saw him doing the Sky analysis with Bob Willis after the 1st test, he spoke a lot of good sense .. fit for action ? .. he needs to lose a stone .. or 6 ((:>)
saw him doing the Sky analysis with Bob Willis after the 1st test, he spoke a lot of good sense .. fit for action ? .. he needs to lose a stone .. or 6 ((:>)
Mo dropped for 2nd Test. But Bairstow keeps his place.
In the squad not necessarily the 11. Yes the squad is fairly heavily weighted to the bowlers but we could well be planning to revert to the 6 bowlers including 3 all rounders make up that we used with good effect against India.
Curran has been getting reasonable runs batting 3 for surrey in the T20.
I expect Bairstow will play but nothings been decided yet - other than taking Mo out the firing line which is by all means the right call.
Do you remember the effort we went to to change the Ashes program so we didn't have the world cup straight after an away ashes.
Yer they were happy for this to happen. Its been a shambles.
Come the 1st week of August 2 players had been playing red ball cricket, one had missed weeks with injury, one was in and out of white ball teams so managed a couple of games. The other 7 had played either 1 or none red ball games all summer. That's outrageous to be honest.
Ali is a player that needs to bat a bowl a lot to be in rhythm. Before the 1st test I doubt he had bowled 70 overs or faced 70 balls all summer. Stokes hardly bowled in the WC, yet was suddenly picked in a 5 man attack.
No one in the country is playing red ball cricket, you can't pick anyone on form. You should have batsman knocking on the door with big 100s, they can't if they aren't playing. Total farce!
Archer for Anderson is obvious as is Leach for Ali.
He then makes the point that currans left arm swing is invaluable when you combine it with the lords slope so he has to play. You compare him to Denly and you have to think he will contribute more in every innings of the match with bat and ball. Stokes to 4 and use his bowling sparingly in short spells.
Archer for Anderson is obvious as is Leach for Ali.
He then makes the point that currans left arm swing is invaluable when you combine it with the lords slope so he has to play. You compare him to Denly and you have to think he will contribute more in every innings of the match with bat and ball. Stokes to 4 and use his bowling sparingly in short spells.
I like that - still looks like a strong batting line-up, and gives a lot more bowling balance.
Just finished watching the Kevin Pietersen documentary . Absolutely fascinating. An incredible cricketer, but an absolute twat
You cant deny, he was an incredible batsman. Anybody watch Banton bat yesterday? whilst not suggesting he is or might not be as good as, but there is definitely a bit of Pietersen'esque about him.
Archer for Anderson is obvious as is Leach for Ali.
He then makes the point that currans left arm swing is invaluable when you combine it with the lords slope so he has to play. You compare him to Denly and you have to think he will contribute more in every innings of the match with bat and ball. Stokes to 4 and use his bowling sparingly in short spells.
Not a bad side, definitely agree that Stokes should be used as more of a batsman. Not sure he is a good enough 4 though. That team bats to 9 (maybe 10 considering Broad's innings last week) but we need more from the likes of Buttler and Bairstow.
Archer for Anderson is obvious as is Leach for Ali.
He then makes the point that currans left arm swing is invaluable when you combine it with the lords slope so he has to play. You compare him to Denly and you have to think he will contribute more in every innings of the match with bat and ball. Stokes to 4 and use his bowling sparingly in short spells.
I understand the logic, but Stokes, Butler and Bairstow at 4, 5 and 6 is 1 to high.
If Archer, Broad and Woakes aren't taking wickets, is Curren likley to?
If its moving in the air or off the pitch Curren isn't likely to need to bowl much.
The real season you would pick that team is you think that Curren and Woakes are more likely to score runs with the bat than any batsman we could pick.
That last point maybe true, but not one you would expect a captain and selectors to publically admit.
Archer for Anderson is obvious as is Leach for Ali.
He then makes the point that currans left arm swing is invaluable when you combine it with the lords slope so he has to play. You compare him to Denly and you have to think he will contribute more in every innings of the match with bat and ball. Stokes to 4 and use his bowling sparingly in short spells.
To me that team has too many bowlers and not enough batsmen. Yes we struggled at Edgbaston, but then with Jimmy injured and Moeen off form the 3 remaining pace bowlers had to do more work. With 4 fit seamers and Leach who can hopefully hold an end better, Stokes won't have so much to do anyway.
There is an argument about whether Denly is good enough, but if you replace him it's surely with a "proper" batsman, whether Northeast, Sibley etc
If you really want to play Curran, you could always drop Bairstow and get Buttler to keep wicket. Or indeed drop Buttler, as both seem mentally shot at the moment
Comments
step forward Mr Caddick
Curran has been getting reasonable runs batting 3 for surrey in the T20.
I expect Bairstow will play but nothings been decided yet - other than taking Mo out the firing line which is by all means the right call.
Mind you it will likely change before then.
Yer they were happy for this to happen. Its been a shambles.
Come the 1st week of August 2 players had been playing red ball cricket, one had missed weeks with injury, one was in and out of white ball teams so managed a couple of games. The other 7 had played either 1 or none red ball games all summer. That's outrageous to be honest.
Ali is a player that needs to bat a bowl a lot to be in rhythm. Before the 1st test I doubt he had bowled 70 overs or faced 70 balls all summer. Stokes hardly bowled in the WC, yet was suddenly picked in a 5 man attack.
No one in the country is playing red ball cricket, you can't pick anyone on form. You should have batsman knocking on the door with big 100s, they can't if they aren't playing. Total farce!
Have one more KP ep to go and totally agree. Awesome but what a nob. A few ex England players don’t come out of it well either.
Burns
Roy
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Bairstow
Curran
Woakes
Archer
Broad
Leach.
Archer for Anderson is obvious as is Leach for Ali.
He then makes the point that currans left arm swing is invaluable when you combine it with the lords slope so he has to play. You compare him to Denly and you have to think he will contribute more in every innings of the match with bat and ball. Stokes to 4 and use his bowling sparingly in short spells.
If Archer, Broad and Woakes aren't taking wickets, is Curren likley to?
If its moving in the air or off the pitch Curren isn't likely to need to bowl much.
The real season you would pick that team is you think that Curren and Woakes are more likely to score runs with the bat than any batsman we could pick.
That last point maybe true, but not one you would expect a captain and selectors to publically admit.
There is an argument about whether Denly is good enough, but if you replace him it's surely with a "proper" batsman, whether Northeast, Sibley etc
If you really want to play Curran, you could always drop Bairstow and get Buttler to keep wicket. Or indeed drop Buttler, as both seem mentally shot at the moment