Next test is at Old Trafford where a large part of the ground is under development .. means less gate and catering receipts and makes for no atmosphere on one side of the ground .. it would have been better to stage the game at Chester le Street, lovely ground with a decent capacity and the Durham weather is at least as balmy as Manchester's .. be good to bring a game to an area starved of international cricket and ClS and Durham are very nice places to visit
Next test is at Old Trafford where a large part of the ground is under development .. means less gate and catering receipts and makes for no atmosphere on one side of the ground .. it would have been better to stage the game at Chester le Street, lovely ground with a decent capacity and the Durham weather is at least as balmy as Manchester's .. be good to bring a game to an area starved of international cricket and ClS and Durham are very nice places to visit
Siri, give me an example of "damning with faint praise"
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.
Let's bury this once and for all and listen to what Brook says himself:
And although Brook prefers batting in the middle order, he believes he now has the game to open for England.
“I feel like I'd do a job batting anywhere to be honest,” said Brook, when asked his preferred batting position. “And if I got an opportunity to play Test cricket opening the batting, obviously I'm going to take it.
Brook admitted he struggled in 2018 when he played 12 matches for Yorkshire, three times opening the batting, three coming in at first drop and four batting at No.5. He was also unsettled in Yorkshire’s 2019 lineup, opening five times and batting at No.5 on six occasions.
“You never know when your last game's gonna be,” said Brook of those seasons. “When I was opening the batting I think I only had four bad games and as the player I was, who's always naturally looking to score and hit the gaps and whatever, if one seams or swings and I nick it then I'm out.
“It was a great experience for me, learning that at such a young age as well and that's why I said I think I'd do a much better job now if I was to open the batting having experienced that.
“It was tough, because obviously you want to start well. You want to show everybody how good you are.
“But years down the line you notice how vital them years probably were on your career and yeah, it was a great experience for me and learning, them tough times, because when the good times come it's really nice.”
So he wants to open and if our most successful opening batsman of all time thinks that he can do it then that's enough for me.
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
Oh and I believe that I advocated that Pope should be moved to 3 but got told he can't bat there because he's never done so for his county. But it is the batting position where he has had most success for England.
Oh and I believe advocating that Pope should be moved to 3 but got told he can't bat there because he's never done so for his county. But it is the batting position where he has had most success for England.
Pope to open - he has been virtually opening when he has been batting 3 !!
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
If we're going to make Ad hominem attacks then it's probably best its not coming from some one who thinks we should do away with central contracts.
You see there you go again. Pathetic. Why do you think central contracts were changed last year? Because they weren't fair or right. And they still aren't because they reward players for not playing and don't stop them from going off and playing where they like e.g. the IPL
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.
I would question why the ECB thinks August is so good for the Hundred anyway. Yes it's the school holidays BUT if you're trying to attract new people to the sport, being against the Premier League means that it's swamped. Indeed by the sound of things, Sky see the Hundred as a lesser event too, and are happy to schedule it against the Premier League as channel filler, rather than a major event.
For the non Hundred cricket fan, this effectively has turned August into a holidays and start of the football season month.
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.
I would question why the ECB thinks August is so good for the Hundred anyway. Yes it's the school holidays BUT if you're trying to attract new people to the sport, being against the Premier League means that it's swamped. Indeed by the sound of things, Sky see the Hundred as a lesser event too, and are happy to schedule it against the Premier League as channel filler, rather than a major event.
For the non Hundred cricket fan, this effectively has turned August into a holidays and start of the football season month.
And for those that want to go and join a club or be involved in All Stars or Dynamos it takes place far too late for them to get involved. Those end usually by the middle of July so the opportunity is missed for another year.
Oh and I believe advocating that Pope should be moved to 3 but got told he can't bat there because he's never done so for his county. But it is the batting position where he has had most success for England.
Pope to open - he has been virtually opening when he has been batting 3 !!
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.
I would question why the ECB thinks August is so good for the Hundred anyway. Yes it's the school holidays BUT if you're trying to attract new people to the sport, being against the Premier League means that it's swamped. Indeed by the sound of things, Sky see the Hundred as a lesser event too, and are happy to schedule it against the Premier League as channel filler, rather than a major event.
For the non Hundred cricket fan, this effectively has turned August into a holidays and start of the football season month.
And for those that want to go and join a club or be involved in All Stars or Dynamos it takes place far too late for them to get involved. Those end usually by the middle of July so the opportunity is missed for another year.
In general this feels a flaw with franchise cricket, in that in no other sport do you support a made up non national team for a month, as all that PR and goodwill is wasted for another 11 months. At least with a county you can support them for 5 or 6 months.
