First up – great victory by the West Indies.
Miles from home. In a quarantine bubble. Without three top players in addition to all the other more standard West Indies problems – mainly, losing potentially excellent Test men to IPL specialisation and English citizenship (hi, Joffra!).
It was magnificent work.
A splendid game. I was up to 3am watching it, with that eerie silence in the background.
I’m so happy for the whole team – and region. Especially Jason Holder who probably has the hardest captaincy job in Test cricket.
He did have some help from England’s selectors, whose arrogance and ignorance continues to ensure their country is a second-tier test nation despite its abundant talent pool and financial resources.
There’s been a lot of comment about whether Stuart Broad should’ve been picked over Mark Wood.
Maybe Broad would’ve made a difference.
Maybe he would’ve played worse.
That was a tough call. But a fair call.
Where England went wrong was in its batting selection.
The West Indies have a decent bowling attack but their batting is a shocker.
This is a team where only three players in their test eleven have a first class batting average over 35.
England should be able to win every test match simply by out-batting them.
But their arrogant selection panel continues to think first class numbers are for wimps.
Joe Denly averages 36 at first class level. Zak Crawley? 31.
What are they doing in the test team?
Good team men? Good fielders? “They just have what it takes”?
Well, sure, maybe they do, but can’t they prove it at first class level before being shoved into the test arena?
It’s not as though there aren’t other options. They’ve tried some (Dawid Malan, Mark Stoneman, Gary Ballance) and seem to have lost enthusiasm for others (Jonny Bairstow).
Jonny Bairstow has fallen out of favour. (Photo by MB Media/Getty Images)
But you know how hasn’t been tried? Hasan Azad (first class average of 50), Sam Northeast (39), Chris Dent (38.5), Ben Brown (40), James Hildreth (42.59), Liam Livingston (41.6).
First class averages don’t tell the whole story but they tell a lot of the story – more story than the brilliance of Ed Smith.
No-one seemed to like Rory Burns as an opener but his figures were so damn good that he got his shot and, hey, wow, gee, shock, he did a hell of a lot better than any non-Cook English opener over the past few years.
That criteria needs to be applied down the order. Maybe Zak Crawley has ‘What It Takes’ but can he earn his stripes a bit more in county cricket instead of having a spot gifted to him?
And if numbers are to be discounted for being scored in Division 2, as some have argued, then… actually why does that happen?
Is the “I can tell a good player by looking at him” method better?
What’s the point of having county cricket Div 2 if you can’t use it as a test guide? It’s professional first class cricket isn’t it?
Go off numbers. Or at least, use them more than you do.
England also has to understand that it needs to compensate for Ben Stokes’ batting. He’s a wonderful player but he’s not a specialist bat, and has always – always – been more effective in tandem with another all-rounder.
I know they want Joffra Archer to be that, but I don’t think it’s going to happen, and what’s more they don’t need it to, with Ali and Sam Curran available for selection. If they want to play a better spinner than Ali, sure, fine, then pick Curran to counter-balance Stokes.
You can’t pick one all rounder, it unbalances the side, you need two.
I know no one really cares but it’s my article so I think England’s team for the next Test should be:
1) Burns
2) Sibley
3) Northeast
4) Root
5) Stokes
6) Pope
7) Buttler
8) Curran/Ali
9) Archer
10) Wood/Bees/Broaf
11) Anderson
As for that changes the West Indies should make… that’s trickier. They don’t have a lot of depth. (I think the rules on qualification to play international cricket for a country should be loosed up to help poorer nations but that’s a bigger issue for another time).
Their weakness is batting but it’s not as though there’s champions sitting on the bench. For whatever reason the bulk of top West Indies batsmen average around 30 at first class level.
I like the look of Terrance Hinds, and am surprised Brandon King isn’t in this squad. And please can we not lose Nicholas Pooran from first class cricket. But still, it’s slim pickings.
