Its normally a quick wicket - might suit Oz more than us? (though Jofra might have something to say about that!)
Just checked online, tickets for days 1-4 are sold out except for hospitality packages ..https://cricket.lancashirecricket.co.uk/ashes/ .. and VERY few of those left @£299 per head .. worth it for 1 day though .. anyone in for an Addicks day out in Cottonopolis ?
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).
The best teams STILL make changes even when winning.
Roy needs replacing. Butler needs a rest. Woakes injury is being protected currently. Bairstow is not playing well but I'd not drop him yet but I WOULD take the gloves off him.
The best teams STILL make changes even when winning.
Roy needs replacing. Butler needs a rest. Woakes injury is being protected currently. Bairstow is not playing well but I'd not drop him yet but I WOULD take the gloves off him.
The best teams STILL make changes even when winning.
Roy needs replacing. Butler needs a rest. Woakes injury is being protected currently. Bairstow is not playing well but I'd not drop him yet but I WOULD take the gloves off him.
Out -
Roy Butler Woakes
In - Pope Woakes Anderson
Is Woakes doing the Oakey Cokey ?
He's been dropped so he can go shopping for wicket keeping gloves in time for the next test.
Oz have a warm-up game against Derby 29-31 August. Anyone else think it would be a good time to get Jimmy to play for Derby - for 2 reasons 1) Prove his fitness 2) Try to undermine Oz prior to 4th Test.
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.
I'm totally expecting the Aussies to come at us even harder. I'd be very surprised if that defeat has a negative effect on them. Mind you I do wonder if Smith will be effected by the "treatment" he got. I'm hoping, but not expecting.
The best teams STILL make changes even when winning.
Roy needs replacing. Butler needs a rest. Woakes injury is being protected currently. Bairstow is not playing well but I'd not drop him yet but I WOULD take the gloves off him.
Out -
Roy Butler Woakes
In - Pope Foakes !!! Anderson
so many oikes, oakes and okes on here, little wonder you were confused
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.
I'm totally expecting the Aussies to come at us even harder. I'd be very surprised if that defeat has a negative effect on them. Mind you I do wonder if Smith will be effected by the "treatment" he got. I'm hoping, but not expecting.
You can bet your bottom dollar Smith would have replayed that over and over again to see what he should have done better and play those 2 balls differently. (one on the arm as well before that).
Was Bancroft injured or dropped? Mind you if I was the Aussies I would play both Smith and his replacement and drop one of the openers, maybe move that guy who normally comes out at no 3 to open (since he does it quite regularly when Bancroft or Warner loses their wicket.
Was Bancroft injured or dropped? Mind you if I was the Aussies I would play both Smith and his replacement and drop one of the openers, maybe move that guy who normally comes out at no 3 to open (since he does it quite regularly when Bancroft or Warner loses their wicket.
The tailenders podcast was a good listen today - some interesting comments from Jimmy Anderson on what it was like in the dressing room during that innings
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.
Think it’s generally been England’s policy to have a decent bat at number 11. Simon Jones started it off and carried on with jimmy who was regularly sent out as a night watchmen as well. Sometimes bowlers can get a bit lacklustre when the number 11 comes in.
Was Bancroft injured or dropped? Mind you if I was the Aussies I would play both Smith and his replacement and drop one of the openers, maybe move that guy who normally comes out at no 3 to open (since he does it quite regularly when Bancroft or Warner loses their wicket.
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?
Stokes says that the DRS was wrong as the ball from Lyon flicked his front pad.
I'd have to look at the footage again but I must confess I thought it was going to miss leg stump.
It's all academic. Umpiring decisions have been wrong for years and have changed the destiny of series. The catch by Jones off Harmison to win the Edgbaston test in 2005 was a classic example. The ball didn't hit bat or glove.
DRS and review system is not infallible but it does help reduce errors. Lyon's fumble was the key error.
Its normally a quick wicket - might suit Oz more than us? (though Jofra might have something to say about that!)
Yes, going on day 1 (next Wednesday). 2 days ago it looked like it would be a dead rubber, with Australia 2-0 up against a demoralised England, likely to crumble to 4-0!
