Cricket

[TheGayTent]

Moeen has gone home anyway. Suspect Dan Lawrence will be dropped/rested/rotated. 

[Gromite]

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Moeen has gone home anyway. Suspect Dan Lawrence will be dropped/rested/rotated. 

For Crawley I'm guessing?

[kaosmark2]

Gutted about that, I really hope that's not the last of him in test cricket. 

Burns and Lawrence are struggling, but Bairstow is not a top 3 batsman, certainly outside Asia. 

[TheGayTent]

4 hours ago, Gromite said:

For Crawley I'm guessing?

If he’s fit, one would hope so. 

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

Gutted about that, I really hope that's not the last of him in test cricket.

He only came in through injury/availability of others. Given he hasn’t, by any stretch, put in performances that make him undroppable, I think it’s fair he’s replaced. 
I think he’s thought of sufficiently highly that he’ll get further chances to stake his claim as and when injuries/rotation dictate. 
With Burns, for me he’s never quite moved from the ‘promising’ grouping to the ‘fully fledged member of the team’ grouping. Writing this has made me look up his stats, and they confirm my thoughts really. 23 matches, 42 innings, just the 2 hundreds and averaging under 31. That’s not good enough long term - and I think he would agree with that. He’s been unlucky with the in/out nature of his test career thus far. For me, he’s getting to that Denly stage where he either kicks on and nails his plane down, or he’s out with little chance of returning. 

[kaosmark2]

56 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

He only came in through injury/availability of others. Given he hasn’t, by any stretch, put in performances that make him undroppable, I think it’s fair he’s replaced. 
I think he’s thought of sufficiently highly that he’ll get further chances to stake his claim as and when injuries/rotation dictate. 
With Burns, for me he’s never quite moved from the ‘promising’ grouping to the ‘fully fledged member of the team’ grouping. Writing this has made me look up his stats, and they confirm my thoughts really. 23 matches, 42 innings, just the 2 hundreds and averaging under 31. That’s not good enough long term - and I think he would agree with that. He’s been unlucky with the in/out nature of his test career thus far. For me, he’s getting to that Denly stage where he either kicks on and nails his plane down, or he’s out with little chance of returning. 

Leach is the best spinner in the country. I think he's proven that. If anyone else plays in the Ashes, it should only be due to injury.

Moeen is a wicket-taking spinner and a century-hitting batsman who isn't quite consistent enough with either to warrant a place in most conditions on one discipline alone. If it weren't for Stokes/Woakes, I'd have Moeen in regardless to make it easier to fit 5 bowlers in.

That said, in extreme English conditions (eg. last summer), I'd play Moeen over Leach, because he's more likely to take wickets if he bowls 6 overs/innings (think how little Bess bowled), and the extra runs he leaks he should make up for with the bat (over a series). Also, short of a huge improvement from another spinner, I'd want him as the back-up for the next couple of years at least.

My big question with Burns is "if not him, who?". I'm still hopeful that Hameed's move will help him regain form, and there were promising signs in the BWT last year, but there still needs to be a lot more than promising runs before he's considered again. The 2 standouts at the top of the order from the Championship over recent seasons are Burns and Sibley. If Crawley opens, you need to find a no.3 and that's no easier. Short of shoving one of the middle order players up, I don't see an alternative candidate now? I suspect Burns gets this year, and short of big runs vs India (at home) and/or in Aus, he's probably out after that. My worry is that if they drop Burns it's for Bairstow.

I do get what you mean though, he's got as many hundreds and similar number of 50s to Sibley, in nearly twice the innings. Openers will get out early sometimes, that's part of the job, but Sibley just looks like he fits, and he gets out in the 30s less, usually kicking on after getting himself in.

[TheGayTent]

At some point - and it needs to be fairly soon - if Pope is as good as they think he is, he has to move up the order. 
We have had the luxury of playing a specialist batsman at 6 because of the riches we have in all rounders. Whether that be Stokes, Woakes, Buttler, Mooen, Curran etc. Realistically that can’t continue, and shouldn’t even if it could. 
We all know Root isn’t for moving at 4 (which is the position Pope is used to playing at Surrey). An obvious play is to move Pope up one and move Stokes down one. The other option they have though is to move Pope to 3, promote Crawley to open, and drop Burns.  
 

