Cricket .. England in South Africa & Sri Lanka 2019/2020

killerandflash said:

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

For me Bairstow raises a bigger question about techniques and white ball/red ball specialisation.

A few years ago Bairstow was a decent test player and a useful reserve batsman in the whiteball stuff. England weren't completely convinced by Hales so wanted to try Bairstow at the top of the order. As a result he made a few changes to his technique to support his case in those formats. One of those changes was adding that in to out drive which has served him so well in the one day game but has  been the cause of him getting bowled every time he faces a moving ball in tests. 

At the time it was absolutely the right call for england as the focus was to win the world cup above all else and he formed one half of what is probably the best opening partnership in that format in the world. 

The point is Bairstow has shown it's not that easy to switch between formats. Especially if it requires technique change. Weve fined a white ball player and lost a red ball player. Similarly Jason Roy could in my view change his technique and become a test level number 4,5,6 (not that we need one of those). But it would no doubt impact on his white ball game.

This is why I think at international level at least we should pick specialists. Only the truly world class batsman (Root and maybe Pope in the future) the all rounders (Stokes, Moeen, Woakes maybe Sam Curran) and the bowlers with something different (Archer, Wood) should play all formats or even make the squad for all formats. Other than that the teams should be largely separate.

Very much agree with this. Now Bairstow has made the transition to a one day hitter as opposed to a proper test batsman I am not sure he ever could go back. Similarly Roy and Hales. 
What worries me is the emphasis that will be put on the development of Pope and Crawley. They should continue to develop as a test batsman first and ignore one day cricket first.
All the top class players learnt solid technique first and then adapt it where neccessary to one day cricket. 

Pope especially is already a good white ball player, indeed wasn't he playing a lot of funky shots during this Test series? Indeed at no 6 that's probably what you want anyway

Yes he did. So he looks to be more in the Root and Stokes crossover camp than Buttler/Bairstow/Roy/Morgan. 

The likes of Nasser, Ramprakash, Gooch and Atherton have all recently confirmed that when they have gone to County Academies, sessions have been all about being able to hit the ball. I myself heard one coach recently say that if a batsmen cannot play "all the shots and 360" then he won't get into one particular academy.

Pope is 22 and very much the exception so far as technique is concerned. Zac Crawley will be 22 too next week but, let's face it, such is the lack of options he is being picked on potential and not on his First Class average which is barely above 30.

Who is our best batting talent coming through and the one everyone is talking about? 21 year old Tom Banton - but he is valued for his T20 ability with an average of 34.80 at a S/R of 160.2 and top score of 100 as against a First Class average of just 27.14.

Telling kids to hit the ball does not lend itself to a bat coming down straight. And once bad habits are formed it is incredibly hard to undo them. If an international opening bat like Jason Roy cannot make such adjustments, how easy is it for an 18 or 19 year old, making his way in the game, to do so with scoreboard pressure hanging over him? What financial incentive is there for him to do so when all the money is in T20 and even more ludicrous shorter games?

The world is their oyster for those youngsters that are prepared to go through the pain and boredom of drills designed to hit the ball straight. The trouble is that kids don't like doing that and there are also the other distractions of football, rugby etc etc in the "off" season.

The exception to all of this are the young Asian cricketers. Every Sunday, when I am feeding balls into a bowling machine for my 16 year old son, the other 3 lanes are filled with these kids, as young as 6, being coached by their Dads on technique - ball after ball after ball after ball.

That is the platform for all round success as a batsman and there are no short cuts.  As @redman has said the very best batsmen have this and then develop their ability to hit which is just an extension of most of those shots. And as an example, who would have said 5 years ago that Kane Williamson would go out to bat for a Super Over or was capable of hitting 106 off 52 balls including 7 maximums as he did today?

AshBurton said:

Last one for now (promise). Also includes some summary takeaways from this tour, including support for Joe Denly’s role over the last year:
https://www.burtonsblog.com/post/woody-shakes-it-up-now-pace-and-bounce-pace-and-bounce

Excellent point re the comparative renaissance of Root since Denly took over at 3 regularly.

