Meanwhile Australia have collapsed from 85-2 to 110-8 against India in their second innings.
113 all out to follow up on the 91 in the first test.
In their defence though most teams would struggle against Ashwin and Jadeja over there.
Jadeja is a lethal bowler in helpful conditions, but fairly ineffective when the pitch isn't spin friendly. With Bumrah injured, you can understand why India have gone down this path, though there also has to be a reasonable balance between bat and ball for the health of Test cricket.
After all the trouble getting to New Zealand and finally geting there in time for the first ball it was a great 3 and bit days cricket.The Bay oval is a fantastic stadium to watch cricket and its even better in the dark.All grass banks so you will need a chair but i stood most of the time and found a nice quiet spot with a great view.A free day today to explore and then on to Wellington Friday.Barmy Army!!
What a brilliant selection problem to have with Wood, Archer , Woakes and Sam Curran all not out there and Potts to potentially be used too.
Stone, Mahmood and J.Overton
I'd forgotten Mahmood was back with the Lions. That's some serious pace depth , although with some of their injury records it's probably going to be needed.
What a brilliant selection problem to have with Wood, Archer , Woakes and Sam Curran all not out there and Potts to potentially be used too.
Stone, Mahmood and J.Overton
I'd forgotten Mahmood was back with the Lions. That's some serious pace depth , although with some of their injury records it's probably going to be needed.
I really wonder how they are going to get the express pace in the team. As its been shown before its a brave man that drops the two 🐐s, Robinson doesn't deserve missing out.
Bazball is working wonders. Bring on the Ashes!!!!
What is Australian media saying about England's new method and approach to Tests?
Absolutely nothing other than "we" (England) seem to be approaching every game like a T20 game. They're very one eyed over here and only focus on themselves, unless England lose of course and then it gets coverage!
What a brilliant selection problem to have with Wood, Archer , Woakes and Sam Curran all not out there and Potts to potentially be used too.
Stone, Mahmood and J.Overton
I'd forgotten Mahmood was back with the Lions. That's some serious pace depth , although with some of their injury records it's probably going to be needed.
I really wonder how they are going to get the express pace in the team. As its been shown before its a brave man that drops the two 🐐s, Robinson doesn't deserve missing out.
It's a big selection dilemma, you can't drop Broad or Anderson in home conditions. Robinson needs to actually stay fit now he's got his place but there's always going to be that possibility to go to Wood or Archer or even Woakes in home series.
I can't figure out at the moment how you manage it all.
What a brilliant selection problem to have with Wood, Archer , Woakes and Sam Curran all not out there and Potts to potentially be used too.
Stone, Mahmood and J.Overton
I'd forgotten Mahmood was back with the Lions. That's some serious pace depth , although with some of their injury records it's probably going to be needed.
I really wonder how they are going to get the express pace in the team. As its been shown before its a brave man that drops the two 🐐s, Robinson doesn't deserve missing out.
It's a big selection dilemma, you can't drop Broad or Anderson in home conditions. Robinson needs to actually stay fit now he's got his place but there's always going to be that possibility to go to Wood or Archer or even Woakes in home series.
I can't figure out at the moment how you manage it all.
And Bairstow's fitness makes selection headaches even worse. Because two things are true: Bairstow's inclusion is a must: and none of the batting lineup deserves to be dropped.
What a brilliant selection problem to have with Wood, Archer , Woakes and Sam Curran all not out there and Potts to potentially be used too.
Stone, Mahmood and J.Overton
I'd forgotten Mahmood was back with the Lions. That's some serious pace depth , although with some of their injury records it's probably going to be needed.
I really wonder how they are going to get the express pace in the team. As its been shown before its a brave man that drops the two 🐐s, Robinson doesn't deserve missing out.
It's a big selection dilemma, you can't drop Broad or Anderson in home conditions. Robinson needs to actually stay fit now he's got his place but there's always going to be that possibility to go to Wood or Archer or even Woakes in home series.
I can't figure out at the moment how you manage it all.
