Cricket

[TheGayTent]

Let’s not go back to the 90s and call bowlers who can hold a bat an all rounder! 

Stevo is God but he wasn’t good enough in his prime to play for England and certainly isn’t now. 

Sam Curran will now definitely get some game time and Woakes will be seriously considered for the 3rd test if he can prove his fitness. 

[kaosmark2]

23 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Let’s not go back to the 90s and call bowlers who can hold a bat an all rounder! 

Stevo is God but he wasn’t good enough in his prime to play for England and certainly isn’t now. 

Sam Curran will now definitely get some game time and Woakes will be seriously considered for the 3rd test if he can prove his fitness. 

If Craig Overton is an all-rounder then Gregory definitely is. I would say Gregory is a no.8 though, not higher.

Surely now is his prime! Look at his record over the last 3 years!

I'm very worried that we're going to go in without a spinner again against India. I understood loading the batting when all of Stokes/SCurran/Woakes/Moeen were unavailable vs NZ, and with the WK being the untested Bracey instead of Buttler/Bairstow/Foakes, but with Sam Curran and Woakes mostly available, (and Moeen ignored), there are enough genuine all-rounders to balance the team with a 4/1 attack.

[TheGayTent]

If the forecast is correct we might not be getting much cricket anyway. Typical given I’ve got tickets for days 3 & 4. 

If we do get some play conditions should suit the seamers - and given the armoury India have at their disposal you would think Steve Birks has not been told to prepare a bunsen. 

[TheGayTent]

Intriguing series this. On the one hand India have been extremely good in recent times. Extraordinary performances in Australia and reaching the final of the inaugural world test championship. On the other hand their batsmen have struggled against the moving ball in the last two series. 

England are coming in off the back of a home series loss albeit to a very good kiwi team. They also have key players unavailable in Stokes, Archer, Woakes and possibly Pope. 

Pujara has been in woeful form for a long time and India have selection problems at the top of the order. Similarly, England have questions over the ability/form of their top 3. Hameed has rediscovered his mojo at Notts and is averaging over 45 - does he come in, and if he does who for? 
 

Anderson is just 3 wickets away from overtaking Kumble and becoming the 3rd highest wicket taker ever in test cricket. Conditions are likely to suit him in terms of likely atmospheric conditions and I doubt this is going to be a high scoring series in terms of runs. However with 2 back to back tests how many tests can Anderson and Broad play? 

Will Woakes be fit from the 3rd test onwards and given he and Wood haven’t played any red ball cricket for yonks, what form will they be in anyway? 

There are unanswered questions for India in terms of run scoring in English conditions and they also have a very long tail in Sharma, Bumrah, & Shami. 

In short, I’ve no idea who will come out on top, or even whether it’ll be a thrashing either way. Which I guess, is one of the reasons it’s such an exciting proposition. 

 

[kaosmark2]

Not a great first day out, but Bumrah showing how magnificent he is.

I fancy a 2-2 or 3-2 either way for the series. I think both batting line-ups are brittle, and rain is the only way there wouldn't be a result in a game.

I would be looking to bring Hameed in, not entirely sure who for, as I do actually think all of the top 3 are test batsmen. I'm most worried right now about Crawley's form, and also fairly convinced that dropping him isn't going to affect him long-term, so that's my answer, although he got a start today which he hasn't in a while.

I know Stokes and Pope aren't fit, but I'm still not convinced Bairstow was the answer, even if he did better than most.

[blutarsky]

When my daughter was really small (she’s only 10-months-old now) she would only sleep in a sling. We called it the Lasith Malinga. Anyone else ever done that? 

[kaosmark2]

This test is looking very tasty. All 4 results possible, and likely that rain will leave it a draw, but a real chance for both teams.

Root's form so far this year is pretty ridiculous. Love it.

I'm not liking the pattern of batting first without a spinner. I'm still a huge fan of Moeen, particularly in English conditions, but no complaints if they pick Leach, or pack the batting, but to win a test you have to bowl them out twice, and if you pack the batting with no spinner you should be aiming to set-up for a successful chase, particularly in games with rain around.

