Burns - does all the hard work and then gives it up with a reverse sweep
Lawrence - new to the crease and he tries to clip a ball from Bumrah that was probably hitting middle/middle and off too square. What's wrong with playing in the "V" and showing the full face of the bat, especially early on and against one of the best fast bowlers in the world? Feel a bit sorry for him because we're shielding Pope at 6 when he's now played 20 Tests - Pope will be our number 3 so why not try him there now?
Decent start though and we'd have taken 127-2 all day long had this been offered to us
I agree that Lawrence isn't a 3 - he hasn't played there for a few years and hasn't had much success there. He is a much better 4 or 5. But where has this idea that Pope will be our number 3 come from? he has never batted higher than 4 and really shouldn't. He's class in the lower middle order. Play him in his specialist position. I dont get why you would even want to move him up the order and play him in situations he isnt familiar with and his game isnt suited to.
Crawley will be our test number 3, Pope will bat 5 or 6 and is heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot.
I thought we had moved past the ridiculous days of Trevor Bayliss where we continuously shoehorned class middle order players into the top 3. Its a different game - pick specialists ffs.
Burns - does all the hard work and then gives it up with a reverse sweep
Lawrence - new to the crease and he tries to clip a ball from Bumrah that was probably hitting middle/middle and off too square. What's wrong with playing in the "V" and showing the full face of the bat, especially early on and against one of the best fast bowlers in the world? Feel a bit sorry for him because we're shielding Pope at 6 when he's now played 20 Tests - Pope will be our number 3 so why not try him there now?
Decent start though and we'd have taken 127-2 all day long had this been offered to us
I agree that Lawrence isn't a 3 - he hasn't played there for a few years and hasn't had much success there. He is a much better 4 or 5. But where has this idea that Pope will be our number 3 come from? he has never batted higher than 4 and really shouldn't. He's class in the lower middle order. Play him in his specialist position. I dont get why you would even want to move him up the order and play him in situations he isnt familiar with and his game isnt suited to.
Crawley will be our test number 3, Pope will bat 5 or 6 and is heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot.
It's come from the fact that Pope has the technique and temperament to be a number 3. Should England have to drop Burns or Sibley or one of them is injured at some point, who is the obvious person to open? Someone who has done it all his life like Crawley?
It's only a recent phenomenon for a batsman to be a specialist 3, 4, 5 or 6. This has resulted from the fact that batsman have developed poor technique from playing too much white ball cricket. Look at Lawrence - literally a matter of weeks ago he was playing in the Big Bash and tries today to play a shot, having not even faced half a dozen balls, that gave him the least amount of chance of connecting with it. Why did Burns feel the need to pull out a shot that had a minimal risk/reward given that this is a Test match?
The skillset required to be successful there is far different from those required to be a Test batsman. The names Hales, Roy, Vince, Lyth etc etc spring to mind. Pope has the technique and very few do so why not get the most out of him?
Burns - does all the hard work and then gives it up with a reverse sweep
Lawrence - new to the crease and he tries to clip a ball from Bumrah that was probably hitting middle/middle and off too square. What's wrong with playing in the "V" and showing the full face of the bat, especially early on and against one of the best fast bowlers in the world? Feel a bit sorry for him because we're shielding Pope at 6 when he's now played 20 Tests - Pope will be our number 3 so why not try him there now?
Decent start though and we'd have taken 127-2 all day long had this been offered to us
I agree that Lawrence isn't a 3 - he hasn't played there for a few years and hasn't had much success there. He is a much better 4 or 5. But where has this idea that Pope will be our number 3 come from? he has never batted higher than 4 and really shouldn't. He's class in the lower middle order. Play him in his specialist position. I dont get why you would even want to move him up the order and play him in situations he isnt familiar with and his game isnt suited to.
Crawley will be our test number 3, Pope will bat 5 or 6 and is heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot.
It's come from the fact that Pope has the technique and temperament to be a number 3. Should England have to drop Burns or Sibley or one of them is injured at some point, who is the obvious person to open? Someone who has done it all his life like Crawley?
It's only a recent phenomenon for a batsman to be a specialist 3, 4, 5 or 6. This has resulted from the fact that batsman have developed poor technique from playing too much white ball cricket. Look at Lawrence - literally a matter of weeks ago he was playing in the Big Bash and tries today to play a shot, having not even faced half a dozen balls, that gave him the least amount of chance of connecting with it. Why did Burns feel the need to pull out a shot that had a minimal risk/reward given that this is a Test match?
The skillset required to be successful there is far different from those required to be a Test batsman. The names Hales, Roy, Vince, Lyth etc etc spring to mind. Pope has the technique and very few do so why not get the most out of him?
He certainly has the temperament and technique for test cricket but having watched him on debut for surrey and a huge amount since i have seen nothing to suggest his game us suited to the top 3. He will likely fill in there at points for injury cover etc. but I just cant see him doing it regularly. It absolutely would not be "getting the most out of him". To get the most out of him you bat him at 4/5/6 where his game is suited and where he has batted all his life.
