Print

[SD]

Straight choice between Curran and Rashid for me depending on how they read the surface on the morning of the game. 

[six and out]

it will be interesting who they go with looking at that pitch, it is great to have the options!

for me Curran has to play, the dukes ball will swing longer and probably reverse as well, so it is a straight decision between Broad and either Leach/Rashid.

i always love playing 2 spinners and would play Leach ahead of Rashid.

Jennings
Burns
Bairstow
Root
Buttler
Stokes
Foakes
Mo
Curran
Leach
Anderson

[Manormanic]

At the back of my mind is the question of whether they might even leave Jennings out in order to play six bowlers. 

[Buzz]

I rather like that idea, but it won't happen.
It will be interesting to see Root's approach here.
Having Foakes with the gloves has really put a spanner in the works. If he didn't play you would have Mo or Stokes at three and Bairstow or Buttler keeping.

Also still this...

Leach is going to be the one to miss out, unless Rashid bowls like a drain.
Also worth mentioning they are using a lower grade Dukes ball than the ones used in England which stays harder and swings for longer than the usual ball.
It may be that Rashid misses out too.
The pitches are, apparently, dreadful too.

Team for the first test?
Jennings
Burns
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Foakes
Curran
Broad
Anderson

[Manormanic]

I rather like that idea, but it won't happen.
It will be interesting to see Root's approach here.
Having Foakes with the gloves has really put a spanner in the works. If he didn't play you would have Mo or Stokes at three and Bairstow or Buttler keeping.

Also still this...

Harsh on Foakes, because he obviously improves the side, even if he makes it harder to play six bowlers.  Could still be done if the will was there though - whether by using an old style makeshift opener, moving one of the keepers up there or even using Mo as a pinch hitter - I think the central point is, on that wicket, I'm not expecting a lot from Jennings so any of these options would be a potential benefit.

[Buzz]

I think the reality is that nobody thinks Jennings will do well against Roach, Gabriel and Holder... so what is the point in him playing... you could even play Rashid as an opener as he won't do worse...!



Obviously that isn't a serious suggestion, but making a point!

[Mister Le Chiffre]

Sorry but where has this obsession of 6 bowlers come from? 5 bowlers is generally a luxury if you have good all rounder(we do in Stokes). Pick the best 4 bowlers plus Stokes. None of this nonsense of various bits and pieces "all rounders"

[Manormanic]

Sorry but where has this obsession of 6 bowlers come from? 5 bowlers is generally a luxury if you have good all rounder(we do in Stokes). Pick the best 4 bowlers plus Stokes. None of this nonsense of various bits and pieces "all rounders"

Not an obsession, just a common sense way of balancing the preponderance of all rounders available, and the possible benefits of having a leg spinner in the side. 

[ppccopener]

Sorry but where has this obsession of 6 bowlers come from? 5 bowlers is generally a luxury if you have good all rounder(we do in Stokes). Pick the best 4 bowlers plus Stokes. None of this nonsense of various bits and pieces "all rounders"

It's been like that for a while, it makes selection easy because we can carry another bowler(normally rather than a batsman), so you see why they have gone this way. With this Barbados pitch, it looks like it will be pretty bare and hard, so they're maybe some pace,but if the game goes 5 days that lack of grass may end up turning....

Now we are playing a specialist keeper,which I think makes us a better side, they have to think a bit more about the team.

The captain will want options, Root has a lot when we play 6 bowlers, maybe too many choices.

I think, this boils down to us not getting enough runs in the past couple of years, with our all rounders being the better players selection covers itself picking a few of them.

Let's be honest wedont score enough runs at the top, our middle and lower order gets us runs.

[SD]

I am not sure that 5 bowlers is a luxury, I think any captain would want as many options and as much variety as possible to best make use it the changing pitch over the course of the 5 days.  England are in a strong position as Stokes, Ali and Curran contribute as much with the bat as the majority of the specialist batsmen do.  We aren't picking bits and pieces cricketers, but players who could play as batsmen even if they didn't bowl (I am including Curran in this category as there seems to be belief at his County that he will turn into a better batsman than a bowler).

