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?
So Chizz you said I was stupid for suggesting the above changes.
I said I would play Stokes at 5, how has he done there? I would drop Ali for Leach, how did that work out? I would play Archer in the second test, he didn’t play badly did he?
I will answer your questions, and invite you to answer mine.
Stokes has been brilliant at five (although there's little evidence that he wouldn't also have been brilliant at six). Ali didn't do much at Lord's (we're talking about your selection for Lord's), but his three wickets took us close to a win, but didn't get us over the line. Archer did well at Lord's (but, in fairness, there's no-one in the country who wouldn't have picked him).
But, you also picked Anderson for Lord's - that wouldn't have worked. In retrospect Roy wasn't a great pick at Lord's. Bairstow's partnership with Stokes set up the declaration, but you didn't pick him. Denly didn't make runs at Lord's but I think the consistency that has been shown by continuing to pick him at four helped with his match-turning partnership with Root at Headingley.
My criticism for your selection - and everyone else who does the same - is mainly because I don't think it's right to pick teams for future games, while there is one in progress. It's more to do with when, rather than whom. But, I have also spelled out why I think some of your picks were sub-optimal.
So, here's my question to you: where did I say you were stupid? (In context, you're not. I might have questioned some of your selections, but I referred to them as interesting and bold, but not stupid).
We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns Denly Root Stokes Pope Bairstow Buttler Archer Broad Leach Anderson
I'd have Leach in front of Broad and possibly even Archer, he has showed stickability, which can help the earlier batsmen.
Can I just ask those championing Curren to play in the next test, do you think he is the best bowler avaliable? Or is there a lot of weight placed on his batting?
A very good question.
If you want to pick Curran because you want someone to score runs, then pick a batsman. If you want a batting all-rounder, you've already got the best in the world in the team. But, if you want a medium-paced left-armer, then pick Curran - but not because he just might get some runs.
Also, as the next Test is at Old Trafford, make sure you've sorted out the spinning options first, before you dish out caps to the luxury players.
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?
So Chizz you said I was stupid for suggesting the above changes.
I said I would play Stokes at 5, how has he done there? I would drop Ali for Leach, how did that work out? I would play Archer in the second test, he didn’t play badly did he?
I will answer your questions, and invite you to answer mine.
Stokes has been brilliant at five (although there's little evidence that he wouldn't also have been brilliant at six). Ali didn't do much at Lord's (we're talking about your selection for Lord's), but his three wickets took us close to a win, but didn't get us over the line. Archer did well at Lord's (but, in fairness, there's no-one in the country who wouldn't have picked him).
But, you also picked Anderson for Lord's - that wouldn't have worked. In retrospect Roy wasn't a great pick at Lord's. Bairstow's partnership with Stokes set up the declaration, but you didn't pick him. Denly didn't make runs at Lord's but I think the consistency that has been shown by continuing to pick him at four helped with his match-turning partnership with Root at Headingley.
My criticism for your selection - and everyone else who does the same - is mainly because I don't think it's right to pick teams for future games, while there is one in progress. It's more to do with when, rather than whom. But, I have also spelled out why I think some of your picks were sub-optimal.
So, here's my question to you: where did I say you were stupid? (In context, you're not. I might have questioned some of your selections, but I referred to them as interesting and bold, but not stupid).
Ok maybe not stupid but “other adjectives”. I invited you to let me know what those were but you declined.
End of the day we lost that first test and we are unbeaten since, I think the changes I suggested helped that. Backtrack all you want
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?
So Chizz you said I was stupid for suggesting the above changes.
I said I would play Stokes at 5, how has he done there? I would drop Ali for Leach, how did that work out? I would play Archer in the second test, he didn’t play badly did he?
I will answer your questions, and invite you to answer mine.
Stokes has been brilliant at five (although there's little evidence that he wouldn't also have been brilliant at six). Ali didn't do much at Lord's (we're talking about your selection for Lord's), but his three wickets took us close to a win, but didn't get us over the line. Archer did well at Lord's (but, in fairness, there's no-one in the country who wouldn't have picked him).
But, you also picked Anderson for Lord's - that wouldn't have worked. In retrospect Roy wasn't a great pick at Lord's. Bairstow's partnership with Stokes set up the declaration, but you didn't pick him. Denly didn't make runs at Lord's but I think the consistency that has been shown by continuing to pick him at four helped with his match-turning partnership with Root at Headingley.
My criticism for your selection - and everyone else who does the same - is mainly because I don't think it's right to pick teams for future games, while there is one in progress. It's more to do with when, rather than whom. But, I have also spelled out why I think some of your picks were sub-optimal.
So, here's my question to you: where did I say you were stupid? (In context, you're not. I might have questioned some of your selections, but I referred to them as interesting and bold, but not stupid).