Burns - does all the hard work and then gives it up with a reverse sweep
Lawrence - new to the crease and he tries to clip a ball from Bumrah that was probably hitting middle/middle and off too square. What's wrong with playing in the "V" and showing the full face of the bat, especially early on and against one of the best fast bowlers in the world? Feel a bit sorry for him because we're shielding Pope at 6 when he's now played 20 Tests - Pope will be our number 3 so why not try him there now?
Decent start though and we'd have taken 127-2 all day long had this been offered to us
I agree that Lawrence isn't a 3 - he hasn't played there for a few years and hasn't had much success there. He is a much better 4 or 5. But where has this idea that Pope will be our number 3 come from? he has never batted higher than 4 and really shouldn't. He's class in the lower middle order. Play him in his specialist position. I dont get why you would even want to move him up the order and play him in situations he isnt familiar with and his game isnt suited to.
Crawley will be our test number 3, Pope will bat 5 or 6 and is heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot.
It's come from the fact that Pope has the technique and temperament to be a number 3. Should England have to drop Burns or Sibley or one of them is injured at some point, who is the obvious person to open? Someone who has done it all his life like Crawley?
It's only a recent phenomenon for a batsman to be a specialist 3, 4, 5 or 6. This has resulted from the fact that batsman have developed poor technique from playing too much white ball cricket. Look at Lawrence - literally a matter of weeks ago he was playing in the Big Bash and tries today to play a shot, having not even faced half a dozen balls, that gave him the least amount of chance of connecting with it. Why did Burns feel the need to pull out a shot that had a minimal risk/reward given that this is a Test match?
The skillset required to be successful there is far different from those required to be a Test batsman. The names Hales, Roy, Vince, Lyth etc etc spring to mind. Pope has the technique and very few do so why not get the most out of him?
He certainly has the temperament and technique for test cricket but having watched him on debut for surrey and a huge amount since i have seen nothing to suggest his game us suited to the top 3. He will likely fill in there at points for injury cover etc. but I just cant see him doing it regularly. It absolutely would not be "getting the most out of him". To get the most out of him you bat him at 4/5/6 where his game is suited and where he has batted all his life.
In the words of Michael Holding "Pope should be building an innings and not doing a repair job".
Root and Stokes will, hopefully, be with us for a good few more years so, effectively, are we saying that Pope should stay at 6 for the duration? I repeat who is going to open if and when Burns/Sibley need to be replaced? Most likely Crawley because there are no other obvious candidates. So we are left, yet again, without an established number 3 which has been the case for any number of years.
As for him not batting at 3 for Surrey, perhaps the question should be raised as to why that is the case? Because, for the last two seasons, no Surrey batsman, apart from Burns and Pope himself, has averaged more than 30. That is really poor. Are the likes of Borthwick, Stoneman, Jacks, Smith, Patel and Finch really better equipped to bat at 3? Of course they aren't.
Absolute class batting from Joe Root.So good to see him back to his best.Making spin bowling look easy.Also well played Dom Sibley.Just out as im writing this but excellent innings from Sibley.
Comments
Crawley will be our test number 3, Pope will bat 5 or 6 and is heir apparent to Root for the number 4 slot.
I thought we had moved past the ridiculous days of Trevor Bayliss where we continuously shoehorned class middle order players into the top 3. Its a different game - pick specialists ffs.
It's only a recent phenomenon for a batsman to be a specialist 3, 4, 5 or 6. This has resulted from the fact that batsman have developed poor technique from playing too much white ball cricket. Look at Lawrence - literally a matter of weeks ago he was playing in the Big Bash and tries today to play a shot, having not even faced half a dozen balls, that gave him the least amount of chance of connecting with it. Why did Burns feel the need to pull out a shot that had a minimal risk/reward given that this is a Test match?
The skillset required to be successful there is far different from those required to be a Test batsman. The names Hales, Roy, Vince, Lyth etc etc spring to mind. Pope has the technique and very few do so why not get the most out of him?
Will be interesting to see the viewing figures for C4.
Well presented.
(And third, and fourth).
In the words of Michael Holding "Pope should be building an innings and not doing a repair job".
Root and Stokes will, hopefully, be with us for a good few more years so, effectively, are we saying that Pope should stay at 6 for the duration? I repeat who is going to open if and when Burns/Sibley need to be replaced? Most likely Crawley because there are no other obvious candidates. So we are left, yet again, without an established number 3 which has been the case for any number of years.
As for him not batting at 3 for Surrey, perhaps the question should be raised as to why that is the case? Because, for the last two seasons, no Surrey batsman, apart from Burns and Pope himself, has averaged more than 30. That is really poor. Are the likes of Borthwick, Stoneman, Jacks, Smith, Patel and Finch really better equipped to bat at 3? Of course they aren't.
If his last shot's anything to go by (6), yes.