Eng in Pak, Oct 7-28

[meninblue]

Bethell hasn't made a fc ton. So looks like either a gamble or going for experience.

Losing Smith is a blow.

I watched him bat in recent ODI series. Apparently he is very weak against spin bowling. Struggled to score runs when spinners were bowling to him.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe looking at all rounder options for post-Stokes.

[alfie]

Somewhat bemused by the Bethel selection. Well actually the whole squad looks a bit odd .

OK , they think he has something so want to have him around the squad . But what role is he actually touring in ? He is hardly a realistic batting cover for any of the top five : should injury strike one of them they'd basically have to move Stokes and Cox each up one and hope the bowlers could produce some runs from 7-11. Seems a bit risky to me. If he were to play it could only be as one of five bowlers , surely ? With all the complications that would have for the team balance.

Apart from that rather light batting group they have five pace bowlers ; and three spinners ( apart from Bethel) Three spinners ? In NZ ? Perhaps they think that the Kiwis will have noted England's problems in Pakistan and will be out with the heaters ,fans and rakes so that Santner can destroy them on a snake-pit Does look like serious overload in that department ; at the expense of the batting.

If everyone is fit I guess there is no real problem : Crawley. Duckett. Pope. Root. Brook. Stokes. Cox. + 3 from Woakes/Atkinson/Carse/Stone/Potts and 1 of Leach/Rehan/Bashir. (Meaning Bethel is just along for the ride) But injuries do happen so it all looks a bit unbalanced to me...

[sussexpob]

The point is that as they've done better than all their recent predecessors it is reasonable to persevere with them for the time being , rather than taking a punt on a hopeful replacement. If you are going to bring someone else in , you want to have some sort of reason to believe they are likely to improve the situation. Just making a change without any real evidence it will work better because you are not satisfied (even with good reason) with the current players' recent efforts is basically pure gambling...and picking horses at long odds. May come off very occasionally. Usually doesn't.

I think the idea that they have done better than their predecessors comes with caveats, because there is a level of inequality of opportunity in play between the pool of players in discussion. You expect a younger player to take some time to find their feet, and you get to say 20-25 tests into a career and have to judge on how far that player can go, based on their performances and how sound their technique is.... but given infinite opportunity, you would expect a player to improve eventually, its just a question of how much. At that 20-25 test mark, Crawley averaged 26, Pope 27... Stokes was mid 20s past his 20th test, but ramped it up not long after. So no, not really... at that mark where you start to make decisions about players future, these batters were doing no better (or worse) than the others who did not go forward. Occasionally you get an Adam Lyth who looks so utterly rubbish, it ends quickly(and in that case rightfully, he looked so far out of his depth I felt sorry for him).

I am not saying that is wrong for the others, because really at that 20-25 game (or give or take a few games) mark you are left having to assess what the threshold is, and in most cases it appeared the answer was low. You are left with the likes of Sibley or Burns or Jennings who may have ended up pushing their averages into the early 30s given an extra 25 plus tests, but never having the impression that they could go much further. Really, someone like Crawley after 25 tests couldn't have been any less similar to the others. Same mid 20s average, very apparent technical flaw.

I still think Crawley has a little bit of potential to eek out, so yes we do agree generally.... I think Pope has reached his threshold.

[sussexpob]

You mention Lees. He wasn't rubbish ; but in ten Tests he averaged 23.8. Wasn't playing Australia either. Think it is a bit much to suggest that he was ditched purely because his style didn't suit the management. He actually did play a quite decent innings , in which he played a fair number of shots and scored at a good rate...but he was rather found out by SA in the matches that followed. Which brought Duckett into the team - with moderately useful consequences so probably not a bad selection choice. I find it very hard to believe Lees would ever do a better job for England than Crawley

Compton and Lees are special cases, because both come into the team at the point where a crisis of sorts is starting to be acknowledged (laughable in the case of Compton, as our team was still very good, but it was the talk of the time) and other players have failed, and the calls from outside of the team is we need to find players who have techniques and desire to bat long. Unsurprisingly, the result was you get two batters come into the team in that environment, and do nothing but block. That is the point I was making about Lees style. The team/press wanted someone who could prove to see out a new ball and last longer than 20 balls.... and Lees delivered it in the West Indies by blocking out 100 balls an innings going nowhere. Both of these players seemed to be following what was required and sort of sacrificing their own success to do. Compton made no big scores in India, but he seen off a lot of overs and then number 3 comes in and makes runs. So sometimes 100 balls blocked as an opener can be worth a lot more on everyone elses bat average.

Obviously Lees didn't do great, but overall I end up asking myself can he block, can he defend his wicket? Yes. And I know watching county cricket he can also splat teams around with stroke making when in the mood. So irrespective of the runs, average or what not, my honest opinion is there is a far higher level of potential there than others. If I give 50 tests to Lees, will he still average 23? Maybe, but I dont think so. I think with good coaching and opportunity to play his natural game, there is a player there.