[sirjonnyp]

Seems like England are going to be saved by the weather today, really don't see the bowlers protecting the total at the moment, especially given the leaking of runs in the first innings. 

For me I think it has to be Sibley that comes out for Hameeb. Yeah he got a few runs and blunted the attack yesterday, Burns has a recent ton though. I want to see Crawley get more runs at FC level, but as there's nowhere for him to do that at the moment the England side is the best place for him right now. I rage every time England go back to Bairstow, and every time we see why his average is so low in red ball cricket. Bin 'im.

[kingbadger]

17 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

This test is looking very tasty. All 4 results possible, and likely that rain will leave it a draw, but a real chance for both teams.

Root's form so far this year is pretty ridiculous. Love it.

I'm not liking the pattern of batting first without a spinner. I'm still a huge fan of Moeen, particularly in English conditions, but no complaints if they pick Leach, or pack the batting, but to win a test you have to bowl them out twice, and if you pack the batting with no spinner you should be aiming to set-up for a successful chase, particularly in games with rain around.

I get that Leach is number 1 spinner but if it comes down to playing no spinner or Moeen, due to needing an all rounder, then I'd go with Ali every time. Especially in England. What irks me as well is that we haven't picked the best front line 4 pace bowlers either - I'd have had Wood or Mahmood in there to offer pace and something with the older ball. Robinson is a decent enough number 8, if you're picking 6 specialist batsmen and a keeper, you can't then compromise on the 4 bowlers. Again picking no spinner and then batting first on winning the toss is fairly brainless planning. 

Sibley for me is just far too limited and too defensive in his approach. It's just easy pickings for bowlers to tie him down and squeeze his wicket out. I just can't see him improving or expanding his game enough to become genuinely good enough at the top of the order. 

I'd keep Lawrence in the side, he's got much more of a game to call upon and they'll have one eye on the Ashes and the glut of runs he got against a very strong Aussie A side a few years back. 

Be tempted to go back to the James Vince well for the remaining games. He obviously has the talent and I think he's been treated poorly - was picked for England on a really tough tour despite being put of nick. It's interesting to see who England deem persevering with regardless, and who gets dropped pretty sharpish. Vince and Westley both had their best innings in their final tests, but never got given another opportunity. 

[kaosmark2]

I feel like Sibley only needs possibly one more scoring shot. It can even be something he just regularly gets singles off to rotate a little more. The scoring rate doesn't bother me in the slightest, but a string of maidens 20 overs into the innings is a bit more worrying. I'm absolutely a fan though, more convinced by him than any top order we've seen for England since Hameed's first tests.

While I think Crawley has the highest ceiling as a test player out of the current top 3, his form is clearly shot, and surely it's better for him to just get a break? 

Lawrence can stay or go IMO, my biggest thing with the current crop is that when/if they are dropped, they're told that they can still play their way back into form and into the side. 

Of the players who've batted 3 for England since Trott, Malan is the one I'd go back to right now, and that's mainly because he's in excellent form, and his Test century was in Aus. Vince might have shown snippets, but he's had 3 runs in the test side already.

Bairstow is the 3rd or 4th best keeper/batsman in red ball. With Foakes injured I get why he was called up, but I'd also have been happy to see Billings or someone else. He has changed his stance for this series, and at least is getting towards 30 again instead of ducks, but he shouldn't bat top 5.

[st dan]

19 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

I feel like Sibley only needs possibly one more scoring shot. It can even be something he just regularly gets singles off to rotate a little more. The scoring rate doesn't bother me in the slightest, but a string of maidens 20 overs into the innings is a bit more worrying. I'm absolutely a fan though, more convinced by him than any top order we've seen for England since Hameed's first tests.

He has all the makings of a top opening test batsman that’s for sure, with his ability to dig in clearly being his strongest attribute - but he really does need a dominant scoring shot like you say. He doesn’t seem to entertain too much outside the off stump, so probably the flick off his pads is something he could look to master if he can to help rotate the strike.

