – no matter how wrongheaded that strategy is.

So let’s begin with the easy one. If England want to turn into a quality test match team capable of playing good cricket consistently, they need to pick the best specialists available. And this means following a tried and trusted blueprint.

In the history of test cricket the best sides usually select either five specialist batsman, an all-rounder, a keeper, and four specialist bowlers (one of whom can handle himself with the bat) OR six specialist batsman (one of whom can turn his arm over), a keeper, and four specialist bowlers.

England have had success with both formulas in the last decade or so:

Michael Vaughan’s 2005 Ashes winners choose the former route: Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff, G Jones, Giles, Hoggard, S Jones, Harmison.

Andrew Strauss’s fine XI that briefly reached No.1 in the rankings employed the latter: Strauss, Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Collingwood, Bell, Prior, Swann, Broad, Tremlett, Anderson.

As someone who prefers a five-man bowling attack I would prefer England to emulate the 2005 side. I also think the cricketers at Joe Root’s disposal are better suited to the Fletcher / Vaughan modus operandi.

Strauss’s team greatly depended on Swann bowling unchanged at one end while the seamers rotated at the other end. As we no longer possess a spinner as good as twinkle toes, but we do have a genuine all-rounder like Flintoff (i.e. Stokes), it seems best to eschew the Flower / Strauss attritional method and play positively instead.

So let’s begin to construct that XI for Antigua. Who are the best two openers available? It’s a no-brainer considering the options in the squad. It’s got to be Burns and Denly because Jennings is basically unselectable at this point.

Next we have to pick the three best ‘specialist’ batsman in the squad. This one’s a little tricky because we don’t really have any specialists other than Root. However, I don’t think many would argue that the best batsmen available are Root, Bairstow, and Buttler.

This trio is far from ideal because we’ve basically got a No.4, and two No.6s. Thanks for that Ed. However, if one were to look at their various merits the best order would probably be Root, Buttler, Bairstow.

Although I’d much prefer to see Joe at 4, I just don’t think it’s possible at the moment. I’ve also opted for Jos ahead of Jonny because I think the latter is a nailed on 5/6 whereas I’m not really sure what Jos is. Let’s try him at 4 and see if he’s as special as people say he is. However, I’m not really fussed to be honest.

Then we come to the easy picks. Our all-rounder at 6 (in the Freddie role) is Ben Stokes. And the best pure keeper is Foakes. End of. What’s more, there’s no point burdening Jonny or Jos with the gloves when they’ve got proper runs to score.

When it comes to the bowlers three of them pick themselves: Anderson and Broad are far and away our best new ball specialists. It’s as plain as cravat around Ed Smith’s neck. And the best spinner, judging by the Sri Lanka series and their domestic records, is Jack Leach.

The identity of the fourth bowler is a tad tricky. This is where the cogs in one’s brain need oiling for the first time. There are four options: Moeen Ali, Sam Curran, Chris Woakes, and Adil Rashid. Hmmmm.

I think we can cross Adil off the list first. He played poorly in Barbados and it seems obvious that Root doesn’t trust him – which is one in the eye for those who blamed Broad’s omission in Barbados on Root rather than Bayliss / Smith. If you asked Joe privately I’m sure he would’ve much preferred Stu Pot in the XI.

Choosing between Mo, Sam, and the mighty Woakes should depend on conditions. If it’s likely to turn then Moeen clearly gets the nod. However, I think the Windies are more likely to prepare surfaces that suit Gabriel, Roach, and Joseph. So it’s likely to come down to Curran and Chris.

This is a tough choice. Sam is the future and he will surely improve. However, I’m going to opt for Woakes in Antigua because (a) he’s a more mature cricketer at this point, (b) he scored a century three innings ago (137 at Lord’s), and (c) he’s quicker than Broad and Anderson when fully fit. And England need more firepower. I should also mention that the temptation of fielding a middle-order of Stokes, Foakes and Woakes is just too delicious to pass up ;-)

My XI for Antigua is therefore as follows: Burns, Denly, Root, Buttler, Bairstow, Stokes, Foakes, Woakes, Broad, Leach, Anderson.

