Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket Team Summer 2019 -ICC World Cup and Ashes etc
Comments
-
I'd go for C .. but like to find place for Curran who is a right scrapper and a very talented one .. I like the poetic middle order, the okes and oakes .. oooh arrrhggggAddickted2TheReds said:If they were to drop Bairstow and Ali - which team would you choose?
A ) Burns, Roy, Root, Denly, Northeast, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Leach, Broad, Jimmy/Archer.
B ) Burns, Sibley, Root, Denly, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Leach, Broad, Jimmy/Archer
C ) Burns, Roy, Root, Denly, Buttler, Stokes, Foakes, Woakes, Leach, Broad, Jimmy/Archer.
D ) Another.
0 -
England bottling it once again1
-
I understand why, but we are talking about dropping 7 and 8 when 2, 4 and 5 don't score runs either. If Ali is batting at 8 we should judge him on his bowling in the 3rd innings IMO.3
-
to an extent but also down to accurate, persistent bowling and fieldingkentaddick said:England bottling it once again
0 -
Personally I don't like moving Stokes from 6. Think he is just so perfect there.Callumcafc said:
Burns, Roy, Root, Denly, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes/Curran, Woakes, Broad, Leach, Jimmy/Archer.Addickted2TheReds said:If they were to drop Bairstow and Ali - which team would you choose?
A ) Burns, Roy, Root, Denly, Northeast, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Leach, Broad, Jimmy/Archer.
B ) Burns, Sibley, Root, Denly, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Leach, Broad, Jimmy/Archer
C ) Burns, Roy, Root, Denly, Buttler, Stokes, Foakes, Woakes, Leach, Broad, Jimmy/Archer.
D ) Another.
Basicallt C but I’d consider bringing in Curran over Foakes just because the kid can bat better than Bairstow and Ali can, plus he’s an additional threat with the ball in hand.
That said, I don't like Buttler at 5 either. Hence me trying to find a new 5 in either dropping Roy down the order or bringing in Northeast.
I do agree with the point of finding a place for Curran though.
Tricky one.
For me, Bairstow needs time out of the side. Ali is less clear cut becuase of the bowling, but Woakes should bat ahead of him.
1 -
Nah. Can’t change a winning team for 2nd test.2
-
Half-way through the first Test, in which the only opening batsman to make a century is one of ours and the only bowler to take five wickets is one of ours, we're in the lead, with power to add, and main topic of conversations is which players we should be dropping.
Sometimes, you just have to accept that the opposition plays well. So, Moeen has one abberation, but (right now) has a better strike rate than his opposite number) And Bairstow outscored and is out-keeping his opposite number. But should they be dropped?
Not before we know the result in this match, I would say. And, I think Australia's selectors have a lot more questions to answer than ours.1 -
I'd open with Denly allowing Roy to bat at 4.
Replace Bairstow with Foakes.
And if Moeen doesn't bowl well 2nd innings replace him with Leach.2 -
So we get back to the situation where we pick Curren in a 6 man attack because he is more likley to score runs than a proper batsman?0
-
Having said that I don't expect the selectors will do anything other than replace Anderson who is injured1
-
Sponsored links:
-
The difference being that 7 and 8 have been out of form for long periods now and are playing nowhere near their full potential.Cafc43v3r said:I understand why, but we are talking about dropping 7 and 8 when 2, 4 and 5 don't score runs either. If Ali is batting at 8 we should judge him on his bowling in the 3rd innings IMO.
The others you mention have only just joined or rejoined the side and deserve a longer bedding in period to prove themselves first. If Roy, Denly or Buttler have a bad series here and then a bad winter then it’s time to start considering dropping them.
Dropping a player after four or five test matches isn’t helpful for anyone.2 -
That's a fair point.Cafc43v3r said:I understand why, but we are talking about dropping 7 and 8 when 2, 4 and 5 don't score runs either. If Ali is batting at 8 we should judge him on his bowling in the 3rd innings IMO.
I would say though that the 2 is brand new to Test cricket, the 4 has looked like he can score runs IMO and the 5 should be at 7.
The problems with Bairstow and Ali have been going on for a long time and look like walking wickets.2 -
depends on the result .. they will be reluctant to change winners, but will get all kinds of stick for re-selecting losers en masse .. the problem is that modern cricket with the 4 day/20/50 over mix is not conducive to producing test quality batsmen .. Burns, I hope, is an exceptionblackpool72 said:Having said that I don't expect the selectors will do anything other than replace Anderson who is injuredblackpool72 said:Having said that I don't expect the selectors will do anything other than replace Anderson who is injured
0 -
Good runs by Woakes and Broad. Every one now vital.
