Cricket

[kaosmark2]

6 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

This is the biggest tragedy. Not sure why England are happy to persist with tall medium pacers yet continually ignore Porter. His height of delivery brings it's own problems, and he uses the crease and angles really well. I think he'd be a decent shout bowling on the subcontinent, just look at the success Mohammed Abbas has had just from bowling accurately with a hint of movement.

I have no problem with express pacers like Mahmood/Stone/J Overton getting in ahead of him, and there's players with test wickets like TRJ, Sam Curran, Woakes who fulfil a similar role (I know S Curran is a left-armer). But Robinson, C Overton and Lewis Gregory? And that's speaking as a Somerset fan. Unless Gregory is there as an all-rounder to be able to bat 6-8, I don't think he's a better bowler than Porter, I'm very confident Craig Overton isn't.

[TheGayTent]

57 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

Denly needs to go. He's fulfilled his purpose as a stop gap, but given they seem adamant on getting all 3 openers in (Burns/Sibley/Crawley) then Lawrence has to bat 4. He's the future of the middle order alongside Pope and bats 4 for Essex so slots in perfectly. Denly just doesn't seem to have it in him to push beyond where he is now, picking him is just wasting an opportunity for the likes of Lawrence etc to gain experience.
 

Even at his best Denly looks like he's treading water at test level, with Burns etc they've shown continuous improvement.

I think I’ll start with the last sentence about continuous improvement. Denly’s average after the ashes was higher than it had been after the tour of the West Indies. After the tour to NZ his average was higher than it had been after the ashes. And...after the tour to SA Denly’s average was higher than it had been after NZ. In other words he’s continuously demonstrated improvement. 
 

England’s batting line up with Burns, Sibley, Pope, and Crawley is incredibly inexperienced. Chucking another new debutant in against the Windies is not a great idea - particular in the first test when they’re missing their experienced captain and best batsman. 
 

England’s tour of SA was a successful one. Do we really believe that was in spite of Denly? Or is the truth that it was in part down to the role he played. I.e the number of balls he faced, the time he spent at the crease, the shine and hardness he took off the new ball, the miles he put into the bowlers legs, allowed the likes of Pope, Stokes and the rest of the middle order to come in and do their job? 
 

Lawrence may turn out to be the second coming of Christ, or he may prove to be even worse than Tom Westley, I don’t know. To state he’s the future of England’s middle order is slightly hasty I’d suggest. 

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, kingbadger said:

This is the biggest tragedy. Not sure why England are happy to persist with tall medium pacers yet continually ignore Porter.

Which tall medium pacers are you referring to? 

[TheGayTent]

59 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Denly could have 4 more years as a Test batsman (assessed off age). If they think he's got 2+ then I'm fine with him remaining in the team, but if they're viewing him as a stopgap, then there's little point staying.

I think there’s scenarios where anyone (not specifically Denly) are worth keeping in place even if they’re viewed as a stop gap. 

By keeping a stop gap you’re not necessarily depriving a younger player of an opportunity. You’re potentially preventing that youngster from being damaged by being thrown into the deep end too early and doing more harm than good. Particularly mentally. 
 

It’s plausible a successor or successors have been identified, but they’re not quite ready. Time may be required to go away, learn their craft, gain experience, work hard away from the spotlight of test cricket. When they’re ready, bring them in gradually - by which time the stop gap has done their job. 

[kaosmark2]

If Denly was averaging say 4-5 higher I don't think there'd be any question over his value in the team right now. He hasn't done anything wrong at all, and I have absolutely no issue if he stays in the team. 

7 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I think there’s scenarios where anyone (not specifically Denly) are worth keeping in place even if they’re viewed as a stop gap. 

By keeping a stop gap you’re not necessarily depriving a younger player of an opportunity. You’re potentially preventing that youngster from being damaged by being thrown into the deep end too early and doing more harm than good. Particularly mentally. 
 

It’s plausible a successor or successors have been identified, but they’re not quite ready. Time may be required to go away, learn their craft, gain experience, work hard away from the spotlight of test cricket. When they’re ready, bring them in gradually - by which time the stop gap has done their job. 

I largely agree with this, but my reason is more to do with the upcoming sequence of series. There's players other than Denly who are possibly/probably readyish now, and giving them chances to get settled before incredibly tough away series seems sensible - if Denly isn't being earmarked for them.