[TheGayTent]

Excellent article on Mo here :

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/india-v-england-2020-21-spurned-moeen-ali-begins-the-long-kiss-goodnight-after-choosing-to-leave-india-tour-1252037

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

At some point - and it needs to be fairly soon - if Pope is as good as they think he is, he has to move up the order. 
We have had the luxury of playing a specialist batsman at 6 because of the riches we have in all rounders. Whether that be Stokes, Woakes, Buttler, Mooen, Curran etc. Realistically that can’t continue, and shouldn’t even if it could. 
We all know Root isn’t for moving at 4 (which is the position Pope is used to playing at Surrey). An obvious play is to move Pope up one and move Stokes down one. The other option they have though is to move Pope to 3, promote Crawley to open, and drop Burns.  

By my understanding, Pope played 5/6 for Surrey before his first England call-up, then after getting dropped moved up to 4 for Surrey, so as to get more experience around the 3/4 place.

Utterly agreed that a specialist batsman at 6 is a luxury, but the question really, is what benefit swapping him and Stokes brings? I'd also say, that for all the players tried at 3, Stokes seems like he has the defensive game for it.

I like Pope, I'm not yet convinced he is as good as the plaudits. I also remember the issues Bell had at 3 compared to 5 (2011 aside).

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

Excellent article on Mo here :

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/india-v-england-2020-21-spurned-moeen-ali-begins-the-long-kiss-goodnight-after-choosing-to-leave-india-tour-1252037

Ha! I was just about to link that.

[TheGayTent]

17 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

By my understanding, Pope played 5/6 for Surrey before his first England call-up, then after getting dropped moved up to 4 for Surrey, so as to get more experience around the 3/4 place.

Yes, it’s common in youngsters to blood them down the order for obvious reasons. It’s unusual for National sides to do so, but that is due to his young age and circumstances of the current make up of the team/squad. 

Quote

Utterly agreed that a specialist batsman at 6 is a luxury, but the question really, is what benefit swapping him and Stokes brings?

To give Stokes more time between bowling/batting. Doesn’t affect him as much in the sub-continent, but has been and can be a factor in England, South Africa, the Windies and Oz/NZ. 
 

However, what I would say is that it’s very rare all rounders are as good as Stokes. I agree he has the talent to bat higher up the order, and I think he could increase his batting average if he took the No.3 spot. But I’d strongly suggest this would affect the number of overs he could bowl and his average over a sustained period of time. 
 

It’s easy not to realise just how good he is. If he plays like he has for the last five years for the next five years he will break numerous milestone records. His current overall average with the bat is 37. Which is excellent in itself for an all rounder batting 5/6. But if you exclude his first couple of years when he was learning the ropes he actually averages over 42. That’s a higher average than many England batsmen such as Stewart, Atherton, Strauss and Vaughan on the highest run scorer list. Within 2 years he’s likely to be inside the top 15 run scorers ever for England and the only all rounder on the list (excluding wicketkeeper all rounders). 
 

Similarly, his overall test bowling average is 31.5. However his bowling average in the last 5 years is under 28 and in 2 years he’s likely to break into the 200 club and the top 15 wicket takers in English test cricket history. The only all rounder above him will be Botham and Flintoff (although another 6 months he’ll likely be in front of Flintoff). 
 

The above is just what’s likely to happen in 2 years. Stokes is 29, he should have far more than 2 years left in him. Unlike his English all rounder predecessors, Stokes looks after himself which should assist his longevity. 

Quote

I'd also say, that for all the players tried at 3, Stokes seems like he has the defensive game for it.

Agreed. But why do it if it affects his efficiency as a bowler? If something ain’t broke, why fix it? The single biggest bonus about having Stokes in the side is the balance he provides. If you bat him at 3 and reduce either or both of 1) the number of overs he can bowl, or 2) his performances as a bowler then I’d seriously question why you aren’t looking for a better alternative.

In short, I have a massive man crush on Ben Stokes, and we should all appreciate we have been and are watching probably the best English all rounder we will ever see in our lifetimes.

In terms of comparisons, for me Flintoff doesn’t even enter the equation. Anyone who says otherwise has cotton wool for brains or his a direct member of Flintoff’s family. The Botham argument is much more interesting with one being a batting all rounder and the other a bowling all rounder. I think it’s a pretty close call currently, however I think by the time Stokes’ career is finished, he will stand head and shoulders above Botham and all others. 
 

Yes, my cat is named Stokes and I might be bias. 

Quote

I like Pope, I'm not yet convinced he is as good as the plaudits. I also remember the issues Bell had at 3 compared to 5 (2011 aside).

True. 
 

