Cricket

[pink_triangle]

The only way they could have been better if it had been Australia at the other end. I'm not a massive fan of the super over, but both teams knew the score going into it.

Someone on the radio stated he felt going on boundaries as the final decider encourages positive play. I honestly doubt any teams have tactics that consider a tied super over!

[pink_triangle]

Have heard a few people say that tied matches should be decided on wickets lost in which case New Zealand would have won.  I suspect if that had been the tiebreaker Stokes would have played a very different shot on the last ball.

[TheGayTent]

17 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Have heard a few people say that tied matches should be decided on wickets lost in which case New Zealand would have won.  I suspect if that had been the tiebreaker Stokes would have played a very different shot on the last ball.

For sure, that full toss would have been dispatched half way up the mound stand 

[TheGayTent]

Off to Lord’s tomorrow for the purest form of the game - well sort of...we’re missing a day, I will laugh if it ends in a draw...

[kaosmark2]

I'm quite envious. With the world Cup games I had tickets due rained off in not going to see any international cricket this summer. Lords and ashes tickets are beyond my budget so just going to look to do a bit more next year. 

England are looking fairly flush with bowling options at present, but the top order is still changing. I'm still not convinced by Denly, and while I'll be interested to see Roy in tests, I'm not sure how well it will go. 

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'm quite envious. With the world Cup games I had tickets due rained off in not going to see any international cricket this summer. Lords and ashes tickets are beyond my budget so just going to look to do a bit more next year. 

England are looking fairly flush with bowling options at present, but the top order is still changing. I'm still not convinced by Denly, and while I'll be interested to see Roy in tests, I'm not sure how well it will go. 

Archer misses at least the first ashes test. Wood misses at least the first three.

Suddenly our bowling options don’t look quite as flush? Especially given Anderson clearly isn’t 100%. 

We can go Woakes but he doesn’t have the express pace that either Archer or Wood have. 

Or we can go with the unproven pace of someone like Stone. 

The convicts fast bowling attack looks more potent to me. 

[kaosmark2]

47 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Archer misses at least the first ashes test. Wood misses at least the first three.

Suddenly our bowling options don’t look quite as flush? Especially given Anderson clearly isn’t 100%. 

We can go Woakes but he doesn’t have the express pace that either Archer or Wood have. 

Or we can go with the unproven pace of someone like Stone. 

The convicts fast bowling attack looks more potent to me. 

Woakes has a really impressive record at both Edgbaston and Lords, so hopefully missing an express bowler won't be quite as painful as it could have been. I feel like Anderson will play the first, but might then miss the 2nd, particularly if Curran bowls well vs them and Archer is back. 

There's the odd report of Starc having a strain from the WC. I don't think the Aussies have anyone to fear outside of their 4 main bowlers from the mauling down under, but getting through them will be tough. Hazelwood not having any WC exertions while still being fully fit is a scary prospect. 

[TheGayTent]

On 6/23/2019 at 5:43 PM, kaosmark2 said:

Personally, I'd leave out Broad and go with an Anderson/Wood/Stokes/Moeen + 1 depending on surface attack, but that's not going to happen.

Still don’t get this. Even if Wood and Archer were both fit, Broad starts for me. 

[Homer]

I'm in a Test Match special group on Facebook and the amount of people picking their Ashes team with six bowlers in (i saw one with seven) is ridiculous. And they're all with five seamers and one spinner too. Not sure that balance is going to help with the batting collapses, to be honest.

I reckon they'll go with:

Burns
Roy
Denley
Root
Buttler
Stokes
Bairstow
Mo
Woakes
Broad
Anderson

Then rotate the quicks later. Might be a bit early for Archer with just one 20/20 game under his belt.

[TheGayTent]

On most surfaces that bowling line up is too ‘samey’ and doesn’t offer enough variety. I think the Edgbaston wicket might be the exception that proves the rule. I’d certainly be bringing in Archer or Wood for Woakes at Old Trafford and The Oval. 

[kaosmark2]

I'd put Woakes in at Edgbaston. I'd want a genuine pace bowler everywhere else though.

[Homer]

Yeah, Woakes' record at Edgbaston is extremely good (plus he just took a six-four).

[TheGayTent]

So Root at 3 then. Just hope the openers can put on at least a 50 partnership before he has to come in....

[kaosmark2]

I don't really get the point of it. Denly was brought in as a top order option, there's other players who could probably do a better job in the middle order at 4 or below if Root is moving up.

