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
-
So are adults.....I’m loosing my hair and need glassescantersaddick said:No words for that.
Ben stokes have my babies.
There are kids everywhere modelling themselves on Jack leach.3 -
We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Pope
Bairstow
Buttler
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson2 -
I'd also drop Buttler for Foakes for the same reasons you use as dropping Roy.Addick Addict said:We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Pope
Bairstow
Buttler
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson
If Jimmy isn't fit then Sam Curran needs to play. Need a swing bowler in the side and as you say woakes looks shot. Top player but having led the attack in the world cup he looks tired. Need a a rest.1 -
I'm also taking into account (and it is something that seems to have been forgotten about because of his heroics afterwards) the fact that Stokes ran Buttler out. We don't know that Buttler would not have been there at the end with Stokes as unlikely as it may seem at face value.cantersaddick said:
I'd also drop Buttler for Foakes for the same reasons you use as dropping Roy.Addick Addict said:We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Pope
Bairstow
Buttler
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson
If Jimmy isn't fit then Sam Curran needs to play. Need a swing bowler in the side and as you say woakes looks shot. Top player but having led the attack in the world cup he looks tired. Need a a rest.
The other thing that I have at the back of my mind is that each player needs clarity of their role in the team. Apart from Stokes there is one other player who could take a tired bowling attack apart and that is Buttler. He could do the Gilchrist role at 7 (but certainly not keep) but needs to know that that is his job and not pretend that he is a number 5. Ultimately, Foakes will come in but I would have him at 6.0 -
Buttler did not look comfortable yesterday and stokes probably put him out of his misery. Buttler and Roy both average less than 10 this series and should be dropped.0
-
There is something weird though about having a specialist batsman at 7Addick Addict said:
I'm also taking into account (and it is something that seems to have been forgotten about because of his heroics afterwards) the fact that Stokes ran Buttler out. We don't know that Buttler would not have been there at the end with Stokes as unlikely as it may seem at face value.cantersaddick said:
I'd also drop Buttler for Foakes for the same reasons you use as dropping Roy.Addick Addict said:We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Pope
Bairstow
Buttler
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson
If Jimmy isn't fit then Sam Curran needs to play. Need a swing bowler in the side and as you say woakes looks shot. Top player but having led the attack in the world cup he looks tired. Need a a rest.
The other thing that I have at the back of my mind is that each player needs clarity of their role in the team. Apart from Stokes there is one other player who could take a tired bowling attack apart and that is Buttler. He could do the Gilchrist role at 7 (but certainly not keep) but needs to know that that is his job and not pretend that he is a number 5. Ultimately, Foakes will come in but I would have him at 6.
Buttler to me looks jaded, I wouldn't discard him permanently from Test cricket, but he needs a break from the team2 -
If Gilchrist didn't keep would he have looked weird batting at 7 and another keeper batted at 6? It was the destructive nature of Gilchrist's batting that frequently changed Tests.killerandflash said:
There is something weird though about having a specialist batsman at 7Addick Addict said:
I'm also taking into account (and it is something that seems to have been forgotten about because of his heroics afterwards) the fact that Stokes ran Buttler out. We don't know that Buttler would not have been there at the end with Stokes as unlikely as it may seem at face value.cantersaddick said:
I'd also drop Buttler for Foakes for the same reasons you use as dropping Roy.Addick Addict said:We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Pope
Bairstow
Buttler
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson
If Jimmy isn't fit then Sam Curran needs to play. Need a swing bowler in the side and as you say woakes looks shot. Top player but having led the attack in the world cup he looks tired. Need a a rest.
The other thing that I have at the back of my mind is that each player needs clarity of their role in the team. Apart from Stokes there is one other player who could take a tired bowling attack apart and that is Buttler. He could do the Gilchrist role at 7 (but certainly not keep) but needs to know that that is his job and not pretend that he is a number 5. Ultimately, Foakes will come in but I would have him at 6.
Buttler to me looks jaded, I wouldn't discard him permanently from Test cricket, but he needs a break from the team1 -
But then keepers usually bat lower down to give them time to recover from the hard work of keeping wicket. If he hadn't kept wicket, Gilchrist may have batted higherAddick Addict said:
If Gilchrist didn't keep would he have looked weird batting at 7 and another keeper batted at 6? It was the destructive nature of Gilchrist's batting that frequently changed Tests.killerandflash said:
There is something weird though about having a specialist batsman at 7Addick Addict said:
I'm also taking into account (and it is something that seems to have been forgotten about because of his heroics afterwards) the fact that Stokes ran Buttler out. We don't know that Buttler would not have been there at the end with Stokes as unlikely as it may seem at face value.cantersaddick said:
I'd also drop Buttler for Foakes for the same reasons you use as dropping Roy.Addick Addict said:We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Pope
Bairstow
Buttler
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson
If Jimmy isn't fit then Sam Curran needs to play. Need a swing bowler in the side and as you say woakes looks shot. Top player but having led the attack in the world cup he looks tired. Need a a rest.
