Akash Deep scored 66 so the pitch should be conducive to more runs.
I heard someone on site say Crawley has a great average against fast bowlers (with a view to AU), so that's part of why he keeps his place. I don't blame him for the wicket, him and Duckett were trying to play test cricket. Siraj is a bell end but we need characters and villains in all sports.
Woakes is a big miss just for being a 'body', but I think England would be winning this if Stokes was there with a couple of earlier wickets and a few runs.
India fans were fun. They turned the concourse into football style chanting. Unfortunately I think that Crawley wicket's changed all momentum and now we're effectively 50/2.
Eering on the side of us losing this tbh. Pope won’t put up a fight, root might, brook seems to blow hot and cold and is blowing cold, bethell is too much to expect too soon and smith can get quick runs, but eh. Needed a great start and only got a decent one.
Bethell has bowled 6 overs across the entire match. If you pick him, it's as a very talented batsman, but he is way off being a Test spinner. Not a threatening red ball spinner, and not a steady, economical one like a Dawson or Giles either.
Which begs the question, was the team selection right, as it basically left us with a 4 man attack, even before the Woakes injury?
Bethell has bowled 6 overs across the entire match. If you pick him, it's as a very talented batsman, but he is way off being a Test spinner. Not a threatening red ball spinner, and not a steady, economical one like a Dawson or Giles either.
Which begs the question, was the team selection right, as it basically left us with a 4 man attack, even before the Woakes injury?
Bethell has bowled 6 overs across the entire match. If you pick him, it's as a very talented batsman, but he is way off being a Test spinner. Not a threatening red ball spinner, and not a steady, economical one like a Dawson or Giles either.
Which begs the question, was the team selection right, as it basically left us with a 4 man attack, even before the Woakes injury?
Who might have been a better pick?
I would have given Dawson another game. He's a decent enough No 7 bat.
Bethell has bowled 6 overs across the entire match. If you pick him, it's as a very talented batsman, but he is way off being a Test spinner. Not a threatening red ball spinner, and not a steady, economical one like a Dawson or Giles either.
Which begs the question, was the team selection right, as it basically left us with a 4 man attack, even before the Woakes injury?
It was strange and as I intimated previously I believe that it was McCullum, Stokes and Key's desire to find a place for Bethell, despite his lack of experience as a red ball bowler, that decided Dawson's fate.
It is difficult to understand how you can go into a Test match without a credible fifth option when the four bowlers are all seamers, with one of those playing his fifth match in the Series, another without many miles under the belt in recent times in coming back from injury and a third that has only played one Test match previously and who has a current record of 4-310 and an economy rate of 4.13 in Test cricket?
Of course, Bethell making a match winning contribution with the bat will justify that decision. It always is and always has been what's ultimately in the scorebook.
Ridiculous review by Pope and Root there. You don't review for the 1% chance it might be missing, when you're only 2 or 3 down. That review might be crucial if England somehow get within 50 of the total.
Some of those from the likes of Root and Kohli have been as bad. They never want to be back in the hutch in the knowledge that they might not be out "just in case". Reviews are meant to be for obvious mistakes and with "umpires call" meaning a review isn't lost, perhaps it's time that we went to one review a side. Then the person wasting that opportunity would become far more accountable and less time would be lost.
Bethell has bowled 6 overs across the entire match. If you pick him, it's as a very talented batsman, but he is way off being a Test spinner. Not a threatening red ball spinner, and not a steady, economical one like a Dawson or Giles either.
Which begs the question, was the team selection right, as it basically left us with a 4 man attack, even before the Woakes injury?
Who might have been a better pick?
I would have given Dawson another game. He's a decent enough No 7 bat.
Doesn’t make any sense to bowl him for 50 overs and then drop him first opportunity. Also weird that rehan ahmed no longer gets a look in.
Bethell has bowled 6 overs across the entire match. If you pick him, it's as a very talented batsman, but he is way off being a Test spinner. Not a threatening red ball spinner, and not a steady, economical one like a Dawson or Giles either.
Which begs the question, was the team selection right, as it basically left us with a 4 man attack, even before the Woakes injury?
Who might have been a better pick?
I would have given Dawson another game. He's a decent enough No 7 bat.
Doesn’t make any sense to bowl him for 50 overs and then drop him first opportunity. Also weird that rehan ahmed no longer gets a look in.
There's an inconsistency, in that while they talk about giving players chance to establish themselves and play their natural game, both Cook and Dawson have had one game only.
Bethell has bowled 6 overs across the entire match. If you pick him, it's as a very talented batsman, but he is way off being a Test spinner. Not a threatening red ball spinner, and not a steady, economical one like a Dawson or Giles either.
Which begs the question, was the team selection right, as it basically left us with a 4 man attack, even before the Woakes injury?
Who might have been a better pick?
I would have given Dawson another game. He's a decent enough No 7 bat.
Doesn’t make any sense to bowl him for 50 overs and then drop him first opportunity. Also weird that rehan ahmed no longer gets a look in.
There's an inconsistency, in that while they talk about giving players chance to establish themselves and play their natural game, both Cook and Dawson have had one game only.
Matt Parkinson was another…
”hello mate! Welcome to the England team, congrats, you play golf right? …oh..”