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chris Read being one player who kept getting dropped despite England doing well, and Mike Atherton being a player who kept his spot through all sorts of horror as he was about the only one showing any grit

England have a better win/loss ratio with Denly in the team that without him.  For that reason, his position shouldn't even be under scrutiny. 

This is plain, pure, nuclear-grade nonsense 

Are you suggesting England have a better win/loss ratio without Denly? 

Actually, don't bother. 

What joy do you get from being such an arsehole sometimes?
out of the two sentences you wrote, which one do you think he wrote was nonsense?

to save you looking back, it was the one that said his position shouldn’t be under scrutiny. 

I will stand by that comment.  And, for the sake of it, explain it further. 

There are five players I regard as being "key" (in football, these type are often (wrongly) called galácticos).  The five are, in my view, Root (the captain); Stokes and Buttler (the two, most recent, vice captains); and Anderson and Broad (England's two highest-ever wicket takers.  When fit, they should all be selected, on condition that the team continues to win.  Put simply, these five players' places should be "safe" while England's results are improving.   

These five are able to do their jobs when the six around them do theirs.  The bowlers are under less pressure and have longer rests when the batsmen score runs.  The batsman have easier targets when the bowlers take wickets cheaply.  And, on a macro scale, the middle and lower order batsmen are under less pressure when the top of the order "does its job" in the same way that the opening bowlers have a better chance when the first, second and third change bowlers complete their duofold objective of slowing the run rate and taking wickets.  

Have the key players performed in the current series?  Collectively, yes, without doubt.  And what has been one of the main reasons for this?  It's because the other six (or seven) have contributed, to plan.  And what is that plan? 

Chris Silverwood has come in and made some subtle changes to the tactical approach.  (Incidentally, I think this is because of and not in spite of, England winning the World Cup: Silverwood has seen that the all-out attacking approach has worked in one format, but a different mindset is needed for the longer game).  In the 50-over format, not hitting a ball to the boundary is seen as an expensive waste.  In Tests, we have reverted to the view that wickets should be sold very dearly.  So, a ball that doesn't earn a wicket is a victory to the batting side.  It's a subtle shift, but it needs a technical and mental approach to deliver it.  

Question: who was England's best batsman in last year's World Cup?  Arguably it was Root (who scored the most), Stokes (who had the highest average) or Buttler (who had the best strike rate (aside from Liam Plunkett)).  The point is this - the "best" batsman in the a fifty-over series is probably the one who scores lots of runs, quickly.  

So, who were England's best batsmen in the series v South Africa?  Well, if the criteria are those which demonstrate that the batsmen are carrying out the tactical approach of the coach (top order to consume deliveries, middle and lower order to score runs), then Sibley and Denly were the stand-out successes among the top order; and Pope, Stokes and Root were the ahead of the rest by dint of the runs they scored.  The hard-won victories of Sibley and Denly (using up 227 overs between them) laid the way for Root, Stokes, Pope (and others) to "cash in" later.  Had the top order failed, so would the rest of the innings.  It's no surprise that England won every match in the series when they reached 50 before losing their second wicket, and lost the one match where they failed to do so. 

England have a better win/loss ratio when Denly is in the team than when he isn't.  He's contributed, significantly, to England winning the series in South Africa by executing, brilliantly, the strategic vision of the coaching team.  There are fourteen England players who have batted at number three in a winning England team in the last decade.  Of those, the only ones who have scored more than Denly while doing so are Trott, Root, Ballance and Bell, each of whom is excluded for a number of different reasons. 

He's not - and, in my view, never will be - one of the "key" five players.  The likely next candidates for those roles will be among Pope, Sibley, Burns, Crawley and Archer.  But he's absolutely invaluable in the role that he has made his own: someone who grinds bowlers down.  And his place on the next tour shouldn't be under scrutiny, not least because his batting will be supported by the overs he will be able to send down, further resting the (few) seamers we will use.  

So, we have stumbled across a winner, who is proving successful and enduring.  If you disagree, that's fine: spell out why.  But please do so without the invective. 

