Doesn't look like enforcing the follow on was a good idea now. I'm usually in favour but this time I think if we had batted again & got a 450 run lead then scoreboard pressure would have meant they would have buckled.
As it stands, if they get a lead in excess of 250 then I think we're cooked.
We're looking a bit tired, hence we're not taking the half chances
I would say we're looking like a spent force and that is, as you suggest, feeding into the fielding. It's reactive rather than pro active.
It's more than seven and a half years (Lord's v Australia, July 2015) since Anderson had figures as poor as 0-77 in an innings. If he can't get anything out of a deck then no seamer can. Robinson has 1-106 in the match. Those returns go to prove that we do need a full cohort of bowlers available for the Ashes. Either Archer or Wood as the extra pace alternative may well prove a necessity especially if Stokes cannot perform his role as an enforcer.
And with that century, I'm declaring. So when NZ lose 5 wickets for 23 and England knock the runs off in a thrilling 2 hour run chase, you can thank me.
And with that century, I'm declaring. So when NZ lose 5 wickets for 23 and England knock the runs off in a thrilling 2 hour run chase, you can thank me.
I'm waiting for tea and then I'm off too. Watching live streams of club games from Australia over the weekend and this Test match has just about finished me!
Crawley blocked one straight to a fielder in short and set off when never a run and should have been run out and he would have been stranded but got away with it (appalling ) but has been a little edgey but hit a couple of boundaries now England 23-0
We are probably have to do so but can we go into an Ashes Series relying on three seamers and four frontline bowlers because it is obvious that Stokes, with his knee issue, is unable to bowl to any degree - just 2 overs of the 162 delivered by England in this match and 17 in total from the last 8 innings. If the Aussies successfully target Leach then the work load on the three seamers is going to be rather heavy.
Which raises an interesting question, with Bairstow waiting in the wings, whether Stokes playing just as a batsman justifies his place at No 6!
Obviously Zak (if anyone) would be dropped, but Zak at No 6 would surely make a lot more runs than he does as an opener.
Obviously Stokes won't be dropped, but to an extent his place in the team is now because of his leadership rather than his "stats".
I thought this the other day. Does he get in the team as a specialist batsman and if he can't bowl how do you get a 5th bowler in the team?
It's really difficult and if your going with 5 specialist bowlers do you want 2 express quicks? I am not sure you can risk 2 in a 4 man attack.
The conclusion I came up with was "if its not broke don't fix it". But selection for a 3rd test here would have been very interesting.
We are probably have to do so but can we go into an Ashes Series relying on three seamers and four frontline bowlers because it is obvious that Stokes, with his knee issue, is unable to bowl to any degree - just 2 overs of the 162 delivered by England in this match and 17 in total from the last 8 innings. If the Aussies successfully target Leach then the work load on the three seamers is going to be rather heavy.
Which raises an interesting question, with Bairstow waiting in the wings, whether Stokes playing just as a batsman justifies his place at No 6!
Obviously Zak (if anyone) would be dropped, but Zak at No 6 would surely make a lot more runs than he does as an opener.
Obviously Stokes won't be dropped, but to an extent his place in the team is now because of his leadership rather than his "stats".
I'd make more batting at 6 than Zak does as opener!
In the 146 years of Test cricket, just 23 England batsmen have batted in positions 1-3 as many times as Zak Crawley (58 times) and his average of 27.52 is the worst of those. None of those, though, have had their average "skewed" by one innings to the extent that Crawley has by that 267 against Pakistan and without that his average in those positions drops to 23.25.
Crawley's average is 25.19 from 48 innings when opening and that is also the worst from the 18 players that qualify with Burns, once again, 2nd in that list with the same average of 30.32 as he has only ever opened. That demonstrates the perceived lack of options but, there again, the fact that it has taken over six years to give Duckett, a player who was dropped after just 7 innings back in 2016, a second chance suggests that there might be others from left field who could be given that opportunity.
That said, I remain of the opinion that Bairstow should be the next on the rank to open as he does fit the "Bazball" profile and is a very experienced opener and Test batsman. It would also mean no disruption to the batting order and the retention of probably the best keeper in the world.
