Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
I wonder if Ali would bat at 3 if Woakes wasn't playing?
I we played more "conventional" test cricket I would seriously consider batting Woakes at 3.
If you exclude Archer from the conversation this is our best pace bowling attack for English conditions. If the weather is anything like here Thursday will be the day to bat all day.0 -
Ali has batted at 3 a lot in 4-day county cricket, Woakes hasn't, is the long and short of it0
-
Bizarre isn't it. A bit like when Karl Robinson used to record a video on twitter an hour before the game explaining who was playing where.killerandflash said:Don't understand why we announce the team so early. It always used to be revealed after the coin toss5 -
Apart from anything else, seeing the pitch on the day would normally affect your team . Is it green, is it a road etcBen18 said:
Bizarre isn't it. A bit like when Karl Robinson used to record a video on twitter an hour before the game explaining who was playing where.killerandflash said:Don't understand why we announce the team so early. It always used to be revealed after the coin toss0 -
Nothing prevents England from changing their team right up to the time of the toss though. And, if giving away your team a long time before the match is seen as handing your opponents an advantage, then changing the team at the last minute would, in effect, take it back again.killerandflash said:
Apart from anything else, seeing the pitch on the day would normally affect your team . Is it green, is it a road etcBen18 said:
Bizarre isn't it. A bit like when Karl Robinson used to record a video on twitter an hour before the game explaining who was playing where.killerandflash said:Don't understand why we announce the team so early. It always used to be revealed after the coin toss
I don't think Australia's plans and preparation will change much simply through knowing their opponents' line-up.0 -
(1) The team to play Australia in their likely batting order:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Bairstow 36.34
8. Woakes 22.80
9. Broad 19.84
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 360.30
(2) The team to play Australia batting at the optimum batting average position for the team overall - as opposed to them as individuals (meaning Bairstow and Moeen switching and also Broad switching with Woakes):
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Moeen 33.48
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 384.52
(3) Leaving Bairstow out but keeping Moeen at 3 and bringing in Foakes at 7:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 369.12
(4) Going without Moeen and giving the gloves to Foakes, batting him at 7 and playing no front line spinner:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 386.74
(5) Playing Moeen (at 8) and Foakes (at 7) but leaving out Anderson and moving Broad to 11:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Moeen 25.93
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Broad 18.20
Total 401.20
Undoubtedly, the balance of the side does look best with (4) or (5) and that is reflected with the difference in the 26.44 and 40.90 respectively when compared with (1) and that doesn't even account for Foakes' superior keeping. Sadly, that injury to Stokes makes this an impossibility.
0 -
Stokes at 3 ,Bairstow at 6 ,Ali at 71
-
Stokes has batted once at 3 and scored 19. However, he did open against the Windies and score 78* off 57 balls. Equally, Crawley's mammoth score (267) against Pakistan did come when he was batting at 3.lolwray said:Stokes at 3 ,Bairstow at 6 ,Ali at 70 -
As admirable as it is, Moeen contacting the captain as he did in the last Test and saying "I fancy doing a job at 3" does smack a bit about what goes on in club cricket when no one wants to do the job. Most batsmen, it seems, want to bat at 4 or 5 it seems at all levels.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Watching Pakistan bat at the moment, they've adopted a Bazball approach (unsurprisingly given how well it worked on them). It got them in trouble early on but it's getting them back out of it now0
-
If you swop Bairtsow and Woakes round in (1) you get 50ish more average.Addick Addict said:(1) The team to play Australia in their likely batting order:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Bairstow 36.34
8. Woakes 22.80
9. Broad 19.84
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 360.30
(2) The team to play Australia batting at the optimum batting average position for the team overall - as opposed to them as individuals (meaning Bairstow and Moeen switching and also Broad switching with Woakes):
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Moeen 33.48
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 384.52
(3) Leaving Bairstow out but keeping Moeen at 3 and bringing in Foakes at 7:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 369.12
(4) Going without Moeen and giving the gloves to Foakes, batting him at 7 and playing no front line spinner:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 386.74
(5) Playing Moeen (at 8) and Foakes (at 7) but leaving out Anderson and moving Broad to 11:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Moeen 25.93