Chizz said:

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chris Read being one player who kept getting dropped despite England doing well, and Mike Atherton being a player who kept his spot through all sorts of horror as he was about the only one showing any grit

England have a better win/loss ratio with Denly in the team that without him.  For that reason, his position shouldn't even be under scrutiny. 

This is plain, pure, nuclear-grade nonsense 

Are you suggesting England have a better win/loss ratio without Denly? 

Actually, don't bother. 

What joy do you get from being such an arsehole sometimes?
out of the two sentences you wrote, which one do you think he wrote was nonsense?

to save you looking back, it was the one that said his position shouldn’t be under scrutiny. 

I will stand by that comment.  And, for the sake of it, explain it further. 

There are five players I regard as being "key" (in football, these type are often (wrongly) called galácticos).  The five are, in my view, Root (the captain); Stokes and Buttler (the two, most recent, vice captains); and Anderson and Broad (England's two highest-ever wicket takers.  When fit, they should all be selected, on condition that the team continues to win.  Put simply, these five players' places should be "safe" while England's results are improving.   

These five are able to do their jobs when the six around them do theirs.  The bowlers are under less pressure and have longer rests when the batsmen score runs.  The batsman have easier targets when the bowlers take wickets cheaply.  And, on a macro scale, the middle and lower order batsmen are under less pressure when the top of the order "does its job" in the same way that the opening bowlers have a better chance when the first, second and third change bowlers complete their duofold objective of slowing the run rate and taking wickets.  

Have the key players performed in the current series?  Collectively, yes, without doubt.  And what has been one of the main reasons for this?  It's because the other six (or seven) have contributed, to plan.  And what is that plan? 

Chris Silverwood has come in and made some subtle changes to the tactical approach.  (Incidentally, I think this is because of and not in spite of, England winning the World Cup: Silverwood has seen that the all-out attacking approach has worked in one format, but a different mindset is needed for the longer game).  In the 50-over format, not hitting a ball to the boundary is seen as an expensive waste.  In Tests, we have reverted to the view that wickets should be sold very dearly.  So, a ball that doesn't earn a wicket is a victory to the batting side.  It's a subtle shift, but it needs a technical and mental approach to deliver it.  

Question: who was England's best batsman in last year's World Cup?  Arguably it was Root (who scored the most), Stokes (who had the highest average) or Buttler (who had the best strike rate (aside from Liam Plunkett)).  The point is this - the "best" batsman in the a fifty-over series is probably the one who scores lots of runs, quickly.  

So, who were England's best batsmen in the series v South Africa?  Well, if the criteria are those which demonstrate that the batsmen are carrying out the tactical approach of the coach (top order to consume deliveries, middle and lower order to score runs), then Sibley and Denly were the stand-out successes among the top order; and Pope, Stokes and Root were the ahead of the rest by dint of the runs they scored.  The hard-won victories of Sibley and Denly (using up 227 overs between them) laid the way for Root, Stokes, Pope (and others) to "cash in" later.  Had the top order failed, so would the rest of the innings.  It's no surprise that England won every match in the series when they reached 50 before losing their second wicket, and lost the one match where they failed to do so. 

England have a better win/loss ratio when Denly is in the team than when he isn't.  He's contributed, significantly, to England winning the series in South Africa by executing, brilliantly, the strategic vision of the coaching team.  There are fourteen England players who have batted at number three in a winning England team in the last decade.  Of those, the only ones who have scored more than Denly while doing so are Trott, Root, Ballance and Bell, each of whom is excluded for a number of different reasons. 

He's not - and, in my view, never will be - one of the "key" five players.  The likely next candidates for those roles will be among Pope, Sibley, Burns, Crawley and Archer.  But he's absolutely invaluable in the role that he has made his own: someone who grinds bowlers down.  And his place on the next tour shouldn't be under scrutiny, not least because his batting will be supported by the overs he will be able to send down, further resting the (few) seamers we will use.  

So, we have stumbled across a winner, who is proving successful and enduring.  If you disagree, that's fine: spell out why.  But please do so without the invective. 