Moeen has been handled poorly previously. At the same time I think Moeen has handled himself poorly too. 
 

I believe this time it was a genuine mistake. Silverwood is probably the worst England coach for some years with regard to how he handles the media. However, I think that’s a lack of training and a deliberate non-acceptable of media training. The most important thing is that the players believe in him and I believe Moeen does too. The only friction I’m aware of is between the selection team of Smith/Taylor and some players. I’m really pleased to see this today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/56097118

Apologies for the length of my post - gone off on one slightly here! 

 

Quote

Ha! I was just about to link that

Edited February 17, 2021 by TheGayTent

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

-snip-

 

wrt to Stokes, I completely agree that he's going to continue improving his averages and end with a career that smahes all other English all-rounders out of the water. I'm aware he's much much better than a typical all-rounder, the likes of Collingwood, Woakes, Moeen have all won games with both disciplines, and a lot less frequently and at worse averages than Stokes.

I read this article a couple of years ago:

https://wisden.com/stories/stats-analysis/ben-stokes-cricviz

and so far, in the absence of anyone making the 3 position their own, I think the improvement he's shown makes it almost more true that it was then. The very fact he can even be slightly compared to Kallis shows how good he is. I do take your point that we should structure the batting order so as to get the very best out of Stokes, but what is that?

Moeen and the England camp looked happy together on the pitch, and I'm delighted to have seen Root and Silverwood take ownership of the call and emphasise that they want Moeen playing test cricket. I do agree Silverwood seems less adept at media handling, but he also looks to be getting more out of Root. Some of it would have happened anyway, a player of Root's quality was never going to stay in mediocre form for too long, but it doesn't feel like a coincidence of timing.

[TheGayTent]

That article was written when Pope had played just 1 season for Surrey (having made his county debut at the end of the previous summer). 15 tests later we have far more knowledge of his suitability to test cricket. 
Regarding the analysis of Stokes it raises some interesting points but makes fundamental mistakes with its conclusions. Let’s take this paragraph:

Yet Stokes doesn’t actually perform best in that kind of situation. When he arrives at the crease in the 60th over or later, he averages 26.71. By contrast, when he arrives at the crease in the first 20 overs of a Test innings (something he’s done on 22 occasions), he averages 35.68. Putting aside the vagaries of batting position, when Stokes comes out to bat against a newer ball, with all the challenges that brings, he performs better than when he arrives later in the innings.

These aren’t statistics that prove he should bat higher. There are blatantly obvious reasons why the above is true. If he’s in early, we’ve lost early wickets. Therefore the match position dictates he plays in a certain manner. Similarly, if he comes in late in terms of overs, the match position will dictate he bats with freedom. Serving the team by playing in a style that makes him far more likely to get out than the way he would be playing were he batting when we were 70-4. It does not mean he performed better batting higher up. The logic of saying he performs better higher up the order is a false one. It’s therefore not a reason to promote him (that’s not to suggest there isn’t a good argument - just that the one they have used is a false one). 
 

Similarly the section and conclusion about his bowling average is a false one. For a start, despite almost constantly staying in the same batting position since that article was written those bowling averages by innings have changed dramatically. His first innings average has got worse by 2 1/2 runs, his second innings has improved by 4 1/2 runs, his third improved by 2 runs, and his 4th improved by over 5 runs. 
 

Suggesting these figures can be directly related to how tired or not he must be to suit an argument of promoted up the batting order is of course stupendously stupid. It takes no account of when Stokes is used in a match situation and how he is used. It takes no account of the state of the wicket in the later stages of a test match, it takes no account of whether the scores in the first two innings were 300 and 300, 500 and 500, 90 and 150, etc etc, it takes no account of potential differences in weather from one innings to another and many other factors I can’t be arsed to go into. 
 

That article is school boy in it’s statistics = fact without thinking, researching or debating all of the many other factors and statistics.  
 

You mention Kallis who I suspect we both agree is the best batting all rounder to play the game. I also suspect once Stokes’ career is over the two of them will be the only two in the history of test cricket to score 6000 runs and take 250 wickets. 

[kaosmark2]

I mean, Kallis is one of the best players to ever play the game even before you factor in his bowling. Just brilliant. I don't think Stokes will get close to his runs scored, but I do anticipate him being a huge step above all other all-rounders that have contributed as much with the ball.