The 23 qualifiers who have batted 58 or more times at 1-3:
You can tell lots of information from statistics. So it's interesting to note that Crawley has won more Tests opening the batting than any other current (i.e. non-retired) player, ever (15 and counting). And he has a better average in winning Tests than the next two on the list (Burns and Jennings).
One argument for England picking him is that England keep winning when they do. That may be swaying McCullum's and Stokes' thinking right now. And who would argue against their decision-making?
You can tell lots of information from statistics. So it's interesting to note that Crawley has won more Tests opening the batting than any other current (i.e. non-retired) player, ever (15 and counting). And he has a better average in winning Tests than the next two on the list (Burns and Jennings).
One argument for England picking him is that England keep winning when they do. That may be swaying McCullum's and Stokes' thinking right now. And who would argue against their decision-making?
In the last decade, only Burns (32) has opened in more Tests than Crawley (25) and only Jennings (17) and Sibley (22) have actually opened in enough matches to reach 15 wins - the next players have only opened 11 times so the actual comparison is with three other players! Equally, only Crawley, Lees and Duckett have had the opportunity to open under McCullum.
The danger in using Crawley as some sort of "lucky charm" (and that's effectively what you are saying because he hasn't done anything of note to justify his inclusion) is that we end up dropping him when we can least afford to do so and have to throw someone in at the deep end. We should also bear in mind that he dropped three catches in the slips in the last match and if he does that against Australia it could prove fatal.
Comments
All the seamers look like they have had enough. That's over 100 overs that the three of them have bowled in the match to date.
On that subject I hadn't realised that in Stokes 2 overs he bowled 1 wide and 3 no balls. That really suggests that he is out of sorts with the ball.
As it stands, if they get a lead in excess of 250 then I think we're cooked.
It's more than seven and a half years (Lord's v Australia, July 2015) since Anderson had figures as poor as 0-77 in an innings. If he can't get anything out of a deck then no seamer can. Robinson has 1-106 in the match. Those returns go to prove that we do need a full cohort of bowlers available for the Ashes. Either Archer or Wood as the extra pace alternative may well prove a necessity especially if Stokes cannot perform his role as an enforcer.
409-5 and a lead of 183
100 up for Williamson
Minimum 24 overs left in the day, lead of 246. Second new ball available in a couple of overs...
Silly run out to get rid of Bracewell - nothing grounded behind the line and Foakes takes the bails off.
Southee tries teeing off the bowling of Leach and gets caught in the deep
Henry caught at slip off Leach
Fifth wicket for Leach. Blundell on 90 charged him and edged to Root at slip. Unfortunate not to get his hundred.
Minimum of 15 overs today, plus tomorrow.
but has been a little edgey but hit a couple of boundaries now England 23-0
210 more needed
It's really difficult and if your going with 5 specialist bowlers do you want 2 express quicks? I am not sure you can risk 2 in a 4 man attack.
The conclusion I came up with was "if its not broke don't fix it". But selection for a 3rd test here would have been very interesting.
I'd make more batting at 6 than Zak does as opener!
Crawley's average is 25.19 from 48 innings when opening and that is also the worst from the 18 players that qualify with Burns, once again, 2nd in that list with the same average of 30.32 as he has only ever opened. That demonstrates the perceived lack of options but, there again, the fact that it has taken over six years to give Duckett, a player who was dropped after just 7 innings back in 2016, a second chance suggests that there might be others from left field who could be given that opportunity.
That said, I remain of the opinion that Bairstow should be the next on the rank to open as he does fit the "Bazball" profile and is a very experienced opener and Test batsman. It would also mean no disruption to the batting order and the retention of probably the best keeper in the world.
The 23 qualifiers who have batted 58 or more times at 1-3:
Name Span Inns NO Runs HS Ave
One argument for England picking him is that England keep winning when they do. That may be swaying McCullum's and Stokes' thinking right now. And who would argue against their decision-making?
bairstow
duckett
pope
no question on how destructive they can be but I bet the Aussies wouldn't be to upset at bowling at them with a new ball in their hands.
The danger in using Crawley as some sort of "lucky charm" (and that's effectively what you are saying because he hasn't done anything of note to justify his inclusion) is that we end up dropping him when we can least afford to do so and have to throw someone in at the deep end. We should also bear in mind that he dropped three catches in the slips in the last match and if he does that against Australia it could prove fatal.