Voice of fair play
Striker
That's all well and good in theory and makes total sense, there is only one problem with it , the proper batsman are not there! and more to the point not good enough imo.
-
The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Ashes 5 test - The Oval
- Thread starter Mr Redknapp
- Start date
- Status
That's all well and good in theory and makes total sense, there is only one problem with it , the proper batsman are not there! and more to the point not good enough imo.
Pope should be playing. Proper batsman
Take a punt on someone young for the winter. I’ll admit I have seen little, but Crawley or Sibley.
Buttler has failed. He’s a 7 and a keeper or nothing. He’s not a specialist bat.
Voice of fair play
Striker
Possibly Pope should be given a chance, but really nothing or nobody else good enough,that's why we are where we are.
I get the point as what you say makes sense, the same as I get @The Rat point about moving up players in the order.
But both your points only make sense in theory, if we have good top order batsman waiting in the wings.
But imo we don't which is why the likes of Bairstow, Roy, Buttler etc have been in the side, and why players have been moved up the order.
Hence my point was that in the winter we need to blood them
rentaghost
Striker
Its a fair article. We shouldn't blame the pitches when we lose although I do think we should do more to make them support us at home.
All I’d say is you said this last year and you could argue we found one in burns
Why can’t we find 2 more?
We will never be consistent moving players around
In the last 3 tests stokes will have batted 4,5,6
Bairstow 5,6,7
Buttler 5,6,7
We can’t then nail them when they fail
They are being moving around and their roles changes
A number 7 has a lot different role to your number 5
We do
Not against till waiting till after the series
Dropping a bloke in for a 5th test never leads to anything let’s be honest
Lots of cricket in winter, a clear philosophy needed
Last edited:
Now this I agree with fully
Give players a run in a settled position that best suits and if they fail I’ll fully say drop them
There’s always other cricketers to play.
---Nemo---
Striker
We lost Jimmy Anderson. That was it IMO. We're unable to pressurise the OZ batsmen full time.
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
Not if you don't think they good enough!
There is nothing wrong with a clear philosophy but you must have the players to back it up and we haven't.
The selectors made a massive mistake opening with Roy, said that from the very beginning but apart from that he players selected were probably the best batsman available and probably still are!
It's alright saying this player is not test level and should be dropped we can all say that ,it's easy.
But it's the basis of any sport you drop players when you think they are better players to take their place, and the selectors didn't drop the likes of Bairstow and Buttler for this test, because they don't think they are better batsman out there and I agree with them!
In another era they would have been out of the side.
I also think you over think the places in the batting obviously there is a massive difference in Roy's case from say opening to the middle order, but is there really much difference between someone batting 5 rather then 6 or 6 rather than 7.
I don't think soo!
It's more to do with the form and ability they have, than they actually number , for example imo if Steve Smith was batting 3 rather than 4 he would still be a run machine as in form and class act.
Last edited:
I think that’s the entire point. We don’t know if they are
Without a chance
Voice of fair play
Striker
We probably don't, just opinions, but that's why they employ selectors to make a judgement call whether they can make the step up or not.
And if the people who make them decisions think they can then make that step up then make the change,if they don't then don't.
Bri
Striker
and the big one is a new coach .....
there as an article in the DT, yesterday or the day before, and the gist of it was England prepared for three weeks for this series while Australia had been preparing for three years. That's the kind of
Don't agree withthat in bold like, thats the point, there is
And until we start thinking like that we can't improve
sorry butcan't have players batting in 3 different places in 3 tests
Last 2 years we have tried to shoe horn lower order players inthetop 5
stop doijg that, pick out andout batsman in those positions
if they can't score runs, try someone else, there will be players who take their chance
Last edited:
The Breen Machine
Striker
People saying that there are no "proper" batsmen out there to pick is nonsense IMO. It's all about having the balls to give them a chance, the selectors should be assessing who's technique and temperament looks like it will stand up in test match cricket. Whilst averages are a good guide, as mentioned countless times the like of Vaughan and Trescothick had very moderate county records but Fletcher saw something in them - they were rough diamonds and he polished them. That's what we need now, a coach and selection team able to identify talent and be able to hone it into a test match batsman. I don't think any of our test match batsmen have improved under they Bayliss regime with the exception of Stokes perhaps who is a rare talent anyway.
