Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2021 (excluding Ashes)
Comments
-
I think the management and ECB have a lot to answer for here, you can’t go into a test series with such an inexperienced batting line up, and if players are not available because of the IPL then the scheduling needs to be considered. We now don’t have any tests when we would have got some decent players back1
-
I heard Nassar the other day & he said that the ICC had "tweaked" DRS and now the ball only has to be "clipping" the stumps for it to be out. I stand to be corrected but pretty sure this is what I heard (whilst working & having it on in the background).Todds_right_hook said:does anyone else think the Pope decision was a pile of shit? I thought half the ball had to be hitting?0 -
Can England make NZ bat again?0
-
Joe is uprooted .. yet again0
-
Hate being me sometimes......golfaddick said:
Nor me. More likely to be all out by close of play & lose by an innings.blackpool72 said:Probably need to score in excess of 300 to have any chance.
Can't see it myself.0 -
76-70
-
Yes.Lincsaddick said:Joe is uprooted .. yet again
For about 7 minutes0 -
Finally England have two batsmen at the crease0
-
Right enough is enough, we do not play enough 4 day cricket in this country. It's ok having all this white ball stuff in limited overs, but our batsmen have forgotten how to play the 'proper' game!
Now we've got the Hundred coming as well!!
If we want a decent Test side we need to get back to basics!!
The example I'll give this season is Kent, not won a game in 4 day cricket, but won both their T20's.....we need to cut back on the limited over stuff!
It's been an embarrassment this afternoon!6 -
Wow England score is now technically 6 for 7!! FFS!0
- Sponsored links:
-
Totally agree mate.Redmidland said:Right enough is enough, we do not play enough 4 day cricket in this country. It's ok having all this white ball stuff in limited overs, but our batsmen have forgotten how to play the 'proper' game!
Now we've got the Hundred coming as well!!
If we want a decent Test side we need to get back to basics!!
The example I'll give this season is Kent, not won a game in 4 day cricket, but won both their T20's.....we need to cut back on the limited over stuff!
It's been an embarrassment this afternoon!
The hundred is a horrible format , absolutely no need for it.
Cancel it and play more red ball cricket I say.
Won't happen though.11 -
Expecting NZ to claim the extra 30 mins if the last wicket falls before stumps. Not sure if they will have enough time to do it though.0
-
NZ will give India a run for their money that's for sure0
-
I'd make them firm favourites. India are nothing special in English conditions, whereas NZ have bowlers ideally suited for them and are battle hardened after 2 Tests against The Duke of Marlborough's Invite 11 Englandblackpool72 said:NZ will give India a run for their money that's for sure4 -
I think Wood has got more runs in his 2 innings than most if the top order (apart from Burns)1
-
Inept officials selling the games soul in a vain attempt to appeal to the un-appealable.blackpool72 said:
Totally agree mate.Redmidland said:Right enough is enough, we do not play enough 4 day cricket in this country. It's ok having all this white ball stuff in limited overs, but our batsmen have forgotten how to play the 'proper' game!
Now we've got the Hundred coming as well!!
If we want a decent Test side we need to get back to basics!!
The example I'll give this season is Kent, not won a game in 4 day cricket, but won both their T20's.....we need to cut back on the limited over stuff!
It's been an embarrassment this afternoon!
The hundred is a horrible format , absolutely no need for it.
Cancel it and play more red ball cricket I say.
Won't happen though.1 -
Yes our batting has been dismal, but our bowling attack has been outbowled too, including with the new ball. Broad suggested that the new ball didn't swing until the lacquer had worn off (10 overs) hence we haven't been pitching it up initially, whereas the Kiwis have pitched it up from the start, and reaped the rewards
And Silverwood (watching the highlights) still thinks not picking a spinner was the right decision.1 -
Heard the NZ commentator yesterday saying fingers were under the ball and some grass may have touched the ball but it wasn’t grounded so should have been out .Gary Poole said:
Yes I agree and still not happy about the catch yesterday with the fingers clearly under the ballTodds_right_hook said:does anyone else think the Pope decision was a pile of shit? I thought half the ball had to be hitting?
