Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2021 (excluding Ashes)
Comments
-
Absolutely spot on.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
Especially regarding Pope1 -
Just flipped over to the T10. The Northern Warriors are 42-4 off 3.1 overs. And we wonder why batsmen struggle to play straight when they need to!!!
The likes of Joe Clarke and Ben Duckett are playing in this comp. Presumably they haven't given up all hope of playing Test cricket but are chasing the money while they can. And it's difficult to argue against that but there are repercussions of doing so.
I'm convinced that one of the main reasons for Root's recent success is that he has a clear head again. The break will definitely have helped but, both in the middle and the nets, he would have been concentrating solely on batting as a Test batsman. No scenarios - we're in the Power Play etc etc with two out - but what are your plans for playing Ashwin, Bumrah etc etc?2 -
I think those days would be over but due to covid bubble rotation and injuries, England’s hand was forced. Crawley would have batted at 3 except for a freak injury.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.1 -
Who do you think would have missed out, between (presumably) Lawrence and Pope?Todds_right_hook said:
I think those days would be over but due to covid bubble rotation and injuries, England’s hand was forced. Crawley would have batted at 3 except for a freak injury.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.0 -
So you and Canters (both Surrey supporters) are happy for a class batsman like Pope to bat at 6 for the next 4 or 5 years? Because I don't think Root and Stokes are going anywhere. So why not bat Pope at 6 for Surrey as he is such a specialist in that position. It's OK for Lawrence to be the sacrificial lamb though because he is so better equipped to bat at 3 for England.blackpool72 said:
Absolutely spot on.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
Especially regarding Pope
And in the words of Canters. Not that I like using them. "FFS"0 -
lawrence, presumably.Chizz said:
Who do you think would have missed out, between (presumably) Lawrence and Pope?Todds_right_hook said:
I think those days would be over but due to covid bubble rotation and injuries, England’s hand was forced. Crawley would have batted at 3 except for a freak injury.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.0 -
Pope wasn't even meant to be available for this TestChizz said:
Who do you think would have missed out, between (presumably) Lawrence and Pope?Todds_right_hook said:
I think those days would be over but due to covid bubble rotation and injuries, England’s hand was forced. Crawley would have batted at 3 except for a freak injury.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
If Bairstow hadn't been sent home he would have batted number 3 presumably0 -
You can't say that because you will upset the Surrey boys as Pope is the class batsman who can only bat at 6 for England. Presumably Alec Stewart thinks the same and that's the only reason he doesn't bat a 3 for Surrey. Although, let's not forget, this is the man who thought Jason Roy could open for England in Test cricket!!!kentaddick said:
lawrence, presumably.Chizz said:
Who do you think would have missed out, between (presumably) Lawrence and Pope?Todds_right_hook said:
I think those days would be over but due to covid bubble rotation and injuries, England’s hand was forced. Crawley would have batted at 3 except for a freak injury.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
I do hope that Pope doesn't run out of partners in this Test batting at 6 with Buttler at 7 followed by Bess, Archer, Leach and Anderson.
0 -
What on earth are you on abut with that bit in bold?Addick Addict said:
So you and Canters (both Surrey supporters) are happy for a class batsman like Pope to bat at 6 for the next 4 or 5 years? Because I don't think Root and Stokes are going anywhere. So why not bat Pope at 6 for Surrey as he is such a specialist in that position. It's OK for Lawrence to be the sacrificial lamb though because he is so better equipped to bat at 3 for England.blackpool72 said:
Absolutely spot on.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
Especially regarding Pope
And in the words of Canters. Not that I like using them. "FFS"
As far as I can see that's the only spot in the line-up that is available for him. We finally have a top 3 that are settled and specialists in those roles and whilst they may not be the most experienced or consistent we are seeing one of them come off most games so we aren't starting every innings at 30-3. That is a good thing. As you say Root and Stokes aren't going anywhere so 6 is the only slot available. In my view its the slot where we have the most players capable of filling that role in English cricket. There is so much competition for it Bairstow and Buttler playing as specialist bats there would do well, I even reckon the likes of Roy or Hales would thrive in that role as it suits their game. Likewise I would love for Moeen to make that slot his own. But Pope looks the best bet long term for that slot and certainly has the most potential (selectors seem to think that too) so he gets the nod at 6. As I said just a few posts up I'm sure in time he will move to 5 probably to lower the workload on stokes and he is the heir apparent to Root at 4.
I haven't ever said he is a specialist number 6. I said he is a specialist middle order player.