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Broad 18.20
Total 401.20
Undoubtedly, the balance of the side does look best with (4) or (5) and that is reflected with the difference in the 26.44 and 40.90 respectively when compared with (1) and that doesn't even account for Foakes' superior keeping. Sadly, that injury to Stokes makes this an impossibility.1 -
2 x 360 would have been more than enough runs to win all four Tests in England this Summer.Cafc43v3r said:
If you swop Bairtsow and Woakes round in (1) you get 50ish more average.Addick Addict said:(1) The team to play Australia in their likely batting order:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Bairstow 36.34
8. Woakes 22.80
9. Broad 19.84
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 360.30
(2) The team to play Australia batting at the optimum batting average position for the team overall - as opposed to them as individuals (meaning Bairstow and Moeen switching and also Broad switching with Woakes):
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Moeen 33.48
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 384.52
(3) Leaving Bairstow out but keeping Moeen at 3 and bringing in Foakes at 7:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 369.12
(4) Going without Moeen and giving the gloves to Foakes, batting him at 7 and playing no front line spinner:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 386.74
(5) Playing Moeen (at 8) and Foakes (at 7) but leaving out Anderson and moving Broad to 11:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Moeen 25.93
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Broad 18.20
Total 401.20
Undoubtedly, the balance of the side does look best with (4) or (5) and that is reflected with the difference in the 26.44 and 40.90 respectively when compared with (1) and that doesn't even account for Foakes' superior keeping. Sadly, that injury to Stokes makes this an impossibility.1 -
There's no way Woakes ever bats at 3.Cafc43v3r said:
If you swop Bairtsow and Woakes round in (1) you get 50ish more average.Addick Addict said:(1) The team to play Australia in their likely batting order:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Bairstow 36.34
8. Woakes 22.80
9. Broad 19.84
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 360.30
(2) The team to play Australia batting at the optimum batting average position for the team overall - as opposed to them as individuals (meaning Bairstow and Moeen switching and also Broad switching with Woakes):
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Moeen 33.48
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 384.52
(3) Leaving Bairstow out but keeping Moeen at 3 and bringing in Foakes at 7:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 369.12
(4) Going without Moeen and giving the gloves to Foakes, batting him at 7 and playing no front line spinner:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 386.74
(5) Playing Moeen (at 8) and Foakes (at 7) but leaving out Anderson and moving Broad to 11:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Moeen 25.93
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Broad 18.20
Total 401.20
Undoubtedly, the balance of the side does look best with (4) or (5) and that is reflected with the difference in the 26.44 and 40.90 respectively when compared with (1) and that doesn't even account for Foakes' superior keeping. Sadly, that injury to Stokes makes this an impossibility.
He's a bowling all-rounder, a decent option anywhere from 7 to 9 in the order.6 -
This is where we’re missing Jack Leach, not as a spin option, but stick him in as an opener he averages 92 batting there.6
-
That is correct though I can't help thinking that Bairstow would be throwing his toys out of the pram having to bat at 8Cafc43v3r said:
If you swop Bairtsow and Woakes round in (1) you get 50ish more average.Addick Addict said:(1) The team to play Australia in their likely batting order:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Bairstow 36.34
8. Woakes 22.80
9. Broad 19.84
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 360.30
(2) The team to play Australia batting at the optimum batting average position for the team overall - as opposed to them as individuals (meaning Bairstow and Moeen switching and also Broad switching with Woakes):
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Moeen 33.48
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 384.52
(3) Leaving Bairstow out but keeping Moeen at 3 and bringing in Foakes at 7:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 369.12
(4) Going without Moeen and giving the gloves to Foakes, batting him at 7 and playing no front line spinner:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 386.74
(5) Playing Moeen (at 8) and Foakes (at 7) but leaving out Anderson and moving Broad to 11:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Moeen 25.93
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Broad 18.20
Total 401.20
Undoubtedly, the balance of the side does look best with (4) or (5) and that is reflected with the difference in the 26.44 and 40.90 respectively when compared with (1) and that doesn't even account for Foakes' superior keeping. Sadly, that injury to Stokes makes this an impossibility.
