Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2021 (excluding Ashes)
Comments
-
A duck in the first innings and 25 in the nextJohnnysummers5 said:killerandflash said:
Homer was bowled by Ashwin for 6, Marge caught at Silly Point for 3suzisausage said:
What about the Simpsons?killerandflash said:C4 are reshowing this morning in full. Feeling quietly confident that Root and Lawrence can make a match winning partnership
How did Mr Burns do?1 -
Excellent.2
-
Yes, yes, but where does Jennings fit in to all this?The cold facts about our batting this winter - against Sri Lanka and India, Root has scored 723 runs. The next top is Sibley with 184. We couldn't even muster 300 runs in total in this match. Sibley, Burns and Lawrence have averaged in the last couple of months of 26.29, 14.50 and 21.71 respectively. Burns has 78 runs in his last 8 innings.
Crawley and Bairstow are both in the 17 for the next Test. I would play them both with Crawley opening and Bairstow at 6. I actually prefer Burns to Sibley for two reasons - Burns is left handed and I also think that he is also more likely to get runs when conditions are difficult whereas Sibley will get big runs when the ball is doing nothing but is too easy to work out otherwise. But Burns is batting like a rabbit in head lights at the moment. Neither of the two omitted would be forgotten - Burns would be the back up opener and Lawrence's time will come again.
Yes that will mean you know who at 3. The issue I have is that Pope is, batting at 6, getting dragged into the realms of mediocrity because he isn't being permitted to bat in a way that his skillset will allow him to flourish. At the moment he's getting 20s and out - look at that shot he played today, I'm absolutely convinced that he wouldn't have played that in the first innings of this match batting at 3.
Batting at 6, or even 7 if we use a nightwatchman, isn't a proper batting position for a class bat. And if I were Pope I would be asking myself why the likes of Lawrence get the better gig especially as the runs he's getting at the moment batting at 6 isn't even enough to justify his place in the side. If he gets another 50 runs in total in the next Test and is dropped as a result, will he think that he's had a fair crack? After all, Denly got dropped for achieving more and he wasn't being "shielded" batting in the lower middle order.
We cannot go into an Ashes series with Burns, Sibley and Crawley as our top 3 as Root will be in, more often than not, with the new ball less than 10 overs old. If Root is happy doing that then he should be the one batting at 3 anyway which would then allow Pope to bat at 4. But we know that Root won't bat at 3 come what may.3 -
I can't pick someone who isn't in the squad:mid_life_crisis said:
Yes, yes, but where does Jennings fit in to all this?The cold facts about our batting this winter - against Sri Lanka and India, Root has scored 723 runs. The next top is Sibley with 184. We couldn't even muster 300 runs in total in this match. Sibley, Burns and Lawrence have averaged in the last couple of months of 26.29, 14.50 and 21.71 respectively. Burns has 78 runs in his last 8 innings.
Crawley and Bairstow are both in the 17 for the next Test. I would play them both with Crawley opening and Bairstow at 6. I actually prefer Burns to Sibley for two reasons - Burns is left handed and I also think that he is also more likely to get runs when conditions are difficult whereas Sibley will get big runs when the ball is doing nothing but is too easy to work out otherwise. But Burns is batting like a rabbit in head lights at the moment. Neither of the two omitted would be forgotten - Burns would be the back up opener and Lawrence's time will come again.
Yes that will mean you know who at 3. The issue I have is that Pope is, batting at 6, getting dragged into the realms of mediocrity because he isn't being permitted to bat in a way that his skillset will allow him to flourish. At the moment he's getting 20s and out - look at that shot he played today, I'm absolutely convinced that he wouldn't have played that in the first innings of this match batting at 3.
Batting at 6, or even 7 if we use a nightwatchman, isn't a proper batting position for a class bat. And if I were Pope I would be asking myself why the likes of Lawrence get the better gig especially as the runs he's getting at the moment batting at 6 isn't even enough to justify his place in the side. If he gets another 50 runs in total in the next Test and is dropped as a result, will he think that he's had a fair crack? After all, Denly got dropped for achieving more and he wasn't being "shielded" batting in the lower middle order.
We cannot go into an Ashes series with Burns, Sibley and Crawley as our top 3 as Root will be in, more often than not, with the new ball less than 10 overs old. If Root is happy doing that then he should be the one batting at 3 anyway which would then allow Pope to bat at 4. But we know that Root won't bat at 3 come what may.