As I said before he may well fill in for the odd game if we have a top order player injured but I don't see him doing it regularly. I started off by saying that Lawrence isn't a number 3 either. With Crawley injured and Bairstow sent home, Roots reluctance to bat 3 even in this form means it was basically a toss up between Pope and Lawrence. I can see the arguments either way and I'm not particularly worried which way they went. I wasn't saying anything around this game simply questioning the statement you made "Pope will be our number 3" which implied a long term role there not just filling in if we have a top 3 injury.Addick Addict said:
You can't say that because you will upset the Surrey boys as Pope is the class batsman who can only bat at 6 for England. Presumably Alec Stewart thinks the same and that's the only reason he doesn't bat a 3 for Surrey. Although, let's not forget, this is the man who thought Jason Roy could open for England in Test cricket!!!kentaddick said:
lawrence, presumably.Chizz said:
Who do you think would have missed out, between (presumably) Lawrence and Pope?Todds_right_hook said:
I think those days would be over but due to covid bubble rotation and injuries, England’s hand was forced. Crawley would have batted at 3 except for a freak injury.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
I do hope that Pope doesn't run out of partners in this Test batting at 6 with Buttler at 7 followed by Bess, Archer, Leach and Anderson.
What are you on about? Are you okay? Here to chat if you need it. We are just talking about cricket, bigger things going on in the world.
I've covered it all above but just on the bold bit - Stewart repeatedly said on TMS and various articles/interviews he did that summer that he hoped Roy would be a success opening but he wouldn't open with him and saw him as a middle order player.0 -
Lawrence. If you have to chose 2 out of Lawrence, Crawley and Pope, Lawrence would miss out if I were the selector.Chizz said:
Who do you think would have missed out, between (presumably) Lawrence and Pope?Todds_right_hook said:
I think those days would be over but due to covid bubble rotation and injuries, England’s hand was forced. Crawley would have batted at 3 except for a freak injury.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
granted, it’s easier for me to type this knowing Lawrence scored 0 🦆1 - Sponsored links:
-
Just bring back Joe Denly, he can bat at 3 seeing that nobody else wants to do it
0 -
To the best of my knowledge Pope has never batted at 3 for Surrey.Addick Addict said:
So you and Canters (both Surrey supporters) are happy for a class batsman like Pope to bat at 6 for the next 4 or 5 years? Because I don't think Root and Stokes are going anywhere. So why not bat Pope at 6 for Surrey as he is such a specialist in that position. It's OK for Lawrence to be the sacrificial lamb though because he is so better equipped to bat at 3 for England.blackpool72 said:
Absolutely spot on.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
Especially regarding Pope
And in the words of Canters. Not that I like using them. "FFS"
So for that reason alone it makes no sense in batting him at 3 for England.
The number 3 position is a specialist position as you can often find yourself batting in the first couple of overs so in effect you are almost a specialist opening batsman.
Until Pope moves up the order for Surrey he should be kept well away from batting at 3 for England.2 -
We will have to differ about Pope's best position.cantersaddick said:
What on earth are you on abut with that bit in bold?Addick Addict said:
So you and Canters (both Surrey supporters) are happy for a class batsman like Pope to bat at 6 for the next 4 or 5 years? Because I don't think Root and Stokes are going anywhere. So why not bat Pope at 6 for Surrey as he is such a specialist in that position. It's OK for Lawrence to be the sacrificial lamb though because he is so better equipped to bat at 3 for England.blackpool72 said:
Absolutely spot on.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
Especially regarding Pope
And in the words of Canters. Not that I like using them. "FFS"
As far as I can see that's the only spot in the line-up that is available for him. We finally have a top 3 that are settled and specialists in those roles and whilst they may not be the most experienced or consistent we are seeing one of them come off most games so we aren't starting every innings at 30-3. That is a good thing. As you say Root and Stokes aren't going anywhere so 6 is the only slot available. In my view its the slot where we have the most players capable of filling that role in English cricket. There is so much competition for it Bairstow and Buttler playing as specialist bats there would do well, I even reckon the likes of Roy or Hales would thrive in that role as it suits their game. Likewise I would love for Moeen to make that slot his own. But Pope looks the best bet long term for that slot and certainly has the most potential (selectors seem to think that too) so he gets the nod at 6. As I said just a few posts up I'm sure in time he will move to 5 probably to lower the workload on stokes and he is the heir apparent to Root at 4.
I haven't ever said he is a specialist number 6. I said he is a specialist middle order player.
As I said before he may well fill in for the odd game if we have a top order player injured but I don't see him doing it regularly. I started off by saying that Lawrence isn't a number 3 either. With Crawley injured and Bairstow sent home, Roots reluctance to bat 3 even in this form means it was basically a toss up between Pope and Lawrence. I can see the arguments either way and I'm not particularly worried which way they went. I wasn't saying anything around this game simply questioning the statement you made "Pope will be our number 3" which implied a long term role there not just filling in if we have a top 3 injury.Addick Addict said:
You can't say that because you will upset the Surrey boys as Pope is the class batsman who can only bat at 6 for England. Presumably Alec Stewart thinks the same and that's the only reason he doesn't bat a 3 for Surrey. Although, let's not forget, this is the man who thought Jason Roy could open for England in Test cricket!!!kentaddick said:
lawrence, presumably.Chizz said:
Who do you think would have missed out, between (presumably) Lawrence and Pope?Todds_right_hook said:
I think those days would be over but due to covid bubble rotation and injuries, England’s hand was forced. Crawley would have batted at 3 except for a freak injury.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
I do hope that Pope doesn't run out of partners in this Test batting at 6 with Buttler at 7 followed by Bess, Archer, Leach and Anderson.
