West Indies vs England 2nd Test - Greneda (Apr 21st-25th)

First topic message reminder :

20 wickets is the key to winning test matches, and we saw in Antigua that it's easier said that done, even against this so called 'mediocre' West Indies team. True, the pitch died and became easier to bat on, but we lacked variety, and bite.

So who comes in?

Rashid/Ali or Wood for Tredwell or Jordan?

Tredwell did take four in the first innings, but will more than likely tie an end up, than clean up. Jordan is similar, and with Greneda more prone to spin, I can see one of the two spinners replacing the latter.

Lyth/Ali for Trott?

Trott had a stinker, but received a couple of good deliveries, and will be harshly dropped, after his first game back. Some have mentioned Ali to open, though this won't happen, imho.

The likely XI

Cook
Trott
Ballance
Bell
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali/Rashid
Tredwell
Broad
Anderson

Well this Scot seems to know more about cricket than you judging by your statements. I say again Viv Richards, Sir Ian Botham, Ian Bishop, Bob Willis etc etc all with around a century of experience as test cricketers all agree with me. Who agrees with you?

Before the start of the last day in Grenada I looked up the Windies last day scorecard from Cape Town played earlier in the year. From a seeminly impregnable position they collapsed and lost, so I reckoned they could, although I doubted they would, collpase again.
This was a good effort by England, who really should have won in Antigua as well. Can't say I agree with some of the stuff written above about Root and Ballance. I wish people would not harken on about playing the "poorer" Test sides and making runs against them. In the 90s England constantly shot themselves in the foot by hardly playing any Tests against these poorer sides but playing six-Test series against the stronger ones. It hardly helped England's confidence.

Also Gerry I wonder what Graeme Smith's record is against Australia? Worse than Joe Root's? Yes it is. And that weak Indian attack well Smith faired poorly against it - poorer than Root. And also against Sri Lanka - poor average.

All players will try, and mostly succeed in filling their boots against inferior opposition in any sport. The best ones will also do it against the best, so in that respect Ballance and Root have a bit to prove this summer, if they want to be heralded as world class.

I do believe the rule of thumb for classing test cricketers is generally regarded as for batsmen an average around 40 is deemed necessary. Below that and it is seen as sub-standard. Around an average of 45 is seen as very good and an average of 50+ and you are into world class territory. That rule is regardless of teams faced by the way.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I do believe the rule of thumb for classing test cricketers is generally regarded as for batsmen an average around 40 is deemed necessary. Below that and it is seen as sub-standard. Around an average of 45 is seen as very good and an average of 50+ and you are into world class territory. That rule is regardless of teams faced by the way.

Over a career, yes, that's why we shouldn't get too carried away, and is why I won't be labelling neither as world class just yet. That said, I wouldn't be too surprised if both don't end up averaging high 40's, by the time their finished.

I dont think anyone expects Ballance to sustain an average of 70+ for his entire career but he is clearly now well established as a test class number 3 and has secure place in the test team. Yes the next year will be another level of challenge, but if he can average even high 30's against the genuine quicks on seamer friendly pitches we would still be having a hard time arguing hes rubbish, although no doubt someone will.
Same for Root, hes had ups and down in his career but has played enough all format games now to prove he is a good international level player. Hes had a couple of yips but still has far better overall stats than KP who continue to score less than he or Ballance are in tests in division 2 of CC.
A good number of folk ( well kpfan at least) were questioning Cooks continued place in the side a couple of weeks ago, hes now averaging 70 over his last 8 innings.
Ali gets the same thing for his bowling, hes now averaging 27 ....as good as any contemporary legal spinner, yet still has his place questioned.
England dont really have an issue with the upper middle batting order, its the one bit of their team thats genuinely functional at the moment. Hales is smashing people all over the CC but wont get near the test team unless someone get injured.

I cant see the side getting changed for the next test except possibly swapping out Jordan for Wood, or Tredwell if its a genuine spinners wicket. For the summer they either need to find a genuine fast bowler for the third seamer spot or just make sure the pitches are boringly slow and hope the good version of Broad turns up more often than not.