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Woakes 70.25
8. Bairstow 37.33
9. Broad 19.84
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 408.71
And switching Woakes (to 7) Foakes (to 8) and Moeen (to 9) in (5) makes that order the best statistically
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Woakes 70.25
8. Foakes 24.44
9. Moeen 33.00
10. Wood 16.05
11. Broad 18.20
Total 436.80
0 -
You could substitute woakes from your post and add Ali and it would still be validmid_life_crisis said:
There's no way Woakes ever bats at 3.Cafc43v3r said:
If you swop Bairtsow and Woakes round in (1) you get 50ish more average.Addick Addict said:(1) The team to play Australia in their likely batting order:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Bairstow 36.34
8. Woakes 22.80
9. Broad 19.84
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 360.30
(2) The team to play Australia batting at the optimum batting average position for the team overall - as opposed to them as individuals (meaning Bairstow and Moeen switching and also Broad switching with Woakes):
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Moeen 33.48
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 384.52
(3) Leaving Bairstow out but keeping Moeen at 3 and bringing in Foakes at 7:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 369.12
(4) Going without Moeen and giving the gloves to Foakes, batting him at 7 and playing no front line spinner:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 386.74
(5) Playing Moeen (at 8) and Foakes (at 7) but leaving out Anderson and moving Broad to 11:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Moeen 25.93
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Broad 18.20
Total 401.20
Undoubtedly, the balance of the side does look best with (4) or (5) and that is reflected with the difference in the 26.44 and 40.90 respectively when compared with (1) and that doesn't even account for Foakes' superior keeping. Sadly, that injury to Stokes makes this an impossibility.
He's a bowling all-rounder, a decent option anywhere from 7 to 9 in the order.0 -
Well he averages 40 batting at 3....mid_life_crisis said:
There's no way Woakes ever bats at 3.Cafc43v3r said:
If you swop Bairtsow and Woakes round in (1) you get 50ish more average.Addick Addict said:(1) The team to play Australia in their likely batting order:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Bairstow 36.34
8. Woakes 22.80
9. Broad 19.84
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 360.30
(2) The team to play Australia batting at the optimum batting average position for the team overall - as opposed to them as individuals (meaning Bairstow and Moeen switching and also Broad switching with Woakes):
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Moeen 33.48
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 384.52
(3) Leaving Bairstow out but keeping Moeen at 3 and bringing in Foakes at 7:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Moeen 13.14
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 369.12
(4) Going without Moeen and giving the gloves to Foakes, batting him at 7 and playing no front line spinner:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Broad 21.64
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Anderson 8.03
Total 386.74
(5) Playing Moeen (at 8) and Foakes (at 7) but leaving out Anderson and moving Broad to 11:
1. Crawley 29.00
2. Duckett 50.95
3. Bairstow 30.76
4. Root 52.24
5. Brook 74.69
6. Stokes 37.22
7. Foakes 35.70
8. Moeen 25.93
9. Woakes 30.46
10. Wood 16.05
11. Broad 18.20
Total 401.20
Undoubtedly, the balance of the side does look best with (4) or (5) and that is reflected with the difference in the 26.44 and 40.90 respectively when compared with (1) and that doesn't even account for Foakes' superior keeping. Sadly, that injury to Stokes makes this an impossibility.
He's a bowling all-rounder, a decent option anywhere from 7 to 9 in the order.