The other thing that I have at the back of my mind is that each player needs clarity of their role in the team. Apart from Stokes there is one other player who could take a tired bowling attack apart and that is Buttler. He could do the Gilchrist role at 7 (but certainly not keep) but needs to know that that is his job and not pretend that he is a number 5. Ultimately, Foakes will come in but I would have him at 6.
Buttler to me looks jaded, I wouldn't discard him permanently from Test cricket, but he needs a break from the team0 -
supaclive said:
We WON'T win Chizz! Yes the team have applied themselves more in this innings but the 67 all out was unforgiveable.Chizz said:8
I suppose his thought process is that it's better to play himself in and try to ensure that the lower-middle order is exposed to the new ball, than to score quickly and risk getting out.Todds_right_hook said:
Correction, 7 from 76Todds_right_hook said:
Agreed, we are not batting for a draw, we need to win. The only way we will win is by scoring 200 runs. I get cautious and safe but 3 of 72 is taking cautious to another levelNorth Lower Neil said:Stokes is overcompensating here, yes stay in but go for the easier runs.
I would like to see him score quicker. But he looks absolutely determined to do everything required to score the century that's needed.
I think he's been magnificent for most of this Summer, particularly at Lord's with the bat and Headingley, in the second innings with the ball. If we lose, it won't be Stokes' fault - if we win, it will be, in a large part, down to him.
2 -
By the way that Oz have worked over/out Woakes batting, having Jimmy replace him doesn't really lengthen the tail by much.Addick Addict said:We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Pope
Bairstow
Buttler
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson
I still think that Pope should be left alone for this series - being worked over by Oz pace bowlers might set him back a year or two - wait til next season. However, Sibley should be given serious consideration - he's a bit older, and has a bit more about him at the moment - and can open.
So, 2 changes for me, Roy and Woakes out, Sibley and Jimmy in.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I don't think he would simply for the reason that this was his role - to take the game away from the opposition. He was revolutionary from that perspective. From a "rest" perspective there is very difference between 6 and 7 - and Foakes does not bat at 7 in 4 day cricket either.killerandflash said:
But then keepers usually bat lower down to give them time to recover from the hard work of keeping wicket. If he hadn't kept wicket, Gilchrist may have batted higherAddick Addict said:
If Gilchrist didn't keep would he have looked weird batting at 7 and another keeper batted at 6? It was the destructive nature of Gilchrist's batting that frequently changed Tests.killerandflash said:
There is something weird though about having a specialist batsman at 7Addick Addict said:
I'm also taking into account (and it is something that seems to have been forgotten about because of his heroics afterwards) the fact that Stokes ran Buttler out. We don't know that Buttler would not have been there at the end with Stokes as unlikely as it may seem at face value.cantersaddick said:
I'd also drop Buttler for Foakes for the same reasons you use as dropping Roy.Addick Addict said:We have to make changes but not wholesale changes as we have to retain the spirit of what we did at Headingly.
Roy is a rabbit in headlights at Test level and I really do not think it matters where he bats because the Aussies will find him out.
Denly is probably not a long term solution but he has proven in all his innings that he can hang on in there. He and Burns just might be able to bat for 15-20 overs and that will at least take some shine off the new ball. Small mercies but a big improvement on our usual 8-2!
For the reasons I've stated about not undermining the spirit, Buttler and Bairstow should be given one more chance. I've said time and again that Foakes should be in the side but now is not the time to bring him in.
Ollie Pope is a supreme talent and deserves another chance sooner rather than later. Now is, perhaps the time to give him that opportunity.
Finally, if fit, Anderson has to play. Woakes is clearly shot and the prospect of having Archer coming on first change must scare the living daylights out of the Aussies. It will mean that we have a long tail but it's about the top 7 standing up and scoring the runs and not relying on 8 and 9 to bail them out - support Stokes, Bairstow or Buttler yes but not rescue the team.
So this would be my side:
Burns
Denly
Root
Stokes
Pope
Bairstow
Buttler
Archer
Broad
Leach
Anderson
If Jimmy isn't fit then Sam Curran needs to play. Need a swing bowler in the side and as you say woakes looks shot. Top player but having led the attack in the world cup he looks tired. Need a a rest.
The other thing that I have at the back of my mind is that each player needs clarity of their role in the team. Apart from Stokes there is one other player who could take a tired bowling attack apart and that is Buttler. He could do the Gilchrist role at 7 (but certainly not keep) but needs to know that that is his job and not pretend that he is a number 5. Ultimately, Foakes will come in but I would have him at 6.
Buttler to me looks jaded, I wouldn't discard him permanently from Test cricket, but he needs a break from the team0 -
What with Roy possibly going out, and Sibley(ex Surrey),Pope,Curran and Foakes all being mentioned,and Burns in the team, theres a huge Surrey influence in the England set-up.0
-
Maybe that's why we're not winning..?
5 -
Maybe we can just blind the ozzies with all the fake white teeth the surrey boys all have?The_President said:What with Roy possibly going out, and Sibley(ex Surrey),Pope,Curran and Foakes all being mentioned,and Burns in the team, theres a huge Surrey influence in the England set-up.4 -
We're not losing either.Chizz said:Maybe that's why we're not winning..?
0 -
Let's not get too carried away with Surrey's influence to date - no wickets and 297 runs at an average of 24.75 is hardly breathtaking!The_President said:What with Roy possibly going out, and Sibley(ex Surrey),Pope,Curran and Foakes all being mentioned,and Burns in the team, theres a huge Surrey influence in the England set-up.7 -
If jimmy is fit he has to play. Woakes has been the poorest bowler this series, so would be the one to be dropped. Otherwise, Curran is the most like for like swap, being decent with the bat as well.0
-
Curran gives us better balance but on reflection I think Alec Stewart is right, Jimmy plays if fit and replaces Woakes.
Puts pressure on the top 7 though as Archer is batting 6 down.0 -
A bit better than Kents?Addick Addict said:
Let's not get too carried away with Surrey's influence to date - no wickets and 297 runs at an average of 24.75 is hardly breathtaking!The_President said:What with Roy possibly going out, and Sibley(ex Surrey),Pope,Curran and Foakes all being mentioned,and Burns in the team, theres a huge Surrey influence in the England set-up.
TBH, its been the Durham show so far- along with a sprinkling of Barbadian Sussex.
0 -
Was it @Leuth who said Stokes wasn't the best all-rounder in the world ?!0
-
Sponsored links:
-
So Chizz you said I was stupid for suggesting the above changes.Chizz said:
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.cafcfan1990 said:
Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit.Chizz said:
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?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.
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
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?
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 said I would play Stokes at 5, how has he done there? I would drop Ali for Leach, how did that work out? I would play Archer in the second test, he didn’t play badly did he?1 -
Stokes is turning himself into a quality batsman, you'd hope he'd be able to get his average over 40 as it currently is less than 36.
You could see the change last year, when things are tough he's now pacing himself as a senior batsman, rather than slogging a quick 204 -
Can I just ask those championing Curren to play in the next test, do you think he is the best bowler avaliable? Or is there a lot of weight placed on his batting?1
-
Think he should personally apologise to Stokes. Blasphemy.The_President said:Was it @Leuth who said Stokes wasn't the best all-rounder in the world ?!0 -
3
-
I wouldn't say Surrey's influence is better. Kent contributed 62 runs (including a vital long stay 50 which meant that the Aussie bowlers had to bowl for that much longer) at an average of 31 to a winning Test. Burns and Roy between them contributed just 33 runs in total at an average of 8.25 in that very same winning Test. Only two English batsmen contributed more than Denly in terms of occupancy of the crease or runs - Root and of course Stokes.The_President said:
A bit better than Kents?Addick Addict said:
Let's not get too carried away with Surrey's influence to date - no wickets and 297 runs at an average of 24.75 is hardly breathtaking!The_President said:What with Roy possibly going out, and Sibley(ex Surrey),Pope,Curran and Foakes all being mentioned,and Burns in the team, theres a huge Surrey influence in the England set-up.
TBH, its been the Durham show so far- along with a sprinkling of Barbadian Sussex.
When selectors at the higher levels of the game (county/international) look at making those selections they don't just look at stats. They look at how many innings/bowling spells were meaningful in terms of wins or saving games. Not, as in the case admittedly of one current Kent batsman who seems to make big scores on flat tracks, where when it is easy to score runs or take wickets.
3 -
Curran for Buttler? 6 bowlers might be excessive, but then so is 2 wicket keepers!Cafc43v3r said:Can I just ask those championing Curren to play in the next test, do you think he is the best bowler avaliable? Or is there a lot of weight placed on his batting?0 -
I've said I would play him if Jimmy isn't fit. Woakes is clearly struggling with how much cricket he has played and needs a rest.Cafc43v3r said:Can I just ask those championing Curren to play in the next test, do you think he is the best bowler avaliable? Or is there a lot of weight placed on his batting?
Jimmy is obviously a world class bowler and a like for like replacement for the swing bowling of Woakes. We have Archer for his Pace, Broad as a line bowler (though he can do much more than that). In English conditions you need an out and out swing bowler. If Jimmy isn't fit and woakes needs a rest Sam is next swing bowler in line. To be honest I cant think of a better option in county cricket. His batting would be a bonus but its not a reason to pick him above a better bowler.
I would be happy enough going in with Archer, Broad, Jimmy, Leach even if it does weaken out batting. The top 7 should take responsibility for runs.3 -
I think you can serve them some humble pie for lunch.SE7toSG3 said:Great to wake in Australia this morning, listened to ABC commentary throuhh the night, very amusing.
I think I know what I am wearing to breakfast as I got a fair bit of flack after the 67 all out so standby by my Aussie relatives!!0 -
Canters, I would give as many of them a rest as we possibly can, so we can see them nice and fresh for The 100 next summer.8