I do think he also needs to look at pushing his scoring rate up a touch too. As good as the Indian seam bowling was on the morning of day one, for him to score only 18 runs in the whole session is a bit of a worry. Then when he tries to push on a bit after he’s faced around 80-100 balls, he often seems to go searching a bit too much, and gives away his wicket too cheaply. Saying that, he clearly (and quite rightly) doesn’t have much confidence in the batting line up to follow at the moment, so he’s probably playing with that at the back of his mind. If we can ever get a settled 3-6 then maybe we’ll see him relax, and this could all come naturally. 

But with a bit of tweaking, he’s certainly going to be the regular opening batsman for the next 5-7 years.  

[TheGayTent]

8 hours ago, st dan said:

He has all the makings of a top opening test batsman that’s for sure, with his ability to dig in clearly being his strongest attribute - but he really does need a dominant scoring shot like you say. He doesn’t seem to entertain too much outside the off stump, so probably the flick off his pads is something he could look to master if he can to help rotate the strike.

I do think he also needs to look at pushing his scoring rate up a touch too. As good as the Indian seam bowling was on the morning of day one, for him to score only 18 runs in the whole session is a bit of a worry. Then when he tries to push on a bit after he’s faced around 80-100 balls, he often seems to go searching a bit too much, and gives away his wicket too cheaply. Saying that, he clearly (and quite rightly) doesn’t have much confidence in the batting line up to follow at the moment, so he’s probably playing with that at the back of his mind. If we can ever get a settled 3-6 then maybe we’ll see him relax, and this could all come naturally. 
 

I understand and even agree to some extent the points you are making here….

8 hours ago, st dan said:

But with a bit of tweaking, he’s certainly going to be the regular opening batsman for the next 5-7 years.  

…yet he has almost an identical batting record to Joe Denly!

Any test cricketer (batsman) averaging 30 after 15/20 tests has far too many question marks over his name to be considered anywhere close to a regular player for 5 months let alone 5 years. 

[kingbadger]

There's being cautious, which every opening batsmen needs to be, then there's being unable to score anywhere other than off your pads/leg side. The issue with his painstaking strike rate is that whilst he's absorbing balls, he's not moving the game on enough to make it worthwhile. The knock on effect is that eve if he scores a 50 he's still exposing the middle/lower order to the second new ball whilst in a precarious position.

He's totally reliant on other batsmen doing the damage to the opposition, and it's far too easy to tie up simply by bowling an offside line. This is without discussing his shortcomings are even more obvious when facing spin. 

He's only 25 and has time on his side, but it's patently obvious he needs to expand his game to do anything other than bat to survive at test level, which is what he's doing at the moment. And the test arena is probably not the place to try to make those adjustments. 

[TheGayTent]

Moeen recalled for the Lords test. Would give the team some better balance. Personally I’d be dropping Bairstow but suspect Lawrence will be in the firing line. 

[TheGayTent]

Who will play at Lords? 

I think Hameed deserves his chance here - he’s played well consistently for Notts and has scored a hundred a couple of weeks back against India. Sibley for me misses out - although I wouldn’t argue against Burns being the victim. Crawley keeps his place through sheer lack of a viable alternative. 

Bairstow for me just isn’t a test cricketer unless the subject of a lobotomy. 

If they’re up to it, both Broad and Anderson should play. Between them they have taken 200 wickets at a combined average of circa 26. Where as Wood averages nearly 45 at Lords - now is not the time to bring him back. Robinson also deserves game time and at least can hold a bat. If you’re recalling Moeen to the squad presumably he plays. 

Therefore my team is:

Burns, Hameed, Crawley, Root, Pope, Buttler, Moeen, Curran, Robinson, Anderson, Broad (who has to bat 11!)

What’s your team and why? 

Edited August 10, 2021 by TheGayTent

[kingbadger]

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

Moeen recalled for the Lords test. Would give the team some better balance. Personally I’d be dropping Bairstow but suspect Lawrence will be in the firing line. 