You make a good point about match situation undermining the arguments in that paragraph particularly. I was more struck at the time by the "his defensive technique is among the best, and England can ask for a greater focus on his batting" side of it. It's also seemed more in recent years that Stokes with the ball is very much a plan b/c, a "make something happen" attempt. I don't know whether they're worried about injuries, or if it's more TMS being lazy with the narrative, but that's been my impression.

How good do you think Pope is? I've been impressed but underwhelmed, probably because highlights packages include him getting out, but rarely good defenses of dot balls, and there's been so much hype.

[TheGayTent]

38 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I mean, Kallis is one of the best players to ever play the game even before you factor in his bowling. Just brilliant. I don't think Stokes will get close to his runs scored, but I do anticipate him being a huge step above all other all-rounders that have contributed as much with the ball.

Yeah agree. 

38 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

You make a good point about match situation undermining the arguments in that paragraph particularly. I was more struck at the time by the "his defensive technique is among the best, and England can ask for a greater focus on his batting" side of it.
 

I wouldn’t mind the conclusion if they took other factors in. I agree wholeheartedly his defensive technique is among the best. I agree he’s good enough to bat 3 or 4. I agree his average would go up. But what about the losses you incur if you do promote him. He is so good at changing the game coming in at 6. 
 

Take his knock against South Africa in the 2nd innings at Cape Town batting 6. We were 218-4 with the game on a knife edge. 17 overs later he’d scored 72 runs off 47 balls, in less than 90 mins. He can’t do that batting 3. Just as importantly we haven’t got anyone else who can do what Stokes can do at 6. 

That Headingley knock. No one else in this side could have played that knock. Who else is good enough to score just 3 from 73 balls having the defensive technique to see off the cream of the Australian attack, marshall the lower order in the way that he did, farm the strike and finish the innings in the explosive way he did? 
 

No one can can they? As much as Buttler, Woakes, Curran, Moeen etc can score middle order runs with proper batsmen at the other end, or swing the bat about when with number 11s, no one can do what Stokes has done and can do. 
 

When he bats 5/6 on a pitch like the first test in Chennai, when he arrives at the crease at 263-3 and we’re looking to go big, there’s no one better you want to come in at number 5. His technique means he can play properly when aiming for 500+. Or he can come in at 150-200 on a low scoring pitch and change the game with a quick fire score. It’s his perfect position. 
 

I just feel by playing him at 3 you’re losing out on at least as much as you’re gaining. Currently we have Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Lawrence, Pope and Bairstow with test experience. I’d like to think 4 of those 6 can fit well inside of a framework that allows Root to bat 4 and Stokes 5 or 6. Or A N Other from the county set up. 

38 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It's also seemed more in recent years that Stokes with the ball is very much a plan b/c, a "make something happen" attempt. I don't know whether they're worried about injuries, or if it's more TMS being lazy with the narrative, but that's been my impression.

I think that is true of the period when both these scenarios are happening 1) England are doing badly (I.e. the opposition are batting and racking up a big score), and 2) our bowling line up is made up of seamers (I.e Anderson, Broad, Woakes, Curran). 
 

As historically he’s then been asked to bang the ball in short which is not really his strength. However, if we have any one or more of Archer, Stone, Wood etc it’s not a role asked of him (and I’m not convinced it ever will be - at least not under Silverwood)

I actually think Stokes is a far better bowler than he’s ever allowed to have been - but that’s a whole other conversation. 

38 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

How good do you think Pope is? I've been impressed but underwhelmed, probably because highlights packages include him getting out, but rarely good defenses of dot balls, and there's been so much hype.

He looks the part and he has the right temperament. The technique looks good to my eye and it’s said he has a steely resolve and determination. I’m excited by him. But then I was excited by Vince and Malan....and I was unconvinced for a long time about Bell...so what do I know? 

To be honest, I’m climbing the walls and just hoping against hope that I can use my Kent membership in April to actually watch some county cricket...

[kaosmark2]

13 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Yeah agree. 

I wouldn’t mind the conclusion if they took other factors in. I agree wholeheartedly his defensive technique is among the best. I agree he’s good enough to bat 3 or 4. I agree his average would go up. But what about the losses you incur if you do promote him. He is so good at changing the game coming in at 6. 
 

Take his knock against South Africa in the 2nd innings at Cape Town batting 6. We were 218-4 with the game on a knife edge. 17 overs later he’d scored 72 runs off 47 balls, in less than 90 mins. He can’t do that batting 3. Just as importantly we haven’t got anyone else who can do what Stokes can do at 6. 