Ok maybe not stupid but “other adjectives”. I invited you to let me know what those were but you declined.
End of the day we lost that first test and we are unbeaten since, I think the changes I suggested helped that. Backtrack all you want
We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns Denly Root Stokes Pope Bairstow Buttler Archer Broad Leach Anderson
I'd have Leach in front of Broad and possibly even Archer, he has showed stickability, which can help the earlier batsmen.
We certainly need to be flexible with the batting order. If we want quick runs, Archer and Broad are shotmakers, whereas if we need someone to hang around, Leach is very good at that
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?
So Chizz you said I was stupid for suggesting the above changes.
I said I would play Stokes at 5, how has he done there? I would drop Ali for Leach, how did that work out? I would play Archer in the second test, he didn’t play badly did he?
I will answer your questions, and invite you to answer mine.
Stokes has been brilliant at five (although there's little evidence that he wouldn't also have been brilliant at six). Ali didn't do much at Lord's (we're talking about your selection for Lord's), but his three wickets took us close to a win, but didn't get us over the line. Archer did well at Lord's (but, in fairness, there's no-one in the country who wouldn't have picked him).
But, you also picked Anderson for Lord's - that wouldn't have worked. In retrospect Roy wasn't a great pick at Lord's. Bairstow's partnership with Stokes set up the declaration, but you didn't pick him. Denly didn't make runs at Lord's but I think the consistency that has been shown by continuing to pick him at four helped with his match-turning partnership with Root at Headingley.
My criticism for your selection - and everyone else who does the same - is mainly because I don't think it's right to pick teams for future games, while there is one in progress. It's more to do with when, rather than whom. But, I have also spelled out why I think some of your picks were sub-optimal.
So, here's my question to you: where did I say you were stupid? (In context, you're not. I might have questioned some of your selections, but I referred to them as interesting and bold, but not stupid).
Ok maybe not stupid but “other adjectives”. I invited you to let me know what those were but you declined.
End of the day we lost that first test and we are unbeaten since, I think the changes I suggested helped that. Backtrack all you want
I'm not backtracking, I assumed one of the adjectives you were calling me was stupid. I can't say for sure because you wouldn't elaborate. Maybe I made the wrong assumption.
Nobody in the country wouldn't have picked Archer? Except maybe you? As you wanted him to prove his fitness "in a number of white ball games".
You didn't want Stokes batting at 5 but he has scored two centuries since moving there, one of them a match winning one (arguably the greatest test match innings of all time). There is no evidence he wouldn't have done it at 6 but whatever cannot be argued is that he has excellent form at 5.
Since dropping Ali we have won every match. I suspect if he had played instead of Leach we would have lost yesterday as he would have come in at 8, tried to hit every ball for a boundary and gone for 8 off 3 balls. Leaving Broad as last man with Stokes and he would have bottled it.
I will hold my hands up on Bairstow. I thought he should be dropped over Buttler. I would now have that the other way round.
I was the first who wanted Ali dropped (about 3 years ago!) - so the turnaround is all down to me.
I don't think Leach is much better. I think the bottom line is we don't have a quality spinner. Ali has done a decent job and was picked mainly because he was useful to have at Number 8. But when he isn't in form with the bat he shouldn't be picked.
I was the first who wanted Ali dropped (about 3 years ago!) - so the turnaround is all down to me.
I don't think Leach is much better. I think the bottom line is we don't have a quality spinner. Ali has done a decent job and was picked mainly because he was useful to have at Number 8. But when he isn't in form with the bat he shouldn't be picked.
I think Leach gives Root more control - he clearly knows how to bowl spin tightly - which Ali wasn't giving him - whether he spins it much is another question. I just knew that Ali would be useless against the Aussies because he's fine when he is coming in when we are 400-5, but has zero backbone for a fight - which Ashes cricket is mostly about - its 2 boxers slugging each other.
terrific win .. glass half empty .. this will mean no changes for Old Trafford even though our batting is as fragile as a butterfly's wings and the bowlers will need more than a few days feet up, except for the indestructible Stokes ..
glass half full .. the Aussies are shell shocked .. their batsmen look as nervous as crocodiles in a shoe factory and their bowlers will be as cream crackered as ours .. except for Starc who's been kept on ice .. best place in this weather
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?
So Chizz you said I was stupid for suggesting the above changes.
I said I would play Stokes at 5, how has he done there? I would drop Ali for Leach, how did that work out? I would play Archer in the second test, he didn’t play badly did he?
I will answer your questions, and invite you to answer mine.
Stokes has been brilliant at five (although there's little evidence that he wouldn't also have been brilliant at six). Ali didn't do much at Lord's (we're talking about your selection for Lord's), but his three wickets took us close to a win, but didn't get us over the line. Archer did well at Lord's (but, in fairness, there's no-one in the country who wouldn't have picked him).