We need to remember here that the alternative to picking the likes of Pope, Sibley, Crawley etc is persisting with the following:
Jos Buttler - 1 test hundred in 35 tests and 5 FC hundreds at the age of 29.
Jonny Bairstow - A test match average of 29 over his last 36 tests and 1 year in 7 averaging over 35 in test cricket.
Joe Denly - 33, averaging 24 in 7 tests.
Jason Roy - Huge technical issues in test cricket and averaging under 20 in 5 tests to date.
Surely there are guys in county cricket that at least deserve a chance? The problem with England's selection of late is that it's been very lazy. Woakes drops out so Overton comes in, Denly plays because he had a good year last season and can bowl a bit. Ali is in and out - there's no real thought outside of the current pool of players. Good test sides rarely persist with under performers for as long as we do. I'm hoping a new coach will bring a fresh approach as under Bayliss I think it's been poor of late.
We need to remember here that the alternative to picking the likes of Pope, Sibley, Crawley etc is persisting with the following:
Jos Buttler - 1 test hundred in 35 tests and 5 FC hundreds at the age of 29.
Jonny Bairstow - A test match average of 29 over his last 36 tests and 1 year in 7 averaging over 35 in test cricket.
Joe Denly - 33, averaging 24 in 7 tests.
Jason Roy - Huge technical issues in test cricket and averaging under 20 in 5 tests to date.
Surely there are guys in county cricket that at least deserve a chance? The problem with England's selection of late is that it's been very lazy. Woakes drops out so Overton comes in, Denly plays because he had a good year last season and can bowl a bit. Ali is in and out - there's no real thought outside of the current pool of players. Good test sides rarely persist with under performers for as long as we do. I'm hoping a new coach will bring a fresh approach as under Bayliss I think it's been poor of late.
We've tried loads of players like mate.
I can't believe the attention Sibley is getting, there is an argument he couldhave played in this series, but not before it, his record before the last 12 months was ordinary to say the least
Burns and Denly have been tried and done OK this series.
They will try some more in the winter, you don't just dump players in 1 game at end of the series, again why do people put he likes of Bairstow in these conversations, he is wicket keeper who should be batting 7!!! His average has absolutely no relevance to any potential opener or numner 3, genuinely no revelavance.
Your confusion is summed up well in the bits in bold , Denly has been picked for the very reasons you think Sibley should be picked. Denly has been one of the top scorers over the last 2 seasons in the country,
even this year he scored 2 big 100s in division 1 against good attacks.Why should Sibley be picked and he not picked? I don't get your point at all, he has even scored 2 50s in his last 3 innings
The Breen Machine
Striker
It has every relevance when he's batting at 5 and 6 more often than 7 and Pope is waiting in the wings. If he was averaging 29 at number 7 only it still wouldn't be acceptable. Let's face it, he's not performing well enough wherever he bats, he has some mitigation in that he's been shifted around a bit but he's an experienced cricketer and there's not a huge difference between batting at 6 and batting at 7.
Sibley has shown he can bat long and make big hundreds, surely a sign of a capable opening batsman? He's young enough to have his best years ahead of him as opposed to Denly who has very little long-term investment and IMO was picked based on a strong T20 season in which he took plenty wickets with his leg-spin to offer us a third spinning option in SL & WI. With the bat so far he looks like an older James Vince.
I have no problems with Burns FWIW and he should be persisted with.
He wasn't though, thats a lie, he has been one of the top 5 run scorers in county cricket over the last 2 seasons, you are wrong about that.
Your logic for picking Sibley is the same logic for picking Denly
and the average of your wicket keeper has no relevance to the average of Dominic Sibley or Crawley
You compare it the averages of the likes of Foakes and co in CC,nobody else.
I think the confusion in your post is probably influenced by the confusion in the selectors in all fairness
The Breen Machine
Striker
Are you on the selection team? His CC form will have influenced his selection but there's little doubt to me that his form as a leg-spinner in T20 last season sealed the deal when we were looking for a third spinner for the two winter tours.
You are missing my point completely about Bairstow, I'm not comparing him to Crawley or Sibley. His and Buttler's direct competition is Pope and Foakes, if Bairstow is batting 5/6 and Buttler playing as a specialist batsman then neither are performing well enough. You could replace both with the above, for all you point to Foakes's CC average this season, he's already shown his capabilities in test cricket so it's less relevant to me.
- Status
