Don't rate jennings at all, hope he's a back up option to crawley and sibley. Great that foakes is back and that now hopefully bairstow can concentrate on being a white ball player.
Jennings makes sense to be fair to the selectors - he's looked good against spin, just not pace.
Just hope if he does well on this tour he isn't seen as an option for other series!
The selection policy is definitely changing - we've always picked "horses for courses" on the bowling front and Jennings is an example of us now doing that with the batting.
I don't see Jennings in the starting line up, more as back up, but should he get in and score heavily then the selectors will, admittedly, have difficult decisions to make. If Jennings doesn't get a game then, even if all of the top 3 aren't overly successful, they still have Burns in front of him.
I'm uneasy with that kind of selection policy - if a bowler bowls a bad ball he can run up and bowl again, if a batsman plays a bad shot that's him out til the next innings and puts pressure on his teammates. I don't think an additional pressure of "hey you're good vs this type of bowler, now play this game and make lots of runs or we'll drop you, we'll probably drop you anyway, but now some one else will take your place in similar circumstances" is any good.
Another way of looking at this, for someone like Jennings, is that he might not get a look in at all if it were not for this selection and this is a means of him showcasing his talents. Surely better to be told that we value you against a certain type of bowling than, by not picking him, we don't value you at all?
Anderson and now Woakes used to be thought of as only being useful in certain types of conditions. They have both developed to the extent that they aren't just picked in a "seamers' paradise". By the same token (and not necessarily Jennings), a batsman picked for his expertise against spin might progress to be as adept against quick bowling. And vice versa. This is particularly true about young players.
A young keeper, at certain levels, might be picked because he is exceptional with the gloves but not quite so good a batsman. However, his batting, as time goes on, might progress to the extent that he eventually commands a place in the top 5. Providing picking him initially does not adversely affect the overall balance of the side, then it is a great way of integrating him into the team and giving him experience of playing at that higher level.
There are two aims of this squad. Firstly, to win the series and secondly to plan for the future. Hopefully, they will do both here.
I think Jennings is a backward step for the selectors, he has a test batting ave 25.2 and a first class ave off33.6.
Bairstow who has been left out, I think rightly, has a test ave of34.7 first class ave 43.5
In the history of Test cricket, of all the players who have played at least three Tests for England in Sri Lanka, there's only one batsman who has a better Test average there than Jennings. So, while it may seem a bit retrograde, at least there's some thought behind it: Jennings has form batting in Sri Lanka.
(The only England player with a better average over three or more Tests in Sri Lanka is Foakes, incidentally).
Surely when a spinner's involved and it hits on the full it should be umpires call?
How are you meant to assume movement though? Sometimes the ball fails to grip. Sometimes the surface does weird things. You never know. It's been the case with umpiring since before DRS.
Seriously, it’s for Steve James’s daughter who has passed away.
tragic story .. Steve's 21 year old daughter has passed .. she was a student in Cardiff .. Steve is a sports reporter on the Times covering cricket and rugby .. ex Glamorgan CCC skipper with 2 England test caps
Comments
Anderson and now Woakes used to be thought of as only being useful in certain types of conditions. They have both developed to the extent that they aren't just picked in a "seamers' paradise". By the same token (and not necessarily Jennings), a batsman picked for his expertise against spin might progress to be as adept against quick bowling. And vice versa. This is particularly true about young players.
A young keeper, at certain levels, might be picked because he is exceptional with the gloves but not quite so good a batsman. However, his batting, as time goes on, might progress to the extent that he eventually commands a place in the top 5. Providing picking him initially does not adversely affect the overall balance of the side, then it is a great way of integrating him into the team and giving him experience of playing at that higher level.
There are two aims of this squad. Firstly, to win the series and secondly to plan for the future. Hopefully, they will do both here.
I think Jennings is a backward step for the selectors, he has a test batting ave 25.2 and a first class ave off33.6.
Bairstow who has been left out, I think rightly, has a test ave of34.7 first class ave 43.5
(The only England player with a better average over three or more Tests in Sri Lanka is Foakes, incidentally).
Buttler and Roy to open with Bairstow at 3 followed by Morgan, Stokes and Denly
Roy
Banton
Malan
Morgan
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Curran (T)
Rashid
Archer
Wood
It's ridiculous that Foakes gets overlooked by Buttler and Bairstow.
But as a keeper he is simply not good enough
😁