Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket Summer 2020
Comments
-
Harsh on broadLeuth said:Based on that, here's my extremely rogue First Test XI
Burns
Sibley
Crawley
Lawrence
Stokes
Pope
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Foakes but it'll be Buttler
Bess
Archer
Anderson
Parkinson (but it'll be Woakes (batting at 8))0 -
Broad looked like a club medium-pacer in this game0
-
Leuth said:Broad looked like a club medium-pacer in this game
Not Wood instead of Woakes? He had figures of 15-5-33-2 whereas Woakes returned 15-4-62-11 -
I'd always rather Wood than Woakes but Woakes is an automatic pick at the moment0
-
Recreational cricket can return on the 11th July. No real reason given, clearly the ECB and other bodies managed to convince the government that the ban was nonsense1
-
They were awaiting the result of Curran's test because to allow recreational cricket to go ahead with the whole England squad in isolation following a positive result would have been open to ridicule.killerandflash said:Recreational cricket can return on the 11th July. No real reason given, clearly the ECB and other bodies managed to convince the government that the ban was nonsense
One does have to scratch one's head though given that the county game will be starting three weeks after recreational matches have done so. But then that is more to do with money.0 -
Such things have no place on a cricket field.Leuth said:Leach looked nothing like an 11 yesterday, repelling Wood and Archer with absolute ease. Bess looked very good but I do question whether he gets the rip that scares batsmen. Maybe a wily holding-job is the ticket. You'd hope the days of just choosing a spinner for their batting ability are over, though.
Oh! Maybe I read it wrong.2 -
Yeah woakes has looked quite average in tests the last year or so. I’d say take the perspective of the windies batsmen - id rather face woakes first change than a combo of wood and archer
Is he ? I think not, if Anderson and Broad are fit. I agree with you - Wood should playLeuth said:I'd always rather Wood than Woakes but Woakes is an automatic pick at the moment1 - Sponsored links:
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53290755
Bess in the 13, no Leach or Moeen, even in the reserves
Both Crawley and Denly play (3 and 4), Bairstow left out0 -
-
Good to see Buttler given a chance.2
-
It's quite ridiculous isn't it.MrOneLung said:Good to see Buttler given a chance.
Buttler and Bairstow keep getting rotated in the hope that one of them comes good.
In the meantime Foakes can't get a look in.3 -
Denly extremely lucky to be in over Lawrence imo. Was the perfect opportunity to give the latter a go - might not be another chance for a while unless they drop Crawley1
-
What has Denly done to deserve being dropped0
-
It's more that Lawrence has made a seemingly (to me and many other good judges) irresistible case for his inclusion tbh, and Denly really hasn't made big runs at any stage - he's done a serviceable job but nothing remarkable. Foakes has hit a hundred in five Tests and isn't in the side1
-
Foakes not being in the side is an absolute disgraceLeuth said:It's more that Lawrence has made a seemingly (to me and many other good judges) irresistible case for his inclusion tbh, and Denly really hasn't made big runs at any stage - he's done a serviceable job but nothing remarkable. Foakes has hit a hundred in five Tests and isn't in the side2 -
Buttler's missed stumpings in the warm-up should have caused the merest flicker in the selectors' hearts...but no, nothing2
-
ButtlerLeuth said:Buttler's missed stumpings in the warm-up should have caused the merest flicker in the selectors' hearts...but no, nothing
Bairstow
Buttler
Bairstow
Buttler
Bairstow
Repeat until you are bored0 - Sponsored links:
-
Can Crawley, Lawrence and pope all play in the same side at the moment. Bags of potential but all of them need Id to buy a four pack of fosters. Sibley and burns are inexperienced at internal level too. I know denly falls into that bracket be he is experienced at county level. Denly has a short shelf live and Lawrence has time on his side. Experience is the deciding factor.0
-
Todds_right_hook said:Can Crawley, Lawrence and pope all play in the same side at the moment. Bags of potential but all of them need Id to buy a four pack of fosters. Sibley and burns are inexperienced at internal level too. I know denly falls into that bracket be he is experienced at county level. Denly has a short shelf live and Lawrence has time on his side. Experience is the deciding factor.
I think Pope will be in the England team for years to come, Sibley, Burns and Crawley deserve a run this summer and I would stay with Denly for a couple of tests.Foakes to me is the big mistake, he is easy the best keeper.
1 -
What makes you a good judge?Leuth said:It's more that Lawrence has made a seemingly (to me and many other good judges) irresistible case for his inclusion tbh, and Denly really hasn't made big runs at any stage - he's done a serviceable job but nothing remarkable. Foakes has hit a hundred in five Tests and isn't in the side1 -
It's an interesting one with Woakes. I think he would be an automatic pick for every country playing Test cricket, just based on his numbers. Yet, in England, we like to keep players guessing as to whether they're part of the set up or not.kentaddick said:
Yeah woakes has looked quite average in tests the last year or so. I’d say take the perspective of the windies batsmen - id rather face woakes first change than a combo of wood and archer
Is he ? I think not, if Anderson and Broad are fit. I agree with you - Wood should playLeuth said:I'd always rather Wood than Woakes but Woakes is an automatic pick at the moment
In the last two years, at home, Woakes has as many wickets as Anderson (and more than Wood and Archer, combined). He takes his wickets at a better average than Broad. His strike rate is better than most. And it's less than a year since he took 6-17 in the Lord's Test.
