England Cricket 2023

Cafc43v3r said:

Addick Addict said:

kentaddick said:

if we open with bairstow i think he'd have a claim of being the most messed around england batsman since mark ramprakash. He's found his role in the lower middle order, that's his role, let him keep it.

But the same argument applies to Foakes. He was the established keeper/batsman. That is his role. Foakes has been dropped countless times for doing absolutely nothing wrong. And it wasn't Foakes' fault that Bairstow got injured but Foakes is the one having to pay the price for that happening. Brook probably wouldn't even be in the side right now but for that injury. Meanwhile Crawley keeps his place for enjoying the worst Test average of all time, for any country, for any opener having batted 50 times. All because he's won all those matches for us!

You could go through the whole team and put a question mark against either them being in the team, or posotion in the batting order.

You have got two openers who have no real pedigree of opening.

Pope had never batted at 3 and there was a lot of kick back when he was first asked to do so for England.  Why didn't Root "grow a pair" and bat at 3?  Was asked more than once on here and elsewhere.

Stokes is an all rounder that can't bowl any meaningful amount of overs.

The wicket keeper can't keep.

The front line spinner hasn't played a first class game in about 2 years.

The pace attack lacks pace on a docile pitch.

Yet we are still well in this match and have won 11 of the 13 previous test matches.  The selection, the declaration, some of the field settings, bowling Brooke in the first session all go against conventional cricket, certainly test match cricket, thinking.  It seems to be working though doesn't it?

Cafc43v3r said:

Chizz said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Addick Addict said:

kentaddick said:

if we open with bairstow i think he'd have a claim of being the most messed around england batsman since mark ramprakash. He's found his role in the lower middle order, that's his role, let him keep it.

But the same argument applies to Foakes. He was the established keeper/batsman. That is his role. Foakes has been dropped countless times for doing absolutely nothing wrong. And it wasn't Foakes' fault that Bairstow got injured but Foakes is the one having to pay the price for that happening. Brook probably wouldn't even be in the side right now but for that injury. Meanwhile Crawley keeps his place for enjoying the worst Test average of all time, for any country, for any opener having batted 50 times. All because he's won all those matches for us!

You could go through the whole team and put a question mark against either them being in the team, or posotion in the batting order.

You have got two openers who have no real pedigree of opening.

Pope had never batted at 3 and there was a lot of kick back when he was first asked to do so for England.  Why didn't Root "grow a pair" and bat at 3?  Was asked more than once on here and elsewhere.

Stokes is an all rounder that can't bowl any meaningful amount of overs.

The wicket keeper can't keep.

The front line spinner hasn't played a first class game in about 2 years.

The pace attack lacks pace on a docile pitch.

Yet we are still well in this match and have won 11 of the 13 previous test matches.  The selection, the declaration, some of the field settings, bowling Brooke in the first session all go against conventional cricket, certainly test match cricket, thinking.  It seems to be working though doesn't it?

The all rounder who can't bowl trapped their best batsman lbw.

The wicket keeper who can't keep, took a great catch to dismiss Labuschagne first ball.

Our pace attack has taken more wickets than our opposition's.

Root's 118 suggest he's doing ok at four.

Pope is outscoring his opposite number at three.

Moeen Ali added to his tally of most Ashes wickets by any right arm spinner still playing. 

If these are all terrible mistakes by McCullum and Stokes, I hope they continue making many more. 

We're nine sessions in; we've scored more runs, quicker than the Aussies, and taken as many wickets. 

So your agreeing with me then? 

Rothko said:

 Rothko said:

The Aussies are being put in after tea Lunch

Addick Addict said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Addick Addict said:

kentaddick said:

if we open with bairstow i think he'd have a claim of being the most messed around england batsman since mark ramprakash. He's found his role in the lower middle order, that's his role, let him keep it.

But the same argument applies to Foakes. He was the established keeper/batsman. That is his role. Foakes has been dropped countless times for doing absolutely nothing wrong. And it wasn't Foakes' fault that Bairstow got injured but Foakes is the one having to pay the price for that happening. Brook probably wouldn't even be in the side right now but for that injury. Meanwhile Crawley keeps his place for enjoying the worst Test average of all time, for any country, for any opener having batted 50 times. All because he's won all those matches for us!

You could go through the whole team and put a question mark against either them being in the team, or posotion in the batting order.

You have got two openers who have no real pedigree of opening.

Pope had never batted at 3 and there was a lot of kick back when he was first asked to do so for England.  Why didn't Root "grow a pair" and bat at 3?  Was asked more than once on here and elsewhere.

Stokes is an all rounder that can't bowl any meaningful amount of overs.

The wicket keeper can't keep.

The front line spinner hasn't played a first class game in about 2 years.

The pace attack lacks pace on a docile pitch.

Yet we are still well in this match and have won 11 of the 13 previous test matches.  The selection, the declaration, some of the field settings, bowling Brooke in the first session all go against conventional cricket, certainly test match cricket, thinking.  It seems to be working though doesn't it?

I think that it's pretty well documented that I was the first on here to suggest that Pope should be batting at 3. And by virtue that his average at 3 is far superior to the days when he batted down the order is proof enough. Stokes place in the side is determined by whether he can justify it as either a batsman or bowler. Moeen Ali's blisters have occurred because he hasn't bowled a single spell longer than four overs for two years. He might not bowl again in this Test or even in the series because of them. I think that we played the best seam attack for the First Test of the Ashes series. 

We are still in the match but we should, actually, probably be 50-100 runs ahead and probably only now about to start our second innings. I am not trying to be "Captain Hindsight" or "I told you so" because I certainly wasn't the only one that massively questioned the dropping of Foakes or that suggested that we should not have declared. You mention that we've won 11 of the previous 13 matches but, unless I'm mistaken, Foakes played in all of them bar the Ireland Test. Bairstow certainly didn't.

I've just asked my son about Bairstow. He is a County rated keeper who was coached by Geraint Jones and the same coach who brought through Sam Billings, Ollie Robinson and Jordan Cox. He says that Bairstow falls over and rolls so much for possibly the combination of two things - one because he is protecting that leg and that his mobility is probably affected by that and because he is carrying a bit of timber. The strength to be able to move quickly and to take the ball in a solid stance comes from the legs. The standing up is all about the movement of the hands and legs. The not coming up too early. The anticipation. The riding with the ball when it bounces. The ensuring that you take the ball with the left hand if you are standing up to a right hander because it will then go into your right hand if there is a nick and vice versa to the left hander. These are things that Foakes does in his sleep. Bairstow doesn't because he hasn't been keeping for any period of time in red ball. How many spinners has he stood up to at Yorkshire for example this season?

We are in a whole new brilliant era under Stokes/McCullum but any gamble has to be based on the opposition we are playing against. I got bored and fed up with our so predictable cricket under Cook and Root. Those endless times when we should have declared but wanted to ensure that we didn't lost the Test match rather than trying to win it. That does not mean, though, that we need to go too far the other way. These are the World Test Champions. We have to be bold but not as bold as we might be against certain sides including Ireland, for example, a I still maintain, again as I said at the time, that Stokes should have given himself the opportunity to bat.

The ultimate proof will be whether we win this series as you say and I am merely making my views known as to whether we were right to do certain things. But, if we aren't allowed to debate all the points you've raised, we might just as well close the thread and all just watch the cricket.