The Ashes 2013

[Phil Neatherway]

I was at Trent Bridge on Friday. Bell batted really well.

And I don't think Broad should have walked, continuing in the great tradition established by WG Grace!

[Paul McKeown]

I think the Oz first innings illustrated something I have thought about the English team for a long time: the team freezes when someone, particularly someone down the order, starts swinging and scores freely. This is a part of why England has never won a 50 over trophy: there's always some maniac with an axe striking heavy blows.

Selections for Lords?

Automatic selections: Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson

Could be shifted up, down or out, should the need arise: Root, Bairstow

Probably Out: Finn. He'll be back, he's a very fine bowler, just doesn't seem to have his head straight at the moment. Only reason to select him is that the next match is at his home ground. Enough of a reason?

Main Requirement: bowling support for Anderson.
Slight worry: opening partner for Cook. I would allow Root time to settle in. Thought they were a bit rough on Compton, but he shouldn't have shot his mouth of to the press, either.

Choices:

a) Bresnan
b) Onions
c) Tremlett
d) Panesar
e) Patel
f) Tredwell
g) Rankin
h) Woakes
i) Dernbach
j) Briggs
k) Stokes
l) Meaker
m) Can't think of anyone else who enters the picture, but I'm sure I've forgotten someone.

I doubt the selectors will go for two spinners, unless Lords is predicted to particularly suit them. Although, I would say, just pick your best bowlers, irrespective. Anyway, probably not Panesar, Patel or Tredwell, all fine cricketers though they are.

I would drop Bairstow and Finn, replacing them with Bresnan and Woakes. Woakes? Great bowler who has already done well for England at ODI and he is someone who would stiffen the tail no end. England's biggest cause for concern is what happens if Anderson gets injured and also who succeeds him when he retires. Woakes is young and has a future.

If you wanted an off-the-wall suggestion, here's one. Rankin. I'm sure this will be greeted with vigorous taps to the forehead and shouts of, "Who is this nutter?" But - he is a fine bowler, and if England want to keep nicking the cream of Ireland's talent, England might as well use it!

[LawrenceCooper]

England squad: Alastair Cook (Essex, capt), Joe Root (Yorkshire), Jonathan Trott (Warwickshire), Kevin Pietersen (Surrey), Ian Bell (Warwickshire), Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire), Matt Prior (Sussex, wk), Tim Bresnan (Yorkshire), Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire), Graeme Swann (Nottinghamshire), Steven Finn (Middlesex), James Anderson (Lancashire), Graham Onions (Durham).

[Thomas Rendle]

Harsh on Compton (who didn't even make Paul's list). I think if England had lost they might have made more changes but the only possibility now is Bresnan in for Finn. Personally I'd have Compton opening and Root back in the middle order.

[Mick Norris]

I doubt the selectors will go for two spinners, unless Lords is predicted to particularly suit them. Although, I would say, just pick your best bowlers, irrespective. Anyway, probably not Panesar, Patel or Tredwell, all fine cricketers though they are.

If the pitches are being prepared to suit Swann, then 2 spinners does become an option unless Root and/or Pietersen can be considered to fill that role

I'd like to think Simon Kerrigan might get a shout on current form, although the others you mention would appear to be ahead in the queue

[Phil Neatherway]

Panesar and Tredwell are both having poor seasons in county cricket, so they are unlikely to have been considered.

[Alex Holowczak]

I would drop Bairstow and Finn, replacing them with Bresnan and Woakes. Woakes? Great bowler who has already done well for England at ODI and he is someone who would stiffen the tail no end. England's biggest cause for concern is what happens if Anderson gets injured and also who succeeds him when he retires. Woakes is young and has a future.

Woakes is a great player, and has great numbers to prove it.

England have, in recent times, picked bowlers who have tools rather than bowlers with good county records.

In the last 10 years, England have picked players like Steve Harmison and Simon Jones. None of them had particularly inspiring County records at the time they were selected, but did decently for England. They were picked purely because they had tools. Jones had pace and swing. Harmison had pace and bounce. This policy meant some mis-selections. Remember Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood?