England 17-man squad for third Test: Joe Root (c), James Anderson, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow, Dominic Bess, Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Zak Crawley, Ben Foakes, Dan Lawrence, Jack Leach, Ollie Pope, Dom Sibley, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood.
0 -
Huh, another pessimist.AshBurton said:We’re going to lose this one by 350-400 runs, aren’t we?3 -
.
0 -
Leaving aside Jennings, and assuming they will prepare another bunsen, I'd go:Addick Addict said:
I can't pick someone who isn't in the squad:mid_life_crisis said:
Yes, yes, but where does Jennings fit in to all this?The cold facts about our batting this winter - against Sri Lanka and India, Root has scored 723 runs. The next top is Sibley with 184. We couldn't even muster 300 runs in total in this match. Sibley, Burns and Lawrence have averaged in the last couple of months of 26.29, 14.50 and 21.71 respectively. Burns has 78 runs in his last 8 innings.
Crawley and Bairstow are both in the 17 for the next Test. I would play them both with Crawley opening and Bairstow at 6. I actually prefer Burns to Sibley for two reasons - Burns is left handed and I also think that he is also more likely to get runs when conditions are difficult whereas Sibley will get big runs when the ball is doing nothing but is too easy to work out otherwise. But Burns is batting like a rabbit in head lights at the moment. Neither of the two omitted would be forgotten - Burns would be the back up opener and Lawrence's time will come again.
Yes that will mean you know who at 3. The issue I have is that Pope is, batting at 6, getting dragged into the realms of mediocrity because he isn't being permitted to bat in a way that his skillset will allow him to flourish. At the moment he's getting 20s and out - look at that shot he played today, I'm absolutely convinced that he wouldn't have played that in the first innings of this match batting at 3.
Batting at 6, or even 7 if we use a nightwatchman, isn't a proper batting position for a class bat. And if I were Pope I would be asking myself why the likes of Lawrence get the better gig especially as the runs he's getting at the moment batting at 6 isn't even enough to justify his place in the side. If he gets another 50 runs in total in the next Test and is dropped as a result, will he think that he's had a fair crack? After all, Denly got dropped for achieving more and he wasn't being "shielded" batting in the lower middle order.
We cannot go into an Ashes series with Burns, Sibley and Crawley as our top 3 as Root will be in, more often than not, with the new ball less than 10 overs old. If Root is happy doing that then he should be the one batting at 3 anyway which would then allow Pope to bat at 4. But we know that Root won't bat at 3 come what may.
England 17-man squad for third Test: Joe Root (c), James Anderson, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow, Dominic Bess, Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Zak Crawley, Ben Foakes, Dan Lawrence, Jack Leach, Ollie Pope, Dom Sibley, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood.
Crawley
Burns
Pope
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Foakes
Woakes
Bess
Leach
Anderson
1 -
I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions and imo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.2 -
One point that I made about the tour of Sri Lanka 2 years ago but is still very relevant is the difference between Burns and Foakes and how well they have taken to sub-continent. Burns was always ignored by the England U19 and Lions set up because he "looks funny" when batting. That is despite averaging 49.4 opening in Div 1 on his first season in 2012 when he was 21 and consistently scoring more than 1000 runs a season since whilst opening the batting. As a result that tour of Sri Lanka (aged 28) was his first cricket in the subcontinent ever so he never learnt to adapt his game to those conditions. Contrast that with Foakes who had been in the setup all his life and that tour was actually his 7th tour of the subcontinent. Foakes got a call up late and was thrown in without a warmup game and scored a century on debut.1
-
killerandflash said:
Homer was bowled by Ashwin for 6, Marge caught at Silly Point for 3suzisausage said:
What about the Simpsons?killerandflash said:C4 are reshowing this morning in full. Feeling quietly confident that Root and Lawrence can make a match winning partnership
4 - Sponsored links:
-
He’s a leftie , well I never , the devils work1
-
Totally agree Canters!cantersaddick said:I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions and imo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,0 -
I suspect, for the third Test, if we picked...Addick Addict said:
I can't pick someone who isn't in the squad:mid_life_crisis said:
Yes, yes, but where does Jennings fit in to all this?The cold facts about our batting this winter - against Sri Lanka and India, Root has scored 723 runs. The next top is Sibley with 184. We couldn't even muster 300 runs in total in this match. Sibley, Burns and Lawrence have averaged in the last couple of months of 26.29, 14.50 and 21.71 respectively. Burns has 78 runs in his last 8 innings.
