English Cricket Thread

[Durhamfootman]

while the guy in charge of the county game also keeps his job, because... er..... well no one knows. But him keeping his job is good for the game (according to him).

hugely important for the whole of English cricket that he doesn't just walk away (according to him)
he must think we're crackers

[Durhamfootman]

Strauss has been at pains to stress that he doesn't want his old job back beyond stepping in for the short term

of course he doesn't.... the man who devised the path to test oblivion pretty much got away with it scot-free, possibly in a wave of sympathy, but that wouldn't happen twice

[bigfluffylemon]

Maybe Root will go back to three.

I hope not. He seems to have some mental block about batting at 3. England need him to be as productive as possible and that means batting at 4 imo.

been told he has to, according to Dobell

https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/eng ... ndies.html

Sure. Let's take the only batsman to make runs last year and move him from the position where he averages over 60 to one where he averages in the 30s

If you're going to keep Root as captain, he bats at 4. Makes no sense otherwise.

Strauss has repeatedly stressed he's only there in the short term. I think you have to give him some credit for being in charge while England's ODI and T20 fortunes turned, even if it was a case of finally selecting the right people for the job - that still requires some judgement. And he was a good captain. But no doubt he also presided over a lot of test rot.

[sussexpob]

Broad speaks out about his unjust dropping, and says Strauss called him up in a short conversation to break the news. He has made secret about his anger, and says he's been left so wound up, he cant sleep. I guess if this was the start of a new chapter in English cricket, then it doesnt feel too much of a separation away from what has just happened. England badly just need to stop the bleeding, badly need some positivity.... and instead, the new coach and new team will be without their two most successful bowlers of all time. Save from the lack of respect shown to these excellent servants of the England game, right now it makes no sense to drop them. Their figures speak for themselves, and their performances have shown no consistent downturns. England are right now a very much noticeably worse team without those names on the teamsheet.

So Anderson is 39, but he seems to want to play on. This is 2022, and age is no longer a defining factor in how long someone can play... one only has to look at Tom Brady finishing second in the NFL MVP race this year and retiring 10 years after most people do to realise modern day sportstar's arent like they used to be. Performance being maintained, and should he want to, Anderson could probably play another few years. Broad certainly did seem to be contemplating packing in any time soon until he was dropped. Modern professionals no longer fall apart at 35.

Hints at the press draw on friction between Root and his star bowlers. Examples like his idiocy in calling them out for bowling the wrong length when England's top order was ripped to shreds all series are given as examples. It seems very current England to sell their best historical players down the river to prop up a captain that should have been sacked.

I mean, why is Strauss and Root making decisions about the distant future? Root is a series loss away from probably being booted, and Strauss doesnt want the job and wont be around to manage whatever future he is preparing for. So why make any drastic decisions on the future right now? The chances are you are just going to hamstring the people in the future who actually will be there.

All feels a bit like KP doesnt it? Strauss likes to scapegoat and push away England's best players. That worked well didnt it? All that future planning picking younger guys who got torn up and dropped soon later, while England's arguably best bat in decades was smashing around a county attack for 350 unbeaten. The plan was a massive failure and none of those players who replaced KP did well. KP is only 40 now I think... he could have justified batting on probably even to now.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Difference being KP wasn't dropped or 'rested' he was sacked! He was told he would never be picked again as a punishment of behaviour never specified. He says he doesn't know why it happened.

Wonder how Broad felt when that happened to someone else?

Sounds like Strauss hasn't communicated effectively. Nothing wrong with leaving a player out for a series. He hasn't been definitively dropped.

[yuppie]

Wasnt Broad and Anderson two of the instigators behind the fake KP twitter account?

Perhaps the reason they have been given the boot is because of a lack of team harmony? I mean Anderson and Broad are not the most like players out there and are quick with a whinge.

Broad would have been much better served saying i still have so much to give, ill get my place back and i wish the team the best and look forward to the challenge of regaining my place. Or something like that. But whinging like this even if justified cant help team harmony.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Anderson's arguably still England's best player. I didn't believe in dropping your best player 'for the greater good' when it was KP, and I still don't. Or any player who should be picked on merit. Besides, if that's why they have been dropped, then get it out in the open so A&B can freely respond.

But as far as we know they have been rested and there's nothing happening apart from maybe Broad and Strauss aren't listening to each other.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Broad would have been much better served saying i still have so much to give, ill get my place back and i wish the team the best and look forward to the challenge of regaining my place. Or something like that. But whinging like this even if justified cant help team harmony.

Fair enough!

[yuppie]

Anderson has kept quiet and knows that he will be used when the conditions suit him. He will be playing in the summer at home. But Broads whinging is not helping his cause.

[Gingerfinch]

I've no issue with both being dropped/rested. At some point you need to look at the future and blood the younger players and Jimmy and probably Broad will be back for certain matches in the summer.

[bigfluffylemon]

Anderson's arguably still England's best player. I didn't believe in dropping your best player 'for the greater good' when it was KP, and I still don't. Or any player who should be picked on merit. Besides, if that's why they have been dropped, then get it out in the open so A&B can freely respond.