But, you also picked Anderson for Lord's - that wouldn't have worked. In retrospect Roy wasn't a great pick at Lord's. Bairstow's partnership with Stokes set up the declaration, but you didn't pick him. Denly didn't make runs at Lord's but I think the consistency that has been shown by continuing to pick him at four helped with his match-turning partnership with Root at Headingley.
My criticism for your selection - and everyone else who does the same - is mainly because I don't think it's right to pick teams for future games, while there is one in progress. It's more to do with when, rather than whom. But, I have also spelled out why I think some of your picks were sub-optimal.
So, here's my question to you: where did I say you were stupid? (In context, you're not. I might have questioned some of your selections, but I referred to them as interesting and bold, but not stupid).
Ok maybe not stupid but “other adjectives”. I invited you to let me know what those were but you declined.
End of the day we lost that first test and we are unbeaten since, I think the changes I suggested helped that. Backtrack all you want
I'm not backtracking, I assumed one of the adjectives you were calling me was stupid. I can't say for sure because you wouldn't elaborate. Maybe I made the wrong assumption.
Nobody in the country wouldn't have picked Archer? Except maybe you? As you wanted him to prove his fitness "in a number of white ball games".
You didn't want Stokes batting at 5 but he has scored two centuries since moving there, one of them a match winning one (arguably the greatest test match innings of all time). There is no evidence he wouldn't have done it at 6 but whatever cannot be argued is that he has excellent form at 5.
Since dropping Ali we have won every match. I suspect if he had played instead of Leach we would have lost yesterday as he would have come in at 8, tried to hit every ball for a boundary and gone for 8 off 3 balls. Leaving Broad as last man with Stokes and he would have bottled it.
I will hold my hands up on Bairstow. I thought he should be dropped over Buttler. I would now have that the other way round.
We might be in danger of boring other posters on here, so I will suggest ending this conversation. But let me clarify some of the other assumptions you've made.
I was fully in support of Archer playing at Lord's (and at Headingley; and, for what it's worth, either or both of Old Trafford and the Oval). I didn't say I wanted him to prove his fitness, I was pointing out that at the time you picked him, he was still having to do so. However, I did question the idea of selecting both Archer and Anderson, given their fitness issues. I hope you'll agree that my doubts were proven (that is, Anderson would not have been a good pick at Lord's).
I didn't - and don't - want Stokes batting at five. My preference is for him batting at six. He's in excellent form at five, which is great. The fact that he's made two brilliant centuries at five doesn't mean he can't bat at six.
I would have picked Leach for Headingley, as he had been picked for Lord's. (You make an interesting point about whether we would still have won had Moeen been playing yesterday. You suggest he would have tried to hit every ball for six if he had been batting at eight. He would either have succeeded - in which case we would have won much more easily - or he'd have failed and he'd have been out for nought - in which case, you could argue that, as our number eight only made one run anyway, we would still have won, finishing on 361/9 instead of 362/9).
You're suggesting Buttler should be dropped. I don't agree - I am a huge fan of Jos Buttler - but I won't criticise you for making that call, as now is the right time to pick the next Test side (as opposed to part-way through a match, which a lot of people do).
With regard to your assertion that "since dropping Ali we have won every match", I will just leave that hanging there.
I was the first who wanted Ali dropped (about 3 years ago!) - so the turnaround is all down to me.
I don't think Leach is much better. I think the bottom line is we don't have a quality spinner. Ali has done a decent job and was picked mainly because he was useful to have at Number 8. But when he isn't in form with the bat he shouldn't be picked.
I think Leach gives Root more control - he clearly knows how to bowl spin tightly - which Ali wasn't giving him - whether he spins it much is another question. I just knew that Ali would be useless against the Aussies because he's fine when he is coming in when we are 400-5, but has zero backbone for a fight - which Ashes cricket is mostly about - its 2 boxers slugging each other.
Fair points, and I absolutely agree with Leach over Ali.
Longer term though we do need a better spinner than Leach. Don't want to get into that debate now, his battling score of 1 yesterday played its part in one of the greatest hours of test cricket ever.
I was the first who wanted Ali dropped (about 3 years ago!) - so the turnaround is all down to me.
I don't think Leach is much better. I think the bottom line is we don't have a quality spinner. Ali has done a decent job and was picked mainly because he was useful to have at Number 8. But when he isn't in form with the bat he shouldn't be picked.
I think Leach gives Root more control - he clearly knows how to bowl spin tightly - which Ali wasn't giving him - whether he spins it much is another question. I just knew that Ali would be useless against the Aussies because he's fine when he is coming in when we are 400-5, but has zero backbone for a fight - which Ashes cricket is mostly about - its 2 boxers slugging each other.
Fair points, and I absolutely agree with Leach over Ali.
