South Africa had a four day preparation and played very well. England had no four day preparation and played poorly. Good summary by Shaun Pollock.
South Africa were soundly thrashed, by an innings in their one warm up game.
And clearly needed the red ball warm up game which they got. What was England's red ball warm up game?
Tests against New Zealand and India
Fantastic warm up - six weeks ago during which time most of them have played nothing but white ball.
And the South Africa bowling attack against the Lions? No Rabada. No Nortje. No Ngidi. They picked up 14 of the wickets to fall in this Test. But the top eight batsmen played in both. So South Africa put out a sub standard bowling attack against the Lions but gave their batsmen time in the middle to adjust to the conditions.
So, our Test attack was far better prepared than the Saffers'? And their Test batters warmed up by getting failures out of the way before the series started.
You can be a right WUM at times.
Which bit do you not agree with? The South African attack had very, very little warm up prior to the first Test. And their batting in their one warm up game failed abysmally, other than players who didn't play in the Test match. If I am wrong about this, tell me in what way.
We didn't lose the Lord's test because our opponents had a far superior series of warm up matches prior to the Test. We lost because our batting was awful and there's was just adequate.
Because you have no understanding whatsoever of cricket. You just throw your grenades and when someone comes up with an answer you reply with another grenade.
But, just for you, Anderson and Broad have not bowled a ball in anger for almost seven weeks. Leach in that time has taken one wicket. Rabada, Ngidi and Nortje all played white ball in the last few weeks. Their other two bowlers played in the warm up game.
South Africa's top eight all got time in the middle in the Lions game facing a red ball attack that included Robinson and Overton. It is that time in the middle getting the pace of wickets here and facing a red ball that matters. This is what they scored in the match:
Erwee 56 Elgar 43 Petersen 21 Markram 98 Van Der Dussen 88 Jansen 54 Vereyenne 73 Maharaj 24
So, they all found time in the middle against a RED moving ball. When I asked you what prep our batsmen had against a RED moving ball you said that was in the Tests that took place SIX weeks before. Instead, they've played nothing but WHITE ball and some of it of the Mickey Mouse variety.
I really don't expect you to understand the massive difference there is between red and white ball for batsmen but there really is. Which is why I suggested that Crawley should have played in the Lions game and possibly a couple of other too.
South Africa had a four day preparation and played very well. England had no four day preparation and played poorly. Good summary by Shaun Pollock.
South Africa were soundly thrashed, by an innings in their one warm up game.
And clearly needed the red ball warm up game which they got. What was England's red ball warm up game?
Tests against New Zealand and India
Fantastic warm up - six weeks ago during which time most of them have played nothing but white ball.
And the South Africa bowling attack against the Lions? No Rabada. No Nortje. No Ngidi. They picked up 14 of the wickets to fall in this Test. But the top eight batsmen played in both. So South Africa put out a sub standard bowling attack against the Lions but gave their batsmen time in the middle to adjust to the conditions.
So, our Test attack was far better prepared than the Saffers'? And their Test batters warmed up by getting failures out of the way before the series started.
You can be a right WUM at times.
Which bit do you not agree with? The South African attack had very, very little warm up prior to the first Test. And their batting in their one warm up game failed abysmally, other than players who didn't play in the Test match. If I am wrong about this, tell me in what way.
We didn't lose the Lord's test because our opponents had a far superior series of warm up matches prior to the Test. We lost because our batting was awful and there's was just adequate.
Because you have no understanding whatsoever of cricket. You just throw your grenades and when someone comes up with an answer you reply with another grenade.
But, just for you, Anderson and Broad have not bowled a ball in anger for almost seven weeks. Leach in that time has taken one wicket. Rabada, Ngidi and Nortje all played white ball in the last few weeks. Their other two bowlers played in the warm up game.
South Africa's top eight all got time in the middle in the Lions game facing a red ball attack that included Robinson and Overton. It is that time in the middle getting the pace of wickets here and facing a red ball that matters. This is what they scored in the match:
Erwee 56 Elgar 43 Petersen 21 Markram 98 Van Der Dussen 88 Jansen 54 Vereyenne 73 Maharaj 24
So, they all found time in the middle against a RED moving ball. When I asked you what prep our batsmen had against a RED moving ball you said that was in the Tests that took place SIX weeks before. Instead, they've played nothing but WHITE ball and some of it of the Mickey Mouse variety.
I really don't expect you to understand the massive difference there is between red and white ball for batsmen but there really is. Which is why I suggested that Crawley should have played in the Lions game and possibly a couple of other too.
I asked Blackpool a question, but you have jumped in. I will respond, but without any ad hominem attacks or calling anyone silly names.
My contention is that England's Test team has had "warm-up" cricket broadly on a par with that of South Africa. England have played four, five-day Tests, against New Zealand and India; South Africa have played one, four-day match (not first class) against an "England second XI". I haven't looked up all the details of all the players, but I would suspect that all of England's players played First Class cricket more recently than all of South Africa's.
Now, I don't claim to have superior knowledge of fitness, form in the nets, video analysis and so forth, than the England captain and coaches, but if they think they've had enough warm-ups, then I am not in a position to disagree. (Maybe you have more inside knowledge on this and can spell out where the England coaches are wrong in their close-up assessments).
My contention is also that England lost the first Test match because the South Africans bowled well enough to destroy our batting twice. (Perhaps you agree?). Was that because they had better preparation in red ball cricket than England? Well, the Man of the Match, Kagisa Rabada's last ten matches have been one Test match (today) preceded by nine T20s, going back to May. Which England Test players have gone nine T20s since their last Test match? I suspect not many.
In the warm-up between South Africa and the Lions, Elgar and Petersen failed to make a half century in either innings and Erwee didn't play. It wasn't the glorious preparation some might make it out to be.
If we think England lost the Test match simply because the number of First Class matches the players competed in was fewer than that of the opponents (which, of course, it wasn't), then we're barking up the wrong tree.
I agree with you whole-heartedly that Crawley may have benefited from playing in the Lions match against the South Africans. Where you and I differ, obviously, is that I think the England coaches know much more about how to prepare a Test team than I do.
