Print

[HallamKeeper]

I would go with something like this (assuming fit and free):

1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Malan
4. Root
5. Bairstow
6. Stokes
7. Ali
8. Woakes
9.
10.
11. Anderson

9 and 10 should be your best wicket taking bowlers for the conditions. They don't need to bat just take wickets. Not that keen on Malan at 3, rather him 4 but Root seems settled at 4.

I don't think a big change is the answer. I think winning as many matches as possible is. I also think we have gone back to the late nineties where someone does well in one day cricket so he plays test matches and what do you know, they don't have the ability to play the long game, but their character is good so add 20 runs to his average because he's a good lad.

[petehosk]

1. Hameed
2. Stoneman
3. Malan
4. Root
5. Cook (time for him to cash in?)
6. Bairstow- Tempted by Foakes with Bairstow as batsman though.
7. Livingstone
8. Woakes
9.  TRJ/Curran
10. Broad (Once he's worked on his game)
11. Anderson
12. Moeen Ali

Squad: Stokes (Playing if not in prison), Jennings, Northeast, Crane, Overton, Curran, TRJ, Foakes.

If you have Stokes in the squad then he HAS to play 6 to give England that balance! And too early to open with inexperience, so Cook needs to stay at 1 until we bed in two decent openers.
Malan good enough to bat at 3? I would keep him at 5 and try to bed in an opener at 3! Therefore:

Cook
Stoneman
Hameed
Root
Malan
Stokes
Bairstow
Curren/Overton/Ali (depends on wicket)
Woakes
Crane (time to start looking at proper spin bowlers)
Anderson

I do like Ali but he has looked wanting in the Ashes! But in certain conditions he bats and bowls really well.
Would like to see a future opener at number 3. Some of the time he may well be batting in the first few overs against a moving ball anyway!! Aim to move Cook down to 3 in a couple of years! Stoneman is not young but will do for a while, until we (hopefully) find another strong opener.
 

[iand123]

Alot of people not picking broad. Correct me if i am wrong but on paper arent NZ wickets more suited to him than Australian wickets?

[Manormanic]

Alot of people not picking broad. Correct me if i am wrong but on paper arent NZ wickets more suited to him than Australian wickets?

If he is prepared to bowl for wickets rather than dry up runs maybe - but my thinking would be that leaving him on the bench sends a powerful message about complacency to the English game.

[iand123]

If he is prepared to bowl for wickets rather than dry up runs maybe - but my thinking would be that leaving him on the bench sends a powerful message about complacency to the English game.

Yep i wasnt saying he should be in, just i can see the predictable message from the management being these pitches would suit him more. I suspect he wont be left out, dropped or rested

[petehosk]

Broad seemed to be waiting for something to happen when he was bowling! Whereas Anderson was giving it everything and trying to make things happen! (IMO)
I think Broad looked down and lacking in energy and aggression. He just needs to get that spark back?

[Manormanic]

Broad seemed to be waiting for something to happen when he was bowling! Whereas Anderson was giving it everything and trying to make things happen! (IMO)
I think Broad looked down and lacking in energy and aggression. He just needs to get that spark back?

I thought it was interesting that, when he thought he was in danger of being dropped at the MCG, he managed to find 5mph and some variety and as a result looked the only bowler on either side who might conceivably take a wicket on that featherbed.

[FattusCattus]

I'm not sure he's fit mentally or physically to bowl at his very best at the moment.

He seems to have been in a lull for a long time now, however I suspect the motivation to take his 400th wicket will keep him going. His skill and experience is less and less use to the side if he's not taking wickets I'm afraid.

[FattusCattus]

I suspect most peoples squad would be different if Stokes was available, as it would allow for luxury bowlers such as Crane or Wood in a 5 man attack.

[edge]

Broad has developed technical problems over the last 2-3 years, I'd be sending him off to see Steffan Jones again pre-season.

[Manormanic]

Quite; the fact is, a world class all rounder - the proper variety, good enough to get in the side as either batsman or bowler - gives a side so many more options.  You can pack the batting, have an extra bowler or a speculative punt. 

[petehosk]

Quite; the fact is, a world class all rounder - the proper variety, good enough to get in the side as either batsman or bowler - gives a side so many more options.  You can pack the batting, have an extra bowler or a speculative punt.

Quite! I know that there was talk of how good Alis' batting and bowling figures were before the Ashes. But those were in favourable conditions for him.
There was even talk that he could be a World Class allrounder. But it is looking doubtful now.
I still believe that Ali is a high quality player in some conditions.
And Woakes is similar - looks a decent bat and bowler in some conditions but is not a true allrounder!

Ben Stokes on the other hand is a proper allrounder and few would dare argue that fact.
And with Stokes comes that freedom to strengthen other areas of the team. Funny that with Stokes we looked far more solid! And I think a lot of that is the confidence it brings!!

[Manormanic]

Ben Stokes on the other hand is a proper allrounder and few would dare argue that fact.
And with Stokes comes that freedom to strengthen other areas of the team. Funny that with Stokes we looked far more solid! And I think a lot of that is the confidence it brings!!

Stokes and Bairstow together covered a lot of ills.

Half of your top five not firing?  Never mind, because your best players are still to come.

Not got a spinner worth the name?  Pick one who can bat a bit, pack the bowling.

Want to play a nastie fastie who can only bowl 15 overs a day?  Heeeeere's Ben...

[northernboy1987]

I'm normally one who shouts to leave people where they are batting order-wise but I think it might be time for Root to man up and go to 3 with a couple of others moving up too. This is obviously presuming Stokes' mam will let him out to play:

1: Cook
2: Stoneman
3: Root (C)
4: Malan
5: Stokes
6: Bairstow (+)
7: Moeen
8: Woakes
9: Broad
10: Crane
11: Anderson

4 Genuine seam options, two spin options and hopefully enough batting without ruffling too many feathers bringing loads of new players in.

[petehosk]

I'm normally one who shouts to leave people where they are batting order-wise but I think it might be time for Root to man up and go to 3 with a couple of others moving up too. This is obviously presuming Stokes' mam will let him out to play:

1: Cook
2: Stoneman
3: Root (C)
4: Malan
5: Stokes
6: Bairstow (+)
7: Moeen
8: Woakes
9: Broad
10: Crane
11: Anderson

4 Genuine seam options, two spin options and hopefully enough batting without ruffling too many feathers bringing loads of new players in.

I don't disagree with this, but I suspect 2 players would! Root and Stokes seem pretty sure they want to bat at 4 and 6!
If Root did move up to 3 and Stokes to 5, then it does seem to give more flexibility and resolves the number 3 batting issue we have.
But I would make one change (at least temporarily at least) to replace Broad with Curren/Overton or another bowler. Broad needs to get his head
in the right place and also needs to not become too complacent about his place in the team!! Being shown that he is NOT irreplaceable may make him determined and he may get his mojo back.