POLL: Pick Your England Test Team

You’re not Charlotte Edwards* but if you were, who would you be walking out onto the field with at Canterbury tomorrow?

(Plus see below for our teams!)

 

Syd’s Team

“For what it’s worth, I’d pick Wilson and Winfield, and rest Nat Sciver whose batting is more suited to a One Day role.”

  1. Edwards
  2. Knight
  3. Wilson
  4. Taylor
  5. Winfield
  6. Greenway
  7. Brunt
  8. Shrubsole
  9. Gunn
  10. Cross
  11. Grundy

Raf’s Team

“Were she available for selection, I’d have to go with Amy Jones, after her 155* for the Academy last week. But she isn’t…so I’ve picked the next best batting line-up! I’d play Laura Marsh instead of Becky Grundy to shore up the lower-order batting (I think we’re gonna need it!)”

  1. Edwards
  2. Knight
  3. Taylor
  4. Wilson
  5. Greenway
  6. Sciver
  7. Brunt
  8. Gunn
  9. Marsh
  10. Shrubsole
  11. Cross

—————–

* At least… we assume you’re not Charlotte Edwards. However, if  you are Charlotte Edwards, then we do have just one question: WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR TIME MESSING ABOUT ON SILLY INTERNET POLLS THE DAY BEFORE A WOMEN’S ASHES TEST?!?!

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “POLL: Pick Your England Test Team

  1. LOL.

    Anyway, both Syd’s and Raf’s teams are very good selections. It’s all about the balance of the side and what bowlers/allrounders we need. Interesting you’d both pick Gunn though. Not having Jones does seem like a bad joke now though, Australia must be breathing a sigh of relief. Another psychological battle lost.

    I think we need at least six point five batters, so six and one allrounder or five and three allrounders etc. Seeing as neither of you picked Elwiss, and I like her, I’d put her in at six/seven I think. Controversial I know…

    Trying to make sense of the “view results” page is a challenge. I assume the maximum percentage represents players picked by everybody…

    Like

    • Strictly speaking the maximum percentage does not mean they are players picked by everyone – but that is a reasonable assumption in this poll and even a more reasonable assumption if one takes it as read that everyone will pick Edwards.

      The percentages represent the percentage of votes cast.

      There is a way to decode this.

      If you take all the discrete values (3.38, 3.72, 5.41, 5.74, 6.76, 7.09, 7.77, 8.11, 8.78 and 9.12) and then calculate the consecutive gaps (0.34, 1.69, 0.33, 1.02, 0.33, 0.68, 0.34, 0.67 and 0.34) you note that (allowing for rounding errors) 1.69 is 5 times 0.34, 1.02 is 4 times 0.34, 0.68 is 2 times 0.34 etc. Its reasonable assume therefore that 0.34 is 1 vote. This being so you can work out that Elwiss (3.38) got 10 votes, Winfield (3.72) got 11 votes, Grundy (16), Marsh (17), Cross (20), Gunn and Wilson (21), Greenway (23), Sciver (24), Shrubsole and Brunt (26) and Edwards, Knight and Taylor (27).

      Add all that lot up and you get 296 votes so 1 of the 27 people who have votes only selected a team of 10 (must have been an Australian hoping for an extra advantage – not that they need it)

      By the time anyone reads this a 28th person will have voted and the above figures will be out of date – but the reader can still work out the distribution using the above method.I realise this reply is well into the anorak classification.

      Like

      • PS: With Edwards having declared she is not opening and assuming Knight is opening, there are a lot of selections that have been made in this poll that have no obvious opening partner for Knight.With Jones (ludicrously) cast to the sidelines it would seem that Winfield is the only opener left (this takes it as read that Taylor is not going to open to allow a rest before batting).

        Like

      • Yes I sort of had a rough idea of that too but couldn’t be bothered to elucidate on it.

        Wilson is the only other possible batter with an opener’s temperament / technique I guess….

        You are an expert in maths though!

        I’m not, so it might have been me who picked 10!

        Like

Comments are closed.