South Africa had a four day preparation and played very well. England had no four day preparation and played poorly. Good summary by Shaun Pollock.
South Africa were soundly thrashed, by an innings in their one warm up game.
And clearly needed the red ball warm up game which they got. What was England's red ball warm up game?
Tests against New Zealand and India
Fantastic warm up - six weeks ago during which time most of them have played nothing but white ball.
And the South Africa bowling attack against the Lions? No Rabada. No Nortje. No Ngidi. They picked up 14 of the wickets to fall in this Test. But the top eight batsmen played in both. So South Africa put out a sub standard bowling attack against the Lions but gave their batsmen time in the middle to adjust to the conditions.
So, our Test attack was far better prepared than the Saffers'? And their Test batters warmed up by getting failures out of the way before the series started.
You can be a right WUM at times.
Which bit do you not agree with? The South African attack had very, very little warm up prior to the first Test. And their batting in their one warm up game failed abysmally, other than players who didn't play in the Test match. If I am wrong about this, tell me in what way.
We didn't lose the Lord's test because our opponents had a far superior series of warm up matches prior to the Test. We lost because our batting was awful and there's was just adequate.
Because you have no understanding whatsoever of cricket. You just throw your grenades and when someone comes up with an answer you reply with another grenade.
But, just for you, Anderson and Broad have not bowled a ball in anger for almost seven weeks. Leach in that time has taken one wicket. Rabada, Ngidi and Nortje all played white ball in the last few weeks. Their other two bowlers played in the warm up game.
South Africa's top eight all got time in the middle in the Lions game facing a red ball attack that included Robinson and Overton. It is that time in the middle getting the pace of wickets here and facing a red ball that matters. This is what they scored in the match:
Erwee 56 Elgar 43 Petersen 21 Markram 98 Van Der Dussen 88 Jansen 54 Vereyenne 73 Maharaj 24
So, they all found time in the middle against a RED moving ball. When I asked you what prep our batsmen had against a RED moving ball you said that was in the Tests that took place SIX weeks before. Instead, they've played nothing but WHITE ball and some of it of the Mickey Mouse variety.
I really don't expect you to understand the massive difference there is between red and white ball for batsmen but there really is. Which is why I suggested that Crawley should have played in the Lions game and possibly a couple of other too.
I asked Blackpool a question, but you have jumped in. I will respond, but without any ad hominem attacks or calling anyone silly names.
My contention is that England's Test team has had "warm-up" cricket broadly on a par with that of South Africa. England have played four, five-day Tests, against New Zealand and India; South Africa have played one, four-day match (not first class) against an "England second XI". I haven't looked up all the details of all the players, but I would suspect that all of England's players played First Class cricket more recently than all of South Africa's.
Now, I don't claim to have superior knowledge of fitness, form in the nets, video analysis and so forth, than the England captain and coaches, but if they think they've had enough warm-ups, then I am not in a position to disagree. (Maybe you have more inside knowledge on this and can spell out where the England coaches are wrong in their close-up assessments).
My contention is also that England lost the first Test match because the South Africans bowled well enough to destroy our batting twice. (Perhaps you agree?). Was that because they had better preparation in red ball cricket than England? Well, the Man of the Match, Kagisa Rabada's last ten matches have been one Test match (today) preceded by nine T20s, going back to May. Which England Test players have gone nine T20s since their last Test match? I suspect not many.
In the warm-up between South Africa and the Lions, Elgar and Petersen failed to make a half century in either innings and Erwee didn't play. It wasn't the glorious preparation some might make it out to be.
If we think England lost the Test match simply because the number of First Class matches the players competed in was fewer than that of the opponents (which, of course, it wasn't), then we're barking up the wrong tree.
I agree with you whole-heartedly that Crawley may have benefited from playing in the Lions match against the South Africans. Where you and I differ, obviously, is that I think the England coaches know much more about how to prepare a Test team than I do.
South Africa might have had better preparation than us, they might not. As you rightly say there are a lot of factors in play.
It think what everyone will agree with is playing no red ball cricket at all for weeks is not ideal preparation for a test series. When it is totally in your gift its negligence at best.
South Africa had a four day preparation and played very well. England had no four day preparation and played poorly. Good summary by Shaun Pollock.
South Africa were soundly thrashed, by an innings in their one warm up game.
And clearly needed the red ball warm up game which they got. What was England's red ball warm up game?
Tests against New Zealand and India
Fantastic warm up - six weeks ago during which time most of them have played nothing but white ball.
And the South Africa bowling attack against the Lions? No Rabada. No Nortje. No Ngidi. They picked up 14 of the wickets to fall in this Test. But the top eight batsmen played in both. So South Africa put out a sub standard bowling attack against the Lions but gave their batsmen time in the middle to adjust to the conditions.
So, our Test attack was far better prepared than the Saffers'? And their Test batters warmed up by getting failures out of the way before the series started.
You can be a right WUM at times.
Which bit do you not agree with? The South African attack had very, very little warm up prior to the first Test. And their batting in their one warm up game failed abysmally, other than players who didn't play in the Test match. If I am wrong about this, tell me in what way.
We didn't lose the Lord's test because our opponents had a far superior series of warm up matches prior to the Test. We lost because our batting was awful and there's was just adequate.
Because you have no understanding whatsoever of cricket. You just throw your grenades and when someone comes up with an answer you reply with another grenade.
But, just for you, Anderson and Broad have not bowled a ball in anger for almost seven weeks. Leach in that time has taken one wicket. Rabada, Ngidi and Nortje all played white ball in the last few weeks. Their other two bowlers played in the warm up game.
South Africa's top eight all got time in the middle in the Lions game facing a red ball attack that included Robinson and Overton. It is that time in the middle getting the pace of wickets here and facing a red ball that matters. This is what they scored in the match:
Erwee 56 Elgar 43 Petersen 21 Markram 98 Van Der Dussen 88 Jansen 54 Vereyenne 73 Maharaj 24
So, they all found time in the middle against a RED moving ball. When I asked you what prep our batsmen had against a RED moving ball you said that was in the Tests that took place SIX weeks before. Instead, they've played nothing but WHITE ball and some of it of the Mickey Mouse variety.