No not over a career that is an on-going gauge. I mean you can only judge players on their current form and stats etc. I mean you don't hold off on saying players such as Brian Lara or Sachin Tendulkaar were world class until they hung up their pads. They were hall-marked as this from an early age. Obviously, if Root and Ballance do hit skid row and their average dips then they fall out of said categories.

if we'd judged the likes of Tendulkar and Warne off their first few games then we'd have them pegged in the same bracket as Ronnie Irani and Ian Salisbury

I think the point with Ballance , less so Root, is that he has still played very few games and whilst he has done very well in the ones he has played he cant really be seen n the top tier until hes proven it over a number of years and had a fair number of his games against strong attacks.

Somewhere between the "entire career" and "only as good as you last innings" approach.

English and world cricket is littered with players who have had good runs in their career, whether early or mid, and then seen their form plummet for one reason or another.

To be truely world class you need to sustain it. If Ballance sustains an average pushing 70 he would go down as an absolute legend, but again I dont think anyone is expecting that are they.

Good win for England after the Windies looked to have got themselves nearly safe with good batting on day 4. Shows the value of the new ball and having bowlers who can make good use of it.

Good days for Moeen (may have been cheap wickets but will restore some confidence), Balance and Cook (good runs for both with much improved fluency compared with the first innings, although admittedly against a beaten attack).

Trott still doesn't look the part at opener - OK, you will always have some failures against the new ball, but it should take a good ball to get you rather than poor batting. I'd like to see Lyth given a go in Barbados, especially as he is a bit more of a fluent run scorer and so we should have a better tempo early on.

Still far from convinced that Stokes and Jordan are good enough as a pair of back up seamers. Definitely a case for either Wood or Plunkett coming in as a mainline bowler in place of Jordan. Stokes I think stays in unless it's likely to turn square, in which case you can make a case for Rashid.

Anyway, I'm not sure why Gerry was having such a go - none of us think this England side is excellent, and is clearly a work in progress and will have to improve and play very well to have any success in the Ashes series. As it stands, I think the following are almost certain to play in the first Ashes test (unless injured):
1 - Cook
2 -
3 - Balance
4 - Bell
5 - Root
6 - Ali
7 - Buttler
8 -
9 -
10 - Broad
11- Anderson

One opener, one all rounder and one specialist bowler spot up for grabs. The all rounder spot I guess is between Stokes and Woakes, with Jordan maybe coming into contention if he can demonstrate better batting form, while the third specialist seamer is anyone's guess.

Totally agree dummy_half.

The openers slot is one they need to decide on as Trott will be of no use getting one big score in four in the Ashes. If they show faith in him and play him in Barbados and he has a similar test as he has just had then question marks remain and uncertainty remains. He needs two solid scores otherwise question marks remain as the Ashes grow ever nearer. If Lyth is given a chance the selectors will get an idea whether he is ready for the task and bed him in to the role well before the Ashes and give him some much-needed experience and if he is more free-scoring than Trott (which I imagine he is) that will be beneficial as well.

As for the bowling I agree with Hussein as in it lacks variety. You have four bang-it-in seamers and a part-time spinner so if the seamers are getting nothing out of the pitch there is precious little else that can be done. Of course bringing in Wood or Rashid would depend on what the pitch is like in Barbados. As for who to drop? Tough one - perhaps Jordan.

CC

My feel at the moment is that Stokes is more a genuine all rounder and Jordan is a bowler who bats a bit. With Broad having lost batting form / confidence, I think given there has been little to choose between their bowling, we should retain the guy more likely to score some runs to act as the 4th seamer (3rd if its a spinner's wicket).

I think Hussein's assessment of the bowling is not entirely accurate, in that Jimmy A is much more a pitch up and move the ball seamer than the others, while Ali has shown himself to be rather better than the part time spinner. However, with the bowling conditions and the form of Broad, we are short of bowlers who make things happen, especially with the older ball. A few years ago, with the likes of Flintoff or Swann, we always had a guy you would throw the ball to in the hope of them making something happen out of nothing, but we don't have anyone with the same ability / luck / golden arm in the current side.

dummy_half wrote:CC

My feel at the moment is that Stokes is more a genuine all rounder and Jordan is a bowler who bats a bit. With Broad having lost batting form / confidence, I think given there has been little to choose between their bowling, we should retain the guy more likely to score some runs to act as the 4th seamer (3rd if its a spinner's wicket).