[TheGayTent]

8 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

If Denly was averaging say 4-5 higher I don't think there'd be any question over his value in the team right now. He hasn't done anything wrong at all, and I have absolutely no issue if he stays in the team. 

I largely agree with this, but my reason is more to do with the upcoming sequence of series. There's players other than Denly who are possibly/probably readyish now, and giving them chances to get settled before incredibly tough away series seems sensible - if Denly isn't being earmarked for them.

With potentially 6 tests coming up on the subcontinent, where having a good glovesman is so important, I think Foakes is a must for these home tests against WI and Pakistan. That would be sensible ! 

[TheGayTent]

13 man squad announced. Moeen and Bairstow don’t even make the 9 strong reserves. 
I think the batting line up is fair and right as is the selection of Bess as spinner. Be interesting to see the make up of the bowling line up. 3 from Anderson, Archer, Broad, Woakes, Wood. 

[kaosmark2]

Won't get any argument from me about Foakes! Best gloves and as many centuries in the last 2 years as either Buttler or Bairstow. 

In perfectly happy with the lineup, although i would have liked to see Moeen (albeit more on aesthetic value). 

In sorta expecting Woakes to play every test and the others to rotate, but an Anderson/Archer/Wood attack would be beautiful to see. 

[kingbadger]

The fact Broad has seemingly lost his outswinger is a big thing for me. He's had great success against left handers coming around the wicket, but Windies only have 2 of them in their likely line up. I do feel he's been on the wane in the last couple of years, but he's earnt trust in him to put it right. 

Woakes seems to be a given to start as he provides the balance batting at 8, but I do wonder if we'll see him swapped out for Curran. Woakes' record away from home is less than stellar, so it may be that they want Curran to get some more games under his belt as he might be a better option in the sub-continent.

Not overly fussed about Denly retaining, it just depends how much longevity they see him having. At the end of the day you're not going to be a top test team if you're happy for your number 3 to tread water and get you gritty 30s. Fair enough he's done a job thus far but given there are capable, younger batsmen waiting in the wings for that middle order back up position he really needs to be giving more as it looks like Crawley is getting a run at 3.

It might be that they're splitting Buttler and Foakesy duty with the gloves over the summer. Foakesy should be a shoo in for keeping in Asia, but they may want Buttler prepared and around the squad as he could be a spare middle order batsman given the amount of spin we're likely to face. It's probably why they kept Jennings im and around the squad as a horses for courses selection.

Would be really exciting to see Wood and Archer line up in the same team but I highly doubt that is going to happen. 

[kaosmark2]

Bess can bat 8, Woakes shouldn't be picked for his batting. 

[TheGayTent]

58 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

The fact Broad has seemingly lost his outswinger is a big thing for me. He's had great success against left handers coming around the wicket, but Windies only have 2 of them in their likely line up. I do feel he's been on the wane in the last couple of years, but he's earnt trust in him to put it right. 
 

Fair points.

58 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

Woakes seems to be a given to start as he provides the balance batting at 8, but I do wonder if we'll see him swapped out for Curran. Woakes' record away from home is less than stellar, so it may be that they want Curran to get some more games under his belt as he might be a better option in the sub-continent.
 

If we’re going horses for courses, Woakes is nailed on in England just as Curran is nailed on to replace Woakes on the subcontinent. 

58 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

Not overly fussed about Denly retaining, it just depends how much longevity they see him having. At the end of the day you're not going to be a top test team if you're happy for your number 3 to tread water and get you gritty 30s.

Define top. If you like rankings (I don’t, they’re a poor reflection of the past, nothing of the now), then England are currently the 4th best. Having lost an away series against the 2nd best, won an away series against the 5th best, and drawn a home series against the 1st. 

58 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

Fair enough he's done a job thus far but given there are capable, younger batsmen waiting in the wings for that middle order back up position he really needs to be giving more as it looks like Crawley is getting a run at 3.

Who are these capable, younger batsmen waiting in the wings? 

58 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

It might be that they're splitting Buttler and Foakesy duty with the gloves over the summer. Foakesy should be a shoo in for keeping in Asia, but they may want Buttler prepared and around the squad as he could be a spare middle order batsman given the amount of spin we're likely to face. It's probably why they kept Jennings im and around the squad as a horses for courses selection.

