Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket Team Summer 2019 -ICC World Cup and Ashes etc
Comments
-
Starc was a magnificent bowler in tests, right up to the point they stopped using sandpaper4
-
If it's true that the bowlers knew nothing about the sandpaper cheating, then you have to feel really sorry for him.Chizz said:Starc was a magnificent bowler in tests, right up to the point they stopped using sandpaper
Up to that point, he must have gone to bed every night thinking he was Wasim Akram.
And, as soon as the sandpaper was taken away, it would have dawned on him he's actually Alan Mullally.12 -
Saturday looks ok , I’ve been looking all week and funnily enough the forecast is changing like the weather !killerandflash said:
I'm worried about how much play I'll get to see on Saturday...The_President said:I'm going on Sunday, so hoping it gets that far.
I’m going up there with son, mate and his son tomorrow , going to a pre Ashes Lords Taverners dinner tomorrow night at Edgbaston and in their box Thursday which we bought in their St George’s day lunch .
Then me and son staying up there for the remainder of Test .2 -
Starc isn't a particularly great Test bowler. Hazlewood is the one to fear, especially if he's sorted himself out in English conditions since last time1
-
I'm as worried about the English batting as I am about the weather!oohaahmortimer said:
Saturday looks ok , I’ve been looking all week and funnily enough the forecast is changing like the weather !killerandflash said:
I'm worried about how much play I'll get to see on Saturday...The_President said:I'm going on Sunday, so hoping it gets that far.
I’m going up there with son, mate and his son tomorrow , going to a pre Ashes Lords Taverners dinner tomorrow night at Edgbaston and in their box Thursday which we bought in their St George’s day lunch .
Then me and son staying up there for the remainder of Test .
Edgbaston is a great venue, should be a raucous atmosphere there1 -
He isn't, see my previous posts. He is being picked as a batsman who happens to be able to bowl. The fact he should be picked as an all rounder is a diffrent subject, and one we would probably agree on.The_President said:
Is that why he's in the team as an all-rounder?Cafc43v3r said:
Who doesn't bowlThe_President said:
The team that has a 4th bowler who bats at 5.Cafc43v3r said:
Sorry, which team leaves out their 3rd/4th best bowler? Espically one that could bat at higher than 8?The_President said:Cafc43v3r said:How anyone, including the England managment consider going into a test match in England with out Woakes in the team really blows my mind.
Because, in terms of quality, he is probably our 3rd/4th bowler atm , pretty simple really.0 -
I agree - looks a fantastic bowler.Riviera said:
I'd say Cummins is our biggest threat.Leuth said:Starc isn't a particularly great Test bowler. Hazlewood is the one to fear, especially if he's sorted himself out in English conditions since last time
To be honest I'd rather they play Starc than Siddle, yes Starc has got pace but Siddle is good in English conditions as his Essex form shows, and offers something different to the rest.0 -
Unless they're going to play without a spinner, I can only imagine Woakes is the one to miss out. Ludicrous decision if so0
-
radio chat last night .. two former Aussie captains, Ian Chappell and Mark Taylor opined that Langer has far too much say in who plays and team tactics, when it should be the Captain who has the final word. They hinted that Tim Paine is a weak skipper and that Smith should be reinstated a s a pCovered End said:Mitchell Starc could be a shock omission from Australia’s team for the first Ashes Test here on Thursday after coach Justin Langer confirmed he would definitely play James Pattinson in his pace attack.
Starc took 27 wickets at the World Cup, ending with six more than any other bowler, and had 22 victims as Australia routed England 4-0 in the previous Ashes series, too.
Pattinson, who has struggled with a succession of injuries including a back problem that required spinal surgery in 2017, will play his first Test since February 2016.
His return gives Australia the luxury of selecting one of Starc, Josh Hazlewood or Peter Siddle. As the top-ranked Test bowler, Pat Cummins is locked in to the XI for his first Test in England and the fourth member of the attack will be spinner Nathan Lyon.