So obviously he has batted at 3.0 -
I fancy Moeen to score some runs at 3 this test. Would love Bairstow to play an innings like he did last year but less confident that one will happen.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Last time we won an Ashes Test at Old Trafford was 1981. If we don't win this one then it will be at least 50 years between victories there as there are no Tests north of Trent Bridge in 2027.0
-
Anderson hasn't beaten Australia since the 2015 Edgbaston test. Steve Finn was MoM and Cook the skipper.0
-
Addick Addict said:Last time we won an Ashes Test at Old Trafford was 1981. If we don't win this one then it will be at least 50 years between victories there as there are no Tests north of Trent Bridge in 2027.
With the poor weather and those stats, the draw at 4.50 looks rather big!Cafc43v3r said:Anderson hasn't beaten Australia since the 2015 Edgbaston test. Steve Finn was MoM and Cook the skipper.0 -
I don't know if the weather makes the draw odds on or a rank outsider.Addick Addict said:Addick Addict said:Last time we won an Ashes Test at Old Trafford was 1981. If we don't win this one then it will be at least 50 years between victories there as there are no Tests north of Trent Bridge in 2027.
With the poor weather and those stats, the draw at 4.50 looks rather big!Cafc43v3r said:Anderson hasn't beaten Australia since the 2015 Edgbaston test. Steve Finn was MoM and Cook the skipper.
You might not get much play but if it's anything like that mini session England batted in at Edgbaston how many overs would Anderson, Woakes, Cummings, Starc et al need to take 40 wickets?
I don't think Ali will do much bowling.0 -
Whisper it quietly but Zak Crawley is so far nailing this Ashes
Polarising opener might not have converted the doubters but he could yet help win the Ashes
He is playing Pat Cummins and Mitchell Starc better than anyone this Ashes series. His strike rate of 79.67 is the highest among those on either side to have played more than one of the three Tests. All while nestling in the run-scorers' charts ahead of Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne.He is Zak Crawley. No, really. Don't refresh just yet. He is him. The most-polarising cricketer over the last 15 months is thriving as the one Bazballer truly nailing his brief.Taking the attack to the opposition, quite literally from ball one when his crunched cover drive off Cummins on that first morning of the first Test in Birmingham set this madcap show on the road. Indulging in the licence to be streaky handed down by head coach Brendon McCullum with scores of 61, 7, 48, 3, 33 and 44 - the last of which got England to 93 in the 20th over of the fourth innings as they hunted a target of 251 that was eventually reached after 50, with three wickets to spare.Cummins, boogieman to Joe Root and a few other diners at Test cricket's top table, has failed to dismiss Crawley in 96 deliveries so far, with 69 runs taken off him in languid fashion. Starc's devastating left-arm whip has accounted for Crawley once, and even that was a tame flick down the leg side at Lord's. The other 48 deliveries have been taken for 42.An opening partnership with Ben Duckett that began last winter in Pakistan has now produced 814 runs across 18 first-wicket stands, averaging 47.88. The pair are ideally suited, left-right, short-tall and both with an insatiable appetite to feel bat on ball and get the scoreboard moving. Their relationship has blossomed and as individuals, they are comfortable with where they are and what they are doing.There's a lot to be said for that, particularly Crawley's side of it. A dispiriting 2022 summer averaging 23 led into disappointing winter of 29.30 on flatter decks. And when he started this season stating he did not need to work on his defensive technique and dismissing public comments on his form as ill-judged, ill-informed and unwarranted, you wondered if he was leaning too heavily into a villain arc he could not pull off.Thankfully, he hasn't. He has retained his sense of self, particularly in a dressing room where he remains a vocal member of an upbeat group thriving in each other's company.The investment made by McCullum and Ben Stokes at the start of all this is beginning to show returns. At stages last summer, coach and captain took it upon themselves to get around Crawley. More often than not a beer, cigar and a willing ear. On one occasion, they manufactured a three-ball group on a golf day to ensure they had 18 holes with their opener to ease his worries, either through airing or forgetting them.Crawley does seem surer of himself this summer. Perhaps less in need of reassurance because, well, he is doing his job. He is certainly more inclined to let his personality out. It's worth noting his comment ahead of the Lord's Test that England would win by "I