1 -
So far, here's the player v player, head to head on runs
1. Bancroft - Burns
2. Warner - Roy
3. Khawaja - Root
4. Smith - Denly5. Head - Buttler
6. Wade - Stokes
7. Paine - Bairstow
8. Pattinson - Moeen
9. Cummins - Woakes
10. Siddle - Broad
11. Lyon - Anderson
If your first task is to score at least as many runs as your opposite number, then of the top nine, only Denly and Buttler have failed. The Aussies have more questions to answer.1 -
Should’ve been a lot more but a lead of 100 and we will be looking good.0
-
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be:
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.0 -
No specialist spinner ?cafcfan1990 said:We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be:
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.0 -
Sir Geoffrey said a first innings lead of 80 would be good yesterday morning. At the moment it's 44 and, at the time he said that, Anderson appeared 'fit.'
Will Anderson be fit enough to bat?0 -
Australia 3.65 on betfair good value
England 1.53 no thanks
we won’t chase down 150 + here all luck used up in the first innings0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I would consider Leach if Anderson is out.blackpool72 said:
No specialist spinner ?cafcfan1990 said:We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be:
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
But no in general would go with the 4 Seamers. It’s playing to our strengths. Unfortunately Ali isn’t a good enough bowler to warrant playing him. If he was chipping in at 8 it wouldn’t be too bad but he’s not and Archer won’t score less runs then him but is a much better bowler.
Denly and Root are capable of having a few overs if necessary.0 -
Both were very comfortable out there after the chaos previouslyThe_President said:Good runs by Woakes and Broad. Every one now vital.1 -
Another way of looking at the problem is what have Denley, Roy and Buttler done in championship cricket to suggest they should be in the top 5 of any test match team. At least Burns has volume of runs in 1st class cricket. If Bairstow and Ali played a summer of county cricket I would imagine they will be 2 of the leading run scores? That's not been the case for the 1st 3 mentioned.Addickted2TheReds said:
That's a fair point.Cafc43v3r said:I understand why, but we are talking about dropping 7 and 8 when 2, 4 and 5 don't score runs either. If Ali is batting at 8 we should judge him on his bowling in the 3rd innings IMO.
I would say though that the 2 is brand new to Test cricket, the 4 has looked like he can score runs IMO and the 5 should be at 7.
The problems with Bairstow and Ali have been going on for a long time and look like walking wickets.
England's biggest strength, with crop of test players, should be a 6-9 of Stokes, a keeper, Ali and Woakes but the temptation is always to shuffle them up 1 or 2 as we don't have the 5 above them.
It says a lot really that 2 of the top 5 were picked on their white ball form, 1 after they had tried almost everyone else and the last was picked for a tour because he could bowl a bit of leg spin and all the other batsmen were a bit more crap than him.
The selectors must really not rate the "proper" batsmen playing county championship cricket.0 -
Leach if Anderson is out I agree.cafcfan1990 said:
I would consider Leach if Anderson is out.blackpool72 said:
No specialist spinner ?cafcfan1990 said:We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be:
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
But no in general would go with the 4 Seamers. It’s playing to our strengths. Unfortunately Ali isn’t a good enough bowler to warrant playing him. If he was chipping in at 8 it wouldn’t be too bad but he’s not and Archer won’t score less runs then him but is a much better bowler.
Denly and Root are capable of having a few overs if necessary.
Pretty much the same team I would pick.1 -
kentaddick said:England bottling it once againI don't agree,
We have two evenly matched teams plus the Aussies never give up.
They have edged ahead despite being behind on 1st innings.0 -
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?cafcfan1990 said:We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be:
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!1 -
Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit.Chizz said:
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?cafcfan1990 said:We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be:
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.
Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier.
Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in?
Out of interest, what are your other adjectives?1 -
Archer might be 'fit' .. but when did he last bowl 20+ overs a day in 3 or 4 spells for 2 or 3 days on the trot ? .. the only way to get him 'match fit' is to select him and then bowl and bowl him1
-
It has been a recurring theme on cricket threads that you post in such condescending and smug fashion.Chizz said:
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?cafcfan1990 said:We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be:
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
Have been thinking this for a while, but it really is getting tiresome.
Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.
4 -
Only on cricket threads? But I have noticed the same, personally find it cringey but if he’s miserable enough to have to go round digging people out, leave him do it and try not to take offence.Addickted2TheReds said:
It has been a recurring theme on cricket threads that you post in such condescending and smug fashion.Chizz said:
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?cafcfan1990 said:We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be:
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
Have been thinking this for a while, but it really is getting tiresome.
Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.2
