The Cricket Thread
- Thread starter SteveH
- Start date
midoshairband
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 7,060
- 13,834
not sure if he’s a 3 or not. Bairstow does seem to want it. to be honest, Buttler has to be a shoe-in, so Bairstow has to want 3 (or at least want to bat up the order.
i also think Stokes can bat 3.
midoshairband
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 7,060
- 13,834
England cricket is back!
interesting difference of opinion - Windies going with 4 seamers, England going with 2 spinners.....
not suggesting that Foakes shouldn't be playing. but if he wasn't, we could have squeezed Woakes in as 4th seamer. although a team of all rounders is England in the 90's.
interesting difference of opinion - Windies going with 4 seamers, England going with 2 spinners.....
not suggesting that Foakes shouldn't be playing. but if he wasn't, we could have squeezed Woakes in as 4th seamer. although a team of all rounders is England in the 90's.
LSUY
Well-Known Member
- Jul 12, 2005
- 24,023
- 66,858
So someone has misread the pitch. Just have to wait and see if it was England or the Windies.
midoshairband
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 7,060
- 13,834
not sure it will either turn too much or seam/swing too much. i guess day 4/5 it could change.
mpickard2087
Patient Zero
- Jun 13, 2008
- 21,888
- 32,549
See off Anderson and you've got to have a bit of confidence if you're the West Indies - Curran is not a frontline bowler, more like first change, Stokes in my opinion is 4th seamer to use in short bursts. Then you have two very inconsistent test match spinners. England are putting a bit of faith on people to step up here.
What a downright arrogant disrespectful team selection .
Curran no where near an opening test bowler and picked because of his batting .
Stokes should not be bowled as opening bowler or even first change as for me he is an impact bowler to be used when needs must.
Anderson has shown that generally he is not at his best overseas.
You will not win a test match if you can't take twenty wickets.
Who decided that Broad should make way for curran was wrong it should not have been Curran or Broad as both should have played and it should have been Ali or Rashid in my opinion selectors made a very bad call.
Curran no where near an opening test bowler and picked because of his batting .
Stokes should not be bowled as opening bowler or even first change as for me he is an impact bowler to be used when needs must.
Anderson has shown that generally he is not at his best overseas.
You will not win a test match if you can't take twenty wickets.
Who decided that Broad should make way for curran was wrong it should not have been Curran or Broad as both should have played and it should have been Ali or Rashid in my opinion selectors made a very bad call.
midoshairband
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 7,060
- 13,834
agreed. i thought Broad had done enough over the last few years to prove he is very good on flat pitches overseas - slight changes of pace and cutters etc. Anderson and Curran both very similar, pitch up swing bowlers - no swing and they have nothing. on a flat pitch you have to trust your top 6 to get big runs, and then pick bowlers who can prise out 20 wickets. don't necessarily disagree with the selection of Rashid, as i think his variety can get wickets (particularly mid to lower order), but i would definitely have had Broad over Curran.
Plus giving Stokes such a heavy workload with the ball and then the bat increases his risk of burn out/injury. i agree he should be used in short sharp bursts.
southlondonyiddo
My eyes have seen some of the glory..
- Nov 8, 2004
- 12,629
- 15,105
Broad must be seriously pissed off watching Root bowling his 5th over (and counting!
Also with Roots bad back he shouldn’t be bowling anyway. Crazy
They’ve got 4 bowlers all probably quicker than ours. Will be interesting to see what they get out of this pitch
Also with Roots bad back he shouldn’t be bowling anyway. Crazy
They’ve got 4 bowlers all probably quicker than ours. Will be interesting to see what they get out of this pitch
Spurs 1961
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2012
- 6,683
- 8,754
Too much inexperience from the West Indies batsmen who pretty much all scored without keeping their wickets and going on to make the big scores that looked on. It meant when England broke through with the new ball they were exposed. I think the England attack have got away with things today
Teemu
Pretty fly for a Tanguy
- Jan 12, 2006
- 3,499
- 5,406
By that token, what's Woakes done wrong? Fastest bowler in the squad, wickets in the warm-up and a genuinely quality batsman as shown by his hundred at Lords in the summer.
And most importantly he has nice hair.
midoshairband
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 7,060
- 13,834
a brilliant bowling performance. and from Stokes.
the only way the selectors decision to omit Broad can be vindicated now, is if it turns square when the Windies bat again ?
dagraham
Well-Known Member
- Sep 20, 2005
- 19,128
- 46,117
Yeah I found that decision strange, particularly when you consider the success tall quick bowlers have had in the Caribbean over the years (even if Broad can't really be classed as quick these days).
Curran is clearly a fine young player, but I really don't like this obsession with including bowlers for their batting. It's not as if England don't bat deep anyway. We have a whole team of all rounders and middle/lower order batsmen.
And then of course you can argue we didn't need two spinners.
midoshairband
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 7,060
- 13,834
picking bowlers because of their batting is a symptom of our poor batting over the last 2 years. the number of games one of the bowlers/all rounders have got us out a whole is mad (woakes/stokes/curran).
i don't necessarily think picking 2 spinners was wrong - the pitch might still turn square on day 4/5. but picking curran instead of broad was wrong. he is just too similar to anderson. broad would have offered something different on this pitch. and if the pitch is pretty flat, you don't need to be picking bowlers who can bat, your top 6/7 should be getting runs.
Rocksuperstar
Isn't this fun? Isn't fun the best thing to have?
- Jun 6, 2005
- 53,329
- 66,846
Got to pop up to The Fortress to get next seasons ticket sorted out at some point. I'm actually really looking forward to having a season ticket for the county game again, it'll be nice to go there and not be eleven years old 
mpickard2087
Patient Zero
- Jun 13, 2008
- 21,888
- 32,549
I don't think it's a surprise they load the batting line up, Test Cricket is more and more becoming a set of one day matches/innings in its resemblance and the standards of being able to bat for time, surviving, and mastering conditions is getting lower and lower.
One team bats, has a dash and gets circa 300. Other team responds in similar fashion. And then onto the second innings etc and see how it pans out. No wonder there is a lot of talk of dropping test matches down to four days, it helps shape the game in this fashion and just allows it to become more one day, whack the ball, format.
One team bats, has a dash and gets circa 300. Other team responds in similar fashion. And then onto the second innings etc and see how it pans out. No wonder there is a lot of talk of dropping test matches down to four days, it helps shape the game in this fashion and just allows it to become more one day, whack the ball, format.
midoshairband
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 7,060
- 13,834
ha, good point. i guess not.
however, could they shift everyone up one, drop jennings, and then get another seamer in?
alternatively, i've thought for a number of years now, that jason roy should open in test cricket.