And Bairstow's fitness makes selection headaches even worse. Because two things are true: Bairstow's inclusion is a must: and none of the batting lineup deserves to be dropped.
As much as I don't like the idea at all , I think it ends up being Foakes missing out.
Crawley ffs. It's Crawley. Good player who fits the brief but he's who goes for Bairstow surely.
Key loves Crawley too much to drop him. Don't think Tom Haines can open Baz style yet and probably needs another strong 1000+ season in the CC before he's in line for international honours.
Bairstow needs to bat at 6 or 7. If your recalling him, rightfully, on last summers form you need to bat him where he had that form. If you really want to drop Crawley for him put him at 6 and push everyone else up one.
What a brilliant selection problem to have with Wood, Archer , Woakes and Sam Curran all not out there and Potts to potentially be used too.
Stone, Mahmood and J.Overton
I'd forgotten Mahmood was back with the Lions. That's some serious pace depth , although with some of their injury records it's probably going to be needed.
I really wonder how they are going to get the express pace in the team. As its been shown before its a brave man that drops the two 🐐s, Robinson doesn't deserve missing out.
It's a big selection dilemma, you can't drop Broad or Anderson in home conditions. Robinson needs to actually stay fit now he's got his place but there's always going to be that possibility to go to Wood or Archer or even Woakes in home series.
I can't figure out at the moment how you manage it all.
And Bairstow's fitness makes selection headaches even worse. Because two things are true: Bairstow's inclusion is a must: and none of the batting lineup deserves to be dropped.
As much as I don't like the idea at all , I think it ends up being Foakes missing out.
Crawley ffs. It's Crawley. Good player who fits the brief but he's who goes for Bairstow surely.
Who opens?
I’d have thought Bairstow gets the gloves with Foakes missing out.
Foakes offers far more than Crawley. If Bairstow is to be recalled then Crawley has to be the one who misses out.
Who would you open with?
Crawley has been in such poor form that I don't think Bairstow could do any worse. If Bairstow is to be considered for the middle order then I think the fairest way to include him would be to wait for someone to be injured as none of the middle order deserve to be dropped.
Don't completely discount them moving Brook up the order.
I got laughed at when I suggested that a few months ago when the re-introduction of Bairstow was last debated! I did point out that he had done the job early in his career and has said that he would be happy to do so.
Bairstow needs to bat at 6 or 7. If your recalling him, rightfully, on last summers form you need to bat him where he had that form. If you really want to drop Crawley for him put him at 6 and push everyone else up one.
So Pope would open, having just established that he is England's current and future number 3? Root goes to 3 having categorically stated he doesn't want to bat there? I'm not sure that we should disrupt all of 3-6 to accommodate Bairstow?
Crawley has had the unrelenting backing of the England management. However, as Atherton, Hussain and in this last Test, Gower have all said there are only so many chances you can give someone - he averages just 28.10 from 59 innings but, more to the point, he has never made a contribution that can be defined as the difference between us winning and not winning. He averages 69.37 against Pakistan because of his 267 out of 583-8 in a drawn game and his 122 when he was one of four centurions in a total of 657. His other ton (121) came in a drawn game against the West Indies. Those are the only three of his 32 matches when he has reached 100, in total for both innings, in a game. Take those three scores out and Crawley has scored 1,120 runs in 56 innings at an average of 20.36 with no less than 30 single digit scores. He's never managed a big one on a tough wicket, was 9th in the Kent batting averages in the CC last season with 467 runs at 27.47 and has a lifetime First Class average of 30.22. All of that says more than enough about his lack of a solid technique. Yes he will come off occasionally when the stars align but, more often that not, he will get out to the moving ball. We also shouldn't forget that he dropped three catches in the last game and It is only the fact that we are on this winning streak that more analysis of that hasn't made.
If Crawley has been given 32 matches then I'm sure that Duckett will be forgiven more than the odd failure - his totals of 107, 142, 108 and 109 in the four matches since he returned should have bought him plenty of time. The fact that he is left handed is important too given Stokes is the only other one in our top 7.