If we’re talking about someone who should be dropped, Buttler should be front of the queue. 

58 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

Would be really exciting to see Wood and Archer line up in the same team but I highly doubt that is going to happen. 

I just pray they’re both fully fit November next year. 

[kingbadger]

9 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Fair points.

If we’re going horses for courses, Woakes is nailed on in England just as Curran is nailed on to replace Woakes on the subcontinent. 

Define top. If you like rankings (I don’t, they’re a poor reflection of the past, nothing of the now), then England are currently the 4th best. Having lost an away series against the 2nd best, won an away series against the 5th best, and drawn a home series against the 1st. 

Who are these capable, younger batsmen waiting in the wings? 

If we’re talking about someone who should be dropped, Buttler should be front of the queue. 

I just pray they’re both fully fit November next year. 

By 'top' I mean a top quality team of genuine Test cricketers, such as we had between say 2004 and 2014. Admittedly there were blips inbetween but generally speaking we had a relatively settled side where each player could be called genuine Test quality and we could win well in varying conditions. The top 6/7 all averaging circa 40+ and a bowling attack that could take 20 wickets and win Test matches in Australia, India etc and not just in home conditions or against weak sides. We're a long way off Australia/New Zealand/India at the moment who all seem to have a settled side (or spine of one at least) of genuine, experienced Test quality cricketers. How many of our players would get into those 3 teams? Root and Stokes are a given but that would be it I reckon in terms of one of our players genuinely improving those sides. We seem to have been a team in transition for the last 6 years, and it doesn't look like changing anytime soon either. 

I agree Buttler should be dropped, but then again Foakes wasn't really pushing for a spot given his batting form last year for Surrey. 

In terms of batsmen waiting in the wings, I'm talking about the likes of Lawrence, Bracey, Hain, Livingstone etc. All guys who obviously have talent but have since gotten experience in county and Lions cricket.

 

[TheGayTent]

14 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

By 'top' I mean a top quality team of genuine Test cricketers, such as we had between say 2004 and 2014. 
 

One team cannot be the best in the world forever. Similarly, sometimes the 3rd best side in one era, would have been the best side in another.

14 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

I agree Buttler should be dropped, but then again Foakes wasn't really pushing for a spot given his batting form last year for Surrey. 
 

He has the runs in the books in tests. He’s the best wicketkeeper in England. Besides, few batsmen let alone wicketkeeper batsmen are picked based on runs in county cricket. 

14 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

In terms of batsmen waiting in the wings, I'm talking about the likes of Lawrence, Bracey, Hain, Livingstone etc. All guys who obviously have talent but have since gotten experience in county and Lions cricket.

 

Some of those you mention have potential but none are really producing knocks that suggest there’s no way you can leave them out. Certainly there’s massive assumptions to jump, to state as fact they’re better than what we already have. Which says a lot given, if what you suggest is true, what we already have, isn’t up to much? 

[kingbadger]

On 7/4/2020 at 7:39 PM, TheGayTent said:

One team cannot be the best in the world forever. Similarly, sometimes the 3rd best side in one era, would have been the best side in another.

He has the runs in the books in tests. He’s the best wicketkeeper in England. Besides, few batsmen let alone wicketkeeper batsmen are picked based on runs in county cricket. 

Some of those you mention have potential but none are really producing knocks that suggest there’s no way you can leave them out. Certainly there’s massive assumptions to jump, to state as fact they’re better than what we already have. Which says a lot given, if what you suggest is true, what we already have, isn’t up to much? 

Clearly each era is different and you cannot necessarily compare, which is why I made the comparison regards how many of our players would make it into the top 3 current test sides.

Lawrence's form since making a technical change is off the scale. He made a ton in Australia against an incredibly strong Australia A bowling attack. It's not necessarily that they are currently better than Denly, but I cannot see them doing a worse job really. The difference being the ceiling on those player's potential seem to be higher than Denly who appears to be operating at maximum capacity at the moment.