Obviously the team above is far from perfect but at least it looks more rational and structured on paper. Everyone has a clear role and objective. This team might not be as cute – it doesn’t have a bloke with ten first class centuries at No.10 and it can’t spell the word ‘floccinaucinihilipilification’ – but a test team packed with bits and pieces players is the very definition of floccinaucinihilipilification. So I’m going to keep things simple.

Now we come to the more difficult question: what XI will England pick? After all, brutally jettisoning a policy the national selector gushed about a few months ago would be rather humiliating. Consequently, I predict they’ll make minimal changes but hope for a very different result. This would enable them to silence the critics and save face at the same time.

Consequently I predict England will make just the one change: Broad for Rashid. I guess there’s a chance Broad might come in for Curran if the pitch in Antigua is likely to spin, but I can’t see Leach getting a game. There’s a slim chance that Jennings might get axed too but I suspect England will keep faith. After all, Ed Smith is very invested in Jennings, and it would make no sense to give him three tests in spin-friendly Sri Lanka but then only give him one solitary opportunity against pace – especially as pace is likely to play a big role this summer.

When it comes to the batting order I can’t see any changes at all. Jonny will continue at 3, Joe will carry on at 4, and Stokes will probably still bat at 5. Buttler, as always, will be given every chance possible to succeed against an older ball at 6. I hope I’m wrong about this, but I sense England will justify the current order on the basis that Stokes is a left-hander which breaks up the plethora of righties.

Now obviously the above is just my opinion. I could be wrong and frequently am. In fact, Trevor Bayliss even hinted there could be changes after England’s gutless and inept effort in Barbados. However, if there’s one thing I’ve learned about English cricket over the years it’s that the team’s management and selectors are notoriously stubborn. They like criticism about as much as I like David Warner. And they take criticism about as well as David Warner too.

James Morgan

49 comments

  • Wasn’t Denly “unselectable” in Sri Lanka? I

    ‘m not sure I agree about Woakes. When hecame on the test scene he was pretty innocuous, but he added pace and control and became a decent test bowler. However he hasn’t regained that since his injury. You haven’t mentioned Mark Wood, James – he too is quicker than A and B, though not as good a bat as Woakes.

    As I said on a previous thread, I would have Leach and Broad for Ali and Rashid. I’d like to get Woakes in, but the only way I can see of doing so would be instead of the truly unselectable Jennings and shuffling the batting order with one of the “specialist batsmen” becoming a makeshift opener – far from ideal, but, short of flying someone out, what is the alternative?

    • I opted against Wood because he’s apparently lost half yard of pace since his injuries last summer (at least that’s what I’ve read) and it would make for a very long tail. The 2005 Ashes blueprint was to have someone who could score very useful runs at 8. Back then it was Giles. I think Woakes would be an upgrade in this dept.

      • The good news for the future is that Henry Brookes is back bowling full pace in the indoor nets at Edgbaston – so that should solve the problem for the future. :)

    • If you add in Wood as well as Leach, I think England would cr@p themselves about a tail that long. Perhaps it might focus the minds of the batsmen though!

    • Why the hell is Curran suddenly a golden child.. medium dobbers and biffs it a bit.. literally the definition of a bits and pieces player who happened to come off on green tops

  • Jennings’ time is up. He should go now, ahead of the Ashes. Bring in…. Denly?

    Burns deserves a run, although I’m concerned about his ability to play spin.

    Give Bairstow a run at three – he’s got talent, he can adapt, its only his second game, he scored a ton last game, and its not like there is another answer out there.

    Root needs to pull his finger out.

    Buttler should take a bit more responsibility and be batting 5 and scoring tons – Stokes simply isn’t up to it.