But as far as we know they have been rested and there's nothing happening apart from maybe Broad and Strauss aren't listening to each other.

I agree, AC.

Although 'rested' when there are no more tests for four months after this tour does raise eyebrows.

[bigfluffylemon]

So, here's a broader question, one made more relevant by covid squads, rotation policies etc.

Do you always play your 'best' XI, that is, the eleven individuals who you think are your best, most effective players today and combined are most likely to win you the test match?

Or is it acceptable for selection to pick some players that are weaker with an eye to numerous long-term reasons: rest, avoidance of injury, player longevity, development of talent, giving new players a run-out etc?. Are short-term results an acceptable sacrifice for the long-term good? Is it acceptable to put out an XI that is less than your best against a certain opponent, or is it disrespectful and indicating that you don't care about beating them (or think you don't need your best to beat them)?

And what if your apparent 'long-term' plans backfire (as in England's case) and all that rotation has left you with a squad that looks weaker then ever?

The answer in football seems to be very much the latter - squads are rotated all the time, managers use the league cup or FA cup ties against lower tier opposition to given some youth or second-string players a run out.

But whenever rotation or longer-term selection comes up in a test match context, I tend to see reactions along the lines of 'play your best XI'.

[alfie]

I probably wouldn't have left both those two out of the tour - as Sussex says , England surely need to get some results to stop the bleeding ; and they are in England's best XI (or twelve if you want to get picky about conditions and rest/rotation etc) anywhere. But I think I can see why they've done it.

Though the pace bowling is probably the part of the team that is least in need of improving , it is also the one part in which they might actually be able to experiment without causing more disaster. Wood was excellent in Australia and should be up to leading the line in west Indies ; Robinson (fitness issues my only concern) ought to do a good job - and the hope must be that Woakes can make this trip (to a place where the Dukes ball is in use) an exception to his rotten overseas record. (And I do hope Woakes can do so as I think they might well need his batting !) On top of them they would probably like to trial Mahmood at least - rather less likely Fisher will get a run. Overton is a spare again I guess.

So it would all be a bit crowded with A & B ... Now one can argue that they are still taking a risk , and not showing enough respect to West Indies - apart from a lack of respect to their two veteran bowlers. But it may be this move will turn out for the best in the long run : IF the others do a decent job on tour and they get a chance to blood new talent : the worrying thing perhaps being what happened in Brisbane

I do think it might have been handled rather better in any case : surely Broad and Anderson were entitled to a call in advance outlining the reasoning ? And a bit more emphasis on the "resting" aspect in the initial squad announcement rather than what appeared to be a dialing back of the original suggestion that their careers were "not necessarily "over a day or two later. I get that Strauss doesn't want to tie a new manager's hands ; but it should be obvious that with seven home Tests coming up both these chaps will play a serious part in the summer at some point !

Haven't heard from Jimmy though I doubt he's best pleased. But not surprised to see a "broad-side" from Stuart. Occurs to me that p.ssing him off to ensure more fire in the summer might also have been part of the plan...

[alfie]

And just looking now at BFL's latest post : I would say my view has in the past always been very strongly : "Play your best XI".

Somewhat tempered now by Covid/bubbles/too many games etc. I am more prepared for a little bit of squad rotation (hence why I am not rushing to condemn this particular move).

It is always a rather tricky balance though - and one likely to be judged ultimately by results. Suppose as long as selectors etc are happy to be accountable this is all fair ? Stand or fall on your decisions and be prepared to pay with your jobs if it doesn't go well ?

Just one other point on this one while I'm here : the fact that (once again and shamefully) there is just one warm up game might be a factor. I have always felt Jimmy in particular likes a fair few overs under his belt before a Test and might therefore have been a bit underdone on this tour. Add that to his generally less effective second innings performances lately and they might feel he wasn't quite as vital for a three Test series as he might otherwise have been. A moot point , of course : I still do fear they will seriously miss his control at times and hope this doesn't end up giving too much cause to regret the contentious decision.

Time and events will ,as ever , tell.

[sussexpob]

While I will explain the caveats to the point, I would put it most simply as "play your best XI" it every opportunity you have something to play for. By that I mean, live series, tournament qualifications still undecided, etc. If a series is won, lost or you've qualified/been knocked out, then yeah, rest a few players and give others a chance if the context allows.

The important context to that is I don't consider the "Best XI" to be something fixed and decided on paper. Form and fitness levels both provide temporal qualities to performance that can at any stage render inferior players on paper as temporarily better options; I mean, averaging 20 a wicket over a career means nothing if you've bowled 300 overs in a series and are too tired to get any near your top pace or performance. Id rather have an inferior player who can give me 100% of their skill set than someone operating at 75% capacity. I dont consider such selections as "resting"... you are still picking the best XI men you can put out.

What I cannot live for is pre-empting the needs of the team sometime in the future by resting players assuming they will need it, and compromising your net performance and quality as a result. Pick your best team for every game, if people breakdown or need resting, deal with it then. Its a question of efficiency.