Jason Holder has led the West Indies in their England tour. (Photo credit should read RANDY BROOKS/AFP via Getty Images)
So the West Indies need a strong lower order. For the next test I’d bring in Cornwell who not only gives you spinning option but is a decent lower order bat. I’d also give some thought to bringing in Da Silva up the top. My team:
1) Braithwaite
2) Simmons/Brooks
3) Da Silva (if King was available I’d play him and Da Silva instead of Simmons/Brooks)
4) Hope
5) Blackwood
6) Chase
7) Dowrich
8) Holder
9) Cornwell
10) Gabriel/Joseph
11) Roach
Oh, and PS – Test cricket, it was great to have you back.
Gee
Roar Rookie
Buttler still a problem, gets a game because he is a gun white baller I suspect. Hopefully Foakes doesn't come in to replace him until after the next Ashes. Australia isn't much at the moment but against this sorry lot on Australian pitches a 5-0 result is a a good chance.
Nick
Roar Guru
Leaving Broad out was odd, but it's a distraction from the underlying problem: England is going through a rather barren period of decent batsman. It's as bad as the 90's. When Stokes is the second best bat in the team, you have serious issues with the depth of the talent pool. It doesn't really matter who the selectors pick - they are picking between a second hand Daewoo and a Datsun.
badmanners
Roar Rookie
Crawley getting a game with a 1st class average of 31 strikes me as wishful thinking but on the other hand Labu's numbers were similar when he made his test debut. I would think it's a no brainer to pick Foakes.
E-Meter
Roar Rookie
Selection meeting: "Stuey is our best bowler". "Yeah ok, let's leev him owt then". Genius decision.
Brian
Guest
thing is Crawley was top scorer with 76. Denly and Sibley don't have the technique. Stokes is fine at no 6. He's not supposed to be your best batsman. Flakes should come in buttler just doesn't score enough. Burns Crawley Lawrence Root Stokes Pope Foakes Woakes Archer Best Broad/Anderson
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
The game right now played by way too few teams who can light things up.. For me only Aus and India are teams to be feared.. That’s not enough.. England look unbalanced and disjointed, South Africa in transition, New Zealand OK but only OK. Pakistan and Sri Lanka a shadow of their former selves. That’s just not good for Test cricket….what’s going on.. There are already too few top countries and it’s not helping if most are battling.. Well done to The Windies but how good did England make them look. Hope I’m not being unkind.
Rich1234
Roar Rookie
As an Aussie living in London, I had the game on so watched bits and pieces of it. Good on the Windies. The game is much better off with a strong windies team. A couple of points. The English batting is woeful and batsman did not perform. Denly is not a test batsman. Secondly, apparently it was Stokes call on the bowling lineup not Smith’s or at least that is what I am hearing. Try dropping Andersen and see how far you get irrespective of form given how admired he is over here. I am not sure this attack can bowl a team up twice. From an Aussie perspective, I think the English are in a spot of bother. Early call I know but just reading the tea leaves. Cheers
w ch
Guest
Thanks for your thoughts, Stephen. I was quite happy with how Gabriel bowled, he is good when right. Interesting to see Mark Wood preferred, I think they have an eye on The Ashes. Feel sympathy for Curran, I think he is a real trier, but rarely receives support. I wonder why Toby Rowland Jones dropped off the scene. The phone I am typing on was won when I backed England in successive tests v South Africa a few years back. Rowland Jones looked good in that series but not seen since. England batting? Was a real shame when Taylor had to retire, he was just developing nicely up to then. England miss Root, they will be much better next test
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Everyone has a different POV - but I feel a mark of Ed Smith's tenure has been to consistently ignore first class form. I think people who believe they know better than that are arrogant - that's where I was coming from. I believe it definitely cost England the Ashes. I think in times like this you could go off career form - everyone was in the same boat. But thanks for taking the time to comment - maybe next piece you'll agree with me more :)
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Good pointing bringing up Miller - he was always more effective in tandem with another all rounder too I feel. Miller's batting fell away in the fifties - it was a key reason why Australia lost a lot during that time. Crawley did bat well and might come good I just think players who average 10 runs more than him deserve a chance first.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Ed Smith is the head selector.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
I did read Broads comments about being dropped and suffice to say he was less than impressed.. Surely he had done nothing wrong to warrant being left out.. Same time I recently watched an interview of Kevin Pietersen (KP makings of a genius).. Where he specifically identified Broad to the interviewee Nasser Hussein as one of The Bully Boys in the England camp.. That got me wondering whether his non selection had other reasons for the selectors wanting to look to the future.
