In the last 4 series Sibley has scored 294 runs at an average of 18.38
As I've said before, I am fearful that a front three of Sibley, Burns and Crawley in the Ashes and of these Sibley is the one that I think needs to be sacrificed in order to give Hameed a chance and/or Pope an opportunity to bat at 3 sooner rather than later
Was only a couple of weeks ago you were saying Burns had to go. Now he has made some championship scores whilst Sibbers has been out injured you've switched.
Lets not go back to the selection policy of the 90's. Both Bracey and Hameed are making a claim to be in the top 3 but are either of them there yet? I'm not sure. Lets make changes because we have someone better and ready waiting in the wings rather than for the sake of making changes.
Opening in test cricket is an impossibly hard job to do listen to Sir Ali Cook on the subject - he says the last 5 years of his test career it was 100 times harder than when he started. The game has swung into the bowlers favour, particularly at the start of the innings. I think we need to adjust expectations slightly - we arent gonna have another Cook/Strauss/Trott or Strauss/Tres/Vaughan combination. But if we can have a top 3averaging mid 30's and being incredibly consistent at batting time in that more often than not there is one partnership from those 3 that is enough to set a platform for 4-7 then that should be enough. My hopes are that Crawley as a 3 can be better than that.
I've always maintained that the top three isn't good enough as a unit. It might have been Burns previously whereas it is Sibley now. And next week it might be Crawley. But with those three up top we are always likely to lose not one but two wickets early doors especially against the Aussies.
You talk in terns of "the top three averaging mid 30's". But they don't do they as a group or individually:
Sibley averages 29.40 and 18.38 in his last 16 innings Burns averages 31.35 Crawley averages 32.62 but take out that one mammoth innings of 267 out and it drops dramatically to 20.90
Hameed has done it at the highest level and averages 43.80 in Test cricket. How can he "wait in the wings" and prove himself further when we have no County Championship matches for 5 weeks?
You didn't want Pope batting above 6 because you wanted to protect the lad but it did the complete opposite in India. And look at what he's been doing now that he has been moved to 4 for Surrey - averages 61.66. When Stokes comes back presumably you will be happy for him to go back to 6 again?
I'm not saying they are there yet but I do think they can get there. Lets frame the question differently - Is this the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott? For my mind yes it undoubtedly is. Thats not to say we cant improve on it but I don't yet think Hameed has done enough to warrant dropping one of them.
Your last para is a whole different debate. I think the point you are missing is that in test cricket as it is now there is (and needs to be) broadly 2 types of batsmen. The top 3 and the middle order. They set up differently, different mind sets, have different techniques and different strengths. A middle order player may do a job in the top 3 but does it get the best out of them? no chance - see Joe Root (or before him Ian Bell the man Pope is compared to most). Equally putting a middle order player in the top 3 could be a plain disaster - See Hales or Roy. Pope is a middle order player and a very good one at that. He might be able to do a job at 3 but I dont think that will get the best out of him. He is the heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot. Until then he should fit in somewhere else in the middle order. For what its worth I would have Pope 5 Stokes 6. If we want a top 3 player we should pick a top 3 player (the best ones in the country) and that's what I believe we have in Burns, Sibley and Crawley with Hameed and Bracey as competition.
Also Pope has batted 4 for Surrey ever since his first England call up in 2018. Batting 4 is hugely different from batting 3. We have discovered a potentially world class middle order player. Its so very English to try and turn him into something he is not.
But with those three up top for England, batting at 4 is batting at 3 and sometimes, like today, when we are two down in under 7 overs, it is the equivalent of opening!
So we have a problem with the top 3 (whats new? we have since 2012). The solution is not to shove a middle order player in there. Been there, done that. Doesn't work.
Or play an opening bat who averages 43.80 in Test cricket. Been there, done that and it does work!
Nice too see spectators welcomed back into the ground with a pathetic over rate from both teams. Squad members from both teams wandering on to the outfield whenever they want, without good reason, delaying play. The players couldn't give a shit about the fans.
In the last 4 series Sibley has scored 294 runs at an average of 18.38
As I've said before, I am fearful that a front three of Sibley, Burns and Crawley in the Ashes and of these Sibley is the one that I think needs to be sacrificed in order to give Hameed a chance and/or Pope an opportunity to bat at 3 sooner rather than later
Was only a couple of weeks ago you were saying Burns had to go. Now he has made some championship scores whilst Sibbers has been out injured you've switched.
