Everyone knows my views on Foakes and think he really does deserve a proper run in the side. He's been so unlucky what with getting injured slipping in the shower last year and now covid this year.
But, I just can't help getting the feeling that Billings just "fits" this side better. Not sure whether it's style of play or approach but he just feels right.
Yeah I'd agree with that. I think Billings is a better fit for the way Stokes wants this team to play
When was the last time England had a player in the for YJB is now?
Of you had never watched cricket before the last 2 and half tests you would think he must be the best in the world. Its not slap dash and just swinging is it.
I mean he is in great form but have you seen Joe Root play in the last 18 months?
When was the last time England had a player in the for YJB is now?
Of you had never watched cricket before the last 2 and half tests you would think he must be the best in the world. Its not slap dash and just swinging is it.
I mean he is in great form but have you seen Joe Root play in the last 18 months?
But it's not as destructive, like is said if you had never seen cricket before.
He has got 3 consecutive centuries at an accumulative strike rate over 100. Of course he isnt as good as Root but his form is remarkable.
When was the last time England had a player in the for YJB is now?
Of you had never watched cricket before the last 2 and half tests you would think he must be the best in the world. Its not slap dash and just swinging is it.
I mean he is in great form but have you seen Joe Root play in the last 18 months?
But it's not as destructive, like is said if you had never seen cricket before.
He has got 3 consecutive centuries at an accumulative strike rate over 100. Of course he isnt as good as Root but his form is remarkable.
Completely agree. We are watching something very special. Have a feeling this will be known as the summer of Bairstow!
When was the last time England had a player in the for YJB is now?
Of you had never watched cricket before the last 2 and half tests you would think he must be the best in the world. Its not slap dash and just swinging is it.
I mean he is in great form but have you seen Joe Root play in the last 18 months?
But it's not as destructive, like is said if you had never seen cricket before.
He has got 3 consecutive centuries at an accumulative strike rate over 100. Of course he isnt as good as Root but his form is remarkable.
Completely agree. We are watching something very special. Have a feeling this will be known as the summer of Crawley!
Although England haven't batted that well, YJB aside, it's the bowling that's the main reason we are over 100 behind. We really need better plans against the tail.
And of course the 3rd umpire could over rule it. There was more "negative evidence than "positive". You could clearly see the ball bouncing off the turf.
I'm working and have the tv on mute. I saw it, saw the replays and was expecting the not out signal on the big screen. Clearly bounced before on the front on view, the side on view didn't follow the ball quickly enough
That absolutely bounced in and out of his hands. If the 3rd Umpire doesn't change a decision for that then they never will. And it has nothing to do with the foreshortening of the lens - the reason he dropped it is because it bounced so high off the turf not his fingers.
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
I have been saying this, for the openers at least, too. It is the reason why I would have Compton opening with Lees as he plays in his box and makes everything look so simple basically because he knows what to play and what not to play and doesn't have three shots to every ball - the very thing that took him so long to get a proper a chance at the age of 28 is the thing that makes him a Test batsman. I rather fear that had Cook turned up as an 18 year old in this era, county coaches wouldn't have given him a contract for those same reasons.
I really don't believe we need an aggressive opener because the few times he'll come off against a quality attack will be vastly outweighed by the number of occasions he's back in the hutch with next to nothing to his name. We need to persevere with Pope because he has the ability to succeed and is still learning his game - he is also the sort of "transitional" batsman who is capable of playing both ways.
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
I have been saying this, for the openers at least, too. It is the reason why I would have Compton opening with Lees as he plays in his box and makes everything look so simple basically because he knows what to play and what not to play and doesn't have three shots to every ball - the very thing that took him so long to get a proper a chance at the age of 28 is the thing that makes him a Test batsman. I rather fear that had Cook turned up as an 18 year old in this era, county coaches wouldn't have given him a contract for those same reasons.
I really don't believe we need an aggressive opener because the few times he'll come off against a quality attack will be vastly outweighed by the number of occasions he's back in the hutch with next to nothing to his name. We need to persevere with Pope because he has the ability to succeed and is still learning his game - he is also the sort of "transitional" batsman who is capable of playing both ways.
In an English summer where the new ball is dangerous, and the old ball is cannon fodder, you do need to be flexible with your tactics. This isn't white ball cricket where you tee off in the Power Play.
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
I completely agree if you have a top 3 like Strauss, Cook and Trott your 4-7 can score quickly.