Paul
Roar Guru
Sorry Stephen, I can normally find some points of agreement when you pen pieces but in this case, I feel you're miles off target. Look at the situation England selectors had prior to this Test. They had no county cricket games to draw up a form line, only a practice match. How can selectors reasonably choose complete Test novices when they've not even played a first class game this season? In terms of the current lineup, the last time England played Tests was in January and pretty much this batting lineup plus Joe Root, made scores including 476 against the Black Caps in New Zealand, 391/8, 499/9 and 400. They also won that SA series 3-1 and it was the batsmen who set the platform for the bowlers. I think you're use of words like "arrogance & ignorance" to describe the English selectors is ill-advised, given these types of results. You've not described how they're either of these things. All you've suggested is they pick guys on numbers. Well, look at how they went in South Africa. I agree their batting is not the best they've ever had, but to bring in brand new players without ANY match practice and expect them to do any better is folly IMO.
Jon Richardson
Roar Pro
You are right, Steven, I think I speak for many Roarers in saying that I couldn’t give a flying proverbial if the English selectors get it right? Indeed, I tend to pray for the opposite. But it’s still an interesting topic for discussion. Don’t think you’re right about Stokes - a Test batting average of 37 - similar to Keith Miller’s career - is more than adequate In the top six for an all rounder whose bowling averages is about the same as Brett Lee, Geoff Lawson or Andrew Flintoff’s. The logic of needing two all rounders is misguided. Seem to be asking the right question about Crawley, based on stats, though didn’t he top score for England? Pope looks like a find for the future even if he failed in this match. And you are definitely right about the Windies batting- it is mediocre, and the bowlers aren’t world beaters. I had no idea what the reference to Ed Smith was about.
Patrick
Roar Pro
I think your spot on about England batting selection. There seems to be a lot of Denly vs Crawley debate at the moment, but to be honest I'm not sure either are the best option. For some reason there's a view that Gary Ballance is a failed Test cricketer- AVG 37.45, 4 100s. Crawley's FC record (FC AVG 31.22, 3 100s) is worse than Ballance's Test record. With a FC average of 47.4, Ballance is arguably the second best batsman in the country. That said, things seem to be improving. Both openers have earnt their place at County Level, and are an upgrade on players like Jennings and Roy. It's also nice to see Pope getting a decent run. Buttler is the other questionable pick. From what I've heard, Foakes is the better keeper, meaning that Buttler's batting is presumably what gets him selected- but Foakes has a better FC record with the bat anyway. Buttler's batting is fine for a number 7, but if he isn't the best keeper, then surely his batting has to be better than serviceable to justify selection.
Peter Farrar
Guest
I was surprised not to see Broad in the team unless the selectors thought Wood was a longer term prospect and it was time to start bringing him through more consistently. I guess the bowlers pick themselves more readily than the bats in this English team.
Micko
Roar Rookie
I still don't understand why Broad was the victim. Presumably with a ball swinging a lot less Anderson should've been on the chopping block.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
You seem pretty annoyed and definite change is needed as selectors can't make a considered choice. Then you pick 14 for England and 13 for the Windies. I understand your argument to a point, reward the more domestically accomplished, but you want to strengthen the batting which has players averaging under 40, with a second allrounder at 8. It does however seem to be a new concept that one all rounder unbalances a Test team.