Langer admitted: “There’s probably three to be fair, (Starc), Peter Siddle and Josh Hazlewood for one spot.
“Three pretty good players to try to find a spot for, I reckon.”
Langer also confirmed that he will have Usman Khawaja back from a hamstring injury at No3.
There are two other contentious spots in Australia’s XI. The first is who will partner David Warner at the top of the order. There is no great concern from the Aussie camp about Warner’s fitness after he took a blow on the left thigh having inside-edged off the uncapped seam bowler Michael Neser at training yesterday. Cameron Bancroft, who was banned for nine months for ball-tampering, looks to have the edge over Marcus Harris for that spot.
With Khawaja over his setback and Steve Smith and Travis Head batting below him, the other position up for grabs is No6. “Usman Khawaja will definitely be in, he’s fit, ready to go and he’s playing well,” said Langer.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
I meant that Hazlewood is the one to fear of those three - Cummins is their best overall of course0
-
Huge that Root will bat 3 and exactly what was needed before the ashes. Not sure I understand the decision to put Denly at 4. Looks a confused decision to me. Denley was brought in to bat in the top 3 and bring experience to those positions. We have an absolute glut of players who want to bat in the 4-7 slots. We then have to ask if he's not going to bat in the top 3 (the role he was brought in for) is he really the best option we have at number 4? It's a no from me.
I would have put Denly to open and roy at 4. Root as a busy 3 and roy as a dominating KP style number 4 is something I could back. But it seems they really want Roy as an opener to work so given that I just don't think JD is the man for the number 4 role. I would rather move Bairstow up and bring Foakes in...1 -
There's a prediction competition for the 2019 Ashes series scoreline https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/86333/ashes-2019-scoreline-predictions-competition/p1?new=1
It's only "open" until 08:00am tomorrow.
0 -
If you are going to play Stokes and Ali, then there is absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers ahead of them. As I said before, historically the 5th bowler only gets to bowl an average of 8-10 overs per innings, and more realistically, more recently , gets to bowl zero overs.Cafc43v3r said:
He isn't, see my previous posts. He is being picked as a batsman who happens to be able to bowl. The fact he should be picked as an all rounder is a diffrent subject, and one we would probably agree on.The_President said:
Is that why he's in the team as an all-rounder?Cafc43v3r said:
Who doesn't bowlThe_President said:
The team that has a 4th bowler who bats at 5.Cafc43v3r said:
Sorry, which team leaves out their 3rd/4th best bowler? Espically one that could bat at higher than 8?The_President said:Cafc43v3r said:How anyone, including the England managment consider going into a test match in England with out Woakes in the team really blows my mind.
Because, in terms of quality, he is probably our 3rd/4th bowler atm , pretty simple really.
So therefore you have a choice of 3 from Jimmy,Archer(when fit),Broad and Woakes. My choice to drop out would be Woakes.
0 -
That's a huge call, especially as Woakes was England's best bowler in the last match and is a nailed-on certainty to play in the second Test.The_President said:
If you are going to play Stokes and Ali, then there is absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers ahead of them. As I said before, historically the 5th bowler only gets to bowl an average of 8-10 overs per innings, and more realistically, more recently , gets to bowl zero overs.Cafc43v3r said:
He isn't, see my previous posts. He is being picked as a batsman who happens to be able to bowl. The fact he should be picked as an all rounder is a diffrent subject, and one we would probably agree on.The_President said:
Is that why he's in the team as an all-rounder?Cafc43v3r said:
Who doesn't bowlThe_President said:
The team that has a 4th bowler who bats at 5.Cafc43v3r said:
Sorry, which team leaves out their 3rd/4th best bowler? Espically one that could bat at higher than 8?The_President said:Cafc43v3r said:How anyone, including the England managment consider going into a test match in England with out Woakes in the team really blows my mind.
Because, in terms of quality, he is probably our 3rd/4th bowler atm , pretty simple really.