Indeed IPL franchises taking over teams elsewhere actually makes some commercial logic. An Indian supporter of the Delhi Capitols in the IPL, can then follow the same "brand " in S Africa, the West Indies, the UAE in their T20 competitions etc, with many of the same players. Worrying for the future of national sides, but it's a logical trend.
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
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.
I would question why the ECB thinks August is so good for the Hundred anyway. Yes it's the school holidays BUT if you're trying to attract new people to the sport, being against the Premier League means that it's swamped. Indeed by the sound of things, Sky see the Hundred as a lesser event too, and are happy to schedule it against the Premier League as channel filler, rather than a major event.
For the non Hundred cricket fan, this effectively has turned August into a holidays and start of the football season month.
And for those that want to go and join a club or be involved in All Stars or Dynamos it takes place far too late for them to get involved. Those end usually by the middle of July so the opportunity is missed for another year.
In general this feels a flaw with franchise cricket, in that in no other sport do you support a made up non national team for a month, as all that PR and goodwill is wasted for another 11 months. At least with a county you can support them for 5 or 6 months.
Indeed IPL franchises taking over teams elsewhere actually makes some commercial logic. An Indian supporter of the Delhi Capitols in the IPL, can then follow the same "brand " in S Africa, the West Indies, the UAE in their T20 competitions etc, with many of the same players. Worrying for the future of national sides, but it's a logical trend.
I think the kids club cricket up to U17 is right at the begining of the season and is all over by the summer holidays, which in a way is counter intuitive, as you would have thought they would have had more time once exams etc were over .........
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
I'm still not sure why you're upset about the quite simple suggestion that Harry Brook bats in the middle order - which, as i said, is not exactly rocket science (a turn of phrase to say keep it simple). I'm not sure your experience of being a father pips my cricket coaching badges and own experience playing at a decent level either. But ok.
You have a problem with me for some reason, clearly. But i think everyone else is finding it a bit boring (as am i). Lets get back to talking about cricket and not make personal attacks, please.
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
I'm still not sure why you're upset about the quite simple suggestion that Harry Brook bats in the middle order - which, as i said, is not exactly rocket science (a turn of phrase to say keep it simple). I'm not sure your experience of being a father pips my cricket coaching badges and own experience playing at a decent level either. But ok.
You have a problem with me for some reason, clearly. But i think everyone else is finding it a bit boring (as am i). Lets get back to talking about cricket and not make personal attacks, please.
I bet you wouldn't you say "Harry Brook has to bat in the middle. It's not rocket science" to Alastair Cook's face and then laugh in his face for suggesting that he should open (remember the LOL when I suggested it). On second thoughts, I suspect that you probably would.
I do have a problem with you. As do others. It's on other threads too because you dig people out, make cheap shots, use the LOL button for a purpose that it wasn't intended for and then cry that you're being bullied for being called out for it. I am prepared to let those things go and talk about cricket. However, if you revert to type then I won't let it go.
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
I'm still not sure why you're upset about the quite simple suggestion that Harry Brook bats in the middle order - which, as i said, is not exactly rocket science (a turn of phrase to say keep it simple). I'm not sure your experience of being a father pips my cricket coaching badges and own experience playing at a decent level either. But ok.
You have a problem with me for some reason, clearly. But i think everyone else is finding it a bit boring (as am i). Lets get back to talking about cricket and not make personal attacks, please.
I bet you wouldn't you say "Harry Brook has to bat in the middle. It's not rocket science" to Alastair Cook's face and then laugh in his face for suggesting that he should open (remember the LOL when I suggested it). On second thoughts, I suspect that you probably would.
I do have a problem with you. As do others. It's on other threads too because you dig people out, make cheap shots, use the LOL button for a purpose that it wasn't intended for and then cry that you're being bullied for being called out for it. I am prepared to let those things go and talk about cricket. However, if you revert to type then I won't let it go.
So let's get back to the cricket.
All i've literally done is disagree with you about Harry Brook. There's no need for personal attacks just because i've disagreed with you about Harry Brook opening the batting lmao.
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
I'm still not sure why you're upset about the quite simple suggestion that Harry Brook bats in the middle order - which, as i said, is not exactly rocket science (a turn of phrase to say keep it simple). I'm not sure your experience of being a father pips my cricket coaching badges and own experience playing at a decent level either. But ok.
You have a problem with me for some reason, clearly. But i think everyone else is finding it a bit boring (as am i). Lets get back to talking about cricket and not make personal attacks, please.