I always thought if grass touched it that was considered grounded so not out , anyone know and ‘grounded’ could be open to any sort of interpretation0 -
So Canters - one week on, do you now accept that at least one (Crawley - averages 10.25 in last 12 innings) and possibly two (also Sibley - averages 22.65 last 22 innings) need time away and we need to look at Hameed opening with, perhaps, Lawrence, being given a try again at 3?cantersaddick said:
I never disagreed with that. I just feel that right now is probably not the right time to drop anyone of the top 3 and I dont think Hameed has done quite enough to make the selectors pick him no matter what. As for his average wasn't that after 3 innings?Addick Addict said:
Or play an opening bat who averages 43.80 in Test cricket. Been there, done that and it does work!cantersaddick said:
So we have a problem with the top 3 (whats new? we have since 2012). The solution is not to shove a middle order player in there. Been there, done that. Doesn't work.Addick Addict said:
But with those three up top for England, batting at 4 is batting at 3 and sometimes, like today, when we are two down in under 7 overs, it is the equivalent of opening!cantersaddick said:
I'm not saying they are there yet but I do think they can get there. Lets frame the question differently - Is this the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott? For my mind yes it undoubtedly is. Thats not to say we cant improve on it but I don't yet think Hameed has done enough to warrant dropping one of them.Addick Addict said:
I've always maintained that the top three isn't good enough as a unit. It might have been Burns previously whereas it is Sibley now. And next week it might be Crawley. But with those three up top we are always likely to lose not one but two wickets early doors especially against the Aussies.cantersaddick said:
Was only a couple of weeks ago you were saying Burns had to go. Now he has made some championship scores whilst Sibbers has been out injured you've switched.Addick Addict said:In the last 4 series Sibley has scored 294 runs at an average of 18.38
As I've said before, I am fearful that a front three of Sibley, Burns and Crawley in the Ashes and of these Sibley is the one that I think needs to be sacrificed in order to give Hameed a chance and/or Pope an opportunity to bat at 3 sooner rather than later
Lets not go back to the selection policy of the 90's. Both Bracey and Hameed are making a claim to be in the top 3 but are either of them there yet? I'm not sure. Lets make changes because we have someone better and ready waiting in the wings rather than for the sake of making changes.
Opening in test cricket is an impossibly hard job to do listen to Sir Ali Cook on the subject - he says the last 5 years of his test career it was 100 times harder than when he started. The game has swung into the bowlers favour, particularly at the start of the innings. I think we need to adjust expectations slightly - we arent gonna have another Cook/Strauss/Trott or Strauss/Tres/Vaughan combination. But if we can have a top 3averaging mid 30's and being incredibly consistent at batting time in that more often than not there is one partnership from those 3 that is enough to set a platform for 4-7 then that should be enough. My hopes are that Crawley as a 3 can be better than that.
You talk in terns of "the top three averaging mid 30's". But they don't do they as a group or individually:
Sibley averages 29.40 and 18.38 in his last 16 innings
Burns averages 31.35
Crawley averages 32.62 but take out that one mammoth innings of 267 out and it drops dramatically to 20.90
Hameed has done it at the highest level and averages 43.80 in Test cricket. How can he "wait in the wings" and prove himself further when we have no County Championship matches for 5 weeks?
You didn't want Pope batting above 6 because you wanted to protect the lad but it did the complete opposite in India. And look at what he's been doing now that he has been moved to 4 for Surrey - averages 61.66. When Stokes comes back presumably you will be happy for him to go back to 6 again?
Your last para is a whole different debate. I think the point you are missing is that in test cricket as it is now there is (and needs to be) broadly 2 types of batsmen. The top 3 and the middle order. They set up differently, different mind sets, have different techniques and different strengths. A middle order player may do a job in the top 3 but does it get the best out of them? no chance - see Joe Root (or before him Ian Bell the man Pope is compared to most). Equally putting a middle order player in the top 3 could be a plain disaster - See Hales or Roy. Pope is a middle order player and a very good one at that. He might be able to do a job at 3 but I dont think that will get the best out of him. He is the heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot. Until then he should fit in somewhere else in the middle order. For what its worth I would have Pope 5 Stokes 6. If we want a top 3 player we should pick a top 3 player (the best ones in the country) and that's what I believe we have in Burns, Sibley and Crawley with Hameed and Bracey as competition.