To be fair, the stag do tickets are for the Friday, and I was looking at buying on the Saturday so we may both be going but separately. The weather looks poor anyway so I’m hoping for a draw.
To be fair, the stag do tickets are for the Friday, and I was looking at buying on the Saturday so we may both be going but separately. The weather looks poor anyway so I’m hoping for a draw.
We have tickets for 1, 3 and 5 for Oval.
Christ Suzie! How much have you spent on tickets this summer? Must be a fortune. Worth it though no doubt.
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?
Stokes says that the DRS was wrong as the ball from Lyon flicked his front pad.
I'd have to look at the footage again but I must confess I thought it was going to miss leg stump.
It's all academic. Umpiring decisions have been wrong for years and have changed the destiny of series. The catch by Jones off Harmison to win the Edgbaston test in 2005 was a classic example. The ball didn't hit bat or glove.
DRS and review system is not infallible but it does help reduce errors. Lyon's fumble was the key error.
The Edgbaston Jones/Harmison catch was interesting. I have a different recollection to you. In my memory (the game was a decade and a half ago!) the ball flicked the glove on the bottom hand AFTER it had released the bat. In which case, it should have been given not out. (And we'v had a decade and a half of Aussie hinging because of it).
However...
...there is no footage that definitively shows that the ball didn't hit the top hand as well. A DRS review (these days) would have cleared that up). It might still have been given out But the Aussies might also have run out of reviews by then anyway.
(Whenever Aussie friends bring that incident up, I ask them to explain what they THINK happened. And then I ask them to check the scorecard to see if they were right..!)
You're absolutely right about the Lyons run out though. Gather, take off the bails, appeal... and the game's over.
Canters, I would give as many of them a rest as we possibly can, so we can see them nice and fresh for The 100 next summer.
Don't get me started.
I more mean woakes is clearly not right and think he needs some time out to get back to his best. He has had a lot of work this summer after a pretty serious injury in the winter. If hes not at his best take him out the firing line
England will be tempted to bring back Anderson at Manchester .. I hope that they resist the temptation If Woakes is struggling bring in the leftie Curran, variety is needed in the pace attack
Comments
I would liked to be called interesting and bold.
Nearest I get is grumpy and old
Roy needs replacing. Butler needs a rest. Woakes injury is being protected currently. Bairstow is not playing well but I'd not drop him yet but I WOULD take the gloves off him.
Out -
Roy
Butler
Woakes
In -
Pope
Foakes !!!
Anderson
Anyone else think it would be a good time to get Jimmy to play for Derby - for 2 reasons 1) Prove his fitness 2) Try to undermine Oz prior to 4th Test.
I'm actually at the Derbyshire v Aus match on Friday.
2 Years ago Ali took a hat trick against South Africa, first England spinner to do that since1938-1939.
Ali took 25 wickets and scored 250 runs in the series, the only player to achieve the feat in a 4 test series, so good job no one listened to you
I'd be very surprised if that defeat has a negative effect on them.
Mind you I do wonder if Smith will be effected by the "treatment" he got. I'm hoping, but not expecting.
I'd have to look at the footage again but I must confess I thought it was going to miss leg stump.
It's all academic. Umpiring decisions have been wrong for years and have changed the destiny of series. The catch by Jones off Harmison to win the Edgbaston test in 2005 was a classic example. The ball didn't hit bat or glove.
DRS and review system is not infallible but it does help reduce errors. Lyon's fumble was the key error.
We have tickets for 1, 3 and 5 for Oval.
Worth it though no doubt.
However...
...there is no footage that definitively shows that the ball didn't hit the top hand as well. A DRS review (these days) would have cleared that up). It might still have been given out But the Aussies might also have run out of reviews by then anyway.
(Whenever Aussie friends bring that incident up, I ask them to explain what they THINK happened. And then I ask them to check the scorecard to see if they were right..!)
You're absolutely right about the Lyons run out though. Gather, take off the bails, appeal... and the game's over.
I more mean woakes is clearly not right and think he needs some time out to get back to his best. He has had a lot of work this summer after a pretty serious injury in the winter. If hes not at his best take him out the firing line
If Woakes is struggling bring in the leftie Curran, variety is needed in the pace attack