After spending 14 days in quarantine after his positive test and stuck in his room in Sri Lanka, he wants to come home despite playing in the last test. Hearing Bairstow talk about being in a hotel room with no windows sounded like stir crazy days.
Touring and worrying about your family at home is difficult at the best of times. In the Covid world, as we all know, life is tough and cricketers do have families and young children thousands of miles away. No sightseeing and 24/7 in a bubble where you are then expected to perform at your best must be so difficult on so many levels.
Moeen is up for auction at the IPL, if he plays in all red ball games, and white ball games and plays in the IPL he wont be home to see his family until june. So it's understandable why they've done these rotations with the likes of him stokes and buttler.
After spending 14 days in quarantine after his positive test and stuck in his room in Sri Lanka, he wants to come home despite playing in the last test. Hearing Bairstow talk about being in a hotel room with no windows sounded like stir crazy days.
Touring and worrying about your family at home is difficult at the best of times. In the Covid world, as we all know, life is tough and cricketers do have families and young children thousands of miles away. No sightseeing and 24/7 in a bubble where you are then expected to perform at your best must be so difficult on so many levels.
Moeen is up for auction at the IPL, if he plays in all red ball games, and white ball games and plays in the IPL he wont be home to see his family until june. So it's understandable why they've done these rotations with the likes of him stokes and buttler.
It was Moeen's choice to go home now. It's also Moeen's choice to put himself up for IPL auction too...
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsmen out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsmen he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
All played in a different era. The last 10 years the game has massively swung in favour of the bowlers with both pitches and ball giving them more assistance. This has particularly affected the top 3 facing the new ball every innings. Sir Alistair Cook has said that it became harder and harder to open the batting in test matches each year towards the end of his career. Returns by the top 3 have been falling for a while now. Cricket now is very different to when those players played. Look at Sanga when he came to Surrey. He batted 4 not 3 because of the conditions. You need specialists against the new ball who can bat time and set a platform more often than not. If they can average 30 thats a success.
I'm not worried about Pope spending a couple of years at 6 whilst he learns and adapts to test cricket. His best spell for Surrey came batting at 6 (below Foakes at 5). You forget how young he still is. In time he will move up the order likely ahead of stokes and is the heir apparent to Root (who is nearly 8 years older) so he will get plenty of time to bat 5 and then 4. With a keeper at 7 and the allrounders we have coming in at 8/9 I'm really not worried about him being left with the tail.
I agree if he doesn't make a success of it then he should be dropped as should anyone. I don't think he is one of our best batsmen yet. Let him learn and he will be.
Anyway lets leave it there. We aren't gonna agree and I'm sure we are boring people.
We're not playing in England, Australia or South Africa at the moment though
Yes India have quality pace bowlers, but it's not as if the openers and number 3 will be facing a barrage of bouncers and fast yorkers from both ends for 20 overs. Batting at number 3 in this match wasn't any different than batting at 6, especially in the second innings where all the wickets fell to spinners. And in the middle order you're more likely to be facing reverse swing anyway than the top 3 will
As for the Pope debate, anyone else think there's some merit in at the least having him at 5 above Stokes?
Now that is, indeed. another debate but I would be in agreement.
Coaches no longer look at averages. They look at match winning performances. Stokes is technically sound but sometimes I think that, batting at 5, he feels that he has to bat like a traditional batsman and that somewhat constrains him and stops him from taking the game away from the opposition.
I'm sure 5 for Pope would please Canters et al too. And it would give Pope a better chance of producing a match winning performance too.
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsmen out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsmen he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
All played in a different era. The last 10 years the game has massively swung in favour of the bowlers with both pitches and ball giving them more assistance. This has particularly affected the top 3 facing the new ball every innings. Sir Alistair Cook has said that it became harder and harder to open the batting in test matches each year towards the end of his career. Returns by the top 3 have been falling for a while now. Cricket now is very different to when those players played. Look at Sanga when he came to Surrey. He batted 4 not 3 because of the conditions. You need specialists against the new ball who can bat time and set a platform more often than not. If they can average 30 thats a success.
I'm not worried about Pope spending a couple of years at 6 whilst he learns and adapts to test cricket. His best spell for Surrey came batting at 6 (below Foakes at 5). You forget how young he still is. In time he will move up the order likely ahead of stokes and is the heir apparent to Root (who is nearly 8 years older) so he will get plenty of time to bat 5 and then 4. With a keeper at 7 and the allrounders we have coming in at 8/9 I'm really not worried about him being left with the tail.
I agree if he doesn't make a success of it then he should be dropped as should anyone. I don't think he is one of our best batsmen yet. Let him learn and he will be.
Anyway lets leave it there. We aren't gonna agree and I'm sure we are boring people.
We're not playing in England, Australia or South Africa at the moment though
Yes India have quality pace bowlers, but it's not as if the openers and number 3 will be facing a barrage of bouncers and fast yorkers from both ends for 20 overs. Batting at number 3 in this match wasn't any different than batting at 6, especially in the second innings where all the wickets fell to spinners. And in the middle order you're more likely to be facing reverse swing anyway than the top 3 will
Absolutely agree. Which is why I've been saying pick players who suit the conditions. Including dropping burns and bringing in Bairstow (who should absolutely not play in England or Aus). I even said I wouldn't be averse to Pope doing it in the first test ahead of Lawrence, my point is I dont see it as his long term position.