Longer term though we do need a better spinner than Leach. Don't want to get into that debate now, his battling score of 1 yesterday played its part in one of the greatest hours of test cricket ever.
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?
So Chizz you said I was stupid for suggesting the above changes.
I said I would play Stokes at 5, how has he done there? I would drop Ali for Leach, how did that work out? I would play Archer in the second test, he didn’t play badly did he?
I will answer your questions, and invite you to answer mine.
Stokes has been brilliant at five (although there's little evidence that he wouldn't also have been brilliant at six). Ali didn't do much at Lord's (we're talking about your selection for Lord's), but his three wickets took us close to a win, but didn't get us over the line. Archer did well at Lord's (but, in fairness, there's no-one in the country who wouldn't have picked him).
But, you also picked Anderson for Lord's - that wouldn't have worked. In retrospect Roy wasn't a great pick at Lord's. Bairstow's partnership with Stokes set up the declaration, but you didn't pick him. Denly didn't make runs at Lord's but I think the consistency that has been shown by continuing to pick him at four helped with his match-turning partnership with Root at Headingley.
My criticism for your selection - and everyone else who does the same - is mainly because I don't think it's right to pick teams for future games, while there is one in progress. It's more to do with when, rather than whom. But, I have also spelled out why I think some of your picks were sub-optimal.
So, here's my question to you: where did I say you were stupid? (In context, you're not. I might have questioned some of your selections, but I referred to them as interesting and bold, but not stupid).
Ok maybe not stupid but “other adjectives”. I invited you to let me know what those were but you declined.
End of the day we lost that first test and we are unbeaten since, I think the changes I suggested helped that. Backtrack all you want
I'm not backtracking, I assumed one of the adjectives you were calling me was stupid. I can't say for sure because you wouldn't elaborate. Maybe I made the wrong assumption.
Nobody in the country wouldn't have picked Archer? Except maybe you? As you wanted him to prove his fitness "in a number of white ball games".
You didn't want Stokes batting at 5 but he has scored two centuries since moving there, one of them a match winning one (arguably the greatest test match innings of all time). There is no evidence he wouldn't have done it at 6 but whatever cannot be argued is that he has excellent form at 5.
Since dropping Ali we have won every match. I suspect if he had played instead of Leach we would have lost yesterday as he would have come in at 8, tried to hit every ball for a boundary and gone for 8 off 3 balls. Leaving Broad as last man with Stokes and he would have bottled it.
I will hold my hands up on Bairstow. I thought he should be dropped over Buttler. I would now have that the other way round.
We might be in danger of boring other posters on here, so I will suggest ending this conversation. But let me clarify some of the other assumptions you've made.
I was fully in support of Archer playing at Lord's (and at Headingley; and, for what it's worth, either or both of Old Trafford and the Oval). I didn't say I wanted him to prove his fitness, I was pointing out that at the time you picked him, he was still having to do so. However, I did question the idea of selecting both Archer and Anderson, given their fitness issues. I hope you'll agree that my doubts were proven (that is, Anderson would not have been a good pick at Lord's).
I didn't - and don't - want Stokes batting at five. My preference is for him batting at six. He's in excellent form at five, which is great. The fact that he's made two brilliant centuries at five doesn't mean he can't bat at six.
I would have picked Leach for Headingley, as he had been picked for Lord's. (You make an interesting point about whether we would still have won had Moeen been playing yesterday. You suggest he would have tried to hit every ball for six if he had been batting at eight. He would either have succeeded - in which case we would have won much more easily - or he'd have failed and he'd have been out for nought - in which case, you could argue that, as our number eight only made one run anyway, we would still have won, finishing on 361/9 instead of 362/9).
You're suggesting Buttler should be dropped. I don't agree - I am a huge fan of Jos Buttler - but I won't criticise you for making that call, as now is the right time to pick the next Test side (as opposed to part-way through a match, which a lot of people do).
With regard to your assertion that "since dropping Ali we have won every match", I will just leave that hanging there.
You on Archer during the first test - "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 clearly say you wouldn't pick Archer until he has proved his fitness, which you say he needed to do playing a number of white ball games. So yes you are now backtracking saying you would have picked him. I agree about Anderson, but I stand by the fact I would have picked him if he was fit. I stated that initially. He wasn't fit so I wouldn't have picked him either.
I agree about Stokes. I think his best position is at 6. But during this series I have always thought he should bat 5 because of the lack of options we have elsewhere. I would have him above Buttler and Bairstow (and Foakes who I suggested should play). Going forward I hope we have enough decent batsman to put him down to 6. We don't at the minute.
I respect your opinion on Buttler. He was unlucky to be out but he looks like he needs a rest to me.
Regarding Ali I meant to say we hadn't lost. The drama of yesterday got to me! In the same way you made a mistake regarding Ali a short while ago.