    Broad should come back in, as should Leach – if for no other reason than we need to have a better look at him ahead of the Ashes.

    Which bowlers to drop? Rashid, and then either Curran or Ali, depending on the pitch. You could arguably bring Woakes back in as well (although we’re now going back to the 4 right-arm medium fast bowlers that got hammered last winter).

      • I’m pretty much of the same great mind too. Root definitely needs to pull his finger out. He’s at 4 because he claims to enjoy batting there. Now justify it. I don’t believe there’s a place for Buttler.

        Leach should be playing because he needs experience and to develop his skills. If he succeeds, he could play the Swann role. I’m tempted to go for Curran, again because he’ll become a better player on the pitch than on the bench.

        What will they do? I too suspect very little. Finding a batting coach would be a good start.

  • Oh for the good old days when we could recover from being bowled out for 46 by Ambrose and Walsh and bounce back to win the next Test. Mind you, we did have selection options in those days. We were able to strengthen the batting by replacing Salisbury with Tuffnell !

  • I like your preferred team very much. Rashid more and more appears to be a luxury in Test cricket, just as he is nailed on to play in the white ball variety. I do not like the way that Leach is being treated. He may be more Ashley Giles than Graeme Swann but the one thing he does deserve is a decent run in the side. Bowling spin requires confidence and I do not see how you get it if there is all this chopping and changing. I think Ali is struggling again. He cannot buy a run and his remodelled action seems to have taken his left arm out of the equation entirely, which is not normally the recipe for good off-spin. Whatever his erratic career has been to date, it has been characterised usually by an ability to turn the ball and by bowling a number of deliveries that get decent players out. All the old incision seems to have gone astray.

    I cannot see any point in playing Curran. It is not his fault but he is short (and is not going to get taller) and medium pace (and is unlikely to get any quicker). Unless he can get into the side purely as a batsmen who then gives the added bonus of a variety in the bowling, I do not see how he plays at this stage. Woakes seems a better bet – providing he is fit. I am a huge admirer of his so probably cannot speak too rationally about it.

    I very much fear you are correct about the team that will take the field in Antigua. I would be most surprised if Jennings got the axe at this stage. In fact, I think he will get the whole series because I cannot see any point in putting in another opener for a single match. They like him and will pick him. Given the squad available, Buttler plays but does need to go up the order and demonstrate that he is worth his place as a batsmen alone. I cannot see them moving Bairstow from 3. They have tried so many there that they are going to have to pursue him until he nails it or fails it.

    Depressing on the face of it. For some strange and unaccountable reason I nevertheless expect us to win handsomely!

  • Bring in Broad for Rashid, bring in Denly for Jennings. I’m getting more excited about Woakes for Curran but after their part-time spinner did so much damage against us I would keep Moeen.
    Moeen is in this squad as a bowler now, and should move down the order again. His batting form has been nigh-on abysmal.

  • Agree with the article.

    The biggest problem though is the batting: 77 is just unacceptable and in part explains the bowling issues in my view (at least in the second innings anyway).

    What happened to all the young gun batsmen? Have Hameed, Pope, Clarke etc. gone completely off the boil? There has never been a more opportune time for someone to have a route straight into the team. The bar is set so low.

    • Hameed – can’t buy a run (and I am a supporter and hope he will get his batting mojo back).
      Clarke – seems to have been exiled for activity outside cricket.
      Pope? I agree; why isn’t he being brought on more quickly?

      • Pope’s a 5 or a 6, we have too many 5 and 6s as it is. We need to get an established top 4, either using established test batsmen, or calling up county stalwarts like Denly and Hildreth who are used to batting at the top of the order.

        I hate to say it, but I don’t think Hameed has lost it, I think the truth is he never really had it. We’re all so exciting about the idea of having an old-fashioned stodgy opener with a pretty-looking forward defence, we’ve overlooked the fact that he’s never actually been very good. An average of 30 in 50 odd first-class games does not scream “future test opener”.

