Cricket XVII

[Alester Florent]

I think there's a good chance Compton will play, with Root dropping to 6 and Bairstow making way. England have shown a lot of loyalty to their players recently and whatever the media/public may say, they will be unlikely to "drop" Compton unless there's evidence he's really not up to it. His 81 against Australia in the county warm-up game won't have hurt his chances at all.

Also, while Root opens at county level, he's played all his Tests lower in the order, so they might be wary of suddenly switching things up. I'm not sure Bairstow has done enough to retain his place with all players available. Compared to Compton, they have played a similar number of Tests at a similar average, but Compton has two centuries to his name and has arguably played in more difficult conditions. What Bairstow does have going for him is a higher strike rate and his counterattacking innings against South Africa at Lord's last year, but that didn't save his place at the time, so there's no reason why it would now with Root and KP available.

England have been pretty conservative of late with selection as well as strategy, so for that reason too I can't see them dropping Bell either. He hasn't been in amazing form, but nor has he been significantly worse than any of his challengers. Morgan is unlikely to come in barring some serious injuries; not only has he been unconvincing in the past, but he's not even in very good form at the moment. Bopara might have done enough in the Champion's Trophy to earn consideration again (probably ahead of Morgan) but there will still be a couple of players ahead of him.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

Cook

Root

Trott

KP

Bell

Bairstow

Prior

Broad

Swann

Anderson

Finn

I think I'd rather have Bairstow than Compton - more flexible (Do the Aussies need a couple of spare batsmen ...? :D)

[arya_underfoot]

(Do the Aussies need a couple of spare batsmen ...? :D)

If we need some spare foreign batsmen, we'll go about it the correct way and recruit South Africans. So thanks but no thanks.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

I typed out a variety of responses, but I think I'll stick with :P (I wouldn't have England without Trott. KP I'm not too bothered about.)

;)

[ljkeane]

(Do the Aussies need a couple of spare batsmen ...? :D)

Seriously? It's still England, when the inevitable batting collapse comes it's going to be your fault.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

Seriously? It's still England, when the inevitable batting collapse comes it's going to be your fault.

True. England like to keep things interesting. But I don't want to sound cocky (or anger the fickle Cricket Gods). I take back my Aussie-mocking.

[Hereward]

I'm pretty sure Compton is gone. Root is the coming man and I have a lot of time for him. Compton is too slow in a top three with Cook and Trott. I don't see Morgan ever playing Test cricket again, injuries permitting.

[williamjm]

I'm doubtful about Lyon's place in the team. I'd prefer Bird as a fourth seamer. I know that Lyon seemed to get it together in the last test in India, but that was in helpful conditions in Delhi. I can't see him being all that useful in England.

I think having a spinner is always good for variety. If you have five seamers (including Watson) then one of them might not be doing much bowling anyway. Good conditions for spinners are possible, some of the Champion's Trophy matches (including the final) had pitches that seemed helpful for spinners although I'm not sure if any of those pitches would be used in the Ashes. The 2009 Ashes did help spinners in Cardiff (where Hauritz bowled fairly well) and The Oval (where Australia decided to omit a specialist spinner on one of the most spin-friendly wickets I can remember in an English Test).

I've also held conspiracy theories by some journalists that the English groundsmen might have been encouraged to prepare wickets helpful for spin to exploit a perceived Australian weakness, although I'm a bit doubtful since England have a good bowling attack for traditional English conditions as well.

I think there's a good chance Compton will play, with Root dropping to 6 and Bairstow making way. England have shown a lot of loyalty to their players recently and whatever the media/public may say, they will be unlikely to "drop" Compton unless there's evidence he's really not up to it.

If they're loyal to Compton then they're being disloyal to Bairstow, they have to drop one of them (and I agree Root is safe).

Bopara might have done enough in the Champion's Trophy to earn consideration again (probably ahead of Morgan) but there will still be a couple of players ahead of him.

I suspect James Taylor might be selected if there were a couple of injuries, I think he deserves another chance after only getting a couple of Tests against South Africa last year and he's just scored a double century so he seems in good form.

If we need some spare foreign batsmen, we'll go about it the correct way and recruit South Africans. So thanks but no thanks.

If you want some South African-born English players I'm willing to offer a two-for-one deal on Craig Kieswetter and Jade Dernbach.

I typed out a variety of responses, but I think I'll stick with :P (I wouldn't have England without Trott. KP I'm not too bothered about.)

While Trott is important, I'd vote for Matt Prior as the most important South African-born Englishman with Trott and KP fairly close behind before a big gap to Compton.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

While Trott is important, I'd vote for Matt Prior as the most important South African-born Englishman with Trott and KP fairly close behind before a big gap to Compton.

Prior doesn't even register as South African to me. Like Strauss never did/does.

Sky did an interesting series on this - foreign-born players playing for England. Ther perspectives were really interesting: some were all for England, and some saw felt ultimate loyalty to their country of origin (especially those affected by apartheid).

As long as they're wearing the lions, I'll support them.

[The Anti-Targ]

So NZ wins the 2 limited overs series vs. England (thanks England weather), but loses the test series.

I guess technically that means NZ comes out on top for this tour. But being utterly spanked in the tests makes it feel like England came out on top. If NZ had managed a draw (and not thanks to the weather) in one of the tests then it would have felt like a reasonable all-round match up.

[Paxter]

Yeah...personally I think that the test series counts for more than both limited overs series combined. NZ definitely had the better of England's tour though: I'm still in shock that the Black Caps couldn't win that final test.