Also Pope has batted 4 for Surrey ever since his first England call up in 2018. Batting 4 is hugely different from batting 3. We have discovered a potentially world class middle order player. Its so very English to try and turn him into something he is not.
You mentioned above that the Burns/Sibley/Crawley is "the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott" but time after time they have failed as evidenced by their recent form. Burns has turned it around but the other two need more time away from the highest level to find their game again and this will give us the opportunity to look at least one other (and obvious) option in Hameed?
One final point - both Strauss and Trott were either dropped or left out in their Test career for one reason or other. Following those absences we found out whether they were actually good enough.1 -
In an ideal world Crawley should be left out to go back to Kent to play some red ball cricket and rebuild his confidence and technique. However the ECB, in their wisden, have scheduled very little county red ball cricket until September!Addick Addict said:
So Canters - one week on, do you now accept that at least one (Crawley - averages 10.25 in last 12 innings) and possibly two (also Sibley - averages 22.65 last 22 innings) need time away and we need to look at Hameed opening with, perhaps, Lawrence, being given a try again at 3?cantersaddick said:
I never disagreed with that. I just feel that right now is probably not the right time to drop anyone of the top 3 and I dont think Hameed has done quite enough to make the selectors pick him no matter what. As for his average wasn't that after 3 innings?Addick Addict said:
Or play an opening bat who averages 43.80 in Test cricket. Been there, done that and it does work!cantersaddick said:
So we have a problem with the top 3 (whats new? we have since 2012). The solution is not to shove a middle order player in there. Been there, done that. Doesn't work.Addick Addict said:
But with those three up top for England, batting at 4 is batting at 3 and sometimes, like today, when we are two down in under 7 overs, it is the equivalent of opening!cantersaddick said:
I'm not saying they are there yet but I do think they can get there. Lets frame the question differently - Is this the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott? For my mind yes it undoubtedly is. Thats not to say we cant improve on it but I don't yet think Hameed has done enough to warrant dropping one of them.Addick Addict said:
I've always maintained that the top three isn't good enough as a unit. It might have been Burns previously whereas it is Sibley now. And next week it might be Crawley. But with those three up top we are always likely to lose not one but two wickets early doors especially against the Aussies.cantersaddick said:
Was only a couple of weeks ago you were saying Burns had to go. Now he has made some championship scores whilst Sibbers has been out injured you've switched.Addick Addict said:In the last 4 series Sibley has scored 294 runs at an average of 18.38
As I've said before, I am fearful that a front three of Sibley, Burns and Crawley in the Ashes and of these Sibley is the one that I think needs to be sacrificed in order to give Hameed a chance and/or Pope an opportunity to bat at 3 sooner rather than later
Lets not go back to the selection policy of the 90's. Both Bracey and Hameed are making a claim to be in the top 3 but are either of them there yet? I'm not sure. Lets make changes because we have someone better and ready waiting in the wings rather than for the sake of making changes.
Opening in test cricket is an impossibly hard job to do listen to Sir Ali Cook on the subject - he says the last 5 years of his test career it was 100 times harder than when he started. The game has swung into the bowlers favour, particularly at the start of the innings. I think we need to adjust expectations slightly - we arent gonna have another Cook/Strauss/Trott or Strauss/Tres/Vaughan combination. But if we can have a top 3averaging mid 30's and being incredibly consistent at batting time in that more often than not there is one partnership from those 3 that is enough to set a platform for 4-7 then that should be enough. My hopes are that Crawley as a 3 can be better than that.
You talk in terns of "the top three averaging mid 30's". But they don't do they as a group or individually:
Sibley averages 29.40 and 18.38 in his last 16 innings
Burns averages 31.35
Crawley averages 32.62 but take out that one mammoth innings of 267 out and it drops dramatically to 20.90
Hameed has done it at the highest level and averages 43.80 in Test cricket. How can he "wait in the wings" and prove himself further when we have no County Championship matches for 5 weeks?
You didn't want Pope batting above 6 because you wanted to protect the lad but it did the complete opposite in India. And look at what he's been doing now that he has been moved to 4 for Surrey - averages 61.66. When Stokes comes back presumably you will be happy for him to go back to 6 again?