I think Hussein's assessment of the bowling is not entirely accurate, in that Jimmy A is much more a pitch up and move the ball seamer than the others, while Ali has shown himself to be rather better than the part time spinner. However, with the bowling conditions and the form of Broad, we are short of bowlers who make things happen, especially with the older ball. A few years ago, with the likes of Flintoff or Swann, we always had a guy you would throw the ball to in the hope of them making something happen out of nothing, but we don't have anyone with the same ability / luck / golden arm in the current side.

Well Broad did do well in Grenada with the ball but I'd definitely say he should now bat as No.11 considering his form in that area. Barbados may be a fast track so the attack England had in Grenada may well suffice but if they inspect it and think it may be similar to the first two pitches then I believe the attack needs a rethink. Rashid in for Jordan would be how I'd go but depends on what type of pitch Barbados is.

Pujara should serve as a warning of rating players too highly too quickly, for the first 11 matches of his test career had an almost unequalled record but his average is now rapidly lowering.

Andrew Strauss would be another great example of a career that levelled out. I am sure there are loads of others.

But its almost like Ballance and Root are being criticised for being exceptional against what has been put in front of them. It is not easy to average 70+ over a period no matter the opposition. Teams like Windies and India playing away are still capable of bowling testing spells, plus the degree of concentration required to play long innings - not all players have that.

Only Gerry is criticising them, in truth.

Tim Robinson is a name that comes to mind when talking of players who started off like a train, but turned into a wheelbarrow.

We need a sense of perspective. Nobody is criticising Ballance or Root apart from Gerry, and the only reason he is doing it is because he is a sad sad person who spends his life waiting for people to be positive about anything English so that he can butt in and try to get a rise out of people.

Actually Ballance batted quite nicely in Sydney (the one test on which Gerry is judging him) in the first innings, on a pitch which was moving absolutely everywhere and coming in with England something like 15-5. IIRC he made 17 or 18 and looked as comfortable as anybody against Johnson and especially Harris who were bowling terrific stuff. He got out nicking off Lyon, mainly I believe due to relaxing slightly having seen off the seam bowlers. I thought it was a promising innings.

Anyway....

Trott is a concern for sure. His first innings knock was welcome, and I suspect his understanding with Cook is a big part as to why England have decided to give him a go at the top of the order (that, and a lack of any other outstanding candidates). However 3 failures in 4 innings is not great, even for an opener, and there is something which looks uncomfortable there. After the first game I said you had to give him a second one. After the second one I'm now not so sure, and I suspect the proximity of the ashes will give England some second thoughts. If Trott fails again in test 3 then do you give him the NZ series as well? NZ will hardly be a good introduction for a new test opener either, although if you're good enough you're ready enough...

So basically I don't know what to do about Trott/Lyth.

I am fairly sure what to do about the 3rd/4th seamer. Stokes is a good 4th seamer, and could be an adequate 3rd seamer if the 4th seamer is capable of keeping an end tidy. Jordan has a lot of ability and could be a decent 4th seamer also (and in time perhaps better than that). When Woakes comes back for me he comes back in, and Stokes/Jordan battle it out for that aggressor role. Both are IMO better bets than Plunkett and indeed anything else available. There is a real paucity there unfortunately: Finn is still finding his feet, and youngsters like Topley, Dunn et al are nowhere there yet. James Harris hasn't come on as wanted, or I'd say he'd be worth a go; perhaps this is the season he kicks on a bit.

I haven't seen Wood, so can't really comment there, but Anderson and Broad are still by a distance the 2 best seamers in England.

My comments were aimed at the massive plonker that is Gerry SA. But you do hear similar sorts of arguments in other circles.

Its always along the same lines, and doesn't just apply to cricket. England beat someone = terrible opposition. England lose to someone = England are rubbish

The truth is, of course, almost always somewhere in the middle!