Dropping Lawrence would be completely nonsensical. He got 81* in the test before, and dropping him after just 1 test of the series negates the point in selecting him for the series in the first place. 

This is England though and it's jobs for the boys so imagine Bairstow's 20s will justify his selection for the remaining tests regardless. 

[TheGayTent]

5 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

Dropping Lawrence would be completely nonsensical. He got 81* in the test before, and dropping him after just 1 test of the series negates the point in selecting him for the series in the first place. 

This is England though and it's jobs for the boys so imagine Bairstow's 20s will justify his selection for the remaining tests regardless. 

I don’t necessarily disagree. However the alternative view will be that Lawrence averages just 27 after 8 tests and which includes that 81 not out.  Where as Bairstow averages 34 and has 6 hundreds to Lawrence’s 0. 

I think one of the two only got picked in the first test due to Pope’s injury anyway….

[kingbadger]

11 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I don’t necessarily disagree. However the alternative view will be that Lawrence averages just 27 after 8 tests and which includes that 81 not out.  Where as Bairstow averages 34 and has 6 hundreds to Lawrence’s 0. 

I think one of the two only got picked in the first test due to Pope’s injury anyway….

My point being that 3 of those tests were in India on absolute hellscapes as far as conditions were concerned, and the 2 previous to that were still in alien conditions in Sri Lanka. And he's shown promise this summer already with the aforementioned 81* against the best side in the world, again in trying conditions whilst batting with the tail (despite coming in at 4!).

Easy to pick at his average, but I'd say he's had to bat in some pretty ropy conditions against the best bowling attacks in the world, all whilst starting out early in his career. For that reason I feel like more slack needs to be given, not just cos I'm an Essex fan and have played against him/his family before. 

[TheGayTent]

57 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

My point being that 3 of those tests were in India on absolute hellscapes as far as conditions were concerned, and the 2 previous to that were still in alien conditions in Sri Lanka.
 

England scored 756 runs on an absolute road in Chennai. Lawrence contributed a huge 18 of those runs…

57 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

And he's shown promise this summer already with the aforementioned 81* against the best side in the world, again in trying conditions whilst batting with the tail (despite coming in at 4!).

His two other innings against the best side in the world were ducks….

57 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

I'm an Essex fan and have played against him/his family before. 

Hmmm! 

[kingbadger]

3 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

England scored 756 runs on an absolute road in Chennai. Lawrence contributed a huge 18 of those runs…

His two other innings against the best side in the world were ducks….

Hmmm! 

He also outscored others on shite pitches so I think it evens itself out. That 81* was made under real pressure as well. 

I'm by no means saying that he's nailed down a place in the side, but I think he's shown more than enough promise to warrant another test at least. My point being why do Burns, Sibley, Crawley etc get given umpteen chances to prove themselves (or as the case may be to prove themselves incapable) but Lawrence doesn't? 

Wonder why a Kent stalwart would be so keen to keep Crawley in above Sibley and even Burns despite him averaging 11 this year! 

 

 

(for what it's worth I'd persevere with Crawley for now for much the same reason as I would Lawrence - potential and huge talent, which we've seen glimpses of from both)

[TheGayTent]

34 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

He also outscored others on shite pitches so I think it evens itself out. That 81* was made under real pressure as well. 
 

As I said, I’m not really disagreeing with you I’m partly playing devils advocate and partly imagining what Silverwood is thinking. 

34 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

why do Burns, Sibley, Crawley etc get given umpteen chances to prove themselves (or as the case may be to prove themselves incapable) but Lawrence doesn't? 

Burns, Sibley, and Crawley don’t really have any creditable opposition. Had they, at least one of them would have gone by now. The (re)emergence of Hameed may well see one of them gone soon, and not many would argue with the decision. 

