Print

[Alvaro]

As Stewart Lee says, you can prove anything with facts.

[joeljonno]

Leading wicket takers in 2016...

[northernboy1987]

Two hundreds in India at no.5.

Highly likely that this time next week he will have 2000 Test runs and 100 wickets.

This was my reasoning for giving him a go at 5 this summer, I'm not 100% convinced Mo is the answer at 5 and think he maybe is better suited to 7/8 but he's earned the right to have a go in my book.

[Alvaro]

Player   Mat   Inns   NO   Runs   HS   Ave   BF   SR   100   50   0   4s   6s
1 JE Root (ENG)   17   32   2   1477   254   49.23   2433   60.70   3   10   1   170   1
2 JM Bairstow (ENG)   17   29   4   1470   167*   58.80   2525   58.21   3   8   1   145   8
3 AN Cook (ENG)   17   33   3   1270   130   42.33   2447   51.90   2   7   0   151   1
4 V Kohli (INDIA)   12   18   2   1215   235   75.93   2011   60.41   4   2   0   134   2
5 Azhar Ali (PAK)   11   22   3   1198   302*   63.05   2569   46.63   3   4   2   114   5
6 SPD Smith (AUS)   11   18   3   1079   165*   71.93   1837   58.73   4   5   1   121   5
7 MM Ali (ENG)   17   29   6   1078   155*   46.86   2004   53.79   4   5   3   116   11

Mo scored over a 1000 Test runs in the calendar year with the joint highest number of 100s. I think anywhere in the middle order between 5-7 is a good place for him.

[northernboy1987]

England must have a serious embarrassment of riches if a player averaging 29 with bat and ball at no.9 is not good enough to get in the team!

[northernboy1987]

Player   Mat   Inns   NO   Runs   HS   Ave   BF   SR   100   50   0   4s   6s
1 JE Root (ENG)   17   32   2   1477   254   49.23   2433   60.70   3   10   1   170   1
2 JM Bairstow (ENG)   17   29   4   1470   167*   58.80   2525   58.21   3   8   1   145   8
3 AN Cook (ENG)   17   33   3   1270   130   42.33   2447   51.90   2   7   0   151   1
4 V Kohli (INDIA)   12   18   2   1215   235   75.93   2011   60.41   4   2   0   134   2
5 Azhar Ali (PAK)   11   22   3   1198   302*   63.05   2569   46.63   3   4   2   114   5
6 SPD Smith (AUS)   11   18   3   1079   165*   71.93   1837   58.73   4   5   1   121   5
7 MM Ali (ENG)   17   29   6   1078   155*   46.86   2004   53.79   4   5   3   116   11

Mo scored over a 1000 Test runs in the calendar year with the joint highest number of 100s. I think anywhere in the middle order between 5-7 is a good place for him.

That's exactly what I was getting at, his form over the last 12 months has earned him a sustained crack at no.5

[Alvaro]

Yep - completely with you. I just find it strange that Mo is always up for the chop despite his results and constantly changing role in the side. Proper team man, if you ask me

[petehosk]

It seems to me that the only question is WHERE to bat Bairstow and Mo!
The top 4 look set and Stokes likes to bat at 6. So that leave JB and Mo at 5 and 7. So do you bat JB at 7 as he is keeping, even though he is good enough to bat at 5, and therefore put Mo at 5?
Or do you bat JB at 5 and Mo at 7? Either way, it looks a strong middle order!

[Manormanic]

You bat Bairstow at five - he is, put simply, light years ahead of Ali as a test batsman. 

[Alvaro]

Agree. Though I would really prefer Root at 3 and JB at 4 as a pure batter.

[petehosk]

So several options available!

Option 1
1. Cook
2. Jennings
3. Ballance
4. Root
5. Bairstow
6. Stokes
7. Ali
8. Dawson
9. Broad
10. Wood
11. Anderson

Option 2
1. Cook
2. Jennings
3. Ballance
4. Root
5. Ali
6. Stokes
7. Bairstow
8. Dawson
9. Broad
10. Wood
11. Anderson

Option 3
1. Cook
2. Jennings
3. Root
4. Bairstow
5. Ballance
6. Stokes
7. Ali
8. Dawson
9. Broad
10. Wood
11. Anderson

Option 3 would be my personal favourite as it look a strong order. But Option 1 would also do.
Option 2? As much as I like Ali, as everyone has said, Bairstow is quality and needs to bat in the top 5 really.

[petehosk]

I know it will not happen, but if all the bowlers were 100% fit, then I would love to see the following:

Option "it'll never happen"
1. Cook
2. Jennings
3. Stoneman
4. Root
5. Ballance
6. Stokes
7. Bairstow
8. Ali/Dawson
9. Broad
10. Wood/Woakes
11. Anderson

[rickjames]

Whilst it's not going to happen I would much prefer YJB at 3 than Ballance and let him hang down at 5. Bold move et al.

Thinking about this over the last few days and this series as a whole has brought some seriously brilliant moments; Atherton's 185*, Malcolm's 9/57, Graeme Smith's back to back double hundreds and his 154* in 2008, KPs 149 at Headingley, Hoggards 7/63, the battles between Kallis/Flintoff and Atherton/Donald etc, Amla's 311 at the Oval. Then of more recent times there's Stokes 258, Bairstow's maiden test century and Broad going absolutely mental with 6/17 and two of the best catches you'll ever see at square leg from James Taylor.

[HallamKeeper]

I think the main thing is that England find a top 3 combination that gets us to 150-200 as often as possible then Root and Ballance can pick up the pace and the lower order smash it around.

Jennings has earnt his place, Root apparently wants to bat 4 and Stokes has made 6 his slot. Bairstow is a very good batsman but if he loses form it would be a no-brainer for him to drop to 7 or be positive and let him be like Gilchrist and lead a counter attack with the capable bowlers who can bat.

My team if everyone is fit (this needs to change with rotation etc):

1. Cook
2. Jennings
3. An actual number 3 from county cricket (Westley, Stoneman, others?)
4. Root
5. Ballance
6. Stokes
7. Bairstow
8. Ali (or pick another spinner in preparation for Oz)
9. Woakes (TRJ as a replacement or another bowler in the pecking order)
10. Broad (or Wood etc)
11. Anderson (or Wood etc)

I don't see the sense of relying heavily on your best players to do too much. Bairstow is the keeper. He is also a gun bat. Pick which one you want him to do and allow him to perform to his best. Having too many bowlers seems to cause more problems that it solves.

[alexhilly1492]