I don't think the openers will regularly put on 50 partnerships, I feel Roy's going to be incredibly hit and miss, but everyone is banking on the times he does score well being so impactful it makes up for the failures. I'll be interested to see how Burns goes. He's clearly got the mentality and defense against good balls, but he's managed to find ways to get out stupidly and get out of the form he's been in in county cricket. Still better than players like Jennings or Lyth mind!

[TheGayTent]

23 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't really get the point of it. 

Neither do I...but then I wouldn’t pick Burns anyway. 

 

[kaosmark2]

3 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Neither do I...but then I wouldn’t pick Burns anyway. 

 

Think Denly is a better opening option?

[TheGayTent]

11 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Think Denly is a better opening option?

No. Joe hasn’t opened regularly in red ball cricket in a long time. 

I think 6 innings including a run out that was down to his captain isn’t long enough to judge him. I didn’t think he warranted his call up in the first place - but now he’s there he deserves his chance. 

Burns on the other hand has played 14 innings and still averages less than 25. I think that’s probably enough chances. 

[kaosmark2]

19 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

No. Joe hasn’t opened regularly in red ball cricket in a long time. 

I think 6 innings including a run out that was down to his captain isn’t long enough to judge him. I didn’t think he warranted his call up in the first place - but now he’s there he deserves his chance. 

Burns on the other hand has played 14 innings and still averages less than 25. I think that’s probably enough chances. 

Agreed on most of those points tbh. The question is who is the next one to try. Sibley probably, but throwing someone straight in for the Ashes feels like a tough intro. I also don't think there's any of the previously tried ones who I'd go back to (apart from Hameed if he ever regains form).

[Homer]

On 7/28/2019 at 6:56 PM, Homer said:

Burns
Roy
Denley
Root
Buttler
Stokes
Bairstow
Mo
Woakes
Broad
Anderson
 

team announced, as above

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, Homer said:

team announced, as above

Well you've got the batting order wrong ?

No surprise really though. Woakes' record at Edgbaston justifies his inclusion, and is a half-cocked Archer going to be more of a threat than Broad on that sort of pitch? Probably not enough to be worth risking him when we'll need genuine pace at Lords.

[Homer]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't really get the point of it. Denly was brought in as a top order option, there's other players who could probably do a better job in the middle order at 4 or below if Root is moving up.

I don't think the openers will regularly put on 50 partnerships, I feel Roy's going to be incredibly hit and miss, but everyone is banking on the times he does score well being so impactful it makes up for the failures. I'll be interested to see how Burns goes. He's clearly got the mentality and defense against good balls, but he's managed to find ways to get out stupidly and get out of the form he's been in in county cricket. Still better than players like Jennings or Lyth mind!

Agreed, I thought shoving Root to 3 was worth it in order to accommodate more of our plethora of players whpoare suitable further down the order was a good idea (Bairstow to 4, Foakes in keeping at 7). But taking the risk in order to get more out of Denly (who is allegedly a 3 anyway) doesn't make much sense!

[Homer]

Just now, kaosmark2 said:

Well you've got the batting order wrong ?

No surprise really though. Woakes' record at Edgbaston justifies his inclusion, and is a half-cocked Archer going to be more of a threat than Broad on that sort of pitch? Probably not enough to be worth risking him when we'll need genuine pace at Lords.

Ha - I was going to flag that but couldn't be bothered!

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Agreed, I thought shoving Root to 3 was worth it in order to accommodate more of our plethora of players whpoare suitable further down the order was a good idea (Bairstow to 4, Foakes in keeping at 7). But taking the risk in order to get more out of Denly (who is allegedly a 3 anyway) doesn't make much sense!

I want Foakes in even if it means dropping Bairstow. He saves at least 20 runs a test with his keeping, and I don't think his batting average is going to end up notably lower anyway. Bairstow gets bowled too often to bat in the top 4, and I don't think he offers enough to keep other players out of the team.

[TheGayTent]

Bairstow averages less than 30 since the beginning of 2017 (26 tests). 

[TheGayTent]

3 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

Agreed on most of those points tbh. The question is who is the next one to try. Sibley probably, but throwing someone straight in for the Ashes feels like a tough intro. I also don't think there's any of the previously tried ones who I'd go back to (apart from Hameed if he ever regains form).

Crawley...but I might be biased...