Ashes 2025/6

[bwildered]

Of course the elephant in the room is Ollie Robinson (Sussex) who is playing grade cricket.

He's an outstanding bowler, as long as he doesn't go missing after his first spell. Don't be surprised to see him for the 5th test.

 Sadly now passed his sell by date.

[Oldhasbeen]

Of course the elephant in the room is Ollie Robinson (Sussex) who is playing grade cricket.

He's an outstanding bowler, as long as he doesn't go missing after his first spell. Don't be surprised to see him for the 5th test.

I'd be very surprised. He really p*ssed off the selectors/captain/coaches with his fitness level last tour.
Having said that, I'd have picked him ahead of Jamie Overton for the final Test last summer. He's a fine bowler when fit enough, and a decent number 8 batsman.

[Andy]

Of course the elephant in the room is Ollie Robinson (Sussex) who is playing grade cricket.

He's an outstanding bowler, as long as he doesn't go missing after his first spell. Don't be surprised to see him for the 5th test.

 Sadly now passed his sell by date.

To quote David Coleman he p*ssed a fatness test last time he was called up by England.  It may be that he has unfairly acquired a reputation. It may be an appropriately bad reputation. Who knows?

[Oldhasbeen]

Baz is telling us to expect an unchanged top 7 for the 3rd Test.
Great news for the Aussies!

[nat]

Baz is telling us to expect an unchanged top 7 for the 3rd Test.
Great news for the Aussies!

Got little choice. 'Bazball' means all in...no retreat. If you are going to lose then go down in flames. I fully expect a 5-0 series trouncing followed by mass sackings.

[vim]

No retreat. Is Stalin or Emperor Hirohito, now responsible for the tactics.

[NotAMember]

What other options are there on the batting side?

Bring in the only other member of the squad who is a batsman - Jacob Bethell, who however promising he may be, doesn't even have a first-class century.

The only other option I can think of would be to push up Will Jacks into his rightful role as a batsman who can bowl a bit, but I wouldn't want to overdo that (e.g. bat him at 3) just because he did quite well for a while at 8 in the last Test.

So in all honestly the current top 7 is probably the best they have out there, with the possible proviso that Jacks could have earned a place in the top 7, doing anything else is just shuffling the pack in hope rather than a concrete strategy.

[Andy]

What other options are there on the batting side?

Bring in the only other member of the squad who is a batsman - Jacob Bethell, who however promising he may be, doesn't even have a first-class century.

The only other option I can think of would be to push up Will Jacks into his rightful role as a batsman who can bowl a bit, but I wouldn't want to overdo that (e.g. bat him at 3) just because he did quite well for a while at 8 in the last Test.

So in all honestly the current top 7 is probably the best they have out there, with the possible proviso that Jacks could have earned a place in the top 7, doing anything else is just shuffling the pack in hope rather than a concrete strategy.

Very good points. When he was skipper Tonker Taylor after a poor first innings performance used to say same order different batting.  To start meddling with the batting now when even Crawley has made some runs would not improve matters. The Lions have not impressed and throwing someone into this series would be unfair on them.

This mess is caused by some bizarre thinking but at least there is tacit acceptance as reflected in the skipper reigning in his batting in the last test and comments by the likes of Brook.

[Oldhasbeen]

[ When he was skipper Tonker Taylor after a poor first innings performance used to say same order different batting. 

I read he said "same batting order, better batting"
So would he have approved when the Aussies promoted Travis Head to open in the first Test?

[Oldhasbeen]

What other options are there on the batting side?

Bring in the only other member of the squad who is a batsman - Jacob Bethell, who however promising he may be, doesn't even have a first-class century.

The only other option I can think of would be to push up Will Jacks into his rightful role as a batsman who can bowl a bit, but I wouldn't want to overdo that (e.g. bat him at 3) just because he did quite well for a while at 8 in the last Test.

So in all honestly the current top 7 is probably the best they have out there, with the possible proviso that Jacks could have earned a place in the top 7, doing anything else is just shuffling the pack in hope rather than a concrete strategy.

I can see where you are coming from but TBC Pope looks a hopeless number 3 and Jamie Smith looks like a man whose confidence is completely shot, both with bat and gloves. I hope I'm wrong and they both score tons (and take their catches), but I fear the worst. I rather have Jacks or Bethell at 3 and give Pope the gloves and the number 6 spot.
If we don't change personnel, I'd rather see Stokes at 3, Pope at 6.

[Andy]

What other options are there on the batting side?

Bring in the only other member of the squad who is a batsman - Jacob Bethell, who however promising he may be, doesn't even have a first-class century.

The only other option I can think of would be to push up Will Jacks into his rightful role as a batsman who can bowl a bit, but I wouldn't want to overdo that (e.g. bat him at 3) just because he did quite well for a while at 8 in the last Test.

So in all honestly the current top 7 is probably the best they have out there, with the possible proviso that Jacks could have earned a place in the top 7, doing anything else is just shuffling the pack in hope rather than a concrete strategy.