Its not so much who we drop to spice up the attack as who the hell do you bring in?
England have long searched for that variety and tried out any left armers or vaguely fast bowlers (Stokes is regularly the quickest of the guys we do have, his bowling has been decent but hasnt bought home the bacon) in the squad or test side without finding anyone who can justify a place ahead of the right arm medium quicks. The "next in line" in terms of performances would be Woakes... AKA the poor mans Broad. The other guys in the squad arent really any different, were there a left armer regularly bowing 95mph and able to put the ball within a foot of the stumps 5 times out 6 Im sure theyd be straight in. As would Steve Finn (again given plenty o chances) if he were ale to bowl over 85 and hit a barn door.

Same with the spinners, the best two options they have are Tredwell and Ali..both pretty similar with some handy backup form another right arm orthodox in Root. Panessar has been given lots of chances, Rashid has carried drinks twice on tours in the last couple of years but always seems to leave the coaches/selectors underwhelmed.

Its all very well crying for variety but it was said at the world cup and ahead of this tour: England can only select players who exist.
They do have project guys like Mills and Meaker who may come good and will be given chances, but we have spectaculalr faled to develop the sort of funky bowlers yu get from Sri Lanka, the level of illegal spin actions you get from pakistan, or the brittle injury prone up and down form lightening fast killing machines the aussies seem to have in abundance. Ideally England would start breeding Dale Steyns or at least make sure his kids get schooled here so we can poach them.

Till either that happens, or county cricket and academies start developing something other than very orthodox right arm bowlers, England will keep picking pretty dull samey attacks.

Meanwhile the Indians would pay handsomely for Englands bowling "problem".

Moores has come out in public and hinted Trott would continue at the top. I didn't feel that was the right call to start with, thought they should give Lyth a chance in the 2nd game at least, and still feel, even after Trott's first innings 59 that they should give Lyth a go in the next game. Trott hasn't really convinced as an opener. The Ashes is so close and the other home series is against Southee and Boult's New Zealand. So if Lyth has to be given a look in before the Ashes, then this is the best chance. Keep Trott as an option, but give Lyth a go. Can't complain England are taking the opposition lightly, as Trott hasn't really made a case for himself. And I feel they should try out another pace option in place of Jordan. Unlike Stokes who is a real deal as an all-rounder, Jordan is more of a bowler who can bat a bit. He has bowled some good balls but also came up with a lot of rubbish. As Anderson is getting on, you can't expect him to clean up every time, and Broad has been inconsistent as well. So look at Wood or Plunkett, keep Stokes in as the 3rd/4th seamer. In English conditions, Woakes can be a good bet as well, and he can bat too.
Hope Finn gets back to his best sooner rather than later.

And while we are on the subject of a spectacular start not quite finishing that way, one interesting case is that of Vinod Kambli. He retired with a test average over 50 it should be remembered, yet towards the end of his short test career, he was pretty awful.
Still believe Pujara is someone special. Yes he has had issues with playing spin, and that undermined his confidence in Australia, but he did score runs against Steyn, Morkel and Philander in their backyard and he score runs for fun in home conditions. And the guy has got the right attitude, he's already on a mission to improve himself in swinging conditions, is playing county cricket for the champions.

I'm only here to back Pujara as well. Kid is gonna be a superstar. Think he lost his way a bit chasing IPL money, but in the long run, he'll certainly come right. Was unrealistic to expect him to average 60, but he's a solid 50+ imo.

Raf I am not sure Pujara's issue was not so much IPL as such. Yes he did want to make it to the ODI side and was working on expanding his range of shots, but don't think that really was his undoing.
The England tour was tough for him, along with the team, he lost his way a bit, and almost always, he was there at the wicket in the first or 2nd over as Gambhir and Dhawan were godawful and there was no support from Kohli either. Think that had a bad effect on his confidence in Australia.
Certainly expecting him to bounce back soon.

Cook
X
Ballance
Bell
Root
Ali
Buttler
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Anderson

I wouldn't mind trying Compton again. He was out of form at the end and it seemed a good time for England to try opening with Root which didn't work. Cook and Compton averaged 57.93 together.

msp83 wrote:Raf I am not sure Pujara's issue was not so much IPL as such. Yes he did want to make it to the ODI side and was working on expanding his range of shots, but don't think that really was his undoing.
The England tour was tough for him, along with the team, he lost his way a bit, and almost always, he was there at the wicket in the first or 2nd over as Gambhir and Dhawan were godawful and there was no support from Kohli either. Think that had a bad effect on his confidence in Australia.
Certainly expecting him to bounce back soon.