If your going to be so aggressive, as England have been, is there an argument to open the batting with the all rounder and/or the keeper?
Your always going to get one that's too good as an opener but if your getting yourself out every third knock as well?
Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog.
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
I completely agree if you have a top 3 like Strauss, Cook and Trott your 4-7 can score quickly.
If your going to be so aggressive, as England have been, is there an argument to open the batting with the all rounder and/or the keeper?
Your always going to get one that's too good as an opener but if your getting yourself out every third knock as well?
Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog.
Opening simply in Test cricket isn't that simple. The biggest hazard for an opener is the combination of a moving ball and a cordon of slips. In white ball and when a keeper or an aggressive batsman comes in later in red ball, there is, a lot of the time, very little movement plus there are usually no more than a token slip or two.
Trying to hit a moving ball at 90mph and not find the edge is simply not that easy. If it were, then the likes of Gilchrist, Buttler, Bairstow, Roy, Hales, Pant etc etc would either have been given a run at doing so or would have been more successful than they were doing it.
In fact it's quite simple really. If world class openers struggle to keep a new moving ball out then how are those who play "see ball/hit ball" expected to do it for more than a few balls before they are walking back? How many players have ever tried doing that to Jimmy Anderson with a new cherry let alone been successful at doing so?
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
I completely agree if you have a top 3 like Strauss, Cook and Trott your 4-7 can score quickly.
If your going to be so aggressive, as England have been, is there an argument to open the batting with the all rounder and/or the keeper?
Your always going to get one that's too good as an opener but if your getting yourself out every third knock as well?
Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog.
Opening simply in Test cricket isn't that simple. The biggest hazard for an opener is the combination of a moving ball and a cordon of slips. In white ball and when a keeper or an aggressive batsman comes in later in red ball, there is, a lot of the time, very little movement plus there are usually no more than a token slip or two.
Trying to hit a moving ball at 90mph and not find the edge is simply not that easy. If it were, then the likes of Gilchrist, Buttler, Bairstow, Roy, Hales, Pant etc etc would either have been given a run at doing so or would have been more successful than they were doing it.
In fact it's quite simple really. If world class openers struggle to keep a new moving ball out then how are those who play "see ball/hit ball" expected to do it for more than a few balls before they are walking back? How many players have ever tried doing that to Jimmy Anderson with a new cherry let alone been successful at doing so?
I agree but I can see the point, if your asking Crawley, Lees or anyone else to come out and be super aggressive it's going to fail far more often than it doesn't, for the reasons you have just said.
It's not fair on players that are going to be purley judged on the weight of runs they score. God knows what state of mind either of them are in right now.
Personally I would go down the Compton or Robson route for the SA series but if your going to try and change the way the game is played go the full hog. England didn't transform the white ball team by sticking with Cook and Bell and ask them to score at 7 or 8 an over.
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
I completely agree if you have a top 3 like Strauss, Cook and Trott your 4-7 can score quickly.
If your going to be so aggressive, as England have been, is there an argument to open the batting with the all rounder and/or the keeper?
Your always going to get one that's too good as an opener but if your getting yourself out every third knock as well?
Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog.
Opening simply in Test cricket isn't that simple. The biggest hazard for an opener is the combination of a moving ball and a cordon of slips. In white ball and when a keeper or an aggressive batsman comes in later in red ball, there is, a lot of the time, very little movement plus there are usually no more than a token slip or two.
Trying to hit a moving ball at 90mph and not find the edge is simply not that easy. If it were, then the likes of Gilchrist, Buttler, Bairstow, Roy, Hales, Pant etc etc would either have been given a run at doing so or would have been more successful than they were doing it.
In fact it's quite simple really. If world class openers struggle to keep a new moving ball out then how are those who play "see ball/hit ball" expected to do it for more than a few balls before they are walking back? How many players have ever tried doing that to Jimmy Anderson with a new cherry let alone been successful at doing so?
I agree but I can see the point, if your asking Crawley, Lees or anyone else to come out and be super aggressive it's going to fail far more often than it doesn't, for the reasons you have just said.
It's not fair on players that are going to be purley judged on the weight of runs they score. God knows what state of mind either of them are in right now.
Personally I would go down the Compton or Robson route for the SA series but if your going to try and change the way the game is played go the full hog. England didn't transform the white ball team by sticking with Cook and Bell and ask them to score at 7 or 8 an over.
