There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I reckon Moeen's bowling record is getting worse everywhere after a good start. He doesn't look as good a bowler as he did a couple of years ago, and he is bowling flatter and faster, as presumably he has been coached.

[rich1uk]

what i meant alfie is that even in india it was clear we dont need 6 bowlers as one was almost always being underbowled

because both stokes and moeen are better with the bat than the ball, but both regular bowling options we refused to bat either of them at #8 as that was being seen as a "waste" of their ability with the bat. so we ended up in a situation with what i think was two wrong options. either play the extra batsman and bat them at #8 which is also a "waste" of their ability as a batsman or play a 6th bowler that we didn't really need and have 4 bowlers between #8 and #11.

i just think the selectors bottled the decision to say to Ali we know you are better than a #8 but someone has to bat there and we think thats what gives us our best side, and we ended up pandering to the ludicrous argument that if you bat him at #8 he will play like a #8.

[alfie]

what i meant alfie is that even in india it was clear we dont need 6 bowlers as one was almost always being underbowled

because both stokes and moeen are better with the bat than the ball, but both regular bowling options we refused to bat either of them at #8 as that was being seen as a "waste" of their ability with the bat. so we ended up in a situation with what i think was two wrong options. either play the extra batsman and bat them at #8 which is also a "waste" of their ability as a batsman or play a 6th bowler that we didn't really need and have 4 bowlers between #8 and #11.

i just think the selectors bottled the decision to say to Ali we know you are better than a #8 but someone has to bat there and we think thats what gives us our best side, and we ended up pandering to the ludicrous argument that if you bat him at #8 he will play like a #8.

Well yes I agree that six bowlers was too many : but if Ballance and Duckett had been performing in Bangladesh , might they not have gone with a 6-8 of Stokes Bairstow Moeen (in whatever order ) plus Rashid and two quicks ? I thought the three spinner idea was probably partly "quantity over quality" ; and partly that the advance publicity rather fooled them into expecting pitches which spun like a top from day two.

Of course if Moeen were to bat at five in the summer we'd be back to six bowlers again , no ?

[rich1uk]

what i meant alfie is that even in india it was clear we dont need 6 bowlers as one was almost always being underbowled

because both stokes and moeen are better with the bat than the ball, but both regular bowling options we refused to bat either of them at #8 as that was being seen as a "waste" of their ability with the bat. so we ended up in a situation with what i think was two wrong options. either play the extra batsman and bat them at #8 which is also a "waste" of their ability as a batsman or play a 6th bowler that we didn't really need and have 4 bowlers between #8 and #11.

i just think the selectors bottled the decision to say to Ali we know you are better than a #8 but someone has to bat there and we think thats what gives us our best side, and we ended up pandering to the ludicrous argument that if you bat him at #8 he will play like a #8.

Well yes I agree that six bowlers was too many : but if Ballance and Duckett had been performing in Bangladesh , might they not have gone with a 6-8 of Stokes Bairstow Moeen (in whatever order ) plus Rashid and two quicks ? I thought the three spinner idea was probably partly "quantity over quality" ; and partly that the advance publicity rather fooled them into expecting pitches which spun like a top from day two.

Of course if Moeen were to bat at five in the summer we'd be back to six bowlers again , no ?

yep we would

and while its ok in theory saying he wouldn't be needed to bowl and play as a batsman only, in reality i doubt any captain wouldn't use him, especially if we have lots of left-handers in the opposition, would be silly not to

i'm less reluctant to see him bat in the top 6 after the year he has had tho

my ideal solution would be to take the gloves off bairstow and bat him at #5 with stokes and ali at 6/7, and then play a more specialist keeper at #8

[alfie]

Hah ! Now you're opening another can of worms , rich

That is another option. Not one I fancy , to be honest ...not certain it would be best for the batting : and it still leaves you with Moeen as sole spinner...

[rich1uk]

Hah ! Now you're opening another can of worms , rich

That is another option. Not one I fancy , to be honest ...not certain it would be best for the batting : and it still leaves you with Moeen as sole spinner...

i know i've said this a couple of times but when you look at the records of people who have played a decent enough sample size as both keeper and specialist bat over the last 20 years or so, there is a marked difference in their averages between the 2. i just worry about how hard it will be for bairstow to sustain this level if he is keeping and think he is too good a batsman to take that risk with.

[Making_Splinters]

The number 8 position shouldn't really be a point for discussion, it needs a bowler who can bat as we need to play our 4 best bowlers with Stokes as the fifth option. If you're top 7 can't the job done then it's them who need changing not trying to cram another batsman in the side.

On that note we've got Woakes, and Rashid, who both can play 8.

Here in lies the problem, Ali is clearly not the best spinner we can field, he hasn't been aside from very brief moments in his career and if anything he's going backwards. Unfortunately, it seems as if people are incapable of separating the bowler and the batsman when it comes to Ali - much like the ECB are incapable of doing when it comes to Borthwick.

It doesn't matter if we are playing six bowlers if one of them is good enough to get in the side as a pure batsman, right now off the back of last year I'd say Ali deserves that chance, and if anything clarifying he is in there for his batting might make him focus on it.

Rashid might not be the best long term option, but his series in India was impressive if you look at how spinners have gotten on over the years in India. As I posted elsewhere, unless you're going to go back to the sixties only Swann and Mushy have done better than what Rashid just produced.

Yes it wasn't world beating, but was better than most have done.

[rich1uk]

i've said all along i want us to play our 4 best bowlers and have someone in the top 6 that can act as backup, thats not what we have been doing tho

and you can keep repeating the statement about seperating the batsman and the bowler as a theory but in reality no captain is going to have Ali in his side and not use him as a bowler, especially against left handers

has ali earned the right to play as a #4 or #5 and be a situational bowler, maybe he has, but you cant just ignore the shambles we have made of this situation over the last few months, and the question still remains do england consider Ali to be the first choice spinner or not. if they do and he ends up playing as one of the 4 "best" bowlers then where does he bat? in that scenario the #8 position is still an issue.

[Making_Splinters]

Does it really matter if a Captain is going to use him as a bowler if needed though? I genuinely do not understand why this is an issue with his selection, if anything having a top order bat who can bowl reasonable spin will be a huge positive to take the pressure of the new players coming into the side.

There seem to be a host of people saying we shouldn't be playing 6 bowlers, but why does it matter if they are good enough to get in as batsmen in the first place. Ali averaged over 40 this year, scored more tons that Root and Cook I think, how can anyone argue he's not good enough to be in the side as a batsman.

Judging by how the spinners were used in India, I wouldn't say that it is clear if Ali is the first choice spinner anymore.

[rich1uk]

Does it really matter if a Captain is going to use him as a bowler if needed though? I genuinely do not understand why this is an issue with his selection, if anything having a top order bat who can bowl reasonable spin will be a huge positive to take the pressure of the new players coming into the side.

There seem to be a host of people saying we shouldn't be playing 6 bowlers, but why does it matter if they are good enough to get in as batsmen in the first place. Ali averaged over 40 this year, scored more tons that Root and Cook I think, how can anyone argue he's not good enough to be in the side as a batsman.

Judging by how the spinners were used in India, I wouldn't say that it is clear if Ali is the first choice spinner anymore.

because if we are going to use him as a bowler surely its better freeing up the spot that a 6th bowler would fill with another batsman rather than having a 6th bowler who isn't needed, under-bowled and almost ends up leaving us playing with 10 men.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Does it really matter if a Captain is going to use him as a bowler if needed though? I genuinely do not understand why this is an issue with his selection, if anything having a top order bat who can bowl reasonable spin will be a huge positive to take the pressure of the new players coming into the side.

Absolutely. This doesn't matter at all.

[Making_Splinters]

Does it really matter if a Captain is going to use him as a bowler if needed though? I genuinely do not understand why this is an issue with his selection, if anything having a top order bat who can bowl reasonable spin will be a huge positive to take the pressure of the new players coming into the side.

There seem to be a host of people saying we shouldn't be playing 6 bowlers, but why does it matter if they are good enough to get in as batsmen in the first place. Ali averaged over 40 this year, scored more tons that Root and Cook I think, how can anyone argue he's not good enough to be in the side as a batsman.

Judging by how the spinners were used in India, I wouldn't say that it is clear if Ali is the first choice spinner anymore.

because if we are going to use him as a bowler surely its better freeing up the spot that a 6th bowler would fill with another batsman rather than having a 6th bowler who isn't needed, under-bowled and almost ends up leaving us playing with 10 men.

If he's going to be batting in the top six, he's a batsman first and foremost. Whether or not he turns his a over is irrelevant to that.

I genuinely do not understand why this is difficult to get. Root bowls spin and takes wickets, Jennings bowls decent seam, we don't consider that, so why shouldn't Ali be considered as a batsman?