  • There’s a big danger they’ll pick a team for the last Test rather than the next one.

    If the pitch is “slow and low” (as I’ve read is the expectation), should they pick bang-it-in seamers because they should have last time?

  • Difficult to see any changes apart from Broad coming in for Rashid or Curran, depending on the last minute assessment of the wicket in Antigua. When you get a real dicking it’s important not to panic and go into reflex mode. These players have been selected as the best available by the committee, so they must show some faith, so the players have the opportunity to respond to protect their own blushes. It’s difficult to single out individuals when the team was so poor, Anderson excepted. They have a ready made excuse to keep Jennings as he top scored in the first innings last time out and everyone else pretty much failed anyway. This was what they used last summer when explaining his selection for Sri Lanka.
    Would like to see Denley given a go for the rest of the series as he can provide the double whammy of a top order replacement for Jennings and spin for Rashid. However I guess this is too neat a solution for Smith and his merry men. Whoever’s selected I expect to see a determined response from this side. Most of our batsmen have made runs against these Windies bowlers and recently, so there’s no reason to be intimidated.

  • “Curran is the future.” In what way? The three possibilities are as an all rounder who can function as 4th seamer, as a specialist bowler, or as a specialist bat. I can see him filling the first role, but to do so he would need to displace Stokes, and that is not going to happen. He is not good enough to be one of the 3 front line seamers except in very specific conditions which favour his gentle swingers (so certain games in England only). His best chance may be to develop his batting, but that requires a big leap of faith to think he will become a top 6 test bat (although it is possible).

    One of the impediments to selecting the best England team at present is this belief that Curran must be considered even in wholly unsuitable conditions for his game. He is a decent cricketer. I think I will nickname him Brian – because he is no Messiah.

    • But if Stokes is actually your 3rd seamer, maybe there’s a role for Curran as the All-rounder/4th seamer?

      • Stokes and Woakes are 4th/3rd seamers if Anderson and Broad are playing (personally I think Broad is too in and out and past his best (and with no redeeming batting ability) but he will always be in for Mr Ed after the failed Curran experiment (who opens with a 78mph seamer?). I fail to see how Curran can get in ahead of those two since both are vastly better bowlers and there is little to choose between the three as bats.I would always be reluctant to have Stokes as a front line seamer, having seen what overbowling did to Botham in the 80s. By the time he came back from suspension in 1986 he was bowling medium pace. Keep Stokes as back up and for shock value when needed.

        • Genuinely not sure whether Woakes is really that better an option than Curran, especially if he’s playing with three other right-arm medium-fast seamers. At least Curran swings the ball the other direction.

          • Woakes is 5mph quicker (and the quickest of all the England bowlers now) and moves the ball both ways (and not just from the hand). I recall Woakes being told he was too slow when he bowled at 82mph on average. What does that make a 78mph bowler who only moves the ball one way?

      • That’s the way I see his role at the moment. We will have to see how he develops. One thing for sure, is that he is never going to be a successful opening bowler

  • Jennings is a tough one,he did get a hundred in Sri Lanka but its more the lack of a real replacement. I do wonder what the setup see in Denly, is he the spare opener? Why isn’t Jason Roy there who is clearly being lined up at some point this year although that was more aimed at three.

    I would leave Bairstow at three, he is covering his stumps much more was a tad unlucky in the first innings being bowled off his elbow. If batting at No3 tightens his game up then that will pay off at no5 if he is still selectable by the end of his tenure at 3.

    Buttler is the anonomy, Mark Butcher says he is learning his trade against a red ball and can’t take bat higher than six but His record since his return is good but for me he has to be batting at five and ahead of Stokes if he isn’t keeping.

