England Cricket 2023

The curse of the injured fast bowler - John Turner is out of the NZ series as a result of an injury sustained playing mickey mouse cricket. Another South African born quick, Brydon Carse, replaces him. Poor Sam Cook(e) must be thinking that this isn't such a Wonderful World!

Cafc43v3r said:

Addick Addict said:

I see Brook scored a 41 ball ton tonight, the fastest 100 in the history of The Hundred - second top score was 15 and only Buttler has more runs in the competition. Some of the other England players to appear in The Hundred (WC squad members in bold):

Brook         47.60 Av - 196.69 SR
Buttler        42.16 Av - 152.40 SR
Billings       31.50 Av -  170.27 SR
Lawrence    29.00 Av - 170.58 SR
Root           28.40 Av -  154.34 SR
Jacks          26.62 Av -  160.15 SR
Duckett      24.60 Av - 136.66 SR
Bairstow     21.75 Av -   96.66 SR
Banton        20.71 Av - 135.51 SR
Salt             20.42 Av -  183.33 SR
Roy             19.25 Av  - 131.62 SR
Livingstone  18.40 Av - 102.22 SR
Vince           17.00 Av - 118.60 SR
Crawley      15.75 Av -  106.77 SR
Curran (S)    15.00 Av - 123.71 SR
Smeed         13.83 Av - 123.88 SR
Hales           12.57 Av - 133.33 SR
Moeen         11.20 Av - 101.81 SR
Malan            7.00 Av -   87.50 SR

Answers on a postcard to the blatantly obvious question!

Because you can't pick everybody? 
It's 50 overs, not 100 balls.
You need 6 bowling options and a wicket keeper which means he is effectively playing for one of 4 spots, 2 of which will open so it's really 2.  One of which Stokes will take.

Personally I would have picked him ahead of Roy or Malan but then your dropping a world cup winner who averages 40 or a bloke that averages 55.  This is also, clearly, the end of an 8 year cycle and Brook has only played 3 ODIs.

Like I said I would have picked him but I understand why they haven't.  He will be a shoe in after the world cup, it's probably come a year too soon for him, unfortunately.

I wouldn't have had Roy or Stokes (even if he could bowl which seems unlikely) but I too understand their reasoning even if I struggle with the logic. Roy has been in woeful form and chose to relinquish his central contract and I would have had Duckett instead or even Malan opening. Stokes is a talisman but one that has been fighting one one leg in the last couple of years - the ability to be able to field to the best of ones ability is far more relevant in white ball internationals than Test cricket. He hasn't played a 50 over game for over a year either and since the last WC, four years ago, has made just 10 appearances during which time he has averaged 26.89 with the bat and taken 4 wickets (1-183 in his last 9 matches). 

Equally, it's very difficult for Brook prove himself over 50 overs though when there are no matches you can play in though because the ECB have chosen to run their flagship event alongside the domestic competition. And if Brook can score quickly in 100 ball, T20 and Test cricket then I'm sure he can do so in a 50 over competition as he showed with his 80 off 75 balls against a South African attack containing Ngidi, Parnell, Nortje, Jansen and Maharaj. 

As for Brook being a fixture in the England team post this WC, that is subject to him being available but his non selection for a WC might well be a nail in the coffin given the franchise opportunities that might become available due to his lucrative IPL (and associated teams in other T20 comps) contract as the message that England have sent is that it doesn't matter about form and talent. I'm not sure that he would go down that road at this stage of his career but we really shouldn't complain if he chooses to do so - more guaranteed worldwide exposure than any central contract will afford him. A central contract that meant nothing to Roy who has been selected ahead of Brook nevertheless. 

In closing, I hope that Roy and Stokes both prove me wrong and that Brook makes himself available at every opportunity for England for the next decade. 

Brook currently averaging 110 at 174.60 in the series

North Lower Neil said:

Brook must be chosen now, surely?

The squad is a provisional one but there has to be an injury or they have to now find, or invent, a reason for leaving one of those selected out. I would be very surprised if, for example, someone fails in the ODI series and they use that as the reason for leaving that person out as it would go against the rationale for selecting that individual in the first place.