Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
But, after the first hour, the game was meant to finish inside two days!killerandflash said:
This pitch will be tricky on Day 7...Addick Addict said:It says it all about the pitch that Foakes is standing up to Anderson0 -
Anderson's reaction at dropping that catch says it all. He just did not want to get up and clearly hurt his hand in the process.0
-
350-5 and a lead of 124
All the seamers look like they have had enough. That's over 100 overs that the three of them have bowled in the match to date.
0 -
Bloody hell Leach. All we need is front foot no balls from you!
On that subject I hadn't realised that in Stokes 2 overs he bowled 1 wide and 3 no balls. That really suggests that he is out of sorts with the ball.0 -
Doesn't look like enforcing the follow on was a good idea now. I'm usually in favour but this time I think if we had batted again & got a 450 run lead then scoreboard pressure would have meant they would have buckled.
As it stands, if they get a lead in excess of 250 then I think we're cooked.0 -
We're looking a bit tired, hence we're not taking the half chances
0 -
I would say we're looking like a spent force and that is, as you suggest, feeding into the fielding. It's reactive rather than pro active.killerandflash said:We're looking a bit tired, hence we're not taking the half chances
It's more than seven and a half years (Lord's v Australia, July 2015) since Anderson had figures as poor as 0-77 in an innings. If he can't get anything out of a deck then no seamer can. Robinson has 1-106 in the match. Those returns go to prove that we do need a full cohort of bowlers available for the Ashes. Either Archer or Wood as the extra pace alternative may well prove a necessity especially if Stokes cannot perform his role as an enforcer.0 -
Blundell brings up his 50 and the 100 partnership with Williamson0
-
Williamson reaches his ton - 103* (226)
409-5 and a lead of 1830 -
409-5
100 up for Williamson0 - Sponsored links:
-
And with that century, I'm declaring. So when NZ lose 5 wickets for 23 and England knock the runs off in a thrilling 2 hour run chase, you can thank me.2
-
I'm waiting for tea and then I'm off too. Watching live streams of club games from Australia over the weekend and this Test match has just about finished me!killerandflash said:And with that century, I'm declaring. So when NZ lose 5 wickets for 23 and England knock the runs off in a thrilling 2 hour run chase, you can thank me.1 -
50 overs up for Leach in the innings (2-132)0
-
423-5 at tea and a lead of 1970
-
472-6. Williamson out for 132 some time ago - Harry Brook's first Test wicket. Wondering if a declaration is coming before stumps...
Minimum 24 overs left in the day, lead of 246. Second new ball available in a couple of overs...0 -
478-7
Silly run out to get rid of Bracewell - nothing grounded behind the line and Foakes takes the bails off.0 -
482-8
Southee tries teeing off the bowling of Leach and gets caught in the deep0 -
482-9
Henry caught at slip off Leach0 -
483 all out
Fifth wicket for Leach. Blundell on 90 charged him and edged to Root at slip. Unfortunate not to get his hundred.0 -
Target is 258
Minimum of 15 overs today, plus tomorrow.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Crawley blocked one straight to a fielder in short and set off when never a run and should have been run out and he would have been stranded but got away with it (appalling )
but has been a little edgey but hit a couple of boundaries now England 23-00 -
48 /1 Close of play
210 more needed0 -
I thought this the other day. Does he get in the team as a specialist batsman and if he can't bowl how do you get a 5th bowler in the team?killerandflash said:
Which raises an interesting question, with Bairstow waiting in the wings, whether Stokes playing just as a batsman justifies his place at No 6!Addick Addict said:We are probably have to do so but can we go into an Ashes Series relying on three seamers and four frontline bowlers because it is obvious that Stokes, with his knee issue, is unable to bowl to any degree - just 2 overs of the 162 delivered by England in this match and 17 in total from the last 8 innings. If the Aussies successfully target Leach then the work load on the three seamers is going to be rather heavy.
Obviously Zak (if anyone) would be dropped, but Zak at No 6 would surely make a lot more runs than he does as an opener.
Obviously Stokes won't be dropped, but to an extent his place in the team is now because of his leadership rather than his "stats".
It's really difficult and if your going with 5 specialist bowlers do you want 2 express quicks? I am not sure you can risk 2 in a 4 man attack.
The conclusion I came up with was "if its not broke don't fix it". But selection for a 3rd test here would have been very interesting.0 -
killerandflash said:
Which raises an interesting question, with Bairstow waiting in the wings, whether Stokes playing just as a batsman justifies his place at No 6!Addick Addict said:We are probably have to do so but can we go into an Ashes Series relying on three seamers and four frontline bowlers because it is obvious that Stokes, with his knee issue, is unable to bowl to any degree - just 2 overs of the 162 delivered by England in this match and 17 in total from the last 8 innings. If the Aussies successfully target Leach then the work load on the three seamers is going to be rather heavy.