A batsman comes in at Number 4 and scores 0,0,0,0,0,0 in a 3 match series but his team win the Series 3-0. That batsman should automatically be picked because he was part of a winning team? 

Addick Addict said:

Just seen one of the most magnificent bits of sportsmanship. And no surprises that it came from players from NZ.

The West Indies batsman, McKenzie, had to retire with cramp on 99 with 8 overs to go. With 2 balls to go of the innings and at 238-9 McKenzie had to go back in but, sadly for him, was bowled first ball. He literally could not move his feet and seeing this, the NZ players, spontaneously and without any request to do so, carried him off the pitch.

Who says the Spirit of Cricket is dead?

Bastards, they could have let him get to a century first!

Chizz said:

blackpool72 said:

Chizz.
Your post earlier regarding players who you concider to be key.
You include Butler. Most people on here including me wouldn't even have Butler in the team let alone be a key player. 
Foakes is a far superior keeper. 

Most people voted for Mrs Brown's Boys to win "Best Comedy" at the NTAs. 

Very good mate 

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chris Read being one player who kept getting dropped despite England doing well, and Mike Atherton being a player who kept his spot through all sorts of horror as he was about the only one showing any grit

England have a better win/loss ratio with Denly in the team that without him.  For that reason, his position shouldn't even be under scrutiny. 

This is plain, pure, nuclear-grade nonsense 

Are you suggesting England have a better win/loss ratio without Denly? 

Actually, don't bother. 

What joy do you get from being such an arsehole sometimes?
out of the two sentences you wrote, which one do you think he wrote was nonsense?

to save you looking back, it was the one that said his position shouldn’t be under scrutiny. 

I will stand by that comment.  And, for the sake of it, explain it further. 

There are five players I regard as being "key" (in football, these type are often (wrongly) called galácticos).  The five are, in my view, Root (the captain); Stokes and Buttler (the two, most recent, vice captains); and Anderson and Broad (England's two highest-ever wicket takers.  When fit, they should all be selected, on condition that the team continues to win.  Put simply, these five players' places should be "safe" while England's results are improving.   

These five are able to do their jobs when the six around them do theirs.  The bowlers are under less pressure and have longer rests when the batsmen score runs.  The batsman have easier targets when the bowlers take wickets cheaply.  And, on a macro scale, the middle and lower order batsmen are under less pressure when the top of the order "does its job" in the same way that the opening bowlers have a better chance when the first, second and third change bowlers complete their duofold objective of slowing the run rate and taking wickets.  

Have the key players performed in the current series?  Collectively, yes, without doubt.  And what has been one of the main reasons for this?  It's because the other six (or seven) have contributed, to plan.  And what is that plan? 

Chris Silverwood has come in and made some subtle changes to the tactical approach.  (Incidentally, I think this is because of and not in spite of, England winning the World Cup: Silverwood has seen that the all-out attacking approach has worked in one format, but a different mindset is needed for the longer game).  In the 50-over format, not hitting a ball to the boundary is seen as an expensive waste.  In Tests, we have reverted to the view that wickets should be sold very dearly.  So, a ball that doesn't earn a wicket is a victory to the batting side.  It's a subtle shift, but it needs a technical and mental approach to deliver it.  

Question: who was England's best batsman in last year's World Cup?  Arguably it was Root (who scored the most), Stokes (who had the highest average) or Buttler (who had the best strike rate (aside from Liam Plunkett)).  The point is this - the "best" batsman in the a fifty-over series is probably the one who scores lots of runs, quickly.  

So, who were England's best batsmen in the series v South Africa?  Well, if the criteria are those which demonstrate that the batsmen are carrying out the tactical approach of the coach (top order to consume deliveries, middle and lower order to score runs), then Sibley and Denly were the stand-out successes among the top order; and Pope, Stokes and Root were the ahead of the rest by dint of the runs they scored.  The hard-won victories of Sibley and Denly (using up 227 overs between them) laid the way for Root, Stokes, Pope (and others) to "cash in" later.  Had the top order failed, so would the rest of the innings.  It's no surprise that England won every match in the series when they reached 50 before losing their second wicket, and lost the one match where they failed to do so. 

