creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Worthy4England]

^BBC reporting that they’ve asked Moeen if he will play…he has yet to decide.

Sorta suggests how much faith they have in Leach replacements!

[BWFC_Insane]

^BBC reporting that they’ve asked Moeen if he will play…he has yet to decide.

Sorta suggests how much faith they have in Leach replacements!

Shows how poor our spin options have been post Swann.

[jimbo]

Dawson seems like possibly the best option - knows the set up, can bat and field well, and I’d back him to be the most consistent bowler. He’s not going to win matches though. It would be a case of holding up an end while we attack with a rotation of seamers. This would come unstuck on flat pitches where we’ve got a defensive spinner and 3 82mph seamers and Australia are 450-4.

[BWFC_Insane]

Dawson seems like possibly the best option - knows the set up, can bat and field well, and I’d back him to be the most consistent bowler. He’s not going to win matches though. It would be a case of holding up an end while we attack with a rotation of seamers. This would come unstuck on flat pitches where we’ve got a defensive spinner and 3 82mph seamers and Australia are 450-4.

Yeah. I feel it comes unstuck generally given how English pitches have played of late in that they often get better to bat on as time goes on and you need a spinner in the game.

We are in a tough spot because of injuries. Leach. But then all of our quicks bar Broad have issues and Archer probably won’t play test cricket again.

It’s worst possible timing all round. And I doubt Stokes can bowl much. Potts and Tongue are decent but not ashes winning bowlers yet.

[Worthy4England]

Yup. I only saw highlights, but despite getting some wickets in the second, Tongue looked to get a couple of wickets where you were probably saying you just wouldn't have seen the Aussies playing anything like the same shot.

We seem to have gone from decent possibilities with the attack, to "who can stand up." It's been a while since I've mentally counted Stokes as a bowler, outside of wondering whether we could get 4/5 overs for a breakthrough.

It's also a very compressed series in terms of rest opportunities. Dunno why it's been scheduled as it has.

[Prufrock]

On the other side, Hazelwood has been struggling with injury, and Starc was dreadful here last time around. Will be a big test of Cummins' seemingly fixed fitness issues to do 6 tests back to back plus captain.

Green is a decent all rounder, and Boland did well over there, but they're not exactly spoilt for options with the ball either.

How much say so we get over pitches these days. Can we aim for nothing there for the spinners and take Lyon out too

[Worthy4England]

On the other side, Hazelwood has been struggling with injury, and Starc was dreadful here last time around. Will be a big test of Cummins' seemingly fixed fitness issues to do 6 tests back to back plus captain.

Green is a decent all rounder, and Boland did well over there, but they're not exactly spoilt for options with the ball either.

How much say so we get over pitches these days. Can we aim for nothing there for the spinners and take Lyon out too

We should be telling them to prepare stuff that takes spin on day 10. I'm fairly sure there's still "input" into wicket prep, the only buggeration is they can do strange things when weather gets involved.

Strangely enough, just looking it up, it was a fairly compressed schedule last time they were over here - 1 August to 15 Sept - which I hadn't really spotted at the time.

Last time out Lyon and Hazlewood got 20 apiece with Cummings getting 29. We had Broad 23, Archer 22. Next was Leach and Woakes with 12 and 10. So we sort of had 4 bowlers delivering the same as their main three. Jimmy only played in one test.

I'm not in panic mode, quite, yet.

[Prufrock]

Aye, appreciate it's not an exact science on the pitch.

If Moeen says no I'm not convinced by any of the spinners. But if we were going four seamers (plus stokes) you'd think our first choice (accepting the likes of Jimmy might not play all five) in order of importance would be: Jimmy, Broad, Wood, Robinson. Two of those are in their twilight, and the other two have long standing fitness issues. Not sure they'll be getting much rest between innings, though I'd be surprised if all 5 tests went the full five days.

We only took 87 out of 100 wickets last time. That's...not ideal.

[BWFC_Insane]

Aye, appreciate it's not an exact science on the pitch.

If Moeen says no I'm not convinced by any of the spinners. But if we were going four seamers (plus stokes) you'd think our first choice (accepting the likes of Jimmy might not play all five) in order of importance would be: Jimmy, Broad, Wood, Robinson. Two of those are in their twilight, and the other two have long standing fitness issues. Not sure they'll be getting much rest between innings, though I'd be surprised if all 5 tests went the full five days.

We only took 87 out of 100 wickets last time. That's...not ideal.

Yeah the problem in all this is that I feared the Aussies would hit Leach out of the matches - because in the Stokes/Bazball plan Leach is a holder of an end to rest the quicks and allow the quicks to bowl short stuff one end especially when the pitch is flat or sun is out and ball old.

Leach was as Worthy says the best we have but I feared he could easily be taken out by the Aussies - Ireland showed the vulnerability and that's Ireland.

Moeen - completely different kettle of fish. IIRC a great wicket taking potential (or at least way) but woeful economy rate. So even if he's at his best (which I doubt) you're adding in the sort of mercurial strike bowling spinner who is very unlikely to hold an end up.

And you're doing that with a bowling attack that is a bit 'crumbly' and a bit 'old'.

I'm not panicking but its frustrating that as England were smashing teams around for the last year the Ashes have rocked up at the worst possible time injury and fitness wise.

And to Worthy's point the Ashes is so compressed (ridiculously so) and so early (ridiculously so) because of the hundred! It is shameful really.