By contrast, Woakes isn't a bowler with tools. He has a first-class average of 37 with the bat, and 25 with the ball. However, his bowling isn't 80+mph, and this is the sort of thing England have treated as being useful for accuracy in defensive ODIs, rather than in Test cricket.

For this reason, I think Woakes will struggle to get into the Test team.

[MartinCarpenter]

The pitches are I'm pretty sure being prepared by the sunshine, not to order (See the champions trophy!)

The other reason that Woakes might struggle to get in is that our current attack + replacements are actually doing quite well overall. Like with some of the potential batting replacements. Hard to get used to that idea of course, but look how long Michael Hussey had to wait back in the day.

[David Robertson]

Normally I'd pump Warwickshire players on merit. But I think Woakes has lost his mojo this season, and needs to find it again before Test squad status beckons. Alex will doubtless correct me on the numbers if I'm wrong here, but Woakes isn't taking wickets so readily. Moreover I get the impression England selectors like their bowlers to have 'long levers' (eg. Broad, Finn, Tremlett, Dernbach(?) ). Hence Rankin would/could be a like-for-like replacement for Finn. But frankly, he's about as unconvincing too. With Wright now out until next year (broken back!), that leaves the unsung, rarely mentioned but prolific Warwickshire wicket-taker & all-rounder, Keith Barker. Left-arm, medium fast, he'd be my 'surprise' nominee

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex will doubtless correct me on the numbers if I'm wrong here, but Woakes isn't taking wickets so readily.

This season, Woakes has 304 runs @ 43, as well as 15 wickets @ 25, but he's had no standout performances (no 100s, no 5-fors). By contrast, Barker has 220 runs @ 55 and 18 wickets @ 16. So Barker has outperformed Woakes, yes, but Woakes has had a decent return.

Looking through the county averages this season, I note Sam Robson (Mid), a 24-year old Australian with 802 runs @ 61, with a top score of 215* this season.

[David Robertson]

Just catching up. Should Broad have walked? Yes. But no. But...

Another superb knock by Bell

Agreed. But nothing will ever appease his relentless critics.

You would normally expect a fourth innings chase of 311 to be too much

You would indeed. One of the more arresting stats to emerge from this match is that, over the history of Test cricket, a target of 300+ has been set 555 times, and chased down on only 26 occasions (and never at Trent Bridge). That's a 4.6% success rate. So England, at the bottom of the 3rd (to borrow a phrase), were fully nailed on to win at odds of 20/1 on. No need for panic then

[Alex Holowczak]

You would normally expect a fourth innings chase of 311 to be too much

You would indeed. One of the more arresting stats to emerge from this match is that, over the history of Test cricket, a target of 300+ has been set 555 times, and chased down on only 26 occasions (and never at Trent Bridge). That's a 4.6% success rate. So England, at the bottom of the 3rd (to borrow a phrase), were fully nailed on to win at odds of 20/1 on. No need for panic then

This link shows the highest scores in the 4th innings: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/conten ... 22199.html

Lots of those wins have been in the last 15-20 years. I think it's getting far easier to make 300+ to win a Test than used to be the case.

[Kevin Williamson]

Another interesting statistic to emerge after the Nottingham test - this was the 17th smallest margin of victory (by runs) in test history. Of those 17 matches, Australia has lost 11 of them. They’ve also lost 5/12 matches to be won by one wicket (with just one win by that score).

So there’s no need to panic if a close finish is on the cards

[Alex Holowczak]

Another interesting statistic to emerge after the Nottingham test - this was the 17th smallest margin of victory (by runs) in test history. Of those 17 matches, Australia has lost 11 of them. They’ve also lost 5/12 matches to be won by one wicket (with just one win by that score).

So there’s no need to panic if a close finish is on the cards

And they've been involved in the two Tied tests, such as this one in 1960 at Brisbane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDY5RdDRJ1I

[Paul McKeown]

Another superb knock by Bell

Agreed. But nothing will ever appease his relentless critics.

Aye, and most of the critics were piss poor and struggled to maintain averages in the thirties in the English team from ca. 1982 to 2002. Bunch of Lilliputters bitching about Gulliver.