• 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.

[3rd Test] England v Pakistan (Rose Bowl)

Status
Not open for further replies.

chunkylover53 said:
He hasn’t been great no. But let’s be honest, there isn’t much in the way of options (Crawley is potential so far)
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps not, but more options than this time last year for sure.

Moving Crawley up to open allows four seamers plus spinner plus Stokes as an extra seamer.

Sibley
Crawley
Root
Stokes
Pope
Buttler
Woakes
Bess
Curran/Wood/Archer
Broad
Anderson

I like the look of Crawley. It seems like he's settling in at Test level a bit more and to me looks to have the most potential of the three.

All that said, I like the look of him at 3 also & I wouldn't like to see him messed around and moved up & down the order, like one or two others have been.

Burns needs a score or two IMO.
 
Salem Street South said:
Well, perhaps not, but more options than this time last year for sure.

Moving Crawley up to open allows four seamers plus spinner plus Stokes as an extra seamer.

Sibley
Crawley
Root
Stokes
Pope
Buttler
Woakes
Bess
Curran/Wood/Archer
Broad
Anderson

I like the look of Crawley. It seems like he's settling in at Test level a bit more and to me looks to have the most potential of the three.

All that said, I like the look of him at 3 also & I wouldn't like to see him messed around and moved up & down the order, like one or two others have been.

Burns needs a score or two IMO.
Click to expand...
I think the issue there is that Root isn’t a 3 and Stokes isn’t a 4 (he’s a perfect fit at 5). Equally Buttler isn’t a 6.
 
chunkylover53 said:
I think the issue there is that Root isn’t a 3 and Stokes isn’t a 4 (he’s a perfect fit at 5). Equally Buttler isn’t a 6.
Click to expand...
Disagree on all three counts. They've all played in those positions and had success there.

It may (or may not) be the case they'd prefer to bat elsewhere but the team is more important and them batting there gives us options.

I accept in an ideal world they may be a place too high however.
 
Last edited:
Salem Street South said:
Disagree on all three counts. They've all played in those positions and had success there.

It may (or may not) be the case they'd prefer to bat elsewhere but the team is more important and them batting there gives us options.

I accept in an ideal world they may be a place too high however.
Click to expand...
Root averages 10 less at 3 than 4, Stokes 25 less at 4 rather than 5. Amazing Buttler averages 43 at 6.

Its about team balance for me. You don’t need 4 seamers, a spinner and Stokes
 
TheRey said:
Exactly. No point picking Bess just to stand around twiddling his thumbs and bat at 8.

Obviously if it's the same pitch as the last Test he has to play. Otherwise, it's pointless
Click to expand...

Exactly there is too much of this tradition that we must pick a spinner.

No disrespect to Bess, but we have the best fast bowling depth I can ever remember.

Just pick your best 4 bowlers and no doubt in my mind Bess is not one of them!
Salem Street South said:
I'm not saying drop him, but his place is under pressure.
The fact is with 248 runs this summer @ 31 Buttler's outperforming him with the bat and he's started putting chances down in the slips.
It's not great.
Click to expand...

I thought against a brilliant attack in the Ashes that the Aussies had ,Burns stood up to it well, with the other options available well worth his place imo.
 
Last edited:
chunkylover53 said:
Root averages 10 less at 3 than 4, Stokes 25 less at 4 rather than 5. Amazing Buttler averages 43 at 6.

Its about team balance for me. You don’t need 4 seamers, a spinner and Stokes
Click to expand...
Root also has his highest Test score batting at 3 - against Pakistan.

Point taken re. balance, but when we have such depth in the fast bowling department and doubts around Stokes fitness it's an option to have him bat 4 and bowl a few overs if we need a wicket or two, as in the first Test vs Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
chunkylover53 said:
Root averages 10 less at 3 than 4, Stokes 25 less at 4 rather than 5. Amazing Buttler averages 43 at 6.

Its about team balance for me. You don’t need 4 seamers, a spinner and Stokes
Click to expand...