England have a better win/loss ratio when Denly is in the team than when he isn't.  He's contributed, significantly, to England winning the series in South Africa by executing, brilliantly, the strategic vision of the coaching team.  There are fourteen England players who have batted at number three in a winning England team in the last decade.  Of those, the only ones who have scored more than Denly while doing so are Trott, Root, Ballance and Bell, each of whom is excluded for a number of different reasons. 

He's not - and, in my view, never will be - one of the "key" five players.  The likely next candidates for those roles will be among Pope, Sibley, Burns, Crawley and Archer.  But he's absolutely invaluable in the role that he has made his own: someone who grinds bowlers down.  And his place on the next tour shouldn't be under scrutiny, not least because his batting will be supported by the overs he will be able to send down, further resting the (few) seamers we will use.  

So, we have stumbled across a winner, who is proving successful and enduring.  If you disagree, that's fine: spell out why.  But please do so without the invective. 

A batsman comes in at Number 4 and scores 0,0,0,0,0,0 in a 3 match series but his team win the Series 3-0. That batsman should automatically be picked because he was part of a winning team? 

I disagree.  But if that's what you think and you have reasons for thinking it, good luck to you. 

It was a question, what are you disagreeing? 

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chris Read being one player who kept getting dropped despite England doing well, and Mike Atherton being a player who kept his spot through all sorts of horror as he was about the only one showing any grit

England have a better win/loss ratio with Denly in the team that without him.  For that reason, his position shouldn't even be under scrutiny. 

This is plain, pure, nuclear-grade nonsense 

Are you suggesting England have a better win/loss ratio without Denly? 

Actually, don't bother. 

What joy do you get from being such an arsehole sometimes?
out of the two sentences you wrote, which one do you think he wrote was nonsense?

to save you looking back, it was the one that said his position shouldn’t be under scrutiny. 

I will stand by that comment.  And, for the sake of it, explain it further. 

There are five players I regard as being "key" (in football, these type are often (wrongly) called galácticos).  The five are, in my view, Root (the captain); Stokes and Buttler (the two, most recent, vice captains); and Anderson and Broad (England's two highest-ever wicket takers.  When fit, they should all be selected, on condition that the team continues to win.  Put simply, these five players' places should be "safe" while England's results are improving.   

These five are able to do their jobs when the six around them do theirs.  The bowlers are under less pressure and have longer rests when the batsmen score runs.  The batsman have easier targets when the bowlers take wickets cheaply.  And, on a macro scale, the middle and lower order batsmen are under less pressure when the top of the order "does its job" in the same way that the opening bowlers have a better chance when the first, second and third change bowlers complete their duofold objective of slowing the run rate and taking wickets.  

Have the key players performed in the current series?  Collectively, yes, without doubt.  And what has been one of the main reasons for this?  It's because the other six (or seven) have contributed, to plan.  And what is that plan? 

Chris Silverwood has come in and made some subtle changes to the tactical approach.  (Incidentally, I think this is because of and not in spite of, England winning the World Cup: Silverwood has seen that the all-out attacking approach has worked in one format, but a different mindset is needed for the longer game).  In the 50-over format, not hitting a ball to the boundary is seen as an expensive waste.  In Tests, we have reverted to the view that wickets should be sold very dearly.  So, a ball that doesn't earn a wicket is a victory to the batting side.  It's a subtle shift, but it needs a technical and mental approach to deliver it.  

Question: who was England's best batsman in last year's World Cup?  Arguably it was Root (who scored the most), Stokes (who had the highest average) or Buttler (who had the best strike rate (aside from Liam Plunkett)).  The point is this - the "best" batsman in the a fifty-over series is probably the one who scores lots of runs, quickly.  