At this point when reading I was about to say Buttler. Your point after about the Headingley knock is completely justified though. I do think Buttler and Moeen offer more with the bat than their averages suggest, but yeah, they still aren't Stokes.

25 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I just feel by playing him at 3 you’re losing out on at least as much as you’re gaining. Currently we have Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Lawrence, Pope and Bairstow with test experience. I’d like to think 4 of those 6 can fit well inside of a framework that allows Root to bat 4 and Stokes 5 or 6. Or A N Other from the county set up. 

When Bairstow was inked in, Moeen, and Buttler were playing, Foakes was in the mix, and Sam Curran was whacking a 50 every other innings, Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Lawrence, and Pope weren't really around as experienced options. The other option at the time for 3 with test experience was Ballance. There is still an issue of more options for the middle order than the top, but you've convinced me that Stokes probably isn't the best long-term solution.

I'll be shocked if Sibley doesn't get at least 5000 test runs. His defensive technique, confidence in his own gameplan, and ability to learn and lightly adapt give me huge confidence. On top of 2 marvellous centuries in tough conditions, he's also got some very impressive 80s. I'm much more ambivalent on Burns, I'm not sure whether he's been found out in test cricket now, as he's clearly got problems vs spin, or whether he's just in bad touch.

Crawley and Lawrence look promising, but Lawrence's last 2 outs were very disappointing, he'd done some work to get himself in, but the timing more than the manner of the dismissals was incredibly annoying. Embuldeniya had Crawley in his pocket, but I don't think that means he can't improve against left arm spin or play generally.

39 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I think that is true of the period when both these scenarios are happening 1) England are doing badly (I.e. the opposition are batting and racking up a big score), and 2) our bowling line up is made up of seamers (I.e Anderson, Broad, Woakes, Curran). 

As historically he’s then been asked to bang the ball in short which is not really his strength. However, if we have any one or more of Archer, Stone, Wood etc it’s not a role asked of him (and I’m not convinced it ever will be - at least not under Silverwood)

I actually think Stokes is a far better bowler than he’s ever allowed to have been - but that’s a whole other conversation. 

All fair. 

41 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

He looks the part and he has the right temperament. The technique looks good to my eye and it’s said he has a steely resolve and determination. I’m excited by him. But then I was excited by Vince and Malan....and I was unconvinced for a long time about Bell...so what do I know? 

To be honest, I’m climbing the walls and just hoping against hope that I can use my Kent membership in April to actually watch some county cricket...

The drives look gorgeous, his dismissals so far in test cricket have been a mixture of jaffas and idiocy, which would bring a comparison to Vince, except... Pope has actually stayed in long enough to score a test century, and his average is the right side of 35 as opposed to substantially below 30. I'd say I'm more hopeful than excited. 

I would actually take Malan as a reserve batsman for the Ashes. He doesn't have problems against high pace on flat pitches, it was the likes of Abbas swinging it round corners at 79mph on English green tops that kept doing for him. The Aussie attack isn't really any different from the one he scored a century against. I just think he'd be a better option than throwing someone with barely any experience in if someone gets injured.

[TheGayTent]

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'll be shocked if Sibley doesn't get at least 5000 test runs. His defensive technique, confidence in his own gameplan, and ability to learn and lightly adapt give me huge confidence. On top of 2 marvellous centuries in tough conditions, he's also got some very impressive 80s.

Yes totally. What you can’t help but admire about Sibley is the fact that he just hates getting out and the determination he has shown in such a short amount of time to succeed. He clearly realised almost as soon as he entered the England test set up was that he was a long way short of the fitness expected. He went away and did what he did - we can all see the difference. Then as soon as he encountered technical difficulties, he went away, made some changes and those changes seemed to work. It’s great to think not that he won’t ever find a time when he struggles, but that when he does it won’t take him long to put it right. 

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'm much more ambivalent on Burns, I'm not sure whether he's been found out in test cricket now, as he's clearly got problems vs spin, or whether he's just in bad touch.

Similarly, whilst as I’ve said previously, for me Burns’ place is less assured than many others seem to think, I actually like the fact that every time he is talked about in a negative way, he comes back strongly. Remember the chatter after the Ireland test?! 

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Crawley and Lawrence look promising, but Lawrence's last 2 outs were very disappointing, he'd done some work to get himself in, but the timing more than the manner of the dismissals was incredibly annoying. Embuldeniya had Crawley in his pocket, but I don't think that means he can't improve against left arm spin or play generally.