I bet you wouldn't you say "Harry Brook has to bat in the middle. It's not rocket science" to Alastair Cook's face and then laugh in his face for suggesting that he should open (remember the LOL when I suggested it). On second thoughts, I suspect that you probably would.
I do have a problem with you. As do others. It's on other threads too because you dig people out, make cheap shots, use the LOL button for a purpose that it wasn't intended for and then cry that you're being bullied for being called out for it. I am prepared to let those things go and talk about cricket. However, if you revert to type then I won't let it go.
So let's get back to the cricket.
All i've literally done is disagree with you about Harry Brook. There's no need for personal attacks just because i've disagreed with you about Harry Brook opening the batting lmao.
And there you go again. Reverting to type with a "Lmao".
You just can't see that it isn't just about Harry Brook or that you have disagreed about it. You chose to LOL my question about Brook. That isn't disagreeing, that's an attempt to belittle. Are you going to deny that you also called me a "'90s selector"? On several occasions too. And when I asked why you did that, you refused to respond.
This is exactly the way you try to put people down. You did it on the Crypto thread, you did it on the NFT thread and now you're doing it on here. And then you have the cheek to moan about personal attacks and being threatened as you did on the NFT thread. You just can't see it which is the most amazing thing of all.
Meanwhile CL's number one WUM continues to LOL most of my posts. It's not even subtle but thanks nevertheless WUM. Don't think that they aren't appreciated because they truly are.
Anyway, how's the Hundred going? I understand that England might have lost their white ball captain because of that meaningless "competition". Thanks ECB. Where would we be without central contracts preventing England cricketers from playing franchise cricket and getting injured?
Meanwhile CL's number one WUM continues to LOL most of my posts. It's not even subtle but thanks nevertheless WUM. Don't think that they aren't appreciated because they truly are.
Anyway, how's the Hundred going? I understand that England might have lost their white ball captain because of that meaningless "competition". Thanks ECB.
It's genuinely funny that you keep posting just to dig other posters out and ending with the phrase "...let's get back to the cricket". I assume it's intentionally funny, hence the LOLs. If they're not intentionally funny, let me know and I will remove them.
For what it's worth, I think Harry Brook, if he were to play for England, shouldn't open the batting, only because he's not really an opening bat and you should really only change a team to improve it - bringing in someone who doesn't open the batting to replace someone who does is likely to weaken the team.
I can understand why Crawley isn't being dropped. It seems to me it's for two reasons. First he's seen as good enough to be allowed the luxury of learning how to be a Test opener while opening in Tests (very few have been afforded that luxury, and it's good to see that the people in charge have identified something about him to make that a gamble worth taking). And second, that there isn't another opener forcing his way into the reckoning. If there were, then surely they'd have opened in the Lions' warm up match against South Africa, instead two openers who have already failed at Test level were brought in. Ideally Crawley should have opened in that match with whoever is being lined up as the next potential opener. That's not how the England management sees it, and I can understand why, even if I don't agree with it.
Meanwhile CL's number one WUM continues to LOL most of my posts. It's not even subtle but thanks nevertheless WUM. Don't think that they aren't appreciated because they truly are.
Anyway, how's the Hundred going? I understand that England might have lost their white ball captain because of that meaningless "competition". Thanks ECB.
It's genuinely funny that you keep posting just to dig other posters out and ending with the phrase "...let's get back to the cricket". I assume it's intentionally funny, hence the LOLs. If they're not intentionally funny, let me know and I will remove them.
For what it's worth, I think Harry Brook, if he were to play for England, shouldn't open the batting, only because he's not really an opening bat and you should really only change a team to improve it - bringing in someone who doesn't open the batting to replace someone who does is likely to weaken the team.
I can understand why Crawley isn't being dropped. It seems to me it's for two reasons. First he's seen as good enough to be allowed the luxury of learning how to be a Test opener while opening in Tests (very few have been afforded that luxury, and it's good to see that the people in charge have identified something about him to make that a gamble worth taking). And second, that there isn't another opener forcing his way into the reckoning. If there were, then surely they'd have opened in the Lions' warm up match against South Africa, instead two openers who have already failed at Test level were brought in. Ideally Crawley should have opened in that match with whoever is being lined up as the next potential opener. That's not how the England management sees it, and I can understand why, even if I don't agree with it.
Just because he doesn't open the batting now, he has done so and had the necessary learning curve doing so. Pope had never batted at 3 before for his county. So Brook has more experience of doing a job than Pope had but Pope has been successful so why shouldn't Brook? Equally, if Brook is the best up and coming batsman in the country, we would be denying him a space for someone who isn't in such great form just because he opens for his county.