I just do not believe that you can "go the full hog" and change the way you play in the majority of circumstances to a new red ball delivered by the majority of attacks in the world. Look at Kohli today - came out all aggressive, hit four boundaries but most of the time couldn't impose himself and ended up with 20 off 40.
The greatest batsman at opening and being aggressive at the same time, in the history of the game, is Sehwag who averaged 49.34 at a strike rate of 82.23. But he had a defence too. Look at what happened when we tried two of our best white ball openers and their respective returns:
Roy - average 18.70, S/R 58.80 Hales - average 27.78, S/R 43.84
Equally, Stokes has been suggested but if he can only average 36.24 at 58.05 batting at 5 or 6 so what are the chances of him lasting that long opening when things are so difficult?
The best openers in the world earn the right to be there later on by not getting out to the new ball. We can try as many as we like going hard at the ball from the outset but I absolutely guarantee that any attempt to do so will consistently fail.
Who is our most successful batsman at present - Bairstow. He opens in white ball but anyone want to be brave enough to say to him do that in Test cricket? He was tried at 3 and in 14 innings he averaged 30.77 at a strike rate of 56.66. So he wasn't even opening, wasn't even trying to be aggressive and he barely averaged 30 at slightly more than 3 an over.
Opening is a completely different psyche. Interestingly, I hadn't realised until I was told yesterday that Zak Crawley did not open in the Kent age group system. He only became an opener at the age of 18 when he was asked to do so in the Kent 2s. If you gave him the choice to go back in time I am sure that he would rather have been a number 3 or 4 because he is an aggressive player but doesn't have the technique that will stand up to scrutiny when opening in red ball. And very, very few players do. For every Sehwag or Warner there are hundreds and hundreds that can only do one or the other. And most English openers can't even do either. For all the reasons I've preciously expressed - constant white ball scenario sessions where defence is not a word that is used.
With batting against the old ball being SO much easier this summer, England need to modify their tactics a bit. Be cautious for the first 30 overs, and only then get more aggressive. Indeed a boring top 3 would work well, if you have aggressive run scorers from 4 down to 8
I completely agree if you have a top 3 like Strauss, Cook and Trott your 4-7 can score quickly.
If your going to be so aggressive, as England have been, is there an argument to open the batting with the all rounder and/or the keeper?
Your always going to get one that's too good as an opener but if your getting yourself out every third knock as well?
Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog.
Opening simply in Test cricket isn't that simple. The biggest hazard for an opener is the combination of a moving ball and a cordon of slips. In white ball and when a keeper or an aggressive batsman comes in later in red ball, there is, a lot of the time, very little movement plus there are usually no more than a token slip or two.
Trying to hit a moving ball at 90mph and not find the edge is simply not that easy. If it were, then the likes of Gilchrist, Buttler, Bairstow, Roy, Hales, Pant etc etc would either have been given a run at doing so or would have been more successful than they were doing it.
In fact it's quite simple really. If world class openers struggle to keep a new moving ball out then how are those who play "see ball/hit ball" expected to do it for more than a few balls before they are walking back? How many players have ever tried doing that to Jimmy Anderson with a new cherry let alone been successful at doing so?
I agree but I can see the point, if your asking Crawley, Lees or anyone else to come out and be super aggressive it's going to fail far more often than it doesn't, for the reasons you have just said.
It's not fair on players that are going to be purley judged on the weight of runs they score. God knows what state of mind either of them are in right now.
Personally I would go down the Compton or Robson route for the SA series but if your going to try and change the way the game is played go the full hog. England didn't transform the white ball team by sticking with Cook and Bell and ask them to score at 7 or 8 an over.
I just do not believe that you can "go the full hog" and change the way you play in the majority of circumstances to a new red ball delivered by the majority of attacks in the world. Look at Kohli today - came out all aggressive, hit four boundaries but most of the time couldn't impose himself and ended up with 20 off 40.
The greatest batsman at opening and being aggressive at the same time, in the history of the game, is Sehwag who averaged 49.34 at a strike rate of 82.23. But he had a defence too. Look at what happened when we tried two of our best white ball openers and their respective returns:
Roy - average 18.70, S/R 58.80 Hales - average 27.78, S/R 43.84
Equally, Stokes has been suggested but if he can only average 36.24 at 58.05 batting at 5 or 6 so what are the chances of him lasting that long opening when things are so difficult?