Crawley and Bairstow are both in the 17 for the next Test. I would play them both with Crawley opening and Bairstow at 6. I actually prefer Burns to Sibley for two reasons - Burns is left handed and I also think that he is also more likely to get runs when conditions are difficult whereas Sibley will get big runs when the ball is doing nothing but is too easy to work out otherwise. But Burns is batting like a rabbit in head lights at the moment. Neither of the two omitted would be forgotten - Burns would be the back up opener and Lawrence's time will come again.
Yes that will mean you know who at 3. The issue I have is that Pope is, batting at 6, getting dragged into the realms of mediocrity because he isn't being permitted to bat in a way that his skillset will allow him to flourish. At the moment he's getting 20s and out - look at that shot he played today, I'm absolutely convinced that he wouldn't have played that in the first innings of this match batting at 3.
Batting at 6, or even 7 if we use a nightwatchman, isn't a proper batting position for a class bat. And if I were Pope I would be asking myself why the likes of Lawrence get the better gig especially as the runs he's getting at the moment batting at 6 isn't even enough to justify his place in the side. If he gets another 50 runs in total in the next Test and is dropped as a result, will he think that he's had a fair crack? After all, Denly got dropped for achieving more and he wasn't being "shielded" batting in the lower middle order.
We cannot go into an Ashes series with Burns, Sibley and Crawley as our top 3 as Root will be in, more often than not, with the new ball less than 10 overs old. If Root is happy doing that then he should be the one batting at 3 anyway which would then allow Pope to bat at 4. But we know that Root won't bat at 3 come what may.
England 17-man squad for third Test: Joe Root (c), James Anderson, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow, Dominic Bess, Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Zak Crawley, Ben Foakes, Dan Lawrence, Jack Leach, Ollie Pope, Dom Sibley, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood.
Dom Sibley
Rory Burns
Zak Crawley
Joe Root (c)
Dan Lawrence
Ben Stokes
Ben Foakes
Jonny Bairstow
Ollie Pope
Chris Woakes
Dominic Bess
Jofra Archer
Stuart Broad
Mark Wood
Olly Stone
Jack Leach
James Anderson
...and they played as well as they did in the second Test, we would still lose. Badly.2 -
Indeed - I suspect that England would have preferred him to stay because he's played so little cricket and having dropped Bess to give him the opportunity to play in this Test and Moeen picking up 8 wickets too, it seems weird to play someone for one Test right in the middle of a series.mendonca said:It is being made out that Moen has suddenly chosen to go home, but this was his pre-agreed slot.
Such are the times we live in with having to have "bubbles" but we could end up setting a record for the number of players utilised in a 4 match series!1 -
Damn you Moeen Alithai malaysia addick said:
Huh, another pessimist.AshBurton said:We’re going to lose this one by 350-400 runs, aren’t we?2 -
It is making a bit of a lottery out of a key Test series though, with players (however understandably) coming and going, and those arriving having so little preparation
As it is we'll go into the next 2 tests with an excessive 7 pace bowling options - Broad, Anderson, Stone, Stokes, Archer, Wood, Woakes - when in this last match Broad bowled 20 overs, Stone 22 and Stokes TWO overs, whereas Leach bowled 70, Moeen 61, Root 15 and Lawrence 1.
The pink ball will help our seamers more, but I'm sure Kohli will demand pitches that turn from day 11 -
Joe Root said England were outplayed in all 3 aspects of the Test.
Batting, bowling and ?0 -
Sledgingiainment said:Joe Root said England were outplayed in all 3 aspects of the Test.
Batting, bowling and ?
Fielding/catching I assume2 -
umpiring.iainment said:Joe Root said England were outplayed in all 3 aspects of the Test.
Batting, bowling and ?12 -
Playing India on their bespoke pitches is like playing Rafa Nadal on the red clay of Roland Garros.
Thankfully Axar Patel didn't play in the first test and Jimmy Anderson did. Plus we won the toss and India were still in dreamland after their amazing winning test series in Australia.
Kohli as a captain forgot he is at his best when animated in the field and Joe Root showed again he is a world class batsman.
After losing the first test which was a major surprise to everybody, normal service was resumed, and India bossed the 2nd test from beginning to end.
After we won the first test I said we would lose 2-1 with a draw thrown in. This was with the caveat that we win another toss and don't bat last.
The day/night test may give us a slim chance but in most sports momentum is key and India have regained it and will be relentless in their bid to win their 13th home series in a row since beating Australia in 2012/13.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.Addick Addict said:
Totally agree Canters!cantersaddick said:I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions and imo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.2 -
I would swap stokes and bairstow, purely because our batting line up of stokes, foakes and woakes will be 1/10 on the slightly amusing scale.mid_life_crisis said:
Leaving aside Jennings, and assuming they will prepare another bunsen, I'd go:Addick Addict said:
I can't pick someone who isn't in the squad:mid_life_crisis said:
Yes, yes, but where does Jennings fit in to all this?The cold facts about our batting this winter - against Sri Lanka and India, Root has scored 723 runs. The next top is Sibley with 184. We couldn't even muster 300 runs in total in this match. Sibley, Burns and Lawrence have averaged in the last couple of months of 26.29, 14.50 and 21.71 respectively. Burns has 78 runs in his last 8 innings.
Crawley and Bairstow are both in the 17 for the next Test. I would play them both with Crawley opening and Bairstow at 6. I actually prefer Burns to Sibley for two reasons - Burns is left handed and I also think that he is also more likely to get runs when conditions are difficult whereas Sibley will get big runs when the ball is doing nothing but is too easy to work out otherwise. But Burns is batting like a rabbit in head lights at the moment. Neither of the two omitted would be forgotten - Burns would be the back up opener and Lawrence's time will come again.
Yes that will mean you know who at 3. The issue I have is that Pope is, batting at 6, getting dragged into the realms of mediocrity because he isn't being permitted to bat in a way that his skillset will allow him to flourish. At the moment he's getting 20s and out - look at that shot he played today, I'm absolutely convinced that he wouldn't have played that in the first innings of this match batting at 3.
Batting at 6, or even 7 if we use a nightwatchman, isn't a proper batting position for a class bat. And if I were Pope I would be asking myself why the likes of Lawrence get the better gig especially as the runs he's getting at the moment batting at 6 isn't even enough to justify his place in the side. If he gets another 50 runs in total in the next Test and is dropped as a result, will he think that he's had a fair crack? After all, Denly got dropped for achieving more and he wasn't being "shielded" batting in the lower middle order.
We cannot go into an Ashes series with Burns, Sibley and Crawley as our top 3 as Root will be in, more often than not, with the new ball less than 10 overs old. If Root is happy doing that then he should be the one batting at 3 anyway which would then allow Pope to bat at 4. But we know that Root won't bat at 3 come what may.
England 17-man squad for third Test: Joe Root (c), James Anderson, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow, Dominic Bess, Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Zak Crawley, Ben Foakes, Dan Lawrence, Jack Leach, Ollie Pope, Dom Sibley, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood.
Crawley
Burns
Pope
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Foakes
Woakes
Bess
Leach
Anderson3 -
I imagine we can expect some good strokes although what if Foakes chokes. The strange thoughts it evokes of seeing these blokes; they seems like jokes. I've heard Sam Vokes can bat well, but maybe it's a hoax. That's all, folks.Todds_right_hook said:
I would swap stokes and bairstow, purely because our batting line up of stokes, foakes and woakes will be 1/10 on the slightly amusing scale.mid_life_crisis said:
Leaving aside Jennings, and assuming they will prepare another bunsen, I'd go:Addick Addict said:
I can't pick someone who isn't in the squad:mid_life_crisis said:
Yes, yes, but where does Jennings fit in to all this?The cold facts about our batting this winter - against Sri Lanka and India, Root has scored 723 runs. The next top is Sibley with 184. We couldn't even muster 300 runs in total in this match. Sibley, Burns and Lawrence have averaged in the last couple of months of 26.29, 14.50 and 21.71 respectively. Burns has 78 runs in his last 8 innings.
Crawley and Bairstow are both in the 17 for the next Test. I would play them both with Crawley opening and Bairstow at 6. I actually prefer Burns to Sibley for two reasons - Burns is left handed and I also think that he is also more likely to get runs when conditions are difficult whereas Sibley will get big runs when the ball is doing nothing but is too easy to work out otherwise. But Burns is batting like a rabbit in head lights at the moment. Neither of the two omitted would be forgotten - Burns would be the back up opener and Lawrence's time will come again.
Yes that will mean you know who at 3. The issue I have is that Pope is, batting at 6, getting dragged into the realms of mediocrity because he isn't being permitted to bat in a way that his skillset will allow him to flourish. At the moment he's getting 20s and out - look at that shot he played today, I'm absolutely convinced that he wouldn't have played that in the first innings of this match batting at 3.