Lets not go back to the selection policy of the 90's. Both Bracey and Hameed are making a claim to be in the top 3 but are either of them there yet? I'm not sure. Lets make changes because we have someone better and ready waiting in the wings rather than for the sake of making changes.
Opening in test cricket is an impossibly hard job to do listen to Sir Ali Cook on the subject - he says the last 5 years of his test career it was 100 times harder than when he started. The game has swung into the bowlers favour, particularly at the start of the innings. I think we need to adjust expectations slightly - we arent gonna have another Cook/Strauss/Trott or Strauss/Tres/Vaughan combination. But if we can have a top 3averaging mid 30's and being incredibly consistent at batting time in that more often than not there is one partnership from those 3 that is enough to set a platform for 4-7 then that should be enough. My hopes are that Crawley as a 3 can be better than that.
I've always maintained that the top three isn't good enough as a unit. It might have been Burns previously whereas it is Sibley now. And next week it might be Crawley. But with those three up top we are always likely to lose not one but two wickets early doors especially against the Aussies.
You talk in terns of "the top three averaging mid 30's". But they don't do they as a group or individually:
Sibley averages 29.40 and 18.38 in his last 16 innings Burns averages 31.35 Crawley averages 32.62 but take out that one mammoth innings of 267 out and it drops dramatically to 20.90
Hameed has done it at the highest level and averages 43.80 in Test cricket. How can he "wait in the wings" and prove himself further when we have no County Championship matches for 5 weeks?
You didn't want Pope batting above 6 because you wanted to protect the lad but it did the complete opposite in India. And look at what he's been doing now that he has been moved to 4 for Surrey - averages 61.66. When Stokes comes back presumably you will be happy for him to go back to 6 again?
I'm not saying they are there yet but I do think they can get there. Lets frame the question differently - Is this the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott? For my mind yes it undoubtedly is. Thats not to say we cant improve on it but I don't yet think Hameed has done enough to warrant dropping one of them.
Your last para is a whole different debate. I think the point you are missing is that in test cricket as it is now there is (and needs to be) broadly 2 types of batsmen. The top 3 and the middle order. They set up differently, different mind sets, have different techniques and different strengths. A middle order player may do a job in the top 3 but does it get the best out of them? no chance - see Joe Root (or before him Ian Bell the man Pope is compared to most). Equally putting a middle order player in the top 3 could be a plain disaster - See Hales or Roy. Pope is a middle order player and a very good one at that. He might be able to do a job at 3 but I dont think that will get the best out of him. He is the heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot. Until then he should fit in somewhere else in the middle order. For what its worth I would have Pope 5 Stokes 6. If we want a top 3 player we should pick a top 3 player (the best ones in the country) and that's what I believe we have in Burns, Sibley and Crawley with Hameed and Bracey as competition.
Also Pope has batted 4 for Surrey ever since his first England call up in 2018. Batting 4 is hugely different from batting 3. We have discovered a potentially world class middle order player. Its so very English to try and turn him into something he is not.
But with those three up top for England, batting at 4 is batting at 3 and sometimes, like today, when we are two down in under 7 overs, it is the equivalent of opening!
So we have a problem with the top 3 (whats new? we have since 2012). The solution is not to shove a middle order player in there. Been there, done that. Doesn't work.
Or play an opening bat who averages 43.80 in Test cricket. Been there, done that and it does work!
I never disagreed with that. I just feel that right now is probably not the right time to drop anyone of the top 3 and I dont think Hameed has done quite enough to make the selectors pick him no matter what. As for his average wasn't that after 3 innings?
In the last 4 series Sibley has scored 294 runs at an average of 18.38
As I've said before, I am fearful that a front three of Sibley, Burns and Crawley in the Ashes and of these Sibley is the one that I think needs to be sacrificed in order to give Hameed a chance and/or Pope an opportunity to bat at 3 sooner rather than later
Was only a couple of weeks ago you were saying Burns had to go. Now he has made some championship scores whilst Sibbers has been out injured you've switched.
Lets not go back to the selection policy of the 90's. Both Bracey and Hameed are making a claim to be in the top 3 but are either of them there yet? I'm not sure. Lets make changes because we have someone better and ready waiting in the wings rather than for the sake of making changes.