Regarding the number five position, it's interesting (but nothing more than just interesting) that there are six members of this winter's tours that have scored more runs batting at number five in Tests for England than Ollie Pope has.
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsman out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsman he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
Regarding the number five position, it's interesting (but nothing more than just interesting) that there are six members of this winter's tours that have scored more runs batting at number five in Tests for England than Ollie Pope has.
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsman out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsman he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsman out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsman he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
Williamson does bat 3.
In the same way that Root has spent a lot of time at 3, he doesnt really want to but does for the team.
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsman out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsman he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
Williamson does bat 3.
In the same way that Root has spent a lot of time at 3, he doesnt really want to but does for the team.
But he does bat at 3 - in fact he's done it 125 times from 144 innings (87% of all innings) and he averages 57.71 in that position.
Root has batted at 3 a total of 53 times from 185 innings
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsman out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsman he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
Williamson does bat 3.
In the same way that Root has spent a lot of time at 3, he doesnt really want to but does for the team.
But he does bat at 3 - in fact he's done it 125 times from 144 innings (87% of all innings) and he averages 57.71 in that position.
Root has batted at 3 a total of 53 times from 185 innings
Williamson is, for me , the best test match player in the world. Root has spent a lot of time playing behind a pretty woeful top 3 on tricky pitches and in difficult conditions in England.
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsman out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsman he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
Williamson does bat 3.
In the same way that Root has spent a lot of time at 3, he doesnt really want to but does for the team.
But he does bat at 3 - in fact he's done it 125 times from 144 innings (87% of all innings) and he averages 57.71 in that position.
Root has batted at 3 a total of 53 times from 185 innings
Williamson is, for me , the best test match player in the world. Root has spent a lot of time playing behind a pretty woeful top 3 on tricky pitches and in difficult conditions in England.
He's my son's favourite batsman too and he watches video after video of him batting. It's Williamson's ability to see the ball so early but play it as late as possible that sets him and the other greats apart.
Whilst Williamson isn't a T20 batsman in the ABV or Buttler mould he sees gaps that enables him to get the big hitters on strike that means his average of 33 at 125 isn't as "ordinary" when compared to his Test average as would seem at first glance.
Funnily enough Root's average and strike rate in T20s is marginally better but we don't seem to have a place for one of his ilk. Which is fine as long as the pitch is a road but when a winning score is 160 and we are 140 all out that could be an issue. Although, to be fair, we would expect one or two from Roy, Buttler, Malan, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes etc etc to come off come that may.
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsman out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsman he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
Williamson does bat 3.
In the same way that Root has spent a lot of time at 3, he doesnt really want to but does for the team.
But he does bat at 3 - in fact he's done it 125 times from 144 innings (87% of all innings) and he averages 57.71 in that position.
Root has batted at 3 a total of 53 times from 185 innings
Williamson is, for me , the best test match player in the world. Root has spent a lot of time playing behind a pretty woeful top 3 on tricky pitches and in difficult conditions in England.
He's my son's favourite batsman too and he watches video after video of him batting. It's Williamson's ability to see the ball so early but play it as late as possible that sets him and the other greats apart.
Whilst Williamson isn't a T20 batsman in the ABV or Buttler mould he sees gaps that enables him to get the big hitters on strike that means his average of 33 at 125 isn't as "ordinary" when compared to his Test average as would seem at first glance.
Funnily enough Root's average and strike rate in T20s is marginally better but we don't seem to have a place for one of his ilk. Which is fine as long as the pitch is a road but when a winning score is 160 and we are 140 all out that could be an issue. Although, to be fair, we would expect one or two from Roy, Buttler, Malan, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes etc etc to come off come that may.
Malan is probably the one who can more play the anchor role for us in T20s if needed, but who also has the power which Root lacks
I think the "sensible" player is more essential in ODIs where you have a lot of time in the middle, and less need to hit a quick 30 in 3 overs
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions andimo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
Totally agree Canters!
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsman out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsman he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
Williamson does bat 3.
In the same way that Root has spent a lot of time at 3, he doesnt really want to but does for the team.
But he does bat at 3 - in fact he's done it 125 times from 144 innings (87% of all innings) and he averages 57.71 in that position.
Root has batted at 3 a total of 53 times from 185 innings
Williamson is, for me , the best test match player in the world. Root has spent a lot of time playing behind a pretty woeful top 3 on tricky pitches and in difficult conditions in England.
He's my son's favourite batsman too and he watches video after video of him batting. It's Williamson's ability to see the ball so early but play it as late as possible that sets him and the other greats apart.
Whilst Williamson isn't a T20 batsman in the ABV or Buttler mould he sees gaps that enables him to get the big hitters on strike that means his average of 33 at 125 isn't as "ordinary" when compared to his Test average as would seem at first glance.