don't know, 150" - instead they lost by 43 - was one given in jest, while twirling back-and-forth on an office chair in the Times Radio studio. The video shows the jovial nature of the prediction which got lost in print.Perhaps the most visible representation of his comfort has come in the field. Not only has he taken the third-most catches by an outfielder this series (five, with no drops) he regularly chimes from second slip or in the deep with tactical suggestions for Stokes.The journey to this point has been long, at times arduous. But here he is: able to judge himself on how he has executed the role has without worrying about how things used to be done. Basically, that means not measuring his performance by traditional batting metrics.At this point, we should introduce those "traditional metrics" to this conversation. Because for all of the above, they're still pretty relevant. Crawley is averaging 32.66 from 196 runs this series. To cynical eyes - the majority on this topic - they tell a familiar story of spurned-starts and non-starts.If you arrived into this series unconvinced Crawley was the right man to open the batting, the last six innings are unlikely to have changed your view. Since McCullum and Stokes took over to "liberate" Crawley, his career average has increased by 0.05 to 28.65. Pretty much everyone else, working within the same parameters, has enjoyed a more significant bump.Peer across the divide and you will see Australia's selectors mulling over David Warner's position. Though Warner is having a poor series - 141 at 23.50 - his substantial body of work suggests dropping him is riskier than keeping him. Crawley on the other hand, has nothing like the same credit. Indeed, the idea of him is built upon future earnings. Were they in each other's shoes, Warner would coast through this tour, and the latter probably wouldn't be on it.In a way, Warner's predicament highlights the difficulties of opening the batting in England. And Crawley's management acknowledges the toughness of the role, maybe even the need to be insulated from the discourse and your own numbers.Those two aspects go hand-in-hand when it comes to Crawley. But we are now at the stage where the extremes are so set in stone that even the mother of all purple-patches won't tailor the conversation.On one side, an England team and management who laud world-class abilities, extrapolating these smaller contributions in the process. On Monday, Moeen Ali became the latest to step up on that front."I think when you're on his side, you think he's an absolutely gun player," Moeen said. "It's almost like the faster and the better the bowler, he plays better. In my opinion, he's one of the best players around. I know his average probably doesn't say that, but the way he bats, he's proper. Hopefully, when it clicks for him, he'll score a lot of runs."Then there's the other end of the spectrum, those who see Crawley as the perfect embodiment of elitism and favouritism. A fee-paying school attendee, from a wealthy family - his father, Terry, was at one point the fifth-richest Briton on the Sunday Times rich list - whose mentor, Rob Key, is now ECB managing director of men's cricket. The picture painted with broad strokes are of a nepo-baby of Brooklyn Beckham proportions, with an inexplicable Greg from Succession permanence as one of three players, along with Stokes and Root, to have played all 16 Tests of the new era.Many within that second camp are not for turning, and you can understand why. Some of the factors at play are beyond Crawley's control. It has been two weeks since the ICEC published their report which skewered the ring-fencing of the game, particularly how beholden it is to the private school system. Crawley, a product of that system, is no more the cause than he can be the antidote.As always with matters of privilege and fortune, wasting both would be far worse than having them in the first place. Having made it this far and looked at his most comfortable against the best bowlers in the world, Crawley must continue this rise in form. It may not convert the doubters, but it could yet win England the Ashes.7 -
Ali at 3 is a recipe for disaster. Lose an opener and 1 down will shortly be followed by 2 down.0
-
And yet, by moving Ali to 3 - thereby allowing Brook to move back to 5 - England were able to secure their only win of the series so far.golfaddick said:Ali at 3 is a recipe for disaster. Lose an opener and 1 down will shortly be followed by 2 down.2 -
https://wisden.com/series-stories/ashes-2023/ashes-2023-moeen-ali-at-no-3-can-be-a-success-for-england-even-if-its-not-for-him
Ashes 2023: Moeen Ali at No.3 can be a success for England, even if it’s not for him
by Ben Gardner @Ben_Wisden July 17, 2023 - 6:40pm
Can I preface this by saying that Moeen Ali is, on balance, my favourite cricketer?