Batting at 6, or even 7 if we use a nightwatchman, isn't a proper batting position for a class bat. And if I were Pope I would be asking myself why the likes of Lawrence get the better gig especially as the runs he's getting at the moment batting at 6 isn't even enough to justify his place in the side. If he gets another 50 runs in total in the next Test and is dropped as a result, will he think that he's had a fair crack? After all, Denly got dropped for achieving more and he wasn't being "shielded" batting in the lower middle order.
We cannot go into an Ashes series with Burns, Sibley and Crawley as our top 3 as Root will be in, more often than not, with the new ball less than 10 overs old. If Root is happy doing that then he should be the one batting at 3 anyway which would then allow Pope to bat at 4. But we know that Root won't bat at 3 come what may.
England 17-man squad for third Test: Joe Root (c), James Anderson, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow, Dominic Bess, Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Zak Crawley, Ben Foakes, Dan Lawrence, Jack Leach, Ollie Pope, Dom Sibley, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood.
Crawley
Burns
Pope
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Foakes
Woakes
Bess
Leach
Anderson
6 -
Definitely agree that we have a needless oversupply of pace bowlers now .
I think the rotation is beginning to create more problems than it solves...0 -
Yes, it’s probably fielding. Thanks.killerandflash said:
Sledgingiainment said:Joe Root said England were outplayed in all 3 aspects of the Test.
Batting, bowling and ?
Fielding/catching I assume0 -
Admin, please issue a temporary ban 😂thai malaysia addick said:
I imagine we can expect some good strokes although what if Foakes chokes. The strange thoughts it evokes of seeing these blokes; they seems like jokes. I've heard Sam Vokes can bat well, but maybe it's a hoax. That's all, folks.Todds_right_hook said:
I would swap stokes and bairstow, purely because our batting line up of stokes, foakes and woakes will be 1/10 on the slightly amusing scale.mid_life_crisis said:
Leaving aside Jennings, and assuming they will prepare another bunsen, I'd go:Addick Addict said:
I can't pick someone who isn't in the squad:mid_life_crisis said:
Yes, yes, but where does Jennings fit in to all this?The cold facts about our batting this winter - against Sri Lanka and India, Root has scored 723 runs. The next top is Sibley with 184. We couldn't even muster 300 runs in total in this match. Sibley, Burns and Lawrence have averaged in the last couple of months of 26.29, 14.50 and 21.71 respectively. Burns has 78 runs in his last 8 innings.
Crawley and Bairstow are both in the 17 for the next Test. I would play them both with Crawley opening and Bairstow at 6. I actually prefer Burns to Sibley for two reasons - Burns is left handed and I also think that he is also more likely to get runs when conditions are difficult whereas Sibley will get big runs when the ball is doing nothing but is too easy to work out otherwise. But Burns is batting like a rabbit in head lights at the moment. Neither of the two omitted would be forgotten - Burns would be the back up opener and Lawrence's time will come again.
Yes that will mean you know who at 3. The issue I have is that Pope is, batting at 6, getting dragged into the realms of mediocrity because he isn't being permitted to bat in a way that his skillset will allow him to flourish. At the moment he's getting 20s and out - look at that shot he played today, I'm absolutely convinced that he wouldn't have played that in the first innings of this match batting at 3.
Batting at 6, or even 7 if we use a nightwatchman, isn't a proper batting position for a class bat. And if I were Pope I would be asking myself why the likes of Lawrence get the better gig especially as the runs he's getting at the moment batting at 6 isn't even enough to justify his place in the side. If he gets another 50 runs in total in the next Test and is dropped as a result, will he think that he's had a fair crack? After all, Denly got dropped for achieving more and he wasn't being "shielded" batting in the lower middle order.
We cannot go into an Ashes series with Burns, Sibley and Crawley as our top 3 as Root will be in, more often than not, with the new ball less than 10 overs old. If Root is happy doing that then he should be the one batting at 3 anyway which would then allow Pope to bat at 4. But we know that Root won't bat at 3 come what may.
England 17-man squad for third Test: Joe Root (c), James Anderson, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow, Dominic Bess, Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Zak Crawley, Ben Foakes, Dan Lawrence, Jack Leach, Ollie Pope, Dom Sibley, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood.
