The New Cricket Thread

[Guest Pistonbroke]

19 minutes ago, Remmie said:

The other factor is are there any remote prospects of natural number 3s knocking on the door? 

Vince bats at number 3, but we tried him and he only averaged in the low 20's. Sam Curran has moved to batting at 3 for Surrey but way too early to see if he can make it as a number 3. That young lad, Yates of Warwickshire is being touted as a possible option. Only 19 so maybe's one for the future. 

Edit: I also forgot about Ballance who now bats number 3 for Yorkshire. He was averaging 37 for England when he played as a middle order batsman but was used as a number 3 before being dropped. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

3 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

I think he was just part of the rotation... and because Patterson missed Lords... I think they thought they could roll the dice with him again.

 

They almost got away with it.  In retrospect, might Starc have got that last wicket? 

But at 9/287, who needed Starc?

 

I think he's a must for the last 2 Tests.  Australia must bring him in, because the scars of that last innings will mandate change.

 

 

I find it strange that he is still to bowl a ball in the Ashes and we are moving into the 4th test. 

[s(k)aturation]

8 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

 

I find it strange that he is still to bowl a ball in the Ashes and we are moving into the 4th test. 

 

Yep.

These are strange times in Australian cricket.  

I think Starc is the casualty of the clear emergence of Cummins.

It was looking like Hazlewood had dropped off, but he's gained a yard in pace and seems to have bounced back.

 

It's great that it's 1-1 though... two ordinary teams, evenly matched and unpredictable could make for some weird and wonderful stuff in the last two games.

 

2-0 would have been nice for us, but two dead rubbers would have been rubbish from an Ashes Series point of view.

 

I think Paine might be the big casualty in the wash up.

 

 

 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

1 minute ago, skaro said:

 

Yep.

These are strange times in Australian cricket.  

I think Starc is the casualty of the clear emergence of Cummins.

It was looking like Hazlewood had dropped off, but he's gained a yard in pace and seems to have bounced back.

 

It's great that it's 1-1 though... two ordinary teams, evenly matched and unpredictable could make for some weird and wonderful stuff in the last two games.

 

2-0 would have been nice for us, but two dead rubbers would have been rubbish from an Ashes Series point of view.

 

I think Paine might be the big casualty in the wash up.

 

 

 

 

Agree about it being two average teams overall. Weak batting line ups but decent bowling attacks. 

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Smith gets the captaincy back. Obviously a lot will depend on the outcome of the final two tests. 

[Dougie Do'ins]

3 hours ago, skaro said:

 

Root has just made a pretty important 70-odd at No3.  He'll stay there.

 

And, FWIW, I think England are best trying to forget all about that 67.

Easier said than done mate. A collapse seems to be ingrained in England cricket.

[sir roger]

4 hours ago, Remmie said:

Both Roy and Buttler are talented, destructive batsmen when in form and it would be a shame to drop them both, though neither could complain. Foakes deserves a chance, he played well when called upon. Number 3 doesn't seem to suit anyone, so I foresee Root staying there for the time being. 

 

I foresee:

 

Burns

Sibley

Root

Denly

Stokes

Bairstow

One of Buttler/Roy/Foakes (think Buttler would be most likely of the 3)

Archer

Broad

Leach

Anderson

 

Although Woakes didn't have the best Test, he has been a pretty reliable and consistent bowler for England and would be a tad unlucky to be dropped. Nice to see some strong competition for bowling spots, Curran has also proved to be a good performer. 

 

 

That's exactly how I would go , with Foakes chosen out of the three. This gives Bairstow a chance to concentrate on his batting upswing ( and his wicketkeeping has got worse and is costing runs and catches ). Roy & Buttler may come again but they don't really look much closer to settling down than they were in the first test so can't really have too many complaints. Woakes is a bit unlucky but Anderson is our cleverest bowler and Woakes' batting advantage has hit a bit of a slide since they have homed in on his weakness to the short stuff.

[Ian Sea]

I haven’t got a clue who we should play in the next Test. The problems run far deeper than just personnel and batting order. 

[Brownie]

I can’t get my head around that weekend.

[sir roger]

Lancs having to play their T20 Blast quarter-final at Durham as Old Trafford has the Test and Liverpool is unavailable.

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

On 26/08/2019 at 16:57, sir roger said:

That's exactly how I would go , with Foakes chosen out of the three. This gives Bairstow a chance to concentrate on his batting upswing ( and his wicketkeeping has got worse and is costing runs and catches ). Roy & Buttler may come again but they don't really look much closer to settling down than they were in the first test so can't really have too many complaints. Woakes is a bit unlucky but Anderson is our cleverest bowler and Woakes' batting advantage has hit a bit of a slide since they have homed in on his weakness to the short stuff.

Bairstow complains that his batting suffers when he's not W/K.

 

I agree with you though: tell the fucker he's not good enough at W/K, and watch him have a ginger, century strop moment to prove everybody wrong. Also, tell him Yorkshire is not 'God's country', it's no better than Lincolnshire, just to emphasise the point. If he isn't stroppy by that stage, maybe say that Michael Vaughn and Nathan Lyon think his career is over.