On a horses-for-courses basis, I think Woakes should play every home Test.0 -
I couldn't resist myself theredickplumb said:
What makes you a good judge?Leuth said:It's more that Lawrence has made a seemingly (to me and many other good judges) irresistible case for his inclusion tbh, and Denly really hasn't made big runs at any stage - he's done a serviceable job but nothing remarkable. Foakes has hit a hundred in five Tests and isn't in the side
0 -
I'm not outraged by the decision to pick Denly I supported him quite heavily on here in the winter (batting at 3 - it was farcical batting him at 4 last summer). He (along with Burns, Sibley, Crawley) was a key cog in that batting lineup in the winter. Whatever top 3 we put out they made sure to bat time and even if they didnt get masses of runs they batted time and it meant that Root didnt once come in before the 25th over and we got so much more out of our middle order.
It's a key part of how Silverwood wants this side to play.
Batting in the top 3 in test cricket is harder than it has ever been Sir Alistair Cook said the last few years of his career the pitches and the balls along with the quality of bowling made it so. In the absence of 3 world class top order players the next best is to have 3 players who will bat time. They wont score too quickly and wont score mountains of runs. But 3 players who will protect their wicket and 9 times out of 10 will bat time setting a platform for the lower order is perfect. If they do it whilst averaging mid to high 30s and chipping in with the odd big score then that is all we need. So I support Denly in his role in doing that and he deserved to be part of this bigger squad.
The reason I wouldn't have picked him in this game is that with the return of Root and the potential Crawley showed in SA it seems the obvious choice to move Zak to 3. Batting 4 in tests is an entirely different ball game and I dont think Denly suits it. With Lawrence impressing it would be the perfect opportunity to give him a taste of test cricket with no pressure and no hard feelings thay Root comes back in for him. He can then go away work at his game and push to get in the side long term.0 -
On Woakes, I agree in England he is a proven top class bowler and his batting is a massive bonus and this winter he finally looked like he was doing it abroad too. I've read multiple commentators saying he is the natural successor to Jimmy.
Englands crop of fast bowlers is excellent right now and I would be happy with any combination of 3 from 6 (Woakes, Curran, Wood, Archer, Broad, Anderson). I think this will be massive for us this summer with 6 tests in less than 7 weeks. We simply have to rotate.
For instance Archer and Wood would play every other game for me. Anderson's injury record is a risk but i would like to see him given a go with Broad in the first test (though it does leave us with a long tail). After that one of Anderson and Broad and one of Curran and Woakes.0 -
Denly has basically turned himself into a modern day Chris Tavare. More fluid of course, but someone who's role in the Test side is to be cautious and occupy the crease against the new(ish) ball, slightly at the expense of their natural gamecantersaddick said:I'm not outraged by the decision to pick Denly I supported him quite heavily on here in the winter (batting at 3 - it was farcical batting him at 4 last summer). He (along with Burns, Sibley, Crawley) was a key cog in that batting lineup in the winter. Whatever top 3 we put out they made sure to bat time and even if they didnt get masses of runs they batted time and it meant that Root didnt once come in before the 25th over and we got so much more out of our middle order.
It's a key part of how Silverwood wants this side to play.
Batting in the top 3 in test cricket is harder than it has ever been Sir Alistair Cook said the last few years of his career the pitches and the balls along with the quality of bowling made it so. In the absence of 3 world class top order players the next best is to have 3 players who will bat time. They wont score too quickly and wont score mountains of runs. But 3 players who will protect their wicket and 9 times out of 10 will bat time setting a platform for the lower order is perfect. If they do it whilst averaging mid to high 30s and chipping in with the odd big score then that is all we need. So I support Denly in his role in doing that and he deserved to be part of this bigger squad.
The reason I wouldn't have picked him in this game is that with the return of Root and the potential Crawley showed in SA it seems the obvious choice to move Zak to 3. Batting 4 in tests is an entirely different ball game and I dont think Denly suits it. With Lawrence impressing it would be the perfect opportunity to give him a taste of test cricket with no pressure and no hard feelings thay Root comes back in for him. He can then go away work at his game and push to get in the side long term.
In a way it would be nice for him to walk to the crease at say 95-2 after 37 overs, and to show if he can play a more fluent Test innings against decent bowling.2 -
We look like a team in transition which makes selection difficult and puts pressure on batsmen particularly to succeed. The bigger question to me is whether we are prioritising the present or the future.0
-
I think the transition is slightly less than it was last summer, at least the question is “who do we drop” when twelve months ago it was “who do we pick?”. Burns and sibley have nailed down the opening spots for a while now, sibley has to get a lot of credit for his weight loss as well this summer. Crawley is a class act that’s a natural reserve for them, we also have pope who looks like he’s going to be bell’s natural successor at 3 at some point in the future.thai malaysia addick said:We look like a team in transition which makes selection difficult and puts pressure on batsmen particularly to succeed. The bigger question to me is whether we are prioritising the present or the future.The thing is wood looked unbelievable in South Africa, and we all know what archer can do, you can’t drop either of them, we need to get as much out of Anderson and broad as we can, so they pick themselves. We’re looking a lot lot stronger going forward than we did 12 months ago.2
