Rory Burns

[rentaghost]

Can feel very hard done by not getting an England call. 1000 runs every season of late, started like a train this year. Another big hundred in his current game while Jennings has had two failures. Seemed a strange choice to me but they can hardly pick Jennings and now drop him I suppose.

 

[brandon]

Can feel very hard done by not getting an England call. 1000 runs every season of late, started like a train this year. Another big hundred in his current game while Jennings has had two failures. Seemed a strange choice to me but they can hardly pick Jennings and now drop him I suppose.

Aye, few of us on here who agree with you there. Especially @TheRey

 

[TheRey]

Aye, few of us on here who agree with you there. Especially @TheRey

 

[The Rat]

Can feel very hard done by not getting an England call. 1000 runs every season of late, started like a train this year. Another big hundred in his current game while Jennings has had two failures. Seemed a strange choice to me but they can hardly pick Jennings and now drop him I suppose.

Jennings has more about him IMO

We've always picked the top scoring openers in the county since Strauss retired, he might get a chance, but maybe its time to look at something different

I mean Stoneman outscored him for years and he wasn't quite good enough

 

[brandon]

Jennings has more about him IMO

We've always picked the top scoring openers in the county since Strauss retired, he might get a chance, but maybe its time to look at something different

I mean Stoneman outscored him for years and he wasn't quite good enough

That isn't a valid reason not to give Burns a go though is it? In fairness.

You can only really go off what lads do against the attacks in front of them in the format that is mostly like Test Cricket.

 

[The Rat]

That isn't a valid reason not to give Burns a go though is it? In fairness.

You can only really go off what lads do against the attacks in front of them in the format that is mostly like Test Cricket.

Yeah not at all, just saying, its not like he has been missing out to players who weren't doing better than him

He might be next cab off the rank, but he hasn't torn apart attacks. All I am saying.

 

[rentaghost]

Jennings has more about him IMO

We've always picked the top scoring openers in the county since Strauss retired, he might get a chance, but maybe its time to look at something different

I mean Stoneman outscored him for years and he wasn't quite good enough

I don't think a player should have the fact that he has scored a shitload more runs than other openers held against him. Jennings to me is just an outside edge waiting to happen against quality bowlers that put it there often enough. Burns and Jennings are unproven at test level but Burns has done more to warrant selection. Jennings is mentally strong when well set but you have to get well set often enough and with such an obvious technical flaw I am not sure he will.

 

[The Rat]

I don't think a player should have the fact that he has scored a shitload more runs than other openers held against him. Jennings to me is just an outside edge waiting to happen against quality bowlers that put it there often enough. Burns and Jennings are unproven at test level but Burns has done more to warrant selection. Jennings is mentally strong when well set but you have to get well set often enough and with such an obvious technical flaw I am not sure he will.

He hasn't scored a shit load more runs than everyone else

He might have scored more this particular year, but wasn't long ago that Jennings scored a shit load more than him, or Stoneman did, or Lyth did.

 

[rentaghost]

He hasn't scored a shit load more runs than everyone else

He might have scored more this particular year, but wasn't long ago that Jennings scored a shit load more than him, or Stoneman did, or Lyth did.

I think with Jennings, Lyth and Hameed you can look at one tremendous season in a sea of mediocrity (less so with Lyth who was a strong performer until he failed at test level. With Stoneman and Burns you have a record of good (not necessarily exceptional) performances every year. You would have to go back 5 years to find a season where Burns didn't get 1000 runs while Jennings I think has achieved that only once. On recent form Jennings had an absolute car crash of a season last year, a disastrous Lions Tour and averages 37 in the championship this year compared to 62 by Burns who has scored more runs than anyone else in the country. At the moment the problem is no-one has completely and utterly smashed the door down but Burns is as close to anyone. I can't really see an argument for Jennings ahead of him but he is in possession and its his to lose. I do hope he succeeds - he seems a nice kid.