 

I think it's Buttler or Bairstow on current form. Roy deserves a chance at 4 or 5, though. Maybe Denley and Roy to swap, with minimal disruption to the team. Foakes instead of Buttler.

 

Anderson back at Old Trafford, in pace of Woakes.

 

Obviously the best team line up would be Stokes, Foakes, Woakes, and some blokes.

[sir roger]

I like Jason Roy but think he needs more grounding in red ball cricket and would benefit from county games at this point. I think we need a proper opener and Sibley looks very promising. Agree with your comments re Bairstow , being Joe's mate shouldn't mean you decide your own role.

 

Alternatively we could call up Mike Dokes , John Noakes and Sam Vokes.

[Captain Howdy]

Roy may have some success lower down the order, quite what he’s doing opening is anybody’s guess.

[Oh Buoy]

 

[Spy Bee]

14 hours ago, Jarvinja Ilnow said:

I think it's Buttler or Bairstow on current form. Roy deserves a chance at 4 or 5, though. Maybe Denley and Roy to swap, with minimal disruption to the team. Foakes instead of Buttler.

 

Anderson back at Old Trafford, in pace of Woakes.

I would go with that, but wouldn't be upset if Roy was given a rest in place of Sibley or even Ollie Pope.

[Spy Bee]

https://inews.co.uk/sport/cricket/ollie-pope-england-cricket-team-news-ashes-2019-4th-test-old-trafford/

[Brownie]

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

https://inews.co.uk/sport/cricket/ollie-pope-england-cricket-team-news-ashes-2019-4th-test-old-trafford/

When I first read that I thought “fair enough” but the more I think about it the less sure I am. It would be another case of square pegs in round holes; Denly doesn’t open for his county and he just got a decent score at number 4 so leave him there.

 

Buttler being dropped/rested is fair enough but instead of bringing Pope in they should move Roy down and then select a proper opener (I have no idea who, i’ve heard people mention Sibley but never seen him play....)

 

That would leave us with the following team, which looks better in terms of players being in their natural positions:

 

Burns

Sibley

Root

Denly

Stokes

Roy

Bairstow

Archer

Broad

Leach

Anderson

[Spy Bee]

6 minutes ago, Brownie said:

When I first read that I thought “fair enough” but the more I think about it the less sure I am. It would be another case of square pegs in round holes; Denly doesn’t open for his county and he just got a decent score at number 4 so leave him there.

 

Buttler being dropped/rested is fair enough but instead of bringing Pope in they should move Roy down and then select a proper opener (I have no idea who, i’ve heard people mention Sibley but never seen him play....)

 

That would leave us with the following team, which looks better in terms of players being in their natural positions:

 

Burns

Sibley

Root

Denly

Stokes

Roy

Bairstow

Archer

Broad

Leach

Anderson

I believe he has done on many occasions.

 

I genuinely believe Archer bowling on the fastest wicket in the country will give the Aussies nightmares. If it's swinging, Anderson on his home ground is also a huge weapon. Any of the discussed batsmen need to show the required application and we should get over the line. 

[Captain Turdseye]

All well and good talking about the batting but there’s also the small matter of getting Smith out twice. 

[Brownie]

9 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

I believe he has done on many occasions.

 

I genuinely believe Archer bowling on the fastest wicket in the country will give the Aussies nightmares. If it's swinging, Anderson on his home ground is also a huge weapon. Any of the discussed batsmen need to show the required application and we should get over the line. 

He has opened before but there's a big difference between that and actually being an opener. He is not an opener, it's not his settled position.

 

I never used to be one to put much emphasis on the batting order but when it comes to openers I've come to realise that it's very different. When you open, you're always facing the toughest conditions and a new ball. It's undoubtedly the toughest time to bat so you need someone with good defensive technique to soften the ball and see off the opening bowling spells.

 

I'd rather look for a specialist opener than just move people around and hope it works.

[Brownie]

7 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

All well and good talking about the batting but there’s also the small matter of getting Smith out twice. 

Yep, that conundrum is going to rear it's ugly head once more. At least we have the prospect of him being weakened a little by Archer and we'd also have our best bowler back.

 

We'll be in a better position to get him out cheaper than we were previously, put it that way. It might not change anything but at least the prospect is there.

[Mudface]

15 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

All well and good talking about the batting but there’s also the small matter of knocking Smith out twice. 

No problem.

[Spy Bee]

4 minutes ago, Mudface said:

No problem.

I genuinely think Archer will be all over him like a rash, which then also gives the other bowlers more of a chance.

[s(k)aturation]

 

If Smith comes back and can turn this momentum around, then he's possibly the most noble cheat in the history of cricket.

[lifetime fan]

4 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

If Smith comes back and can turn this momentum around, then he's possibly the most noble cheat in the history of cricket.

 

Hahaha

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

Denly's an opening batsman who has been playing in different top order positions for a while. Sibley could be a good call, or he could freeze like a rabbit in the headlights. Like Brownie suggests, it's whether Denly can cope with the new ball, but the argument for him is he seems to have the right temperament. Both he and Burns seem alike there, without being convincing technically.

 

We could definitely do with a bit of dogged defensiveness at the top of the order, and if Denly and Burns turned into the new Boycot and Tavare I wouldn't be entirely disappointed.