I accept there's an argument for Denly retaining his place. But whilst he does soak up plenty of balls faced, the fact he does this so often without going on to make a big score highlights his limitations. I do feel it's a straight shoot out between him and Crawley in this test coming up. Whilst Denly is probably the man in possession, they're clearly high on Crawley so if they both fail or both get runs it'll be interesting to see who they go with once Root returns.

[TheGayTent]

20 hours ago, kingbadger said:

I accept there's an argument for Denly retaining his place. But whilst he does soak up plenty of balls faced, the fact he does this so often without going on to make a big score highlights his limitations. 

I didn’t have think Denly was good enough before he was picked, and he hasn’t changed my mind (yet?!), however, I think the number of balls faced with regard to how much easier that makes the middle order’s job, has been under appreciated. 

[TheGayTent]

It’s going to rain isn’t it....

[kaosmark2]

Talk of Archer and Wood being picked alongside Jimmy - with no Broad or Woakes.

I get the appeal, but in a home test? Swing and control do more than pace in England, both in the same test seems excessive, I'd also rather see Wood at OT than the Ageas Bowl.

[st dan]

It may very well prove to be the correct decision, but leaving Broad out just doesn’t sit right with me. 

[kaosmark2]

9 minutes ago, st dan said:

It may very well prove to be the correct decision, but leaving Broad out just doesn’t sit right with me. 

Pace wins in England less than good line and length with movement. Given his exploits last summer, the only argument to leaving out Broad to me is if he's in a rotation pairing with Anderson.

[st dan]

21 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Pace wins in England less than good line and length with movement. Given his exploits last summer, the only argument to leaving out Broad to me is if he's in a rotation pairing with Anderson.

Just slightly concerned that a raw pace attack of Wood, Archer and Stokes may become a bit one dimensional, especially if the batsmen are set - with the only variation coming from a soon to be 38 year old Anderson. Broad always has the potential to take a wicket even when there appears to be little doing.

Should be fine for this series and more of a concern going forwards, although assuming Jimmy doesn’t have long left and Broad just regains that spot?

[TheGayTent]

46 minutes ago, st dan said:

Just slightly concerned that a raw pace attack of Wood, Archer and Stokes may become a bit one dimensional, especially if the batsmen are set - with the only variation coming from a soon to be 38 year old Anderson. Broad always has the potential to take a wicket even when there appears to be little doing.

Should be fine for this series and more of a concern going forwards, although assuming Jimmy doesn’t have long left and Broad just regains that spot?

I don’t see an issue with the bowling line up in terms of variety. Wood and Archer are both fast bowlers yes, but they’re chalk and cheese otherwise. Wood being shorter and skiddier, Archer’s point of release gives the batsmen an entirely different angle to deal with. 

Stokes can move the ball both ways and is well placed to make use of an old ball. 

The only issue for me is fitness. Anderson, Archer, and Wood have played how many tests between them in the last 12 months? 
 

One assumes the management knows the score fitness wise, but they’ll look foolish if one or more breakdown with the quality of Woakes and Broad sat there on the sidelines fit as fiddles.

I think a mixture of rotation for fitness purposes, and taking the condition of each wicket on its merits - all five will get overs this summer. 

[kingbadger]

I assumed they'd want to see Archer and Wood in the same team at some point this summer. Seems like they've read the pitch as being a bit dead in terms of lateral movement so makes sense to go with them here. Agreed they're two completely different bowlers, you can't compare as like for like, would be the same as comparing Simon Jones to Steve Harmison.

Fingers crossed but this isn't the worst start. Burns looking good and putting the bad ball away, whilst he's not looked as in it would be good to see Denly finally convert a start. Given he's stayed at 3 then I imagine the gig is his for this series at least unless he gets heavily outscored by Crawley.

[kingbadger]

21 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

I didn’t have think Denly was good enough before he was picked, and he hasn’t changed my mind (yet?!), however, I think the number of balls faced with regard to how much easier that makes the middle order’s job, has been under appreciated. 

Oh I appreciate that out of all the players who have occupied that number 3 spot and done mediocre at best, his occupancy at the crease is much more valuable than the pretty 30s you'd see from Vince.

[kaosmark2]

Since Trott, Denly is the 2nd best number 3 we've had after Ballance (discounting players like Root/Stokes who've bounced around the order). Crease occupancy is vital for a number 3, and Denly can at least score more runs than Compton could.

[kaosmark2]

The more things change...