Opening in test cricket is an impossibly hard job to do listen to Sir Ali Cook on the subject - he says the last 5 years of his test career it was 100 times harder than when he started. The game has swung into the bowlers favour, particularly at the start of the innings. I think we need to adjust expectations slightly - we arent gonna have another Cook/Strauss/Trott or Strauss/Tres/Vaughan combination. But if we can have a top 3averaging mid 30's and being incredibly consistent at batting time in that more often than not there is one partnership from those 3 that is enough to set a platform for 4-7 then that should be enough. My hopes are that Crawley as a 3 can be better than that.
I've always maintained that the top three isn't good enough as a unit. It might have been Burns previously whereas it is Sibley now. And next week it might be Crawley. But with those three up top we are always likely to lose not one but two wickets early doors especially against the Aussies.
You talk in terns of "the top three averaging mid 30's". But they don't do they as a group or individually:
Sibley averages 29.40 and 18.38 in his last 16 innings Burns averages 31.35 Crawley averages 32.62 but take out that one mammoth innings of 267 out and it drops dramatically to 20.90
Hameed has done it at the highest level and averages 43.80 in Test cricket. How can he "wait in the wings" and prove himself further when we have no County Championship matches for 5 weeks?
You didn't want Pope batting above 6 because you wanted to protect the lad but it did the complete opposite in India. And look at what he's been doing now that he has been moved to 4 for Surrey - averages 61.66. When Stokes comes back presumably you will be happy for him to go back to 6 again?
I'm not saying they are there yet but I do think they can get there. Lets frame the question differently - Is this the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott? For my mind yes it undoubtedly is. Thats not to say we cant improve on it but I don't yet think Hameed has done enough to warrant dropping one of them.
Your last para is a whole different debate. I think the point you are missing is that in test cricket as it is now there is (and needs to be) broadly 2 types of batsmen. The top 3 and the middle order. They set up differently, different mind sets, have different techniques and different strengths. A middle order player may do a job in the top 3 but does it get the best out of them? no chance - see Joe Root (or before him Ian Bell the man Pope is compared to most). Equally putting a middle order player in the top 3 could be a plain disaster - See Hales or Roy. Pope is a middle order player and a very good one at that. He might be able to do a job at 3 but I dont think that will get the best out of him. He is the heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot. Until then he should fit in somewhere else in the middle order. For what its worth I would have Pope 5 Stokes 6. If we want a top 3 player we should pick a top 3 player (the best ones in the country) and that's what I believe we have in Burns, Sibley and Crawley with Hameed and Bracey as competition.
Also Pope has batted 4 for Surrey ever since his first England call up in 2018. Batting 4 is hugely different from batting 3. We have discovered a potentially world class middle order player. Its so very English to try and turn him into something he is not.
But with those three up top for England, batting at 4 is batting at 3 and sometimes, like today, when we are two down in under 7 overs, it is the equivalent of opening!
So we have a problem with the top 3 (whats new? we have since 2012). The solution is not to shove a middle order player in there. Been there, done that. Doesn't work.
Or play an opening bat who averages 43.80 in Test cricket. Been there, done that and it does work!
I never disagreed with that. I just feel that right now is probably not the right time to drop anyone of the top 3 and I dont think Hameed has done quite enough to make the selectors pick him no matter what. As for his average wasn't that after 3 innings?
Double that actually. So Hameed's average in his last 6 Test innings is 43.80 and Sibley averages an appalling 2.50 in his last 6. At what point do you make that change? Wait 'til he gets another ton on a road and then guarantee him another 20 Tests because of that one innings?
Sibley has failed to reach double figures in 14 of his 32 innings to date. Crawley has a similar record in so far as he has single figure scores in 10 of his 21 innings. That is the reason for us being two down on so many occasions.
There is a difference between the two however.
Sibley has a fundamental technical flaw because he plays so much across his front pad - it is his default setting and where he should be playing in the "V" with the full face of the bat he's showing the edge instead - facing County bowlers who do not have the pace or skillset to expose that is vastly different to tackling Messrs Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc etc etc.
Crawley's issue is more of a mindset and down to plain poor shot selection as evidenced by him throwing his hands at a very wide swinging half volley yesterday. He has to cut that out of his game in red ball cricket.