Bethell has bowled 6 overs across the entire match. If you pick him, it's as a very talented batsman, but he is way off being a Test spinner. Not a threatening red ball spinner, and not a steady, economical one like a Dawson or Giles either.
Which begs the question, was the team selection right, as it basically left us with a 4 man attack, even before the Woakes injury?
Who might have been a better pick?
I would have given Dawson another game. He's a decent enough No 7 bat.
Doesn’t make any sense to bowl him for 50 overs and then drop him first opportunity. Also weird that rehan ahmed no longer gets a look in.
There's an inconsistency, in that while they talk about giving players chance to establish themselves and play their natural game, both Cook and Dawson have had one game only.
I keep saying this and have witnessed this at all levels - conscious or unconscious bias will always give the ones a coach or manager fancies far, far more chances to prove themselves than those they feel duty bound to give an opportunity to.
All set up for Bethell to get his maiden FC century and score the winning runs
Hope you are right. Personally I think Bethell is picked on potential and not on what he has so far achieved. I know Stokes and the management framework hold him in high regard but he has yet to score a first class Hundred. I have my doubts he will reach the level they expect of him. Obviously I hope I'm wrong.
Siraj is great value and he bowled one of the best over's that Ben Ducket has ever faced without losing his wicket; five balls that he somehow didn't get a nick on which is unheard of from Ben.
I enjoyed Siraj catching Brooke and then stepping on the boundary. He is entertaining but also an excellent bowler who gives everything.
All set up for Bethell to get his maiden FC century and score the winning runs
Hope you are right. Personally I think Bethell is picked on potential and not on what he has so far achieved. I know Stokes and the management framework hold him in high regard but he has yet to score a first class Hundred. I have my doubts he will reach the level they expect of him. Obviously I hope I'm wrong.
Very difficult to hit that first FC century when the ECB decides that you are only going to bat twice prior to August.
Siraj is great value and he bowled one of the best over's that Ben Ducket has ever faced without losing his wicket; five balls that he somehow didn't get a nick on which is unheard of from Ben.
I enjoyed Siraj catching Brooke and then stepping on the boundary. He is entertaining but also an excellent bowler who gives everything.
And bowling all 5 tests at a decent speed is a great effort too.
Comments
England openers managed that twice in eleven years prior to Duckett and Crawley coming together as an opening partnership.
I heard someone on site say Crawley has a great average against fast bowlers (with a view to AU), so that's part of why he keeps his place. I don't blame him for the wicket, him and Duckett were trying to play test cricket. Siraj is a bell end but we need characters and villains in all sports.
Woakes is a big miss just for being a 'body', but I think England would be winning this if Stokes was there with a couple of earlier wickets and a few runs.
India fans were fun. They turned the concourse into football style chanting. Unfortunately I think that Crawley wicket's changed all momentum and now we're effectively 50/2.
Which begs the question, was the team selection right, as it basically left us with a 4 man attack, even before the Woakes injury?
It is difficult to understand how you can go into a Test match without a credible fifth option when the four bowlers are all seamers, with one of those playing his fifth match in the Series, another without many miles under the belt in recent times in coming back from injury and a third that has only played one Test match previously and who has a current record of 4-310 and an economy rate of 4.13 in Test cricket?
Of course, Bethell making a match winning contribution with the bat will justify that decision. It always is and always has been what's ultimately in the scorebook.
Ollie Pope test batting:
1st Innings Average 52.14
2nd innings Average 42.09
3rd innings Average 22.52
4th innings Average 16.70
That is quite an amazing stat.
I would like to see other players average to compare !
”hello mate! Welcome to the England team, congrats, you play golf right? …oh..”
Not sure it will be enough to save England but that mistake by Siraj was rather amusing
1st Innings Average 46.00
2nd innings Average 48.65
3rd innings Average 31.13
4th innings Average 43.14
Crawley:
1st Innings Average 37.06
2nd innings Average 33.96
3rd innings Average 25.52
4th innings Average 27.66
Pope:
1st Innings Average 52.14
2nd innings Average 42.09
3rd innings Average 22.52
4th innings Average 16.70
Root:
1st Innings Average 50.28
2nd innings Average 60.44
3rd innings Average 47.95
4th innings Average 42.90
Brook:
1st Innings Average 64.53
2nd innings Average 72.75
3rd innings Average 50.45
4th innings Average 19.75
Stokes:
1st Innings Average 42.56
2nd innings Average 29.50
3rd innings Average 32.68
4th innings Average 37.25
Smith:
1st Innings Average 43.40
2nd innings Average 71.12
3rd innings Average 22.00
4th innings Average 59.00
Personally I think Bethell is picked on potential and not on what he has so far achieved.
I know Stokes and the management framework hold him in high regard but he has yet to score a first class Hundred.
I have my doubts he will reach the level they expect of him.
Obviously I hope I'm wrong.
Siraj is great value and he bowled one of the best over's that Ben Ducket has ever faced without losing his wicket; five balls that he somehow didn't get a nick on which is unheard of from Ben.
I enjoyed Siraj catching Brooke and then stepping on the boundary. He is entertaining but also an excellent bowler who gives everything.