    There is some talk of the pitch being slow and low which makes me think that England will need two spinners but not pick two after the last game the classic away team over correction. I would also go for Leach as Moeen batting has fallen to bits so I’m pick Jack on his batting…

    Would give Curran the game off as i’m not sure he is a real wicket threat on these pitches at this stage of his career and England should be able to get more value out of Woakes who is a bit quicker and also bats well. Important game for Woakes very close to getting typecast as a home only player

    Nicks XI: Burns, Jennings, Bairstow, Root, Buttler, Stokes, Foakes, Woakes/Moeen, Leach, Broad, Anderson.

    • Jennings has obvious and fatal technical problems that means he struggles to put bat on ball against anything travelling at over 70mph. As a direct result of this, he has an average of 17, and a high score of 48 out of 20 innings, outside of the subcontinent.

      That’s quite respectable for a number 9 or 10 batsman. The problem is, he’s supposed to be an opener. For an opener, this is APPALLING. There’s no point saying “but who else?” At this point, literally anyone else would be an improvement.

  • I think Broad for Rashid is an absolute certainty and the final place will be between Woakes, Curran and Leach. I agree Jennings is shot but I genuinely can’t see Denly doing better and he would be playing out of position if he opened.

  • Unfortunately leaving Jennings to open, unless he has a spectacular success, is going to leave us unprepared for the Ashes.

    Never the less, my eleven is: Burns Jennings Denly Root Bairstow Buttler Stokes Foakes Broad Leach Anderson.

    I am keen to have Bairstow back where we might see the best of him. Curran has to sit this one out and both Moeen and Rashid seem undetectable to me. Batting apart, Leach can do the job of both those two.

  • Hameed cannot buy a run. Clarke was axed for the Lions tour due to off-field issues.
    I would not be at all surprised if England were to select the same team. That would be a huge mistake.
    Jennings and Rashid must go. I’m retaining Curran as a batsman and possible 4th seamer. In come Broad and
    Woakes. In batting order my team is
    Burns
    Denly
    Curran
    Root
    Stokes
    Bairstow
    Buttler
    Foakes
    Ali
    Woakes
    Broad
    Anderson
    They can toss beforehand to decide who should be captain

  • I’m not convinced about Broad, think he’s past his sell by date now. Not sure about the final 11 but you have to get Woakes in there somehow. Even his fitness record is not great though. Who bats 2 or 3? I’m not a technical expert but I don’t need to be to give Jennings the boot, so Denley at 2. Root 4 and 3? There ain’t nobody suitable in the squad. Bring out Hildreth or Bell until a long term solution is found.

  • Joe Root has set the tone for the entire team by being a coward and refusing to bat at 3. He’s our best bat, and our captain; he should take on the greatest responsibility in the batting order.

    The fact that he’s not scoring runs at 4 proves that his batting position isn’t the problem: it’s his attitude.

    • Was our best batsman. He needs to be removed from the captaincy so he can concentrate on what he does best, batting. He is incapable of doing the two unfortunately.

      • Root lost form about a year before he started the captaincy, so that doesn’t quite hold up.

        But he may also be the wrong guy for captain.

        • The problem with captaincy is in order to maintain some sort of consistency he has to be an automatic selection as a player. Since Cook resigned who else was an automatic choice apart from Anderson. Its captaincy by default. I don’t think Root is too bad a captain, it’s just his ability to trust his instincts, which is limited by his lack of experience and his inevitable nativity as an authority figure. People respect him as a player but maybe not as a man. It doesnt help that he looks like a schoolboy, and is uneasy in front of a microphone.

  • Why the hell is curran the bloody golden child. Not good enough with Bat or ball alone by a mile… behind in the all rounder slot to stokes and Woakes..

    Literally a green top bowler only..

    • Entirely agree. Don’t see what all the fuss is about, apart from his self confidence and competitive instincts, which are pretty awesome for a player of his age, his skill sets are clearly not test level yet. Every county has better openers than him, so what he was doing opening for his country is a complete mystery. If you fancy him as a batsman why play him at 9 with Anderson likely to join him pretty quickly. If Woakes played for Surrey or Middlesex he’d be an automatic choice. Product of more muddled thinking by selectors.