Ali is the extra batsman, his bowling does not matter in that situation. Anderson, Broad, Woakes / Wood and Rashid are the bowlers. Cook, Jennings, Hameed, Root and Ali are the batsmen, Bairstow is the keeper and Stokes is the all rounder.

I give up, for love nor money can I see why that is a difficult concept to grasp or why it matters if Ali bowls. He's just scored 4 tons this year but we should dump him for another batsman simply because he can bowl off spin.

That makes no sense.

[rich1uk]

Does it really matter if a Captain is going to use him as a bowler if needed though? I genuinely do not understand why this is an issue with his selection, if anything having a top order bat who can bowl reasonable spin will be a huge positive to take the pressure of the new players coming into the side.

There seem to be a host of people saying we shouldn't be playing 6 bowlers, but why does it matter if they are good enough to get in as batsmen in the first place. Ali averaged over 40 this year, scored more tons that Root and Cook I think, how can anyone argue he's not good enough to be in the side as a batsman.

Judging by how the spinners were used in India, I wouldn't say that it is clear if Ali is the first choice spinner anymore.

because if we are going to use him as a bowler surely its better freeing up the spot that a 6th bowler would fill with another batsman rather than having a 6th bowler who isn't needed, under-bowled and almost ends up leaving us playing with 10 men.

If he's going to be batting in the top six, he's a batsman first and foremost. Whether or not he turns his a over is irrelevant to that.

I genuinely do not understand why this is difficult to get. Root bowls spin and takes wickets, Jennings bowls decent seam, we don't consider that, so why shouldn't Ali be considered as a batsman?

Ali is the extra batsman, his bowling does not matter in that situation. Anderson, Broad, Woakes / Wood and Rashid are the bowlers. Cook, Jennings, Hameed, Root and Ali are the batsmen, Bairstow is the keeper and Stokes is the all rounder.

I give up, for love nor money can I see why that is a difficult concept to grasp or why it matters if Ali bowls. He's just scored 4 tons this year but we should dump him for another batsman simply because he can bowl off spin.

That makes no sense.

what makes no sense is picking a guy for the last 2 years as our first choice spinner and then just deciding he isn't a bowler any more

and btw i haven't said we should dump him, i said if he is going to play then pick an extra batsman rather than have ali, stokes, root and 4 specialist bowlers, so please dont try and imply something i didn't say

[Making_Splinters]

Why would we pick a batsman over a guy whose just scored 4 tons this year simply because he is a specialist whereas Ali can bowl spin?

Equally, why would we continue to say Ali is our first choice spinner when there are better options?

Ali might be the best option we have for a middle order bat, it makes no sense to pick a worse batsman over Ali just because Ali is not a specialist batsman.

I'm not even sure what the point of this is anymore, it makes completely logically sense to play Ali in the top five if he is good enough to bat there, and bring in a specialist spinner to cover that gaping hole in the side.

[backfootpunch]

Does it really matter if a Captain is going to use him as a bowler if needed though? I genuinely do not understand why this is an issue with his selection, if anything having a top order bat who can bowl reasonable spin will be a huge positive to take the pressure of the new players coming into the side.

There seem to be a host of people saying we shouldn't be playing 6 bowlers, but why does it matter if they are good enough to get in as batsmen in the first place. Ali averaged over 40 this year, scored more tons that Root and Cook I think, how can anyone argue he's not good enough to be in the side as a batsman.

Judging by how the spinners were used in India, I wouldn't say that it is clear if Ali is the first choice spinner anymore.

because if we are going to use him as a bowler surely its better freeing up the spot that a 6th bowler would fill with another batsman rather than having a 6th bowler who isn't needed, under-bowled and almost ends up leaving us playing with 10 men.

If he's going to be batting in the top six, he's a batsman first and foremost. Whether or not he turns his a over is irrelevant to that.

I genuinely do not understand why this is difficult to get. Root bowls spin and takes wickets, Jennings bowls decent seam, we don't consider that, so why shouldn't Ali be considered as a batsman?

Ali is the extra batsman, his bowling does not matter in that situation. Anderson, Broad, Woakes / Wood and Rashid are the bowlers. Cook, Jennings, Hameed, Root and Ali are the batsmen, Bairstow is the keeper and Stokes is the all rounder.

I give up, for love nor money can I see why that is a difficult concept to grasp or why it matters if Ali bowls. He's just scored 4 tons this year but we should dump him for another batsman simply because he can bowl off spin.

That makes no sense.

Agreed