It's probably all been said above. For my part, given the situation and circumstances of the game, Stokes' innings is the best I have ever seen, and I have been watching and enjoying cricket for nearly 60 years. He not only hammered every bowler, he nurtured and shepherded the lower order and was always in complete control. It was the innings of a complete master and proves that in a 'crisis' (this is sport after all not war or famine) Stokes is an absolute general of a warrior. If it weren't for my bad knee, I'd do a Haka in his honour ((:>)
It's probably all been said above. For my part, given the situation and circumstances of the game, Stokes' innings is the best I have ever seen, and I have been watching and enjoying cricket for nearly 60 years. He not only hammered every bowler, he nurtured and shepherded the lower order and was always in complete control. It was the innings of a complete master and proves that in a 'crisis' (this is sport after all not war or famine) Stokes is an absolute general of a warrior. If it weren't for my bad knee, I'd do a Haka in his honour ((:>)
Yesterday, I only saw the first session, as had to go to City Airport to catch my flight home and only found out the result when landing in Lux. Gutted not to have watched it live- its just not the same watching it on highlights knowing the result. in 2005, I didn't see the last day at Edgbaston because I was flying to Stockholm, and also only found out the result when landing. Gutted then too.
I think after one of the greatest England Test wins of all time, people on here should stop arguing the toss and enjoy the "moment".
Fair enough, I am a pessimist though, already fearing a Aussie backlash for the next test! Just hope we kick on from this! Denly and Bairstow especially found a little form and battled hard.
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?
So Chizz you said I was stupid for suggesting the above changes.
I said I would play Stokes at 5, how has he done there? I would drop Ali for Leach, how did that work out? I would play Archer in the second test, he didn’t play badly did he?
I will answer your questions, and invite you to answer mine.
Stokes has been brilliant at five (although there's little evidence that he wouldn't also have been brilliant at six). Ali didn't do much at Lord's (we're talking about your selection for Lord's), but his three wickets took us close to a win, but didn't get us over the line. Archer did well at Lord's (but, in fairness, there's no-one in the country who wouldn't have picked him).
But, you also picked Anderson for Lord's - that wouldn't have worked. In retrospect Roy wasn't a great pick at Lord's. Bairstow's partnership with Stokes set up the declaration, but you didn't pick him. Denly didn't make runs at Lord's but I think the consistency that has been shown by continuing to pick him at four helped with his match-turning partnership with Root at Headingley.
My criticism for your selection - and everyone else who does the same - is mainly because I don't think it's right to pick teams for future games, while there is one in progress. It's more to do with when, rather than whom. But, I have also spelled out why I think some of your picks were sub-optimal.
So, here's my question to you: where did I say you were stupid? (In context, you're not. I might have questioned some of your selections, but I referred to them as interesting and bold, but not stupid).
Ok maybe not stupid but “other adjectives”. I invited you to let me know what those were but you declined.
End of the day we lost that first test and we are unbeaten since, I think the changes I suggested helped that. Backtrack all you want
I'm not backtracking, I assumed one of the adjectives you were calling me was stupid. I can't say for sure because you wouldn't elaborate. Maybe I made the wrong assumption.
Nobody in the country wouldn't have picked Archer? Except maybe you? As you wanted him to prove his fitness "in a number of white ball games".
You didn't want Stokes batting at 5 but he has scored two centuries since moving there, one of them a match winning one (arguably the greatest test match innings of all time). There is no evidence he wouldn't have done it at 6 but whatever cannot be argued is that he has excellent form at 5.
Since dropping Ali we have won every match. I suspect if he had played instead of Leach we would have lost yesterday as he would have come in at 8, tried to hit every ball for a boundary and gone for 8 off 3 balls. Leaving Broad as last man with Stokes and he would have bottled it.
I will hold my hands up on Bairstow. I thought he should be dropped over Buttler. I would now have that the other way round.
We might be in danger of boring other posters on here, so I will suggest ending this conversation. But let me clarify some of the other assumptions you've made.
I was fully in support of Archer playing at Lord's (and at Headingley; and, for what it's worth, either or both of Old Trafford and the Oval). I didn't say I wanted him to prove his fitness, I was pointing out that at the time you picked him, he was still having to do so. However, I did question the idea of selecting both Archer and Anderson, given their fitness issues. I hope you'll agree that my doubts were proven (that is, Anderson would not have been a good pick at Lord's).
I didn't - and don't - want Stokes batting at five. My preference is for him batting at six. He's in excellent form at five, which is great. The fact that he's made two brilliant centuries at five doesn't mean he can't bat at six.
I would have picked Leach for Headingley, as he had been picked for Lord's. (You make an interesting point about whether we would still have won had Moeen been playing yesterday. You suggest he would have tried to hit every ball for six if he had been batting at eight. He would either have succeeded - in which case we would have won much more easily - or he'd have failed and he'd have been out for nought - in which case, you could argue that, as our number eight only made one run anyway, we would still have won, finishing on 361/9 instead of 362/9).