Your last para is a whole different debate. I think the point you are missing is that in test cricket as it is now there is (and needs to be) broadly 2 types of batsmen. The top 3 and the middle order. They set up differently, different mind sets, have different techniques and different strengths. A middle order player may do a job in the top 3 but does it get the best out of them? no chance - see Joe Root (or before him Ian Bell the man Pope is compared to most). Equally putting a middle order player in the top 3 could be a plain disaster - See Hales or Roy. Pope is a middle order player and a very good one at that. He might be able to do a job at 3 but I dont think that will get the best out of him. He is the heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot. Until then he should fit in somewhere else in the middle order. For what its worth I would have Pope 5 Stokes 6. If we want a top 3 player we should pick a top 3 player (the best ones in the country) and that's what I believe we have in Burns, Sibley and Crawley with Hameed and Bracey as competition.
Also Pope has batted 4 for Surrey ever since his first England call up in 2018. Batting 4 is hugely different from batting 3. We have discovered a potentially world class middle order player. Its so very English to try and turn him into something he is not.
You mentioned above that the Burns/Sibley/Crawley is "the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott" but time after time they have failed as evidenced by their recent form. Burns has turned it around but the other two need more time away from the highest level to find their game again and this will give us the opportunity to look at least one other (and obvious) option in Hameed?
One final point - both Strauss and Trott were either dropped or left out in their Test career for one reason or other. Following those absences we found out whether they were actually good enough.
If he was left out of the test side his game time would simply be 20/20 and 100.
Not sure what the answer is.3 - Sponsored links:
-
I think that a reversal to the situation where one man, Silverwood has complete control over selection and tactics is wrong. It's too cozy, too mates all together when it becomes difficult to drop your pals even when they are in terrible form or well past retirement age.
Ed Smith and Taylor, his assistant had time to go to county matches up and down the country to assess player form and development. Silverwood will not have the time for that, although presumably there will be some kind of scouting system in place, at least I hope there is. The new bowling coach Lewis is a Gloucestershire man, a one test wonder. I wonder if Bracey would have got a test spot if he played for a county other than Glos ?
This England batting line up is young and callow. There must surely be more talent, grit and bottle in there than has been seen so far. At least we must all hope that there is.
Captaincy .. would England have folded so badly under Brearley, Strauss, Vaughan or Illingworth ?.. I don't think so. There is zero chance of him losing the job, but Joe Root does not totally convince as a captain, disciplinarian or real leader of men0 -
It’s time Stig Thundercck returned with his Joe Root appraisals !!5
-
Will the Test still be going at 2pm, and thus causing a clash with the football?
1 -
Edgbaston will show the football on the big screens0
-
England last 1 ball2
-
Absolutely bottlers.Pathetic performance.0
-
Jesus f**king Christ. Put tv on 2 mins after 11 to find adverts, which only means 1 thing at that time......a wicket.
Can't we last at least a few overs !!!
0 -
Get rid of the ECB & bring in a committee that just concentrates on Test cricket.redman said:
In an ideal world Crawley should be left out to go back to Kent to play some red ball cricket and rebuild his confidence and technique. However the ECB, in their wisden, have scheduled very little county red ball cricket until September!Addick Addict said:
So Canters - one week on, do you now accept that at least one (Crawley - averages 10.25 in last 12 innings) and possibly two (also Sibley - averages 22.65 last 22 innings) need time away and we need to look at Hameed opening with, perhaps, Lawrence, being given a try again at 3?cantersaddick said:
I never disagreed with that. I just feel that right now is probably not the right time to drop anyone of the top 3 and I dont think Hameed has done quite enough to make the selectors pick him no matter what. As for his average wasn't that after 3 innings?Addick Addict said:
Or play an opening bat who averages 43.80 in Test cricket. Been there, done that and it does work!cantersaddick said:
So we have a problem with the top 3 (whats new? we have since 2012). The solution is not to shove a middle order player in there. Been there, done that. Doesn't work.Addick Addict said:
But with those three up top for England, batting at 4 is batting at 3 and sometimes, like today, when we are two down in under 7 overs, it is the equivalent of opening!cantersaddick said:
I'm not saying they are there yet but I do think they can get there. Lets frame the question differently - Is this the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott? For my mind yes it undoubtedly is. Thats not to say we cant improve on it but I don't yet think Hameed has done enough to warrant dropping one of them.Addick Addict said:
I've always maintained that the top three isn't good enough as a unit. It might have been Burns previously whereas it is Sibley now. And next week it might be Crawley. But with those three up top we are always likely to lose not one but two wickets early doors especially against the Aussies.cantersaddick said:
Was only a couple of weeks ago you were saying Burns had to go. Now he has made some championship scores whilst Sibbers has been out injured you've switched.Addick Addict said:In the last 4 series Sibley has scored 294 runs at an average of 18.38
As I've said before, I am fearful that a front three of Sibley, Burns and Crawley in the Ashes and of these Sibley is the one that I think needs to be sacrificed in order to give Hameed a chance and/or Pope an opportunity to bat at 3 sooner rather than later
Lets not go back to the selection policy of the 90's. Both Bracey and Hameed are making a claim to be in the top 3 but are either of them there yet? I'm not sure. Lets make changes because we have someone better and ready waiting in the wings rather than for the sake of making changes.
