• 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.
TopCat said:
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
Click to expand...
Bess will play. Only root as a spin option?
TheRey said:
Burns
Sibley
Crawley
Root (C)
Stokes
Pope
Foakes (wk)
Woakes
Bess
Broad
Wood
Click to expand...
Foakes won’t play :lol:
hudson88 said:
Burns
Sibley
Crawley
Root
Stokes
Pope
Buttler
Woakes
Wood / Curran
Broad
Leach
Click to expand...
Possible but Bess would have taken four wickets but for buttler
hudson88 said:
Burns
Sibley
Crawley
Root
Stokes
Pope
Buttler
Woakes
Wood / Curran
Broad
Leach
Click to expand...
Again imo Bess will play
 
Last edited:

Ghfd said:
Bess will play. Only root as a spin option?

Foakes won’t play :lol:

Possible but Bess would have taken four wickets but for buttler

Again imo Bess will play
Click to expand...

I think he will as well tbh, just wouldn’t mind Leach getting a game. With the depth of batting there as well i would go leach simply due to him being a more dangerous bowl.

In my humble of course
 
hudson88 said:
I think he will as well tbh, just wouldn’t mind Leach getting a game. With the depth of batting there as well i would go leach simply due to him being a more dangerous bowl.

In my humble of course
Click to expand...
Perfect assessment. Leach is a good replacement and I know I love Bess (not really but now moeen and monty have gone, I like a little spinner)

I can only see Anderson being rested. If stokes is up to a 20 over a day bowl, then Crawley will come in and we will have archer, woakes, stokes, broad, with Bess then root as bowlers
 
Ghfd said:
Perfect assessment. Leach is a good replacement and I know I love Bess (not really but now moeen and monty have gone, I like a little spinner)

I can only see Anderson being rested. If stokes is up to a 20 over a day bowl, then Crawley will come in and we will have archer, woakes, stokes, broad, with Bess then root as bowlers
Click to expand...

This Stokes statement throws it up in the air.

Crawley for Stokes most likely
 
Batting wise I think it will be

burns
sibley
crawley
root
pope
another in the squad batsman

then

buttler
woakes
bess
broad
archer

or they will go with my top five and add wood instead
 
Well. That Stokes news changes everything. I hope they don't just slot Crawley in at 3 and hope the batting is strong enough without him. Buttler and Woakes at 6 & 7 fills me with no confidence (despite yesterday's heroics)

That said, do we have any cabs coming off the rank in the bubble? Is Lawrence a viable option?
Ghfd said:
Batting wise I think it will be

burns
sibley
crawley
root
pope
another in the squad batsman

then

buttler
woakes
bess
broad
archer

or they will go with my top five and add wood instead
Click to expand...
I can't see how Archer can continue to be picked. 5/181 in the last 2 tests and a real lack of fast, threatening bowling

If he's bowling 90mph+ then he's in the team. If he's bowling 84mph then he's behind every other seamer in the squad
 
Last edited:
TopCat said:
Well. That Stokes news changes everything. I hope they don't just slot Crawley in at 3 and hope the batting is strong enough without him. Buttler and Woakes at 6 & 7 fills me with no confidence (despite yesterday's heroics)

That said, do we have any cabs coming off the rank in the bubble? Is Lawrence a viable option?

I can't see how Archer can continue to be picked. 5/181 in the last 2 tests and a real lack of fast, threatening bowling

If he's bowling 90mph+ then he's in the team. If he's bowling 84mph then he's behind every other seamer in the squad
Click to expand...
Agreed. I just feel the overseas players are very wary of him. He may be rested for wood. I cant remember off hand woods record at the rose bowl
 
chunkylover53 said:
Crawley is ahead of Lawrence in the queue, and it would be madness to move Pope to 3

Buttler as a specialist bat cannot happen. It just cannot.
Click to expand...
Cant keep him as wicket keeper, when he cant keep to spin
TopCat said:
Well. That Stokes news changes everything. I hope they don't just slot Crawley in at 3 and hope the batting is strong enough without him. Buttler and Woakes at 6 & 7 fills me with no confidence (despite yesterday's heroics)

That said, do we have any cabs coming off the rank in the bubble? Is Lawrence a viable option?

I can't see how Archer can continue to be picked. 5/181 in the last 2 tests and a real lack of fast, threatening bowling

If he's bowling 90mph+ then he's in the team. If he's bowling 84mph then he's behind every other seamer in the squad
Click to expand...
Bang on
What we can say is that the team for the 2nd test could be very interesting.
Anderson, Archer, Bess, (maybe Buttler as Wk if they are thinking for the future) positions up for debate.

Robinson, Lawrence waiting for a chance to show what they can do (shame about stone getting injured again)
 
Last edited:
TravellingMackem said:
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


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

J
This is what I’d go with. Archer for Crawley if stokes isn’t fit to bowl.
Click to expand...

Pointless continuing as you just ignored the points I made about performing in both innings and adapting his game to what was required in both innings, both when under pressure, and both when team in very weak position, we know his overall record, his last 3 innings not 1 have all been good under the circumstances, he is actually in form with the bat.

If we were going to drop him, there was a much better argument 4 games ago imo, not now.
It’s funny how people look at things, his last 3 scores of 67,38, and 75 as a keeper/ batsman have all come when the team under pressure at 4 down for next to nowt, yet he has come in a 6, one position too high, done a excellent job, with the last one a matching winning knock, yet we talking about dropping him!
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Pointless continuing as you just ignored the points I made about performing in both innings and adapting his game to what was required in both innings, both when under pressure, and both when team in very weak position, we know his overall record, his last 3 innings not 1 have all been good under the circumstances, he is actually in form with the bat.

If we were going to drop him, there was a much better argument 4 games ago imo, not now.
It’s funny how people look at things, his last 3 scores of 67,38, and 75 as a keeper/ batsman have all come when the team under pressure at 4 down for next to nowt, yet he has come in a 6, one position too high, done a excellent job, with the last one a matching winning knock, yet we talking about dropping him!
Click to expand...

How is scoring 38 being in form? Your standards are so low
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top