We have to also remember that there are only two opening slots at any county. If they are doing well at the job then that county isn't going to drop them to experiment. Yorkshire have their captain and former England opener, Lyth, occupying one of them and the England U19 opener, George Hill, in the other. As Brook says, he would rather bat at 4 which he does for Yorkshire but he isn't taking Root's spot is he?
The bottom line is this - to bat in the top three you have to have two things. A solid technique and a good temperament. I thought Pope had both which is why I advocated him batting at 3 and not hiding at 6 or 7 where he didn't know whether to stick or twist. I believe that Brook should be given that chance as does the guy who has batted 291 times for England and scored 12,472 and is someone who has seen him bat at first hand in the middle when standing at slips. That's good enough for me but others seem to think that they know more than Cook.
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
I'm still not sure why you're upset about the quite simple suggestion that Harry Brook bats in the middle order - which, as i said, is not exactly rocket science (a turn of phrase to say keep it simple). I'm not sure your experience of being a father pips my cricket coaching badges and own experience playing at a decent level either. But ok.
You have a problem with me for some reason, clearly. But i think everyone else is finding it a bit boring (as am i). Lets get back to talking about cricket and not make personal attacks, please.
I bet you wouldn't you say "Harry Brook has to bat in the middle. It's not rocket science" to Alastair Cook's face and then laugh in his face for suggesting that he should open (remember the LOL when I suggested it). On second thoughts, I suspect that you probably would.
I do have a problem with you. As do others. It's on other threads too because you dig people out, make cheap shots, use the LOL button for a purpose that it wasn't intended for and then cry that you're being bullied for being called out for it. I am prepared to let those things go and talk about cricket. However, if you revert to type then I won't let it go.
So let's get back to the cricket.
All i've literally done is disagree with you about Harry Brook. There's no need for personal attacks just because i've disagreed with you about Harry Brook opening the batting lmao.
And there you go again. Reverting to type with a "Lmao".
You just can't see that it isn't just about Harry Brook or that you have disagreed about it. You chose to LOL my question about Brook. That isn't disagreeing, that's an attempt to belittle. Are you going to deny that you also called me a "'90s selector"? On several occasions too. And when I asked why you did that, you refused to respond.
This is exactly the way you try to put people down. You did it on the Crypto thread, you did it on the NFT thread and now you're doing it on here. And then you have the cheek to moan about personal attacks and being threatened as you did on the NFT thread. You just can't see it which is the most amazing thing of all.
So, let's get back to the cricket.
It is about Harry Brook, because this is a cricket thread and in your own words, lets get back to the cricket. I don't know why you're bringing up the other threads in a cricket thread when we're talking about Harry Brook. Can we please, for the love of GOD talk about Harry Brook?!
Just bizarre. If i didn't respond, it's probably because the discussion moved on, i was doing something else or something - saying you're thinking like a 90's england cricket selector is quite literally talking cricket. I'm not the one making personal attacks.
So the ECB now want five competitions when we can't even fit in four. Dilute the CC to 10 games and play it during periods when we will be at the mercy of the weather and the CC could become of 8 match duration?
Meanwhile CL's number one WUM continues to LOL most of my posts. It's not even subtle but thanks nevertheless WUM. Don't think that they aren't appreciated because they truly are.
Anyway, how's the Hundred going? I understand that England might have lost their white ball captain because of that meaningless "competition". Thanks ECB.
It's genuinely funny that you keep posting just to dig other posters out and ending with the phrase "...let's get back to the cricket". I assume it's intentionally funny, hence the LOLs. If they're not intentionally funny, let me know and I will remove them.
For what it's worth, I think Harry Brook, if he were to play for England, shouldn't open the batting, only because he's not really an opening bat and you should really only change a team to improve it - bringing in someone who doesn't open the batting to replace someone who does is likely to weaken the team.
I can understand why Crawley isn't being dropped. It seems to me it's for two reasons. First he's seen as good enough to be allowed the luxury of learning how to be a Test opener while opening in Tests (very few have been afforded that luxury, and it's good to see that the people in charge have identified something about him to make that a gamble worth taking). And second, that there isn't another opener forcing his way into the reckoning. If there were, then surely they'd have opened in the Lions' warm up match against South Africa, instead two openers who have already failed at Test level were brought in. Ideally Crawley should have opened in that match with whoever is being lined up as the next potential opener. That's not how the England management sees it, and I can understand why, even if I don't agree with it.
"You think Harry Brook shouldn't open?! You're a horrible person.