So therefore you have a choice of 3 from Jimmy,Archer(when fit),Broad and Woakes. My choice to drop out would be Woakes.1 -
Chizz said:
If it's true that the bowlers knew nothing about the sandpaper cheating, then you have to feel really sorry for him.Chizz said:Starc was a magnificent bowler in tests, right up to the point they stopped using sandpaper
Up to that point, he must have gone to bed every night thinking he was Wasim Akram.
And, as soon as the sandpaper was taken away, it would have dawned on him he's actually Alan Mullally.
There is a body of opinion that would suggest that it is lunacy to suggest that none of the Aussie quicks knew about the sandpapering of the ball.
If you look at that Test Series in SA, Starc in particular went from swinging it round corners, to becoming a virtual passenger, once the sandpapering incident had occured.
If you listen to current test bowlers, they will tell you that the condition of the ball, and how it is treated is the number one concern for them on the field.
I was only a humble club bowler, but even I would have noticed that the ball had been roughed up with sandpaper.
Living in Australia as I do, there is a strong feeling that (a bit like the KP saga with England), that the ugly head of 'sandpapergate' will undoubtedly raise its head again before too long.0 -
Back Saturday afternoon then.oohaahmortimer said:
Saturday looks ok , I’ve been looking all week and funnily enough the forecast is changing like the weather !killerandflash said:
I'm worried about how much play I'll get to see on Saturday...The_President said:I'm going on Sunday, so hoping it gets that far.
I’m going up there with son, mate and his son tomorrow , going to a pre Ashes Lords Taverners dinner tomorrow night at Edgbaston and in their box Thursday which we bought in their St George’s day lunch .
Then me and son staying up there for the remainder of Test .2 -
To your first point, that the bowlers must have known about the cheating, I completely agree. I can't see any circumstance in which they weren't aware that something was going on.Kenny Achampong said:Chizz said:
If it's true that the bowlers knew nothing about the sandpaper cheating, then you have to feel really sorry for him.Chizz said:Starc was a magnificent bowler in tests, right up to the point they stopped using sandpaper
Up to that point, he must have gone to bed every night thinking he was Wasim Akram.
And, as soon as the sandpaper was taken away, it would have dawned on him he's actually Alan Mullally.
There is a body of opinion that would suggest that it is lunacy to suggest that none of the Aussie quicks knew about the sandpapering of the ball.
If you look at that Test Series in SA, Starc in particular went from swinging it round corners, to becoming a virtual passenger, once the sandpapering incident had occured.
If you listen to current test bowlers, they will tell you that the condition of the ball, and how it is treated is the number one concern for them on the field.
I was only a humble club bowler, but even I would have noticed that the ball had been roughed up with sandpaper.
Living in Australia as I do, there is a strong feeling that (a bit like the KP saga with England), that the ugly head of 'sandpapergate' will undoubtedly raise its head again before too long.
To your second point, that it might raise its head again... good!0 -
I totally agree with your first point but England have turned the strength of having 3 all rounders into a weakness by effectively having them bat in the top 6, then due to lack of proper batsmen picked more bowlers and wicket keepers.The_President said:
If you are going to play Stokes and Ali, then there is absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers ahead of them. As I said before, historically the 5th bowler only gets to bowl an average of 8-10 overs per innings, and more realistically, more recently , gets to bowl zero overs.Cafc43v3r said:
He isn't, see my previous posts. He is being picked as a batsman who happens to be able to bowl. The fact he should be picked as an all rounder is a diffrent subject, and one we would probably agree on.The_President said:
Is that why he's in the team as an all-rounder?Cafc43v3r said:
Who doesn't bowlThe_President said:
The team that has a 4th bowler who bats at 5.Cafc43v3r said:
Sorry, which team leaves out their 3rd/4th best bowler? Espically one that could bat at higher than 8?The_President said:Cafc43v3r said:How anyone, including the England managment consider going into a test match in England with out Woakes in the team really blows my mind.
