Print

[Manormanic]

I would love to see you face an 85mph bouncer into the ribs... Your natural instinct would be to play it, anyone who says he should have just 'let it hit him' is just being moronic in my opinion

Firstly, I have faced the odd one in my time so I do know what I'm talking about.

You ignore that a Test player is conditioned to face bowling of that pace and wears protection accordingly.  They should also have the mental strength to know what was coming - it was after all the worst disguised bouncer of all time -and been able to resist moving the bat in that direction.  It was, after all, a test series on the line.   

[FattusCattus]

Anderson getting out in the way he did isn't really the point.

He shouldn't have been left in that situation by inept batting and bowling earlier in the test.

[Manormanic]

Graeme Smith and Colin Cowdrey already had the injuries, so they could do that. It is different that injuring yourself deliberately. They knew they were going to miss the next few games with injury.

So, wait a second, you're now saying that they were at less risk?  Surely the risk of Cowdrey getting hit again around the area of the break was far more plausible and potentially damaging than any hypothetical blow/injury that Anderson might have taken - which, incidentally, is not injuring yourself deliberately either, so much as accepting the theoretical risk that injury might occur in order to acheive the desired outcome.

People have died by getting hit in the heart/throat area but you would put the team ahead of your life I presume.

An infintessimally small percentage chance of that anyway, even before you tuck your chin and have a chest guard covering the heart!

Cook, Bell, Robson, Plunkett all played bad shots on the first night and Ballance missed a straight one, yet you blame Anderson???

Oh, Cook is far more culpable for many, many reasons, but the point here is that none of those players were there with two balls to go to save the game.  Anderson was, and got out in an awful way.

If he had done that in the morning session and England had been bowled out before lunch, you wouldn't be saying he should wear one, so why now?

For the reasons set out above.  At lunch, he would be talking about theoretically wearing dozens, possibly hundreds of balls - there is no realistic hope of such a strategy being successful.  AT the stage we're talking about he had to wear, at most, two (if he couldn't have swayed out of the way) which is a much better statistical chance of success.

[joeljonno]

With Cowdrey and Smith, what they did was silly but they were already injured and going to be missing future matches.  What I suggested was, that letting the ball hit Anderson and putting himself deliberately at risk of being injured with the potential of missing future matches is not an easy decision and one I would never suggest.  He has a bat, he can use it.  He faced 54 other balls and not got out so why should he not do what he had done for the previous 2 hours. At what point should he stop trying to hit the ball and "wear" one?  Last over, last two overs, last 5 overs?  Maybe he should have just whacked it?

The only reason Anderson WAS batting WAS because the top order failed miserably (with the exception of Moeen and a bit of Root).  Surely they should take the blame playing stupid shots when they did not need to.

Anderson and Ali faced 121 balls for the last wicket.  That is a record for the 4th innings 10th wicket.  Anderson face 45% of the deliveries, in my opinion, that is a lot when there is a recognised batsman at the other end.

At no point can you put the loss down to Anderson and his batting ability.

[Kulli]

Plenty of times ali could've taken a single from the 3rd ball and let jimmy face 3.  Instead he rejected it and got stuck at the other end, leaving Jimmy to face a whole over.

and if he'd done that and Anderson had gotten out in one of those 3 balls he'd also have been slated, I fail to see how the defeat is the fault of someone who batted 300 balls and scored an unbeaten ton!

[Gerry SA]

Got a little poser.

I know Ben Stokes played well in Australia, and after this series defeat, everyone will want him back in the side.

But would his recall unbalance the side yet more?

Stokes is too good to be wasted at 8, where he's likely to bat against India.

Therefore could it be feasible for England to pick a proper WK to play at 8, and Ali and Stokes at 6 and 7.

I don't see it being ideal, but it could be England's best bet. Whilst I'll admit I don't see either Ali or Stokes as true Test bowlers at present.

[uknsaunders]

England lost the game on the 4th day and more importantly a realistic chance of draw on the 4th evening.

You can go back to the 2nd evening to see when the tide turned - losing 7 wickets for 50 odd was criminal. Had they scored the minimum 450 required after being 278-2 or 311-3 then England could not of lost the game. Add on an extra 2 hours of England batting on day 3, perhaps a knackered Sri Lanka losing a few more wickets or batting into Day 5 to be 200+ ahead, and it would of been a draw at worst, more likely an England win.

Sri Lanka played well from the moment Bell strangled himself down the legside but England let them in.

[uknsaunders]

Got a little poser.

I know Ben Stokes played well in Australia, and after this series defeat, everyone will want him back in the side.

But would his recall unbalance the side yet more?

Stokes is too good to be wasted at 8, where he's likely to bat against India.

Therefore could it be feasible for England to pick a proper WK to play at 8, and Ali and Stokes at 6 and 7.

