Sibley is like Steve Smith in that he looks all wrong, but it works
Indeed Sibley and Burns are possibly the wonkiest looking opening partnership England have had in decades BUT it's not all about aesthetics!
Agreed, look like they've both been playing cricket for about 2 weeks. Sibley is boring but we can't moan, definitely need someone like him to go with the likes of Stokes and Pope to be successful.
Sibley will always be solid and look to bat time but, not all of his hundreds will be at that pace. He can score quicker than that. He does have more shots, over time he will look to use more of his shots at this level. For now he has put some away for test cricket.
The important thing is he can do it at this level. We now have 2 openers with 2 test centuries in the last 18 months. That's a hell of a better place to be than we were a year or so ago.
sibley has a role and he is doing it, at a good average too. He faced more balls in this one innings than burns did in an entire series last year. Cricket isn’t just about the flintoff, Pieterson, stokes (although more restrained these days) scoring at 4 an over. Sibley built an innings, batted time and tired the windies attack. It’s a shame that nobody else apart from stokes capitalised on this.
Stokes batting is at an extraordinary level at the moment, I'm struggling to think of too many players who can grind it out for a long period (i.e. not just for an hour) but also go into turbocharged "T20" mode as well. And then go back into Boycott mode if the situation requires
So both tests have been effected by the weather. Did the ECB not foresee this? With no ticketing to worry about why didn't they just have two grounds in different regions prepare pitches and then 48 hours before the toss look at the weather forecast and pick the ground with the better weather outlook
So both tests have been effected by the weather. Did the ECB not foresee this? With no ticketing to worry about why didn't they just have two grounds in different regions prepare pitches and then 48 hours before the toss look at the weather forecast and pick the ground with the better weather outlook
Because they were staying in hotels at the relevant grounds in a bubble (apart from Archer!) to reduce risks of Covid infections
So both tests have been effected by the weather. Did the ECB not foresee this? With no ticketing to worry about why didn't they just have two grounds in different regions prepare pitches and then 48 hours before the toss look at the weather forecast and pick the ground with the better weather outlook
Because they were staying in hotels at the relevant grounds in a bubble (apart from Archer!) to reduce risks of Covid infections
And 48 hours isn't enough time to move hotels? There are many ways the ECB could avoid, or at least mitigate, losing day after day to the weather, but they're unable to think outside the box. Even when the world has changed, the ECB still do things the same way, purely because that's how its always been done.
There's no reason they couldn't have had pitches prepared in Manachester and Nottingham or Edgbaston, and had the team hotel in the middle, less than 2 hours from all of the grounds
So both tests have been effected by the weather. Did the ECB not foresee this? With no ticketing to worry about why didn't they just have two grounds in different regions prepare pitches and then 48 hours before the toss look at the weather forecast and pick the ground with the better weather outlook
Because they were staying in hotels at the relevant grounds in a bubble (apart from Archer!) to reduce risks of Covid infections
And 48 hours isn't enough time to move hotels? There are many ways the ECB could avoid, or at least mitigate, losing day after day to the weather, but they're unable to think outside the box. Even when the world has changed, the ECB still do things the same way, purely because that's how its always been done.
There's no reason they couldn't have had pitches prepared in Manachester and Nottingham or Edgbaston, and had the team hotel in the middle, less than 2 hours from all of the grounds
You want three Test grounds to be prepared, staffed and have the full set of media, medical teams and private hospitals in place, trebling (possibly) the costs, so that, at some stage close to the start of the Test match a firm decision can be made based on the certainty as to which ground will have the fewest rain-delays? And for all players and media to remain inside a bio-secure bubble, two hours' drive from the ground.
I think you place a lot more faith in the size of the ECB's coffers and the accuracy of the Met Office.
So both tests have been effected by the weather. Did the ECB not foresee this? With no ticketing to worry about why didn't they just have two grounds in different regions prepare pitches and then 48 hours before the toss look at the weather forecast and pick the ground with the better weather outlook
Because they were staying in hotels at the relevant grounds in a bubble (apart from Archer!) to reduce risks of Covid infections
And 48 hours isn't enough time to move hotels? There are many ways the ECB could avoid, or at least mitigate, losing day after day to the weather, but they're unable to think outside the box. Even when the world has changed, the ECB still do things the same way, purely because that's how its always been done.
There's no reason they couldn't have had pitches prepared in Manachester and Nottingham or Edgbaston, and had the team hotel in the middle, less than 2 hours from all of the grounds
You want three Test grounds to be prepared, staffed and have the full set of media, medical teams and private hospitals in place, trebling (possibly) the costs, so that, at some stage close to the start of the Test match a firm decision can be made based on the certainty as to which ground will have the fewest rain-delays? And for all players and media to remain inside a bio-secure bubble, two hours' drive from the ground.
I think you place a lot more faith in the size of the ECB's coffers and the accuracy of the Met Office.
They don't need all that stuff in place, 48 hours is enougb time to set up media, get medical teams in, etc. Test grounds have all the physical facilities in pace, there's minimal setup time needed.
The additional costs would be minimal, and presumably there is a cost involved with each lost day. If there are significant additional costs then surely some of those would be born by the broadcaster who is, hopefully, getting a better product as a result.
There are no certainties, but there are ways to mitigate the chances of losing significant playing time. I'm sure, given time and resources, a better solution than my quick effort could be found, but there was clearly no interest in doing anything. We decide venues months in advance and that's it, we'll do what we've always done, no matter the cost or the result.