Where as Lawrence has plenty - or at least that’s what Silverwood believes. Were one of Stokes or Pope fit, Lawrence wouldn’t be playing. If Pope is fit, Lawrence probably won’t play at Lords. Much will depend on the balance they’re after which brings the bowling all rounders into play too with Woakes (from the 3rd test onwards), Curran & Moeen. 

You simply can’t be a specialist number 6 batsmen for very long. You’re either successful and get trusted to move up the order. Or you fail. 

34 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

 

(for what it's worth I'd persevere with Crawley for now for much the same reason as I would Lawrence - potential and huge talent, which we've seen glimpses of from both)

I try not to be one eyed (unless we’re discussing God). I’ve seen a lot of Denly - and I was surprised he was picked in the first instance and said as much. In fact he did better than I expected him too. 

Crawley, not many had seen much of given his very early introduction. He has class and he’s shown he can do it - but he’s in an awful run of form. He’s very close to the axe and I wouldn’t argue if he went - but there’s no arguing Burns and definitely Sibley are at least as much in the line of fire given their own recent form and the simple fact Hameed is an opener. 

The only viable alternative for me to Crawley’s place is Malan - however I just don’t see Silverwood or Root going back to him, at least not yet. 

I’ll repeat again, I’m not really arguing with the points you make regarding Lawrence. Giving him one test in the English summer would usually be daft, but the feeling I have is he wasn’t picked on merit and was merely standing in until Pope was fit - unless he was so successful he simply couldn’t be dropped. But that very definitely hasn’t happened. 

Anyway, always good to chat cricket ! 

I notice Lords isn’t a sell out - got another email from them today. Wasn’t ever going to buy a ticket but had a nose to see ticket prices…£110 cheapest they had remaining and plenty more at £130+…

Think Trent Bridge was £55, my Headingley tickets are around £50 as are Old Trafford. Even the oval is only £85. Lords can fuck off ! 

[kaosmark2]

8 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Who will play at Lords? 

I think Hameed deserves his chance here - he’s played well consistently for Notts and has scored a hundred a couple of weeks back against India. Sibley for me misses out - although I wouldn’t argue against Burns being the victim. Crawley keeps his place through sheer lack of a viable alternative. 

Bairstow for me just isn’t a test cricketer unless the subject of a lobotomy. 

If they’re up to it, both Broad and Anderson should play. Between them they have taken 200 wickets at a combined average of circa 26. Where as Wood averages nearly 45 at Lords - now is not the time to bring him back. Robinson also deserves game time and at least can hold a bat. If you’re recalling Moeen to the squad presumably he plays. 

Therefore my team is:

Burns, Hameed, Crawley, Root, Pope, Buttler, Moeen, Curran, Robinson, Anderson, Broad (who has to bat 11!)

What’s your team and why? 

I want Hameed in the team, and I want Crawley out right now (I do expect to see him again in a year or two). That said, I wouldn't want Hameed at 3, so I'm going to promote Lawrence/Pope to 3 as I think that's still better than sticking than sticking with Crawley.

I still think Sibley is better than Burns overall, but given contrasting form this season, and ages, how do you get the most runs out of players right now, and long-term? I think if Sibley is dropped, and told he's still going to be in the squads and that he has a future, he'll come back a better player.

Bairstow is, IMO, a servicable WK/bat at 7, but notably inferior to Buttler and Foakes, and probably inferior to other keepers. If he's at 6/7 when at least 2 other keepers aren't available, fine, that's recalling someone with experience in case of injury, but I'd rather play any specialist bat in the top 5.

Apparently Broad pulled up in training today, and if he's as low as 90% fit I wouldn't play him. That said, I completely agree that Wood isn't suited to Lords (both in terms of averages, and his style of skiddy high-pace bowling). I'd still rather give him overs than Craig Overton though (why Mahmood wasn't called up with Archer and Stone injured I don't know).