If we don't give someone like Hameed a chance soon then we might end up, effectively, throwing him in at the deep end in the Ashes with no opportunity to test himself before that. I understand that we don't want to keep chopping and changing but we constantly do that with the bowlers. We have reached the point where we need to look at someone else because it simply isn't working with this top three at present. Let Sibley go back to County cricket and give him the opportunity to sort out his issues. If it doesn't work out for Hameed then Sibley can still come back. Greater players than Sibley have done that and come back better for doing so.
First day, 30 minutes queuing to get in at the North Gate, second day zero time and I arrived at 10.15 ish both days . Less people is always gonna be a winner for me , especially not having to get up and let someone pass every 5 mins or some cat funts legs sticking to you as you’re crammed in to the seats . The two bogs down at the Compton and Edrich stand are now gone and bogs built in to the new stands , that scares me cos they were big bogs and I don’t think you can ever have enough pissers or khazis at a sports ground or airport . No queues for bogs or drinks at any point was lovely but from a non selfish perspective just a complete lack of atmosphere and as much life as an old school Charlton away trip with the average age of near death and no personality, so will be great to get everyone back in the grounds as soon as it is safe to do so. Fucking loved being back at the home of cricket, talking shit with mates and completely wallied and with my 15 year old (can hardly ever leave home with out a child stuck to me ) getting involved in the banter and being there to guide me brilliant times .
In the last 4 series Sibley has scored 294 runs at an average of 18.38
As I've said before, I am fearful that a front three of Sibley, Burns and Crawley in the Ashes and of these Sibley is the one that I think needs to be sacrificed in order to give Hameed a chance and/or Pope an opportunity to bat at 3 sooner rather than later
Was only a couple of weeks ago you were saying Burns had to go. Now he has made some championship scores whilst Sibbers has been out injured you've switched.
Lets not go back to the selection policy of the 90's. Both Bracey and Hameed are making a claim to be in the top 3 but are either of them there yet? I'm not sure. Lets make changes because we have someone better and ready waiting in the wings rather than for the sake of making changes.
Opening in test cricket is an impossibly hard job to do listen to Sir Ali Cook on the subject - he says the last 5 years of his test career it was 100 times harder than when he started. The game has swung into the bowlers favour, particularly at the start of the innings. I think we need to adjust expectations slightly - we arent gonna have another Cook/Strauss/Trott or Strauss/Tres/Vaughan combination. But if we can have a top 3averaging mid 30's and being incredibly consistent at batting time in that more often than not there is one partnership from those 3 that is enough to set a platform for 4-7 then that should be enough. My hopes are that Crawley as a 3 can be better than that.
I've always maintained that the top three isn't good enough as a unit. It might have been Burns previously whereas it is Sibley now. And next week it might be Crawley. But with those three up top we are always likely to lose not one but two wickets early doors especially against the Aussies.
You talk in terns of "the top three averaging mid 30's". But they don't do they as a group or individually:
Sibley averages 29.40 and 18.38 in his last 16 innings Burns averages 31.35 Crawley averages 32.62 but take out that one mammoth innings of 267 out and it drops dramatically to 20.90
Hameed has done it at the highest level and averages 43.80 in Test cricket. How can he "wait in the wings" and prove himself further when we have no County Championship matches for 5 weeks?
You didn't want Pope batting above 6 because you wanted to protect the lad but it did the complete opposite in India. And look at what he's been doing now that he has been moved to 4 for Surrey - averages 61.66. When Stokes comes back presumably you will be happy for him to go back to 6 again?
I'm not saying they are there yet but I do think they can get there. Lets frame the question differently - Is this the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott? For my mind yes it undoubtedly is. Thats not to say we cant improve on it but I don't yet think Hameed has done enough to warrant dropping one of them.
Your last para is a whole different debate. I think the point you are missing is that in test cricket as it is now there is (and needs to be) broadly 2 types of batsmen. The top 3 and the middle order. They set up differently, different mind sets, have different techniques and different strengths. A middle order player may do a job in the top 3 but does it get the best out of them? no chance - see Joe Root (or before him Ian Bell the man Pope is compared to most). Equally putting a middle order player in the top 3 could be a plain disaster - See Hales or Roy. Pope is a middle order player and a very good one at that. He might be able to do a job at 3 but I dont think that will get the best out of him. He is the heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot. Until then he should fit in somewhere else in the middle order. For what its worth I would have Pope 5 Stokes 6. If we want a top 3 player we should pick a top 3 player (the best ones in the country) and that's what I believe we have in Burns, Sibley and Crawley with Hameed and Bracey as competition.