I don't see it being ideal, but it could be England's best bet. Whilst I'll admit I don't see either Ali or Stokes as true Test bowlers at present.

To me Jordan isn't quite good enough with bat or ball at test level - but it's early days. Playing Stokes reinforces the batting and covers for calamity Cook. To be honest Stokes will probably bowl in the batsman's half more often and move the ball, can't see him being any worse than Jordan. I would bat Stokes 7 and Prior 8 if we did that.

Personal preference is to give Rashid a go and dump a batsman. Cook is the obvious one to be dropped with Ali opening. Big call that.

[Gerry SA]

To me Jordan isn't quite good enough with bat or ball at test level - but it's early days. Playing Stokes reinforces the batting and covers for calamity Cook. To be honest Stokes will probably bowl in the batsman's half more often and move the ball, can't see him being any worse than Jordan. I would bat Stokes 7 and Prior 8 if we did that.

Personal preference is to give Rashid a go and dump a batsman. Cook is the obvious one to be dropped with Ali opening. Big call that.

That's a little radical, and rather unlikely IMHO.

Is Rashid a proper spinner though? Or would he be another all rounder type cricketer like Ali, Stokes, Jordan?

[jamielsn15]

They won't drop any of the experienced players and Cook will continue as captain, at least until the end of the India series, which we could win and Cook marches on.  He's not a natural leader, no shame in that, and is in his most horrible run of form since Pakistan 2010.  All things being equal I'd go with form is temporary, class is permanent, but there's something about the captaincy that does for English batsmen - Vaughan, Strauss, now Cook.  Maybe they need to look at the extra stuff they do - the PR, peripheral stuff that means the skippers not focusing on his actual job.  As an opening bat I'd be fuming with the number of interviews before an innings - and I don't play in front of millions of people...

There's no alternative as captain.  All those in the game suggest that Prior needs to concentrate on keeping and Bell on batting.  Anderson and Broad won't play every test against India, so they're out as well.  For all the promise of Root and Ballance they don't possess anywhere near the mental strength of, say, Graeme Smith to captain so young.

Its also worth remembering that you need experience with the inconsistency of youth.  Robson, Root, Ballance, Root - one big innings, Jordan - tailed off in a two-test series.  There will be ups and downs with them, but the selectors will stick with them - a revolving door policy doesn't help anyone.  Do they know their best side? No.  Will they adopt a horses for courses approach to accommodate a couple of all rounders?  Probably, yes.

First test is Trent Bridge - you have to play Anderson and Broad there.  I'd go with;

Cook
Robson
Ballance
Bell
Root
Ali
Stokes
Prior
Plunkett
Broad
Anderson

Stokes edges out Jordan as he seems to be bowling well (7-fer) and offers more than Jordan with the bat. 

[Manormanic]

I think one of the things that is going to make life tough for the selectors is that Cook is the only one of the six frontline batsmen who could really be dropped - Robson and Ali have each made a hundred in their second test, Root made an excellent double hundred and Ballance has arguably been the most impressive of the lot, whilst Bell is still our main man.

That probabaly means a straight Stokes for Jordan and no frontline spinner.  Which is bad crickeeeeeeet, as Geoffry would say!

[jamielsn15]

I think one of the things that is going to make life tough for the selectors is that Cook is the only one of the six frontline batsmen who could really be dropped - Robson and Ali have each made a hundred in their second test, Root made an excellent double hundred and Ballance has arguably been the most impressive of the lot, whilst Bell is still our main man.

That probabaly means a straight Stokes for Jordan and no frontline spinner.  Which is bad crickeeeeeeet, as Geoffry would say!

Agreed.  Plus the selectors will want consistency after such upheaval, forced or otherwise.  Any team that loses Trott, KP, Swann would struggle - you could argue on top form they would all make a World XI.  However, this is the hand that has been dealt and played.

All being equal we'd be delighted that four of the top 6 had runs going into a huge series, even more so when one is a 'daddy' and the rest scored by players with no more than 6 tests between them.  Cook's getting all of the press though...

[Manormanic]

In some ways justifyably because we can all see that his captaincy is affecting his batting and that he is in any event a shockingly bad captain.   But, as has been noted, there is no stellar contender from within the side and little more option without as regards a replacement goes, and dropping him would still require another opener to be called up - unless they were going to ask Root to move yet again.

I would still bite the bullet and take the captaincy away from him mind.  But Ali's hundred has left the balancing of the side awfully difficult for the selectors!

[WalkingWicket37]

Cook out, Root up to open, Morgan in as skipper and Stoles in to replace Jordan anyone?

[TangoWhiskey]

Cook out, Root up to open, Morgan in as skipper and Stoles in to replace Jordan anyone?

I don't get why everyone rates Morgan as a captain. I've never seen a great England display in any format with him at the helm. Why should he get another crack as a specialist skipper?