It seems to me that teams generally carry fewer bowling options than historically has been the case.  I can only put this down to an.increasingly negative mind set as the game has become more professional of picking teams to avoid defeat.  If, as some people think, batting has become easier at test level, then sides naturally should be looking to carry more bowling options.

I am a big fan of Root's positive approach to the game and the current selection policy of picking batsman who put pressure on the opposition captain and bowlers who can take 20 wickets.  England's recent record in the Caribbean would be much better in my view had previous captains held this approach

[stevat]

I am not sure that 5 bowlers is a luxury, I think any captain would want as many options and as much variety as possible to best make use it the changing pitch over the course of the 5 days.  England are in a strong position as Stokes, Ali and Curran contribute as much with the bat as the majority of the specialist batsmen do.  We aren't picking bits and pieces cricketers, but players who could play as batsmen even if they didn't bowl (I am including Curran in this category as there seems to be belief at his County that he will turn into a better batsman than a bowler).

It seems to me that teams generally carry fewer bowling options than historically has been the case.  I can only put this down to an.increasingly negative mind set as the game has become more professional of picking teams to avoid defeat.  If, as some people think, batting has become easier at test level, then sides naturally should be looking to carry more bowling options.

I am a big fan of Root's positive approach to the game and the current selection policy of picking batsman who put pressure on the opposition captain and bowlers who can take 20 wickets.  England's recent record in the Caribbean would be much better in my view had previous captains held this approach

Pains me to say it as a batsman, but Test cricket is about taking wickets really - hard bowling a team out twice.  All the really successful teams were built around potent attacks.  Heard a few people mention that Curran looked to pick up as much as possible from a well regarded left-handed overseas they've had recently.  What a player he was to watch, and you can see some similarities.  Hopefully he looks after himself and turns out to be our answer to Kallis.

[Manormanic]

The only thing that might hold Curran back as a batsman is that it is a bit tricky to see where he is going to get the time and opportunities to bat higher in teh order that are needed for him to fulfill his potential.  He'll be in most England squads for the next year, and best case will be batting at eight, and in his rare appearances for Surrey its tough to see how he gets in higher than seven. 

[Buzz]

At least this isn't as made as the suggestion of dropped Buttler which is being mooted on a Facebook group I am on

[ProCricketer1982]

I am not sure that 5 bowlers is a luxury, I think any captain would want as many options and as much variety as possible to best make use it the changing pitch over the course of the 5 days.  England are in a strong position as Stokes, Ali and Curran contribute as much with the bat as the majority of the specialist batsmen do.  We aren't picking bits and pieces cricketers, but players who could play as batsmen even if they didn't bowl (I am including Curran in this category as there seems to be belief at his County that he will turn into a better batsman than a bowler).

It seems to me that teams generally carry fewer bowling options than historically has been the case.  I can only put this down to an.increasingly negative mind set as the game has become more professional of picking teams to avoid defeat.  If, as some people think, batting has become easier at test level, then sides naturally should be looking to carry more bowling options.

I am a big fan of Root's positive approach to the game and the current selection policy of picking batsman who put pressure on the opposition captain and bowlers who can take 20 wickets.  England's recent record in the Caribbean would be much better in my view had previous captains held this approach

Moeen and Curran front line bats ?? Jesus Christ we over rate lower order hitters

[ProCricketer1982]

Harsh on Foakes, because he obviously improves the side, even if he makes it harder to play six bowlers.  Could still be done if the will was there though - whether by using an old style makeshift opener, moving one of the keepers up there or even using Mo as a pinch hitter - I think the central point is, on that wicket, I'm not expecting a lot from Jennings so any of these options would be a potential benefit.

Pinch hitter.. in tests ... it really is moving to being two ODI innings