Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket Tours 2018-19 (and everything off the field during that period)
Comments
-
Suddenly the idea of Roy opening seems less daft0
-
330-9, Leach gone for 15.
Foakes 95 n/o is joined at the crease by Anderson...0 -
Great performance from Foakes 107 on debut2
-
342 all out. Foakes the last wicket for 107.
Sri Lanka were 10-2 in reply but are now 31-2 from 8 overs.1 -
Leach!! 34-31
-
Awful from De Silva. 40-4. Ali castles him.1
-
Da Silva was a right handed version of Stokes' dismissal - playing the sweep (which is a "risk/reward" shot in itself) but exposing all three stumps.CHG said:Awful from De Silva. 40-4. Ali castles him.
2 -
Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.1
-
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.The_President said:Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!0 -
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........Addick Addict said:
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.The_President said:Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!0 - Sponsored links:
-
Good to see a Charlton and Orpington flag at the match.3
-
Among others, Sky have just shown a CAFC flag and an Oprington CC flag.2
-
blackpool72 said:
Good to see a Charlton and Orpington flag at the match.
Snap!Addick Addict said:Among others, Sky have just shown a CAFC flag and an Oprington CC flag.
0 -
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.Cafc43v3r said:
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........Addick Addict said:
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.The_President said:Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!1 -
Massive congrats to Foakesy. Very happy for him and makes me feel right in saying Foakes for England for the last year.
Ton for Burns in the second innings and my 3 years of Burns for England will also be justified.4 -
Especially as that would probably keep Jennings in the side for the next decade!cantersaddick said:
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.Cafc43v3r said:
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........Addick Addict said:
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.The_President said:Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
0 -
And a Blackpool one!!blackpool72 said:Good to see a Charlton and Orpington flag at the match.
0 -
Of course the other thing to bear in mind if we play all of Bairstow, Burns, Buttler and Foakes is that we will have no wicket keeper cover if all four get injured in the game!4
-
Rashy thinks he's come to the party with a beauty - pitched outside leg and took the right handers outside edge, caught by Stokes in the slips. But is given "not out" on review.
0 -
That is absolutely filthy from Stokes claiming that0
- Sponsored links:
-
Sri Lanka were quite happy going into this game with 1. Stokes should be bowling a 3 or 4 over spell now, as the game drifts. He isn't. If he isn't bowling, he isn't an all rounder. Bairstow is the better batsman.cantersaddick said:
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.Cafc43v3r said:
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........Addick Addict said:
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.The_President said:Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!1 -
There was actually no reason why he couldn't have got his hands underneath the ball as it only bounced two or three inches in front of him.Leuth said:That is absolutely filthy from Stokes claiming that
0 -
Which makes it all somewhat absurd that Stokes, a potential match winner, is being talked about as being dropped whereas Jennings who is an average county player is, in theory, safe.Cafc43v3r said:
Sri Lanka were quite happy going into this game with 1. Stokes should be bowling a 3 or 4 over spell now, as the game drifts. He isn't. If he isn't bowling, he isn't an all rounder. Bairstow is the better batsman.cantersaddick said:
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.Cafc43v3r said:
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........Addick Addict said:
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.The_President said:Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!1 -
A touch of petulance from Anderson0
-
Jennings, for all his faults, is a good player of spin. Stokes is a potential match winner, the key word being potential. It does seem a long time since he delivered with the bat.Addick Addict said:
Which makes it all somewhat absurd that Stokes, a potential match winner, is being talked about as being dropped whereas Jennings who is an average county player is, in theory, safe.Cafc43v3r said:
Sri Lanka were quite happy going into this game with 1. Stokes should be bowling a 3 or 4 over spell now, as the game drifts. He isn't. If he isn't bowling, he isn't an all rounder. Bairstow is the better batsman.cantersaddick said:
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.Cafc43v3r said:
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........Addick Addict said:
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.The_President said:Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!1 -
Double snap!!Addick Addict said:blackpool72 said:Good to see a Charlton and Orpington flag at the match.
Snap!Addick Addict said:Among others, Sky have just shown a CAFC flag and an Oprington CC flag.
1 -
Problem solved I forgot - we could play Pope too and have five keepers in the side.Addick Addict said:Of course the other thing to bear in mind if we play all of Bairstow, Burns, Buttler and Foakes is that we will have no wicket keeper cover if all four get injured in the game!
1 -
Great ball from Rashy and equally good work from Foakes.0
-
I wouldn't feel confident in Buttler or Bairstow executing that stumping.0
-
How right you are re Ben Stokes.....we are rich in talents right now and as much as it seems unthinkable to say it, he needs to consider that his place could well be under threat if he doesn’t pull a rabbit out of the hat by way of a decent innings in the near future......and who would have thought that a few months back!Cafc43v3r said:
Jennings, for all his faults, is a good player of spin. Stokes is a potential match winner, the key word being potential. It does seem a long time since he delivered with the bat.Addick Addict said:
Which makes it all somewhat absurd that Stokes, a potential match winner, is being talked about as being dropped whereas Jennings who is an average county player is, in theory, safe.Cafc43v3r said:
Sri Lanka were quite happy going into this game with 1. Stokes should be bowling a 3 or 4 over spell now, as the game drifts. He isn't. If he isn't bowling, he isn't an all rounder. Bairstow is the better batsman.cantersaddick said:
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.Cafc43v3r said:
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........Addick Addict said:
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.The_President said:Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
0