Obviously Zak (if anyone) would be dropped, but Zak at No 6 would surely make a lot more runs than he does as an opener.
Obviously Stokes won't be dropped, but to an extent his place in the team is now because of his leadership rather than his "stats".
I'd make more batting at 6 than Zak does as opener!0 -
In the 146 years of Test cricket, just 23 England batsmen have batted in positions 1-3 as many times as Zak Crawley (58 times) and his average of 27.52 is the worst of those. None of those, though, have had their average "skewed" by one innings to the extent that Crawley has by that 267 against Pakistan and without that his average in those positions drops to 23.25.
Crawley's average is 25.19 from 48 innings when opening and that is also the worst from the 18 players that qualify with Burns, once again, 2nd in that list with the same average of 30.32 as he has only ever opened. That demonstrates the perceived lack of options but, there again, the fact that it has taken over six years to give Duckett, a player who was dropped after just 7 innings back in 2016, a second chance suggests that there might be others from left field who could be given that opportunity.
That said, I remain of the opinion that Bairstow should be the next on the rank to open as he does fit the "Bazball" profile and is a very experienced opener and Test batsman. It would also mean no disruption to the batting order and the retention of probably the best keeper in the world.
The 23 qualifiers who have batted 58 or more times at 1-3:
Name Span Inns NO Runs HS AveZ Crawley 2020-2023 58 1 1569 267 27.52 RJ Burns 2018-2022 59 0 1789 133 30.32 MA Butcher 1997-2004 127 6 4214 173* 34.82 MA Atherton 1989-2001 210 6 7691 185* 37.70 JE Root 2013-2022 70 4 2639 254 39.98 N Hussain 1996-2003 65 7 2352 155 40.55 AJ Strauss 2004-2012 177 6 6994 177 40.90 JH Edrich 1963-1976 120 7 4798 310* 42.46 IJL Trott 2009-2015 81 5 3264 226 42.94 C Washbrook 1937-1951 63 6 2465 195 43.24 MC Cowdrey 1956-1975 74 3 3092 182 43.54 MP Vaughan 2000-2008 110 5 4587 197 43.68 ME Trescothick 2000-2006 142 9 5824 219 43.78 GA Gooch 1978-1995 192 6 8158 333 43.86 AJ Stewart 1990-2000 112 7 4655 190 44.33 AN Cook 2006-2018 290 15 12423 294 45.17 G Boycott 1964-1982 191 23 8091 246* 48.16 DI Gower 1981-1991 59 4 2692 215 48.94 ER Dexter 1959-1968 59 3 2868 205 51.21 DL Amiss 1967-1977 70 8 3305 262* 53.30 JB Hobbs 1908-1930 98 6 5153 211 56.01 L Hutton 1937-1955 131 12 6721 364 56.47 H Sutcliffe 1924-1935 83 9 4522 194 61.10 1 -
You can tell lots of information from statistics. So it's interesting to note that Crawley has won more Tests opening the batting than any other current (i.e. non-retired) player, ever (15 and counting). And he has a better average in winning Tests than the next two on the list (Burns and Jennings).
One argument for England picking him is that England keep winning when they do. That may be swaying McCullum's and Stokes' thinking right now. And who would argue against their decision-making?0 -
If bairstow opens that means we have a very make shift looking top 3 of
bairstow
duckett
pope
no question on how destructive they can be but I bet the Aussies wouldn't be to upset at bowling at them with a new ball in their hands.0 -
Alternatively, Crawley, Lees or Hameed? You can bet that Bairstow would give them more pause, even openingTodds_right_hook said:If bairstow opens that means we have a very make shift looking top 3 of
bairstow
duckett
pope
no question on how destructive they can be but I bet the Aussies wouldn't be to upset at bowling at them with a new ball in their hands.1 -
In the last decade, only Burns (32) has opened in more Tests than Crawley (25) and only Jennings (17) and Sibley (22) have actually opened in enough matches to reach 15 wins - the next players have only opened 11 times so the actual comparison is with three other players! Equally, only Crawley, Lees and Duckett have had the opportunity to open under McCullum.Chizz said:You can tell lots of information from statistics. So it's interesting to note that Crawley has won more Tests opening the batting than any other current (i.e. non-retired) player, ever (15 and counting). And he has a better average in winning Tests than the next two on the list (Burns and Jennings).
One argument for England picking him is that England keep winning when they do. That may be swaying McCullum's and Stokes' thinking right now. And who would argue against their decision-making?
The danger in using Crawley as some sort of "lucky charm" (and that's effectively what you are saying because he hasn't done anything of note to justify his inclusion) is that we end up dropping him when we can least afford to do so and have to throw someone in at the deep end. We should also bear in mind that he dropped three catches in the slips in the last match and if he does that against Australia it could prove fatal.2 -
Forgot Jennings in my list of people who are miles ahead of Rob Yates earlier lol0