I really don't expect you to understand the massive difference there is between red and white ball for batsmen but there really is. Which is why I suggested that Crawley should have played in the Lions game and possibly a couple of other too.
I asked Blackpool a question, but you have jumped in. I will respond, but without any ad hominem attacks or calling anyone silly names.
My contention is that England's Test team has had "warm-up" cricket broadly on a par with that of South Africa. England have played four, five-day Tests, against New Zealand and India; South Africa have played one, four-day match (not first class) against an "England second XI". I haven't looked up all the details of all the players, but I would suspect that all of England's players played First Class cricket more recently than all of South Africa's.
Now, I don't claim to have superior knowledge of fitness, form in the nets, video analysis and so forth, than the England captain and coaches, but if they think they've had enough warm-ups, then I am not in a position to disagree. (Maybe you have more inside knowledge on this and can spell out where the England coaches are wrong in their close-up assessments).
My contention is also that England lost the first Test match because the South Africans bowled well enough to destroy our batting twice. (Perhaps you agree?). Was that because they had better preparation in red ball cricket than England? Well, the Man of the Match, Kagisa Rabada's last ten matches have been one Test match (today) preceded by nine T20s, going back to May. Which England Test players have gone nine T20s since their last Test match? I suspect not many.
In the warm-up between South Africa and the Lions, Elgar and Petersen failed to make a half century in either innings and Erwee didn't play. It wasn't the glorious preparation some might make it out to be.
If we think England lost the Test match simply because the number of First Class matches the players competed in was fewer than that of the opponents (which, of course, it wasn't), then we're barking up the wrong tree.
I agree with you whole-heartedly that Crawley may have benefited from playing in the Lions match against the South Africans. Where you and I differ, obviously, is that I think the England coaches know much more about how to prepare a Test team than I do.
I asked Blackpool a question, but you have jumped in. I will respond, but without any ad hominem attacks or calling anyone silly names.
I "jumped in" because I agreed with him. I can't believe that we are the only two on here that believe you are a WUM either. Oh and "jumping in" never stopped you answering questions that were directed at me. But I never complained about that.
My contention is that England's Test team has had "warm-up" cricket broadly on a par with that of South Africa. England have played four, five-day Tests, against New Zealand and India; South Africa have played one, four-day match (not first class) against an "England second XI". I haven't looked up all the details of all the players, but I would suspect that all of England's players played First Class cricket more recently than all of South Africa's.
This was a First Class game in all but name. The only reason it cannot be called one is because South Africa used 13 players and it cannot be called a First Class game when that happens. A warm up game is a warm up game and the idea is to acclimatise to the conditions which can be very different to home ones. Didn't you know that?
My contention is also that England lost the first Test match because the South Africans bowled well enough to destroy our batting twice. (Perhaps you agree?). Was that because they had better preparation in red ball cricket than England? Well, the Man of the Match, Kagisa Rabada's last ten matches have been one Test match (today) preceded by nine T20s, going back to May. Which England Test players have gone nine T20s since their last Test match? I suspect not many.
Bowling a white ball is better than not playing for seven weeks as Anderson and Broad have. Batting against a white ball, on the other hand, is extremely poor preparation.
In the warm-up between South Africa and the Lions, Elgar and Petersen failed to make a half century in either innings and Erwee didn't play. It wasn't the glorious preparation some might make it out to be.
They don't have to have made a half century. They need time in the middle against a red ball and at least two England bowlers which all the batsmen got - see runs above but I can add that they all faced a minimum of 60 balls - that's more than any is likely to face in one Hundred game - and many faced a lot more. Where exactly did you get your information that Erwee didn't play because I thought that he scored 56 runs in the match. For your information, Erwee has been playing here since May for Weybridge in the Surrey Championship - for a total of 17 games.
Now, I don't claim to have superior knowledge of fitness, form in the nets, video analysis and so forth, than the England captain and coaches, but if they think they've had enough warm-ups, then I am not in a position to disagree. (Maybe you have more inside knowledge on this and can spell out where the England coaches are wrong in their close-up assessments).
I agree with you whole-heartedly that Crawley may have benefited from playing in the Lions match against the South Africans. Where you and I differ, obviously, is that I think the England coaches know much more about how to prepare a Test team than I do.
I think you're being more than slightly and deliberately feigning innocence here because if you seriously think that coaches of any stature seriously believe that the best prep is smashing a white ball for Test cricket is either not playing at all or smashing a white ball in the park you live in cloud cuckoo land. The best prep is playing red ball. Or do you think that the next time we go to Australia we will play some white ball prep games? Perhaps you do because that would fit your narrative that the Hundred isn't damaging English cricket, wouldn't it?
South Africa had a four day preparation and played very well. England had no four day preparation and played poorly. Good summary by Shaun Pollock.
South Africa were soundly thrashed, by an innings in their one warm up game.
And clearly needed the red ball warm up game which they got. What was England's red ball warm up game?
Tests against New Zealand and India
Fantastic warm up - six weeks ago during which time most of them have played nothing but white ball.
And the South Africa bowling attack against the Lions? No Rabada. No Nortje. No Ngidi. They picked up 14 of the wickets to fall in this Test. But the top eight batsmen played in both. So South Africa put out a sub standard bowling attack against the Lions but gave their batsmen time in the middle to adjust to the conditions.
So, our Test attack was far better prepared than the Saffers'? And their Test batters warmed up by getting failures out of the way before the series started.
You can be a right WUM at times.
Which bit do you not agree with? The South African attack had very, very little warm up prior to the first Test. And their batting in their one warm up game failed abysmally, other than players who didn't play in the Test match. If I am wrong about this, tell me in what way.
We didn't lose the Lord's test because our opponents had a far superior series of warm up matches prior to the Test. We lost because our batting was awful and there's was just adequate.
Because you have no understanding whatsoever of cricket. You just throw your grenades and when someone comes up with an answer you reply with another grenade.