Opening in test cricket is an impossibly hard job to do listen to Sir Ali Cook on the subject - he says the last 5 years of his test career it was 100 times harder than when he started. The game has swung into the bowlers favour, particularly at the start of the innings. I think we need to adjust expectations slightly - we arent gonna have another Cook/Strauss/Trott or Strauss/Tres/Vaughan combination. But if we can have a top 3averaging mid 30's and being incredibly consistent at batting time in that more often than not there is one partnership from those 3 that is enough to set a platform for 4-7 then that should be enough. My hopes are that Crawley as a 3 can be better than that.
You talk in terns of "the top three averaging mid 30's". But they don't do they as a group or individually:
Sibley averages 29.40 and 18.38 in his last 16 innings
Burns averages 31.35
Crawley averages 32.62 but take out that one mammoth innings of 267 out and it drops dramatically to 20.90
Hameed has done it at the highest level and averages 43.80 in Test cricket. How can he "wait in the wings" and prove himself further when we have no County Championship matches for 5 weeks?
You didn't want Pope batting above 6 because you wanted to protect the lad but it did the complete opposite in India. And look at what he's been doing now that he has been moved to 4 for Surrey - averages 61.66. When Stokes comes back presumably you will be happy for him to go back to 6 again?
Your last para is a whole different debate. I think the point you are missing is that in test cricket as it is now there is (and needs to be) broadly 2 types of batsmen. The top 3 and the middle order. They set up differently, different mind sets, have different techniques and different strengths. A middle order player may do a job in the top 3 but does it get the best out of them? no chance - see Joe Root (or before him Ian Bell the man Pope is compared to most). Equally putting a middle order player in the top 3 could be a plain disaster - See Hales or Roy. Pope is a middle order player and a very good one at that. He might be able to do a job at 3 but I dont think that will get the best out of him. He is the heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot. Until then he should fit in somewhere else in the middle order. For what its worth I would have Pope 5 Stokes 6. If we want a top 3 player we should pick a top 3 player (the best ones in the country) and that's what I believe we have in Burns, Sibley and Crawley with Hameed and Bracey as competition.
Also Pope has batted 4 for Surrey ever since his first England call up in 2018. Batting 4 is hugely different from batting 3. We have discovered a potentially world class middle order player. Its so very English to try and turn him into something he is not.
You mentioned above that the Burns/Sibley/Crawley is "the best top 3 unit we have had since we lost Strauss and Trott" but time after time they have failed as evidenced by their recent form. Burns has turned it around but the other two need more time away from the highest level to find their game again and this will give us the opportunity to look at least one other (and obvious) option in Hameed?
One final point - both Strauss and Trott were either dropped or left out in their Test career for one reason or other. Following those absences we found out whether they were actually good enough.
If he was left out of the test side his game time would simply be 20/20 and 100.
Not sure what the answer is.0 -
Also, I don't consider 2 Test matches a "Series". They were primarily a warm up for NZ to acclimatise to red ball cricket, English conditions and a Dukes ball ahead of the World Test Championship. End of.4
-
And is this just a warm up to watching the English football team lose today. 2 defeats in around 4 hours would be impressive.
0