Presumably he'll bounce back if and when he gets a home series again?

His problems overseas werent down to England (he had an ok start to that tour), he'd already had a bad tour to new zealand right before getting there and his first tour to SA was a car crash as well. The runs he got second time in SA were arguably helped by SA being a bower down.

The simple fact is hes been brilliant in home tests and poor away ...just one century in 14 games. This hardly makes him unique as an Indian batsman, how much of that is down to skills and botle and how much of it is down to a general team attitude of not liking touring is another question.
Hes hardly setting county cricket alight so far but it is as good a place as any to learn to playing swinging medium pace. What he wont face though is
quality genuine fast bowling on hard pitches. I still fancy he'd have an issue with a fully fit aussie attack on pitch tailored for them.

Ballance and Root conversely we have proven are flat track bullies and cowards because they struggled on one tour. England wont sort that across their batting line up till we get some proper fast bowlers in county cricket or they start poaching young aussies as well as south africans.

guildfordbat wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

... Then, assuming Moores has not destroyed Rashid's confidence, woudl like to see him play and bat at 8.

...

LondonTiger - what has Moores done that might have destroyed Rashid's confidence?

LondonTiger - while you are waiting for an answer from Olly on the Surrey match thread about Ansari, I thought I would remind you of this one.

guildfordbat wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

... Then, assuming Moores has not destroyed Rashid's confidence, woudl like to see him play and bat at 8.

...

LondonTiger - what has Moores done that might have destroyed Rashid's confidence?

LondonTiger - while you are waiting for an answer from Olly on the Surrey match thread about Ansari, I thought I would remind you of this one.

Something tells me people are in for a hell of a disapointment if/when Rashid ever plays. I think there are very good reasons he is being kept out

VTR - yes, a clamour for Rashid's selection seems to have built up based mainly, from what I can tell, upon curiosity.

guildfordbat wrote:VTR - yes, a clamour for Rashid's selection seems to have built up based mainly, from what I can tell, upon curiosity.

I suppose the point is you will never know until he is tried. After all he has been named in the squad so he must have something about him. The same goes for Adam Lyth. Frankly though, if Barbados is a fast pitch the bowling attack they have suffices.

CC

I think the case for giving Lyth a match is much stronger for 3 reasons:
1 - His FC form last season was outstanding
2 - He is a specialist opener
2 - Trott has failed in 3 of 4 innings batting out of his normal position.

Rashid for me only gets a game if we need 2 spinners - Tredwell and Ali as a tandem doesn't look threatening, with both being conventional off spinners. With Root being a half-decent occasional off spin bowler, the need is for someone who spins the ball the other way, and Rashid is the only member of the squad that offers that. It's not so much curiosity as getting the balance of the team right.

If we go with a 4 seamers + Ali attack, I would like to see either Plunkett or Wood get a game in place of Jordan. At the moment I just can't see Jordan or Stokes regularly chipping in with 3 or 4 wickets an innings, and neither are able to simply bowl accurate line and length and apply pressure to the batsmen (in a McGrath / Fraser manner). Too much pressure on Jimmy A and Broad, so time to see if either of our other 3rd seamers can provide something more than the incumbents.

guildfordbat wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

... Then, assuming Moores has not destroyed Rashid's confidence, woudl like to see him play and bat at 8.

...

LondonTiger - what has Moores done that might have destroyed Rashid's confidence?

LondonTiger - while you are waiting for an answer from Olly on the Surrey match thread about Ansari, I thought I would remind you of this one.

Apologies had missed that.

There are a lot of Yorkshire players on the tour - and some speak to their mothers. Thus tales were spreading around Worcester for our first CC game about certain things that had been said and done. this is the second time Moores has called Dilly up for a tour, once in each speel. Each time he has tried to remodel his bowling to disastrous effect. This tour we have seen first an average offy, who coudl not get into his D2 team last season selected for T1, then a batsman and partime bowler - who struggled to land the ball in the match against yorkshire, and was the same in the nets prior to T2 selected for the second test.

Not saying Dilly should get preferential treatment - but any bowler would be struggling with confidence after that. It may be he will never have enough self-confidence to play test cricket, but being messed about is unlikely to improve that.