Also Pope has batted 4 for Surrey ever since his first England call up in 2018. Batting 4 is hugely different from batting 3. We have discovered a potentially world class middle order player. Its so very English to try and turn him into something he is not.
But with those three up top for England, batting at 4 is batting at 3 and sometimes, like today, when we are two down in under 7 overs, it is the equivalent of opening!
So we have a problem with the top 3 (whats new? we have since 2012). The solution is not to shove a middle order player in there. Been there, done that. Doesn't work.
Or play an opening bat who averages 43.80 in Test cricket. Been there, done that and it does work!
I never disagreed with that. I just feel that right now is probably not the right time to drop anyone of the top 3 and I dont think Hameed has done quite enough to make the selectors pick him no matter what. As for his average wasn't that after 3 innings?
Double that actually. So Hameed's average in his last 6 Test innings is 43.80 and Sibley averages an appalling 2.50 in his last 6. At what point do you make that change? Wait 'til he gets another ton on a road and then guarantee him another 20 Tests because of that one innings?
Sibley has failed to reach double figures in 14 of his 32 innings to date. Crawley has a similar record in so far as he has single figure scores in 10 of his 21 innings. That is the reason for us being two down on so many occasions.
There is a difference between the two however.
Sibley has a fundamental technical flaw because he plays so much across his front pad - it is his default setting and where he should be playing in the "V" with the full face of the bat he's showing the edge instead - facing County bowlers who do not have the pace or skillset to expose that is vastly different to tackling Messrs Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc etc etc.
Crawley's issue is more of a mindset and down to plain poor shot selection as evidenced by him throwing his hands at a very wide swinging half volley yesterday. He has to cut that out of his game in red ball cricket.
If we don't give someone like Hameed a chance soon then we might end up, effectively, throwing him in at the deep end in the Ashes with no opportunity to test himself before that. I understand that we don't want to keep chopping and changing but we constantly do that with the bowlers. We have reached the point where we need to look at someone else because it simply isn't working with this top three at present. Let Sibley go back to County cricket and give him the opportunity to sort out his issues. If it doesn't work out for Hameed then Sibley can still come back. Greater players than Sibley have done that and come back better for doing so.
Yes, Sibley's was the worse looking dismissal, Crawley's dismissal is much easier to eradicate
I imagine Bracey though is the next cab in the rank, in terms of the top 3. Been part of the setup for a while, and was in the squad as a top 3 player, not as a keeper. I don't know if Buttler/Bairstow are available for the next match, but one of them or Billings could take the gloves, with Bracey moving up the order
with the rain break at least we can put the @Addick Addict / @cantersaddick top 3 debate to bed, and all agree top order should Roy/Hales/Bairstow can't we ?
Ballance at 4 just in case those 3 are a bit trigger happy.
I feel like I've wandered into bizzaroland. Sibley's dismissal was an incredible nut that any batsman would have done amazingly well to survive
I've just looked again at the replay and will reiterate what I said above and that is that he did not give himself the best chance of playing it. The ball pitched virtually on off stump and was deemed to be clipping. It wasn't a raging leg break. The bat does not come down straight as he is trying to play it through mid wicket rather than in the "V" with the full face and back from where it came.
This is what the Cricinfo commentary says about it:
Tight line, nipping away, struck on the pad, and up goes the finger! Sibley reviews. The first time Jamieson has got his line right. Sibley's bat came down at a horrible angle, looking to work to leg, but I think this might have hit him just outside the line? No bat involved... impact in-line, and trimming the edge of off stump! Two yellows, but that's enough to send Sibley packing since Kettleborough gave him out on-field... Jamieson strikes early!
Better men than me (such as Boycott or Gooch for example) would be asking him why is he trying to play a ball that is 3 overs old in a Test match and pitching on off stump through mid wicket?
Edit - another better man than me, Michael Atherton, says this:
Suddenly, the ease, flow, assurance and intelligence of Conway’s game was a distant memory as first Dom Sibley played across a straight ball from Kyle Jamieson and then Zak Crawley showed his naivety in being suckered into an expansive drive by Tim Southee, who shimmied wide on the crease to draw in the batsman.