Ergo:

Burns, Hameed, Lawrence, Root, Pope, Buttler, Moeen, Curran, Robinson, Wood, Anderson

If Broad's fit, very happy he's at Lords over Wood. If Pope isn't fit, I'd bat Hameed 3 and keep Sibley in over playing Crawley, retaining Lawrence over Bairstow. To me Wood possibly plays Headingley and definitely Old Trafford, probably in place of Curran, who comes back in-between for The Oval. I'd also be open to Malan coming back in for Headlingley. Not going to make comments on Woakes for the rest of the series until I hear more about how fit he is.

Edited August 10, 2021 by kaosmark2

[kingbadger]

4 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

As I said, I’m not really disagreeing with you I’m partly playing devils advocate and partly imagining what Silverwood is thinking. 

Burns, Sibley, and Crawley don’t really have any creditable opposition. Had they, at least one of them would have gone by now. The (re)emergence of Hameed may well see one of them gone soon, and not many would argue with the decision. 

Where as Lawrence has plenty - or at least that’s what Silverwood believes. Were one of Stokes or Pope fit, Lawrence wouldn’t be playing. If Pope is fit, Lawrence probably won’t play at Lords. Much will depend on the balance they’re after which brings the bowling all rounders into play too with Woakes (from the 3rd test onwards), Curran & Moeen. 

You simply can’t be a specialist number 6 batsmen for very long. You’re either successful and get trusted to move up the order. Or you fail. 

I try not to be one eyed (unless we’re discussing God). I’ve seen a lot of Denly - and I was surprised he was picked in the first instance and said as much. In fact he did better than I expected him too. 

Crawley, not many had seen much of given his very early introduction. He has class and he’s shown he can do it - but he’s in an awful run of form. He’s very close to the axe and I wouldn’t argue if he went - but there’s no arguing Burns and definitely Sibley are at least as much in the line of fire given their own recent form and the simple fact Hameed is an opener. 

The only viable alternative for me to Crawley’s place is Malan - however I just don’t see Silverwood or Root going back to him, at least not yet. 

I’ll repeat again, I’m not really arguing with the points you make regarding Lawrence. Giving him one test in the English summer would usually be daft, but the feeling I have is he wasn’t picked on merit and was merely standing in until Pope was fit - unless he was so successful he simply couldn’t be dropped. But that very definitely hasn’t happened. 

Anyway, always good to chat cricket ! 

I notice Lords isn’t a sell out - got another email from them today. Wasn’t ever going to buy a ticket but had a nose to see ticket prices…£110 cheapest they had remaining and plenty more at £130+…

Think Trent Bridge was £55, my Headingley tickets are around £50 as are Old Trafford. Even the oval is only £85. Lords can fuck off ! 

I completely agree that the fatal flaw with England's batting at the moment is that everyone wants to bat 5 or below. And the one quandary with Pope is that he's played the majority of his County career batting 5/6 and calling the flattest pitch in the country his home. Lawrence has at least batted 4 at Chelmsford for years so much more used to difficult English conditions and in the future only has to move up one position. I do think Pope/Lawrence/Crawley are all potential genuine top order Test match batsmen, and the issue is Root not being able to move up to 3. If he is genuinely one of the top batsmen in world cricket, then he should be able to do so, and then allow Pope/Lawrence to fall in behind. I can distinctly remember coming out of the previous India tour in 2016 (?) thinking we'd see a combination of Cook/Hameed/Jennings/Root cemented at the top of the order for the foreseeable. Halcyon days!

Buttler and Curran make for interesting cases that generally fly under the radar with everyone else being completely inept. Buttler looked more inept than anyone at Trent Bridge yet he seems to be getting pushed up the order by default. As for Curran, he's neither a batting or bowling all rounder. You can't really justify picking him as the 3rd seamer, nor realistically bat him higher than 8. I'm not sure he's ever going to be able to figure out his game in the longer format as a result. He's almost the ultimate bits and pieces cricketer - can whack it and gives you a left arm alternative. But I can't ever see him being given the space to breathe and prove he's genuine test quality with either ball or bat. His obvious handiness in the limited overs format might see him pigeonholed as a white ball only player, which would be a shame. 