  • Well you say his skill sets are not up to test level, but it wasn’t long ago he saved England’s blushes and helped win the Test series with his batting. But I agree not an opening bowler in Tests which was daft although he’s opened the bowling for Surrey many times often successfully. Only 20 and will definitely be one for the future, primarily a better though. Err..what about Tom Curran as a bowling option? Seems to have been for and bats a bit too.

    • There was no pressure on him as a batsman then, every contribution he made was a bonus. He played and missed a lot and played away from his body, throwing his hands at the ball, a bit like Butler. Fair play to him he rode his luck and displayed the same sort of indomitable spirit. The problem for him now is people expect that of him. However he never looked technically adept enough to go up the order and now we’re batting him at 9, not a place he’s going to make much of an impact.

  • Apologies for going off-topic but this caught my eye on the BBC website:

    “A number of [rugby] union and competition chief executives met in Los Angeles to explore further how to “invigorate” the Test game. Administrators are concerned about the lack of competitiveness and commercial potential of international rugby”.

    I’m guessing those last two aren’t written in order of importance….

    Rugby has been so much better run than cricket this decade but that looks in danger. A certain TV broadcaster has slapped some big bucks on the table and they’re falling over themselves to rip up the schedule and replace traditional patterns with phoney new competitions and create a glut where relative scarcity had been part of the game’s appeal (in NH v SH matches).

    If increased competitiveness was the real reason, why not create relegation from the 6N or redistribute wealth from richer nations? These won’t happen of course because they threaten the big boys and their cosy closed shop. They won’t face up to the dilemma that by concentrating wealth and power in their hands they end up with only a handful of worthy opponents and the sight of them endlessly playing each other soon becomes monumentally tedious.

    Tampering with the rules to “make the game more attractive” and “win new audiences” can only be around the corner. We in cricket recognise the slippery slope rugby has started slithering down. Who can spare, or concentrate for, eighty minutes these days?…

    Just to be clear, I’m not saying rugby has been perfectly run up to this point. There are some real problems in the game but this won’t address any of them (and there’s scarcely any pretence that it’s meant to). The game’s fans aren’t being made aware of what’s going on because the “quality press” are largely failing to report it – another pattern repeated from cricket.

    By the way, three international cricket matches start tomorrow. One of the rationales behind the Test championship was that fans would watch teams other than their own – but how can anyone interested do this if the matches are on at the same time? Fortunately SL are so useless it’s an easy choice for the vaguely neutral to decide which to watch.

  • A lot of the discussion earlier on this thread has been moot, because it seems that Woakes is not fit, else why did he not train? Of course it is hard to rate Curran as a bowler, unless it is swinging for him, as it did last summer. But he is unusual among the batsmen in the side in having an instinctive judgement of length – he not only knows when to go forward and when to go back, but is capable of hooking the quick stuff in order to make the bowler overpitch, allowing him to drive. Frankly he might even be an improvement on Jennings at the top of the order; he is certainly a better candidate than Moeen ever was. As it is imperative to drop both Jennings and Rashid, neither of whom can be taken seriously after Barbados (or before, come to that) there is scope to bring in Denly and Broad, and strengthen both the batting and the bowling (possibly the spin bowling too). I don’t see that playing Denly now is equivalent to nailing him on for the Ashes, but he cannot be a more doubtful starter for the opening slot against Australia than Jennings, so what is the harm?

  • Can’t believe my eyes. Jennings and Rashid are out, though apparently Rashid’s wife is expecting, so he was on his way home anyway after this test. Broad, Leach and Denley are in the squad, so it looks like Denley will play. Now all we need is Leach to play instead of Moin or Curran, so we can have a specialist spinner. Maybe Mr Ed is reading this blog.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting