• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Who should open?

Opener?

  • Total voters
    15
Status
Not open for further replies.

Some 19 year old player NOMOREFALSEDAWNS has ever heard of, but in a month's time he'll be the future of English cricket.

Still think it's worth persevering with Root.
 
smoker said:
We talking about test or T20 here?[DOUBLEPOST=1391897215][/DOUBLEPOST]

Faster strike rate than Root in New Zealand and India and all
Click to expand...

Tests the Aussies showed us how to play aggressive cricket to win matches,Compton very very slow not in same class as Root in my opinion,Root has also been slow of late but has more ability than Compton so will develop,Compton had always been slow scorer and not test class batsman in my opinion.
 
Voice of fair play said:
Tests the Aussies showed us how to play aggressive cricket to win matches,Compton very very slow not in same class as Root in my opinion,Root has also been slow of late but has more ability than Compton so will develop,Compton had always been slow scorer and not test class batsman in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Debatable whether this is what England needed in the batting department. We lost a lot of wickets playing rash shots to good bowling.

I'm inclined to agree with Boycott on this one. We needed batsmen to play patiently and each ball on its merit, not try to force the pace. Johnson and Harris wouldn't have looked as good as they did over prolonged a spell. In fact, I'd bet Harris would have broken down if he'd bowled for 5 sessions or more.
 
smoker said:
Debatable whether this is what England needed in the batting department. We lost a lot of wickets playing rash shots to good bowling.

I'm inclined to agree with Boycott on this one. We needed batsmen to play patiently and each ball on its merit, not try to force the pace. Johnson and Harris wouldn't have looked as good as they did over prolonged a spell. In fact, I'd bet Harris would have broken down if he'd bowled for 5 sessions or more.
Click to expand...

Funny how people look at things,I thought the exact opposite,thought we went into our shell,which allowed Harris and Siddle just to keep bowling on that length,hence that created the pressure on the batsman to score,then the rash shots came.

Where Warner went after our bowling which meant our bowlers had to try something different I.e upset their rhythm.

To be fair I can see your point,suppose depends on the wicket whether you should be going after the bowling or not.
 
Voice of fair play said:
Funny how people look at things,I thought the exact opposite,thought we went into our shell,which allowed Harris and Siddle just to keep bowling on that length,hence that created the pressure on the batsman to score,then the rash shots came.

Where Warner went after our bowling which meant our bowlers had to try something different I.e upset their rhythm.
Click to expand...

Most Warner's runs were scored in the second innings, attacking tired bowling in 30 degrees+.

Their first innings were generally built around Rogers taking the leather off the ball.

I would agree there (should be) room for both philosophies. England seemed to be neither one nor the other though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top