Burns, Hameed, Root, Lawrence, Pope, Bairstow, Ali, Robinson, Wood, Anderson, Broad 

That's how I'd line up with everyone available. Bairstow seems good for getting 30 and out which is a damn sight more than it looks like we'd get out of Buttler right now. Root at 3 will never happen but I think it should, and I'd rather have Wood's pace as an alternative than Curran's left arm swingers, even if Lords isn't the quickest of decks. Overton would be overkill with both Broad and Robinson in there providing for tall right arm medium pace. 

[TheGayTent]

11 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

I want Hameed in the team, and I want Crawley out right now (I do expect to see him again in a year or two). That said, I wouldn't want Hameed at 3, so I'm going to promote Lawrence/Pope to 3 as I think that's still better than sticking than sticking with Crawley.

I still think Sibley is better than Burns overall, but given contrasting form this season, and ages, how do you get the most runs out of players right now, and long-term? I think if Sibley is dropped, and told he's still going to be in the squads and that he has a future, he'll come back a better player.

Bairstow is, IMO, a servicable WK/bat at 7, but notably inferior to Buttler and Foakes, and probably inferior to other keepers. If he's at 6/7 when at least 2 other keepers aren't available, fine, that's recalling someone with experience in case of injury, but I'd rather play any specialist bat in the top 5.

Apparently Broad pulled up in training today, and if he's as low as 90% fit I wouldn't play him. That said, I completely agree that Wood isn't suited to Lords (both in terms of averages, and his style of skiddy high-pace bowling). I'd still rather give him overs than Craig Overton though (why Mahmood wasn't called up with Archer and Stone injured I don't know).

Ergo:

Burns, Hameed, Lawrence, Root, Pope, Buttler, Moeen, Curran, Robinson, Wood, Anderson

If Broad's fit, very happy he's at Lords over Wood. If Pope isn't fit, I'd bat Hameed 3 and keep Sibley in over playing Crawley, retaining Lawrence over Bairstow. To me Wood possibly plays Headingley and definitely Old Trafford, probably in place of Curran, who comes back in-between for The Oval. I'd also be open to Malan coming back in for Headlingley. Not going to make comments on Woakes for the rest of the series until I hear more about how fit he is.

Don’t think there’s anything controversial in this…except Lawrence at 3….!

[TheGayTent]

9 hours ago, kingbadger said:

And the one quandary with Pope is that he's played the majority of his County career batting 5/6 and calling the flattest pitch in the country his home. Lawrence has at least batted 4 at Chelmsford for years so much more used to difficult English conditions and in the future only has to move up one position.

That’s a fair point about Pope and he’s also far from the finished article. My counter point re Lawrence is how many cheap boundaries he gets from playing on a tiny pitch week in week out? 

9 hours ago, kingbadger said:

 

I do think Pope/Lawrence/Crawley are all potential genuine top order Test match batsmen, and the issue is Root not being able to move up to 3.

Yes, agree to some extent. However Root is just not going anywhere from his position at 4, so the conversation is a pointless one. The only time I see that potentially changing is when Root is no longer the captain. Would a new captain/coach combo have the balls to say to England’s best ever batsman that if Root wants to play he has to play at 3? 

9 hours ago, kingbadger said:

I can distinctly remember coming out of the previous India tour in 2016 (?) thinking we'd see a combination of Cook/Hameed/Jennings/Root cemented at the top of the order for the foreseeable. Halcyon days!

I remember that well and being excited by both Hameed and Jennings. However, I’m pretty sure I made a comment on this very thread that may have involved the words swallow and summer! 

9 hours ago, kingbadger said:

Burns, Hameed, Root, Lawrence, Pope, Bairstow, Ali, Robinson, Wood, Anderson, Broad 

Wood is crap at Lords, maybe they’ll go with Mahmood? 

It’s a real shame Woakes is still a few weeks away from fitness. 

The issue with Moeen is that India only have 1 left hander in their top and middle order? 

Edited August 11, 2021 by TheGayTent