So both tests have been effected by the weather. Did the ECB not foresee this? With no ticketing to worry about why didn't they just have two grounds in different regions prepare pitches and then 48 hours before the toss look at the weather forecast and pick the ground with the better weather outlook
Because they were staying in hotels at the relevant grounds in a bubble (apart from Archer!) to reduce risks of Covid infections
And 48 hours isn't enough time to move hotels? There are many ways the ECB could avoid, or at least mitigate, losing day after day to the weather, but they're unable to think outside the box. Even when the world has changed, the ECB still do things the same way, purely because that's how its always been done.
There's no reason they couldn't have had pitches prepared in Manachester and Nottingham or Edgbaston, and had the team hotel in the middle, less than 2 hours from all of the grounds
You want three Test grounds to be prepared, staffed and have the full set of media, medical teams and private hospitals in place, trebling (possibly) the costs, so that, at some stage close to the start of the Test match a firm decision can be made based on the certainty as to which ground will have the fewest rain-delays? And for all players and media to remain inside a bio-secure bubble, two hours' drive from the ground.
I think you place a lot more faith in the size of the ECB's coffers and the accuracy of the Met Office.
They don't need all that stuff in place, 48 hours is enougb time to set up media, get medical teams in, etc. Test grounds have all the physical facilities in pace, there's minimal setup time needed.
The additional costs would be minimal, and presumably there is a cost involved with each lost day. If there are significant additional costs then surely some of those would be born by the broadcaster who is, hopefully, getting a better product as a result.
There are no certainties, but there are ways to mitigate the chances of losing significant playing time. I'm sure, given time and resources, a better solution than my quick effort could be found, but there was clearly no interest in doing anything. We decide venues months in advance and that's it, we'll do what we've always done, no matter the cost or the result.
I think you're hugely underestimating the huge resources that have been required to put on the Tests in the current series.
They do, of course, need "all that stuff" in place. Including on-site hotels (not available in two of the three grounds you mention), as well as the private, secure hospital facilities.
And, you're suggesting that the decision as to which ground would see the most play in a five-day Test would be made at least two days before it starts.
I don't think Notts CCC or Warwickshire CCC would be very keen to pay for their grounds to be medically sanitised on a one-in-three chance they might be used.
Back to reality, from what was a game drifting to a dull draw, suddenly we're faced with a really exciting final day
England's efforts at slogging showed that it's not easy on this pitch to get another quick 50, so England have a really tricky decision to make as to the declaration. Yes the bowlers will want enough overs to get the second new ball, but too low a target and the Windies could chase it down.
Bess will be disappointed to only get 1 wicket. You do wonder if picking an off spinner when 10 of the Windies batsmen bat right handed was a good move.
I think we need to have 2 cracks with a new ball, even if it only means 6 or 7 with the 2nd one.
Counting backwards, if there are 98 overs (min) tomorrow, and you lose 2 for a change of innings (stupid rule in my book, but hey ho), England should bat for no more than 10 overs tomorrow. Might only get another 50 or 60 runs but that would give us a lead of 270 /280. With 86 overs that means a run rate of over 3 an over. Let the Windies try to chase them down. Best way to win is to dangle the carrot.
But no, Joe will play it safe & consensus is that we will bat until gone 12, so we have a lead of 300+ & only have 70/75 overs at them.
Comments
Indeed Sibley and Burns are possibly the wonkiest looking opening partnership England have had in decades BUT it's not all about aesthetics!
The important thing is he can do it at this level. We now have 2 openers with 2 test centuries in the last 18 months. That's a hell of a better place to be than we were a year or so ago.
No shit sherlock !!!!
Yesterdays slow play by England now making the game likely to be drawn.
There's no reason they couldn't have had pitches prepared in Manachester and Nottingham or Edgbaston, and had the team hotel in the middle, less than 2 hours from all of the grounds
I think you place a lot more faith in the size of the ECB's coffers and the accuracy of the Met Office.
The additional costs would be minimal, and presumably there is a cost involved with each lost day. If there are significant additional costs then surely some of those would be born by the broadcaster who is, hopefully, getting a better product as a result.
There are no certainties, but there are ways to mitigate the chances of losing significant playing time. I'm sure, given time and resources, a better solution than my quick effort could be found, but there was clearly no interest in doing anything. We decide venues months in advance and that's it, we'll do what we've always done, no matter the cost or the result.
They do, of course, need "all that stuff" in place. Including on-site hotels (not available in two of the three grounds you mention), as well as the private, secure hospital facilities.
And, you're suggesting that the decision as to which ground would see the most play in a five-day Test would be made at least two days before it starts.
I don't think Notts CCC or Warwickshire CCC would be very keen to pay for their grounds to be medically sanitised on a one-in-three chance they might be used.
England's efforts at slogging showed that it's not easy on this pitch to get another quick 50, so England have a really tricky decision to make as to the declaration. Yes the bowlers will want enough overs to get the second new ball, but too low a target and the Windies could chase it down.
Bess will be disappointed to only get 1 wicket. You do wonder if picking an off spinner when 10 of the Windies batsmen bat right handed was a good move.
Counting backwards, if there are 98 overs (min) tomorrow, and you lose 2 for a change of innings (stupid rule in my book, but hey ho), England should bat for no more than 10 overs tomorrow. Might only get another 50 or 60 runs but that would give us a lead of 270 /280. With 86 overs that means a run rate of over 3 an over. Let the Windies try to chase them down. Best way to win is to dangle the carrot.
But no, Joe will play it safe & consensus is that we will bat until gone 12, so we have a lead of 300+ & only have 70/75 overs at them.
Drawn game with Windies at 220 for 6 at close.