Comments
And although Brook prefers batting in the middle order, he believes he now has the game to open for England.
“I feel like I'd do a job batting anywhere to be honest,” said Brook, when asked his preferred batting position. “And if I got an opportunity to play Test cricket opening the batting, obviously I'm going to take it.
Brook admitted he struggled in 2018 when he played 12 matches for Yorkshire, three times opening the batting, three coming in at first drop and four batting at No.5. He was also unsettled in Yorkshire’s 2019 lineup, opening five times and batting at No.5 on six occasions.
“You never know when your last game's gonna be,” said Brook of those seasons. “When I was opening the batting I think I only had four bad games and as the player I was, who's always naturally looking to score and hit the gaps and whatever, if one seams or swings and I nick it then I'm out.
“It was a great experience for me, learning that at such a young age as well and that's why I said I think I'd do a much better job now if I was to open the batting having experienced that.
“It was tough, because obviously you want to start well. You want to show everybody how good you are.
“But years down the line you notice how vital them years probably were on your career and yeah, it was a great experience for me and learning, them tough times, because when the good times come it's really nice.”
So he wants to open and if our most successful opening batsman of all time thinks that he can do it then that's enough for me.
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
For the non Hundred cricket fan, this effectively has turned August into a holidays and start of the football season month.
Indeed IPL franchises taking over teams elsewhere actually makes some commercial logic. An Indian supporter of the Delhi Capitols in the IPL, can then follow the same "brand " in S Africa, the West Indies, the UAE in their T20 competitions etc, with many of the same players. Worrying for the future of national sides, but it's a logical trend.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
I do have a problem with you. As do others. It's on other threads too because you dig people out, make cheap shots, use the LOL button for a purpose that it wasn't intended for and then cry that you're being bullied for being called out for it. I am prepared to let those things go and talk about cricket. However, if you revert to type then I won't let it go.
So let's get back to the cricket.
And there you go again. Reverting to type with a "Lmao".
You just can't see that it isn't just about Harry Brook or that you have disagreed about it. You chose to LOL my question about Brook. That isn't disagreeing, that's an attempt to belittle. Are you going to deny that you also called me a "'90s selector"? On several occasions too. And when I asked why you did that, you refused to respond.
This is exactly the way you try to put people down. You did it on the Crypto thread, you did it on the NFT thread and now you're doing it on here. And then you have the cheek to moan about personal attacks and being threatened as you did on the NFT thread. You just can't see it which is the most amazing thing of all.
So, let's get back to the cricket.
Anyway, how's the Hundred going? I understand that England might have lost their white ball captain because of that meaningless "competition". Thanks ECB. Where would we be without central contracts preventing England cricketers from playing franchise cricket and getting injured?
For what it's worth, I think Harry Brook, if he were to play for England, shouldn't open the batting, only because he's not really an opening bat and you should really only change a team to improve it - bringing in someone who doesn't open the batting to replace someone who does is likely to weaken the team.
I can understand why Crawley isn't being dropped. It seems to me it's for two reasons. First he's seen as good enough to be allowed the luxury of learning how to be a Test opener while opening in Tests (very few have been afforded that luxury, and it's good to see that the people in charge have identified something about him to make that a gamble worth taking). And second, that there isn't another opener forcing his way into the reckoning. If there were, then surely they'd have opened in the Lions' warm up match against South Africa, instead two openers who have already failed at Test level were brought in. Ideally Crawley should have opened in that match with whoever is being lined up as the next potential opener. That's not how the England management sees it, and I can understand why, even if I don't agree with it.
English cricket could be set for a NEW red ball competition (msn.com)
We have to also remember that there are only two opening slots at any county. If they are doing well at the job then that county isn't going to drop them to experiment. Yorkshire have their captain and former England opener, Lyth, occupying one of them and the England U19 opener, George Hill, in the other. As Brook says, he would rather bat at 4 which he does for Yorkshire but he isn't taking Root's spot is he?
The bottom line is this - to bat in the top three you have to have two things. A solid technique and a good temperament. I thought Pope had both which is why I advocated him batting at 3 and not hiding at 6 or 7 where he didn't know whether to stick or twist. I believe that Brook should be given that chance as does the guy who has batted 291 times for England and scored 12,472 and is someone who has seen him bat at first hand in the middle when standing at slips. That's good enough for me but others seem to think that they know more than Cook.
Just bizarre. If i didn't respond, it's probably because the discussion moved on, i was doing something else or something - saying you're thinking like a 90's england cricket selector is quite literally talking cricket. I'm not the one making personal attacks.
Anyway, lets get back to the cricket."