Will Jacks Return! England’s Bold 2nd Ashes Test Playing 11 & Khawaja Injury Update
Wizards are proud to partner with Riverstone Living for our Ashes daily podcast. From beautiful London apartments to five-star service and a thriving community. Riverstone is all about staying independent and inspired. I went along to their Fulham residence last week, and I can confirm their facilities are incredible. Head to www.riverstoneliving.com and get in touch with them for a tour today.
Hello and welcome to this bonus podcast.two days out of the second Ash's test mat. Two bits of breaking news for you. Will Jax is in the England Test 11, and Usman Kawaja has been ruled out of the test for Australia. I'm Yaser, and with me this morning from Melbourne is Matt Roller.
Matt, let's start with Will Jax. He's in an England 11 for the first time in three years. Why is he back? Uh, no one was even talking about him as a possible test option as short a time ago as three months ago.Yeah, well, it's a good question.Um, I suppose there are a couple of different ways of looking at it. Um, one is that England has spent two years trying to bloodshow Basher specifically because of the fact that he has all the attributes that they thought were required for an Ashes tour. Uh, and now they seem to have thrown that out of the picture um when they've actually gotten here. They've not picked him for the first test, and now they are picking a spinner, and it's someone else entirely. Um, the other way to look at it, I think quite simply, is that they've decided to bring in a spinner, and they've thought that within the context of a) a pink ball game and b) um, having four fit fast bowlers ready to go, that they're going to get more all-round value out of Will Jax as an all-round option at number eight, um, who gives them a much longer batting lineup than either Basher or going with Josh Tongue as the fifth seamer. I think it's, uh, actually, I quite like it. It's probably what I would have done.
Um, I think there's obviously an element of the unknown in it. Jax is not an experienced first-class cricketer. He's only played 57 games over quite a long period of time. Only played a couple of tests, and there's still a slight feeling, I think, at the international level in white-ball cricket that, um, the idea of Will Jax has probably been better than the reality if you look at his actual stats. I mean, he's only got, um, six ODI wickets and three T20 wickets. So his spin bowling is not the finished article by any means. But, um, England will probably be looking to rely on their seam as heavily again and be looking for him to contribute, um, in a not too dissimilar way actually to if you look at the last pink ball test at the Gabba, to the way that Kevin Sinclair did for West Indies, where he got a 50 in the first innings batting against the old ball and took the wicket of Isman Kawaja.
Um, does this signal a slight change in how England is constructing their 11s?It feels like in the early years of Stokes and McCullum, not a lot was put on, uh, lengthening the batting order. Everything was about making sure you got the best chance possible of taking 20 wickets. Is this a reflection of what they think conditions will be like and that actually you can get away with four bowlers?
I suppose I don't know. I wouldn't quite—I wouldn't say that Will Jackson is a part-timer, but I also wouldn't say that he's a frontline spinner either. Yeah, I guess he's probably slightly unusual in being a part-timer, and I know there's obviously some terminology stuff there, but in that I'd say he's quite an attacking spinner for someone who isn't a frontline spinner. Like he does try to spin the ball. Um, he's not your sort of white-ball, uh, darts bowler, like a Dan Mosley or someone trying to bowl 65 miles an hour. He does actually look to flight the ball. He obviously has the same attributes to some extent in Bash as Basher in that he's, um, you know, very tall, bowls from a high release point, and all that sort of thing.
I definitely agree with the point about lower-order runs. I think if you think back to sort of the early days of Stokes and McCullum, you had occasions where Stuart Broad would be batting at number eight. Um, and I suppose it might partly also be a reflection of the fact that, obviously, um, you know, they've had that safety net almost of Chris Wes at number eight for a couple of years now, whereas, uh, with him gone, you know, much as Atkinson and Cast did, you know, had a decent swing in the second innings in Perth, um, it has been a slightly longer tail, and I think particularly if you had Tango or Bashier, they're not going to contribute a huge amount, um, either with the bats or in the field.
So yeah, I think it is probably a slight, um, change in philosophy, as you say, and in terms of, um, yeah, approach to selection generally from England. But you know, I suppose they have evolved as those three and a half years have gone on, and if there's ever a series for pragmatism, it's just, you know, trying to win the next test based on the specific conditions in front of you. It's at 1 nil down in a pink ball game.
Um, Matt, in Australia, Usman Kawaja has been ruled out of the test. How do you think they'll replace him at the top of the order?
Travis head up top again. It's a really interesting one because of the fact that, um, they've floated a few times now, and I think it's clearly been something that they've been mentioning behind the scenes for a couple of years, but they've now spoken about it publicly, but this idea of potentially using different openers in different scenarios and innings,, and I think a pink ball game actually really brings that to the fore.
Um, so I think the obvious and sort of easy answer is to say Head goes up top, where he did so well last time, and Webster comes into the middle order. Um, but there is a part of me thinking that maybe particularly after, you know, in an admittedly low-key game against the England Lions a week or so ago, Josh English scored 100 opening the batting. Could you potentially go with Weatherford and English opening or sort of carded to open with the prospect of maybe chucking head up the top in particular circumstances depending on when the first innings is, depending on when Australia is batting, whether it's in the sort of fabled twilight zone where it's a bit harder to see the pink ball under floodlights?
So, right, there are a couple of answers in there.
Well, Matt, cheers for your time, and yeah, let's hope there are more than six sessions of cricket in the next