Funnily enough Root's average and strike rate in T20s is marginally better but we don't seem to have a place for one of his ilk. Which is fine as long as the pitch is a road but when a winning score is 160 and we are 140 all out that could be an issue. Although, to be fair, we would expect one or two from Roy, Buttler, Malan, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes etc etc to come off come that may.
Malan is probably the one who can more play the anchor role for us in T20s if needed, but who also has the power which Root lacks
I think the "sensible" player is more essential in ODIs where you have a lot of time in the middle, and less need to hit a quick 30 in 3 overs
He can indeed but, for the number one ranked T20 batsman in the world, he disappointed me in the Big Bash in the sense that, too often, I got the impression that he was playing for his average rather than the benefit of the team. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the impending IPL auction but his one 50 and from 10 innings and average of 26.50 at 113.73 was a poor reward for changing his natural game.
And you are totally right about it being more necessary to have someone to bat round in the 50 over format.
We need to show lot more fight and determination then we did today even knowing we would lose make India work hard for it .. don’t just roll over
We have two real issues that we have 8 months to solve before the Ashes ... that’s openers and a class spinner
Unfortunately, international sport isn’t like Premier League football where you can wave a cheque book and solve a problem. You can argue about who should be in the eleven but there are no obvious batsmen who come in at 1, 2 and 3 that are ready to excel in the side. As for quality spinners, Swann was a rare exception for England. For The Ashes, we will need to pick the players in form and most capable of dealing with the Aussies Down Under and hope it’s enough. I somehow doubt it.
We need to show lot more fight and determination then we did today even knowing we would lose make India work hard for it .. don’t just roll over
We have two real issues that we have 8 months to solve before the Ashes ... that’s openers and a class spinner
We aren’t going to find a spinner in that time . I actually wouldn’t pick one, unless Bess really comes on in the next year ; which of course he won’t because his bowling in England will be limited to a holding role.
I actually think Crawley will make runs in Australia. Burns has had a very long run at it now and is averaging only a trifle more than the much maligned Denly. I don’t believe Sibley, as much as I admire the grit, will make a run against Cummins and Hazlewood.
My opinion will, of course, change in the course of time but if you were to ask me to select a side to play in the opening Ashes Test starting tomorrow this would be it:
Crawley Burns Pope Root Stokes Buttler Foakes Curran Leach Archer Anderson
My opinion will, of course, change in the course of time but if you were to ask me to select a side to play in the opening Ashes Test starting tomorrow this would be it:
Crawley Burns Pope Root Stokes Buttler Foakes Curran Leach Archer Anderson
And just hope for the best!!!
Four Surrey players in your side there mate. At last you are seeing the light 😄
My opinion will, of course, change in the course of time but if you were to ask me to select a side to play in the opening Ashes Test starting tomorrow this would be it:
Crawley Burns Pope Root Stokes Buttler Foakes Curran Leach Archer Anderson
And just hope for the best!!!
Four Surrey players in your side there mate. At last you are seeing the light 😄
I did try my best to leave them out. As I've said I regard Foakes as Essex!
Comments
https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/ipl/ipl_auction_2021_full_list_of_players_reserve_prices.html
Yes India have quality pace bowlers, but it's not as if the openers and number 3 will be facing a barrage of bouncers and fast yorkers from both ends for 20 overs. Batting at number 3 in this match wasn't any different than batting at 6, especially in the second innings where all the wickets fell to spinners. And in the middle order you're more likely to be facing reverse swing anyway than the top 3 will
As for the Pope debate, anyone else think there's some merit in at the least having him at 5 above Stokes?
Coaches no longer look at averages. They look at match winning performances. Stokes is technically sound but sometimes I think that, batting at 5, he feels that he has to bat like a traditional batsman and that somewhat constrains him and stops him from taking the game away from the opposition.
I'm sure 5 for Pope would please Canters et al too. And it would give Pope a better chance of producing a match winning performance too.
I wonder if anyone can name them all...
Stokes
Root
Bairstow
Buttler
Thorpe
Root has batted at 3 a total of 53 times from 185 innings
Whilst Williamson isn't a T20 batsman in the ABV or Buttler mould he sees gaps that enables him to get the big hitters on strike that means his average of 33 at 125 isn't as "ordinary" when compared to his Test average as would seem at first glance.
Funnily enough Root's average and strike rate in T20s is marginally better but we don't seem to have a place for one of his ilk. Which is fine as long as the pitch is a road but when a winning score is 160 and we are 140 all out that could be an issue. Although, to be fair, we would expect one or two from Roy, Buttler, Malan, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes etc etc to come off come that may.
I think the "sensible" player is more essential in ODIs where you have a lot of time in the middle, and less need to hit a quick 30 in 3 overs
And you are totally right about it being more necessary to have someone to bat round in the 50 over format.
We have two real issues that we have 8 months to solve before the Ashes ... that’s openers and a class spinner
Crawley
Burns
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Pope
Buttler
Curran/ Woakes
Wood/Stone
Archer
Anderson/Broad
Crawley
Burns
Pope
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Foakes
Curran
Leach
Archer
Anderson
And just hope for the best!!!
Excluding Ashes !
At last you are seeing the light 😄
I did try my best to leave them out. As I've said I regard Foakes as Essex!