You're suggesting Buttler should be dropped. I don't agree - I am a huge fan of Jos Buttler - but I won't criticise you for making that call, as now is the right time to pick the next Test side (as opposed to part-way through a match, which a lot of people do).
With regard to your assertion that "since dropping Ali we have won every match", I will just leave that hanging there.
You on Archer during the first test - "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 clearly say you wouldn't pick Archer until he has proved his fitness, which you say he needed to do playing a number of white ball games. So yes you are now backtracking saying you would have picked him. I agree about Anderson, but I stand by the fact I would have picked him if he was fit. I stated that initially. He wasn't fit so I wouldn't have picked him either.
I agree about Stokes. I think his best position is at 6. But during this series I have always thought he should bat 5 because of the lack of options we have elsewhere. I would have him above Buttler and Bairstow (and Foakes who I suggested should play). Going forward I hope we have enough decent batsman to put him down to 6. We don't at the minute.
I respect your opinion on Buttler. He was unlucky to be out but he looks like he needs a rest to me.
Regarding Ali I meant to say we hadn't lost. The drama of yesterday got to me! In the same way you made a mistake regarding Ali a short while ago.
Let me be clear. I said, during the first test, that I wouldn't have picked both Anderson and Archer for the second test while they were both unfit and noted that Archer was still being required to prove his fitness in white ball games. "It's unwise to pick them both".
I would have picked him once he'd proved his fitness. But I take no credit for that, because the whole country would have picked him.
If you think I wouldn't have picked Archer, if fit, for the second test, that is not the case.
Some lovely, generous comments from fans all over the world, on the Melbourne Age website. This one, in particular, sums up the generosity and sportsmanship of Australian cricket lovers.
Surprise surprise! England win after terrible administrative errors. Sorry, but it just isn’t good enough. England lost the WC final and were awarded a win, and here they lost the test and were awarded a win. England were already granted two days of perfect batting conditions after the first two bowler-centric days. Why do they need an umpiring boost at the end? They lost! Again. Simple as that. Umpires should not be able to decide games and series like that. It wasn’t even close. Middle and leg, 2/3 of the way up. Of course you will hear diplomatic claptrap about how we shouldn’t have reviewed the Leach LBW, but no appeal should be necessary for a plumb LBW! The crowd should not be deciding the winner of the game!
And why were we batting in the dark and damp till 7:30 on day one, losing 8 wickets after the scheduled closing time, while England get bright sunshine, a hard, dry wicket and favourable umpiring on days 3 and 4? Is it too much to ask for fair conditions for both teams?
Ha ha
But, to be fair, it was fantastic to see the Aussies in the crowd joining in the standing ovation for Ben Stokes, and the Aussie players shaking hands with and even hugging him at the finish. That showed a lot of class. Generally speaking, I really like the Aussies as a people. Fun to be with, love their sport, give and take banter well, love a joke or two, generous. They could almost be addicks.
According to @JamesSeed some of them might be. Soon...
When did I say that? Like 18 months ago when I merely said the Aussies thought that? ;-)
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?
So Chizz you said I was stupid for suggesting the above changes.
I said I would play Stokes at 5, how has he done there? I would drop Ali for Leach, how did that work out? I would play Archer in the second test, he didn’t play badly did he?
I will answer your questions, and invite you to answer mine.
Stokes has been brilliant at five (although there's little evidence that he wouldn't also have been brilliant at six). Ali didn't do much at Lord's (we're talking about your selection for Lord's), but his three wickets took us close to a win, but didn't get us over the line. Archer did well at Lord's (but, in fairness, there's no-one in the country who wouldn't have picked him).
But, you also picked Anderson for Lord's - that wouldn't have worked. In retrospect Roy wasn't a great pick at Lord's. Bairstow's partnership with Stokes set up the declaration, but you didn't pick him. Denly didn't make runs at Lord's but I think the consistency that has been shown by continuing to pick him at four helped with his match-turning partnership with Root at Headingley.
My criticism for your selection - and everyone else who does the same - is mainly because I don't think it's right to pick teams for future games, while there is one in progress. It's more to do with when, rather than whom. But, I have also spelled out why I think some of your picks were sub-optimal.
So, here's my question to you: where did I say you were stupid? (In context, you're not. I might have questioned some of your selections, but I referred to them as interesting and bold, but not stupid).
Ok maybe not stupid but “other adjectives”. I invited you to let me know what those were but you declined.
End of the day we lost that first test and we are unbeaten since, I think the changes I suggested helped that. Backtrack all you want
I'm not backtracking, I assumed one of the adjectives you were calling me was stupid. I can't say for sure because you wouldn't elaborate. Maybe I made the wrong assumption.
