Archer can have a big impact on the Ashes

As an England fan I'm really excited about Archer as a test cricketer, as much for what he can do for the game over the next 10+ years as what he might manage in this series. As has been said elsewhere, it's so rare to see a young bowler that can combine pace and control so effortlessly while seeming so unruffled by the whole experience of top level cricket. There's been a looming anxiety in recent years about how on earth England will replace Jimmy Anderson once his body gets the better of his mind - in Archer it feels like there is an answer. They have different skill sets of course, but once he picks up the disciplines and subtleties of test cricket, he has everything he needs to become the next leader of the attack. Evidence suggests he's a fast learner too. He also has limitless potential as the face of the game in England - he's got laid-back star quality and personality that transcends his sport. He's a long way from the cookie-cutter public schoolboy that has dominated the England team in recent years and that's a massive bonus in any efforts to grow the game.

Judging by Archer's social media comments he will want to hope that he can produce in tests otherwise some humble pie might get eaten.

Get the feeling he's either going to clean us up or go for plenty. He's a great talent but is still very raw.

Definitely. While a green top might potentially be England's best hope, it's also a massive danger with a team full of ODI flat-track-bully type batsmen who are liable to collapse like a house of cards in bowler friendly conditions.

It is a worry for Archer that it's such a long time since he played his last first class match though. Is he really match fit? He played that second eleven game against a bunch of school boys and demolished them in the first innings, before going for plenty in the second. He may well be among the top fast bowlers in test cricket for the next decade, but even so, there really seems to be a lot of desperate home among the English for this West Indian to ride to the rescue of their Ashes campaign in his first ever test. It will be interesting to see how he goes if the Aussies can get through his first couple of spells unscathed and keep him coming back for more overs later in the day.

England have made bold and necessary changes to their bowling lineup. Not that they had much choice - but they look like good choices. These two offer good variety, and provide new strategies for removing not just Smith, but a swag of Aussies. I suspect Archer will actually be a bigger threat to Warner, who since landing in the UK this time has been troubled by short pitched bowling. Warner has decided to park the cross bat shots - but is yet to get out of the way of rising balls (old habits die hard).. I'm not sure Archer's line and length are as devastatingly accurate as Rohan suggests. Many bowlers look to be hitting great lines in ODI, only to lose their effectiveness vs test batsmen who don't have to look for runs and can just leave them, defend or milk the odd loose ball. Aussie batsmen do not necessarily mind fast bowling. That said, if Lords delivers a 'tasty' pitch (more than likely), England bowl first again and Archer bowls mostly full and accurate, he could indeed cause carnage... Archer must have about the nicest action and follow through in world cricket. Very much reminds me of early-career Michael Holding, aka 'whispering death'. Holding's bouncers also seemed to come out of nowhere, with similar effect..

Great point. Patty won man of the match in his first game and has gone on to take 101 wickets in 21 Tests @21. Let’s lose the hype, let Archer play and see if he will be that good.

Our coaching staff have talked about our players liking to feel bat on ball which is OK in Aus where the ball doesn't do as much, but following it in England is fatal. In India one of the points they were pushing is "it's OK to get beaten on the outside edge but get something in the way if it's on the inside" Yep, agree Smith will likely go cheaply a few times over the series.

There still counting them.

Some sense here. Way too many players are hyped up to end up as just good. Making a call on once-a-generation talent on the basis of limited outings, a season, good temperament, etc doesn't seem genuine. Steyn was pretty ordinary barring one or two magic balls for the first few tests, hadn't played much of first-class either but he improved so much so quickly and became the only once a generation player we have had since the early 2000 stars. While bowlers like Johnson, Bond promised a lot but didn't amount to that much. I for one won't begrudge England a decent quick (and for that matter the world, good bowlers are rare) - God knows they need it, pushing Anderson and Broad, berating the curators to prepare pitches that suit them to the tee, storing balls for Ashes that worked before, crying over tosses.

The one whom I’m interested in seeing against Archer is Wade, who is Archer’s wicketkeeper/captain with the Hobart Hurricanes. If there’s anyone on the team who might have a good understanding of Archer’s bowling it’s probably him.

“The main question mark over him as a Test player is his whether his body can handle the rigours of an intense Ashes series. That is a big question. He pulled up lame after a long World Cup where he bowled only 10 overs before having several days off. The first game of the World Cup for England was on the 30/5 and the last was 14/7. In that period he played in 11 games bowling an average of 9 overs in each. 99 overs in 6 weeks. That 16.5 overs a week. Smith’s biggest asset (other than ridiculous hand eye coordination) is his patience. Not playing balls he doesn’t have to until he is well and truely set. Quite often unleashing when bowlers are in their 4th and 5th spells. How well is Archer going to be faring trying to keep 150+ balls coming down at Smith late into the second session of day 1 when Smith comes out after Warner and Usman have hit half centuries let alone late into the 3rd or fourth innings when his aggregate for the match is pushing towards 40 overs or higher? His pace shouldn’t bother any of the top order considering they spend plenty of time in the nets against Starc, Pattinson, Cummins who can all bowl over 150kph. The question will be the pitch.

How many did Burns play and miss at or edge in his first innings hundred?

I don’t think he played and missed a lot for someone who scored 140 on a pitch that did a bit at times. Actually a bit surprised at the figure of 17 missed. Bayliss may have been stirring but he is right to the extent that if you can get the ball in the right spot and move it off the seam or late in the air, anyone can be vulnerable. Smith may be good at not overcommitting when the ball is seaming. But its next to impossible to adjust to a ball at pace that just does enough to take the edge. So we shouldn’t be surprised if he gets a low score or even a few of them across the series.

Div 2 is closer to Category A than First Class, no wonder he skittles sides. I agree Jofra is not the panacea, even if he does well, he’s a debutant - let him play his role instead of single-handedly saving England. England had moments, but bowling lacked patience and batting lineup still looks like their word cup lineup. How Roy gets a game astounds me. England’ clearly think they can do what Australia did with Warner. The difference is Warner actually has a tight technique, Roy doesn’t. Still Australia looks capable of another 8/122 score line and they won’t always have a batting master stroke to save their blushes.

Bayliss saying Smith played and missed 17 times, how does that compare to others scoring 140 off a similar amount of deliveries? It could be saying that Smith is better at not following the ball when it moves away from the middle of the bat, a fault many of our batsmen have shown in the past. Context is everything.

Prithivi Shaw won't be as good as Tendulkar or for that matter he is not even next Sehwag. He would probably end up being equivalent of Murali Vijay or better. Shaw is all hype. But Archer isn't.

That is something I really can't come to grips with - people describe Bancroft's batting against South Africa as though he was on the cusp of getting dropped. Sure, he had a lean home Ashes series first up, but was the best performing Australian bat in SA before the obvious happened.

But the English batting lineup remains as fragile as ever (and as ours). Pundits are suggesting Stokes batting at 4. Madness I tells ya.

Makes some interesting points. Also one very odd comment about Bancroft’s selection: “But, bang, he's straight back in ahead of Marcus Harris (six Tests, average 32.7), Burns (16 Tests, average 40.1) and Renshaw (11 Tests average 33.5).”. Averages of 33 as in the case of Harris and Renshaw are pretty ordinary. Clearly the 90-odd in the trial was crucial, but not having seen it, I’m starting to wonder, was it a bit like R Burns for England- perhaps he just played and missed a lot, some days the luck is with you? In which case, the folly of extrapolating from a sample of one? Although Bancroft did bat Ok in the ill-fated series in SA.