Again mate think too much emphasis on averages in certain positions, sometimes to me stats are just coincidence in certain batting positions,as far as I am concerned, all 3 should bat where the team needs them at a current time.
 
chunkylover53 said:
Yeah that’s fair enough I guess. I don’t think any team needs 5 seamers and a spinner. That’s the wrong balance for me
Click to expand...

Yeah agree with that, just not concerned in the slightest the players you mentioned batting one place higher whatever averages in them positions show, me personally I have thought Root should be 3 for years!

Totally agree with your balance argument but much prefer middle order batsman starting in test cricket to bat at 6 like Pope did for example and think Root batting at 3 could allow that.

In the past we have had too many test batsman starting out thrown in at 3 to accommodate Root at 4 which I disagree with.
Salem Street South said:
He did well, but he can't just be guaranteed a place on the back of what he did last summer, it needs to be based on current form too.
Click to expand...

As well as other viable options which we sort off imo, he deserves longer imo
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Yeah agree with that, just not concerned in the slightest the players you mentioned batting one place higher whatever averages in them positions show, me personally I have thought Root should be 3 for years!

Totally agree with your balance argument but much prefer middle order batsman starting in test cricket to bat at 6 like Pope did for example and think Root batting at 3 could allow that.

In the past we have had too many test batsman starting out thrown in at 3 which I disagree with.
Click to expand...
The reality of this side is we have depth in bowling but not batting. The solution to that is not to overstock the bowling
 
chunkylover53 said:
The reality of this side is we have depth in bowling but not batting. The solution to that is not to overstock the bowling
Click to expand...
Why, when the fourth bowler has injury issues and is also our second best or arguably our best batsman. Means we still have four quicks, at least two if not three of those can bat, plus overs from Stokes if and when needed. It’s a logical solution imo, particularly when as you say our batting lacks depth.
Voice of fair play said:
As well as other viable options which we sort off imo, he deserves longer imo
Click to expand...
He needs runs, nothing more nothing less. Low scores and dropped catches should and will result in one thing, regardless of how well he did last summer.
 
Last edited:
Salem Street South said:
Why, when the fourth bowler has injury issues and is also our second best or arguably our best batsman. Means we still have four quicks, at least two if not three of those can bat, plus overs from Stokes if and when needed. It’s a logical solution imo, particularly when as you say our batting lacks depth.

He needs runs, nothing more nothing less. Low scores and dropped catches should and will result in one thing, regardless of how well he did last summer.
Click to expand...
I think of it the other way round. If your batting is weak, you strengthen it and rely on the bowlers to do their job. I respect the other opinion however
 
Salem Street South said:
Why, when the fourth bowler has injury issues and is also our second best or arguably our best batsman. Means we still have four quicks, at least two if not three of those can bat, plus overs from Stokes if and when needed. It’s a logical solution imo, particularly when as you say our batting lacks depth.

He needs runs, nothing more nothing less. Low scores and dropped catches should and will result in one thing, regardless of how well he did last summer.
Click to expand...

We can have 4 quicks if we don’t pick Bess ,6 batsman one keeper 4 quicks with Stokes as possible 5th quick, strengthening the batting and picking our 4 best bowlers at the same team.

Win win for me
Salem Street South said:
Why, when the fourth bowler has injury issues and is also our second best or arguably our best batsman. Means we still have four quicks, at least two if not three of those can bat, plus overs from Stokes if and when needed. It’s a logical solution imo, particularly when as you say our batting lacks depth.

He needs runs, nothing more nothing less. Low scores and dropped catches should and will result in one thing, regardless of how well he did last summer.
Click to expand...

He has showed imo against the best attack
in the world he can perform, they is not another opening in this country close to that pedigree imo.

Prefer him to Sibley tbh, as think he would have struggled against that Aussie attack
 
Last edited:
chunkylover53 said:
I think of it the other way round. If your batting is weak, you strengthen it and rely on the bowlers to do their job. I respect the other opinion however
Click to expand...
I agree, that would be the conventional way to do it, however the current options aren’t obvious (to me at least) and when we have the top 3 & Pope all starting out at Test level I’d be reluctant to throw more inexperience in there. I’m all for giving new blood a chance however, although in this bubble I don’t think there is anyone else is there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top