[Alester Florent]

If they're loyal to Compton then they're being disloyal to Bairstow, they have to drop one of them (and I agree Root is safe).

Compton is the incumbent though. He's opened in every Test since Strauss's retirement, whereas Bairstow's only been in the team because of injuries to other players, who are now fit again. Bairstow made his debut earlier, but so did Morgan, Bopara and Taylor; it's the continuity that counts.

Since the choice is basically a straight one between those players (in terms of the team composition), either Compton has to fail badly enough, or Bairstow do well enough, to convince them to change the status quo (which is Compton). They both have very similar figures. While Bairstow outperformed Compton in the last Test, he didn't do so well as to nail his place on. Compton has done well enough at Somerset since the end of the NZ tour too, averaging about 50, whereas Bairstow hasn't played since the last Test.

The major difference is that Compton has scored very slowly for England compared to Root and Bairstow, but he is capable of scoring rather more quickly than that. Besides, England haven't seemed worried in recent times about a slow top three, even in ODIs, so I can't see that being a critical factor.

It could go either way, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Compton play at least the first two Tests - if he struggles and Root looks good enough to open, then there might be some juggling.

[Paxter]

Great to see Khawaja get runs against Somerset, I really hope that this Ashes is his breakthrough tour.

And meanwhile, the early signs are that the Arthur axing was a good decision. Lehmann looks to be a more authoritarian figure, which could work well with such a young (and, recently, undisciplined) team. Very doubtful of course that it will help Australia pull off an upset win, but it could make the series considerably more competitive.

ETA: Also, worth checking this out. The ICC Champs Trophy is officially history, a test championship will be played every four years (w00t!) and the World T20 will be played every four years rather than two. Personally, I love the idea of a test championship, it wil hopefully bring some life to traditionally unexciting test match-ups (WI v NZ or SA v SL).

[Jeor]

Yeah, I do wonder how the Lehmann thing will work out. Being a former player and first-class captain, I'm assuming his coaching style is more based on man-management than technical coaching. I think Arthur was more of the technical variety and Lehmann's simpler, straightforward approach might just be the thing that the Australian team needs at this stage.

If we get off to a good start in the series (say win one of the first couple of Tests, or draw them both) I think we could make it a bit closer than most people think, although I still think we'll lose overall - England have too much experience and quality. We have to remember that apart from Clarke, no one in the team has really experienced consistent wins at an international level. So if we get out of this tour with an honourable series defeat (e.g. 2-1) it'll make the Australian half much more interesting.Pax, interesting about a Test championship...sounds like a good idea, but I wonder how it's going to work. It'll be an awfully long tournament if it includes more than just the top 2 sides.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

I like the rankings for Tests. The idea was that every team played every other team home and away within five years (does that happen?). This way takes in to account home advantage, different playing conditions, different series lengths. It seems fair.

How would a Test championship work? Would it be a tournament held in one country over a few weeks? What would that prove? Countries like England and India play phenomenally well at home - wouldn't it be unfair on other teams to hold a championship in one of those countries? Maybe it should be held on neutral ground - use one of the non-Test playing countries like Ireland, Kenya or UAE. Would the winner of the championship have esteem compared to the top-ranked Test side? It was suggested at one point that the final of such a championship could be a timeless Test. Imagine if it was England v South Africa - hours and hours and hours of Trott, Amla and Kallis batting! Yeesh!

[brAnthelAstgreenseer]

India are playing again today.Dont they need a break?

The horns the people inside the stadium get should be banned in West Indies.Thats too irritating.

[williamjm]

Pax, interesting about a Test championship...sounds like a good idea, but I wonder how it's going to work. It'll be an awfully long tournament if it includes more than just the top 2 sides.

I think the suggestion was that there would be 4 sides with two semi-finals and then a final, although I'm not sure if the plans are finalised. It does seem a bit short, although the length of Test matches does make it difficult to have a lot of matches I would have thought that the top four could all play each other with the best two teams then playing a final.

How would a Test championship work? Would it be a tournament held in one country over a few weeks? What would that prove? Countries like England and India play phenomenally well at home - wouldn't it be unfair on other teams to hold a championship in one of those countries?

I think it is going to be in a single country, with the first one probably in England. I don't see the home advantage being different to the existing limited over World Cups where the Asians teams were always likely to have an advantage when it was in India, for example. Of course, the home country should have the advantage but since the championship will move around hopefully it will even out over time.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

The four best teams playing Tests in England does sound very appealing.

It will take up a lot of the summer, though. Scheduling is already a nightmare!

[Pinkie Baelish]

Yeah...personally I think that the test series counts for more than both limited overs series combined. NZ definitely had the better of England's tour though: I'm still in shock that the Black Caps couldn't win that final test.

Come on now, when have the Black Caps ever not failed to disappoint in test cricket? IIRC, they haven't won a test series against a top 8 nation since late 2006.

I love the idea of a test championship, as the format is losing importance in favour of T20, but I hope it doesn't interfere with traditional rivalries like the Ashes and the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.

[Paxter]

Come on now, when have the Black Caps ever not failed to disappoint in test cricket? IIRC, they haven't won a test series against a top 8 nation since late 2006.

The drawn series against Australia 18 months ago comes to mind. India (ranked number one in the world at the time) were whitewashed by the Aussies in four tests in the month after the Black Caps' tour.

I love the idea of a test championship, as the format is losing importance in favour of T20, but I hope it doesn't interfere with traditional rivalries like the Ashes and the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.

Can't see how this would happen - they are actually going to be playing less ICC tournaments under the new regime (no CT and no bi-annual World T20).