• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

[1st Test] England v Pakistan (Old Trafford)

Status
Not open for further replies.
TravellingMackem said:
I only added the counter balance you missed off


Decent doesn’t cut the mustard at test level. A 38 does not get you out of the shit at all. If he went on and made a good 70 not out, that would get us out of the shit. Not 38. So don’t exaggerate. Shit that he caused with his 5 drops in this game let’s not forget
Click to expand...
No you didn’t. You added incorrect and exaggerated nonsense slanted to make him appear a lot worse than he is. And then tell someone else not to exaggerate!
chunkylover53 said:
Absolutely baffling some of these arguments mind
Click to expand...
We just ignoring the fact your 100s argument has been blown out the water then? Ok.
 
Last edited:

TravellingMackem said:
I only added the counter balance you missed off


Decent doesn’t cut the mustard at test level. A 38 does not get you out of the shit at all. If he went on and made a good 70 not out, that would get us out of the shit. Not 38. So don’t exaggerate. Shit that he caused with his 5 drops in this game let’s not forget
Click to expand...

Guess we must have diffrent perspectives on a keepers role as a batsman, as in the first innings we were in massive trouble at 62 for 4 when he came to the crease obviously too high in the batting line up judged by people’s opinions of him, then adapted his natural game to dig in and get us out of that horrdeous situation and when go out at 159, when all other batsman apart from Pope were struggling massively,then when came in when we were again in massive trouble, in the second innings, realised the situation was diffrent assessesed what was needed in the game and adapted his game to a a more attacking style and him and Woakes won the game, all on the back of probably is worst keeping performance for years.

Cricket to me is assessing the game situation and batting according to that situation and aside from the actual scores his assessed that perfectly in both innings.
 
Last edited:
Salem Street South said:
No you didn’t. You added incorrect and exaggerated nonsense slanted to make him appear a lot worse than he is. And then tell someone else not to exaggerate!

We just ignoring the fact your 100s argument has been blown out the water then? Ok.
Click to expand...
Has it? It really hasn’t.

we get it, you rate him. But objectively his record is average at best.

he was excellent yesterday, but over the last 2 years has been poor.
 
chunkylover53 said:
Has it? It really hasn’t.

we get it, you rate him. But objectively his record is average at best.

he was excellent yesterday, but over the last 2 years has been poor.
Click to expand...

Yeah you make fair points, however think fair he is judged of averages and performances over a number of years, and even me as his biggest fan, can see them points.

So objectively yeah his test record could be better.

However don’t think fair to judge a wicketkeeper/ batsman on amount of 100s mainly batting at 7, should be judged on the other points you have made.
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Yeah you make fair points, however think fair he is judged of averages and performances over a number of years, and even me as his biggest fan, can see them points.

So objectively yeah his test record could be better.

However don’t think fair to judge a wicketkeeper/ batsman on amount of 100s mainly batting at 7, should be judged on the other points you have made.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But objectively he is worse on that metric than all his peers. They all have the same limitations
 
chunkylover53 said:
Has it? It really hasn’t.

we get it, you rate him. But objectively his record is average at best.

he was excellent yesterday, but over the last 2 years has been poor.
Click to expand...
Well yes it has really.

You’ve criticised his number of 100s repeatedly without acknowledging context (batting position, game situation, times left with tail etc) then claimed 100s win games not 50s, when comprehensively in his particular case the opposite is true.

In general, I’d agree that is true, but more relevant for the top order.

I do rate him, but as I’ve said before I’d be perfectly happy with any one of the three keepers playing. I just don’t like seeing criticism of him that I think is unfair and unbalanced.

I’d argue his record is average at worst, with some notable highlights, and room for improvement, which I think it is.
 
Salem Street South said:
Well yes it has really.

You’ve criticised his number of 100s repeatedly without acknowledging context (batting position, game situation, times left with tail etc) then claimed 100s win games not 50s, when comprehensively in his particular case the opposite is true.

In general, I’d agree that is true, but more relevant for the top order.

I do rate him, but as I’ve said before I’d be perfectly happy with any one of the three keepers playing. I just don’t like seeing criticism of him that I think is unfair and unbalanced.

I’d argue his record is average at worst, with some notable highlights, and room for improvement, which I think it is.
Click to expand...
I disagree fully. But am bored now
 
Just want to add to the buttler debate, he wont be getting dropped as he is in the “management group”. Root, Stokes, Buttler . He is feared by the opposition mainly with his one day stuff but they know he can destroy an attack in a session.

bad news for foakes but imo that’s how it is
 
So. Next test starts Thursday. What changes (if any) would people make?

I think we need an extra batsman - Buttler at 6 is definitely too high
I'd bring Crawley back in, then rest Anderson and Archer for Robinson and Wood assuming Stokes is fit to bowl
Not sure Bess has done anything wrong, but he doesn't look particularly threatening. Lack of better alternatives probably keeps him his place

Burns
Sibley
Crawley
Root (c)
Stokes
Pope
Buttler
Woakes
Broad
Wood
Robinson
 
Salem Street South said:
No you didn’t. You added incorrect and exaggerated nonsense slanted to make him appear a lot worse than he is. And then tell someone else not to exaggerate!

We just ignoring the fact your 100s argument has been blown out the water then? Ok.
Click to expand...

1 hundred in 70 odd innings is frankly a disgrace. His wicket keeping is a disgrace. Doesn’t even get selected for county red ball, yet England are somehow supposed to be happy for him? Absolute joke. And if you want to talk incorrect, foakes kept in SL not Jos
Voice of fair play said:
Guess we must have diffrent perspectives on a keepers role as a batsman, as in the first innings we were in massive trouble at 62 for 4 when he came to the crease obviously too high in the batting line up judged by people’s opinions of him, then adapted his natural game to dig in and get us out of that horrdeous situation and when go out at 159, when all other batsman apart from Pope were struggling massively,then when came in when we were again in massive trouble, in the second innings, realised the situation was diffrent assessesed what was needed in the game and adapted his game to a a more attacking style and him and Woakes won the game, all on the back of probably is worst keeping performance for years.

Cricket to me is assessing the game situation and batting according to that situation and aside from the actual scores his assessed that perfectly in both innings.
Click to expand...

He’s done well in one innings once. Pope pulled us out the shit first innings, not Buttlers still sub par score. You can’t use the failings of the rest of the team to justify his selection. His average for this game still barely exceeded the expected average of a test level batsman let’s not forget. Are we forgetting the previous 50 tests when he contributed fuck all? Really struggling to think of more than a handful of contributions he’s made. In significantly shorter test careers we have had more impact made on games by many lower order players, including foakes himself, the would be replacement. One innings doesn’t make him worthy of selection
TheRey said:
Burns
Sibley
Crawley
Root (C)
Stokes
Pope
Foakes (wk)
Woakes
Bess
Broad
Wood
Click to expand...

This is what I’d go with. Archer for Crawley if stokes isn’t fit to bowl.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top