There's not a lot more that can be said about Brook that hasn't been said already. The challenge will be him trying to balance his career as he will become THE most sought after player in all forms of the game.
Another word about Root. It's great to see him go back to playing as Root can. The glue. The one that wears the opposition bowlers down but who still has the ability to rotate. He doesn't need to play the way that the hitters do because he presents at different challenge to bowlers.
So, 550 or even 600 by tea tomorrow and we then put them in? Then we will see what this wicket has to offer and we won't have the pink ball under lights to aid us.
And he ticks along at a really good rate anyway usually.
And that's why I used the word "rotate" and not "blocker". Root hit 7 boundaries from 182 balls but still scored at more than 3 an over whereas Brook hit 29 of them from 169 balls. He is someone who keeps the good balls out but who doesn't get stuck, a la Sibley for example and does get the hitter on strike. That is a skill in itself. Circumstances such as today dictated that we didn't need two batsmen going hard from the off. Root doesn't need to try and play like Brook, Stokes, Bairstow, Duckett, Pope etc and bring out the reverse sweep that has got him out twice recently. He's too good a player to do have to do that in Test cricket. When we need kick on and have the comfort of runs behind us then by all means go for it.
I can't get over how level-headed Brook is. Cool analysis, refusal to get carried away, yet no false modesty either - he's aware of how good this is, he just won't over-celebrate it, sees the bigger picture. Incredible mentality. I remember after his first Test ton his celebration was restrained - like he knew this was just the start, or even really just his job.
Harry Brook is a revelation. His 184 not out against NZ has lifted me out of my gloom from the shenanigans happening around Charlton. Looking forward to following his progress for the rest of the series.
There's not a lot more that can be said about Brook that hasn't been said already. The challenge will be him trying to balance his career as he will become THE most sought after player in all forms of the game.
Another word about Root. It's great to see him go back to playing as Root can. The glue. The one that wears the opposition bowlers down but who still has the ability to rotate. He doesn't need to play the way that the hitters do because he presents at different challenge to bowlers.
So, 550 or even 600 by tea tomorrow and we then put them in? Then we will see what this wicket has to offer and we won't have the pink ball under lights to aid us.
And he ticks along at a really good rate anyway usually.
And that's why I used the word "rotate" and not "blocker". Root hit 7 boundaries from 182 balls but still scored at more than 3 an over whereas Brook hit 29 of them from 169 balls. He is someone who keeps the good balls out but who doesn't get stuck, a la Sibley for example and does get the hitter on strike. That is a skill in itself. Circumstances such as today dictated that we didn't need two batsmen going hard from the off. Root doesn't need to try and play like Brook, Stokes, Bairstow, Duckett, Pope etc and bring out the reverse sweep that has got him out twice recently. He's too good a player to do have to do that in Test cricket. When we need kick on and have the comfort of runs behind us then by all means go for it.
yeah i was just saying, it is crazy that a decent rate scorer in root is essentially the grafter in the team.
On the negative side, Crawley has to be dropped surely.
Shame as I like the guy and he has more about him than Burns or Sibley, for example, but constantly getting out for low scores can't be doing him any good either.
The fact that there isn't a replacement waiting is the other issue. Is Yates the next possible? Or are they waiting on Bairstow and trying him there?
On the negative side, Crawley has to be dropped surely.
Shame as I like the guy and he has more about him than Burns or Sibley, for example, but constantly getting out for low scores can't be doing him any good either.
The fact that there isn't a replacement waiting is the other issue. Is Yates the next possible? Or are they waiting on Bairstow and trying him there?
Yates?! Do you check into cricket once every three years or something?
A brilliant knock by Root to play the situation, allowing Brook to do his thing at the other end.
A horrible looking green pitch, but one which would dry out as the day goes on, so surviving until lunch was key. If the rain hadn't come, NZ would have really toiled in that final session...
Now he's someone that could fit the Bazball style. Perhaps a year off being ready (Same with Haines for me too ) , but if he keeps on progressing he's one to watch out for in all formats.
On the negative side, Crawley has to be dropped surely.
Shame as I like the guy and he has more about him than Burns or Sibley, for example, but constantly getting out for low scores can't be doing him any good either.
The fact that there isn't a replacement waiting is the other issue. Is Yates the next possible? Or are they waiting on Bairstow and trying him there?
Yates?! Do you check into cricket once every three years or something?
I don't get much time to watch County stuff these days, so probably not far off!
It's why I asked - Lees, Hameed, Burns, Sibley etc have failed, saw Yates was in the Lions...
Orr is promising but has a little way to go. He has been playing Grade 1 club cricket in Adelaide and his scores have been 11, 26, 70, 17, 35, 14, 15, 9, 2, 55, 10, 80 & 8. That's an average of 27.08. As good a standard as club cricket is there, a potential England player should be dominating at that level.
I do not understand the resistance to Bairstow coming in for Crawley. Duckett has far less experience opening (he wasn't even doing so for Notts) but we didn't hesitate to try him. Bairstow, unlike the likes of Roy and Hales who play in a similar fashion, has proven red ball ability. It might not be his best position but he has the talent and experience to make it work. The alternative is that we stick with Crawley or we try a complete unknown or we leave one of the best keepers in the world out (two 50s and a ton in his last five innings too) and rely on Bairstow taking all the catches/stumpings that Foakes would have. It might not work but what do we have to lose?
