Originally Posted by seansnotmyname@:
“Agree with all this, except Finn has to play at OT, a pitch that will suit his style, Ball didn't do that much this match. If you were to bring someone in Plunkett's the guy. Actually looking again your side has too much bowling, particularly when batting has let us down here.”
To my embarrassment, I forgot about Plunkett, especially as I'm quite a fan of his.


That said, I think Ball was very unlucky this Test and did more than his stats suggest. My pick still bats down to 8, with Rashid, and although I agree it was the batting that let us down, I've replaced Vince and Moeen and Ballance.
It's possible that Vince could end up 'doing a Bell', and turn that good-looking technique into something more consistently robust, but at the moment, I'd prefer to look at Borthwick, not least because of his bowling.
Personally, I think one of the issues of the modern game is that they've tended to value having some batting ability over the primary skill that the person should have been picked for. In some cases, this has worked (see Woakes), but more often I think that doing this has papered over the cracks that are now widening, of a system that doesn't produce batters with the overall package for the Test game. I would still choose a side that demanded the batters stood up and did their job and not have to keep relying on the safety net of a batting tail.
In the background, England need to find a way to invest in spinners and a system that better rewards batsmen that can apply themselves a bit more, IMO. This is a long-term strategy, I appreciate.