I can see where you are coming from but TBC Pope looks a hopeless number 3 and Jamie Smith looks like a man whose confidence is completely shot, both with bat and gloves. I hope I'm wrong and they both score tons (and take their catches), but I fear the worst. I rather have Jacks or Bethell at 3 and give Pope the gloves and the number 6 spot.
If we don't change personnel, I'd rather see Stokes at 3, Pope at 6.

Smith dropped one and did not go for another. Usual click bait journalism has got JS in its sights.  Now people are calling for a recall for Bairstow whose mental and technical weaknesses caused problems in the last Ashes series.

The knee jerk reaction mentioned above makes no sense at all just changes for the sake of them. Never worked in the 1980s and 1990s. Keep the same side unless there are injuries.

[Crisp]

What other options are there on the batting side?

Bring in the only other member of the squad who is a batsman - Jacob Bethell, who however promising he may be, doesn't even have a first-class century.

The only other option I can think of would be to push up Will Jacks into his rightful role as a batsman who can bowl a bit, but I wouldn't want to overdo that (e.g. bat him at 3) just because he did quite well for a while at 8 in the last Test.

So in all honestly the current top 7 is probably the best they have out there, with the possible proviso that Jacks could have earned a place in the top 7, doing anything else is just shuffling the pack in hope rather than a concrete strategy.

I can see where you are coming from but TBC Pope looks a hopeless number 3 and Jamie Smith looks like a man whose confidence is completely shot, both with bat and gloves. I hope I'm wrong and they both score tons (and take their catches), but I fear the worst. I rather have Jacks or Bethell at 3 and give Pope the gloves and the number 6 spot.
If we don't change personnel, I'd rather see Stokes at 3, Pope at 6.

Smith dropped one and did not go for another. Usual click bait journalism has got JS in its sights.  Now people are calling for a recall for Bairstow whose mental and technical weaknesses caused problems in the last Ashes series.

The knee jerk reaction mentioned above makes no sense at all just changes for the sake of them. Never worked in the 1980s and 1990s. Keep the same side unless there are injuries.

Its not hard to shoot Smith down when he isn't the number one wicket keeper at Surrey and the number one choice of the County.
Foakes, should be there as he is a better batsman and keeper.

[JasonP]

What other options are there on the batting side?

Bring in the only other member of the squad who is a batsman - Jacob Bethell, who however promising he may be, doesn't even have a first-class century.

The only other option I can think of would be to push up Will Jacks into his rightful role as a batsman who can bowl a bit, but I wouldn't want to overdo that (e.g. bat him at 3) just because he did quite well for a while at 8 in the last Test.

So in all honestly the current top 7 is probably the best they have out there, with the possible proviso that Jacks could have earned a place in the top 7, doing anything else is just shuffling the pack in hope rather than a concrete strategy.

I can see where you are coming from but TBC Pope looks a hopeless number 3 and Jamie Smith looks like a man whose confidence is completely shot, both with bat and gloves. I hope I'm wrong and they both score tons (and take their catches), but I fear the worst. I rather have Jacks or Bethell at 3 and give Pope the gloves and the number 6 spot.
If we don't change personnel, I'd rather see Stokes at 3, Pope at 6.

Smith dropped one and did not go for another. Usual click bait journalism has got JS in its sights.  Now people are calling for a recall for Bairstow whose mental and technical weaknesses caused problems in the last Ashes series.

The knee jerk reaction mentioned above makes no sense at all just changes for the sake of them. Never worked in the 1980s and 1990s. Keep the same side unless there are injuries.

Its not hard to shoot Smith down when he isn't the number one wicket keeper at Surrey and the number one choice of the County.
Foakes, should be there as he is a better batsman and keeper.

Smith is in a different league to Foakes as a batsman. 

[NotAMember]

The knee jerk reaction mentioned above makes no sense at all just changes for the sake of them. Never worked in the 1980s and 1990s. Keep the same side unless there are injuries.

Yup. After all, the England management has been hammered for perceived lack of preparation, but they needed to know their batting line-up long in advance of going and the current one was cemented back in September, maybe even earlier.

So saying "Whoops it was all wrong let's try someone else" is hitting the panic button.

That said, I'm not adverse to changes, of course they always happen sooner or later.

[JasonP]

The knee jerk reaction mentioned above makes no sense at all just changes for the sake of them. Never worked in the 1980s and 1990s. Keep the same side unless there are injuries.

Yup. After all, the England management has been hammered for perceived lack of preparation, but they needed to know their batting line-up long in advance of going and the current one was cemented back in September, maybe even earlier.

So saying "Whoops it was all wrong let's try someone else" is hitting the panic button.

That said, I'm not adverse to changes, of course they always happen sooner or later.

I don't think there has been too many criticising the selection of the top 7 batsmen.  The mindset of them, yes.

The bowling selections have been by far the bigger problem.  They've been made to look idiots.  Key and McCullum insisting to win in Australia you need a battery of 90mph bowlers and then being bowled out by Boland, Neser and Doggett, who are certainly not that.