England Cricket Team Summer 2019 -ICC World Cup and Ashes etc

Lincsaddick said:

Archer might be 'fit' .. but when did he last bowl 20+ overs a day in 3 or 4 spells for 2 or 3 days on the trot ? .. the only way to get him 'match fit' is to select him and then bowl and bowl him

How is he going to unless he gets the chance to do so. We have enough bowlers to let him have short spells. 

Disappointing morning but I love these ebb and flow test matches. If the rest of the series measures up to Edgbaston I'm not going to be doing much gardening this summer 😀

Addickted2TheReds said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

It has been a recurring theme on cricket threads that you post in such  condescending and smug fashion.

Have been thinking this for a while, but it really is getting tiresome.

Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.

That's an interesting opinion

Addickted2TheReds said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

It has been a recurring theme on cricket threads that you post in such  condescending and smug fashion.

Have been thinking this for a while, but it really is getting tiresome.

Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.

It's not limited to cricket threads, once you forget what he is actually saying, the effort he goes to to actual spin what your saying is actually quite impressive.  Like I said before he must put in a full working week trying to be a WUM.  It's either admirable or sad, I am not sure which. 

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit. 

Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.

Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier. 

Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in? 

Out of interest, what are your other adjectives? 

If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise.  But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.  

The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games).  So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness.  You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.  

The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked.  Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence.  If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence. 

Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure.  So, I am glad to see that you haven't.  Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.  

The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players.  Gooch isn't a current player.  You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's.  I think that's a mistake.  

Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree? 

Chizz said:

No ball called for having three players behind square on the leg side.  Incredibly rare in Test cricket.  But that's now two Tests running. 

Bring back dodyline I say

Great time to get a 50 partnership. 
Now let's try and get a 1st innings lead of 100.

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit. 

Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.

Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier. 

Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in? 

Out of interest, what are your other adjectives? 

If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise.  But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.  

The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games).  So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness.  You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.  

The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked.  Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence.  If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence. 

Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure.  So, I am glad to see that you haven't.  Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.  

The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players.  Gooch isn't a current player.  You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's.  I think that's a mistake.  

Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree? 

I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood. 

I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion. 

I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed. 

If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.  

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler.  Five is too high for an all-rounder. 

blackpool72 said:

Great time to get a 50 partnership. 
Now let's try and get a 1st innings lead of 100.

What's the minimum lead we need for you to be confident we will win? 

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit. 

Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.

Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier. 

Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in? 

Out of interest, what are your other adjectives? 

If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise.  But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.  

The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games).  So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness.  You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.  

The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked.  Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence.  If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence. 

Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure.  So, I am glad to see that you haven't.  Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.  

The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players.  Gooch isn't a current player.  You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's.  I think that's a mistake.  

Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree? 

I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood. 

I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion. 

I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed. 

If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.  

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler.  Five is too high for an all-rounder. 

Tell that to Jacques Kallis. 

Chizz said:

blackpool72 said:

Great time to get a 50 partnership. 
Now let's try and get a 1st innings lead of 100.

What's the minimum lead we need for you to be confident we will win? 

Hard to be precise. But a  lead of 100 would in my opinion make us firm favourites. 

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit. 

Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.

Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier. 

Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in? 

Out of interest, what are your other adjectives? 

If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise.  But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.  

The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games).  So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness.  You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.  

The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked.  Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence.  If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence. 

Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure.  So, I am glad to see that you haven't.  Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.  

The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players.  Gooch isn't a current player.  You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's.  I think that's a mistake.  

Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree? 

I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood. 

I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion. 

I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed. 

If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.  

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler.  Five is too high for an all-rounder. 

Tell that to Jacques Kallis. 

And Botham in his pomp.

Excellent stand by Woakes and Broad, sensible batting

Shame that ended. Decent lead though.

bolloxbolder said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Chizz said:

cafcfan1990 said:

We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: 
Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson. 

Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran. 

You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's?  And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match? 

Interesting. Bold.  And some other adjectives, too..!

Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit. 

Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.

Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10
minutes earlier. 

Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in? 

Out of interest, what are your other adjectives? 

If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise.  But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.  

The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games).  So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness.  You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.  

The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked.  Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence.  If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence. 

Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure.  So, I am glad to see that you haven't.  Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.  

The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players.  Gooch isn't a current player.  You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's.  I think that's a mistake.  

Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree? 

I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood. 

I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion. 

I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed. 

If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.  

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler.  Five is too high for an all-rounder. 

Tell that to Jacques Kallis. 

And Botham in his pomp.

Your points that the two best all-rounders that ever lived could bat in the top five at the peak of their abilities is a good one.  I don't think Stokes is in that category.