[Prufrock]

On the holding an end point, Broad and especially Jimmy give you the building pressure with economy side of it if you want that, but they aren't going to bowl for an hour and a half straight. It's a tough one.

[BWFC_Insane]

The real problem in all this is Stokes’ knee. Whatever attack you perm three seamers is risky given age and fitness respectively and then even more so when your fourth seamer or backup seam bowler is almost broken entirely physically speaking.

What you want for the Ashes is four fit seamers raring to go and a spinner who can take wickets and be relatively economical when needed.

We won’t have that and it’s an issue.

[Worthy4England]

It's little different than the debate about the football squad, what we want is optimal in every position, living their best life, having their best season. Who wouldn't want that? .... We've got, what we've got...

[BWFC_Insane]

Sure. It’s just frustrating we were in much better shape last summer than this one.

[BWFC_Insane]

So Moeen Ali has said yes and is in the squad for Edgbaston.

One assumes he will play.

On the plus side our batting lineup is now beyond insane.

Broad at 10. Robinson 9. Moeen Ali at 8.

Broad averages 18 Robinson 21 and Moeen 28.3 (the same as opener Crawley).

That is some tail.

It also raises for me a question as to whether given Moeen comes in we could sacrifice a batsman for another bowler/all rounder.

Say Will Jacks as a second spin option who can also bat a bit OR say a 4th seamer like Chris Woakes or Tongue who both can bat a bit.

The issue is that you'd have to leave out Brook who has early in his test career an insane average (whereas you'd want to leave out Crawley).

Won't happen first test but I think that has to be a consideration with Stokes potentially unable to bowl much.

[Worthy4England]

They do view that Root can add a few overs in should that be required - he has 17 wickets against Australia too! I also understand he can bat a bit.

[BWFC_Insane]

They do view that Root can add a few overs in should that be required - he has 17 wickets against Australia too! I also understand he can bat a bit.

Sure - Root is a good option.

But given in effect we've got a bunch of middle order batsmen down the order (and arguably top order batsmen in some respects) then it does feel like we're batter heavy but adding an extra bowling option would help massively.

Bold option that will not happen but - open with Moeen or Bairstow. Shunt Crawley. Add Woakes/Tongue/Wood as extra seam option.

[Worthy4England]

Yeah - I doubt they'll shunt Crawley given the faith they've shown in him. I think we want to keep Bairstow as settled as possible, given the fcuking about we did with him last time he had a great season. I mean we're all sort of assuming that Anderson and Broad are nailed on - that might not be so either, although I suspect it is We're not certain that they'll play both Pope and Brooks...

1. Crawley
2. Duckett
3. Root
4. Brooks/Pope
5. Stokes
6. Bairstow (wk)
7. Moeen
8. Wood/Woakes etc. or you could go Pope up top - so there are already options...
9. Robinson
10. Broad
11. Anderson

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah - I doubt they'll shunt Crawley given the faith they've shown in him. I think we want to keep Bairstow as settled as possible, given the fcuking about we did with him last time he had a great season. I mean we're all sort of assuming that Anderson and Broad are nailed on - that might not be so either, although I suspect it is We're not certain that they'll play both Pope and Brooks...

1. Crawley
2. Duckett
3. Root
4. Brooks/Pope
5. Stokes
6. Bairstow (wk)
7. Moeen
8. Wood/Woakes etc. or you could go Pope up top - so there are already options...
9. Robinson
10. Broad
11. Anderson

Pope is a nailed on certainty at number 3. Like I'd say bar Stokes and Root he's next name inked in.

Root will bat 4.

Brook is obviously very good but I don't see him going to number 3 at this stage and Pope would be ahead of him anyway.

It will be IMHO

Crawley
Duckett
Pope
Root
Brook
Stokes
Bairstow
Ali
Robinson
Broad
Jimmy

For me I think there is an argument that this lineup is a bowler light considering Ali hasn't played any red ball stuff in years and Jimmy/Robinson go in with doubts - Broad isn't a spring chicken and Stokes the backup seamer looks like his leg could fall off any minute. I think this is what they go with I'd say the only minor doubts might be whether they put Wood in for Broad OR leave Ali out for another seamer but I doubt that.

For me there is a case that we COULD leave one of the top 5 out for another bowler especially if said bowler could bat a bit. Which would probably offer more balance in our situation. I doubt they will do that but I'd be tempted. Wood especially would add variety the issue is that Brook probably deserves a place and as you say its then how you'd change up the batting line up given for me the only real vulnerable batsman is Crawley.

[Prufrock]

I agree with 10 of your prodicted XI and would be v v surprised if we saw anything else (but appreciate you're chewing the fat).

I think they'll view the seamers as a squad and you'll see rotation with those you've named and Wood, and probably Potts at some point too. I think they'll lean to Wood over Robinson as the default as a point of difference.

I can see where you're coming from, I think it's largely down to how fit Stokes is (and possibly how much Pope and Root can rein him in!). Even if he's got a couple of shortish spells an innings in him you're team then has 6 bowling options that are decent.

I wouldn't be fecking around with the batting. Crawley I'm not convinced by but I'd want a proper opener in instead. We've tried shoehorning middle order batsmen in there and they just don't have the technique.

[Prufrock]

Also on the Ali and red ball cricket and lack of economy, I get where you're coming from but I don't think Stokes cares. Jimmy and Broad have both talked about how he's told them to forget economy and try to take wickets.

I think you'll just see him attack and tbf that's probably when he's at his best rather then chasing accuracy that he doesn't have.