But, just for you, Anderson and Broad have not bowled a ball in anger for almost seven weeks. Leach in that time has taken one wicket. Rabada, Ngidi and Nortje all played white ball in the last few weeks. Their other two bowlers played in the warm up game.
South Africa's top eight all got time in the middle in the Lions game facing a red ball attack that included Robinson and Overton. It is that time in the middle getting the pace of wickets here and facing a red ball that matters. This is what they scored in the match:
Erwee 56 Elgar 43 Petersen 21 Markram 98 Van Der Dussen 88 Jansen 54 Vereyenne 73 Maharaj 24
So, they all found time in the middle against a RED moving ball. When I asked you what prep our batsmen had against a RED moving ball you said that was in the Tests that took place SIX weeks before. Instead, they've played nothing but WHITE ball and some of it of the Mickey Mouse variety.
I really don't expect you to understand the massive difference there is between red and white ball for batsmen but there really is. Which is why I suggested that Crawley should have played in the Lions game and possibly a couple of other too.
I asked Blackpool a question, but you have jumped in. I will respond, but without any ad hominem attacks or calling anyone silly names.
My contention is that England's Test team has had "warm-up" cricket broadly on a par with that of South Africa. England have played four, five-day Tests, against New Zealand and India; South Africa have played one, four-day match (not first class) against an "England second XI". I haven't looked up all the details of all the players, but I would suspect that all of England's players played First Class cricket more recently than all of South Africa's.
Now, I don't claim to have superior knowledge of fitness, form in the nets, video analysis and so forth, than the England captain and coaches, but if they think they've had enough warm-ups, then I am not in a position to disagree. (Maybe you have more inside knowledge on this and can spell out where the England coaches are wrong in their close-up assessments).
My contention is also that England lost the first Test match because the South Africans bowled well enough to destroy our batting twice. (Perhaps you agree?). Was that because they had better preparation in red ball cricket than England? Well, the Man of the Match, Kagisa Rabada's last ten matches have been one Test match (today) preceded by nine T20s, going back to May. Which England Test players have gone nine T20s since their last Test match? I suspect not many.
In the warm-up between South Africa and the Lions, Elgar and Petersen failed to make a half century in either innings and Erwee didn't play. It wasn't the glorious preparation some might make it out to be.
If we think England lost the Test match simply because the number of First Class matches the players competed in was fewer than that of the opponents (which, of course, it wasn't), then we're barking up the wrong tree.
I agree with you whole-heartedly that Crawley may have benefited from playing in the Lions match against the South Africans. Where you and I differ, obviously, is that I think the England coaches know much more about how to prepare a Test team than I do.
After reading your post and giving it due consideration. You are still a WUM
The reality is that S Africa's bowlers made us look very ordinary. And tactically, they were entirely old school too, Nortje may be lightning fast, but he was pitching it up to get his wickets, not banging it in short.
Having done 3 days on the lash hardcore at Lord’s I could still just about see that we have players just as thick playing for us as I see in my sons u16 team with no match awareness , fucking divs trying to tee off , yes it may have worked chasing totals down in previous matches but the conditions with this moving ball meant without a monster slice of luck our time was up . I would have won my 3 houses back , that i lost in the miracle chase downs earlier this summer , laying England at 3 to 1 before our second innings .
On a separate note a mate met stokes recently and said he was up his own arse which is disappointing to hear , even if not the biggest shock in the world
Do we think it would be a good idea to play an England vs England Lions as prep for the first test of a series at home , and make the Tourists play someone like Tun Wells 4th xi .
I know we can’t fit it into the schedule etc etc etc
Do we think it would be a good idea to play an England vs England Lions as prep for the first test of a series at home , and make the Tourists play someone like Tun Wells 4th xi .
I know we can’t fit it into the schedule etc etc etc
That's a very sensible idea but that would mean pulling Root, Crawley, Pope etc etc from the Hundred. The ECB are suffering enough, what with having their flagship competition being undermined by "conscientious objectors" such as Baristow and Stokes abstaining themselves and the absence of most of the world's top T20 players, without losing their other high profile England stars to prepare properly for a Test series.
Do we think it would be a good idea to play an England vs England Lions as prep for the first test of a series at home , and make the Tourists play someone like Tun Wells 4th xi .
I know we can’t fit it into the schedule etc etc etc
That's a very sensible idea but that would mean pulling Root, Crawley, Pope etc etc from the Hundred. The ECB are suffering enough, what with having their flagship competition being undermined by "conscientious objectors" such as Baristow and Stokes abstaining themselves and the absence of most of the world's top T20 players, without losing their other high profile England stars to prepare properly for a Test series.
That’s why I said we can’t fit it into the schedule !
On Friday I posed this question and you didn't reply to it bur LOL'd it instead. Well, in yesterday's Times, this is what Alastair Cook (who knows a bit about opening in Test cricket) said about Crawley's failings and who he thinks should replace him.
But in my view it is time for Zak Crawley to be given a break from the team. He has had a lot of backing, and we have all seen the potential in his game that excites so many people. He has got some world-class areas — if people bowl slightly short he will punish them, and he possesses a great drive — but I don’t think he quite knows how he wants to play.
What is telling too is that his first-class record is not blessed with big hundreds either, which suggests that he needs to re-evaluate which shots he wants to stick to, and how he’s going to consistently score runs.
This need not be the end of Zak. He’s a young guy and can come again, whether in six months, a year or two years. He’s been picked on potential for a long time now and delivered perhaps three times in 48 innings. He’s averaging 15 in the past seven Tests and 22 in 35 innings as an opener. For now, it’s about going away and scoring runs.
If someone else is to move in, I’d go for Harry Brook. He has been scoring his runs at No 5 but he is in great form and has opened the batting in the past. It’s not ideal, but he’s a man of serious talent and potential, and deserves a shot, not only because of the runs he’s scored but the aggressive manner in which he’s made them. I think he could do it.
So Sky paid £880m for the Hundred from 2025-2028 but insisted that no Ashes matches (or international cricket in fact) were played in August so that didn't clash with the Premier League. The ECB were more than happy to comply because their flagship comp has been "starved of star quality since its launched last year". This was the comp that was sold on the basis of offering the best international T20 players after all.