Wide of the crease, arrowing in on leg stump, and then it suddenly jags away to clip off? Your best bet is getting a pad in the way and hoping the umpire doesn't give it. The very most bat anyone's getting on that is a thin edge. There's a sort of xG of balls with a wicket chance for each one. I bet that's the highest wicket chance ball bowled in this entire series
Where does the ball pitch? Where does it hit the stump? How far was the deviation? Where was the face of Sibley's bat pointing? Does Sibley offer the edge of the bat to the ball or the full face?
Where does the ball pitch? Where does it hit the stump? How far was the deviation? Where was the face of Sibley's bat pointing? Does Sibley offer the edge of the bat to the ball or the full face?
It pitches on off from wide of the crease, and its path would take it through to leg stump. The deviation is, as can be plainly seen, enormous. Sibley was aiming to leg. A plain forward defensive guarding middle and leg would have seen him maybe miss it by 1 inch rather than 3 or 4
Wide of the crease, arrowing in on leg stump, and then it suddenly jags away to clip off? Your best bet is getting a pad in the way and hoping the umpire doesn't give it. The very most bat anyone's getting on that is a thin edge. There's a sort of xG of balls with a wicket chance for each one. I bet that's the highest wicket chance ball bowled in this entire series
Are you seriously saying that is wide of the crease? Please take another look
Wide of the crease, arrowing in on leg stump, and then it suddenly jags away to clip off? Your best bet is getting a pad in the way and hoping the umpire doesn't give it. The very most bat anyone's getting on that is a thin edge. There's a sort of xG of balls with a wicket chance for each one. I bet that's the highest wicket chance ball bowled in this entire series
Are you seriously saying that is wide of the crease? Please take another look
Okay, he's about halfway along. Not tight to the umpire. It slants in very noticeably before jagging away. I can't see how anyone keeps that out tbh
It's a straight ball. He makes it look better than it was because he's got himself in a poor position to play it AND once again he's not playing straight!
Wide of the crease, arrowing in on leg stump, and then it suddenly jags away to clip off? Your best bet is getting a pad in the way and hoping the umpire doesn't give it. The very most bat anyone's getting on that is a thin edge. There's a sort of xG of balls with a wicket chance for each one. I bet that's the highest wicket chance ball bowled in this entire series
Are you seriously saying that is wide of the crease? Please take another look
Okay, he's about halfway along. Not tight to the umpire. It slants in very noticeably before jagging away. I can't see how anyone keeps that out tbh
Again, Michael Atherton who knows a bit about opening the batting, says Dom Sibley played across a straight ball from Kyle Jamieson
If AA punches Leuth on the nose, will it be an undefendable punch from AA, or poor defence from Leuth with his covering gloves coming from the wrong angle?
It's a straight ball. He makes it look better than it was because he's got himself in a poor position to play it AND once again he's not playing straight!
I feel like I've wandered into bizzaroland. Sibley's dismissal was an incredible nut that any batsman would have done amazingly well to survive
I've just looked again at the replay and will reiterate what I said above and that is that he did not give himself the best chance of playing it. The ball pitched virtually on off stump and was deemed to be clipping. It wasn't a raging leg break. The bat does not come down straight as he is trying to play it through mid wicket rather than in the "V" with the full face and back from where it came.
This is what the Cricinfo commentary says about it:
Tight line, nipping away, struck on the pad, and up goes the finger! Sibley reviews. The first time Jamieson has got his line right. Sibley's bat came down at a horrible angle, looking to work to leg, but I think this might have hit him just outside the line? No bat involved... impact in-line, and trimming the edge of off stump! Two yellows, but that's enough to send Sibley packing since Kettleborough gave him out on-field... Jamieson strikes early!
Better men than me (such as Boycott or Gooch for example) would be asking him why is he trying to play a ball that is 3 overs old in a Test match and pitching on off stump through mid wicket?
Edit - another better man than me, Michael Atherton, says this:
Suddenly, the ease, flow, assurance and intelligence of Conway’s game was a distant memory as first Dom Sibley played across a straight ball from Kyle Jamieson and then Zak Crawley showed his naivety in being suckered into an expansive drive by Tim Southee, who shimmied wide on the crease to draw in the batsman.
This is what I saw as well. Although the truth is somewhere in the middle. The ball pitched on off and was heading towards leg or middle and leg. If Sibley had played at it straight he would have been ok, but he clearly played across the line, trying to clip a ball on his off stump to leg. PS Burns plays across a straight ball as well (far too often).
