England Cricket Team Summer 2019 -ICC World Cup and Ashes etc

Lincsaddick said:

the pitch now looks so benign, you gotta fancy the Aussies to score a good few

Chizz said:

bolloxbolder said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit. 

Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.

Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier. 

Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in? 

Out of interest, what are your other adjectives? 

If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise.  But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.  

The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games).  So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness.  You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.  

The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked.  Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence.  If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence. 

Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure.  So, I am glad to see that you haven't.  Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.  

The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players.  Gooch isn't a current player.  You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's.  I think that's a mistake.  

Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree? 

I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood. 

I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion. 

I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed. 

If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.  

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler.  Five is too high for an all-rounder. 

Tell that to Jacques Kallis. 

And Botham in his pomp.

Your points that the two best all-rounders that ever lived could bat in the top five at the peak of their abilities is a good one.  I don't think Stokes is in that category. 

Lincsaddick said:

Chizz said:

bolloxbolder said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit. 

Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.

Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier. 

Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in? 

Out of interest, what are your other adjectives? 

If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise.  But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.  

The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games).  So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness.  You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.  

The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked.  Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence.  If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence. 

Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure.  So, I am glad to see that you haven't.  Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.  

The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players.  Gooch isn't a current player.  You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's.  I think that's a mistake.  

Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree? 

I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood. 

I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion. 

I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed. 

If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.  

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler.  Five is too high for an all-rounder. 

Tell that to Jacques Kallis. 

And Botham in his pomp.

Your points that the two best all-rounders that ever lived could bat in the top five at the peak of their abilities is a good one.  I don't think Stokes is in that category. 

memory lapse .. you ever heard of Gary Sobers ?

Chizz said:

Lincsaddick said:

Chizz said:

bolloxbolder said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit. 

Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.

Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier. 

Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in? 

Out of interest, what are your other adjectives? 

If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise.  But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.  

The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games).  So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness.  You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.  

The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked.  Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence.  If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence. 

Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure.  So, I am glad to see that you haven't.  Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.  

The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players.  Gooch isn't a current player.  You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's.  I think that's a mistake.  

Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree? 

I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood. 

I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion. 

I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed. 

If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.  

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler.  Five is too high for an all-rounder. 

Tell that to Jacques Kallis. 

And Botham in his pomp.

Your points that the two best all-rounders that ever lived could bat in the top five at the peak of their abilities is a good one.  I don't think Stokes is in that category. 

memory lapse .. you ever heard of Gary Sobers ?

It's my opinion! 

Chizz said:

Lincsaddick said:

Chizz said:

bolloxbolder said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit. 

Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.

Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier. 

Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in? 

Out of interest, what are your other adjectives? 

If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise.  But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.  

The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games).  So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness.  You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.  

The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked.  Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence.  If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence. 

Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure.  So, I am glad to see that you haven't.  Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.  

The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players.  Gooch isn't a current player.  You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's.  I think that's a mistake.  

Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree? 

I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood. 

I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion. 

I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed. 

If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.  

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler.  Five is too high for an all-rounder. 

Tell that to Jacques Kallis. 

And Botham in his pomp.

Your points that the two best all-rounders that ever lived could bat in the top five at the peak of their abilities is a good one.  I don't think Stokes is in that category. 

memory lapse .. you ever heard of Gary Sobers ?

It's my opinion! 

blackpool72 said:

Ok prediction time.
I reckon the Aussies will be 3 down by the time they draw level with England. 

cafcfan1990 said:

Warner out, get in. 

Another mistake from the umpires. 

blackpool72 said:

Is he in or out.
Someone tell me

blackpool72 said:

Lincsaddick said:

Come on Ali, prove me wronger than wrong, prove to be a demonic spinner

He needs to bowl well this innings or he may well be dropped 

blackpool72 said:

Ok prediction time.
I reckon the Aussies will be 3 down by the time they draw level with England.