I think we’d all agree that both need more time, and they’ll get more time than maybe others will, because of their young age. 

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

All fair. 

The drives look gorgeous, his dismissals so far in test cricket have been a mixture of jaffas and idiocy, which would bring a comparison to Vince, except... Pope has actually stayed in long enough to score a test century, and his average is the right side of 35 as opposed to substantially below 30. I'd say I'm more hopeful than excited. 
 

Fair. 

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I would actually take Malan as a reserve batsman for the Ashes. He doesn't have problems against high pace on flat pitches, it was the likes of Abbas swinging it round corners at 79mph on English green tops that kept doing for him. The Aussie attack isn't really any different from the one he scored a century against. I just think he'd be a better option than throwing someone with barely any experience in if someone gets injured.

Horses for courses. Dependant on the size of the squad, injuries, and how the batsmen we’ve named above go between now and then, I’m in full agreement with you.  He’s full of confidence at the moment too. 

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Yes totally. What you can’t help but admire about Sibley is the fact that he just hates getting out and the determination he has shown in such a short amount of time to succeed. He clearly realised almost as soon as he entered the England test set up was that he was a long way short of the fitness expected. He went away and did what he did - we can all see the difference. Then as soon as he encountered technical difficulties, he went away, made some changes and those changes seemed to work. It’s great to think not that he won’t ever find a time when he struggles, but that when he does it won’t take him long to put it right. 

Even when he was exhausted and got out accelerating after that great partnership with Stokes vs Windies he looked annoyed with himself for the execution. I love seeing it.

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Similarly, whilst as I’ve said previously, for me Burns’ place is less assured than many others seem to think, I actually like the fact that every time he is talked about in a negative way, he comes back strongly. Remember the chatter after the Ireland test?! 

I think we’d all agree that both need more time, and they’ll get more time than maybe others will, because of their young age. 

I don't doubt Burns' temperament, and I've no problem giving him more time. I think one thing about Burns, is that if he does get dropped, he won't get another chance, whereas Crawley/Lawrence could come back in 2-3 years time even if they get dropped at some point this year.

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Horses for courses. Dependant on the size of the squad, injuries, and how the batsmen we’ve named above go between now and then, I’m in full agreement with you.  He’s full of confidence at the moment too. 

Size of the squad would be one of the big factors that determine whether he's worth taking. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being Bairstow.....

[TheGayTent]

Sibley, Crawley, Bairstow

[kaosmark2]

3 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Sibley, Crawley, Bairstow

It was a very Bairstow-esque review wasn't it? I thought he's meant to be good against spin.

Crawley's knock was good until it wasn't. Definitely seems to have a problem with left-arm spinners, but he's got time to solve it.

No problem with Sibley, getting out 3rd over nicking off to a good ball from bowlers of the quality of Ishant Sharma will happen for openers sometimes.

Got a long tail with all of Broad/Anderson/Archer, and extra dependent on new-ball movement IMO, need specialists to perform and the batsmen (Crawley aside) haven't.

[TheGayTent]

Should have gone with Kent v India. 
At least we’re showing some right now. 

[kaosmark2]

I'm enjoying Leach repeatedly getting Pujara. I feel Archer was brought on slightly late, he gets a lot from the new ball. 

If these 2 bat the day out it's hard to see any chance. 

[Homer]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'm enjoying Leach repeatedly getting Pujara. I feel Archer was brought on slightly late, he gets a lot from the new ball. 

If these 2 bat the day out it's hard to see any chance. 

Gutted that five days of much needed distraction has been blown. I can't see how we don't lose this match.

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Gutted that five days of much needed distraction has been blown. I can't see how we don't lose this match.

Neither can I, but if we’re going to get anything out of the next test we need to make a fight of it. Think we did just that in the evening session what with the ‘catch’ denied, Pope’s dropped catch, plenty of plays and misses to Leach etc. On another day India could have finished on 99-6 and then we’d have been right back in it. 
 

The ironic thing is usually when the tail is in with a recognised batsman i’m willing the tail ender to play properly and not have a heave ho. They inevitably do. Today, I was willing one of them to do just that. A quick 20 or 30 could make a difference come the end of the 4th innings. Yet this time almost all got out meekly. Typical. 

[kaosmark2]

3 hours ago, Homer said:

Gutted that five days of much needed distraction has been blown. I can't see how we don't lose this match.

I always thought it was going to end in 3/4 days. I'm just hoping another batsman makes a contribution.

[kaosmark2]

Root is an all rounder.