I suppose the real question is "who would the Aussies least like to see opening from those alternatives?"
Don't think he ever has. Foakes has to have the gloves because it would be a waste of his talent if he doesn't but asking him to do so and then keep is probably something we don't need to do.
There is more and more analysis and quantifying of the benefits of having a specialised keeper in the side and the negative effect of having a batsman who keeps. We went down the Buttler route because we wanted to fit him in the side but the fact is that he isn't as good a keeper as Foakes and his Test average (31.94) is actually less than that of Foakes (33.29) so that wasn't, in hindsight, the best way to go.
Could be rubbish but if it is a true fact it’s amazing
Harry Brook has already struck twice as many sixes in Test cricket as David Gower and Alec Stewart, and is just five shy of Graham Gooch’s career tally. He’s only been playing 6 months!
Could be rubbish but if it is a true fact it’s amazing
Harry Brook has already struck twice as many sixes in Test cricket as David Gower and Alec Stewart, and is just five shy of Graham Gooch’s career tally. He’s only been playing 6 months!
Probably our greatest ever T20 batsman to date, Buttler, hit 33 sixes in 57 Test matches. Brook has hit 20 in less than 6 matches.
Could be rubbish but if it is a true fact it’s amazing
Harry Brook has already struck twice as many sixes in Test cricket as David Gower and Alec Stewart, and is just five shy of Graham Gooch’s career tally. He’s only been playing 6 months!
The game has drastically changed, but modern bats and shorter boundaries help as well.
Could be rubbish but if it is a true fact it’s amazing
Harry Brook has already struck twice as many sixes in Test cricket as David Gower and Alec Stewart, and is just five shy of Graham Gooch’s career tally. He’s only been playing 6 months!
The game has drastically changed, but modern bats and shorter boundaries help as well.
Very true but that doesn't explain why Buttler only managed 1 every 3 innings whereas Brook averages more than 2 an innings. Perhaps, under this regime, Buttler would have played with more freedom and had more of an influence on matches than he did.
Could be rubbish but if it is a true fact it’s amazing
Harry Brook has already struck twice as many sixes in Test cricket as David Gower and Alec Stewart, and is just five shy of Graham Gooch’s career tally. He’s only been playing 6 months!
The game has drastically changed, but modern bats and shorter boundaries help as well.
Very true but that doesn't explain why Buttler only managed 1 every 3 innings whereas Brook averages more than 2 an innings. Perhaps, under this regime, Buttler would have played with more freedom and had more of an influence on matches than he did.
Brook is massively talented, in a once in a generation way. He's also a post T20 player, brought up as a child to play all the big shots, whereas Buttler would have had more of a traditional upbringing I imagine.
Yea, sun is shining in Wellington. Woke up this morning to very wet roads and soggy garden but hopefully we’ll see cricket today. The forecast if you can believe it is for finer weather from tomorrow afternoon and warmer temperatures.
Cannt get over the strike rate of Brooke in all Tests is 99.
As killerandflash points out play is scheduled to start half an hour early today.
Yes it's brilliant that England are aggressive, but I don't like Stokes out there. It's just slogging and funky stuff without consideration of the ball
Comments
Shame as I like the guy and he has more about him than Burns or Sibley, for example, but constantly getting out for low scores can't be doing him any good either.
The fact that there isn't a replacement waiting is the other issue. Is Yates the next possible? Or are they waiting on Bairstow and trying him there?
A horrible looking green pitch, but one which would dry out as the day goes on, so surviving until lunch was key. If the rain hadn't come, NZ would have really toiled in that final session...
Play starts early at 9:30pm tonight
Now he's someone that could fit the Bazball style. Perhaps a year off being ready (Same with Haines for me too ) , but if he keeps on progressing he's one to watch out for in all formats.
It's why I asked - Lees, Hameed, Burns, Sibley etc have failed, saw Yates was in the Lions...
I do not understand the resistance to Bairstow coming in for Crawley. Duckett has far less experience opening (he wasn't even doing so for Notts) but we didn't hesitate to try him. Bairstow, unlike the likes of Roy and Hales who play in a similar fashion, has proven red ball ability. It might not be his best position but he has the talent and experience to make it work. The alternative is that we stick with Crawley or we try a complete unknown or we leave one of the best keepers in the world out (two 50s and a ton in his last five innings too) and rely on Bairstow taking all the catches/stumpings that Foakes would have. It might not work but what do we have to lose?
I suppose the real question is "who would the Aussies least like to see opening from those alternatives?"
There is more and more analysis and quantifying of the benefits of having a specialised keeper in the side and the negative effect of having a batsman who keeps. We went down the Buttler route because we wanted to fit him in the side but the fact is that he isn't as good a keeper as Foakes and his Test average (31.94) is actually less than that of Foakes (33.29) so that wasn't, in hindsight, the best way to go.
Harry Brook has already struck twice as many sixes in Test cricket as David Gower and Alec Stewart, and is just five shy of Graham Gooch’s career tally. He’s only been playing 6 months!
Cannt get over the strike rate of Brooke in all Tests is 99.