Because, in terms of quality, he is probably our 3rd/4th bowler atm , pretty simple really.
So therefore you have a choice of 3 from Jimmy,Archer(when fit),Broad and Woakes. My choice to drop out would be Woakes.
Stokes has effectively been batting at 5 and part of a 6 or some times 7 man attack. He is an all rounder but isn't being picked as one for what ever reason.0 -
Steve Smith top scorer at 4-1 is decent odds imho, by the way.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Is that top Australian scorer or top scorer over-all?North Lower Neil said:Steve Smith top scorer at 4-1 is decent odds imho, by the way.0 -
Broad misses out for me. Strengthens our batting too, no way should Woakes be dropped.
Although i would play Woakes at 8 and drop Ali.1 -
Overall. He's a best priced 2/1 to be top Aussie BatChizz said:
Is that top Australian scorer or top scorer over-all?North Lower Neil said:Steve Smith top scorer at 4-1 is decent odds imho, by the way.0 -
Overall.Chizz said:
Is that top Australian scorer or top scorer over-all?North Lower Neil said:Steve Smith top scorer at 4-1 is decent odds imho, by the way.
Edit: just sent AA beat me to it!
4-1 would be crazy on him being Aus top bat when Warner would seem his only real competition.0 -
Although come to mention it, matched bets on Smith (2-1) and Warner (11-4) to be Aus top bat would seem very likely to pay off.0
-
Team just announced. Archer misses out0
-
Woakes for ArcherAddick Addict said:Is this going to be the team then (with Woakes possibly coming in for Archer or Broad)?
Burns
Roy
Root
Denly
Stokes
Buttler
Bairstow
Ali
Archer
Broad
Anderson0 -
The problem with the all rounders is that none of them are good enough with the bat at the moment to be top 5, we have a team of very good number 7s!Cafc43v3r said:
I totally agree with your first point but England have turned the strength of having 3 all rounders into a weakness by effectively having them bat in the top 6, then due to lack of proper batsmen picked more bowlers and wicket keepers.The_President said:
If you are going to play Stokes and Ali, then there is absolutely no point in playing 4 bowlers ahead of them. As I said before, historically the 5th bowler only gets to bowl an average of 8-10 overs per innings, and more realistically, more recently , gets to bowl zero overs.Cafc43v3r said:
He isn't, see my previous posts. He is being picked as a batsman who happens to be able to bowl. The fact he should be picked as an all rounder is a diffrent subject, and one we would probably agree on.The_President said:
Is that why he's in the team as an all-rounder?Cafc43v3r said:
Who doesn't bowlThe_President said:
The team that has a 4th bowler who bats at 5.Cafc43v3r said:
Sorry, which team leaves out their 3rd/4th best bowler? Espically one that could bat at higher than 8?The_President said:Cafc43v3r said:How anyone, including the England managment consider going into a test match in England with out Woakes in the team really blows my mind.
Because, in terms of quality, he is probably our 3rd/4th bowler atm , pretty simple really.
So therefore you have a choice of 3 from Jimmy,Archer(when fit),Broad and Woakes. My choice to drop out would be Woakes.
Stokes has effectively been batting at 5 and part of a 6 or some times 7 man attack. He is an all rounder but isn't being picked as one for what ever reason.
Bairstow averages with the bat 36, Buttler 36, Stokes 34 and Ali 30.
Looking up some former lower middle order players for comparison, Matt Prior averaged 40, Bell 43, Collingwood 41, Flintoff 323 -
I think Buttler is smart enough and good enough to get runs at 5 but beyond that you're spot on - I'd tip Curran or Foakes to get more runs than Denly but that doesn't mean they are good enough for the top 4, same with Bairstow, Ali etc1
-
Archer needs to be selected if he is fit .. the other quicks, as good as they are, will not be able to put the fear of god into the sandpaper boys .. would like to see them reduced to sawdust0