On Friday I posed this question and you didn't reply to it bur LOL'd it instead. Well, in yesterday's Times, this is what Alastair Cook (who knows a bit about opening in Test cricket) said about Crawley's failings and who he thinks should replace him.
But in my view it is time for Zak Crawley to be given a break from the team. He has had a lot of backing, and we have all seen the potential in his game that excites so many people. He has got some world-class areas — if people bowl slightly short he will punish them, and he possesses a great drive — but I don’t think he quite knows how he wants to play.
What is telling too is that his first-class record is not blessed with big hundreds either, which suggests that he needs to re-evaluate which shots he wants to stick to, and how he’s going to consistently score runs.
This need not be the end of Zak. He’s a young guy and can come again, whether in six months, a year or two years. He’s been picked on potential for a long time now and delivered perhaps three times in 48 innings. He’s averaging 15 in the past seven Tests and 22 in 35 innings as an opener. For now, it’s about going away and scoring runs.
If someone else is to move in, I’d go for Harry Brook. He has been scoring his runs at No 5 but he is in great form and has opened the batting in the past. It’s not ideal, but he’s a man of serious talent and potential, and deserves a shot, not only because of the runs he’s scored but the aggressive manner in which he’s made them. I think he could do it.
"we have a talented young middle order batsman scoring runs for fun... let's make him open the batting!!" what could go wrong?
On Friday I posed this question and you didn't reply to it bur LOL'd it instead. Well, in yesterday's Times, this is what Alastair Cook (who knows a bit about opening in Test cricket) said about Crawley's failings and who he thinks should replace him.
But in my view it is time for Zak Crawley to be given a break from the team. He has had a lot of backing, and we have all seen the potential in his game that excites so many people. He has got some world-class areas — if people bowl slightly short he will punish them, and he possesses a great drive — but I don’t think he quite knows how he wants to play.
What is telling too is that his first-class record is not blessed with big hundreds either, which suggests that he needs to re-evaluate which shots he wants to stick to, and how he’s going to consistently score runs.
This need not be the end of Zak. He’s a young guy and can come again, whether in six months, a year or two years. He’s been picked on potential for a long time now and delivered perhaps three times in 48 innings. He’s averaging 15 in the past seven Tests and 22 in 35 innings as an opener. For now, it’s about going away and scoring runs.
If someone else is to move in, I’d go for Harry Brook. He has been scoring his runs at No 5 but he is in great form and has opened the batting in the past. It’s not ideal, but he’s a man of serious talent and potential, and deserves a shot, not only because of the runs he’s scored but the aggressive manner in which he’s made them. I think he could do it.
"we have a talented young middle order batsman scoring runs for fun... let's make him open the batting!!" what could go wrong?
Who used to open as I thought. I think the bloke with over 12,000 runs doing that job might know a bit more than you or I about what it takes. But you go ahead and laugh at him and carry on with your accusation that I'm a 90s selector because I believe that one bloke who has had 48 goes at doing the job and consistently failed doing so should be dropped. As does Cook. As does Atherton. As does Hussain. As does Butcher. That's just four former England captains for starters.
the present saffies have the best fast bowling quartet since the Windies teams of the 1980s .. out batsmen are just not used to facing really fast and accurate bowling, they are in for a torrid time .. AND we are reliant on two men, one aged forty, the other in his mid thirties to 'retaliate' .. no reliable batsmen against pace, creaking bowlers, how DID it get to this ?
the present saffies have the best fast bowling quartet since the Windies teams of the 1980s .. out batsmen are just not used to facing really fast and accurate bowling, they are in for a torrid time .. AND we are reliant on two men, one aged forty, the other in his mid thirties to 'retaliate' .. no reliable batsmen against pace, creaking bowlers, how DID it get to this ?
As good as South Africa are at Test cricket right now - and they're clearly very, very good - off the field, their Test cricket is in a parlous state. As much as they're getting right on the pitch, their national body is screwing up, big time.
England's deal with Cinch, for example, earns the ECB around £6.5m, which is a tidy sum. But South Africa can't find a company to pay them for Test shirt sponsorship.
In the next, five-year cycle of Tests, South Africa will only be playing 28 Tests. (England are scheduled to play 43). After the current tour in England and the next winter in Australia, where they also play three Tests, South Africa will only play the bare minimum two Tests in each series to qualify for the World Test Championship. In other words, they will be playing as few Tests as they can possible get away with.
To put into context how derisory the SA attitude seems to be to Test cricket, if they (likely) qualify for the World Test Championship at Lord's next year, in twelve months they will play at Lord's as many times (twice) as they will play Tests at home.
They've cleared their domestic schedule for a T20 tournament with six new franchises - very similar to what we're doing in England. The big differences? First the franchises are all owned by India, who dictate terms; second, South Africa is not scheduling any international matches during the IPL or their own domestic white-ball bash. That's three and a half months a year blocked off for T20 cricket.
England have Test shirt sponsors, prioritise Tests (playing more than any other country), schedule international matches even when short-form matches are played (e.g. Tests during The Hundred), and own - and therefore benefit from - new franchises. South Africa are the opposite in each of these important criteria, and I think that's a very harming situation for South African Test cricket. Their Test team is better than ours at the moment, but at least our board is protecting the future of Test cricket in and by England.
On Friday I posed this question and you didn't reply to it bur LOL'd it instead. Well, in yesterday's Times, this is what Alastair Cook (who knows a bit about opening in Test cricket) said about Crawley's failings and who he thinks should replace him.
But in my view it is time for Zak Crawley to be given a break from the team. He has had a lot of backing, and we have all seen the potential in his game that excites so many people. He has got some world-class areas — if people bowl slightly short he will punish them, and he possesses a great drive — but I don’t think he quite knows how he wants to play.
What is telling too is that his first-class record is not blessed with big hundreds either, which suggests that he needs to re-evaluate which shots he wants to stick to, and how he’s going to consistently score runs.
This need not be the end of Zak. He’s a young guy and can come again, whether in six months, a year or two years. He’s been picked on potential for a long time now and delivered perhaps three times in 48 innings. He’s averaging 15 in the past seven Tests and 22 in 35 innings as an opener. For now, it’s about going away and scoring runs.