 

[The Rat]

I think with Jennings, Lyth and Hameed you can look at one tremendous season in a sea of mediocrity (less so with Lyth who was a strong performer until he failed at test level. With Stoneman and Burns you have a record of good (not necessarily exceptional) performances every year. You would have to go back 5 years to find a season where Burns didn't get 1000 runs while Jennings I think has achieved that only once. On recent form Jennings had an absolute car crash of a season last year, a disastrous Lions Tour and averages 37 in the championship this year compared to 62 by Burns who has scored more runs than anyone else in the country. At the moment the problem is no-one has completely and utterly smashed the door down but Burns is as close to anyone. I can't really see an argument for Jennings ahead of him but he is in possession and its his to lose. I do hope he succeeds - he seems a nice kid.

Yeah he might be next cab off the rank, but you don't just pick the top scorer every year do you, selection isnt that simple

He might deserve a chance but we have picked all our openers, bar Hameed, on being just about the top run scorer, and its not worked.

I just don'tthink its black or white

Remember he plays on one of the best pitches in the country, probably the best pitch, so I am sure that has helped him a lot

 

[rentaghost]

Yeah he might be next cab off the rank, but you don't just pick the top scorer every year do you, selection isnt that simple

He might deserve a chance but we have picked all our openers, bar Hameed, on being just about the top run scorer, and its not worked.

I just don'tthink its black or white

Remember he plays on one of the best pitches in the country, probably the best pitch, so I am sure that has helped him a lot

There are of course other considerations but weight of runs has to be a very important one. If you aren't choosing the heaviest run scorer you would think you would have to have very strong reasons for selecting some one else. The criteria for Jennings seems to be:

1) Clear technical flaw at the top level
2) Moderate season this season averaging 37
3) Catastrophic season last year in division 2
4) terrible tour of the West Indies against weak WI second string
5) A poor test record where he averages 14 after his promising hundred (where he was dropped on 0)

Its OK saying 'you don't pick on runs only' but there has to be some rationale for choosing the player you select.

 

[The Rat]

There are of course other considerations but weight of runs has to be a very important one. If you aren't choosing the heaviest run scorer you would think you would have to have very strong reasons for selecting some one else. The criteria for Jennings seems to be:

1) Clear technical flaw at the top level
2) Moderate season this season averaging 37
3) Catastrophic season last year in division 2
4) terrible tour of the West Indies against weak WI second string
5) A poor test record where he averages 14 after his promising hundred (where he was dropped on 0)

Its OK saying 'you don't pick on runs only' but there has to be some rationale for choosing the player you select.

I am not saying you don't pick the heaviest run scorer

All I am saying is we have done that a lot with the openers in recent years, I think nearly all of them have been picked deservedly over Burns

Not saying he should never be picked, I just don't feel he has been hard done by, he could be an option and might be a success

Jennings has something about him like, I think he looks like he has got rid of that flaw, and I think he has the charachter to come back

I think his call was warranted he had been in decent form in the immediate build up to it, and has a test 100 in India, can't just dismiss that

There is plenty of rationale by Jennings, he is rated highly but a lot of people

 

[rentaghost]

I am not saying you don't pick the heaviest run scorer

All I am saying is we have done that a lot with the openers in recent years, I think nearly all of them have been picked deservedly over Burns

Not saying he should never be picked, I just don't feel he has been hard done by, he could be an option and might be a success

Jennings has something about him like, I think he looks like he has got rid of that flaw, and I think he has the charachter to come back

I think his call was warranted he had been in decent form in the immediate build up to it, and has a test 100 in India, can't just dismiss that

There is plenty of rationale by Jennings, he is rated highly but a lot of people

Good post - I don't think he has got rid of the flaw though. It wasn't just his dismissal which was typical of what we had seen before it was the number of runs he scored with the outer half of the bat. Anyway time will tell - good luck to the kid. I always like to see players with Durham connections do well.

 

[The Rat]

Good post - I don't think he has got rid of the flaw though. It wasn't just his dismissal which was typical of what we had seen before it was the number of runs he scored with the outer half of the bat. Anyway time will tell - good luck to the kid. I always like to see players with Durham connections do well.