So, who were England's best batsmen in the series v South Africa?  Well, if the criteria are those which demonstrate that the batsmen are carrying out the tactical approach of the coach (top order to consume deliveries, middle and lower order to score runs), then Sibley and Denly were the stand-out successes among the top order; and Pope, Stokes and Root were the ahead of the rest by dint of the runs they scored.  The hard-won victories of Sibley and Denly (using up 227 overs between them) laid the way for Root, Stokes, Pope (and others) to "cash in" later.  Had the top order failed, so would the rest of the innings.  It's no surprise that England won every match in the series when they reached 50 before losing their second wicket, and lost the one match where they failed to do so. 

England have a better win/loss ratio when Denly is in the team than when he isn't.  He's contributed, significantly, to England winning the series in South Africa by executing, brilliantly, the strategic vision of the coaching team.  There are fourteen England players who have batted at number three in a winning England team in the last decade.  Of those, the only ones who have scored more than Denly while doing so are Trott, Root, Ballance and Bell, each of whom is excluded for a number of different reasons. 

He's not - and, in my view, never will be - one of the "key" five players.  The likely next candidates for those roles will be among Pope, Sibley, Burns, Crawley and Archer.  But he's absolutely invaluable in the role that he has made his own: someone who grinds bowlers down.  And his place on the next tour shouldn't be under scrutiny, not least because his batting will be supported by the overs he will be able to send down, further resting the (few) seamers we will use.  

So, we have stumbled across a winner, who is proving successful and enduring.  If you disagree, that's fine: spell out why.  But please do so without the invective. 

A batsman comes in at Number 4 and scores 0,0,0,0,0,0 in a 3 match series but his team win the Series 3-0. That batsman should automatically be picked because he was part of a winning team? 

I disagree.  But if that's what you think and you have reasons for thinking it, good luck to you. 

It was a question, what are you disagreeing? 

I disagree with the premise you set out. 

That's cos you're a prat. 

cafcfan1990 said:

A batsman comes in at Number 4 and scores 0,0,0,0,0,0 in a 3 match series but his team win the Series 3-0. That batsman should automatically be picked because he was part of a winning team? 

Yeah, but we won one of the last three games by an innings so it would only have been 0,0,0,0,0, so I think he deserves another chance to break the unlucky run.

Oh look, Chizz is making a show of himself on a cricket thread again. 

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

Chris Read being one player who kept getting dropped despite England doing well, and Mike Atherton being a player who kept his spot through all sorts of horror as he was about the only one showing any grit

England have a better win/loss ratio with Denly in the team that without him.  For that reason, his position shouldn't even be under scrutiny. 

This is plain, pure, nuclear-grade nonsense 

Are you suggesting England have a better win/loss ratio without Denly? 

Actually, don't bother. 

What joy do you get from being such an arsehole sometimes?
out of the two sentences you wrote, which one do you think he wrote was nonsense?

to save you looking back, it was the one that said his position shouldn’t be under scrutiny. 

I will stand by that comment.  And, for the sake of it, explain it further. 

There are five players I regard as being "key" (in football, these type are often (wrongly) called galácticos).  The five are, in my view, Root (the captain); Stokes and Buttler (the two, most recent, vice captains); and Anderson and Broad (England's two highest-ever wicket takers.  When fit, they should all be selected, on condition that the team continues to win.  Put simply, these five players' places should be "safe" while England's results are improving.   

These five are able to do their jobs when the six around them do theirs.  The bowlers are under less pressure and have longer rests when the batsmen score runs.  The batsman have easier targets when the bowlers take wickets cheaply.  And, on a macro scale, the middle and lower order batsmen are under less pressure when the top of the order "does its job" in the same way that the opening bowlers have a better chance when the first, second and third change bowlers complete their duofold objective of slowing the run rate and taking wickets.  

Have the key players performed in the current series?  Collectively, yes, without doubt.  And what has been one of the main reasons for this?  It's because the other six (or seven) have contributed, to plan.  And what is that plan? 