If someone else is to move in, I’d go for Harry Brook. He has been scoring his runs at No 5 but he is in great form and has opened the batting in the past. It’s not ideal, but he’s a man of serious talent and potential, and deserves a shot, not only because of the runs he’s scored but the aggressive manner in which he’s made them. I think he could do it.
"we have a talented young middle order batsman scoring runs for fun... let's make him open the batting!!" what could go wrong?
Who used to open as I thought. I think the bloke with over 12,000 runs doing that job might know a bit more than you or I about what it takes. But you go ahead and laugh at him and carry on with your accusation that I'm a 90s selector because I believe that one bloke who has had 48 goes at doing the job and consistently failed doing so should be dropped. As does Cook. As does Atherton. As does Hussain. As does Butcher. That's just four former England captains for starters.
I see your point but dont actually agree. When was the last time he regularly opened? what was his record there? There was obviously a reason he was moved to the middle order (there is such a dearth of decent opener in the country that if he was half good they wouldnt have shifted him down the order). Hes made a massive success of the middle order than thats the role he should be considered for IMO.
Crawley does need to be dropped but I dont think this is the answer
On Friday I posed this question and you didn't reply to it bur LOL'd it instead. Well, in yesterday's Times, this is what Alastair Cook (who knows a bit about opening in Test cricket) said about Crawley's failings and who he thinks should replace him.
But in my view it is time for Zak Crawley to be given a break from the team. He has had a lot of backing, and we have all seen the potential in his game that excites so many people. He has got some world-class areas — if people bowl slightly short he will punish them, and he possesses a great drive — but I don’t think he quite knows how he wants to play.
What is telling too is that his first-class record is not blessed with big hundreds either, which suggests that he needs to re-evaluate which shots he wants to stick to, and how he’s going to consistently score runs.
This need not be the end of Zak. He’s a young guy and can come again, whether in six months, a year or two years. He’s been picked on potential for a long time now and delivered perhaps three times in 48 innings. He’s averaging 15 in the past seven Tests and 22 in 35 innings as an opener. For now, it’s about going away and scoring runs.
If someone else is to move in, I’d go for Harry Brook. He has been scoring his runs at No 5 but he is in great form and has opened the batting in the past. It’s not ideal, but he’s a man of serious talent and potential, and deserves a shot, not only because of the runs he’s scored but the aggressive manner in which he’s made them. I think he could do it.
"we have a talented young middle order batsman scoring runs for fun... let's make him open the batting!!" what could go wrong?
Who used to open as I thought. I think the bloke with over 12,000 runs doing that job might know a bit more than you or I about what it takes. But you go ahead and laugh at him and carry on with your accusation that I'm a 90s selector because I believe that one bloke who has had 48 goes at doing the job and consistently failed doing so should be dropped. As does Cook. As does Atherton. As does Hussain. As does Butcher. That's just four former England captains for starters.
I see your point but dont actually agree. When was the last time he regularly opened? what was his record there? There was obviously a reason he was moved to the middle order (there is such a dearth of decent opener in the country that if he was half good they wouldnt have shifted him down the order). Hes made a massive success of the middle order than thats the role he should be considered for IMO.
Crawley does need to be dropped but I dont think this is the answer
the present saffies have the best fast bowling quartet since the Windies teams of the 1980s .. out batsmen are just not used to facing really fast and accurate bowling, they are in for a torrid time .. AND we are reliant on two men, one aged forty, the other in his mid thirties to 'retaliate' .. no reliable batsmen against pace, creaking bowlers, how DID it get to this ?
The conditions in this country that have favoured the 70mph merchants like Stevens and Masters so far as the bowling and the advent of white ball cricket and encouragement of batsmen to be inventive.
We've not been lucky with injuries to the likes of Archer and Wood but when the pool of real pace merchants is so small then we are going to suffer when the ball doesn't move. In Australia and South Africa the bowlers have to bowl fast to get their wickets and the batsmen have to be able to handle pace not to lose theirs. The difference between 82mph and 90mph might only be 8mph but, in terms of what a batsmen is used to, that is massive let alone someone like Nortje who bowls at 95mph plus.
White ball cricket and the way that our batsmen have been coached in the last decade have encouraged a "three shots for every ball approach" whereas an Alastair Cook only had three shots in his total armoury. But he knew when to play them and what balls to leave. Batsmen don't tend to leave many in white ball cricket and also can't get out caught at second or even first slip most of the time either should they edge it.
On Friday I posed this question and you didn't reply to it bur LOL'd it instead. Well, in yesterday's Times, this is what Alastair Cook (who knows a bit about opening in Test cricket) said about Crawley's failings and who he thinks should replace him.
But in my view it is time for Zak Crawley to be given a break from the team. He has had a lot of backing, and we have all seen the potential in his game that excites so many people. He has got some world-class areas — if people bowl slightly short he will punish them, and he possesses a great drive — but I don’t think he quite knows how he wants to play.
What is telling too is that his first-class record is not blessed with big hundreds either, which suggests that he needs to re-evaluate which shots he wants to stick to, and how he’s going to consistently score runs.
This need not be the end of Zak. He’s a young guy and can come again, whether in six months, a year or two years. He’s been picked on potential for a long time now and delivered perhaps three times in 48 innings. He’s averaging 15 in the past seven Tests and 22 in 35 innings as an opener. For now, it’s about going away and scoring runs.
If someone else is to move in, I’d go for Harry Brook. He has been scoring his runs at No 5 but he is in great form and has opened the batting in the past. It’s not ideal, but he’s a man of serious talent and potential, and deserves a shot, not only because of the runs he’s scored but the aggressive manner in which he’s made them. I think he could do it.
"we have a talented young middle order batsman scoring runs for fun... let's make him open the batting!!" what could go wrong?
Who used to open as I thought. I think the bloke with over 12,000 runs doing that job might know a bit more than you or I about what it takes. But you go ahead and laugh at him and carry on with your accusation that I'm a 90s selector because I believe that one bloke who has had 48 goes at doing the job and consistently failed doing so should be dropped. As does Cook. As does Atherton. As does Hussain. As does Butcher. That's just four former England captains for starters.
