Root's decision to bowl first could still bite us in the backside. The pitch is reckoned to seriously deteriorate in the second half of the match but that was seemingly offset by the amount of grass the pitch has. Of course, not playing a spinner rather influences that decision too.
Maharaj has done very little with the ball but, at 143-5, we are in a spot of bother. Much will depend on Stokes and Buttler because, apart from Curran, we're not going to get many from the tail.
Root's decision to bowl first could still bite us in the backside. The pitch is reckoned to seriously deteriorate in the second half of the match but that was seemingly offset by the amount of grass the pitch has. Of course, not playing a spinner rather influences that decision too.
Maharaj has done very little with the ball but, at 143-5, we are in a spot of bother. Much will depend on Stokes and Buttler because, apart from Curran, we're not going to get many from the tail.
I think we can now say that Root's decision was wrong and smacked of a lack of confidence in his line up to rack up a score when conditions were likely to be at their optimum once the new ball was seen off.
Buttler and Bairstow should not be in this side ffs.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Just to be clear, you would have picked, for this, First Test, one player who is not in the squad and one who is ill?
Here he is. WUM. Last time I engage you.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
Buttler and Bairstow should not be in this side ffs.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Just to be clear, you would have picked, for this, First Test, one player who is not in the squad and one who is ill?
Here he is. WUM. Last time I engage you.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
Crikey! That's quite an aggressive response. It just seems very odd to suggest that the failure of the team in their first innings would have been mitigated if only two players who were unavailable had been picked instead. It seems reasonable that six of the top seven places in the current team go to the six players who have scored the most Test runs for England this year. The one addition is the newish opener.
I would have no objection to Pope playing, were he fit. He's not. But I am not sure it's wise to drop one of your better players for a wicket keeper who wasn't chosen to tour.
Buttler and Bairstow should not be in this side ffs.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Just to be clear, you would have picked, for this, First Test, one player who is not in the squad and one who is ill?
Here he is. WUM. Last time I engage you.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
Crikey! That's quite an aggressive response. It just seems very odd to suggest that the failure of the team in their first innings would have been mitigated if only two players who were unavailable had been picked instead. It seems reasonable that six of the top seven places in the current team go to the six players who have scored the most Test runs for England this year. The one addition is the newish opener.
I would have no objection to Pope playing, were he fit. He's not. But I am not sure it's wise to drop one of your better players for a wicket keeper who wasn't chosen to tour.
WUM is strong with this one.
Did I suggest the failure of the team was down to 2 players? You know full well I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply pointed 2 players who have consistently failed in the side for more than 2 years and said they shouldn't be there. I also suggested the 2 player I want to replace them with going forwards (the same 2 players most people on social media are calling for).
You then did your annoying little WUM stuff twisting what had been said, ignoring a reasoned response and trying to shout someone down. It's boring and you ruin every cricket thread by picking someone to repeatedly do this to. Get back in your hole. Child
Time for a completely different Test side to the T20/ODI line up - with the possible exception of three players namely Stokes, Curran and Archer who would have to be "managed" accordingly.
Comments
The Naby Sarr of England.
Broad in.
Foakes and Pope.
Days like today I want to hear what Bob Willis would have to say.
Guilty
Guilty
A total shambles....???
Somerset will be one lucky county to get him because he is so suited to English conditions
So 3 wickets for 8 runs & then 4 wickets for 5 runs.
Awful.
Clearly for this test their hands were tied with Pope. The point is, it's been obvious since last winter that Foakes should be pur keeper and even more obvious after the summer that he should have been on the tours.
Bairstow should be nowhere near the side. He was dropped after a shocking couple of years and tole he needed to go and play some red ball cricket in order to get picked again. Hes then recalled to the squad after playing exactly zero red ball cricket. Joke.
I would have no objection to Pope playing, were he fit. He's not. But I am not sure it's wise to drop one of your better players for a wicket keeper who wasn't chosen to tour.
Did I suggest the failure of the team was down to 2 players? You know full well I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply pointed 2 players who have consistently failed in the side for more than 2 years and said they shouldn't be there. I also suggested the 2 player I want to replace them with going forwards (the same 2 players most people on social media are calling for).
You then did your annoying little WUM stuff twisting what had been said, ignoring a reasoned response and trying to shout someone down. It's boring and you ruin every cricket thread by picking someone to repeatedly do this to. Get back in your hole. Child