Nobody in the country wouldn't have picked Archer? Except maybe you? As you wanted him to prove his fitness "in a number of white ball games".
You didn't want Stokes batting at 5 but he has scored two centuries since moving there, one of them a match winning one (arguably the greatest test match innings of all time). There is no evidence he wouldn't have done it at 6 but whatever cannot be argued is that he has excellent form at 5.
Since dropping Ali we have won every match. I suspect if he had played instead of Leach we would have lost yesterday as he would have come in at 8, tried to hit every ball for a boundary and gone for 8 off 3 balls. Leaving Broad as last man with Stokes and he would have bottled it.
I will hold my hands up on Bairstow. I thought he should be dropped over Buttler. I would now have that the other way round.
We might be in danger of boring other posters on here, so I will suggest ending this conversation. But let me clarify some of the other assumptions you've made.
I was fully in support of Archer playing at Lord's (and at Headingley; and, for what it's worth, either or both of Old Trafford and the Oval). I didn't say I wanted him to prove his fitness, I was pointing out that at the time you picked him, he was still having to do so. However, I did question the idea of selecting both Archer and Anderson, given their fitness issues. I hope you'll agree that my doubts were proven (that is, Anderson would not have been a good pick at Lord's).
I didn't - and don't - want Stokes batting at five. My preference is for him batting at six. He's in excellent form at five, which is great. The fact that he's made two brilliant centuries at five doesn't mean he can't bat at six.
I would have picked Leach for Headingley, as he had been picked for Lord's. (You make an interesting point about whether we would still have won had Moeen been playing yesterday. You suggest he would have tried to hit every ball for six if he had been batting at eight. He would either have succeeded - in which case we would have won much more easily - or he'd have failed and he'd have been out for nought - in which case, you could argue that, as our number eight only made one run anyway, we would still have won, finishing on 361/9 instead of 362/9).
You're suggesting Buttler should be dropped. I don't agree - I am a huge fan of Jos Buttler - but I won't criticise you for making that call, as now is the right time to pick the next Test side (as opposed to part-way through a match, which a lot of people do).
With regard to your assertion that "since dropping Ali we have won every match", I will just leave that hanging there.
You on Archer during the first test - "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 clearly say you wouldn't pick Archer until he has proved his fitness, which you say he needed to do playing a number of white ball games. So yes you are now backtracking saying you would have picked him. I agree about Anderson, but I stand by the fact I would have picked him if he was fit. I stated that initially. He wasn't fit so I wouldn't have picked him either.
I agree about Stokes. I think his best position is at 6. But during this series I have always thought he should bat 5 because of the lack of options we have elsewhere. I would have him above Buttler and Bairstow (and Foakes who I suggested should play). Going forward I hope we have enough decent batsman to put him down to 6. We don't at the minute.
I respect your opinion on Buttler. He was unlucky to be out but he looks like he needs a rest to me.
Regarding Ali I meant to say we hadn't lost. The drama of yesterday got to me! In the same way you made a mistake regarding Ali a short while ago.
Let me be clear. I said, during the first test, that I wouldn't have picked both Anderson and Archer for the second test while they were both unfit and noted that Archer was still being required to prove his fitness in white ball games. "It's unwise to pick them both".
I would have picked him once he'd proved his fitness. But I take no credit for that, because the whole country would have picked him.
If you think I wouldn't have picked Archer, if fit, for the second test, that is not the case.
I would have picked both if both were fit. I wouldn't have risked either if this wasn't the case.
Judging by your comments at the time, I don't believe you are telling the truth but maybe I'm wrong.
Either way I think you were right earlier about stopping the conversation so we don't bore everyone else. I also agree with Covered End that arguing instead of celebrating is the wrong thing to do today! Let's resume when we are all tense again next week!
Comments
not sure if he had another all rounder in there though or had a keeper/batsman in the all rounder role.
I really want Archer to play a few tests with Jimmy. Think it would benefit him greatly learning alongside the great Man.
I seem to remember that Flintoff used to consider himself a batsman first until he was told otherwise.
Flintoff was the other way round. A superb bowler in white ball cricket too
Stokes has been brilliant at five (although there's little evidence that he wouldn't also have been brilliant at six). Ali didn't do much at Lord's (we're talking about your selection for Lord's), but his three wickets took us close to a win, but didn't get us over the line. Archer did well at Lord's (but, in fairness, there's no-one in the country who wouldn't have picked him).
But, you also picked Anderson for Lord's - that wouldn't have worked. In retrospect Roy wasn't a great pick at Lord's. Bairstow's partnership with Stokes set up the declaration, but you didn't pick him. Denly didn't make runs at Lord's but I think the consistency that has been shown by continuing to pick him at four helped with his match-turning partnership with Root at Headingley.