I think he had changed his stance slightly

There is defs an argument for Burns, but I'd say before this year others have performed him

They are going with Jennings based on character like

I personally think there is an issue with batting with Cook, with Stoneman for example, he must have out scored Cook in most of the innings, but Cook got a couple of big scores so Rocky always under pressure

 

[mackemmover94]

I think he had changed his stance slightly

There is defs an argument for Burns, but I'd say before this year others have performed him

They are going with Jennings based on character like

I personally think there is an issue with batting with Cook, with Stoneman for example, he must have out scored Cook in most of the innings, but Cook got a couple of big scores so Rocky always under pressure

Interesting point this - just had a check and stoneman out scored cook 12 times and cook was the higher scorer 8 times when opened together in tests. Must admit (for both of them) sometimes a 14 beats a 3 for example.

In the same time cook had 1 50 (70 v Pakistan at Lords in Stoneman’s last test) and 2 unbeaten double hundreds (inc. in the day/night in Birmingham where stoneman made debut). Stoneman had 0 hundreds and 5 50s - high score of 60.

Always said that stats can be used to show whatever you want them to show, but over the same time period they batted together Stoneman scores 516 runs @ 27.16 and Cook 754 @ 41.89 - of course 2 unbeaten double tons help that but weight of runs has always been what England look for and Cook (most of the time) delivers..

I know you aren’t comparing Stoneman with cook here before you bite my head off, just thought it was interesting reading while seeing how they did compare as opening partners

 

[The Rat]

Interesting point this - just had a check and stoneman out scored cook 12 times and cook was the higher scorer 8 times when opened together in tests. Must admit (for both of them) sometimes a 14 beats a 3 for example.

In the same time cook had 1 50 (70 v Pakistan at Lords in Stoneman’s last test) and 2 unbeaten double hundreds (inc. in the day/night in Birmingham where stoneman made debut). Stoneman had 0 hundreds and 5 50s - high score of 60.

Always said that stats can be used to show whatever you want them to show, but over the same time period they batted together Stoneman scores 516 runs @ 27.16 and Cook 754 @ 41.89 - of course 2 unbeaten double tons help that but weight of runs has always been what England look for and Cook (most of the time) delivers..

I know you aren’t comparing Stoneman with cook here before you bite my head off, just thought it was interesting reading while seeing how they did compare as opening partners

Fair points

What I am saying though is that Cook has so many droughts, he will get a 200 then like 10 low scores. That is always putting pressure on his opening partner. In reality we just need a couple of 50 and 60 partnerships to see off the new ball

We are often like 30 for 3 but Cook is a big reason for this

You can't drop him but its asking a lot of the other partner

 

[mackemmover94]

Fair points

What I am saying though is that Cook has so many droughts, he will get a 200 then like 10 low scores. That is always putting pressure on his opening partner. In reality we just need a couple of 50 and 60 partnerships to see off the new ball

We are often like 30 for 3 but Cook is a big reason for this

You can't drop him but its asking a lot of the other partner

Don’t disagree - again just looking at his scores, between the 243* in the day/night and his 244* in Melbourne he had 10 innings with a high score of 37 and next best 23. Stoneman has 3 fifties during that same 10 inning stretch.

Cook/Stoneman only had 2 50 partnerships during that time period - maybe Stoneman was the fall guy because of the weight of runs in big innings Cook did score..

 

[The Rat]

Don’t disagree - again just looking at his scores, between the 243* in the day/night and his 244* in Melbourne he had 10 innings with a high score of 37 and next best 23. Stoneman has 3 fifties during that same 10 inning stretch.

Cook/Stoneman only had 2 50 partnerships during that time period - maybe Stoneman was the fall guy because of the weight of runs in big innings Cook did score..

Certainly was

Stoneman ahd to be dropped eventually, so out of form

What really really annoyed me, was during the NZ series he did fine, tough batting conditions and he saw off the new ball, averaged 40+ witth a few 50s

in the media, none of that was acknowledged, it was just "oh he didn't get a 100", absolute bullshit. He was doing the job of 2 openers that series as cook was averaging 3 or something.

I also think this obsession with 100s isnt helping batsman settle, it never used to be like this

For example Malan was no better than Stoneman at all, but he got one 100, so therefore he is "safe"

 

[TheRey]

The Banstead Lara.

What a man.