-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
Rory Burns
- Thread starter brandon
- Start date
Twisted
Striker
Jack Torrance
Striker
Lions have went home so he won’t play
Sea to Shining Sea
Striker
To bus them home aye
seaham ftm
Winger
His head will be shot to bits. I feel for him.
CHARLIE COROLE
Central Defender
Bats like an epileptic crab.
Behind Enemy Lines
Striker
Is Hameed any better?
better player than Burns, not arsed about their records, he just is in these coniditions
not saying I'd pick either btw
but thats the squad there
Burns is unselectable
Yeah
They are all better than Burns, as he will always always get out regularly in the first few overs due to his technique
the odd score when he is in doesnt make up for it
its why I didnt mind Sibley, eben though he tailed off so much, he regularly faced a lot of balls, which is something
He's very average but there is literally no one to replace him.
The idea of giving someone a run in the team is they improve eventually, but these England batsman stall and then go backwards
Thats an excuse we use too much to give players not good enough too many games
he has nearly played as many tests as Pat Cummins
he has had more chances than most players, he just isnt good enough sadly.
Last edited:
Records in cricket generally matter. It’s about runs. Crawley has more upside, but he has been dreadful for 2 years
James Vince is a decent shout
for the same reasons they recaled Malan
played a lot of white ball cricket for England and around the world, he knows his game and is more confident now
he has a repeatable action and now major technique flaws
its how we need to start selecting
So has Burns.
He has had 6 ducks this year.....6. Thats mental.
from the squad they picked, Crawley is a better shout in these conditiions
of course I agree on records, I am just making the general point of how we need to select differently IMO.
Last edited:
You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links
Worth a quick scan
TheRey
Striker
The only thing I'll say in Burns defence, and as I've said he's now difficult to defend and can have no complaints if he's dropped, is that if we had to pick one batsman from Hameed, Vince, Crawley, Sibley or Burns to bat out a day for a draw, I think Burns is the one I'd turn to every time
Woefully out of form though, and with his technique if he's not in form he's a bowlers wet dream
I dont need to look
I know Burns has done better, its not the point I am making though.
I think the thought process needs to change dramatically of who we pick
I didnt mind them sticking with Crawley longer than he should as he produced one of the best innings fr England I have seen, it was serious high class batting. You can say, its just one innings, but to even be able to produce that is remarkable.
Its all about how many you score, not how, but Burns doesnt do either
My point in general is pick players more by technique now, when you are in this pressure situation, its what you can fall back on, when you are out of form too.
Hmm well the thing with that argument is, he needs to get in first.
Thats the key point with Burns, and players as quirky as him, even when they are bang in form, they will always always get a lot of early dismisalls, just because its hard for every batsman in the world to start, so ones with so many moving parts will consistently get low scores before they get in
Its the main reason I dont like him as an openining bat, he is too vulnerable early on. The whole point of openers is that they are best equipped to see off good balls early isn't it, its a specialist skill.
If he cant do that, then I dont see the point in him. He isnt an opener.
Last edited:
I get it. But 1 innings and fuck all else isn’t enough. I’m not arguing for Burns, he looks horrific, but more against Crawley. Without that 1 innings he averages something like 20. And his first class record is pretty poor @ 31
On technique, agree mainly. But then you’ve got Smith, Labuschange, Chanderpaul etc who show the method varies
TheRey
Striker
Oh yeah I don't disagree with you mate. He looks great and fluent when he's in, but with his technique that's become a real rarity, and it's a problem.
But I'd still back him to do a proper opener job more than any of the other incumbents or possibles. That's not in any way to praise Burns, but I just don't think any of the others can realistically claim to be above him in the queue
Agree with this
Aye mate but this is the squad they have, theyre in Australia in a pandemic.
You cant say without that innings though, he played it.
Labus.... (spelling) is fairly orthodox like, more the way he leaves
You are also talking about some unreal talents there, its unusual, Burns is just a hard working opener, he isnt some freak talent like Steve Smith.
Well yeah. But you also posted the other day that you’d prefer an opener who consistently got 30, rather than the odd ton.
If you plotted their scores, Crawley is more of a skewed distribution than Burns. By a long way.
Anyway, it’s like arguing what’s better - a kick in the bollocks or a punch in the face
Pope is the one who really disappoints me, feels like Ramprakash all over again.
Yeah the first line is exactly what I want from an opener
and from the squad against pace bowling on these pitches, from the squad they picked, I believe Crawley is a lot better suited
Burns also has an extreme weakness against left arm pace, and Oz have the best in the world.
Pope can come again but I am geuinelly annoyed at him, cant get mad at Burns, its a technical thing, Pope for me isnt willing to work hard, dancing down the pitch to Lyon that early on, and every innings, is just poor batting, poor thought process.
I wouldnt have taken him to Australia, sounds harsh but he needs a break from test match cricket IMO, he will come agai
What annoys me about this series, is that people forget how quickly its over, you havent got 3 or 4 test matches to find form etc, 3 innings in, and its already gone.
Theres no way Pope was going to score runs in that first test, he just isnt prepared. Waste of a selection
D
Deleted member 41188
Guest
Is there not an arguement for Root opening?
He’s normally in within the first 5-10 overs regardless.
He’s normally in within the first 5-10 overs regardless.
TheRey
Striker
He refuses to bat at 3, let alone open!