The best openers in the world earn the right to be there later on by not getting out to the new ball. We can try as many as we like going hard at the ball from the outset but I absolutely guarantee that any attempt to do so will consistently fail.
Who is our most successful batsman at present - Bairstow. He opens in white ball but anyone want to be brave enough to say to him do that in Test cricket? He was tried at 3 and in 14 innings he averaged 30.77 at a strike rate of 56.66. So he wasn't even opening, wasn't even trying to be aggressive and he barely averaged 30 at slightly more than 3 an over.
Opening is a completely different psyche. Interestingly, I hadn't realised until I was told yesterday that Zak Crawley did not open in the Kent age group system. He only became an opener at the age of 18 when he was asked to do so in the Kent 2s. If you gave him the choice to go back in time I am sure that he would rather have been a number 3 or 4 because he is an aggressive player but doesn't have the technique that will stand up to scrutiny when opening in red ball. And very, very few players do. For every Sehwag or Warner there are hundreds and hundreds that can only do one or the other. And most English openers can't even do either. For all the reasons I've preciously expressed - constant white ball scenario sessions where defence is not a word that is used.
I don't know why you are trying to convince me, I have already said I wouldn't do it......
Comments
He has got 3 consecutive centuries at an accumulative strike rate over 100. Of course he isnt as good as Root but his form is remarkable.
That's not out. It's more not out than the one Root "caught" on Friday.
This "soft signalling" is utter bollox.
I really don't believe we need an aggressive opener because the few times he'll come off against a quality attack will be vastly outweighed by the number of occasions he's back in the hutch with next to nothing to his name. We need to persevere with Pope because he has the ability to succeed and is still learning his game - he is also the sort of "transitional" batsman who is capable of playing both ways.
If your going to be so aggressive, as England have been, is there an argument to open the batting with the all rounder and/or the keeper?
Your always going to get one that's too good as an opener but if your getting yourself out every third knock as well?
Open with Stokes and bring Brook into the middle order? If your going to change the rules of test cricket you might as well go the whole hog.
Trying to hit a moving ball at 90mph and not find the edge is simply not that easy. If it were, then the likes of Gilchrist, Buttler, Bairstow, Roy, Hales, Pant etc etc would either have been given a run at doing so or would have been more successful than they were doing it.
In fact it's quite simple really. If world class openers struggle to keep a new moving ball out then how are those who play "see ball/hit ball" expected to do it for more than a few balls before they are walking back? How many players have ever tried doing that to Jimmy Anderson with a new cherry let alone been successful at doing so?
It's not fair on players that are going to be purley judged on the weight of runs they score. God knows what state of mind either of them are in right now.
Personally I would go down the Compton or Robson route for the SA series but if your going to try and change the way the game is played go the full hog. England didn't transform the white ball team by sticking with Cook and Bell and ask them to score at 7 or 8 an over.
The greatest batsman at opening and being aggressive at the same time, in the history of the game, is Sehwag who averaged 49.34 at a strike rate of 82.23. But he had a defence too. Look at what happened when we tried two of our best white ball openers and their respective returns:
Roy - average 18.70, S/R 58.80
Hales - average 27.78, S/R 43.84
Equally, Stokes has been suggested but if he can only average 36.24 at 58.05 batting at 5 or 6 so what are the chances of him lasting that long opening when things are so difficult?
The best openers in the world earn the right to be there later on by not getting out to the new ball. We can try as many as we like going hard at the ball from the outset but I absolutely guarantee that any attempt to do so will consistently fail.
Who is our most successful batsman at present - Bairstow. He opens in white ball but anyone want to be brave enough to say to him do that in Test cricket? He was tried at 3 and in 14 innings he averaged 30.77 at a strike rate of 56.66. So he wasn't even opening, wasn't even trying to be aggressive and he barely averaged 30 at slightly more than 3 an over.
Opening is a completely different psyche. Interestingly, I hadn't realised until I was told yesterday that Zak Crawley did not open in the Kent age group system. He only became an opener at the age of 18 when he was asked to do so in the Kent 2s. If you gave him the choice to go back in time I am sure that he would rather have been a number 3 or 4 because he is an aggressive player but doesn't have the technique that will stand up to scrutiny when opening in red ball. And very, very few players do. For every Sehwag or Warner there are hundreds and hundreds that can only do one or the other. And most English openers can't even do either. For all the reasons I've preciously expressed - constant white ball scenario sessions where defence is not a word that is used.