Crawley
Burns
Pope
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Foakes
Woakes
Bess
Leach
Anderson4 -
He's coming home, he's coming home.
Moeen's coming home.
After spending 14 days in quarantine after his positive test and stuck in his room in Sri Lanka, he wants to come home despite playing in the last test.
Hearing Bairstow talk about being in a hotel room with no windows sounded like stir crazy days.
Touring and worrying about your family at home is difficult at the best of times. In the Covid world, as we all know, life is tough and cricketers do have families and young children thousands of miles away.
No sightseeing and 24/7 in a bubble where you are then expected to perform at your best must be so difficult on so many levels.1 -
@soapboxsam, no real difference to Butler playing in the 1st Test and flying home?
It must be a challenging, long tour for the some, others can't wait to get away.1 -
cantersaddick said:
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.Addick Addict said:
Totally agree Canters!cantersaddick said:I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions and imo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsman out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsman he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
0 -
All played in a different era. The last 10 years the game has massively swung in favour of the bowlers with both pitches and ball giving them more assistance. This has particularly affected the top 3 facing the new ball every innings. Sir Alistair Cook has said that it became harder and harder to open the batting in test matches each year towards the end of his career. Returns by the top 3 have been falling for a while now. Cricket now is very different to when those players played. Look at Sanga when he came to Surrey. He batted 4 not 3 because of the conditions. You need specialists against the new ball who can bat time and set a platform more often than not. If they can average 30 thats a success.Addick Addict said:cantersaddick said:
You may well be right about that but the fact is Pope has developed as a middle order player and thats where he has learnt his game and built his approach around those situations. We will have to agree to disagree on what Popes main position will be. For me he will be his best at 4/5 but you are entitled to think differently. I'd love him to be our classy no 3 for the next 10 years. 2 things on that though. Look around world cricket, how many "classy" batsmen bat 3? Root? Smith? Kohli? Williamson? etc. None. they all have a more turgid battler at 3 to provide a platform. Secondly you are forgetting that England have been searching for a decent number 3 since Trott went home in 2013, we've had as many problems there as we have openers. We have finally found someone in Crawley who wants to bat there and has done well and we suddenly want to move him up to open where his record for Kent and England is significantly worse. Crawley has said he prefers it at 3. I want Zak to make that 3 spot his own.Addick Addict said:
Totally agree Canters!cantersaddick said:I would agree with dropping Burns for Crawley and Lawrence for Bairstow in the next match.
Burns isnt suited to the conditions and imo is too old to invest in for the long term in these conditions, unlike Pope, Crawley and Sibley. I would have him back in the side for the first test of the summer with Crawley back at 3. I think thats very much the formula they want to go with, its the Silverwood mould to have 3 proper top 3 players.
Ironically though the next match being D/N with the pink ball and likely to be more about the quick bowlers it may just suit burns best.
I still go back to this thing that had Pope not been an age group wicket keeper I don't think that we would even be having this debate. He's been labelled as a middle order bat because of it. Things do change though if they are allowed to do so.
If Pope doesn't get meaningful runs at 6 he will end up being dropped. And that would be a disaster for him but, more to the point, England too. Let's not forget, after all. that Buttler might still return albeit not keeping and that 6 slot is the one that he would take,
I'm not too worried about our top 3 in the ashes, Crawley and Sibley have both done lions tours of Aus and Burns is much better against pace. They simply have to provide a platform and each aim to average 30 across the series.
I'll see your Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson and raise it with Richards, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Gower and Sangakkara who were all somewhat successful batting at 3!
If 6 is Pope's position then he has to be a success batting there. If he isn't then he will be dropped and no one should use the excuse that he hasn't had a fair crack. Or that we are leaving one of our best batsmen out of the side. Because if he is one of our best batsmen he shouldn't be "fire fighting" at 6 or even 7.
I'm not worried about Pope spending a couple of years at 6 whilst he learns and adapts to test cricket. His best spell for Surrey came batting at 6 (below Foakes at 5). You forget how young he still is. In time he will move up the order likely ahead of stokes and is the heir apparent to Root (who is nearly 8 years older) so he will get plenty of time to bat 5 and then 4. With a keeper at 7 and the allrounders we have coming in at 8/9 I'm really not worried about him being left with the tail.
I agree if he doesn't make a success of it then he should be dropped as should anyone. I don't think he is one of our best batsmen yet. Let him learn and he will be.
Anyway lets leave it there. We aren't gonna agree and I'm sure we are boring people.1