Comments
Well they did if they were a %$£%.
Squad members from both teams wandering on to the outfield whenever they want, without good reason, delaying play.
The players couldn't give a shit about the fans.
Double that actually. So Hameed's average in his last 6 Test innings is 43.80 and Sibley averages an appalling 2.50 in his last 6. At what point do you make that change? Wait 'til he gets another ton on a road and then guarantee him another 20 Tests because of that one innings?
Sibley has failed to reach double figures in 14 of his 32 innings to date. Crawley has a similar record in so far as he has single figure scores in 10 of his 21 innings. That is the reason for us being two down on so many occasions.
There is a difference between the two however.
Sibley has a fundamental technical flaw because he plays so much across his front pad - it is his default setting and where he should be playing in the "V" with the full face of the bat he's showing the edge instead - facing County bowlers who do not have the pace or skillset to expose that is vastly different to tackling Messrs Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc etc etc.
Crawley's issue is more of a mindset and down to plain poor shot selection as evidenced by him throwing his hands at a very wide swinging half volley yesterday. He has to cut that out of his game in red ball cricket.
If we don't give someone like Hameed a chance soon then we might end up, effectively, throwing him in at the deep end in the Ashes with no opportunity to test himself before that. I understand that we don't want to keep chopping and changing but we constantly do that with the bowlers. We have reached the point where we need to look at someone else because it simply isn't working with this top three at present. Let Sibley go back to County cricket and give him the opportunity to sort out his issues. If it doesn't work out for Hameed then Sibley can still come back. Greater players than Sibley have done that and come back better for doing so.
Less people is always gonna be a winner for me , especially not having to get up and let someone pass every 5 mins or some cat funts legs sticking to you as you’re crammed in to the seats .
The two bogs down at the Compton and Edrich stand are now gone and bogs built in to the new stands , that scares me cos they were big bogs and I don’t think you can ever have enough pissers or khazis at a sports ground or airport .
No queues for bogs or drinks at any point was lovely but from a non selfish perspective just a complete lack of atmosphere and as much life as an old school Charlton away trip with the average age of near death and no personality, so will be great to get everyone back in the grounds as soon as it is safe to do so.
Fucking loved being back at the home of cricket, talking shit with mates and completely wallied and with my 15 year old (can hardly ever leave home with out a child stuck to me ) getting involved in the banter and being there to guide me brilliant times .
I imagine Bracey though is the next cab in the rank, in terms of the top 3. Been part of the setup for a while, and was in the squad as a top 3 player, not as a keeper. I don't know if Buttler/Bairstow are available for the next match, but one of them or Billings could take the gloves, with Bracey moving up the order
Poxy Nelson strikes with the rain
Ballance at 4 just in case those 3 are a bit trigger happy.
This is what the Cricinfo commentary says about it:
Tight line, nipping away, struck on the pad, and up goes the finger! Sibley reviews. The first time Jamieson has got his line right. Sibley's bat came down at a horrible angle, looking to work to leg, but I think this might have hit him just outside the line? No bat involved... impact in-line, and trimming the edge of off stump! Two yellows, but that's enough to send Sibley packing since Kettleborough gave him out on-field... Jamieson strikes early!
Better men than me (such as Boycott or Gooch for example) would be asking him why is he trying to play a ball that is 3 overs old in a Test match and pitching on off stump through mid wicket?
Edit - another better man than me, Michael Atherton, says this:
Suddenly, the ease, flow, assurance and intelligence of Conway’s game was a distant memory as first Dom Sibley played across a straight ball from Kyle Jamieson and then Zak Crawley showed his naivety in being suckered into an expansive drive by Tim Southee, who shimmied wide on the crease to draw in the batsman.
This is sodding unplayable. Look at the Hawkeye tracking at the end and tell me how any batsman in world cricket could have played it
So:
Where does the ball pitch?
Where does it hit the stump?
How far was the deviation?
Where was the face of Sibley's bat pointing?
Does Sibley offer the edge of the bat to the ball or the full face?
98 overs due tomorrow.
Although the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The ball pitched on off and was heading towards leg or middle and leg.
If Sibley had played at it straight he would have been ok, but he clearly played across the line, trying to clip a ball on his off stump to leg.
PS Burns plays across a straight ball as well (far too often).