I see your point but dont actually agree. When was the last time he regularly opened? what was his record there? There was obviously a reason he was moved to the middle order (there is such a dearth of decent opener in the country that if he was half good they wouldnt have shifted him down the order). Hes made a massive success of the middle order than thats the role he should be considered for IMO.
Crawley does need to be dropped but I dont think this is the answer
Who would you choose to replace him with?
The same name I've been calling putting in the hat for the last 2 years. Sam Robson. Was picked way too young for England and did alright with far fewer chances than those who have followed (expectations were much higher in the first couple of years post Strauss). He has worked hard at his game and become a real leader at the same time as being consistent over a number of seasons.
On Friday I posed this question and you didn't reply to it bur LOL'd it instead. Well, in yesterday's Times, this is what Alastair Cook (who knows a bit about opening in Test cricket) said about Crawley's failings and who he thinks should replace him.
But in my view it is time for Zak Crawley to be given a break from the team. He has had a lot of backing, and we have all seen the potential in his game that excites so many people. He has got some world-class areas — if people bowl slightly short he will punish them, and he possesses a great drive — but I don’t think he quite knows how he wants to play.
What is telling too is that his first-class record is not blessed with big hundreds either, which suggests that he needs to re-evaluate which shots he wants to stick to, and how he’s going to consistently score runs.
This need not be the end of Zak. He’s a young guy and can come again, whether in six months, a year or two years. He’s been picked on potential for a long time now and delivered perhaps three times in 48 innings. He’s averaging 15 in the past seven Tests and 22 in 35 innings as an opener. For now, it’s about going away and scoring runs.
If someone else is to move in, I’d go for Harry Brook. He has been scoring his runs at No 5 but he is in great form and has opened the batting in the past. It’s not ideal, but he’s a man of serious talent and potential, and deserves a shot, not only because of the runs he’s scored but the aggressive manner in which he’s made them. I think he could do it.
"we have a talented young middle order batsman scoring runs for fun... let's make him open the batting!!" what could go wrong?
Who used to open as I thought. I think the bloke with over 12,000 runs doing that job might know a bit more than you or I about what it takes. But you go ahead and laugh at him and carry on with your accusation that I'm a 90s selector because I believe that one bloke who has had 48 goes at doing the job and consistently failed doing so should be dropped. As does Cook. As does Atherton. As does Hussain. As does Butcher. That's just four former England captains for starters.
I see your point but dont actually agree. When was the last time he regularly opened? what was his record there? There was obviously a reason he was moved to the middle order (there is such a dearth of decent opener in the country that if he was half good they wouldnt have shifted him down the order). Hes made a massive success of the middle order than thats the role he should be considered for IMO.
Crawley does need to be dropped but I dont think this is the answer
exactly. Round peg into square hole springs to mind. Then we have 2 young talented players completely messed up by our selection.
Comments
But, just for you, Anderson and Broad have not bowled a ball in anger for almost seven weeks. Leach in that time has taken one wicket. Rabada, Ngidi and Nortje all played white ball in the last few weeks. Their other two bowlers played in the warm up game.
South Africa's top eight all got time in the middle in the Lions game facing a red ball attack that included Robinson and Overton. It is that time in the middle getting the pace of wickets here and facing a red ball that matters. This is what they scored in the match:
Erwee 56
Elgar 43
Petersen 21
Markram 98
Van Der Dussen 88
Jansen 54
Vereyenne 73
Maharaj 24
So, they all found time in the middle against a RED moving ball. When I asked you what prep our batsmen had against a RED moving ball you said that was in the Tests that took place SIX weeks before. Instead, they've played nothing but WHITE ball and some of it of the Mickey Mouse variety.
I really don't expect you to understand the massive difference there is between red and white ball for batsmen but there really is. Which is why I suggested that Crawley should have played in the Lions game and possibly a couple of other too.
My contention is that England's Test team has had "warm-up" cricket broadly on a par with that of South Africa. England have played four, five-day Tests, against New Zealand and India; South Africa have played one, four-day match (not first class) against an "England second XI". I haven't looked up all the details of all the players, but I would suspect that all of England's players played First Class cricket more recently than all of South Africa's.
Now, I don't claim to have superior knowledge of fitness, form in the nets, video analysis and so forth, than the England captain and coaches, but if they think they've had enough warm-ups, then I am not in a position to disagree. (Maybe you have more inside knowledge on this and can spell out where the England coaches are wrong in their close-up assessments).
My contention is also that England lost the first Test match because the South Africans bowled well enough to destroy our batting twice. (Perhaps you agree?). Was that because they had better preparation in red ball cricket than England? Well, the Man of the Match, Kagisa Rabada's last ten matches have been one Test match (today) preceded by nine T20s, going back to May. Which England Test players have gone nine T20s since their last Test match? I suspect not many.
In the warm-up between South Africa and the Lions, Elgar and Petersen failed to make a half century in either innings and Erwee didn't play. It wasn't the glorious preparation some might make it out to be.
If we think England lost the Test match simply because the number of First Class matches the players competed in was fewer than that of the opponents (which, of course, it wasn't), then we're barking up the wrong tree.
I agree with you whole-heartedly that Crawley may have benefited from playing in the Lions match against the South Africans. Where you and I differ, obviously, is that I think the England coaches know much more about how to prepare a Test team than I do.
Good news - been in The Volunteer since 15 mins after we lost
It think what everyone will agree with is playing no red ball cricket at all for weeks is not ideal preparation for a test series. When it is totally in your gift its negligence at best.
I "jumped in" because I agreed with him. I can't believe that we are the only two on here that believe you are a WUM either. Oh and "jumping in" never stopped you answering questions that were directed at me. But I never complained about that.
My contention is that England's Test team has had "warm-up" cricket broadly on a par with that of South Africa. England have played four, five-day Tests, against New Zealand and India; South Africa have played one, four-day match (not first class) against an "England second XI". I haven't looked up all the details of all the players, but I would suspect that all of England's players played First Class cricket more recently than all of South Africa's.