Sometimes you just get a feel for a player, or sometimes they just need to go away and work on their game. Even the best players don't always walk into test cricket and smash it, the art is really seeing past the stats. I mean, I can give no better example than Australia's team under Waugh, including Waugh himself..... how many of those batsman got an opportunity in the test side and took it straight away?

None. Every single one of those Aussie bats in that great side were dropped at some stage early in their career, and came back. Waugh himself didn't score a 100 in 30 tests at the start. Justin Langer would have been dropped in the late 90s never to return had Waugh not basically said "hes in or I walk".

[Slipstream]

Somewhat bemused by the Bethel selection. Well actually the whole squad looks a bit odd .

OK , they think he has something so want to have him around the squad . But what role is he actually touring in ? He is hardly a realistic batting cover for any of the top five : should injury strike one of them they'd basically have to move Stokes and Cox each up one and hope the bowlers could produce some runs from 7-11. Seems a bit risky to me. If he were to play it could only be as one of five bowlers , surely ? With all the complications that would have for the team balance.

Apart from that rather light batting group they have five pace bowlers ; and three spinners ( apart from Bethel) Three spinners ? In NZ ? Perhaps they think that the Kiwis will have noted England's problems in Pakistan and will be out with the heaters ,fans and rakes so that Santner can destroy them on a snake-pit Does look like serious overload in that department ; at the expense of the batting.

If everyone is fit I guess there is no real problem : Crawley. Duckett. Pope. Root. Brook. Stokes. Cox. + 3 from Woakes/Atkinson/Carse/Stone/Potts and 1 of Leach/Rehan/Bashir. (Meaning Bethel is just along for the ride) But injuries do happen so it all looks a bit unbalanced to me...

Suppose they will start with Woakes, Atkinson and Carse...

[alfie]

You mention Lees. He wasn't rubbish ; but in ten Tests he averaged 23.8. Wasn't playing Australia either. Think it is a bit much to suggest that he was ditched purely because his style didn't suit the management. He actually did play a quite decent innings , in which he played a fair number of shots and scored at a good rate...but he was rather found out by SA in the matches that followed. Which brought Duckett into the team - with moderately useful consequences so probably not a bad selection choice. I find it very hard to believe Lees would ever do a better job for England than Crawley

Compton and Lees are special cases, because both come into the team at the point where a crisis of sorts is starting to be acknowledged (laughable in the case of Compton, as our team was still very good, but it was the talk of the time) and other players have failed, and the calls from outside of the team is we need to find players who have techniques and desire to bat long. Unsurprisingly, the result was you get two batters come into the team in that environment, and do nothing but block. That is the point I was making about Lees style. The team/press wanted someone who could prove to see out a new ball and last longer than 20 balls.... and Lees delivered it in the West Indies by blocking out 100 balls an innings going nowhere. Both of these players seemed to be following what was required and sort of sacrificing their own success to do. Compton made no big scores in India, but he seen off a lot of overs and then number 3 comes in and makes runs. So sometimes 100 balls blocked as an opener can be worth a lot more on everyone elses bat average.

Obviously Lees didn't do great, but overall I end up asking myself can he block, can he defend his wicket? Yes. And I know watching county cricket he can also splat teams around with stroke making when in the mood. So irrespective of the runs, average or what not, my honest opinion is there is a far higher level of potential there than others. If I give 50 tests to Lees, will he still average 23? Maybe, but I dont think so. I think with good coaching and opportunity to play his natural game, there is a player there.

Sometimes you just get a feel for a player, or sometimes they just need to go away and work on their game. Even the best players don't always walk into test cricket and smash it, the art is really seeing past the stats. I mean, I can give no better example than Australia's team under Waugh, including Waugh himself..... how many of those batsman got an opportunity in the test side and took it straight away?

None. Every single one of those Aussie bats in that great side were dropped at some stage early in their career, and came back. Waugh himself didn't score a 100 in 30 tests at the start. Justin Langer would have been dropped in the late 90s never to return had Waugh not basically said "hes in or I walk".

I imagine the current England selectors would say they have very much gone with that approach ! Duckett , Crawley , Pope have all been dropped and returned... The question I suppose is how long you keep going with them in the belief they will eventually justify the faith.

Now I see we both tend to think Crawley warrants further investment while Pope not so much (Duckett is doing well enough at present to not have to worry) : but of course others may have a very different "feel" about them. As demonstrated by your opinion on Lees : I would also probably have retained him for the tour of Pakistan (which might have meant Duckett never got his opportunity ?) ; but have rather less confidence than you that it would have turned out well - or as good as the change they made . So I think I'd give that one to the selectors...

It really does come down to judgement of the player - often but not always backed by statistics - and the selectors eventually must stand or fall by their assessments. Perhaps not as dramatically as Pakistan's recent group abrupt replacement by a retired umpire