Ashes, Third Test, Edgbaston, July 29-Aug 2

[yorker_129-7]

I don't think Rushworth is a bad shout to at least be in the mix though. But would be amazed if it isn't Wood, unless they pick Rashid in the squad and the Trent Bridge pitch ends up looking like the India one last year.

[alfie]

Think it will be Wood for Anderson. He's had a rest ; he bowled well in Cardiff ...he is a lively fellow. Haven't seen this Rushworth chap but I guess he's a chance if the pitch looks like doing a bit - he is clearly in form. Finn was excellent here - hope he can repeat it next week. Too early for Woakes I fancy ?
Stokes / Ali a bit of a problem ; though I can't see a better package at present so they'll just have to live with it. Broad didn't get a lot of wickets here but he might get rewarded next match on a swings and roundabouts theory...

Will Australia pick Siddle ? Will they bring back Watson or Haddin ? Or ask Ponting to make a comeback... Will consider that after a couple more glasses of whiskey...

Cheers alfie, i'm with you all the way, especially the whisky.
Scotish whisky is Whisky, Irish Whiskey is Whiskey. Different taste, different spelling.

Oh , I know that , hope . But my wretched spell correct thingy apparently altered it , which I failed to spot ...ah well ; still tasted he same Definitely the Scots variety ...

[hopeforthebest]

Bad news Anderson 's out but would Finn have played instead of Wood if the latter had been fit for this match? In a way it's made it straightforward to bring Wood back in place of Anderson. If Anderson is fit for the Oval then it will be who bowls best out of Wood and Finn at Trent Bridge for who gets the third seamer spot there. At least Wood will give us better overall batting depth for the next game.

Lyth is an issue, the openers just aren't getting us off to decent starts for a long time now.

Picking bowlers simply because they can (apparently) bat has been a problem for years. We need wicket takers.

[Making_Splinters]

Bad news Anderson 's out but would Finn have played instead of Wood if the latter had been fit for this match? In a way it's made it straightforward to bring Wood back in place of Anderson. If Anderson is fit for the Oval then it will be who bowls best out of Wood and Finn at Trent Bridge for who gets the third seamer spot there. At least Wood will give us better overall batting depth for the next game.

Lyth is an issue, the openers just aren't getting us off to decent starts for a long time now.

Picking bowlers simply because they can (apparently) bat has been a problem for years. We need wicket takers.

Too true, if your top 7 can't get the job done then that's the problem, not whether your bowlers can bat.

[yuppie]

Very good win for England, certainly set up well on the first day. Pitch seemed to get easier to bat on. Nice to see Australia fight well today, but if the bowlers are making the runs then the team is in deep trouble. The bottom 5 all got into double figures, got a couple of 50's. Other than Warner, the other batters contributed 23 runs.

I thought i would never say this, but i think S Marsh has to come in to the Aussie team. Actually have him come in at 1st drop and then drop down Smith and Clarke.

Would not change anything else, other than maybe work on Starcs Radar. Bringing in Siddle will not strengthen the bowling.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Bad news Anderson 's out but would Finn have played instead of Wood if the latter had been fit for this match? In a way it's made it straightforward to bring Wood back in place of Anderson. If Anderson is fit for the Oval then it will be who bowls best out of Wood and Finn at Trent Bridge for who gets the third seamer spot there. At least Wood will give us better overall batting depth for the next game.

Lyth is an issue, the openers just aren't getting us off to decent starts for a long time now.

Picking bowlers simply because they can (apparently) bat has been a problem for years. We need wicket takers.

Mo is in as supposedly the best spinner available. Stokes is in as a top six batter first and bowler second. Are they picking bowlers for their batting? Broad kept his place even though he became a batting liability. Finn came in though a poor batter.

Having said all that, it matters that the bowlers contribute with the bat.

[Making_Splinters]

Bad news Anderson 's out but would Finn have played instead of Wood if the latter had been fit for this match? In a way it's made it straightforward to bring Wood back in place of Anderson. If Anderson is fit for the Oval then it will be who bowls best out of Wood and Finn at Trent Bridge for who gets the third seamer spot there. At least Wood will give us better overall batting depth for the next game.

Lyth is an issue, the openers just aren't getting us off to decent starts for a long time now.

Picking bowlers simply because they can (apparently) bat has been a problem for years. We need wicket takers.

Mo is in as supposedly the best spinner available. Stokes is in as a top six batter first and bowler second. Are they picking bowlers for their batting? Broad kept his place even though he became a batting liability. Finn came in though a poor batter.

Having said all that, it matters that the bowlers contribute with the bat.

I try an think of this in terms of averages. A bowler who averages 25 with the ball and 5 with the bat will contribute more to the side on average than a bowler who averages 30 with the ball and 15 with the bat.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Anyone who could average 25 would be in the side like a shot, no matter what their batting. Usually the differentials are narrow enough to make selection tricky though. Anderson averages around 30, but England have never looked to bring in someone who might average a bit more than that, but can hold a bat.

Though I think there's room for one bowler who offers less with the ball but can score runs, as your fifth bowler.

The three seamers in this Test were in for their bowling. If there was better spinner than Moeen, he'd be in the side.

[hopeforthebest]

Bad news Anderson 's out but would Finn have played instead of Wood if the latter had been fit for this match? In a way it's made it straightforward to bring Wood back in place of Anderson. If Anderson is fit for the Oval then it will be who bowls best out of Wood and Finn at Trent Bridge for who gets the third seamer spot there. At least Wood will give us better overall batting depth for the next game.

Lyth is an issue, the openers just aren't getting us off to decent starts for a long time now.

Picking bowlers simply because they can (apparently) bat has been a problem for years. We need wicket takers.

Mo is in as supposedly the best spinner available. Stokes is in as a top six batter first and bowler second. Are they picking bowlers for their batting? Broad kept his place even though he became a batting liability. Finn came in though a poor batter.

Having said all that, it matters that the bowlers contribute with the bat.

I try an think of this in terms of averages. A bowler who averages 25 with the ball and 5 with the bat will contribute more to the side on average than a bowler who averages 30 with the ball and 15 with the bat.

The attraction for Bresnan was because he could bat and the interest in Woakes, Stokes and Jordan and probably Plunkett was based on the fact they could be regarded as all rounders. So to deny that batting bowlers haven't been sought is not supported by the facts.

I liked Bresnan as bowler anyway but his batting almost certainly enhanced his selection.

[ianp1970]

Had this discussion at the game today.

Have we actually had a seam/pace bowler that could warrant the no. 8 batting slot?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Batting will get you in the side ahead of a similarly capable bowler. But the other options to Tim weren't any better than him with the ball. Tim came in for Finn in Australia because Finn was giving runs away, not because his batting was crap.

Woakes came into the side at six, so batting certainly played a part in his selection, but I expect he'll be judged just on his bowling in the future, because he won't get back in at six.

[Gingerfinch]

Jordan was definitely picked because he could bat a bit. Your third seamer, if you're playing four or two spinners, should be picked on bowling only. Batting is a bonus.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Had this discussion at the game today.

Have we actually had a seam/pace bowler that could warrant the no. 8 batting slot?

Most bowlers just can bat a bit now. Broad was a good eight who got in for his bowling. Wood could bat at eight. Plunkett could.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Jordan got in the ODI side, in part because he could hit sixes. He was picked on his bowling for the Test side though.The players who get in the England side are almost all the product of age level national coaching. They get taught how to bat as part of their development. Same as the bowlers can all field now, they bat a bit too.

[Gingerfinch]

IMO Jordan wouldn't have got a test cap if he batted like Anderson or Finn.

Going to TB, Arthur?