Australia, in their pomp, would always pick the best six batsmen available and the best keeper plus the four best bowlers. That famous West Indies side did very much the same. Bairstow is one of our best six batsmen and Foakes is our best keeper. One shelled catch or missed stumping could make the difference between winning and losing and handing the gloves to Bairstow when he hasn't kept in red ball in years is a big ask. Bairstow regularly opens in white ball. He is one of our best six batsmen. Crawley simply isn't.
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Foakes isn't the "fall guy". Coaches and management like to give the most chances to those that they think will make the difference (especially when there are special "connections" with the player in question) and the least to those that they consider expendable. This wouldn't make that decision a correct one, in my opinion, on either cricketing or moral grounds.
Comments
In their defence though most teams would struggle against Ashwin and Jadeja over there.
You should not be improving, what is already 🐐 level in your 40s. As a fast bowler.
Sky sports get over the lack of broadcasts by totally ignoring the event!
I'd forgotten Mahmood was back with the Lions. That's some serious pace depth , although with some of their injury records it's probably going to be needed.
It's a big selection dilemma, you can't drop Broad or Anderson in home conditions. Robinson needs to actually stay fit now he's got his place but there's always going to be that possibility to go to Wood or Archer or even Woakes in home series.
I can't figure out at the moment how you manage it all.
As much as I don't like the idea at all , I think it ends up being Foakes missing out.
Key loves Crawley too much to drop him. Don't think Tom Haines can open Baz style yet and probably needs another strong 1000+ season in the CC before he's in line for international honours.
If Bairstow is to be recalled then Crawley has to be the one who misses out.
If Bairstow is to be considered for the middle order then I think the fairest way to include him would be to wait for someone to be injured as none of the middle order deserve to be dropped.
So Pope would open, having just established that he is England's current and future number 3? Root goes to 3 having categorically stated he doesn't want to bat there? I'm not sure that we should disrupt all of 3-6 to accommodate Bairstow?
Crawley has had the unrelenting backing of the England management. However, as Atherton, Hussain and in this last Test, Gower have all said there are only so many chances you can give someone - he averages just 28.10 from 59 innings but, more to the point, he has never made a contribution that can be defined as the difference between us winning and not winning. He averages 69.37 against Pakistan because of his 267 out of 583-8 in a drawn game and his 122 when he was one of four centurions in a total of 657. His other ton (121) came in a drawn game against the West Indies. Those are the only three of his 32 matches when he has reached 100, in total for both innings, in a game. Take those three scores out and Crawley has scored 1,120 runs in 56 innings at an average of 20.36 with no less than 30 single digit scores. He's never managed a big one on a tough wicket, was 9th in the Kent batting averages in the CC last season with 467 runs at 27.47 and has a lifetime First Class average of 30.22. All of that says more than enough about his lack of a solid technique. Yes he will come off occasionally when the stars align but, more often that not, he will get out to the moving ball. We also shouldn't forget that he dropped three catches in the last game and It is only the fact that we are on this winning streak that more analysis of that hasn't made.
If Crawley has been given 32 matches then I'm sure that Duckett will be forgiven more than the odd failure - his totals of 107, 142, 108 and 109 in the four matches since he returned should have bought him plenty of time. The fact that he is left handed is important too given Stokes is the only other one in our top 7.
Australia, in their pomp, would always pick the best six batsmen available and the best keeper plus the four best bowlers. That famous West Indies side did very much the same. Bairstow is one of our best six batsmen and Foakes is our best keeper. One shelled catch or missed stumping could make the difference between winning and losing and handing the gloves to Bairstow when he hasn't kept in red ball in years is a big ask. Bairstow regularly opens in white ball. He is one of our best six batsmen. Crawley simply isn't.
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Foakes isn't the "fall guy". Coaches and management like to give the most chances to those that they think will make the difference (especially when there are special "connections" with the player in question) and the least to those that they consider expendable. This wouldn't make that decision a correct one, in my opinion, on either cricketing or moral grounds.