Certainly, he’s England’s most underrated in recent times. A genuine match-winner with the ball – just look at that strike rate – with a sensational fourth-innings record and, at one point, a proper all-rounder, capable of locking down a spot in the top six and serving as a frontline bowler. He has brought more joy to England fans than he is often given credit for. He is a double World Cup winner, an Ashes winner, and will be remembered as a great of English cricket.
All of which is a prelude to saying: Moeen probably won’t be a success at No.3 in the Ashes. Not by the conventional metrics, of runs and averages, if it’s not now too gauche to reference such staid statistics. The recent numbers are not encouraging. Moeen has a high score of 60 in Test cricket since 2017, and he has averaged less than 20 in that time. Sure, first-drops sometimes fall early. Ollie Pope said last year that batting at No.3 is “only one ball different from No.4”, an indicator of how it’s possible to adjust, but also of the perils of the post. But there is usually an expectation that at some point a No.3 will make a contribution. With Moeen, that’s a faint hope. And even he knows it. “That would be amazing obviously,” he said, when asked if he can fulfil the dream of making an Ashes hundred. “But you’ve got to be a bit more realistic.”
And yet somehow, still, this move makes a kind of warped sense. There is a cricketing argument. You can see glimpses of the batter Moeen once was if you really want to, perhaps in the 46 first-innings balls faced at Headingley, or the improvement in his T20I returns in 2022. These days, you should always expect the unexpected, and nothing would be more so than Moeen peeling off a hundred at Old Trafford. Even a few starts might be enough. See off the openers and the first change, make them wear down the ball with a bouncer barrage, allow those beneath to get going against the greenhorn spinner and the all-rounders.
It’s the effect on everyone else that’s key. With the captain unable to bowl, this is the only way to balance the XI, with Moeen as the spinner and four other quicks. Then you have to figure out the order from there.
Sherlock Holmes probably wasn’t talking about England’s No.3 conundrum when he said, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. but it fits. Joe Root: could but won’t. Harry Brook: would but shouldn’t. Ben Stokes: best left with the tail. Jonny Bairstow: don’t even think about it. Moeen is willing, and you’re not sacrificing much by moving him from No.7. And once you do that, everything else fits.
It’s crucial that Moeen wants this. It was he who approached Brendon McCullum with the idea ahead of Headingley’s final day, explaining how he wanted a proper piece of the action. There’s a sad sweetness here. Moeen has spent his whole career getting messed around, without his full value being celebrated. Now he has finally found himself in a team that loves him for who he is, and he’s realised he misses the nonsense. He is raring to go. Maybe that’s enough.
England have made a virtue, much mocked by the Aussies, of feeling like they’ve won even when they’ve lost. And this is a move that can’t really fail, because the hope of individual success is remote. Should anyone from No.4 down make a score, England will argue that Moeen being at No.3 was part of the reason why.
Still, there is an oddness here, in picking, essentially, a sacrificial No.3 so everyone else can feel normal. England have removed much of the mystery of Test cricket, done what they can to challenge the assumed orthodoxies and received wisdoms that have weighed down sides of the past. Now here they are moving things around to ensure Root and the rest can have their favourite numbers next to their names. And yet it does look safer. Bairstow at seven and Chris Woakes at eight. That feels good. Some players do just play better when they are where they want to be.
The greater triumph here is in overturning the narratives of Ashes past. It’s standard for any encounter with Australia to see England’s plans ripped apart. It’s a fun game, at the start of any tour, to try and predict their XI for the final Test, but even the most creative of England fans wouldn’t have had Moeen Ali at No.3 for half of an Ashes series at the start of June. But here we are, and it doesn’t feel like madness.
4 -
That article mentions Zak's slip catching. Warner is similar, a very reliable member of the corden which is a key role.0
-
4.2-4.3 the draw
go away rain0