This was a First Class game in all but name. The only reason it cannot be called one is because South Africa used 13 players and it cannot be called a First Class game when that happens. A warm up game is a warm up game and the idea is to acclimatise to the conditions which can be very different to home ones. Didn't you know that?
My contention is also that England lost the first Test match because the South Africans bowled well enough to destroy our batting twice. (Perhaps you agree?). Was that because they had better preparation in red ball cricket than England? Well, the Man of the Match, Kagisa Rabada's last ten matches have been one Test match (today) preceded by nine T20s, going back to May. Which England Test players have gone nine T20s since their last Test match? I suspect not many.
Bowling a white ball is better than not playing for seven weeks as Anderson and Broad have. Batting against a white ball, on the other hand, is extremely poor preparation.
In the warm-up between South Africa and the Lions, Elgar and Petersen failed to make a half century in either innings and Erwee didn't play. It wasn't the glorious preparation some might make it out to be.
They don't have to have made a half century. They need time in the middle against a red ball and at least two England bowlers which all the batsmen got - see runs above but I can add that they all faced a minimum of 60 balls - that's more than any is likely to face in one Hundred game - and many faced a lot more. Where exactly did you get your information that Erwee didn't play because I thought that he scored 56 runs in the match. For your information, Erwee has been playing here since May for Weybridge in the Surrey Championship - for a total of 17 games.
Now, I don't claim to have superior knowledge of fitness, form in the nets, video analysis and so forth, than the England captain and coaches, but if they think they've had enough warm-ups, then I am not in a position to disagree. (Maybe you have more inside knowledge on this and can spell out where the England coaches are wrong in their close-up assessments).
I agree with you whole-heartedly that Crawley may have benefited from playing in the Lions match against the South Africans. Where you and I differ, obviously, is that I think the England coaches know much more about how to prepare a Test team than I do.
I think you're being more than slightly and deliberately feigning innocence here because if you seriously think that coaches of any stature seriously believe that the best prep is smashing a white ball for Test cricket is either not playing at all or smashing a white ball in the park you live in cloud cuckoo land. The best prep is playing red ball. Or do you think that the next time we go to Australia we will play some white ball prep games? Perhaps you do because that would fit your narrative that the Hundred isn't damaging English cricket, wouldn't it?
You are still a WUM
trying to tee off , yes it may have worked chasing totals down in previous matches but the conditions with this moving ball meant without a monster slice of luck our time was up .
I would have won my 3 houses back , that i lost in the miracle chase downs earlier this summer , laying England at 3 to 1 before our second innings .
On a separate note a mate met stokes recently and said he was up his own arse which is disappointing to hear , even if not the biggest shock in the world
On Friday I posed this question and you didn't reply to it bur LOL'd it instead. Well, in yesterday's Times, this is what Alastair Cook (who knows a bit about opening in Test cricket) said about Crawley's failings and who he thinks should replace him.
But in my view it is time for Zak Crawley to be given a break from the team. He has had a lot of backing, and we have all seen the potential in his game that excites so many people. He has got some world-class areas — if people bowl slightly short he will punish them, and he possesses a great drive — but I don’t think he quite knows how he wants to play.
What is telling too is that his first-class record is not blessed with big hundreds either, which suggests that he needs to re-evaluate which shots he wants to stick to, and how he’s going to consistently score runs.This need not be the end of Zak. He’s a young guy and can come again, whether in six months, a year or two years. He’s been picked on potential for a long time now and delivered perhaps three times in 48 innings. He’s averaging 15 in the past seven Tests and 22 in 35 innings as an opener. For now, it’s about going away and scoring runs.
If someone else is to move in, I’d go for Harry Brook. He has been scoring his runs at No 5 but he is in great form and has opened the batting in the past. It’s not ideal, but he’s a man of serious talent and potential, and deserves a shot, not only because of the runs he’s scored but the aggressive manner in which he’s made them. I think he could do it.
England's deal with Cinch, for example, earns the ECB around £6.5m, which is a tidy sum. But South Africa can't find a company to pay them for Test shirt sponsorship.
In the next, five-year cycle of Tests, South Africa will only be playing 28 Tests. (England are scheduled to play 43). After the current tour in England and the next winter in Australia, where they also play three Tests, South Africa will only play the bare minimum two Tests in each series to qualify for the World Test Championship. In other words, they will be playing as few Tests as they can possible get away with.
To put into context how derisory the SA attitude seems to be to Test cricket, if they (likely) qualify for the World Test Championship at Lord's next year, in twelve months they will play at Lord's as many times (twice) as they will play Tests at home.
They've cleared their domestic schedule for a T20 tournament with six new franchises - very similar to what we're doing in England. The big differences? First the franchises are all owned by India, who dictate terms; second, South Africa is not scheduling any international matches during the IPL or their own domestic white-ball bash. That's three and a half months a year blocked off for T20 cricket.
England have Test shirt sponsors, prioritise Tests (playing more than any other country), schedule international matches even when short-form matches are played (e.g. Tests during The Hundred), and own - and therefore benefit from - new franchises. South Africa are the opposite in each of these important criteria, and I think that's a very harming situation for South African Test cricket. Their Test team is better than ours at the moment, but at least our board is protecting the future of Test cricket in and by England.
Crawley does need to be dropped but I dont think this is the answer
We've not been lucky with injuries to the likes of Archer and Wood but when the pool of real pace merchants is so small then we are going to suffer when the ball doesn't move. In Australia and South Africa the bowlers have to bowl fast to get their wickets and the batsmen have to be able to handle pace not to lose theirs. The difference between 82mph and 90mph might only be 8mph but, in terms of what a batsmen is used to, that is massive let alone someone like Nortje who bowls at 95mph plus.
White ball cricket and the way that our batsmen have been coached in the last decade have encouraged a "three shots for every ball approach" whereas an Alastair Cook only had three shots in his total armoury. But he knew when to play them and what balls to leave. Batsmen don't tend to leave many in white ball cricket and also can't get out caught at second or even first slip most of the time either should they edge it.
Deserves a proper go IMO.