What are you on about? Are you okay? Here to chat if you need it. We are just talking about cricket, bigger things going on in the world.
I've covered it all above but just on the bold bit - Stewart repeatedly said on TMS and various articles/interviews he did that summer that he hoped Roy would be a success opening but he wouldn't open with him and saw him as a middle order player.
And you did say "Its a different game - pick specialists ffs."?
0 -
This. I do not follow Surrey or know anything about popes Surrey career. What I do know is that he has scored runs and shown promise batting at mostly 6 for England. Regardless of the rest of the batting line up, England will always need a good middle order batsman. There is no reason why pope should not be that man for years to come. He may be a suitable 4 after root retires but on roots current form, that is a long way away.blackpool72 said:
To the best of my knowledge Pope has never batted at 3 for Surrey.Addick Addict said:
So you and Canters (both Surrey supporters) are happy for a class batsman like Pope to bat at 6 for the next 4 or 5 years? Because I don't think Root and Stokes are going anywhere. So why not bat Pope at 6 for Surrey as he is such a specialist in that position. It's OK for Lawrence to be the sacrificial lamb though because he is so better equipped to bat at 3 for England.blackpool72 said:
Absolutely spot on.cantersaddick said:
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.Addick Addict said: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
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.
Especially regarding Pope
And in the words of Canters. Not that I like using them. "FFS"
So for that reason alone it makes no sense in batting him at 3 for England.
The number 3 position is a specialist position as you can often find yourself batting in the first couple of overs so in effect you are almost a specialist opening batsman.
Until Pope moves up the order for Surrey he should be kept well away from batting at 3 for England.1 -
Fwiw I see Pope as a 4/5/6 ..although I might add that as his career progresses he might be able to move further up the order..but not now ..Ian Bell wasn't a 3 but had to bat there to his detriment on occasions .he was much more successful at 5/6 ,I see Pope as a similar player.1
-
Seems its not just surrey fans who can see the difference between top order and middle order batting roles.2
-
Shame Lawrence went in at three and fell for a duck. I make that four Essex players in the last few.ywars who started at 3 when they weren't ready... Bopara, Westley... Admittedly Cook did alright when they kicked up up to open
1 -
Just for the sake of balance I ought to add that I do follow Surrey 😊cantersaddick said:Seems its not just surrey fans who can see the difference between top order and middle order batting roles.3 -
is there any highlights? I thought they said it would be on catch up but cant find it.
if already mentioned previously sorry but I haven't read any posts since yesterday as i've been keeping away from the score.0 -
Go to C4 on your electronic programme guide and scroll through till you reach the programme called ENGLAND BAT FIRST AND SCORE 345-2 WITH BOTH OPENERS MAKING HUNDREDS and click enter. Watch out for spoilers though.Karim_myBagheri said:is there any highlights? I thought they said it would be on catch up but cant find it.
if already mentioned previously sorry but I haven't read any posts since yesterday as i've been keeping away from the score.2 - Sponsored links:
-
But we are by far the most intelligent.cantersaddick said:Seems its not just surrey fans who can see the difference between top order and middle order batting roles.2 -
What a sensible well balanced intelligent person you are.lolwray said:
Just for the sake of balance I ought to add that I do follow Surrey 😊cantersaddick said:Seems its not just surrey fans who can see the difference between top order and middle order batting roles.2 -
cantersaddick said:Seems its not just surrey fans who can see the difference between top order and middle order batting roles.lolwray said:
Just for the sake of balance I ought to add that I do follow Surrey 😊cantersaddick said:Seems its not just surrey fans who can see the difference between top order and middle order batting roles.
Or possibly not.
0 -
dickChizz said:
Go to C4 on your electronic programme guide and scroll through till you reach the programme called ENGLAND BAT FIRST AND SCORE 345-2 WITH BOTH OPENERS MAKING HUNDREDS and click enter. Watch out for spoilers though.Karim_myBagheri said:is there any highlights? I thought they said it would be on catch up but cant find it.
if already mentioned previously sorry but I haven't read any posts since yesterday as i've been keeping away from the score.
1 -
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/cricket-india-v-englandKarim_myBagheri said:is there any highlights? I thought they said it would be on catch up but cant find it.
if already mentioned previously sorry but I haven't read any posts since yesterday as i've been keeping away from the score.
1 -
280-3, 97 overs
Root 135
Stokes 100 -
Bloody stupid time to be up on a Saturday:-(2
-
Drinks break... 303-3, 104 overs
Root 142
Stokes 26
0 -
Root survives what looked like a plumb DRS review for LBW. Pitching in line, impact in line, tracking over the top.0
-
150 up for Root. Quickly followed by fifty up for Ben Stokes with back to back boundaries. :-)
336-3, 113 overs
Root 151
Stokes 500