Chris Silverwood has come in and made some subtle changes to the tactical approach.  (Incidentally, I think this is because of and not in spite of, England winning the World Cup: Silverwood has seen that the all-out attacking approach has worked in one format, but a different mindset is needed for the longer game).  In the 50-over format, not hitting a ball to the boundary is seen as an expensive waste.  In Tests, we have reverted to the view that wickets should be sold very dearly.  So, a ball that doesn't earn a wicket is a victory to the batting side.  It's a subtle shift, but it needs a technical and mental approach to deliver it.  

Question: who was England's best batsman in last year's World Cup?  Arguably it was Root (who scored the most), Stokes (who had the highest average) or Buttler (who had the best strike rate (aside from Liam Plunkett)).  The point is this - the "best" batsman in the a fifty-over series is probably the one who scores lots of runs, quickly.  

So, who were England's best batsmen in the series v South Africa?  Well, if the criteria are those which demonstrate that the batsmen are carrying out the tactical approach of the coach (top order to consume deliveries, middle and lower order to score runs), then Sibley and Denly were the stand-out successes among the top order; and Pope, Stokes and Root were the ahead of the rest by dint of the runs they scored.  The hard-won victories of Sibley and Denly (using up 227 overs between them) laid the way for Root, Stokes, Pope (and others) to "cash in" later.  Had the top order failed, so would the rest of the innings.  It's no surprise that England won every match in the series when they reached 50 before losing their second wicket, and lost the one match where they failed to do so. 

England have a better win/loss ratio when Denly is in the team than when he isn't.  He's contributed, significantly, to England winning the series in South Africa by executing, brilliantly, the strategic vision of the coaching team.  There are fourteen England players who have batted at number three in a winning England team in the last decade.  Of those, the only ones who have scored more than Denly while doing so are Trott, Root, Ballance and Bell, each of whom is excluded for a number of different reasons. 

He's not - and, in my view, never will be - one of the "key" five players.  The likely next candidates for those roles will be among Pope, Sibley, Burns, Crawley and Archer.  But he's absolutely invaluable in the role that he has made his own: someone who grinds bowlers down.  And his place on the next tour shouldn't be under scrutiny, not least because his batting will be supported by the overs he will be able to send down, further resting the (few) seamers we will use.  

So, we have stumbled across a winner, who is proving successful and enduring.  If you disagree, that's fine: spell out why.  But please do so without the invective. 

A batsman comes in at Number 4 and scores 0,0,0,0,0,0 in a 3 match series but his team win the Series 3-0. That batsman should automatically be picked because he was part of a winning team? 

@Chizz never said that. The point was that Denly was told to bat 100 balls to see off the new ball and grind down the bowlers. Denly did that which allowed root, stokes and pope to take advantage. 

I mean it's shit like this that means I post on this thread less often.

cantersaddick said:

Addickted2TheReds said:

Oh look, Chizz is making a show of himself on a cricket thread again. 

I’ve no idea why you are so deliberately difficult or why you feel the need to be so condescending. 

Really odd behaviour and it comes across so poorly. 

You must be very, very bored. 

Its what happens when a small brain and a small penis occur in the same person.

How do you know?

PaddyP17 said:

LenGlover said:

AshBurton said:

Last one for now (promise). Also includes some summary takeaways from this tour, including support for Joe Denly’s role over the last year:
https://www.burtonsblog.com/post/woody-shakes-it-up-now-pace-and-bounce-pace-and-bounce

Excellent point re the comparative renaissance of Root since Denly took over at 3 regularly.

It's no secret that Root has always wanted to bat at 4 and only moved up with great reluctance.

That said, I think his renaissance would be in full swing should we be in a position to hand over the captaincy. I don't think he is really suited to it: field settings (there was a bloody deep point in the last innings of the last Test!) are uninspired or non-sensical a lot of the time, and he doesn't seem a particularly vocal leader.

I'd actually consider Burns (when fit), or possibly Stokes - if temperament isn't an issue - as a captain, to allow Root to further flourish.

I used to agree with this, but don’t any longer having seen his captaincy in action at close quarters. I now think he’s trying to be a lot more innovative than I gave him credit for. And the vocal thing is overblown - this was hardly Mike Brearley’s style either and he seemed to do ok (at captaincy, let’s ignore the batting side).