My criticism for your selection - and everyone else who does the same - is mainly because I don't think it's right to pick teams for future games, while there is one in progress. It's more to do with when, rather than whom. But, I have also spelled out why I think some of your picks were sub-optimal.
So, here's my question to you: where did I say you were stupid? (In context, you're not. I might have questioned some of your selections, but I referred to them as interesting and bold, but not stupid).
If you want to pick Curran because you want someone to score runs, then pick a batsman. If you want a batting all-rounder, you've already got the best in the world in the team. But, if you want a medium-paced left-armer, then pick Curran - but not because he just might get some runs.
Also, as the next Test is at Old Trafford, make sure you've sorted out the spinning options first, before you dish out caps to the luxury players.
End of the day we lost that first test and we are unbeaten since, I think the changes I suggested helped that. Backtrack all you want
Nobody in the country wouldn't have picked Archer? Except maybe you? As you wanted him to prove his fitness "in a number of white ball games".
You didn't want Stokes batting at 5 but he has scored two centuries since moving there, one of them a match winning one (arguably the greatest test match innings of all time). There is no evidence he wouldn't have done it at 6 but whatever cannot be argued is that he has excellent form at 5.
Since dropping Ali we have won every match. I suspect if he had played instead of Leach we would have lost yesterday as he would have come in at 8, tried to hit every ball for a boundary and gone for 8 off 3 balls. Leaving Broad as last man with Stokes and he would have bottled it.
I will hold my hands up on Bairstow. I thought he should be dropped over Buttler. I would now have that the other way round.
I just knew that Ali would be useless against the Aussies because he's fine when he is coming in when we are 400-5, but has zero backbone for a fight - which Ashes cricket is mostly about - its 2 boxers slugging each other.
glass half full .. the Aussies are shell shocked .. their batsmen look as nervous as crocodiles in a shoe factory and their bowlers will be as cream crackered as ours .. except for Starc who's been kept on ice .. best place in this weather
The rest of the series should be a right tear up
I was fully in support of Archer playing at Lord's (and at Headingley; and, for what it's worth, either or both of Old Trafford and the Oval). I didn't say I wanted him to prove his fitness, I was pointing out that at the time you picked him, he was still having to do so. However, I did question the idea of selecting both Archer and Anderson, given their fitness issues. I hope you'll agree that my doubts were proven (that is, Anderson would not have been a good pick at Lord's).
I didn't - and don't - want Stokes batting at five. My preference is for him batting at six. He's in excellent form at five, which is great. The fact that he's made two brilliant centuries at five doesn't mean he can't bat at six.
I would have picked Leach for Headingley, as he had been picked for Lord's. (You make an interesting point about whether we would still have won had Moeen been playing yesterday. You suggest he would have tried to hit every ball for six if he had been batting at eight. He would either have succeeded - in which case we would have won much more easily - or he'd have failed and he'd have been out for nought - in which case, you could argue that, as our number eight only made one run anyway, we would still have won, finishing on 361/9 instead of 362/9).
You're suggesting Buttler should be dropped. I don't agree - I am a huge fan of Jos Buttler - but I won't criticise you for making that call, as now is the right time to pick the next Test side (as opposed to part-way through a match, which a lot of people do).
With regard to your assertion that "since dropping Ali we have won every match", I will just leave that hanging there.
Longer term though we do need a better spinner than Leach. Don't want to get into that debate now, his battling score of 1 yesterday played its part in one of the greatest hours of test cricket ever.
I agree about Stokes. I think his best position is at 6. But during this series I have always thought he should bat 5 because of the lack of options we have elsewhere. I would have him above Buttler and Bairstow (and Foakes who I suggested should play). Going forward I hope we have enough decent batsman to put him down to 6. We don't at the minute.
I respect your opinion on Buttler. He was unlucky to be out but he looks like he needs a rest to me.
Regarding Ali I meant to say we hadn't lost. The drama of yesterday got to me! In the same way you made a mistake regarding Ali a short while ago.
If it weren't for my bad knee, I'd do a Haka in his honour ((:>)
in 2005, I didn't see the last day at Edgbaston because I was flying to Stockholm, and also only found out the result when landing. Gutted then too.
I would have picked him once he'd proved his fitness. But I take no credit for that, because the whole country would have picked him.
If you think I wouldn't have picked Archer, if fit, for the second test, that is not the case.
;-)
Judging by your comments at the time, I don't believe you are telling the truth but maybe I'm wrong.
Either way I think you were right earlier about stopping the conversation so we don't bore everyone else. I also agree with Covered End that arguing instead of celebrating is the wrong thing to do today! Let's resume when we are all tense again next week!
Anybody going to OT?
Its normally a quick wicket - might suit Oz more than us? (though Jofra might have something to say about that!)